| | - TABLE OF CONTENTS
- LIST OF TABLES
- LIST OF FIGURES
- INTRODUCTION
- History and Background
- SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATION ALLOCATIONS
- Table 1 - Safe Schools Fiscal Summary
- ProgramComponents
- 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01
- Table 2 - Total Safe Schools Funds Expended by Program Component
- Program Component TotalsExpended
- 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01
- Figure 1 - Trend Analysis of Program Expenditures1996-1997 to 2000-2001
- Percent of Expenditures
- AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS
- Program Specifics
- TOTALS 214 9% $6,527,397
- Table 5 - After-School Program Operation Characteristics
- Program Characteristic 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001% Change
- from1999-2000
- After-School Program Goals
- Table 6 - Program Goals 2000-2001
- Program Goals 1999-2000No. of
- Districts withGoal
- 2000-20001No. of Districtswith Goal
- % Changefrom 1999-2000to 2000-2001
- Figure 2 - Top Six District Goals of After-School Programs
- After-School Program Partners
- Figure 3 – Most Prevalent Five After-School Program Partners 2000-2001
- ALTERNATIVE PLACEMENT PROGRAMS FOR ADJUDICATED YOUTHS
- Program Specifics
-
- 2000-01
- Alternative Placement Program Goals
- Table 10 - Primary Goals - Alternative School Programs for Adjudicated Youth
- Primary Goals No. ofDistricts
- Table 11 - Analysis of School Safety and Security Program Activities
- School Safety and Security Program Specifics
- B. Establishing aSafe, Nurturing,
- LearningEnvironment
- Safety and SecurityActivity Supported bySafe Schools Funds
- Types of Activity and
- (No. of districts)
- Objective Data Source* Subjective Data Source**
- C. School SafetyEquipment,
- Resources, andPersonnel
- E. SchoolImprovement
- Planning for Safety
- Safety and SecurityActivity Supported bySafe Schools Funds
- Types of Activity and
- (No. of districts)
- Objective Data Source* Subjective Data Source**
- F. Data SystemImprovements
- Types of School Safety and Security Program Activities
- Table 14- Presence of SROs/LEOs in Districts
- Table 15 - Number of Districts Utilizing Safe Schools Funds for SROs/LEOs
- Safe Schools Funds # ofDistricts
- 1999-00
- # ofDistricts
-
- Funding Source # of Districts1999-2000
- # of Districts2000-2001
- Security Equipment
- Table 17 - Number and Type of Metal Detectors by School Level
- TOTALS 737 970 8 14 745 984
- Table 18 - Number of Surveillance Cameras by School Level
- School Level No. of Cameras1999-2000
- No. of Cameras2000-2001
- TOTAL 7,460 11,379
- Priority #1 1999-2000No. of
- Districts
- 2000-2001No. of
- Figure 4 - Top Four Critical Safety Issues
- SUMMARY
- APPENDICES
- APPENDIX A
- Safe Schools Appropriation Proviso Language
- Proviso in 2000-2001 General Appropriation Act
- Proviso in 1999-2000 General Appropriation Act
- Proviso in 1998-1999 General Appropriation Act
- Proviso in 1997-1998 General Appropriation Act
- Proviso in 1996-1997 General Appropriation Act
- Proviso in 1995-1996 General Appropriation Act
- Proviso in 1994-1995 General Appropriation Act
- APPENDIX B
- STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATIONSURVEY OF ACTIVITIES
- 2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
- Survey Instrument
- BUREAU OF EQUITY, SAFETY, AND SCHOOL SUPPORT
- STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATIONSURVEY OF ACTIVITIES
- 2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
- STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATION SURVEY OF ACTIVITIES2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
- SURVEY OF ACTIVITIES 2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
- ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL PROGRAMS FOR ADJUDICATED YOUTH ACTIVITY SUMMARY
- STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATIONSURVEY OF ACTIVITIES 2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
- SCHOOL SAFETY AND SECURITY ACTIVITY SUMMARY
- Data Examples:
- STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATIONSURVEY OF ACTIVITIES 2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
- STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATIONSURVEY OF ACTIVITIES 2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
- STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATION SURVEY OF ACTIVITIES2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
- STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATION SURVEY OF ACTIVITIES2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
- G. SCHOOL SAFETY AND SECURITY ACTIVITIES ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
- Total 100%
- 2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
- H. OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO MAKE THE SCHOOL SAFE
- STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATIONSURVEY OF ACTIVITIES
- 2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
- APPENDIX CLongitudinal Analysis of Safe Schools Appropriations
- Final Calculations1996-1997 through 2000-2001
- APPENDIX D
- Four-Year District Budget Analysis by Safe Schools Category
- APPENDIX E
- District Safe Schools Contact Person List
- CHARLIECRIST
|
F
L
O
R
I
D
A
D
E
P A
R
T
M
E
N
T
O
F
E
D
U
C
A T
I
O
N
Appropriation Report
2000 - 2001 School Year
Appropriation Report
2000 - 2001 School Year
S
A
F
E
S
C
H
O
O
L
S
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
i
This product was developed by the State of Florida, Department of Education, Division of
Public Schools and Community Education, Bureau of Equity, Safety and School Support,
Office of Safe Schools.
For additional information on this publication, contact the Office of Safe Schools, Florida
Department of Education, Room 301 Turlington Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400.
Telephone: (850) 410-1667
FAX: (850) 410-1796
Suncom: 210-1667
E-mail: louise.rill@fldoe.org
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
ii
SAFE SCHOOLS
APPROPRIATION REPORT
2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
Florida Department of Education
Division of Public Schools and Community Education
Bureau of Equity, Safety and Support Services
Office of Safe Schools
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
iii
Copyright
State of Florida
Department of State
2002
Authorization for reproduction is hereby granted to the state system of public education as
defined in section 228.041(1), Florida Statutes. No authorization is granted for distribution or
reproduction outside the state system of public education without prior approval in writing.
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
iv
Safe Schools Appropriation Report
2000-2001 School Year
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................7
History and Background ...........................................................................................................................7
Safe Schools Appropriation Allocations.......................................................................................................8
After-School Programs ...............................................................................................................................10
Program Specifics...................................................................................................................................10
After-School Program Goals ..................................................................................................................12
After-School Program Partners...............................................................................................................13
Alternative Placement Programs for Adjudicated Youth ...........................................................................15
Program Specifics...................................................................................................................................16
Alternative Placement Program Goals....................................................................................................16
School Safety and Security Program Activities..........................................................................................18
Program Specifics...................................................................................................................................20
Types of School Safety and Security Program Activities ......................................................................22
School Resource Officers (SROs) and Other School Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) ....................22
Security Equipment ................................................................................................................................26
Critical Issues for School Safety ............................................................................................................27
Summary .....................................................................................................................................................29
Appendices..................................................................................................................................................30
Appendix A: Safe Schools Appropriation Proviso Language ....................................................................31
Appendix B: 2000-2001 State Safe Schools Appropriation Survey of Activities Instrument....................33
Appendix C: Longitudinal Analysis of Safe Schools Appropriation .........................................................40
Appendix D: Four-Year District Budget Analysis by Safe Schools Category ...........................................42
Appendix E: District Safe Schools Contact Person List.............................................................................44
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Safe Schools Fiscal Summary .......................................................................................................8
Table 2 - Total Safe Schools Funds Expended by Program Component......................................................8
Table 3 - Analysis of After-School Program Expenditures ........................................................................10
Table 4 - After-School Program Operation Characteristics........................................................................11
Table 5 - Goals of After-School Program Activities ..................................................................................12
Table 6 - After-School Program Partners ...................................................................................................12
Table 7 - Analysis of Alternative Placement Program Expenditures .........................................................13
Table 8 - Alternative Placement Expenditure Categories...........................................................................15
Table 9 - Alternative Placement Program Goals ........................................................................................16
Table 10 - Analysis of School Safety and Security Program Activities .....................................................16
Table 11 - Types of School Safety and Security Activities........................................................................18
Table 12 - Measuring the Effectiveness of School Safety and Security Program Activities .....................19
Table 13 - Prevalence of School Safety and Security Activities ................................................................22
Table 14 - Presence of SROs/LEOs in Districts .........................................................................................23
Table 15 - Number of Districts Utilizing Safe Schools Funds for SROs/LEOs.........................................25
Table 16 - Other Funding Sources for SROs ..............................................................................................26
Table 17 - Number and Type of Metal Detector by School Level .............................................................26
Table 18 - Number of Surveillance Cameras by School Level...................................................................27
Table 19 - Types of School Safety and Security Programs Activities Critical Saftey Issues.....................27
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Trend Analysis of Program Expenditures ....................................................................................9
Figure 2 - Top Six District Goals of After-School Programs .....................................................................13
Figure 3 - Most Prevalent After-School Program Partners 2000-2001.......................................................14
Figure 4 - Top Four Critical Safety Issues..................................................................................................28
7
INTRODUCTION
The Office of Safe Schools, in the Bureau of Equity, Safety and School Support, Florida Department of
Education, prepared the 2000-2001
Safe Schools Appropriation Report
. This report summarizes school
district expenditures, budgeting, and activities of the Florida Safe Schools Appropriation for the 2000-
2001 school year. This report includes a history of the safe schools effort in Florida and presents the data
collected from the 2000-2001
Safe Schools Appropriation Survey
. 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) 410-
1667 or Suncom 210-1667.
History and Background
The
Safe Schools Program
was funded initially for the 1983-1984 school year. In 1986, the Florida
Legislature enacted the
Florida Safe Schools Act
, in which funding was based solely on the juvenile
crime index and, therefore, went primarily to large urban school districts. This method of allocation
continued through the 1992-1993 school year. Then, the
Florida Safe Schools Act
remained unfunded
for several years and was rescinded by the 1997 Florida Legislature.
In 1994, the Florida Legislature funded safe schools activities through proviso language in its
appropriations bill. This funding has continued to the present (see Appendix A: Safe Schools
Appropriation Proviso Language). The purpose of the funding is to provide resources for after-school
middle school programs and alternative placements for adjudicated youth, and to enhance the safety and
security of the learning environment. This purpose has remained stable. Currently, each district receives
a minimum of $30,000. The remaining balance of the Safe Schools Appropriation is distributed based on
the following formula: two-thirds based on the latest crime index and one-third on each district’s share of
the state’s total weighted student enrollment.
Data for this report were collected in April, 2002 through the
2000-2001 State Safe Schools
Appropriation Survey of Activities
(see Appendix B). The survey was distributed to each school district.
It requested information from the 2000-2001 school year about the actual expenditures of Safe Schools
funds. All 67 county school districts and four other schools (Developmental Research Schools, “Lab”
schools) that received Safe School funds responded to the survey and provided expenditure information.
For the purpose of this report, when referring to school districts, the number includes the four
Developmental Research Schools. Therefore, the number of school districts is 71. The county and school
breakdown of the 2000-2001 Safe Schools Appropriation allocation is provided in Appendix C.
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
8
SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATION ALLOCATIONS
Since 1996-1997, the Safe Schools Appropriation continues to be a major source of funding for school
districts to develop, implement, and enforce school safety and security. The Safe Schools Appropriation
allows districts to use their allocation in the manner in which the districts determine best fits their needs.
The three main categories in which districts may expend the funds are: 1) After-School Programs, 2)
Alternative Placement Programs for Adjudicated Youth, and 3) School Safety and Security Activities.
From fiscal years 1996-1997 through 1998-1999, the appropriation remained constant at $50,350,000.
However, in fiscal year 1999-2000, the amount of the Safe Schools Appropriation was increased to
$70,350,000 and in 2000-2001 to $75,350,000.
Table 1
provides a comprehensive summary of the Safe
Schools Appropriation funds allocated since 1996-1997.
Table 1 - Safe Schools Fiscal Summary
Program
Components
1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01
Safe Schools
Appropriation
$50,350,000 $50,350,000 $50,350,000 $70,350,000 $75,350,000
Previous Year
“Roll-Forward”*
$12,242,028 $5,677,008 $4,000,821 $4,368,243 $6,167,468
Expenditures $56,888,368 $52,059,020 $50,063,436 $67,846,358 $75,421,870
Unexpended at
*Year End
$5,684,388 $4,003,349 $4,261,439 $6,764,211 $5,944,917
Safe School (FEFP) Appropriation (Source: Funding for Florida Schools)
*Appropriations include 67 districts and Developmental Research School appropriations; Expenditures
include 67 districts only.
Table 2
provides specific information on the portions of the appropriation that were expended in the three
main categories. For five school years, districts have expended the majority of the funds on School Safety
and Security Activities, which comprised 62% of the 2000-2001 expenditures. Appendix C provides a
district comparison of these percentages.
Table 2 - Total Safe Schools Funds Expended by Program Component
Program Component Totals
Expended
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
After-School Activities for
Middle Schools
17% 12% 12% 10% 9%
Alternative Placement Programs 18% 22% 21% 15% 9%*
Safety/Security Activities 65% 66% 67% 75% 62%
Other Improvements To Make a
School Safe**
N/A N/A N/A N/A 20%
*Alternative Placement Program Category for 1996-2000 includes data for all Alternative Placement
Programs. The 2000-01 information is for the placement of adjudicated youth only.
**Data are not available for 1996-2000.
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
9
Figure 1
graphically displays the trend data on the expenditures in each of the three authorized areas,
over the past five years 1996-1997 through 2000-2001. As illustrated, the percent of Safe Schools funds
expended on School Safety and Security activities and Other Improvements to make the school safe has
steadily increased since 1996-1997, while funds expended on alternative placement have declined since
1998-1999. The percent of funds expended on After-School Programs has also declined since 1998-
1999.
Figure 1 - Trend Analysis of Program Expenditures
1996-1997 to 2000-2001
65
66
67
75
82
17
12 12
10
9
18
22
21
15
9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01
Percent of Expenditures
Safety & Security and
Other Improvements
After-School Programs
Alternative Placement
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
10
AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS
Program Specifics
Since the 1996-1997 school year, districts have typically expended the least amount of Safe Schools
funds on After-School Programs. In 2000-2001, eighteen school districts used a portion of their Safe
Schools Appropriation for After-School Programs. Nine percent of the total Safe Schools expenditures
was spent on After-School Programs.
Table 3
lists each district that used Safe Schools funds for After-
School Programs, including the number of programs supported, the percent of Safe Schools funds spent,
and amount of funds expended. As the table indicates, Taylor County (52%) was the only district in the
State to use more than 50% of its allocation on After-School Programs.
Table 3 - Analysis of After-School Program Expenditures for
Elementary and Middle Schools 2000-2001
District
MS
No. of After-
School
Programs
MS
% of Safe
Schools funds
Spent
Amount Spent
Baker 1 23% $23,443
Broward 11 10% $709,311
Collier 8 6% $55,020
Duval 22 29% 1,320,911
Glades 1 6% $3,500
Hillsborough 36 28% $1,500,000
Lee 18 26% $410,712
Leon 9 6% $70,564
Manatee 1 4% $35,000
Miami-Dade 48 4% $600,000
Palm Beach 29 22% $1,127,943
Pasco 10 4% $49,245
Putnam 3 22% $77,318
Sumter 1 24% $28,899
Suwannee 2 13% $17,248
Taylor 2 52% $56,583
Volusia 11 23% $440,000
FAU Lab School 1 5% $1,700
TOTALS 214 9% $6,527,397
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
11
Districts also reported the number of middle school and elementary school after-school programs
funded by other sources.
Table 4
lists 18 districts reporting 80 middle schools and 457
elementary After-School Programs funded by other sources.
Table 4 - After-School Programs in Middle and Elementary Schools
Funded by Other Sources
District
MS
No. of After-School
Programs
ES
No. of After-School
Programs
Brevard 14 54
Broward 5 132
Collier 2 41
Duval 3 5
Franklin 2 3
FAU Developmental
Research School
1
1
Hillsborough 2 0
Holmes 1 1
Lake 3 20
Lee 0 37
Leon 9 14
Manatee 7 21
Orange 27 92
Sumter 1 5
Suwannee 1 3
Volusia 0 26
FAMU Lab School 1 1
FAU Lab School 1 1
TOTAL 80 457
Table 5
provides information on selected operating characteristics of the After-School Programs funded
by the Safe Schools Appropriation. The most remarkable changes were an increase of 63% in snack or
meal provision and an increase of 53% in the number of programs that operated on weekends and
holidays compared to 1999-2000. The total number of programs operating on weekends and holidays
was still less than in 1998-1999. After-School Programs that provide transportation decreased by eight
percent (8%) from the previous school year.
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
12
Table 5 - After-School Program Operation Characteristics
Program Characteristic
1998-1999
1999-2000
2000-2001
% Change
from
1999-2000
Provides Snacks or Meals *N/A 168 274 +63%
Operates on Weekends and Holidays 41 17 26 +53%
Provides Transportation 110 125 115 -8%
*N/A – Item not asked on the 1998-1999 Safe Schools Appropriation Survey
After-School Program Goals
Districts reported one or multiple goals for their after-school programs.
Table 6
presents the goals of the
After-School Programs and the number of districts that indicated the goal for the 2000-2001 school year.
Table 6 - Program Goals 2000-2001
Program Goals
1999-2000
No. of
Districts with
Goal
2000-20001
No. of Districts
with Goal
% Change
from 1999-2000
to 2000-2001
Provide Supervision
18
20
11%
Provide Academic Remediation/Instruction
19
20
5%
Provide Social Skills Development
17
19
11%
Provide Homework Assistance
18
18
0%
Prevent Negative Influences
15
18
20%
Provide Enrichment
16
16
0%
Provide Mentoring
13
15
15%
Provide Recreational Activities
18
15
20%
Provide Violence Prevention
11
15
36%
Provide Counseling
7
7
0%
Due to the change in the survey instrument, comparison data from 1998-1999 are not available.
The most frequent goals of After-School Programs are providing: supervision (20 districts), academic
remediation/instruction (20 districts), social skills development (19 districts), homework assistance (18
districts), and preventing negative influences (18 districts).
Figure 2
illustrates the most frequently-
listed six goals of the After-School Programs supported by Safe Schools Appropriation funds for 2000-
2001.
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
13
Figure 2 - Top Six District Goals of After-School Programs
After-School Program Partners
Throughout the State, school districts collaborate with a variety of external agencies and organizations to
offer and operate after-school programs for their students.
Table 7
lists the agencies and programs that
work with school districts and the number of districts that have collaborated with them over the past
three school years.
Table 7-After-School Program Partners and Number of School Districts 1998-99 to 2000-01
Partner
No. of Districts
1998-99
No. of Districts
1999-00
No. of Districts
2000-01
Associated Marine Institute
0
3
2
Boys and Girls Clubs
9
12
12
Boy and Girl Scouts
10
7
4
Business Partners
12
13
13
Civic Organizations*
N/R
N/R
3
Department of Juvenile Justice
10
9
6
City Government (Parks & Recreation)
15
10
9
Community Colleges
5
4
5
County Government (Parks & Recreation)
7
9
9
Department of Children & Families
5
5
3
Faith-based Groups
8
8
7
Local Law Enforcement
19
15
16
Mental Health Agencies
8
7
3
Military Bases
3
2
1
Practical and Cultural Education for Girls (PACE)
4
2
4
Private Industry Council
4
4
1
20
20
19
18
18
16
Provide Supervision
Provide Academic
Remediation/Instruction
Provide Social Skills
Development
Prevent Negative Influenced
Provide Homework Assistance
Provide Enrichment
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
14
Partner
No. of Districts
1998-99
No. of Districts
1999-00
No of Districts
2000-01
PTA/PTO
5
7
11
School Volunteers
14
11
13
State Attorney’s Office
5
6
5
Substance Abuse Agencies
11
6
6
Universities/Colleges
7
6
5
Urban League
4
3
3
YMCA/YWCA
9
9
9
Other
10
12
9
*N/R Civic Organizations were not a category in the 1998-99, or the 1999-00 Safe Schools Appropriation Report
Other After-School Program Partners reported by school districts in 2000-2001 include:
?
Big Brothers/Big Sisters
?
Jacksonville Children’s Commission
?
Sierra Club & Expeditionary Learning
?
Bridge of Northeast Florida
?
Junior Achievement
?
South Florida Inner City Games
?
Concerned African Women, Inc.
?
Kiwanis Club
?
USDA (Federal Grant)
?
Cooperative Extension Services
?
Medallion Schools
?
World Literacy Crusade
?
Crane Point Hammock Museum
?
Police Athletic League (PAL)
?
Cultural Arts Affairs
?
R Club, Incorporated
The most prevalent partners in 2000-2001 are prevention-oriented organizations such as youth
organizations and local law enforcement agencies.
Figure 3
illustrates the five categories of agencies
and organizations that collaborate with school districts to operate After-School Programs supported by
Safe Schools Appropriation funds for 2000-2001.
Figure 3 – Most Prevalent Five After-School Program Partners 2000-2001
16
13
13
12
11
Local Law Enforcement
Business Partners
School Volunteers
Boys & Girls Club
PTA/PTO
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
15
ALTERNATIVE PLACEMENT PROGRAMS FOR ADJUDICATED YOUTHS
The alternative placement program for adjudicated youth is the second largest category in which Safe
Schools Appropriation funds are expended. In 2000-2001, districts spent approximately 22% of the Safe
Schools Appropriation funds on developing and maintaining alternative placement programs.
Collectively, Safe Schools funds supported 52 alternative placement programs that served approximately
8,000 students on and off school campuses within 24 districts.
Table 8
provides a district analysis of the
number of students served, the number of programs in each district, the school location of the programs,
and the percentage and amount of Safe Schools funds expended on these programs.
Table 8 - Analysis of Alternative School Programs Expenditures for Adjudicated Youth
District
No. of
Students
Served
No. of
Programs
Housed on
Campus
No. of
Programs
Housed off
Campus
Total No. of
Programs in
District
Amount of
Safe Schools
Funds
Amount of
Other Funds
Funds
Baker
40
2
0
2
$40,274
$31,250
Bay
154
0
3
3
$122,330
$499,262
Brevard
325
0
3
3
$1,094,138
0
Broward
4,308
3
0
3
$389,650
0
Charlotte*
28
0
1
1
0
$64,368
Clay
2,030
6
0
6
$114,500
0
Collier
191
1
2
3
$427,778
$572,429
Gadsden
85
3
0
3
$20,000
0
Glades**
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
$15,402
0
Hardee**
N/R
1
0
1
$27,812
0
Hendry
135
0
2
2
$210,517
$430,346
Holmes
33
0
1
1
$15,000
$261,875
Jefferson
45
1
0
1
$24,0000
$38,000
Lake
73
0
3
3
$20,000
$100,000
Lee
0
0
0
0
$374,320
0
Liberty
32
1
0
1
$1,400
$131,318
Manatee
458
0
8
8
$46,409
$2,064,000
Monroe
0
4
2
6
$84,218
$400,000
Orange
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
$863,568
0
Osceola
91
0
1
1
$273,361
$238,015
Palm Beach
58
0
1
1
$371,762
0
Polk
120
2
0
2
$153,023
0
Putnam**
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
$108,316
0
Taylor
70
1
0
1
$27,244
$100,000
TOTALS
8,276
25
26
53
$5,041,022
$
4,930,863
*Alternative School Programs for Adjudicated Youth funded from other sources.
**N/R = District did not report data.
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
16
Program Specifics
The 2000-2001 survey asked school districts to identify the use of Safe Schools appropriations for
Alternative Placement Programs for adjudicated youth. Throughout the State, each district used the Safe
Schools Appropriation funds to support varied alternative placements for adjudicated youth programs.
Table 9
provides the five largest categories in which districts expended the funds and the number of
districts that expended funds in each category. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of the school districts (14)
funding Alternative School Programs reported using their funds to maintain existing programs.
Table 9 - Alternative Placement Programs for Adjudicated Youth Expenditure Categories
Expenditure Categories
No. of Districts
2000-01
Maintained existing programs 14
Enhanced (improved) existing programs 5
Used other district programs 2
Created new programs 1
Expanded existing programs 0
Data for previous years are not available because the 2000-2001 survey asked for Alternative
Placement programs for only adjudicated youth.
Alternative Placement Program Goals
An additional item added to the 1999-2000 survey requested districts to identify the primary goals of the
Alternative Placement Programs within districts. Most districts indicated multiple goals for their
Alternative Placement Programs.
Table 10
provides the primary goals of alternative placement programs
identified by districts and the number of school districts which reported these goals for the 2000-2001
school year.
Table 10 - Primary Goals - Alternative School Programs for Adjudicated Youth
Primary Goals
No. of
Districts
Removal of violent offenders from campus 15
Provide an alternative placement in lieu of expulsion 15
Provide a problem assessment referral to outside agency for substance abuse, mental health
services, etc.
9
Other*
7
Provide a “cooling-off”period 6
*Other Primary Goals
?
Aftercare and supervision by Juvenile
Probation Officers (JPOs)
?
Provide an instructional program leading to high school
graduation
?
Education of incarcerated students/youth
?
Remedial academic skills and truancy intervention
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
17
The most prevalent district goals of the alternative placement programs were removing violent offenders
(15 districts) and providing alternative placements in lieu of expulsion (15 districts). The third most
frequent goal reported was providing a problem assessment referral to outside agencies for substance
abuse, mental health (9 districts), etc. The goals in the “Other” category included providing aftercare and
supervision by Juvenile Probation Officers (JPOs), education of incarcerated students/youth, remedial
academic skills and truancy intervention services, and providing an instructional program leading to high
school graduation.
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
18
SCHOOL SAFETY AND SECURITY PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
Due to the increased national attention on school safety incidents, school safety and security has become a primary
concern for schools, districts, and state administrators. The most frequent use of Safe Schools Appropriation funds
is to support school safety and security program activities. The following tables and graphs provide detailed
information on how the Safe Schools Appropriation funds were expended on safety and security activities for the
year 2000-2001. Additionally, the 2000-2001 survey expanded the focus on school safety and security to
incorporate several data elements that are requested frequently. These elements include detailed information on
School Resource Officers (SROs); districts’ use of surveillance cameras and metal detectors; and how districts
measure the effectiveness of these activities.
In 2000-2001, approximately 62% of the Safe Schools Appropriation funds was spent on school safety and security
program activities, and 82% for safety activities when Other Improvements to Make a School Safe are added.
Sixty-nine (69) of 71 districts [including four Developmental Research (lab) Schools] reported using a portion of
the Safe Schools funds to provide safety and security in approximately 2,000 schools that benefit over two million
students. Of the 69 districts, twenty-nine (41%) used 100% of their allocation on school safety and security
program activities.
Table 11
provides a district summary of the number of schools and the percentage, the amount
of Safe Schools Appropriation funds expended during the 2000-2001 school year and percent of funds for other
school safety improvements.
Table 11 - Analysis of School Safety and Security Program Activities
Total No. of
Schools Receiving
Resources
Percent of Safe
Schools Funds for
Safety and Security
Amount of Funding
for School Safety
and Security
Percent of Safe
Schools Funds for
Other Safety
Improvements
Amount of Safe
Schools Funding
for Other Safety
Improvements
Alachua
10 36% $439,937 64% $797,457
Baker
2 39% $40,000 0% 0
Bay
36 81% $564,654 2% $11,872
Bradford
4 87% $101,256 15% $15,000
Brevard
88 57% $1,065,284 0% 0
Broward
222 68% $4,917,296 13% $270,775
Calhoun
5 100% $65,811 0% 0
Charlotte
9 100% $383,226 0% 0
Citrus
9 100% $335,561 0% 0
Clay
29 79% $431,020 0% 0
Collier
20 44% $389,519 1% $12,000
Columbia
13 100% $285,418 0% 0
DeSoto
6 95% $142,671 0% 0
Dixie
2 100% $79,841 0% 0
Duval
51 79% $3,211,752 0% 0
Escambia
25 76% $950,798 24% $293,115
Flagler
6 100% $162,770 0% 0
Franklin
5 53% $32,157 47% $28,941
Gadsden
8 61% $110,000 28% $50,000
Gilchrist
4 100% $70,107 0% 0
Glades
1 68% $39,950 0% 0
Gulf
5 100% $71,566 0% 0
Hamilton
1 100% $77,705 0% 0
Hardee
7 56% $73,647 23% $29,825
Hendry**
0
0% 0 0% 0
Hernando
4 39% $161,725 61% $250,120
Highlands
15 100% $356,410 0% 0
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
19
Total No. of
Schools Receiving
Resources
Percent of Safe
Schools Funds for
Safety and Security
Amount of Funding
for School Safety
and Security
Percent of Safe
Schools Funds for
Other Safety
Improvements
Amount of Safe
Schools Funding
for Other Safety
Improvements
Hillsborough
187 63% $3,342,205 5% $266,576
Holmes
9 19% $15,000 63% $50,558
Indian River
5 100% $442,479 0% 0
Jackson
18 100% $222,071 0% 0
Jefferson
3 66% $45,986 0% 0
Lafayette
2 100% $41,833 0% 0
Lake
47 94% $731,500 3% $26,825
Lee
71 47% $748,079 4% $74,241
Leon
44 94% $1,143,482 0% 0
Levy
13 50% $89,736 50% $88,496
Liberty
4 76% $31,444 21% $8,263
Madison
NR 100% $111,567 0% 0
Manatee
46 66% $702,785 0% 0
Marion
46 40% $390,072 60% $587,063
Martin
18 100% $423,378 0% 0
Miami-Dade
344 42% $5,900,000 54% $7,437,044
Monroe
5 60% $169,198 10% $30,160
Nassau
6 100% $234,096 0% $40
Okaloosa
16 66% $425,571 44% $219,233
Okeechobee
5 100% $117,786 0% 0
Orange
150 42% $2,063,111 41% $2,033,303
Osceola
30 69% $618,337 0% 0
Palm Beach
149 34% $1,943,571 37% $2,132,020
Pasco
53 60% $749,310 36% $443,423
Pinellas
141 100% $3,868,989 0% 0
Polk
115 70% $1,785,268 24% $612,091
Putnam
3 11% $40,379 27% $97,188
St. Johns
8 100% $448,499 0% 0
St. Lucie
35 100% $801,834 0% 0
Santa Rosa
31 100% $440,749 0% 0
Sarasota
31 100% $1,065,284 0% 0
Seminole
54 100% $1,373,744 0% 0
Sumter
1 44% $54,494 33% $39,546
Suwannee
3 74% $119,008 0% 0
Taylor
2 7% $7,413 17% $18,000
Union
4 100% $59,859 0% 0
Volusia
17 77% $1,446,155 0% 0
Wakulla
8 100% $110,139 0% 0
Walton
14 100% $140,153 0% 0
Washington
0 0% 0 100% $67,484
FAMU LAB
1 100% $34,826 0% 0
FAU LAB
1 92% $31,720 0% 0
FSU LAB
1 100% $41,345 3% $1000
UF LAB
NR 100% $40,120 0% 0
Total 2,221 62% $47,172,656.00 20% $15,991,619
*N/R (No Response)—District did not provide data.
**Allocation used for “Other Improvements to Make a School Safe” or “Alternative Schools for Non-Adjudicated Youth”
Please note district funding amounts may include funds carried forward from previous year.
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
20
School Safety and Security Program Specifics
In 2000-2001, sixty-nine of 71 school districts (including four lab schools) reported spending a total of $47.2
million for Safety and Security Programs. Of the 69 districts using funds for School Safety and Security program
activities, sixty-two percent of their total allocation was spent for these activities.
Hendry and Washington districts were the exceptions. They used their allocations for other improvements to make
a school safe (Hendry) and alternative placement for non-adjudicated youth (Washington).
A new question in the 2000-2001 survey asked
school districts to identify the method(s) used to measure the
effectiveness of each school safety and security activity supported by Safe Schools Appropriation Funds.
Table 12
summarizes the types of safety and security activities implemented and the data sources reported. The number of
districts that identified activity types are indicated in parentheses.
Table 12- Measuring the Effectiveness of School Safety and Security Program Activities
Safety and Security
Activity Supported by
Safe Schools Funds
Types of Activity and
(No. of districts)
Objective Data Source* Subjective Data Source**
A. Emergency
Preparedness
Planning and
Implementation
?
Crisis Intervention Plan
Implementation (16)
?
Mock Disaster Drills
(5)
?
Critical Response
Training (3)
?
FASRO Conference
Expenses (2)
?
Performance Data from
Crisis Management and
other Disaster Drills
?
“Table Top” scenarios
?
Crisis Incident Reports
?
Safety and Security Self-
Assessment
?
Interviews and Debriefing
with Involved Parties
?
Focus Group Data
?
Climate Survey Results
B. Establishing a
Safe, Nurturing,
Learning
Environment
?
Teacher/Staff/Resource
Personnel Training (24)
?
Assessing School
Climate (21)
?
Developing Uniform
Discipline Procedures
(19)
?
Guidance Services (2)
?
In-school Suspension
Programs (2)
?
Evaluation Activities
(2)
?
Pre-test/Posttests
?
SESIR and Discipline
Data
?
Audit Response Matrix
?
Safety Report
?
Site Assessments
?
Classroom Observations
?
Safety Hotline Reports
?
Proven Program use
?
Interview Data with
Stakeholders
?
Climate Surveys
?
Participant Satisfaction Data
?
Focus Groups
?
School Advisory Council
(SAC) Meetings
?
School Leadership Team
?
SDFS Program Evaluation
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
21
Safety and Security
Activity Supported by
Safe Schools Funds
Types of Activity and
(No. of districts)
Objective Data Source* Subjective Data Source**
C. School Safety
Equipment,
Resources, and
Personnel
?
School Resource
Officers or other
campus Law
Enforcement (57)
?
Surveillance Cameras
(23)
?
Radio/communication
Equipment (22)
?
Security Personnel (not
SRO’s) (24)
?
School Facility/Safety
Improvements (16)
?
School Safety
Hotline(16)
?
Safe School
Coordinators (11)
?
Trained dogs for
Drugs/guns (11)
?
Metal Detectors (9)
?
Staff support for in-
School Suspension (2)
?
Crossing Guards (2)
?
Behavior Resource
Teacher (2)
?
Annual SRO
PerformanceAassessment
?
Performance Checklist of
Desired Actions
?
Discipline Data: No. of
Suspensions and
Expulsions
?
School Advisory Council
(SAC) Survey
?
SESIR Data
?
Bus Video Usage Data
?
Discipline Referral Data
?
Safety Reports
?
Telephone logs by SROs
?
No. of Incidents at School
Crossings
?
Climate Surveys
?
School Safety and Security
Self-Assessment Data
?
Interviews w/ Parents and
Transportation Staff/key
Informants
?
Focus Groups
?
Interviews with School
District Leadership
D. Student Programs
?
Violence Prevention
Instruction/activities
(20)
?
Conflict Resolution
Instruction (18)
?
Peer Mediation (14)
?
Student Assistance
Program (13)
?
Student to Student
Violence Prevention
Programs (11)
?
Teen Court (6)
?
Big Brother, Big Sister
(1)
?
Mock DUI’s (1)
?
Discipline Data
?
SESIR Data
?
No. of Referrals
?
Counselor’s Log
?
Focus Groups
?
School Climate Survey
E. School
Improvement
Planning for Safety
?
Assistance for the
Development of School
Improvement Plans for
Goal 5 School Safety
(12)
?
SESIR
?
Critical Incident Data
?
Discipline Data
?
No. of schools utilizing
Positive Behavior Support
Systems/Single School
Culture and Data After
Implementation
?
School Climate Survey
?
Self-Assessments
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
22
Safety and Security
Activity Supported by
Safe Schools Funds
Types of Activity and
(No. of districts)
Objective Data Source* Subjective Data Source**
F. Data System
Improvements
?
SESIR Incident
Reporting System/Data
Collection (16)
?
Truancy and
Attendance Data
System (1)
?
Internet “Firewall” (1)
?
SESIR and Discipline
Reports
?
Student Referral Records
?
Data Accuracy Rates
*
Objective: independently verifiable data; i.e., number of weapons-related incidents from SESIR data
**Subjective: opinion data; i.e., responses on School Climate Survey
Types of School Safety and Security Program Activities
With the majority of the Safe Schools Appropriation funds expended for school safety and security program
activities, the types of activities supported vary among districts.
Table 13
identifies 22 activity categories that
districts supported using Safe Schools funds and the percent change in numbers of districts participating in those
activities from 1999-2000. The activities are ordered by frequency of participation/use in 2000-2001.
Table 13 Prevalence of School Safety and Security Activities
School Safety and Security Activities
No. of
Districts in
1998-99
No. of
Districts in
1999-00
No. of
Districts in
2000-01
%Change
From 99-00
1. School Resource Officers 50 57
57 0
2. Teacher/Staff Training 26 31
25 -19%
3. Surveillance Cameras 15 14
24 +64%
4. Development/Implementation of Crisis
Management Plans
N/A 23
23 0
5. Security Personnel (Not SRO) 25 31
23 -23%
6. Other Security Equipment 11 16
21 +29%
7. Assessing School Climate N/A N/A
21 N/A
8. Violence Prevention Curriculum 30 17
19 +12%
9. Discipline Strategies and Implementation N/A 15
19 +27%
10. Other* N/A 14
18 +29%
11. Conflict Resolution N/A N/A
18 N/A
12. Renovation of Building for Improved Safety 9 10
16 +60%
13. School Safety Hot Line N/A 9
16 +78%
14. Discipline Incident Reporting Data Collection 14 7
15 +114%
15. Peer Mediation 19 12
14 +17%
16. Student Assistance Programs 16 6
14 +133%
17. Development of School Improvement Plans N/A 28
12 -57%
18. Student Crime Watch 14 11
12 +9%
19. School-based Safe School Coordinators N/A N/A
11 N/A
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
23
School Safety and Security Activities
No. of Districts
in 1998-99
No. of
Districts in
1999-00
No. of
Districts in
2000-01
%Change
From 99-00
20. Trained Dogs to Search for Drugs/Guns N/A N/A
10 N/A
21. Metal Detectors 8 7
9 +29%
22. Teen Court 6 3
6 +100%
N/A—Item was not asked on the 1998-1999 or the 1999-2000 Safe Schools Appropriation Survey.
*Other safety/security activities reported by two or fewer districts in 2000-2001:
?
In-School Suspension at Elementary level
?
Drug Prevention Program
?
External Evaluation Services
?
FASRO Conference Expenses
?
Personnel for In-School Suspension
?
Data System Improvement
?
Crossing Guards; Support Staff
?
Guidance Services
?
Facilities for Security Personnel
The use of school resource officers was the most frequent expenditure reported by 57 of the districts, (80% of total
districts) of the School Safety and Security Program Activities. The following areas of expenditure were reported
by 30% or more of the districts: teacher and staff training (36%), surveillance cameras (34%),
development/implementation of crisis management plans (33%), other security personnel (33%), other security
equipment (30%), and assessing school climate (30%)
The largest percent increase in activities from 1999-2000 was in Student Assistance Programs (133%) and
Discipline Incident Reporting Data Collection (114%).
School Resource Officers (SROs), School Campus Police, or other School Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs)
An area of increasing public interest is the presence of school resource officers (SROs) and other school law
enforcement officers (LEOs) in schools across the state of Florida.
Table 14
reports the number of school resource
officers and law enforcement officers (SROs/LEOs) at each school level within districts. “Multi-level” refers to
SROs/LEOs who are used at various school levels and who visit several schools throughout the week, since there is
not enough funding to place one SRO/LEO permanently at each school within a district.
Table 14
also indicates the percent of the costs of SROs/LEOs paid by Safe Schools Appropriation funds and/or by
other funding sources, both public and private. Statewide, fifty-two percent of SROs/LEOs were paid from SSA
funds and 48% of funding for SRO’s came from other sources for 2000-2001.
Table 14- Presence of SROs/LEOs in Districts
District #of SROs
/LEOs in
High
School
#of SROs
/LEOs in
Middle
Schools
#of SROs
/LEOs in
Elementary
Schools
#of SROs
/LEOs in
Multi-Level
Schools
#of SROs
/LEOs in
Alternative
Schools
Total # of
SROs/
LEOs in
District
% SROs
Paid by Safe
Schools
Funds
% Paid by
Other
Funding
Alachua
10
8
2
1
4 25 44% 56%
Baker
1
1
1
0
0
3 50% 50%
Bay
8
6
0
2
3 19 95% 5%
Bradford
1
0
0
0
1
2 50% 50%
Brevard
12 13
0
0
5 30 50% 50%
Broward
24 35 63 0 3 125 0% 100%
Calhoun
0
0
0
1
0
1 43% 57%
Charlotte
3
4
0
0
2
9
100% 0%
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
24
District #of SROs
/LEOs in
High
School
#of SROs
/LEOs in
Middle
Schools
#of SROs
/LEOs in
Elementary
Schools
#of SROs
/LEOs in
Multi-Level
Schools
#of SROs
/LEOs in
Alternative
Schools
Total # of
SROs/
LEOs in
District
% SROs
Paid by Safe
Schools
Funds
% Paid by
Other
Funding
Citrus
3
4
1
0
1
9
100% 0%
Clay
5
4
4
1
1 15 50% 50%
Collier
10 8 14 1 2 35 0% 100%
Columbia
2
2
0
4
0
8 40% 60%
DeSoto
1
1
0
1
0
3
100% 0%
Dixie
1
0
0
0
0
1 0%
100%
Duval
17 23
7
1
3 51 66% 34%
Escambia
8 12
0
0
1 21 50% 50%
Flagler
2
1
1
1
0
5 80% 20%
Franklin
3
3
2
0
0
8 50% 50%
Gadsden
4
1
4
0
0
9 0%
100%
Gilchrist
0
0
0
2
0
2 0%
100%
Glades
0
0
0
1
0
1 35% 65%
Gulf
2
0
0
0
0
2 80%
20%
Hamilton
1
0
0
0
0
1
100% 0%
Hardee
0
0
0
2
0
2 85% 15%
Hendry
2
2
0
0
0
4
0% 100%
Hernando
3
4
0
0
0
7 57% 43%
Highlands
0
0
0
6
0
6 50% 50%
Hillsborough
20 36
0
7
0 63 63% 37%
Holmes
0
0
0
1
1
2 33% 67%
Indian River
2
3
1
1
1
8 50% 50%
Jackson
0
0
0
8
0
8 32% 68%
Jefferson
1
1
1
0
1
4 90% 10%
Lafayette
0
0
0
1
0
1 60% 40%
Lake
11
8
0
2
0 21 50%
50%
Lee
13 17 15 0 2 47 33% 67%
Leon
5
8
1
0
2 16 50% 50%
Levy
0
0
0
4
1
5 30% 70%
Liberty
0
0
0
1
0
1
100% 0%
Madison
2
0
0
2
1
5 80% 20%
Manatee
5
8
6
1
2 22 55% 45%
Marion
7
9
0
0
0 16 72% 28%
Martin
2
4
2
0
1
9
100% 0%
Miami-Dade
0 0 0 145 0 145 42% 58%
Monroe
3
1
0
0
0
4 11% 89%
Nassau
2
3
0
1
0
6
100% 0%
Okaloosa
4
8
0
2
2 16 50% 50%
Okeechobee
3
2
0
0
1
6 50% 50%
Orange
23 11 35 1 0 70 50% 50%
Osceola
6 6 14 3 0 29 50% 50%
Palm Beach
38 32 11 0 10 91 18% 82%
Pasco
9 11
5
1
2 28 50% 50%
Pinellas
25 25
0
3
3 56 70% 30%
Polk
0
0
0
0
0
0 75% 25%
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
25
District #of SROs
/LEOs in
High
School
#of SROs
/LEOs in
Middle
Schools
#of SROs
/LEOs in
Elementary
Schools
#of SROs
/LEOs in
Multi-Level
Schools
#of SROs
/LEOs in
Alternative
Schools
Total # of
SROs/
LEOs in
District
% SROs
Paid by Safe
Schools
Funds
% Paid by
Other
Funding
Putnam
3
3
0
0
5 11 33% 50%
St. Johns
4
5
5
1
1 16 54% 46%
St. Lucie
9 8 11 3 1 32 50% 50%
Santa Rosa
6
4
0
1
0 11 50% 50%
Sarasota
5 6 15 3 0 29 100% 0%
Seminole
7 11
5
0
2 25 50% 50%
Sumter
2
2
1
0
0
5 50% 50%
Suwannee
4
1
1
0
1
7 10% 90%
Taylor
1
1
1
0
1
4 25% 75%
Union
0
0
0
1
0
1 0%
100%
Volusia
11 10
0
0
2 23 74% 26%
Wakulla
1
2
1
0
1
5 75% 25%
Walton
3
2
0
1
1
7 50% 50%
Washington
2
2
0
0
0
4 0%
100%
FAMU DRS
0
0
0
1
0
0 95% 5%
FAU DRS
0
0
0
1
0
1 0%
100%
FSU DRS
0
0
0
1
0
1
91% 9%
PK Yonge
DRS
0
0
0
1
0
1 0%
100%
Totals
362 382 230 222 71 1,266 52% 48%
*N/R (No Response)—District did not provide the data
Throughout the State, most districts collaborate with law enforcement agencies to provide SROs/LEOs and other
security personnel in schools.
Table 15
provides a cumulative analysis that indicates the percentage of SROs/LEOs
costs that are paid for by the districts using Safe Schools Appropriation funds. Forty-seven districts used Safe
Schools Appropriation funds to pay for 50% or more of the SROs/LEOs costs in their schools. Districts reporting
that Safe Schools funds covered less than 100% of the cost, utilized other funding sources. An average of 52% of
SROs/LEOs was paid from Safe Schools funds, with 48% of the costs for SROs/LEOs paid by other funding.
Table 15 - Number of Districts Utilizing Safe Schools Funds for SROs/LEOs
Safe Schools Funds # of
Districts
1999-00
# of
Districts
2000-01
Pay 75-100% of SROs/LEOs costs 19 18
Pay 50-74% of SROs/LEOs costs 25 29
Pay 25-49% of SROs/LEOs costs 8 11
Pay 0-24% of SROs/LEOs costs 9 13
No Response from District 10 0
TOTAL 71 71
Due to the change in the survey, comparison data from 1998-1999 are not available.
Due to the frequent collaboration between districts and law enforcement agencies, the costs of SROs are often
shared between the two entities to offset the financial burden for the districts.
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
26
Table 16
provides the most common funding sources (other than Safe Schools funds) for SROs and the number of
districts that use those sources. The most common source of cost sharing for SROs is law enforcement agencies
while others (11 districts) utilized general school district funds to cover the remaining costs.
Table 16 - Other Funding Sources for SROs
Funding Source # of Districts
1999-2000
# of Districts
2000-2001
County Sheriff’s Office 25 27
City Police Departments 8 14
General School District Funds 14 11
State and Federal Grants 5 4
Not Specified NA 20
Note: some districts may use multiple funding sources
Security Equipment
As school safety and security becomes an ever-increasing priority within school districts, upgrading and using
effective security technology is evidenced. Metal detectors and surveillance cameras are the most common types of
security equipment used by districts to monitor and enforce safety and security on school campuses.
Table 15
provides information on the number of metal detectors present in the various school levels within districts. In
schools across the State, 984 metal detectors were used to detect weapons brought to schools in 2000-2001. Of the
metal detectors, 99% are hand-held, which allows SROs/LEOs and other security personnel to be very mobile
during security checks. Total detectors increased in 2000-2001 by 32% since 1999-2000.
Table 17 - Number and Type of Metal Detectors by School Level
School Level
Hand-Held
Walk-Through
Total Detectors
1990-00
2000-01
1990-00
2000-01
1990-00
2000-01
High School
275
410
4
6
279
416
Middle School
319
351
0
4
319
355
Elementary School
43
122
0
1
43
123
Other
100
87
4
3
104
90
TOTALS
737
970
8
14
745
984
Due to the change in the survey, comparison data from 1998-1999 are not available.
Table 17
provides detailed information on the number of surveillance cameras present at the different school
levels and in school buses within districts. The number of cameras increased by 27% from 1999-2000 school
year. Over 11,000 cameras were present in school districts statewide in 2000-2001, with the greatest number of
cameras (34%) on school buses, which assists in monitoring the safety and security of students to and from
school. The second largest number of cameras is reported at the high school level (32%).
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
27
Table 18 - Number of Surveillance Cameras by School Level
School Level No. of Cameras
1999-2000
No. of Cameras
2000-2001
High School 1,992
3,448
Middle School 1,401 1,948
Elementary School 1,084 1,411
School Buses 2,643 3,843
Other 340 729
TOTAL 7,460 11,379
Due to the change in the survey, comparison data from 1998-1999 are not available.
The figures reflected in the two previous tables (17 and 18) do not necessarily reflect equipment that was
purchased using Safe Schools Appropriation funds. As indicated in Appendix D, districts vary considerably in
how they choose to expend the funds. The data in this report do not distinguish what equipment was purchased
with specific funds. Instead, the data provide a general descriptive report on the presence of security equipment
utilized within districts since the Department of Education is asked frequently to provide this information.
Critical Issues for School Safety
Districts were asked to rank the three most critical school safety issues affecting their schools.
Table 19
provides
a summary of the top safety issues for each priority. In 1999-2000 several of the same critical safety issues were
in the top three ratings for multiple priorities. “Disrespect Towards Teachers” and “Controlling Access to
Campus,” were critical issues identified by districts for all three priorities. Other critical safety issues that were
chosen frequently and were present in at least two priorities were “Controlling Aggressive Behavior,” and the
“Lack of SROs and Security Personnel on Campus.”
Table 19 - Types of School Safety and Security Program Activities
Critical Safety Issues
Priority #1
1999-2000
No. of
Districts
2000-2001
No. of
Districts
Controlling Aggressive Student Behavior
17
19
Controlling Access to Campus
15
11
Disrespect Towards Teachers and Staff
14
11
Lack of SROs & Security Personnel on Campus
-
10
Priority #2
Disrespect Towards Teachers and Staff
17
16
Controlling Aggressive Behavior
18
15
Controlling Access to Campus
-
9
Lack of Security Equipment
-
8
Priority #3
Controlling Access to Campus
14
12
Disrespect Towards Teachers and Staff
11
12
Lack of Security Equipment
-
10
Lack of SROs & Security Personnel on Campus
-
10
Controlling Aggressive Behavior
-
9
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
28
Figure 4
provides a visual analysis of the selection of issues identified by districts. The numbers in the figure
represent the percent of districts that ranked the issue as one of their three priorities. Disciplinary issues of
“Controlling Aggressive Behavior” and “Disrespect Towards Teachers and Staff” represent 63% of the safety
concerns identified.
Figure 4 - Top Four Critical Safety Issues
30%
25%
12%
33%
Controlling Aggressive
Behavior
Disrespect Towards
Teachers & Staff
Controlling Access to
Campuses
Lack of SROs & Security
Personnel on Campus
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
29
SUMMARY
The 1999-2000 Safe Schools Appropriation proviso language remained the same in 2000-2001 as that in 1999-
2000, with the exception that the appropriation amount increased from $70,350,000 in 1999-2000 to
$75,350,000, an increase of seven percent (7%).
Most districts expended the majority of their Safe Schools Appropriation funds (62%) for safety and security
activities and other improvements to make the school safe, continuing a trend of the previous four years of
increased spending in this category. Within the safety and security activities category, districts spent the majority
of funds for school resource officer services. Forty-seven districts (66%) used Safe Schools Appropriation funds
to pay for 50% or more of the SROs/LEOs costs in their schools. Nine percent (9%) of Safe Schools funds was
expended for alternative programs for adjudicated youth, and nine percent (9%) was spent for after-school
programs.
Districts identified the three most critical school safety issues affecting their schools as:
?
Priority: #1 - “Controlling Aggressive Student Behavior”
?
Priority #2 - “Disrespect Towards Teachers and Staff”
?
Priority #3 - “Controlling Access to Campus”
Sixty-two percent (62%) of the safety concerns deal with student behavior issues.
As part of a new data collection question in the 2000-2001 survey, districts reported on methods used to
determine the effectiveness of their safety and security activities/strategies. Responses indicate use of both
objective data sources such as proven program use and SESIR data as well as subjective data sources such as a
school climate survey results and interview data.
While the current report provides information on each district’s use of Safe Schools Appropriation funds, it does
not provide insight into the reasons for annual changes in expenditure categories.
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
30
APPENDICES
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
31
APPENDIX A
Safe Schools Appropriation Proviso Language
Proviso in 2000-2001 General Appropriation Act
From the funds provided in Specific Appropriation 78, $75,350,000 is provided for Safe Schools activities and shall be
allocated as follows: $30,000 shall be distributed to each district, and the remaining balance shall be allocated as
follows: two-thirds based on the latest official Florida Crime Index provided by the Department of Law Enforcement and
one-third based on each district’s share of the state’s total weighted student enrollment. Safe Schools activities include
(1) after-school programs for middle school students, (2) other improvements to enhance the learning environment,
including implementation of conflict resolution strategies, (3) alternative school programs for adjudicated youth, and (4)
other improvements to make the school a safe place to learn. Each district shall determine, based on a review of its
existing programs and priorities, how much of its total allocation to use for each authorized Safe Schools activity.
Proviso in 1999-2000 General Appropriation Act
From the funds provided in Specific Appropriation 109, $70,350,000 is provided for Safe Schools activities and shall be
allocated as follows: $30,000 shall be distributed to each district, and the remaining balance shall be allocated as
follows: two-thirds based on the latest official Florida Crime Index provided by the Department of Law Enforcement and
one-third based on each district’s share of the state’s total weighted student enrollment. Safe Schools activities include
(1) after-school programs for middle school students, (2) other improvements to enhance the learning environment,
including implementation of conflict resolution strategies, (3) alternative school programs for adjudicated youth, and (4)
other improvements to make the school a safe place to learn. Each district shall determine, based on a review of its
existing programs and priorities, how much of its total allocation to use for each authorized Safe Schools activity.
Proviso in 1998-1999 General Appropriation Act
From the funds provided in Specific Appropriation 117, $50,350,000 is provided for the Safe Schools activities and shall
be allocated as follows: two-thirds shall be based on the latest official Florida Crime Index provided by the Department
of Law Enforcement and one-third shall be based on each district’s share of the state’s total weighted student enrollment.
Safe Schools activities include (1) after-school programs for middle school students, (2) other improvements to enhance
the learning environment, including implementation of conflict resolution strategies, and (3) alternative school programs
for adjudicated youth. Each district shall determine, based on a review of its existing programs and priorities, how much
of its total allocation to use for each authorized Safe Schools activity.
Proviso in 1997-1998 General Appropriation Act
From the funds provided in Specific Appropriation 105, $50,350,000 is provided for Safe Schools activities and shall be
allocated as follows: two-thirds based on the latest official Florida Crime Index provided by the Department of Law
Enforcement and one-third shall be based on each district’s share of the state’s total weighted student enrollment. Safe
Schools activities include (1) after-school programs for middle school students, (2) other improvements to enhance the
learning environment, including implementation of conflict resolution strategies, and (3) alternative school programs for
adjudicated youth. Each district shall determine, based on a review of its existing programs and priorities, how much of
its total allocation to use for each authorized Safe Schools activity. Districts may use funds provided in Specific
Appropriation 105 for authorized Safe Schools activities and to support any other instructional activity designated by the
district school board.
NOTE: Underlined language is new from 1999-2000 to 2000-2001.
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
32
Proviso in 1996-1997 General Appropriation Act
From the funds provided in Specific Appropriation 140, $50,350,000 is provided for Safe Schools activities and shall be
allocated as follows: two-thirds based on the latest official Florida Crime Index provided by the Department of Law
Enforcement, and one-third shall be based on each district’s share of the state’s total weighted student enrollment. Safe
Schools activities include (1) after-school programs for middle school students, (2) other improvements to enhance the
learning environment, including implementation of conflict resolution strategies, and (3) alternative school programs for
adjudicated youth. Each district shall determine, based on a review of its existing programs and priorities, how much of
its total allocation to use for each authorized Safe Schools activity. Districts may use funds provided in Specific
Appropriation 140 for authorized Safe Schools activities and to support any other instructional activity designated by the
district school board.
Proviso in 1995-1996 General Appropriation Act
From the funds provided in Specific Appropriation 150, $70,350,000 is provided for Safe Schools activities and shall be
allocated as follows: 80% based on the latest official Florida Crime Index provided by the Department of Law
Enforcement, and 20% shall be based on each district’s share of the state’s total weighted student enrollment. The entire
amount of a district’s allocation of Safe Schools funds must be used for authorized Safe Schools activities. Those
activities are (1) after-school programs for middle school students, (2) other improvements to enhance the learning
environment, and (3) alternative school programs for adjudicated youth. However, each district shall determine, based on
a review of its existing programs and priorities, how much of its total allocation to use for each authorized Safe School
activity. Each district may choose to use none, some, or all of its total allocation for a particular authorized activity.
Proviso in 1994-1995 General Appropriation Act
From the funds provided in Specific Appropriation 528, $37,000,000 is provided for an after-school program designed for
at-risk students in middle schools. Districts are encouraged to build on existing after-school programs within their
communities. Districts are further encouraged to form partnerships with community groups in an effort to maximize
resources. $12,000,000 is provided for an Alternative School Program for adjudicated students, and $11,350,000 for a
security program that will provide for school resource officers, equipment, and other improvements to enhance the
environment for learning. The school districts shall not use these funds to supplant programs that are currently
operational in the school districts. The school districts shall develop plans for the implementation of the specified
programs and each affected school shall report on the progress of the programs in their Annual School Report. However,
in the case of school districts with FTE enrollment of 25,000 or less, the funds from Alternative School Program and the
Security Program in Specific Appropriation 528 may be combined to allow the development of a coordinated plan for the
district.
Safe Schools Appropriation Report 2000-2001 School Year
33
APPENDIX B
STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATION
SURVEY OF ACTIVITIES
2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
Survey Instrument
Return the completed survey by April 26, 2002,
to:
Office of Safe Schools
Florida Department of Education
325 West Gaines Street, Room 301
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
(850) 410-1667 SunCom 210-1667
FAX: (850) 410-1796
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
DIVISION OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION
BUREAU OF EQUITY, SAFETY, AND SCHOOL SUPPORT
STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATION
SURVEY OF ACTIVITIES
2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
A. DISTRICT INFORMATION:
Please respond to each of the following survey items.
District Name: ___________________________________
Contact Person: ___________________________________ SunCom: _____________________________
Address: ___________________________________ Telephone: _____________________________
___________________________________ Fax: _____________________________
___________________________________ E-mail: _____________________________
B. FISCAL SUMMARY:
Please indicate the amount of Safe Schools Funding and the percent of the total Safe Schools
Allocation spent on each of the following activities.
ACTIVITY
AMOUNT OF SAFE
SCHOOLS FUNDING
2000-2001
PERCENT PROVIDED
TO CHARTER
SCHOOLS
TOTAL
PERCENT
SPENT
After-School Activities for Middle Schools $
Alternative School Programs for Adjudicated Youth $
School Safety and Security Activities $
Other Improvements to Make a School Safe $
Total Safe Schools Funding
$
100%
C. GENERAL INQUIRIES:
Rank the
three
most critical school safety concerns your district faces. (
Put a “1”, “2”,
and “3”, with “1” being the highest).
_____
Controlling Access to Campus
_____
Lack of Alternative Schools for Adjudicated Youth
_____
Controlling Aggressive Student Behavior
_____
Lack of Before-School and After-School Programs
_____
Controlling Theft on Campuses
_____
Lack of Consistent, School-wide Discipline
_____
Controlling Vandalism on Campus
_____
Guns on Campuses
_____
Disrespect Towards Teachers and Staff
_____
Lack of SROs and Security Personnel on Campus
_____
Gang-Related Activities
_____
Racial Issues
_____
Lack of Security Equipment
(Cameras/Metal Detectors)
_____
Other (Please Specify): ______________________
_____
Overcrowding
ESE 766 Charlie Crist, Commissioner
Exp. 09/30/02 DOE Page 1 of 10
Florida Department of Education
STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATION SURVEY OF ACTIVITIES
2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
D.
AFTER SCHOOL ACTIVITY SUMMARY:
1. No Safe Schools funds were used for after-school activities.
(If you check this box, please go to Section E.)
Indicate
the number
of After-School programs supported by Safe Schools funds and total number of schools at
each level.
AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS 2000-2001
SCHOOLS
Number of Schools with
After- School Programs
Supported by Safe Schools
Number of Schools with
After- School Programs
Funded by Other Sources
Middle Schools with an After-School Program
Elementary Schools with an After-School Program
AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS 2000-2001
STUDENTS
Number of Students Served
by After-School Programs
Supported by Safe Schools
Number of Students Served
by After-School Programs
Funded by Other Sources
Middle School Students Served by an After-School
Program
Elementary School Students Served by an After-School
Program
2.
Indicate
the number
of After-School programs that provide the following:
PROGRAMS PROVIDING THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES
2000-2001
No. of Programs Providing
Each Service
Transportation
Open on Weekends and Holidays
Snacks or Meals
3.
Indicate the primary goal(s) of the after-school programs in your district in 2000-2001 (check all items that apply):
GOAL GOAL
_____ Provide Supervision ____ Provide Mentoring
_____ Provide Enrichment ____ Provide Counseling
_____ Provide Homework Assistance ____ Provide Recreational Activities
_____ Provide Academic Remediation/Instruction ____ Provide Violence Prevention
_____ Provide Social Skills Development
(such as social skills, conflict resolution, etc.)
____ Prevent Negative Influences
(such as drug, alcohol, and/or tobacco use)
4.
Identify the partners collaborating with your district for after-school activities in 2000-01 (check all that apply):
??
Associated Marine Institute
??
Department of Juvenile Justice
??
Substance Abuse Agencies
??
Boys and Girls Club
??
Local Law Enforcement
??
University/College
??
Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts
??
Mental Health Agencies
??
Urban League
??
Business Partners
??
Military Bases
??
YMCA/YWCA
??
Faith-based Groups
??
Practical and Cultural Education for Girls
??
Civic Organizations
??
City Government (Parks & Recreation)
??
Private Industry Council
??
Other (Specify Below):
??
Community College
??
PTA/PTO
??
County Government (Parks & Recreation)
??
School Volunteers
??
Department of Children and Families
??
State Attorney’s Office
ESE 766 DOE Page 2 of 10
STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATIO
N
SURVEY OF ACTIVITIES 2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL PROGRAMS FOR ADJUDICATED YOUTH ACTIVITY SUMMARY
1.
No Safe School funds were used for alternative school programs for Adjudicated Youth (only) activities.
(If you check this box, please go to Section F.)
2.
Please complete the following:
ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL PROGRAMS
FOR ADJUDICATED YOUTH
IN 2000-2001
NUMBER FUNDED
FROM SAFE
SCHOOLS
FUNDING
AMOUNT OF
FUNDING FROM
OTHER SOURCE(S)
a.
The number
of alternative school programs for Adjudicated
Youth in your district.
$
b.
The number
of students served by alternative programs for
Adjudicated Youth in your district.
c.
The number
of alternative school programs for Adjudicated
Youth that were housed on school campuses in your district.
d.
The number
of alternative school programs for Adjudicated
Youth that were housed off-site in your district.
3.
For each of the following items, check the
one item
that most closely reflects the use of Safe Schools
appropriations funds for alternative school programs for Adjudicated Youth in your district:
_____ Maintain existing programs
_____ Enhance (improve) existing programs
_____ Expand existing programs
_____ Create new programs
_____ Other district programs (Please Specify): ___________________________________________________
4.
Identify the primary goals of the alternative programs for Adjudicated Youth funded with Safe Schools funds for
2000-2001 (check all that apply):
_____ Removal of violent offenders from campus
_____ Provide an alternative placement in lieu of expulsion
_____ Provide an alternative to suspension
_____ Provide a “cooling-off” period
_____ Provide problem assessment/referral to outside agency for substance abuse, mental health, etc.
_____ Other (Please Specify): _________________________________________________________________
ESE 766 DOE Page 3 of 10
STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATION
SURVEY OF ACTIVITIES 2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
SCHOOL SAFETY AND SECURITY ACTIVITY SUMMARY
1.
No Safe School funds were used for school safety and security activities.
(Please go to Section G, #2.)
2.
Please complete the following:
SAFETY AND SECURITY SUMMARY Number of
Schools
Number of
Students
Number
of
charter schools
receiving safety and security resources supported
by Safe Schools funds and
number of students
in those charter schools.
Number
of schools that are
not charter schools
receiving safety and security
resources supported by Safe Schools funds and
number of students
in those
non-charter schools.
3. Due to increased attention to school safety and accountability for school safety expenditures, districts are asked to
reflect their methods of measuring effectiveness of Safe Schools funds. In the table below, 1) put a check beside
the types of safety or security activities supported by Safe Schools funds (check as many as apply) and 2) list the
method you use to measure the effectiveness of each safety and security activity/strategy. You may use objective
and/or subjective methods to measure effectiveness. If you are not yet collecting data, you may indicate this on the
form. See examples of possible data sources below this chart. Please use as much space as necessary.
2000- 2001
SAFETY AND
SECURITY
ACTIVITIES
SUPPORTED BY
SAFE SCHOOLS
FUNDS
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
E
D
METHOD OF MEASURING EFFECTIVENESS
OF ACTIVITY/PROGRAM/STRATEGY
?
Objective Data Source*
Subjective Data Source** Don’t
Yet
Measure
A.
Emergency
Preparedness
Emergency
Preparedness
Planning and
Implementation
Other (Please
specify)
Data Examples:
*
Objective (independently verifiable) Data
?
SESIR Data, i.e., reduction in weapons possession
?
Discipline Data, i.e., reduction in out-of-school
suspensions, expulsions
?
Performance Data, i.e., checklists of desired actions
performed; summary ratings from demonstrated
performance
**
Subjective (opinion) Data
?
Interview data from key informants/customers
?
Focus group data
?
School Climate Survey, i.e., student responses
?
School Climate Survey, i.e., teacher or parent
responses
?
Safety and Security Best Practices Self-Assessment
ESE 766 DOE Page 4 of 10
STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATION
SURVEY OF ACTIVITIES 2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
2000- 2001
SAFETY AND
SECURITY ACTIVITIES
SUPPORTED BY SAFE
SCHOOLS FUNDS
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
E
D
METHOD OF MEASURING EFFECTIVENESS
OF ACTIVITY/PROGRAM/STRATEGY
?
Objective Data Source*
Subjective Data Source** Don’t
Yet
Measure
B.
Establishing a
Safe, Nurturing,
Learning Environment
Assessing School
Climate
Implementing
Prioritized Climate
Needs/Improvements
Developing Uniform
Discipline Procedures
Teacher/Staff/Resource
Personnel Training
Other (please specify)
C. School Safety
Equipment,
Resources &
Personnel
Surveillance Cameras
Radio/communication
equipment
ESE 766 DOE Page 5 of 10
STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATION
SURVEY OF ACTIVITIES 2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
2000- 2001
SAFETY AND
SECURITY ACTIVITIES
SUPPORTED BY SAFE
SCHOOLS FUNDS
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
E
D
METHOD OF MEASURING EFFECTIVENESS
OF ACTIVITY/PROGRAM/STRATEGY
?
Objective Data Source*
Subjective
Data Source**
Don’t
Yet
Measure
C.
School Safety
Equipment,
Resources &
Personnel
(Continued)
Metal Detectors
School Safety Hotline
School Resource
Officers (SROs) or other
Campus Law
Enforcement
School-based Safe
School Coordinators
Security Personnel (Not
SROs)
School Facility/Safety
Improvements
Trained Dogs to Search
for Drugs/Guns
Other (Please specify)
ESE 766
DOE Page 6 of 10
STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATION SURVEY OF ACTIVITIES
2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
2000- 2001
SAFETY AND SECURITY
ACTIVITIES
SUPPORTED BY SAFE
SCHOOLS FUNDS
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
E
D
METHOD OF MEASURING EFFECTIVENESS
OF ACTIVITY/PROGRAM/STRATEGY
?
Objective Data Source*
Subjective
Data Source** Don’t
Yet
Measure
D. Student Programs
Conflict Resolution
Peer Mediation
Student Assistance
Program
Student–to-student
violence prevention
programs
Teen Court
Violence Prevention
Instruction/Activities
Other (please specify)
E. School Improvement
Planning for Safety
Assistance for the
Development of School
Improvement Plans for
Goal 5 School Safety and
Environment
F. Data System
Improvements
Incident Reporting
System/Data Collection
Other (please specify)
ESE 766 DOE Page 7 of 10
STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATION SURVEY OF ACTIVITIES
2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
G. SCHOOL SAFETY AND SECURITY ACTIVITIES ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
1. Please indicate the
percent
of Safe Schools funding that was spent in this category on each activity below. Please
indicate if you would be able to continue providing the activities you identified if you did not receive Safe Schools
funds.
ACTIVITY
PERCENT OF
SCHOOLS
FUNDED
CONTINUATION OF ACTIVITY
WITHOUT SAFE SCHOOLS FUNDS?
YES NO
Developing and/or Purchasing Curriculum
Training Teachers/Staff
Planning for School Improvements
Providing School Resource/School Safety
Officers
Purchasing/Maintaining Security Equipment
Funding District-Level Position(s) for Safe
Schools Activities
Other (Please Specify):
Total 100%
2. Please indicate the number of School Resource Officers (SROs), School Campus Police Officers, or other School
Law Enforcement Officers assigned to schools in your district in each category below. If one officer serves at
more than one level, then
only
count him or her in the multi-levels category.
HIGH
SCHOOLS
MIDDLE
SCHOOLS
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS
MULTI-LEVELS
ALTERNATIVE
SCHOOLS
No. of
Officers
No. of
Schools
No. of
Officers
No. of
Schools
No. of
Officers
No. of
Schools
No. of
Officers
No. of
Schools
No. of
Officers
No. of
Schools
3.
If Safe Schools funding is used to partially or fully pay for school resource officers’ salaries, please
indicate what percentage of the position(s) is funded from Safe Schools funds and identify the other
funding sources (for example, 1 SRO position—50% paid from Safe Schools Funds, 50% paid from
County Sheriff’s funds).
FUNDING SOURCE FOR SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS
PERCENT
Safe Schools Funds
Other Public Funding Source (Please Specify):
Other Funding Source (Please Specify):
4.
What percent of your school resource officers/law enforcement officers are provided by private vendors?
_____%
ESE 766 DOE Page 8 of 10
STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATION SURVEY OF ACTIVITIES
2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
5.
Please indicate the number of video surveillance cameras in use in your district. For school buses, please
count only the actual cameras on school buses and do not count the fake cameras (empty shells).
HIGH
SCHOOLS
MIDDLE
SCHOOLS
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS SCHOOL BUSES OTHER
No. of
Cameras
No. High
Schools
No. of
Cameras
No. Middle
Schools
No. of
Cameras
No. of
Elementary
Schools
No. of
Cameras
No. of
Buses
No. of
Cameras
6. Please indicate the number of metal detectors in use in your district. (% of schools with metal detectors)
TYPE OF
METAL DETECTOR
HIGH
SCHOOLS
MIDDLE
SCHOOLS
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS OTHER
Number of Hand-Held
Number of Walk-Through
H. OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO MAKE THE SCHOOL SAFE
1. Please indicate the
percent
of Safe Schools funding within this category that was spent on each activity below.
Please indicate if you would be able to continue providing the activities you identified if you did not receive Safe
Schools funds.
OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO MAKE
THE SCHOOL SAFE
PERCENT OF SAFE
SCHOOLS FUNDS
CONTINUATION OF
ACTIVITY WITHOUT
SAFE SCHOOLS FUNDS?
YES NO
After-School Programs at Elementary Schools
Other (Please Specify):
Other (Please Specify):
Other (Please Specify):
Other (Please Specify):
Other (Please Specify):
Other (Please Specify):
Other (Please Specify):
Total 100%
ESE 766 DOE Page 9 of 10
STATE SAFE SCHOOLS APPROPRIATION
SURVEY OF ACTIVITIES
2000-2001 SCHOOL YEAR
_____________________________________________ _________________________
Superintendent’s Signature Date
_____________________________________________ _________________________
Contact’s Signature Date
Thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey.
Please note that the information provided by this survey
is compiled into the statewide
Safe Schools Appropriation Report
.
Please return the completed survey by
April 26, 2002
to:
Office of Safe Schools
Florida Department of Education
325 West Gaines Street, Room 301
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
(850) 410-1667
?
Suncom 210-1667
?
FAX: (850) 410-1796
ESE 766 DOE Page 10 of 10
APPENDIX C
Longitudinal Analysis of Safe Schools Appropriations
Final Calculations
1996-1997 through 2000-2001
DISTRICT 1996-97 1997-98
%Change from
96-97 to 97-98
1998-99
%Change from
97-98 to 98-99
1999-2000
%Change from
98-99 to 99-00
2000-01*
% Change
from
1999-2000 to
2000-2001
Alachua $805,981 $814,647
1%
$789,873
(-3%)
$1,099,793
39%
1,237,394
12%
Baker $51,024 $60,290
18%
$57,266
(-5%)
$105,196
84%
103,683
(-1%)
Bay $468,655 $487,481
4%
$470,615
(-3%)
$662,940
41%
698,742
5%
Bradford $67,262 $72,427
8%
$80,650
11%
$139,670
73%
116,370
(-17)
Brevard $1,243,922 $1,286,835
3%
$1,260,113
(-2%)
$1,751,446
39%
1,860,166
6%
Broward $5,220,121 $5,323,386
2%
$5,158,008
(-3%)
$7,051,724
37%
7,109,294
(-<1%)
Calhoun $17,924 $25,005
40%
$24,437
(-2%)
$62,638
156%
65,766
5%
Charlotte $246,671 $243,702
(-1%)
$245,426
1%
$361,966
47%
383,059
6%
Citrus $200,143 $202,980
1%
$194,698
(-4%)
$294,820
51%
335,561
14%
Clay $328,255 $337,386
3%
$345,083
2%
$499,382
45%
545,311
9%
Collier $537,478 $588,994
10%
$576,414
(-2%)
$819,573
42%
883,879
8%
Columbia $168,708 $183,291
9%
$181,138
(-1%)
$274,516
52%
285,418
4%
DeSoto $91,383 $86,421
(-5%)
$85,477
(-1%)
$145,067
70%
149,030
3%
Dixie $34,588 $40,842
18%
$38,885
(-5%)
$81,102
109%
79,842
-2%
Duval $2,863,249 $2,871,894
<1%
$2,830,994
(-1%)
$3,831,957
35%
4,047,591
6%
Escambia $893,692 $887,195
(-1%)
$870,410
(-2%)
$1,191,589
37%
1,241,519
4%
Flagler $84,850 $88,165
4%
$95,838
9%
$161,227
68%
162,669
<1%
Franklin $19,930 $18,743
(-6%)
$26,815
43%
$66,049
146%
67,567
3%
Gadsden $116,891 $127,412
9%
$113,547
(-11%)
$178,778
57%
212,132
19%
Gilchrist $22,235 $29,259
32%
$30,046
3%
$70,694
135%
70,107
(-<1)
Glades $21,417 $23,815
11%
$19,665
(-17%)
$56,578
188%
58,927
4%
Gulf $25,880 $26,620
3%
$27,420
3%
$66,461
142%
71,547
8%
Hamilton $18,822 $29,709
58%
$35,621
20%
$77,815
118%
77,663
(-<1)
Hardee $79,028 $78,859
(-<1%)
$79,018
<1%
$135,439
71%
131,266
(-3%)
Hendry $88,072 $104,251
18%
$136,788
31%
$215,523
58%
210,425
(-2%)
Hernando $256,949 $273,049
6%
$259,985
(-5%)
$385,632
48%
411,846
7%
Highlands $218,595 $222,532
2%
$223,158
<1%
$327,871
47%
356,302
9%
Hillsborough $3,664,173 $3,764,195
3%
$3,525,409
(-6%)
$4,792,662
36%
5,301,781
11%
Holmes $34,863 $27,798
(-20%)
$36,703
32%
$79,365
116%
80,558
2%
Indian River $276,623 $273,917
(-1%)
$287,965
5%
$420,570
46%
442,479
5%
Jackson $104,044 $102,970
(-1%)
$90,163
(-12%)
$148,260
64%
157,120
6%
Jefferson $27,915 $39,845
43%
$32,483
(-18%)
$73,361
126%
73,585
<1%
Lafayette $7,251 $8,570
18%
$8,499
(-1%)
$41,283
386%
41,863
1%
Lake $407,233 $432,771
6%
$442,866
2%
$637,612
44%
722,587
13%
Lee $1,034,826 $1,022,534
(-1%)
$1,081,469
6%
$1,517,877
40%
1,610,437
6%
Leon $910,345 $820,745
(-10%)
$848,415
3%
$1,177,279
39%
1,223,621
4%
Levy $75,978 $95,114
25%
$102,952
8%
$170,788
66%
178,078
4%
Liberty $9,833 $11,709
19%
$10,546
(-10%)
$44,120
318%
47,865
8%
DISTRICT 1996-97 1997-98
%Change from
96-97 to 97-98
1998-99
%Change from
97-98 to 98-99
1999-2000
%Change from
98-99 to 99-00
2000-01*
% Change
from
1999-2000 to
2000-2001
Madison $38,181 $42,037
10%
$48,035
14%
$94,607
97%
111,263
18%
Manatee $785,167 $797,499
2%
$701,519
(-12%)
$989,163
41%
1,065,651
9%
Marion $698,978 $656,142
(-6%)
$654,775
(-<1%)
$923,294
41%
980,591
6%
Martin $298,551 $293,198
(-2%)
$275,555
(-6%)
$406,025
47%
430,636
6%
Miami-Dade $10,476,767 $9,582,651
(-9%)
$9,753,847
2%
$13,180,019
35%
13,937,044
6%
Monroe $287,992 $275,355
(-4%)
$277,918
1%
$405,406
46%
423,378
4%
Nassau $131,374 $134,173
2%
$137,101
2%
$213,035
55%
234,202
10%
Okaloosa $379,843 $368,944
(-3%)
$420,627
14%
$598,124
42%
644,578
8%
Okeechobee $94,534 $105,875
12%
$109,848
4%
$179,361
63%
117,949
(-34%)
Orange $2,961,959 $3,290,746
11%
$3,303,200
<1%
$4,536,665
37%
4,955,654
9%
Osceola $503,096 $516,393
3%
$549,936
6%
$787,225
43%
891,268
13%
Palm Beach $3,630,760 $3,513,182
(-3%)
$3,674,936
5%
$5,024,574
37%
5,707,657
14%
Pasco $709,959 $789,379
11%
$778,530
(-1%)
$1,079,327
39%
1,240,940
15%
Pinellas $2,617,305 $2,653,160
1%
$2,549,585
(-4%)
$3,458,350
36%
3,869,934
12%
Polk $1,555,203 $1,601,594
3%
$1,757,599
10%
$2,441,235
39%
2,550,383
4%
Putnam $274,153 $246,562
(-10%)
$237,409
(-4%)
$343,531
45%
353,720
3%
St. Johns $247,219 $264,604
7%
$268,421
1%
$400,722
49%
448,499
12%
St. Lucie $509,846 $544,944
7%
$556,222
2%
$785,649
41%
801,834
2%
Santa Rosa $272,261 $261,296
(-4%)
$293,267
12%
$426,615
45%
440,749
3%
Sarasota $794,202 $772,901
(-3%)
$747,542
(-3%)
$1,043,871
40%
1,064,851
2%
Seminole $853,661 $896,234
5%
$903,893
1%
$1,259,554
39%
1,372,828
9%
Sumter $82,638 $81,205
(-2%)
$80,308
(-1%)
$138,314
72%
159,786
16%
Suwannee $63,122 $59,984
(-5%)
$89,526
49%
$150,660
68%
161,119
7%
Taylor $56,500 $64,093
13%
$62,917
(-2%)
$114,184
81%
108,797
(-5%)
Union $18,188 $18,527
2%
$20,615
11%
$57,516
179%
59,826
4%
Volusia $1,095,212 $1,198,148
9%
$1,205,221
1%
$1,659,468
38%
1,885,735
14%
Wakulla $47,950 $58,708
22%
$45,517
(-22%)
$90,725
99%
110,139
21%
Walton $55,111 $70,886
29%
$69,001
(-3%)
$124,353
80%
144,002
16%
Washington $46,175 $37,074
(-20%)
$31,887
(-14%)
$72,430
127%
73,223
1%
FAMU $3,717 $3,261
(-12%)
$3,383
4%
$34,529
921%
34,853
<1%
FAU $2,647 $2,748
4%
$2,753
<1%
$33,792
1127%
34,420
2%
FSU $6,207 $7,107
14%
$7,350
3%
$39,774
441%
41,345
4%
UF $6,713 $6,032
(-10%)
$6,909
15%
$39,280
469%
40,096
2%
TOTALS $50,350,00
0
$50,350,0
00
0% $50,350,000 0% $70,350,000 40% 75,350,000 7%
*Florida Department of Education (2000-2001 FEFP FINAL CALCULATION for Safe Schools)
APPENDIX D
Four-Year District Budget Analysis by Safe Schools Category
District After School Activities for Middle Schools
Alternative
School
Programs for
Adjudicated
Youth*** School Safety and Security Activities
Other
Improvements to
Make a School
Safe
1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01
Alachua 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
100% 100% 87% 36%
64%
Baker 41% 46% 14%
23% 39%
100% 0% 39% 39%
0%
Bay N/R* N/R 0%
0% 18%
N/R N/R 86% 81%
2%
Bradford 16% 0% 0%
0% 0%
68% 100% 88% 87%
13%
Brevard** 0% 0% 0%
0% 53%
52% 39% 67% 34%
13%
Broward 11% 9% 9%
10% 5%
57% 55% 56% 68%
17%
Calhoun 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
100% 100% 100% 100%
0%
Charlotte 5% 0% 0%
0% 0%
88% 100% 100% 100%
0%
Citrus 0% N/R 0%
0% 0%
100% N/R 100% 100%
0%
Clay 0% 0% 0%
0% 21%
100% 100% 83% 79%
0%
Collier 34% 16% 7%
0% 0%
27% 51% 51% 44%
1%
Columbia 6% 0% 0%
0% 0%
94% 100% 100% 100%
0%
Miami-Dade 6% 6% 2%
4% 0%
94% 94% 98% 42%
53%
DeSoto** 64% 0% 0%
0% 0%
4% 100% 79% 100%
0%
Dixie 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Duval** 49% 42% 39%
29% 0%
45% 44% 61% 71%
0%
Escambia 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
80% 70% 71% 76%
24%
Flagler N/R 0% 0%
0% 0%
N/R 100% 100% 100%
0%
Franklin 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
100% 100% 100% 53%
47%
Gadsden 0% 0% 0%
0% 11%
0% 1% 61% 61%
28%
Gilchrist 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
100% 50% 50% 100%
0%
Glades 6% 63% 2%
6% 26%
3% 37% 19% 68%
0%
Gulf 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
100% 100% 100% 0%
0%
Hamilton 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
100% 100% 100% 100%
0%
Hardee 0% 0% 0%
0% 21%
87% 87% 82% 56%
23%
Hendry 55% 0% 0%
0% 100%
40% 21% 0% 0%
0%
Hernando 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
59% 29% 52% 39%
61%
Highlands 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
20% 20% 100% 100%
0%
Hillsborough 46% 30% 31%
28% 4%
48% 68% 52% 63%
5%
Holmes 0% 0% 0%
0% 19%
0% 0% 0% 19%
63%
Indian River N/R 0% 0%
0% 0%
N/R 68% 100% 100%
0%
Jackson** 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
99% 99% 84% 100%
0%
Jefferson N/R 0% 0%
0% 34%
N/R 90% 57% 66%
0%
Lafayette 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
100% 100% 100% 100%
0%
Lake** 0% 0% 0%
0% 3%
79% 100% 100% 94%
3%
District After School Programs
Alternative
School
Programs for
Adjudicated
Youth*** School Safety and Security Activities
Other
Improvements to
Make a School
Safe
1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2000-01
Lee 15% 10% 25%
26% 23%
60% 74% 57%
47% 5%
Leon N/R 36% 10%
6% 0%
N/R 64% 90%
94% 0%
Levy 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
40% 43% 72%
50% 50%
Liberty 0% 0% 0%
0% 3%
100% 100% 96%
76% 20%
Madison 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
100% 100% 100%
100% 0%
Manatee 15% 20% 0%
4% 6%
75% 70% 100%
90% 0%
Marion 35% 40% 51%
0% 0%
33% 32% 28%
40% 60%
Martin 22% 4% 14%
0% 0%
78% 94% 86%
100% 0%
Monroe 30% 31% 19%
0% 30%
59% 58% 74%
60% 11%
Nassau 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
100% 100% 100%
100% 0%
Okaloosa 18% 10% 6%
0% 0%
74% 86% 86%
66% 34%
Okeechobee 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
89% 100% 100%
100% 0%
Orange 2% 0% 0%
0% 17%
80% 90% 73%
42% 0%
Osceola 0% 0% 0%
0% 31%
100% 100% 78%
69% 0%
Palm Beach 42% 37% 22%
22% 7%
44% 47% 54%
34% 37%
Pasco 32% 5% 1%
4% 0%
48% 84% 92%
60% 36%
Pinellas 24% 6% 2%
0% 0%
72% 91% 96%
100% 0%
Polk 0% 0% 0%
0% 6%
84% 84% 88%
70% 24%
Putnam 49% 19% 32%
22% 31%
29% 44% 42%
11% 28%
St. Johns 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
62% 37% 25%
100% 0%
St. Lucie 10% 22% 0%
0% 0%
90% 78% 100%
100% 0%
Santa Rosa 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
40% 93% 73%
100% 0%
Sarasota 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
100% 100% 100%
0% 0%
Seminole 7% 0% 0%
0% 0%
60% 76% 100%
100% 0%
Sumter 12% 10% 7%
24% 0%
88% 90% 10%
44% 32%
Suwannee 12% 23% 10%
13% 0%
88% 77% 90%
87% 0%
Taylor 39% 40% 67%
52% 25%
18% 25% 11%
7% 16%
Union 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
100% 100% 100%
100% 0%
Volusia 33% 25% 25%
23% 0%
36% 53% 47%
77% 0%
Wakulla 5% 2% 0%
0% 0%
28% 66% 96%
100% 0%
Walton 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
63% 63% 74%
100% 0%
Washington 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 100% 100%
0% 100%
FAMU School N/R N/R 0%
0% 0%
N/R N/R 100%
100% 0%
FAU School 0% 0% 1%
5% 0%
100% 100% 99%
92% 3%
FSU School 0% 0% 0%
0% 0%
100% 100% 100%
100% 0%
UF School 46% 48% 0%
0% 0%
54% 52% 100%
100% 0%
*N/R (No Response) – Figures not provided by the district
** District did not expend their total 2000-2001 allocation; thus the percentage will not total 100%
***Previous years included all Alternative Placement Programs, not just those for adjudicated youth.
APPENDIX E
District Safe Schools Contact Person List
District Name Contact Person SC Telephone Fax E-mail
Alachua
Dr. Donna Omer 625-7605 352/955-7605 352/955-7619
omerd@sbac.edu
Baker
Mike McCaskil 904/259-1724 904/259-1728
Bay
Jess Snyder 777-7152 850/873-7152 850/747-5280
snydejh@mail.bay.k12.fl.us
Bradford
Eugenia Whitehead 878-6810 904/966-6810 904/966-6818
whitehea_e@firn.edu
Brevard
Betty A. Dunn 323-1270 321/631-1911 x. 270 321/633-3454
dunnb@brevard.k12.fl.us
Broward
Frank Vodolo 954/768-8156 954/768-8926
fvodolo@browardschools.com
Calhoun
Gary Cox 850/674-8734 850/674-4743
cox_g2@firn.edu
Charlotte
Steve Cummings 758-0808 941/255-0808 x.3022 941/255-7583
Steven_Cummings@ccps.k12.fl.us
Citrus
Bonnie Hardiman
or
Edward Murphy
647-1011 352/726-1931 352/726-0996
Clay
Joyce Alford 835-6511 904/284-6511 904/529-2170
jalford@mail.clay.k12.fl.us
Collier
Stephen M. Fain 752-1011 941/643-2700 941/436-6599
hunterjr@collier.k12.fl.us
Columbia
Joe R. Kirkland 887-8015 386/755-8015 386/755-8008
kirklandj@firn.edu
DeSoto
Robert A. Hrstka 721-7500 863/993-1333 863/993-9181
robert.hrstka@desoto.k12.fl.us
Dixie
Ken Baumer
or
Mary Werner
352/542-1078 352/542-1069
baumer_k@dixie.k12.fl.us
or
werner_ma@dixie.k12.fl.us
Duval
Kris Larsen 904/858-6089 904/858-6088
larsenk@educationcentral.org
Escambia
Charles G Thomas, Sr 850/595-6085 850/595-1042
C.Thomas@Escambia.kb2.Fl.Us
Flagler
Mike Judd 370-7526 386/437-7526 386/437-7577
juddm@flagler.k12.fl.us
Franklin
Nan Collins 771-4770
850/653-8831x107 850/653-8984
collins_n1@popmail.firn.edu
FAMU LAB
Marvin Byers 850/599-3325 850/561-2609
FAU LAB
Dr. Steven Montes 561/297-0140 561/297-3939
smontes@fau.edu
FSU LAB
Glenn Thomas 850/245-3700 850/245-3737
gthomas@mailer.fsu.edu
Gadsden
Phil Palmer 850/627-9651 850/67-2760
Palmer_03@firn.edu
Gilchrist
Dr. James Surrency 640-3200 352/463-3200 352/463-3276
Surrency_j@firn.edu
Glades
Jean Prowant 863/946-0811 863/946-1532
Gulf
Deborah S. Crosby 771-4906 850/229-6940 850/227-1999
Crosby_d@popmail.firn.edu
Hamilton
Sean Alderman N/A 386/792-6510 386/792-3681
alderman_s01@firn.edu
Hardee
Greg Dick 721-7440 863/773-9058 863/773-0069
gdick@hardee.k12.fl.us
Hendry
R. Scott Cooper 744-4555x204 863/674-4555x204 863/674-4581
cooperr@hendry.k12.fl.us
Hernando
James S. Knight 352/797-7008 352/797-7108
Highlands
Michael Averyt 742-5626 863/471-5626 863/471-5568
averytm@highlands.k12.fl.us
Hillsborough
Randolph Poindexter 547-4070 813/272-4070 813/272-4074
Randy.Poindexter@sdhc.k12.fl.us
Holmes
Jim Hicks 771-4054 850/547-9341 850/547-0381
hudson_s2@firn.edu
Indian River
Ruth Shaw 257-1011 772/564-3089 772/564-3077
ruth.shaw@indian-river.k12.fl.us
Jackson
Richard Wheatley
or
Kenny Daffin
789-1200 850/482-1200 850/482-1299
wheatley_r@firn.edu
or
daffin_k01@firn.edu
Jefferson
Albert Thomas, Jr. 297-0100 850/342-0100 850/342-0108
thomas_al@firn.edu
Lafayette
Derek Hembree 386/294-1701 386/294-4197
dhembree@fc.lafayette.k12.fl.us
Lake
Lynn Jones 660-1259x 205 352/ 343-3531 x 205 352/ 343-0198
jonesL@lake.k12.fl.us
Lee
Dr. Charles F. Bell 759-5342 239/337-8342 239/337-8299
Dr.CharlesB@lee.k12.fl.us
Leon
Ron Steverson 850/487-7101 850/414-5156
Steversonr@mail.leon.k12.fl.us
Levy
Jeff Davis 645-5231 352/486-5231 352/486-5237
davisj@levy.k12.fl.us
Liberty
Sheila D. Shelton 850/643-2275 850/643-2533
shelton_s1@popmail.firn.edu
Madison
Lucile B. Day 296-5022 850/973-5022 850/973-5027
day1@madison.k12.fl.us
Manatee
Dr. Janice L. Bevan 516-2000x2080 941/708-8770x2080 941/708-8682
bevanj@fc.manatee.k12.fl.us
Marion
James M. Yancey 352/671-7705 352/671-7581
Martin
Darla Miloszewski 269-
1200x30236
772/219-1200x30236 772/219-1229
miloszd@martin.k12.fl.us
Miami-Dade
Chief Pete Cuccaro
305/757-7708 305/751-7626
Monroe
Dr. Margaret A. Smith 305/464-
1400x332
305/293-1400x392 305/293-1408
smithp@monroe.k12.fl.us
Nassau
Andreu Powell 848-5880 904/321-5810 904/321-5807
Andreu.Powell@Nassau.k12.fl.us
District Name Contact Person SC Telephone Fax E-mail
Okaloosa
Steve Horton 850/833-3160 850/833-3161
hortons@mail.okaloosa.k12.fl.us
Okeechobee
James E. Kirk 971-5000 863/462-5000 863/462-5022
kirkj@ocsb.okee.k12.fl.us
Orange
Marjorie LaBarge 407/317-3327 407/317-3344
labargm@ocps.k12.fl.us
Osceola
Annalee Meadows 340-4921 407/870-4901 407/870-4994
meadowsa@osceola.k12.fl.us
PK Yonge
Dr. Wes Corbett 622-1554 352/392-1554 352/392-9559
wcorbett@pky.ufl.edu
Palm Beach
Martha J. Jones 262-8300 561/434-8300 561/434-8186
JONESM@FLCJN.NET
Pasco
Albert J. Bashaw 597-2356 813/794-2356 813/794-2120
abashaw@pasco.k12.fl.us
Pinellas
Alison Weber 565-6178 727/588-6151 727/588-6182
weberal@pinellas.k12.fl.us
Polk
Greg Bondurant 863/499-2728 863/284-4292
Gbondurant@pcsb.k12.fl.us
Putnam
Phyllis Criswell
832-0538 386/329-0538 386/329-0607
pcriswell@putnamschools.org/
St. Johns
Donna Wethington 904/826-2177 904/827-9516
wethinD@mail.stjohns.k12.fl.us
St. Lucie
David Morris 231-5000 772/340-7173 772/340-4799
morrisd@stlucie.k12.fl.us
Santa Rosa
Nancy Padgett 689-5060 850/983-5060 850/983-5067
padgetn@mail.santarosa.k12.fl.us
Sarasota
Sherri T. Reynolds 529-4309 941/927-9000x34309 941/361-6157
Sherri_Reynolds@sarasota.k12.fl.us
Seminole
Jim Dawson 407/320-0167 407/320-0585
Jim_Dawson@scps.k12.fl.us
Sumter
Hannah M. Foster 621-7030 352/793-2315x215 352/793-4180
fosterh@sumter.k12.fl.us
Suwannee
James Cooper 386/364-2624 386/364-2635
jcooper@suwannee.k12.fl.us
Taylor
Paul Dyal 850/838-2516 850/838-2559
paul.dyal@taylor.k12.fl.us
Union
Deborah S. Dukes 823-2045x231 386/496-2045x231 386/496-4818
dukesd@union.k12.fl.us
Volusia
Mary C. Bruno 386/255-6475x2202 386/947-5872
mbruno@volusia.k12.fl.us
Wakulla
Judy Myhre 277-3143 850/926-7131 850/926-7994
myhrej@wakulla.k12.fl.us
Walton
Cynthia Jeselnik 850/892-8323 850/892-8312
jeselnic@walton.k12.fl.us
Washington
Mike Welch 769-6222 850/638-6222 850/638-6226
welch_m@firn.edu
CHARLIE
CRIST
COMMISSIONER
an affirmative action/
equal opportunity employer
