2002-03 Safe Schools Appropriation

SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATION EXPENDITURES REPORT

2011-2012 School Year

Office of Safe Schools

Florida Department of Education

______

Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2011-2012 School Year

This product was developed by the State of Florida, Department of Education, Division of Public Schools, and the Bureau of Family and Community Outreach.

Office of Safe Schools

Florida Department of Education

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Telephone: 850-245-0416

Fax: 850-245-9978

The following staff members may assist you via telephone or e-mail:

Brooks Rumenik, Director

Telephone: 850-245-0749

E-Mail:

Shelly Hatton, Program Specialist

Telephone: 850-245-0827

E-Mail:

Copyright

State of Florida

Department of Education

2014

Authorization for reproduction is hereby granted to the State System of Public Education consistent with Section 1006.39(2), Florida Statutes. No authorization is granted for distribution or reproduction outside the state system of public education without prior approval in writing.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction...... 1

History and Background...... 1

Safe Schools Appropriation Allocations and Expenditures...... 2

Middle School After-School Programs...... 4

Middle School After-School Program Specifics...... 4

Primary Goals of Middle Schools After-School Programs...... 6

Middle School After-School Program Partners...... 6

Alternative Placement Programs for Adjudicated Youth...... 8

Alternative Placement Program Specifics...... 10

Alternative Placement Program Goals...... 10

School Safety and Security Program Activities...... 12

School Safety and Security Program Activities Effectiveness...... 14

Types of School Safety and Security Program Activities...... 17

School Resource Officers (SROs), School Campus Police, or Other School Law

Enforcement Officers (LEOs) on Campus...... 20

School Resource Officers (SROs), School Campus Police, or Other School Law

Enforcement Officers (LEOs) on Campus - Salaries...... 24

Security Equipment...... 26

Critical Issues for School Safety...... 28

K-20 Flexibility Act...... 31

Summary...... 32

Appendices...... 33

Appendix A: Safe Schools Appropriation Proviso Language...... 34

Appendix B:2011-2012 FEFP Final Calcuation Safe Schools Allocation...... 40

Appendix C: Analysis of After-School Expenditures Based on Total Expenditures...... 42

Appendix D: Analysis of Alternative Placement Program Expenditures Based on

Total Expenditures...... 43

Appendix E: Analysis of School Safety and Security Program Activities Expenditures Based on

Total Expenditures...... 44

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Safe Schools Fiscal Summary...... 2

Table 2 - Total Safe Schools Funds Expended by Program Components...... 3

Table 3 - Analysis of Middle School After-School Programs...... 4

Table 4 - Operational Characteristics of Middle School After-School Programs...... 5

Table 5 - Primary Goals of Middle School After-School Programs...... 6

Table 6 - Middle School After-School Program Partners...... 6

Table 7 - Analysis by Districts of Alternative Placement Programs...... 8

Table 8 - Total Number of Adjudicated Students Served...... 9

Table 9 - Alternative Placement Program Expenditure Categories...... 10

Table 10 - Alternative Placement Program - Primary Goals...... 11

Table 11 - Analysis of School Safety and Security Program Activities...... 12

Table 12 - Types of Safety and Security Activities & Types of Measurements...... 14

Table 13 - School Safety and Security Program Activities and Funds Used...... 17

Table 14 - Additional Breakout of Spending on School Safety and Security Programs Activities..18

Table 15 - Number of SROs/LEOs in Districts...... 20

Table 16 - Funding Sources for SROs/LEOs Salaries...... 24

Table 17 - Number of Surveillance Cameras by School Level...... 26

Table 18 - Number and Type of Metal Detectors by School Level...... 27

Table 19 - Critical Saftey Issues...... 28

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Trend Analysis of Program Expenditures 2004-2012...... 3

Figure 2 - Trend Analysis of Operational Charteristics for Middle School After-School Programs..5

Figure 3 - Trend Analysis of Dollars Spent for Alternative Placement Programs...... 9

Figure 4 - District Critical Safety Issues...... 29

1

______

Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2011-2012 School Year

INTRODUCTION

The 2011-2012 edition of the Safe Schools Appropriation Expenditures Report was prepared by the Office of Safe Schools in the Bureau of Family and Community Outreach at the Florida Department of Education. This report summarizes school district expenditures, budgeting, and activities of the Florida Safe Schools Appropriation for the 2011-2012 school year. This report includes a history of the safe schools efforts in Florida and presents the data collected from the 2011-2012Safe Schools Appropriation Survey of Expenditures. The appendices include documents associated with these program activities as well as related reference information. For additional information on Safe Schools Appropriation activities, contact the Office of Safe Schools at 850-245-0416.

History and Background

The funding allocated for the Safe Schools Program dates back to the 1983-1984 school year.In 1986, the Florida Legislature enacted the Florida Safe Schools Act. During this time the funding was based solely on the juvenile crime index which disproportionately went primarily to large urban school districts. This method of allocation continued through the 1992-1993 school year. Subsequently, the Florida Safe Schools Act remained unfunded for several years and was rescinded by the 1997 Florida Legislature.

However, in 1994, the Florida legislature funded safe schools activities through proviso language in its General Appropriations Act. This funding has continued each year into the present year (see Appendix A - Safe Schools Appropriation Proviso Language). The purpose of the funding is to provide resources for after-school middle school programs, alternative placements for adjudicated youth, and to enhance the safety and security of the learning environment. Presently, each school district receives a minimum of $50,000 towards the aforementioned purpose. The balance of the Safe Schools Appropriation fund is distributed based upon the following formula: two-thirds based on the latest Florida Department of Law Enforcement Crime Index and one-third on each district’s share of the state’s total unweighted student enrollment.

Data for this report were collected via web-based survey from each school district in the springof 2013 through the State Safe Schools Appropriation Survey of Activities. The survey was developed to collect information from each school district on the actual expenditures of safe schools funds during the 2011-12 school year.All 67 school districts that received Safe School funds responded to the survey and provided expenditure information.One district was not required to report their expenditures due to their need to exercise and place all of their funds in the categorical flexibility through the K-20 Flexibility Act as defined in Florida Statute 1011.62(6). Oneother districtallocatedpart of their funds to categorical flexibility. Although Developmental Research Schools (DRSs) receive Safe Schools Appropriation Funds, their expenditures are managed through the university system, not the Department of Education and, therefore, are not included in this report. The district and DRS school breakdown of the 2011-2012 Safe Schools Appropriation allocation is provided in Appendix B.Additionally, the format of this report follows closely the format of the online survey.

SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATION ALLOCATIONS AND EXPENDITURES

Since 1996-1997, the Safe Schools Appropriation has continued to be a major source of funding for school districts toward developing, implementing, and enforcing school safety and security programs and activities. The Safe Schools Appropriation allows districts to use a portion of their allocation in a manner that best fits their safe schools needs. Specifically, school districts have spent Safe Schools Appropriation dollars in the following three categories: After-School Programs, Alternative Placement Programs for Adjudicated Youth, and School Safety and Security Activities. Beginning with fiscal years 1996-1997 through 1998-1999, the appropriation was established at $50,350,000. In fiscal year 1999-2000, the amount of the Safe Schools Appropriation was increased by $20 million to $70,350,000, and in 2001-2002, the amount increased by an additional five million dollars ($75,350,000). The appropriation allocation remained constant at $75,350,000 from 2001-2002 to 2007-2008. In 2007-2008, the appropriation increased by $240,988to $75,590,988. For the first time, in 2008-2009, the amount decreased by $3,572,658 to $71,998,330. In 2009-2010, the amount decreased again by $4,737,490 to$67,260,840.For 2010-2011, there was an additional decrease of $127,056 which brought the total appropriation to $67,133,784. The 2011-2012 year witnessed a decrease of $2,677,765 which brought the total appropriation to $64,456,019. Table 1provides a comprehensive summary of the Safe Schools Appropriation funds allocated beginning with the 2005-2006 academic school year.

Table 1 - Safe Schools Fiscal Summary

Program Components / 2005-2006 / 2006-2007 / 2007-2008 / 2008-2009 / 2009-2010 / 2010-2011 / 2011-2012
Safe Schools Appropriation / $75,350,000 / $75,350,000 / $75,570,988 / $71,998,330 / $67,260,840 / $67,133,784 / $64,456,019
Previous Year Roll Forward* / $6,527,244 / $4,593,493 / $4,449,399 / $5,078,420 / $4,902,247 / $2,651,874 / $1,203,416
Expenditures / $75,874,209 / $75,108,556 / $74,349,803 / $71,325,824 / $68,823,111 / $67,865,706 / $63,521,394
Unexpended at Year End** / $4,593,493 / $4,449,399 / $5,078,420 / $4,902,247 / $2,651,874 / $1,306,461 / $1,571,053

Safe School (FEFP) Appropriation (Source: Funding for Florida Schools)

*Roll-Forward dollars are unexpended dollars from the previous year.

**“Unexpended at Year End” is calculated by adding “Safe School Appropriation (67 Districts Only)” and“Roll-Forward” rows andsubtractingthe “Expenditures” and "Categorical Flexibility Expenditures" (notlisted on table).

Table 2 provides specific information on the portions of the appropriation that were spent in three main categories:(1) After-School Activities for Middle Schools; (2) Alternative Placement for Adjudicated Youth; and (3) Safety and Security Program Activities.Since 1996-1997, districts have spent the majority of the funds on school safety and security program activities. In 2011-2012, 87% of the appropriation funds were spent on safety and security program activities.

Table 2 - Total Safe Schools Funds Expended by Program Components

Program Component Totals Expended / 2004-2005 / 2005-2006 / 2006-2007 / 2007-2008 / 2008-2009 / 2009-2010 / 2010-2011 / 2011-2012
After-School Activities for Middle Schools / 6% / 5% / 4% / 4% / 3% / 3% / 3% / 4%
Alternative Placement for Adjudicated Youth / 8% / 8% / 8% / 8% / 10% / 10% / 8% / 9%
Safety/Security Program Activities / 86% / 87% / 88% / 88% / 87% / 87% / 89% / 87%

Figure 1 depicts trend data about district expenditures in each of the three authorized program areas over the past eight school years starting from 2004-2005 through 2011-2012. As illustrated in the graph below, the percent of Safe School Appropriation funds expended on after-school programs for middle schools hasmostly decreased since 2004-2005. In 2006-2007, it decreased by one percent (1%), stayed consistent from 2006-2007 to 2007-2008,and then decreased again by one percent (1%) in 2008-2009 through 2010-2011.During school year 2011-2012, spending however increase by one percent (1%). The spending for alternative placement programs for adjudicated youthremained consistent from 2004-2005 through 2007-2008, then increased by two percent (2%) from 2008-2009 through 2009-2010. During school year2010-2011, alternative placement program expenditures decreased by two percent (2%) and then increased by one percent (1%) for 2011-2012. The percentage of funds expended on school safety and security activities and other improvements to make schools safe has also varied little over time. For school year, 2011-2012, the amount expended dropped by two percent (2%).

Figure 1 - Trend Analysis of Program Expenditures 2004-2012

MIDDLE SCHOOL AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

Middle School After-School Program Specifics

In 2011-2012, six school districts used a portion of their Safe Schools Allocation funds for after-school programs, which accounted for fourpercent (4%) of total appropriated dollars expended. As Table 3shows, two districts spent at least twenty-five percent (25%) of their total appropriation dollars on after-school programming. During this surveying interval, districts were not asked to provide data concerning other sources of funding for middle school after-school programs.

Table 3 - Analysis of Middle School After-School Programs

District / # of Schools / # of Students Served / $ Spent on After-School Programs / % of Total Safe Schools Expenditures
Bradford / 1 / 0 / $4,062 / 3%
Collier / 10 / 2,643 / $422,589 / 57%
Indian River / 1 / 134 / $4,062 / 1%
Monroe / 1 / 200 / $4,123 / 1%
Palm Beach / 36 / 3,500 / $1,883,508 / 45%
Taylor / 2 / 720 / $23,316 / 17%
TOTAL / 51 / 7,197 / $2,341,660 / 4%

Table 4provides information on characteristics of after-school programs funded by the Safe Schools Appropriation. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, providing snacks for after-school programs promotes a healthy eating environment and offersstudents an opportunity to practice healthy eating habits. From 2004-2005to 2006-2007, there was a steady increase of snacks and meals provided in the after-school programs; however, in 2007-2008,this decreased by sixty percent (60%). The total number of programs operating on weekends and holidays has steadily declined since 2004-2005. During the 2011-2012 school year, only two program were funded on weekends and zero programs were funded on holidays. Each year, beginning in 2004-2005and continuing through 2006-2007, funding to provide transportation for middle school after-school programs increased; however, in 2007-08 there was a fifty three percent (53%)decrease in appropriating funds for this purpose.Since then, the percentage of funds used for transportation for middle school after-school programs has declined or remained consistent.

Table 4 - Operational Characteristics of Middle School After-School Programs

Program Characteristics / 2004-2005 / 2005-2006 / 2006-2007 / 2007-2008 / 2008-2009 / 2009-2010 / 2010-2011 / 2011-2012
Provides Snacks and Meals / 106 / 112 / 115 / 46 / 49 / 49 / 43 / 41
Operates on Weekends / 8 / 8 / 5 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2
Provides Transportation / 104 / 107 / 118 / 56 / 55 / 55 / 46 / 46
Operates on Holidays / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0

Figure 2 depicts trends in the number of programs with the aforementioned characteristics.

Figure 2 - Trend Analysis of Operational Characteristics for

Middle School After-School Programs

Primary Goals of Middle School After-School Programs

Districts reported one or multiple primary goals for their Safe Schools funded after-school programs. Table 5presents the top nine primary goals identified for after-school programs and the number of districts that identified each goal as one of their own.

Table 5 - Primary Goals of Middle School After-School Programs

Program Goals / 2004-2005 / 2005-2006 / 2006-2007 / 2007-2008 / 2008-2009 / 2009-2010 / 2010-2011 / 2011-2012
Provide Homework Assistance / 11 / 12 / 11 / 8 / 6 / 6 / 5 / 5
Provide Academic Enrichment Instruction / 12 / 11 / 12 / 7 / 6 / 7 / 6 / 5
Provide Supervision / 9 / 8 / 7 / 6 / 6 / 6 / 5 / 3
Provide Enrichment / Mentoring / 10 / 8 / 8 / 7 / 6 / 6 / 4 / 4
Provide Social Skills Development / 8 / 10 / 8 / 5 / 4 / 6 / 4 / 2
Prevent Negative Influences / 10 / 10 / 10 / 7 / 5 / 6 / 4 / 2
Provide Recreational Activities / 8 / 8 / 8 / 6 / 6 / 6 / 4 / 4
Provide Violence Prevention / 6 / 9 / 7 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 2 / 0
Provide Counseling / 6 / 7 / 7 / 3 / 2 / 3 / 2 / 1

Middle School After-School Program Partners

Throughout the state, school districts collaborated with a variety of external agencies and organizations to offer and operate after-school programs for their students. Table 6 lists the agencies and programs with which the school district worked and the number of districts identifying a collaborator as one of their own.

Table 6 - Middle School After-School Program Partners

Middle School
After School Partners / 2004-2005 / 2005-2006 / 2006-2007 / 2007-2008 / 2008-2009 / 2009-2010 / 2010-2011 / 2011-2012
Associated Marine Institute / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Boys and Girls Club / 6 / 5 / 6 / 5 / 5 / 4 / 3 / 3
Boy and Girl Scouts / 4 / 4 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1
Business Partners / 7 / 6 / 5 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 2 / 2
Civic Organizations / 3 / 3 / 5 / 1 / 3 / 1 / 1 / 1
City Governments (Parks & Recreation) / 6 / 5 / 3 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 0 / 1
Community Colleges / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
County Government (Parks & Recreation) / 7 / 6 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 1 / 0
Department of Children and Families / 2 / 2 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Department of Juvenile Justice / 3 / 2 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0
Faith-Based Groups / 1 / 1 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 2
Local Law Enforcement / 4 / 4 / 3 / 1 / 0 / 2 / 1 / 0
Mental Health Agencies / 3 / 2 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0
Military Bases / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Practical and Cultural Education for Girls / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Private Industry Council / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
PTA/PTO / 4 / 4 / 5 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 2
School Volunteers / 7 / 6 / 3 / 1 / 3 / 3 / 0 / 1
State Attorney’s Office / 3 / 3 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0
Substance Abuse Agencies / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Universities/Colleges / 2 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0
Urban League / 2 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0
YMCA/YWCA / 2 / 1 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 1 / 0 / 0

The identification of external agency collaborators has steadily declined since 1999, with the biggest decline in 2002. The most common partners in2008-2009were entities such as theBoys and Girls Club, business partners, civic organizations, and school volunteers. In 2011-2012,the Boys and Girls Clubwas the most commonly reportedexternal partners in after-school programs funded with Safe Schools Appropriation followed by Business Partners, Faith-Based Groups, and PTA/PTO.

Alternative Placement Programs For AdjudicaTED yOUTH

The alternative placement program category for adjudicated youth is the second largest category in which Safe Schools Appropriation funds were spent. (Note, during this survey period, districts were not asked to provide information pertaining to dollars spent from other sources nor were they asked to provide the number of programs funded by other sources or to provide the number of adjudicated youth served by funding from other sources.) Additionally, two new data points were added in 2002-2003 that asked districts to provide the number of on- and off-campus housing facilities. In 2011-2012, districts spent approximately ninepercent (9%) of Safe Schools Appropriation funds on developing and maintaining alternative placement programs.

Collectively, Safe Schools Appropriations funds supported sevenschool districts that provided a wide range of both on- and off-campus alternative placement programs. Districts served10,043 youthwith Safe Schools Appropriations funds,down ten percent (10%) from the2010-2011countof 11,131. Youth may have also been served through other funding sources. Table 7provides a district analysis of the number of youth served, the number of programs in each district, and the amount of Safe Schools Allocation funds expended on these programs.

Table 7 - Analysis by Districts of Alternative Placement Programs
District / Amount Expended / # Programs Housed on Campus / # Programs Housed Off Campus / # Adjudicated Students Served
Brevard / $835,078 / 0 / 6 / 718
Broward / $2,931,830 / 4 / 3 / 8,849
Clay / $45,942 / 1 / 0 / 62
Escambia / $79,208 / 0 / 5 / 202
Hardee / $46,590 / 0 / 1 / 8
Hendry / $198,313 / 2 / 0 / 97
Palm Beach / $1,217,442 / 4 / 0 / 107
TOTAL / $5,354,403 / 10 / 15 / 10,043

Figure 3presents a trend analysis of dollars spent for alternative placement programs from 2004-2005 to 2011-2012.

Figure 3 - Trend Analysis of Dollars Spent for Alternative Placement Programs

Table 8 presents the total number of adjudicated students served by Safe Schools Appropriation funds from 2006-2007to 2011-2012.

Table 8 - Total Number of Adjudicated Students Served

District / # of Adjudicated Youth Served 2006-2007 / # of Adjudicated Youth Served 2007-2008 / # of Adjudicated Youth Served 2008-2009 / # of Adjudicated Youth Served 2009-2010 / # of Adjudicated Youth Served 2010-2011 / # of Adjudicated Youth Served 2011-2012
Baker / 96 / 0 / 0 / 15 / 22 / 0
Bay / 639 / 818 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Brevard / 149 / 165 / 429 / 709 / 709 / 718
Broward / 9,855 / 9,855 / 9071 / 10,347 / 8849 / 8,849
Clay / 3,134 / 3,234 / 510 / 488 / 409 / 62
Dade / 1,525 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Desoto / 51 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Escambia / 0 / 191 / 50 / 539 / 481 / 202
Hardee / 0 / 50 / 106 / 5 / 12 / 8
Hendry / 6 / 28 / 144 / 42 / 42 / 97
Hillsborough / 0 / 0 / 0 / 467 / 467 / 0
Lafayette / 0 / 0 / 0 / 4 / 0 / 0
Okeechobee / 0 / 75 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Palm Beach / 45 / 76 / 74 / 80 / 140 / 107
Taylor / 0 / 8 / 45 / 0 / 0 / 0
TOTAL / 15,500 / 14,500 / 10,429 / 12,696 / 11,131 / 10,043

Alternative Placement ProgramSpecifics

The 2011-2012survey asked school districts to identify the programmatic use of Safe Schools Appropriation funds for alternative placement programs for adjudicated youth.Table 9 provides the four major categories in which districts expended the funds and the number of districts that expended funds in each category. Since 2004-2005, school districts report using funds predominately to maintain existing programs.

Table 9- Alternative Placement Program Expenditure Categories

Expenditure Categories / # Districts
2004-2005 / # Districts
2005-2006 / # Districts 2006-2007 / # Districts 2007-2008 / # Districts 2008-2009 / # Districts 2009-2010 / # Districts 2010-2011 / # Districts 2011-2012
Maintained Existing Programs / 8 / 10 / 7 / 7 / 6 / 8 / 8 / 6
Enhanced (Improved) Existing Programs / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 2 / 1 / 0 / 1
Used Other District Programs / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Expanded Existing Programs / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0

Alternative Placement Program Goals

An item was added to the 1999-2000 survey which requested districts to identify the primary goals of theirSafe Schools Appropriation funded alternative placement programs. Most districts identified multiple goals.Table 10 provides a list of the primary goalsand the number of school districts thatidentified these goals as their own. The two most prevalent district goals during the 2011-2012reporting period were “Providing Alternative Placements in lieu of Expulsion” (sixdistricts) and “Removing Violent Offenders from Campus” (fivedistricts).

Table 10- Alternative Placement Program - Primary Goals