There is a clear and intentional change in focus for federal school safety funding and policy by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools as presented in its proposed blueprint and budget for Fiscal Year 2011.  The bulk of funding from that office (over $400 million) is proposed to go toward a skewed emphasis on “climate,” which largely translates to “bullying” issues. 

In fairness, the head of that office, Kevin Jennings, has candidly acknowledged this is his priority, so I am not suggesting this shift is being done secretly.  In fact, he has been very open about this agenda.

I am, however, expressing concern that federal school safety funding and policy is being skewed in an imbalanced focus on “climate” (aka: “bullying”) without an incremental increase in attention to other areas and issues of school safety.  While bullying is a legitimate issue deserving of attention, other programs under the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools appear to be a footnote and pale in comparison to the bullying bandwagon being jumped on by everyone in DC and elsewhere around the nation.  Meanwhile, issues such as drug and violence prevention, gangs, school emergency planning, security staffing and funding, school resource officer programs, and other programmatic areas appear in budget, policy, and emphasis to be an after-thought in comparison to “climate” and “bullying.”

In early June, I stressed the need for bullying to be one component of a comprehensive and balanced approach to school safety.  This was the same message emphasized in my testimony to a House Joint Subcommittee hearing in Congress in 2009, something echoed by others, too.  I have also shared my concerns with Kevin Jennings, as well.

Still, the headlines from the U.S. Department of Education continue to scream, “Bullying, bullying, bullying.” On Friday, the Department issued the below media advisory announcing a two-day, “First-Ever Bullying Summit” on August 11-12th at the Washington Hilton Hotel.  Instead of a message of a “comprehensive and balanced” approach to school safety (a well acknowledged best practice approach in the school safety field), we continue to hear, “Bullying, bullying, bullying.” 

Not only is this skewed message concerning, but so is the image of the cost of a two-day “summit” at the Washington Hilton Hotel. What terrible timing to hold a largely PR event at an expensive DC hotel during a month when school safety coordinators are coming back to work (if they still have a job) with wiped out budgets thanks to the Congress and Administration eliminating the federal Safe and Drug Free Schools formula grant program effective July 1st of this year.  Does the federal government not have an auditorium somewhere at the U.S. Department of Education or other location where they could hold the meeting versus a DC hotel — especially when attendees will likely be from a select group of invitees from DC government agencies, education associations, non-profits, and Beltway Bandit contractors anyway? 

One has to assume this two-day event will cost the Department more than $10,000 to host the event at the hotel.  This is the same amount Congress and the Administration said was not enough for a local school district to do much with for school safety over the course of one school year under the now-eliminated Safe and Drug Free Schools program.  Perhaps this is good insight into how they reach such a mistaken conclusion since they can blow more than $10,000 in  two-days (rather than a year) for a ”summit” / PR event?

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

In a local Cleveland news interview last Thursday, I spoke about the elimination of the state grant component of the Safe and Drug Free Schools program.  As the public attention on school budget cuts center around teacher layoffs, reductions in transportation, and elimination of sports programs, cuts to school safety funding are going on behind-the-scenes away from parent view.

One viewer commented on the news station’s web page for the story that the information appeared “a bit alarmist.”  The unidentified individual mistakenly suggested a program proposed in the federal Fiscal Year 2011 budget would “replace” the eliminated Safe and Drug Free Schools program.

I responded to clarify some key points. Afterwards, it dawned on me that others may also benefit from some clarification on where things are currently and where they may go with federal school safety funding. 

Here is my response from to the comment on the news site:

The Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students (SSHS) program has not replaced the Safe and Drug Free Schools (SDFS) Program. SDFS was eliminated as of July 1st. SSHS is proposed for next fiscal year (2011) and has not been approved by Congress.

SDFS was a formula grant: Fed money passed through states to local districts in a non-competitive process. The proposed SSHS is a national competitive grant if Congress approves it 2011. The vast majority of districts that received SDFS will not get SSHS dollars. SSHS grants require districts to write proposals. Most don’t have dedicated grant writers. Thus many rural and suburban districts will never be able to apply and even if they did, districts with professional grant writers would have advantages.There is a big difference between formula and national competitive grants, thus it does not in any way “replace” SDFS.

There is no indication the activities for which SDFS dollars were used could be used under SSHS. It appears U.S.DOE’s focus will be heavily skewed toward “bullying” and “climate”, suggesting a number of activities funded under SDFS would not be authorized. 

REMS and Safe Schools, Healthy Students appear funded this year, but at the same appropriations  level, which is less than both programs were at their highest funding point. They are proposed for 2011, again at the same funding level.

To say “there will be federal money available based on need and competitively awarded” is inaccurate.  It is not approved by Congress but proposed for 2011 budget.  To say it “replaces” SDFS is inaccurate as it is a national competitive, not formula, grant, so it will not “replace” the money for the vast majority of districts that received SDFS. To say it “replaces” SDFS is inaccurate as there is no indication it would, if approved, fund the exact same activities as SDFS. And to say “the information presented in the story is “a bit alarmist” is also inaccurate. It is a fact.  

I’ll discuss more in a separate, but related, blog post to follow.  But for purposes of clarification, it needs to be clear that the proposed Fiscal Year 2011 federal school safety program does not,  in the true sense, “replace” the Safe and Drug Free Schools state grant program — at least as currently proposed.  The new proposed program is a different type of grant (competitive vs. formula), will go to a far fewer number of school districts, and has a skewed focus which will more likely have a limited number of authorized activities for which the program dollars could be used in comparison to Safe and Drug Free Schools.

Meanwhile, for the current school year, Safe and Drug Free Schools’ dollars are gone.  While No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top did not exist when I went to school, I still can figure out when an eliminated program means less money. 

Unfortunately for some, especially those with a political agenda around school safety, I can also cut through smoke when they blow it to sort out the facts.  And so can our educators who, today, unquestionably know very well that Congress and the Administration eliminated a decade-long funding source for school drug and violence prevention.

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

The state grant component of the decade-old federal Safe and Drug Free Schools Program has been eliminated from the latest federal budget, costing many schools as of July 1st their primary funds marked specifically for school safety. The program was a formula grant drug and violence prevention program which passed money through state education departments to local school districts nationwide.   

The elimination of this major federal school safety grant program, combined with local education budget cuts, will add new challenges to school safety efforts in the upcoming school year.

School safety administrators can’t rob Peter to pay Paul because Peter’s budget has already been cut. The drug prevention or school security director can’t easily ask the superintendent to replace thousands of lost school safety dollars from other program budgets because local district budgets are being shaved to the bare bone. 

Several smaller school districts in the Cleveland area shared this past week that they watched the program bleed a slow death thanks to the past Administration and Congress.  Now thanks to the current Administration and Congress, they eliminated the entire program from the FY 2010 budget.  One district reportedly went from $20,000 to $7,500 to now $0, while another lost $16,000 in the cuts.

These were districts with four to six thousand students. Larger districts are losing substantially more dollars with the elimination of these federal dollars marked specifically for school safety.  For examploe, Milwaukee reported earlier this year the anticipated loss of over $1 million with the elimination of this program.

At the state level, many Safe and Drug Free Schools coordinators who pull together drug and violence prevention programs were warned earlier in the year their work would be different in the upcoming school year — if they had any job at all.  Some were looking at moving into different programs while others were looking at unemployment.  The feds reportedly were trying to finagle some small money to allow state Safe and Drug Free Schools coordinators a way to “bridge” their employment over to next year.  While these people may be there, the funds for their programs and activities of the past certainly will not be the same.

Schools nationwide are reducing and eliminating student drug and violent prevention programs, reducing behavior intervention specialists, cutting school security and school-based police officers, and not providing staff professional development training on prevention, security, and crisis preparedness best practices.  Local school reduced revenue due to the economic recession, the inability to pass local levies (again due to the recession), and now the elimination of this non-competitive formula grant that sent money marked specifically for drug and violence prevention are all adversely impacting the advancement of school safety.

The U.S. Department of Education, the Administration, and the majority in Congress over the past few years justified cutting and eliminating the state grant component of the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program by saying that too many school districts receiving funds got less than $10,000 per year.  The company line is that this amount is not enough to do much of anything for school safety.

Only inside the D.C. Beltway do some folks believe that $10,000 doesn’t do much for anything.  That’s certainly not what I am hearing from those on the front-lines in schools who are still shaking their heads about the loss of the Safe and Drug Free Schools school safety funds.  Now instead of “doing more with less,” many of them will be “doing nothing with nothing.”

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

If your school transportation director, superintendent, or principal is asked these three questions about school transportation crisis preparedness issues, could they immediately answer each one?

1. If you had to mobilize school buses at 10:45am to simultaneously evacuate your three largest schools, what is the response time from when the request is made until the first bus shows up at the school?
2. Are school bus drivers and district transportation administrators trained on school emergency preparedness issues, are they trained on their district’s specific plan, and do they participate on district and building level crisis teams? 
3. Are your school buses part of your county emergency management agency’s plan to use when a disaster strikes and they need mass transit vehicles to help transport evacuees or others in the community?

Would your school leaders pass the test?

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

The first and best line of defense in school safety is a well-trained, highly-alert staff and student body.  Any security technology must be viewed as a supplement to, but not a substitute for, a more comprehensive approach to school safety.

Having security technology is one thing.  Having effective security technology, and using it effectively, is another.

The FBI’s Operational Technology Division put together a 20-minute instructional video entitled, “Caught on Camera: Best Practices for CCTV Systems.”  The video can be accessed via the FBI’s web page and is also embedded below.

The video was created to show business owners how cameras can aid law enforcement investigations.  Various points are raised about how CCTV systems can be installed and maintained for maximum effect.

Not everyone in a school, or in school security, will be a technical security whiz-kid.  This video might help some as it highlights a few key points about security cameras. The more important point is that there is a difference between having security technology and having security technology which meets particular needs and is effective in its daily use.

Too often today we situations where cameras are present but may not necessarily be effectively used.  We also see a society suffering from ”the CSI effect” where they believe that because cameras are present in a school or other facility, every single movement will be detected and every single crime should be prevented since the cameras exist.  Most experienced security professionals will tell you the latter is not the case in most situations, nor is it a realistic expectation.

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

The true measure of a man is not how he behaves in moments of comfort and convenience but how he stands at times of controversy and challenges.

                                                                            Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

While this quote is attributed to Dr. King decades ago, it is very applicable today as we look at the state of school safety. 

Our schools are challenged by the influence of broader social and economic factors facing our students and communities.  Today, we also face one of the most serious education budget crisis periods in many years. 

Tough times mean tough decisions.  Unfortunately, there are a number of signs indicating prevention and security measures are part of the first items cut out as boards and administrators cut their budgets.

It is easy for school board members, administrators, and others to say they are advocates for school safety when grant and other funds are readily flowing to support school safety programs.  It is more difficult to advocate against cuts to prevention and security programs during times of challenge and controversy.

As your board members and administrators face challenging times, will they continue to be advocates and supporters of school safety? It is now we will see the true measure of these men and women.

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

Matt McDevitt, Board Member and Security Committee Chair, Pennsauken (NJ) Board of Education

Matt McDevitt is a school board member who does not just talk about school security.  He has served on the District Security Committee as Chairperson since 1997.

As an elected member of the Pennsauken Board of Education in Pennsauken, New Jersey since 1995, Matt has served terms as President and Vice-President of the board.  Over the years, Matt could be seen at the National School Boards Association conference not only attending sessions related to board leadership, but also attending and presenting on school security and emergency preparedness trends and best practices.

Pennsauken is an urban, middle class community of approximately 35,000 people in Camden County, New Jersey. It is a 10.5 square mile, diverse community. The district is across the state line from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“The most vulnerable Americans in the most vulnerable settings are made more vulnerable because of government inaction.”

Mark Shriver, Senior Vice President, U.S. Programs, Save the Children

This quote from a recently released document entitled, “A National Report Card on Protecting Children During Disasters,” pretty much says it all.

In fairness, the report reflects movement in a positive direction by a number of states on improving requirements for protecting children during disasters.  But according to the report, there is still a lot of work to be done by states:

• Almost a dozen do not require K-12 schools to have a disaster plan that accounts for multiple types of disasters.
• Less than a quarter of all states and the District of Columbia meet all of four basic preparedness standards.
• Less than half require all licensed child care facilities to have an evacuation and relocation plan.
• Less than half require licensed child care facilities to have a family reunification plan.
• Less than two-thirds do not require all licensed child care facilities to have a plan that accounts for kids with special needs.

We also know from our emergency plan evaluations in many pre-K-12 school districts that even those states requiring such plans typically do not proactively enforce, verify, inspect on-site, etc. for such requirements.  They are, in essence, ”good faith” laws with few “teeth” for enforcement.

Mark Shriver’s quote increasingly appears to apply to our federal, state, and local officials’ approach to school safety and emergency preparedness overall.  Their rhetoric says they’re committed to school safety and preparedess, but their budgets for these areas show the opposite.

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

The Wake County (NC) school district spent $20,960 since December for increased security at school board meetings because of concerns about protesters.  The conflicts involve protesters opposing the elimination of the district’s socioeconomic diversity policy involving student assignments.

Large crowds lead the district to hire off-duty Raleigh police and private security officers. Previously, the district had no armed security at board meetings.

Are school security plans in place for disruptions at your school board meetings? 

Have your board members, superintendent, and police discussed how they would handle community unrest, protests, demonstrations, or even civil disobedience at board meetings?

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

One monthly security drill and one fire drill will be mandatory for New Jersey schools effective November 1, 2010.  This law was passed back in January of this year.  The New Jersey Department of Education issued guidance July 14 according to the New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association.

Schools must work with local emergency responders to update safety and security plans, and to create  procedures for drilling, managing and responding to school emergencies.  The new law also requires all full-time school employees to receive training on school safety and security and drills. 

This sounds great.  And many schools will likely comply.

But what about those schools that do not comply?  

My experience has found  most states having school safety requirements unfortunately have little-to-no proactive auditing or enforcement of these types of requirements.  There are some exceptions, such as the Indiana Department of Education where members of its School Safety Specialist Academy and Student Services Department go out to inspect and work with local school districts to make sure they are meeting minimum state requirements for school emergency plans.

But most states have fewer and fewer “carrots” (such as school safety grants) to encourage fulfillment of their requirements.  They have few, if any, “sticks” (consequences) for those districts not in compliance. 

We have consulted for school districts where their states required certain plans updated annually.  Yet these districts had plans over five years old.

Does your state have mandatory school safety requirements for its local school districts?  Are you familiar with these requirements? Are there proactive auditing and enforcement protocols in place to ensure compliance?

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com