Printable Version (268 kb PDF )

Commissioner’s Annual Report to the Education
Committees of the Senate and General Assembly
On Violence, Vandalism and Substance Abuse
In New Jersey Public Schools

July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006

Based on the Electronic Violence
and Vandalism Reporting System (EVVRS)

Lucille E. Davy
Commissioner

Prepared by staff of the
Division of Student Services

Barbara Gantwerk
Assistant Commissioner

Susan B. Martz, Director
Office of Educational Support Services

New Jersey Department of Education
100 River View Plaza, P.O. Box 500
Trenton, NJ 08625-0500

August 2007

August 2007

PTM 1506.33

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

A. Legislative Charge
B. Purpose of the Report
C. The Reporting System

Findings

A. Incident Frequency by Major Category
B. Incident Frequency by Type within Major Category
C. Incident Location, Police Notification and Bias
D. Results by Range of Incidents and School Type
E. Cost of Vandalism
F. Disciplinary Actions Taken
G. Offenders and Victims
H. Analysis of Data on Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying
I. Data Summary
J. Review of Violence Data of Selected Districts
    Survey Results
    Department Action

PROGAMMATIC RESPONSE

A. Ongoing Program Efforts
B. Response to Findings

Appendix A: Public School Safety Law

Appendix B: Data Collection Form

Appendix C: Department Initiatives

A. Policy, Data Collection and Publications

Policy

1. Administrative Code
2. Unsafe School Choice Option Policy
3. Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying (HIB)
4. School Violence Awareness Week
5. Public Hearings on School Violence and Vandalism
6. Alternative Education

Data Collection

1. Prevention Data Grant
2. New Jersey Student Health Survey
3. School Safety and Security Checklist Audits

Publications and Materials

1. Resource Manual for Intervention and Referral Services
2. School Safety and Security Manual: Best Practices Guidelines
3. Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying
4. Memorandum of Agreement
5. Public Access to EVVRS Data

B. Prevention and Intervention Programs

1. Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Program
2. Homeland Security Grant
3. Core Curriculum Content Standards
4. Intervention and Referral Services
5. Positive Student Discipline Reform Demonstration Project
6. Social Norms Project
7. Safe and Civil Schools: A Social and Emotional Learning Initiative
8. 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program
9. The New Jersey Character Education Initiative
10. New Jersey Center for Character Education
11. Youth Gang Prevention and Intervention Project
12. Peer Transitions Project
13. Drug Abuse Education Fund Project

C. Collaboration, Professional Development and Technical Support

Collaboration

1. Domestic Security Preparedness Task Force
2. Governor’s School Security Task Force
3. Governor’s Public Safety Plan-Delinquency Prevention Subcommittee
4. Collaboration with Mental Health Agencies and Student Support Staff
5. Collaboration with Child Welfare Agencies
6. Other Collaborative Partnerships

Professional Development and Technical Assistance

1. Title IV-A and USCO Training and Technical Assistance Project
2. School Safety and Security
3. School Security Web-site
4. Administrative Code
5. Student Conduct
6. Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying
7. Electronic Violence and Vandalism Reporting System (EVVRS)
8. Intervention and Referral Services
9. Unsafe School Choice Option Policy
10. Positive Student Discipline Reform Demonstration Project
11. Social Norms Project
12. Technical Assistance

Appendix D: Weapons and Substance Detail

Appendix E: District Totals by County

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Incidents by Major Category
Figure 2: Number of Schools by Range of Incidents
Figure 3: Incidents by School Type
Figure 4: Incidents of Violence by School Type
Figure 5: Assaults by School Type
Figure 6: Fights by School Type
Figure 7: Incidents of Vandalism by School Type
Figure 8: Incidents of Damage to Property by School Type
Figure 9: Incidents of Theft by School Type
Figure 10: Weapons Incidents by School Type
Figure 11: Types of Vandalism Where Districts Incurred Cost
Figure 12: Number of Suspensions by Duration
Figure 13: Placement of Students Removed or Suspended
Figure 14: Types of Incidents where Staff was Victim

Table 1: Total Incidents for Major Reporting Categories
Table 2: Incidents by Type
Table 3: Location of Incidents
Table 4: Police Notification
Table 5: Disciplinary Actions Taken
Table 6: Offender Type
Table 7: Victim Type

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Commissioner of Education’s Report on Violence, Vandalism and Substance Abuse in New Jersey Public Schools, submitted annually to the education committees of the Senate and Assembly, provides the Legislature with data in four broad incident categories: violence, vandalism, weapons, and substance abuse. The report also summarizes initiatives implemented by the New Jersey Department of Education to assist schools in addressing problems of school violence, safety and climate, student conduct and the use of illegal substances

School districts and charter schools report incidents of violence, vandalism and substance abuse to the department over the Internet using the Electronic Violence and Vandalism Reporting System (EVVRS). In 2005-06, the total number of incidents reported statewide was 18,796, up 643 (or two percent) from 2004-05. Incidents of violence and vandalism accounted for this increase (see Table 1 below).

Table 1: Total Incidents for Major Reporting Categories

The tables in this report reflect raw totals and changes from year to year. Table 1 does not account for differences in enrollment in individual schools that can affect the violence totals as well as totals for the other major reporting categories. In an effort to control for changes in the number of students that may affect the totals, the department ran a statistical model that accounts for differences in enrollment within school type, e.g., elementary, middle and high school and reports estimates in terms of rate per 1,000 students. This statistical model indicated no statistically significant differences statewide from year to year (2004-05 to 2005-06) overall and within school type in the unduplicated total number of incidents. Additionally, there were no significant differences from year to year overall and within school type in the total number reported in the major reporting categories of violence, vandalism, weapons and substance abuse.

Within the violence category, the most notable changes were led by a 24 percent increase in the number of incidents of harassment/intimidation/bullying, an 11 percent increase in threats, a six percent decline in fights, and a five percent increase in simple assaults. Within vandalism, there was a 14 percent increase in theft and a five percent increase in damage to property. While there was a small increase of firearms possession (from seven to twelve incidents), incidents of other weapons possession declined (eight percent) as did incidents of possession of substances, i.e., alcohol and other drugs (11 percent). See Table 2.

Consistent with previous years’ data, seven schools in ten (70 percent) reported five or fewer total incidents in 2005-06, with 916 schools (37 percent) reporting no incidents at all. See Figure 2 . The reported locations of incidents also mirrored those of prior years, with 31 percent taking place in the classroom, 19 percent in the school corridor, and 18 percent in other locations inside the school. The police were notified in 40 percent of the incidents reported, the same percentage reported in the 2004-05 school year. See Table 4.

General education students constituted 71 percent of offenders and students with disabilities 28 percent. These percentages were fundamentally the same as in previous years. The number of victims reported and the percentage of victims who were general education students (58 percent), students with disabilities (18 percent) and staff (22 percent) remained essentially unchanged from 2004-05. See Table 7.

Although the data indicate that incidents of serious violence periodically occur in schools, they are infrequent. The department supports a comprehensive, coordinated and systematic approach to prevent problem student behaviors and promote student well-being and success by implementing researched-based strategies. The department continues to develop policies, design programs, collect and analyze data, disseminate publications and materials, provide professional development and technical support and maintain state-level collaborations. These efforts are focused on: protecting the health, safety and welfare of school populations; establishing school climates of civility; preventing and remediating at-risk student behaviors; providing supporting services for staff, students and their families; and preventing, intervening and recovering from emergency crises. These efforts are discussed in the Programmatic Response section of this report, with detailed descriptions provided in Appendix C.

INTRODUCTION

Legislative Charge

In 1982, N.J.S.A 18A:17-46 through 17-48 (see Appendix A), was signed into law. The "Public School Safety Law" was a response to a problem long recognized by the State Legislature: violence and vandalism in the schools. The law stipulated that:

The Commissioner of Education shall each year submit a report to the Education Committees of the Senate and General Assembly detailing the extent of violence and vandalism in the public schools and making recommendations to alleviate the problem.
(N.J.S.A. 18A:17-48).

Purpose of the Report

The Commissioner’s report provides the Legislature with information concerning serious student misconduct grouped in the following categories: violence, vandalism, weapons and substance abuse. An analysis of trends yields indications of progress and of concern and provides guidance to the department as it endeavors to focus its resources appropriately. In the Programmatic Response section (and in Appendix C) of this report, the department also notifies the Legislature and the public of the actions taken by the Commissioner, State Board of Education and the Department of Education to address the problems evident in the data. The report contains an increased number of hyperlinks through which the readers may find more detail regarding findings and the department’s programmatic response.

The Reporting System

Districts have reported incidents online since the 1999-2000 school year.¹ The Electronic Violence and Vandalism Reporting System (EVVRS), http://homeroom.state.nj.us, is used by districts to report information electronically about individual incidents, including offender and victim information. To assist districts in deciding what to report and how to report it, the department includes a User Manual, Incident Definitions, and Incident Scenarios on the EVVRS homepage. The definitions and scenarios were developed with input from the Criminal Justice Division of the Department of Law and Public Safety to promote consistency and reduce errors in reporting. The scenarios describe those types of incidents that invite discrete differences in interpretation within the context in which they occur and provide factors to consider in selecting the correct incident category.

The data entered on the EVVRS and verified by districts form the basis of the findings section of this report to the State Legislature and of the reports to the federal education department on the Gun-Free Schools Act and the Unsafe School Choice Option policy requirement. EVVRS reports can be used by districts to uncover important trends in their incident data.

In January 2007, the department opened a Web-site through which the public may view violence and vandalism data for any district. The data on the Web-site include district- and state- level trends as well as summary information on the types of incidents reported for every district and school, beginning with the 2002-03 reporting year. Data are made accessible to the public at the end of the school year after every district has informed the department that it has verified the data contained in its Annual District Report of Violence and Vandalism. The address of these archived data is http://www.state.nj.us/njded/schools/vandv/index.html.

Through the support of a federal grant, the department embarked on a project to improve the management of violence and drug abuse prevention data. The grant funds financed the opening of a public access Web-site for violence and vandalism data, county forums on the better use of data, and improvements to the data portion of the electronic district No Child Left Behind application. The grant is also helping the department to develop, in conjunction with the New Jersey Network (NJN), an in-service training program on a DVD that uses "live scenarios" to dramatize the more difficult-to-classify incidents.² Used in a district or school in-service setting, the video program will increase school district staff awareness of their responsibilities to report serious student misconduct and will assist them in deciding how to report such misconduct on the EVVRS. The department plans to distribute the DVD to all districts, public schools, charter schools and private schools for the disabled.

__________

¹ For a description of changes to the reporting system pre-dating the Internet-based system, see the report for the school year 2000-2001, available at http://www.state.nj.us/njded/atoz.htm#V .  The 2003-04 and 2004-05 reports contain descriptions of changes to the EVVRS made to accommodate the Unsafe School Choice Option policy required in Title IV-A of the No Child Left Behind Act.

² Funds from the federal grant were used to contract with the Bloustein Center for Survey Research of Rutgers University to survey districts regarding EVVRS reporting.  Their report identified the types of incidents that posed the most difficulty for districts in deciding what to report to the state, and thus has informed the coverage of the DVD program.

Findings

A. Incident Frequency by Major Category

The unduplicated total number of incidents reported in 2005-06 was 18,796, an increase of two percent from the 18,409 total reported in 2004-05. Figure 1 displays the unduplicated count of incidents by each of the four major reporting categories. It shows a noticeable drop in violence from 2003-04 to 2004-05 followed by a small increase over the past year (2004-05 to 2005-06) in both violence and vandalism. There was a slight decrease in weapons incidents over the three-year period from 2003-04 to 2005-06 and no change in substance incidents over the same period.

Figure 1: Incidents by Major Category

Figure 1 reflects raw totals and does not account for differences in enrollment in individual schools that can affect the violence totals as well as totals for the other major reporting categories. In an effort to control for changes in the number of students that may affect the totals, the department ran a statistical model that accounts for differences in enrollment within school type, e.g., elementary, middle and high school and reports estimates in terms of rate per 1,000 students. The analysis indicated no statistically significant differences statewide from year to year (2004-05 to 2005-06) overall and within school type in the unduplicated total number of incidents. Additionally, there were no significant differences from year to year overall and within school type in the total number reported in the major reporting categories.

B. Incident Frequency by Type within Major Category ³

Some one-year changes in types of incidents can be seen in the Table 2.

Violence: There was a decline in the number of fights and gang/group fights, but an increase in the number of assaults, threats and incidents of harassment/intimidation/ bullying.

Vandalism: Increases in theft and damage to property are evident.

Weapons: Increases in firearms offenses (handguns) and declines in other weapons and bomb offenses were reported.

Substances: Use of substances did not change (yet still accounts for most of the reported incidents under the Substance Abuse category), while possession declined slightly. See Appendix D for details on the types of weapons and substances used in incidents.

The incident detail in Table 2 and trends in the data for schools, districts and the state for the past four years may be found at http://www.state.nj.us/education/schools/vandv/index.html.

__________

³ Any one incident may be of more than one type, e.g., fight and damage to property, and, therefore, may appear in more than one category. 

Table 2: Incidents by Type

C. Incident Location, Police Notification and Bias

Overall, slightly more than three in four incidents (76 percent) occurred inside the school building in both 2004-05 and 2005-06; approximately three incidents in ten occurred in the classroom. The missing data for 2004-05 reflects the optional status of this field on the EVVRS data base; it became a required field in 2005-06. See Table 3.

Table 3: Location of Incidents  

Police were notified in two incidents in five; in half of those cases, a complaint was filed.⁴

__________

⁴ A complaint may be filed by the school district, the police or a parent.

Table 4: Police Notification

Districts reported 188 incidents of bias in the 2005-06 school year, an increase of 15 percent from the 2004-05 total of 164.

D. Results by Range of Incidents and School Type⁵

In 2005-06, three schools in eight (37 percent) reported no incidents. When this group that reported no incidents is included in the statewide analysis, seven schools in ten (70 percent) reported five or fewer incidents. At the other end of the continuum, nine percent of schools reported 25 or more incidents. The distribution evident in Figure 2 is typical, based on prior years’ data.

This year’s report looks at patterns of incidents reported by school type (elementary, middle and high school) in greater depth than in previous years’ reports. It examines the overall distribution of incidents, the distribution by the four major reporting categories and by frequently reported incident types, (i.e., fight and assault within violence, and theft and damage to property within vandalism). This analysis has been prepared to help districts and schools review their results within the context of state-level data, and to assist the department in its efforts to target assistance and program development where differences by school type are evident.

Figure 2: Number of Schools by Range of Incidents

Figure 3 shows that more than half of all incidents reported in 2005-06 (56 percent) occurred in high schools with nearly one third (31 percent) occurring in middle schools. The distribution of incidents across types of schools is consistent with prior years’ data.

Figure 3: Incidents by School Type

__________

⁵ An elementary school is defined here as any school that ends at grade 6 or below; a middle school is any school that terminates in the 7 through 9 grade range, and a high school is defined as any school that terminates at grade 10 or above.  Data from schools in special services school districts and adult evening high schools are included under “other” in Figure 3. 

Violence: In 2005-06, roughly half of the incidents of violence occurred in high schools (51 percent). Middle schools reported a higher percentage of incidents of violence (41 percent in 2005-06) than they did total incidents (31 percent in 2005-06).

Figure 4: Incidents of Violence by School Type

Both assaults (Figure 5) and fights (Figure 6) occur most frequently in high schools. The number of both types of incidents remained relatively stable over the past two years in both middle and high schools.

Figure 5: Assaults by School Type

Figure 6: Fights by School Type

Vandalism: The majority of vandalism incidents occurred in high schools (55 percent in 2005-06); the distribution of incidents by type of school has not changed significantly over the past three years.

Figure 7: Incidents of Vandalism by School Type

Within the vandalism category, however, incidents of damage to property and theft show different distributions across school type. In 2005-06, for example, the differences in the percentage of incidents of damage to property reported by school type are not large: elementary schools reported 26 percent of incidents of damage to property, middle schools 34 percent and high schools 40 percent (see Figure 8). In contrast, the percentage distribution across elementary, middle and high schools for theft shows that the vast majority of thefts (73 percent in 2005-06) occur in high schools (see Figure 9).

Figure 8: Incidents of Damage to Property by School Type

Figure 9: Incidents of Theft by School Type

Weapons: In 2005-06, for the first time in the past three years, more weapons incidents occurred in middle schools (47 percent) than high schools (43 percent). See Figure 10.

Figure 10: Weapons Incidents by School Type

Substances: Less than one percent of the nearly 8,000 incidents involving substances that have been reported over the past three years occurred in elementary schools; 11 percent occurred in middle schools and 89 percent in high schools. This general pattern has held for each of the past three years.

E. Cost of Vandalism

The total cost of vandalism to all districts was $689,158, a 34 percent increase from the cost of vandalism in 2004-05. Districts reported an unduplicated total of 1,028 incidents of vandalism in which they incurred cost, a marginal increase from the 1,003 reported in 2004-05. Similar to prior years, property damage (71 percent) and theft (22 percent) accounted for most of the incidents resulting in cost to districts in 2005-06 (see Figure 11). As multiple types of vandalism were involved in a few incidents, the total by type of vandalism in Figure 11 exceeds the total of incidents of 1,028.

Figure 11: Types of Vandalism Where Districts Incurred Cost

F. Disciplinary Actions Taken

The distribution across types of disciplinary actions changed very little in 2005-06. Out-of-school suspension remains the dominant choice for disciplinary action (see Table 5). The number of expulsions reported (46) as an action taken in response to an incident reported on the EVVRS is the lowest since 2001-02 (41).

Table 5: Disciplinary Actions Taken

Slightly fewer than half of the out-of-school suspensions (47 percent, an increase from 43 percent in 2004-05) were for less than five days; 21 percent were for 10 days or more (see Figure 12). As was the case in 2004-05, the most frequently issued single suspension was that of five days – used in 4,999 cases (24 percent).

* Includes 144 suspensions of greater than 10 days duration

Figure 12: Number of Suspensions by Duration

Figure 13 displays the types of alternative placements selected by districts when students were removed (or, in some cases, suspended) from school for disciplinary reasons. The total number of removals (1,232) represents a 12 percent increase from 2004-05, with a 23% increase in the use of Home Instruction (from 395 in 2004-05) accounting for the largest portion of the overall increase. Over the past four years, there has been a gradual shift away from the use of in-district programs and toward the use of home instruction and out-of-district programs.

Figure 13: Placement of Students Removed or Suspended

G. Offenders and Victims

In 2005-06, general education students constituted 71 percent of the offenders in the cases where the offender was known.⁶ Students with disabilities, who represent 17 percent of the student population, constituted more than one quarter (28 percent) of reported offenders. See Table 6.

__________

⁶ In many cases of vandalism, particularly those of theft and damage to property, the offender is unknown to the district.  In 1,782 cases (8% of all offenders) in 2005-2006, the offender was reported as unknown.

Table 6: Offender Type

The percentage of victims who were general education students increased slightly in 2005-06, but they constituted a smaller percentage of victims in 2005-06 (59 percent) than in 2003-04 (61 percent) and 2002-03 (64 percent ) – neither shown. The data in Table 7 show no change in the percentage of students with disabilities who were victims and only a slight change in the number of school staff (includes contracted staff) who were victims of an offense of any kind. The highest number of staff reported on the EVVRS as victims (1,923) occurred in 2001-02.

Table 7: Victim Type

Not all of the incidents in which staff were victims were assaults; less than half (41 percent) involved either assaults or fights. Nearly half (47 percent) involved threats or harassment/intimidation/bullying. The total number of incidents included in Figure 14 exceeds the count of staff victims due to the possible occurrence of more than one type of offense, e.g., threat, assault, recorded for a given incident.

Figure 14: Types of Incidents where Staff was Victim

H. Analysis of Data on Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying

The 2005-06 school year was the third year during which school districts were required to report on the EVVRS incidents in the category of harassment, intimidation, and bullying. Based on the statutory definition, incidents in this category are reported if: 1) the victim possessed a distinguishing characteristic; and 2) the incident caused harm (physical or psychological) or damage to the student’s property, or caused substantial interference or disruption with the orderly operation of the school. Only incidents that meet these criteria are to be reported.

A total of 1,409 incidents of harassment/intimidation/bullying were reported in 2005-06, an increase of 275 incidents (24 percent) from the 1,134 reported in 2004-05. As in the previous two years, some of these incidents occurred in conjunction with other incidents: assault (65), fight (16), threat (76), sex offense (10), theft (7) and damage to property (5). Approximately half of the incidents (48 percent) were reported by middle schools, two-in-five (40 percent) by high schools, one-in-ten (11 percent) by elementary schools, and one percent in other schools, (e.g. schools in special services school districts or educational service commissions).

I. Data Summary

Last year, this report noted a decline in the total number of incidents in 2004-05 from the unduplicated total of 22,186 reported in 2002-03 and 20,207 reported in 2003-04. The two percent increase to 18,796 incidents from the 18,409 reported in 2004-05 represents a modest reversal of the decline,⁷ nine percent from 2002-2003 to 2003-2004 and nine percent from 2003-2004 to 2004-2005. The number of incidents remains lower than the totals reported in 2003-2004.

Most incidents (56 percent) were reported by high schools. High schools reported slightly over half of incidents of violence (51 percent) and vandalism (55 percent) but the preponderance of incidents of theft (73 percent). Middle schools reported more weapons incidents (47 percent) than high schools (43 percent) and nearly an equal number of incidents of damage to property (34 percent) as did high schools (40 percent). One incident in four of damage to property was reported by elementary schools. The vast majority of incidents of substance abuse over the past three years (89 percent) were reported by high schools.

Other findings of note:

• Three incidents in four (76 percent) occurred inside the school building, with three in ten (31 percent) occurring in the classroom.
• Incidents of theft increased by 14 percent;
• A larger percentage of students with disabilities were offenders (28 percent) than their percentage of the student population (17 percent) would indicate;
• There continued to be a high number of staff reported as incident victims, although less than half of the incidents involved either assaults or fights;
• A five-day out-of-school suspension continued to be the most frequently used disciplinary action;
• The reported number of incidents of harassment/intimidation/bullying exceeded 1,400.

__________

⁷ As reported last year, the decline was largely attributable to large decreases in the number of incidents reported in 51 districts between 2002-03 and 2004-05.  The department is in the process of monitoring 2005-06 discipline records of a subset of the nineteen districts that exhibited the steepest declines over the period. 

J. Review of Violence Data of Selected Districts

Last year, the department surveyed 19 school districts⁸ that either reported a decline of at least 100 incidents of violence over a three-year period (between 2002-03 and 2004-05) or reported at least 50 incidents of violence in 2002-03 and a decline of at least 50% over the same period. These districts were asked to:

• confirm that the number of incidents reported in each category was consistent with the district’s written records;
• verify that the categorization of incidents was correct based on the NJDOE’s incident definitions under EVVRS;
• review all incident reports, including reports to law enforcement officials, to ensure that all incidents were reported;
• interview staff, as appropriate, to determine that reporting requirements are being followed district-wide; and,
• explain the reasons for the decline.

__________

⁸ Atlantic City, Atlantic County Special Services  School District, Bound Brook Borough, Burlington County Special Services, Camden City, Cape May County Special Services, Dover Town, Englewood City, Gloucester Township, Hillside Township, Jersey City, Paterson, Southern Regional, Toms River Regional,  Trenton, Union City, Vineland City, Liberty Academy Charter School, and Schomburg Charter School.

Survey Results

All 19 school districts responded. As a result of the district’s self review, two districts identified errors in the 2004-05 violence data they had originally submitted and verified, and submitted corrections to the department. One district increased the number of incidents of violence reported in 2004-05 from 30 to 37 based on its review; the other increased from 21 to 32. The majority of the 19 districts attributed the decline to a multiplicity of responses to the problem rather than one action or program. The five categories of responses below describe the range of actions taken by districts in order to reduce the level of violence in their schools or more accurately report to DOE.

Alignment of Local Reporting Standards with Criteria in Incident Definitions: After reviewing the incident definitions and scenarios, the central administration of nine of the school districts took one or more of the following steps to correct reporting errors:

• Differentiating between the types of misconduct that should be reported on the EVVRS as an incident of violence or vandalism versus those that should be reported only locally;
• Limiting reporting to only those incidents that meet the criteria specified in the definitions;
• Distinguishing between those incidents that would be reported as incidents and those (for a student with disabilities) to be reported as an "Other Suspension" on the EVVRS; and
• Distributing the scenario-enhanced definitions and providing training to school staff.

Administrative Responses: Nine school districts took different kinds of administrative actions both to reduce the level of violence in their schools and to ensure the accurate reporting of incidents, including:

• Creating an administrative team concept with a focus on violence prevention and review of incident reports;
• Using technology, including cameras on school busses and in school buildings, a security radio communication system, a metal detection inspection program and X-Ray monitoring equipment;
• Adding, removing or re-assigning/redeploying administrative staff;
• Increasing the number or presence of school security staff;
• Providing in-service training on the early recognition of troubled students; and
• Modifying lunchroom and class change procedures.

Enhanced Linkages and Communication with the Community: Six school districts reported enhancing linkages within the school community and/or between the school and the larger community through one or more of the following:

• Reaching out to the community by creating a School Parent Advisory Council,
• Working more closely with law enforcement;
• Fostering greater teacher/student/parent communication;
• Establishing a "collaborative" with membership from local, county, state and federal agencies concerned with juvenile justice issues; and
• Establishing a multi-cultural task force that assists the school in calming students in an effort to prevent acts of violence that had occurred in the community from continuing in the school.

Curricular and Programmatic Responses: Fourteen school districts reported addressing their problems of school violence by implementing curriculum, non-curricular programs and additional student support services, such as:

• Instituting school counseling programs addressing issues such as conflict resolution, anger management, and bullying and harassment, and involving student assistance counselors in enhanced supportive services;
• Implementing anti-violence and positive student development programs such as Second Step: A Violence Prevention Curriculum, Social Decision Making and Problem Solving, Peer Mediation, Life Skills-Bullying Prevention, Peace and Respect Initiative, Character Education, Positive Behavior Support Program, Behavior Management, a new pilot program by D.A.R.E officers, and revisions to the core curriculum to include character education;
• Training for health teachers in new anti-violence curricula;
• Special activities such as Random Acts of Kindness Month, motivational speakers, and bookmarks, ribbons and pencils promoting anti-bullying and anger management; and
• The adoption of in-school suspension as a disciplinary alternative.

Student Population Changes: Two districts cited changes in the student population that facilitated the decrease in incidents such as:

• Students who were the source of the high level of violence in earlier years left the district;
• Students began resisting the pressure of gang members to join; and
• Some students refocused their efforts on obtaining a high school education rather than recruiting gang members or acting against others in the school.

Department Action

The department developed a protocol to verify the local standards for reporting that entailed an on-site review of documents such as suspension forms used for recording incidents of misconduct for which a student was disciplined. Department staff visited eight schools in five of the 19 districts to review documentation and interview school and district personnel. A letter of findings was sent to the chief school administrator of each of the five districts in July 2007.

Additionally, the department included indicators in the New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum – District Performance Review that verifies that districts collect and analyze data on incidents of violence, vandalism and substance abuse; report incidents on the EVVRS; annually verify the accuracy of the data; annually report the data to the board of education and hold a public hearing; develop and submit a corrective action plan for high incidence upon notification by the Commissioner of Education and adopt and implement procedures when it is believed a school employee has knowingly falsified the annual report. By this action, the department has systematized oversight of district violence and vandalism reporting.

PROGAMMATIC RESPONSE

A. Ongoing Program Efforts

New Jersey’s schools continue to be fundamentally safe places, despite perceptions cultivated by terrible tragedies that have occurred in our nation’s schools, including Littleton, Colorado in 1999 and Virginia Tech University in 2007, as well as the threat to our homeland security with the events of September 11, 2001. Although the data indicate that incidents of violence periodically occur in schools, they are infrequent. In the interest of advancing the overarching goals of preventing, reducing and effectively managing incidences of violence, vandalism and substance abuse, the department supports a diverse array of initiatives designed to help schools achieve the following objectives:

• To protect the health, safety, security and welfare of school populations;
• To establish and maintain educational climates of civility;
• To prevent at-risk student behaviors;
• To intervene with and remediate at-risk student behaviors at all stages of identification;
• To provide supportive services for staff, students and their families; and
• To prevent, intervene in, respond to and recover from emergency and crisis situations.

Programs, services and activities designed to support these aims are at the heart of school safety. There have been dramatic gains in our knowledge from the research literature in the last two decades on the types of school-based strategies that have proven to be effective in creating safe, disciplined and drug-free schools. At their core, all of the evidence-based school strategies for preventing problem student behaviors and fostering positive student development are designed to promote student engagement in learning, increase attachment to school and enhance those social skills which have been reported in the research literature to result in measurable positive effects on academic performance, student retention and reductions in violence, substance abuse and related at-risk student behaviors. Schools are most likely to prevent problem student behaviors and promote student well being and success through comprehensive, coordinated and systematically planned programs, services and activities designed to develop student’s abilities to identify and manage emotions, make healthy decisions, establish constructive relationships, develop caring and concern for others and effectively deal with challenging situations. The department’s initiatives are designed to help schools cultivate these strategies and achieve these purposes.

School districts, county agencies and state agencies continue to coordinate and collaborate on programmatic responses that foster school safety on many levels ranging from prevention through crisis response and recovery. The department’s ongoing responses to at-risk student behaviors and unsafe educational circumstances include:

• development and consistent application of clearly defined codes of student conduct;
• assessment of the immediate school surroundings, as well as the social and emotional learning climates of the school communities;
• development of comprehensive school safety and security plans that incorporate clearly defined procedures and mechanisms for responding to and recovering from emergencies and crises;
• implementation of evidence-based prevention and intervention programs; and
• development of plans for the effective use of available school and community resources.
• In support of these program strategies and goals, the department has aggressively pursued a variety of policy and program initiatives to address the problem of disruption and violence since the beginning of the Safe Schools Initiative in 1994. Descriptions of these initiatives may be found in Appendix C.

1. Policy, Data Collection and Publications

• Policy: To ensure that school districts approach student conduct in a comprehensive manner, the State Board of Education has adopted regulations that specify the minimum standards for district boards of education in establishing local policies and procedures for operating programs to support the social, emotional and physical development of students. The Administrative Code, Chapter 16, Programs to Support Student Development (http://www.state.nj.us/njded/code/current/ti