"Buddy's Story"
by Mary McQueen, Cattaraugus County Sheriff's Department K-9

Record Keeping for Maintenance Training of a Drug Detection Dog

By Stephen B. Phillips

Recently, Detection Dog trainers and handlers have been under fire from many different angles. We are seeing the defense lawyers in drug cases Routinely hiring Expert witnesses, some of whom are current trainers and Handlers, and some of whom are the PhD type intellectuals who have little or no practical Experience but plenty of book knowledge. We have been getting a lot of bad press as well as court decisions that are negatively affecting the work we try to do.

There have been several points that have been attacked recently, as evidenced by the 60 Minutes segment and the articles that followed called “Does The Nose Know” which is currently on the CBS website here. One is the fact that there is no Nationally recognized certification, as in one standard that is followed by all certifying associations. The American Working Dog Association standards are tougher than most and also the fact that many of the certifications are good for only one year. Also, the American Working Dog Association has prerequisites for many of the standards that must be met in order to certify with the organization. Requirements like this add credibility to the certification process. Some organizations still allow certifications to be valid for two years or more. Some associations have Presidents that are “King For Life” and make all the calls on what the association does and does not do. Make sure you are involved in an association that values input from members and that follows their own by-laws. It’s a good idea to be involved with more than on association and have more than one certification for you and your dog. Another bone of contention is the fact that many K-9 handlers do not keep good records of maintenance training and deployment. Many years ago, The DEA’s Head Counsel, Richard Madema, wrote a guide for detection dog handlers called Maximizing Scent Evidence. In it, he outlined several points of what should be included in all the maintenance-training records. Some of the more important things are often overlooked by K-9 handlers that he suggested. Here is a brief summery of what he thought should be included to give the K-9 and handler the best chance of the evidence they provided from being tossed in a court case:

• Date
• Who was at the training session?
• Who designed the problems for training.
• Who hid the target substances
• Type of target substance
• Amount of target substances
• Exact location of hide of target substance
• Time hidden
• Time searched
• Results (successful or unsuccessful)
• Comments (that would impact the search or performance of the K-9 or handler)

I also include weather conditions, air currents, proof of residual odor, and anything else that might have affected the search. Another good point in the guide is that you should not note a false indication unless you are absolutely sure that’s what you had, and that a dog hitting on residual odor has made a “non-seizure alert”. I believe this guide is still available from the DEA at this point, and if you can’t find it there, you can always check out Herb Mullican’s website Special Canine Services. For those of you not familiar with Herb, he has the biggest database of articles, books, and military info act that is available anywhere. If it was published, he has it or knows how to get it. One thing that the head of US Customs told me was that they only keep their maintenance training records for a limited amount of time. If you have 90 days worth of maintenance training records, then throw out the first page every time you add a new page, you have more than enough, if it is coupled with certification, to show the performance record of your dog. If you have all your records from the last five years, you are opening yourself and your dog up to criticism and possible attack by a defense lawyer who has hired an expert to go over all your paperwork.

So, in reality, I take what I believe to be a sound idea from several different sources to compile my own training records, and that is what I pass along to my handlers. The big thing is to document what really happened in the training sessions. If the dog missed a find, document it, then document the corrective actions you took to correct the problem to the point the problem has disappeared. If the dog false alerted, write it down, and show the steps you used to correct the problem. If an expert witness looks through your training records and sees a rosy report that shows the dog is 100% all the time, be assured you will fall under attack. Also, the last point I’d like to bring up is the K-9 “lingo” we all seem to use. Much of it has been “borrowed” from behavioral scientists and applied to dog training. We all know that if there is a problem with a K-9 going to trained final response on a non-target odor that we have a problem. For instance, if the dog is going to trained final response on baggies (which happened to one dog that was at the North Carolina seminar). We can easily spot the problem; the dog is associating the odor of the plastic along with the odor of the drug, and is sitting or scratching at both. So we have to EXTINCT the problem odor. We know what is meant by extincting the problem odor, but a jury does not. We all have a tendency to throw around other behavioral terms as well. Titration comes to mind. It was used on a post on another chat group, and if you asked three different people on the group what it meant, you’d get three different answers. Now imagine you, a lowly K-9 handler is on the stand and you have a PhD in behavioral science asking the questions!!! Is he going to be able to trip you up? Undoubtedly! Are you going to be able to “out explain” him? No way! Can he make you look foolish, unprepared and unprofessional to the jury? You bet if you’re not prepared! The point of all this is to get you to think about what you say and think about what you write in your training log. You don’t have to throw in terms like that to impress anyone. No one expects you to be a behavioral scientist. Say what you have to say in plain English. Write it down that way too. That way, you’re not arming the defense.

In closing, I’d like to say that many of the incidents that have gotten us all bad press recently, deserved on their own to get bad press. Look at the Goose Creek incident in 2004 (not the first one from Texas). Look at the Russ Ebersol case. Did they deserve to be singled out as poor examples of how things should be done? Yes they did! Unfortunately, for every case like that, we have to be more vigilant in doing what we do correctly. Otherwise, we will find ourselves being even more tied down in case law than we are at present.

Training Records should be maintained in accordance with your District Attorney’s recommendations and should follow your Agency requirements.

N.C. Teen Accused of Plot to Bomb School  -  2003-10-23     08:25:48 GMT

CONCORD, N.C. (AP) - A 15-year-old boy was arrested after police said he plotted to blow up his high school and made a list of people he wanted to kill in the attack.

The teenager, who was not identified, was charged Wednesday with possession of a weapon on school property, authorities said. He was scheduled to appear in court Friday.  Police said they searched the teenager's home in Concord, about 20 miles northeast of Charlotte, and found detailed plans, a map showing where explosive devices could be placed, and instructions on building explosive devices and homemade napalm, an incendiary jelly.  He also made a list with more than 20 nicknames and descriptions of people who would be killed, including himself, police said.  Officials said the plot was discovered when a student alerted them after an unrelated bomb threat was called in to Concord High School Tuesday. The school was locked down and nothing was found.  On Monday, the boy burned a small amount of what police called homemade napalm in a room attached to a classroom, authorities said.  Although police believe the boy was acting alone, they are investigating another student who appears to have known about the plan.

The use of Police K-9s in school searches

Another question or interpretation?

When a student search is conducted by the police or other law enforcement -or- governmental agents (school officials??), even if on or about school grounds and even when done in respect to and with the physical presence and collaboration of school authorities, the constitutional effect is quite different. In those situations, the search must be in full compliance with all prerequisites of the Fourth Amendment, namely a warrant and probable cause. New Jersey v. T.L.O.

Would the fruits of the poison tree be applied here?

The US Supreme Court case in 1985, New Jersey v T.L.O. addressed searches byschool officials. The court separated these two groups of people, school officials and peace officers. TLO briefly addressed peace officers. Peace officers still need probable cause to apply for a warrant or conduct a warrantless search. TLO did address school officials. They are held to a lower standard under the Fourth Amendment, reasonable suspicion:  "Although the court concluded that the Fourth Amendment did apply to searches carried out by school officials, it held that a school official may properly conduct a search of a student's person if the official has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is in the process of being committed, or reasonable cause to believe that the search is necessary to maintain school discipline or enforce school policies."

"The school setting also requires some modification of the level of suspicion of illicit activity needed to justify a search. Ordinarily, a search -- even one that may permissibly be carried out without a warrant -- must be based upon "probable cause" to believe that a violation of the law has occurred.

However, "probable cause" is not an irreducible requirement of a valid search. The fundamental command of the Fourth Amendment is that searches and seizures be reasonable, and although "both the concept of probable cause and the requirement of a warrant bear on the reasonableness of a search, . . . in certain limited circumstances neither is required." Thus, we have in a number of cases recognized the legality of searches and seizures based on suspicions that, although "reasonable," do not rise to the level of probable cause.

Where a careful balancing of governmental and private interests suggests that the public interest is best served by a Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness that stops short of probable cause, we have not hesitated to adopt such a standard."

"We here consider only searches carried out by school authorities acting alone and on their own authority. This case does not present the question of the appropriate standard for assessing the legality of searches conducted by school officials in conjunction with or at the behest of law enforcement agencies, and we express no opinion on that question."

"Because the search of T. L. O.'s purse was based upon an individualized suspicion that she had violated school rules, see infra, at 343-347, we need not consider the circumstances that might justify school authorities in conducting searches unsupported by individualized suspicion."

"Our review of the facts [*34] surrounding the search leads us to conclude that the search was in no sense unreasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes".

TLO also addressed this fruits of the poison tree issue:

"Thus, our determination that the search at issue in this case did not violate the Fourth Amendment implies no particular resolution of the question of the applicability of the exclusionary rule."

Terry Fleck

Canine Legal Update and Opinions

LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING SPECIALISTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. National Headquarters
www.letsdawgs.com

5320 Stout Parkway SW
Powder Springs, Ga. 30127
Phone: and/or Fax: 770-944-2077

Email: LETSHQ@aol.com

TRAINING HINT (Please note, this well written but sarcastic article will give you MANY ideas on what can be done wrong to cause a detection dog to screw up.  Steve Phillips)

HOW TO TRAIN A DOG TO "FALSE ALERT" and "MISS" DOPE

By Billy L. Smith, Sr.
www.letsdawgs.com

In the last few years I have noticed a trend in the number of "false alerts" demonstrated by canine teams and trainers at different seminars and conferences across the United States, Canada and Mexico. I discovered after 33 years and several hundred dogs, that I must be doing something wrong. I have made notes, discussed the "false alerts" with my learned fellow associates who have many years experience and have come to the below listed conclusions.

I am writing this with Narcotic Dogs in mind, but feel that it will work as well with cadaver and explosive detector dogs.

Basic Training

Please disregard the fact that a canine must obey the handler's command like the "Will of God." Let the canine "run the program" and decide not to "out the toy." In fact the canine may even decide not to work at all and you have the classic excuse for a false alert and miss all in one.

"I don't know why my canine is acting this way" or "my canine is having an off day, week or month" when the dog false alerts or misses. When you are able to use these excuses you will look as "professional" as your friends. Remember the old saying, "You only get one chance to make a FIRST IMPRESSION."

Whatever you do, never allow any type of training OFF LEASH. Never do any type of training in an enclosed outside area where the canine will have an opportunity to follow a scent cone to the narcotics. This will teach the dog to work independently and make its own decisions when it encounters a scent or odor. You must always "hover" over your dog, point to each object and constantly "talk" to the dog. Disregard the fact you only have to tell the dog "down" or "stay" one time for the dog to comply. But after you give whatever command you use for the dog to commence a search, keep repeating it over and over. This is done to insure your canine does not forget what it is supposed to be doing.

Remember, all of your peers will be watching so you must try to impress them that your dog will work just like theirs do. You will all have the same excuse why the canine "false alerted" or "missed." Never try and correct a mistake. (see Training Areas below).

After the canine has learned the scent, always point at an object and say words to the effect "is it there"? The dog will soon learn that the odds are better than average "something is there" thereby alerting just to please you.

Never work your dog on a loose leash. Having your leash tight, about six inches from the collar, allows the dog little time to detect an odor and respond.

You must be walking backwards and disturbing the scent cones. This will not always cause a "false alert," but this will create a scenario where a "miss" will be insured.  Another advantage to walking backwards is that it is easier for you "bump" the dog with your knee. This minor distraction will create a "miss" rather than a false alert. 

By walking backwards you will never see any hazards or low objects that will cause the handler to trip and fall thereby sustaining an injury. These injuries have been judged by OSHA and Workman's Comp Boards as "unsafe acts" by the handler and employers are not required to pay work related injuries.

If you do use a loose leash, make sure you walk ahead of the canine and not allow the canine enough time to "inspect" an odor. When the canine sees you moving away from it, it will have a desire to "follow" thereby creating another scenario for a "miss" and not a false alert since they do not have time to make a decision.

More on "Creating Training Scenarios To Insure A Canine Miss" will be covered at a later date.

Whatever you do, never hold the end of the leash and allow the canine to move ahead of you. That allows too much "independence" while working. Any type of "hunting training" will re-enforce the dog's desire to work independently also. Never toss a Kong or whatever object you use for the dog's reward. This creates a situation where the dog will want to "hunt" and "chase" the prey (odor). Especially if it is a "scented toy" with the odor you want them to find.

Keep in mind that any type of "obedience" or "agility" type training will reduce the dog's desire to work. It makes them physically fit and independent. Especially off leash.

To properly train a canine to false alert takes a lot of time and effort.  For example, in a closed area (room) or outside area with a fence, you must never allow the canine to "hunt" on its own while you sit in a chair not saying a word. Remember, you must always have them on leash, hover over them and pull them away from a scent.

Training Aides

You must always have "old" training aides, preferably over two years old. Never repack them or handle with gloves. In this way you will always know your dog can find "that" training aide. Always use less than 5 grams of old marijuana. And don't forget to use pseudo training aides. It seems that pseudo is better for a "miss" rather than "false" alerts.

Always use small amounts, never train with large amounts like "pounds and ounces." If you use small amounts of old dope, your dog is better prepared to alert on "residual odors" since it is trying so hard to please the handler. It will alert where just a small odor from a baggy had been on a table or where a few joints may have been smoked in a car. When you do the search and find nothing you have a perfect FALSE ALERT and your mission has been accomplished. Don't worry, defense lawyers will never think to ask you about your training dope or the maintenance training you do with old dope. Since his client had dope just off the vine grown in an elaborate "grow house" or from a fresh kilo just smuggled in from Mexico will make no difference.

One of the things you never do is train with fresh cardboard boxes. Always use boxes that were previously used for food products or booze. In this way, a dog will be much easier to be taught to "false alert." The same goes with suitcases you get out of the Property Room. The folks who left their luggage for the Property Room to keep were put in jail for violation of Criminal Code POP-1-.003 (Singing Too Loud In Church). And since you know exactly what kind of dope has been in which suitcase after a few training sessions, there should be no problem creating a "false alert" training session.

In Summary: The basic rules of thumb are as follows:
1. Never allow your dog to work off leash.
2. Never teach simple "re-call" so the dog will return to you when they do work off leash.
3. Always use old dope since that is what all the dopers have.
4. Disregard "contaminating" your dope.

Maintenance Training.

Now that we have your dog doing a reliable "false alert" on command, we will now discuss how to maintain "false alerts" training with a small side bar on "Me Too" alerts.
Me Too alerts are almost as good as false alerts with some exceptions.

When the dog working prior to you makes a "false alert," your dog will detect the odor transferred from the previous dog's pads (paws) to the object. Since you are hovering, pulling the dog along, bumping and generally interfering with the dog's normal instinct to hunt, the canine will "false alert" where the other dog alerted.

Now if a dog just stops to "inspect" or "look over" an area where another dog has been working just ahead of you, constantly ask the dog "if it is there"? In this way you will let the dog know that you are trying to help him or her. Of course a dog wants to please the handler, so to oblige the handler, it will most likely "false alert" since you insisted the odor was there.

Training Sites and Training Times.

Always train on the same day or time period if you train at all. Make sure it is the same place with other dogs working ahead of you. If you use the same area to train, then there are just so many places you can hide dope and it is easier for the dog to find them.

Never clean up the training area. Always have the same boxes and "hidey-holes." In this way your dog will have an easier time finding the "me too alerts" which will develop into false alerts, the main objective of the training session.

Whatever you do, never take a cleaner like Fabreeze or 409 and wipe down all the surfaces you used in the training session. The next time you come, you will have all the residual odors present that are blamed for 99% of the false alerts.

Always use desks and file cabinets. In this way the canine (and especially the handler) will get "fixated" on these items. This will almost always assure a "false alert" since the handler knows better than the canine "there must be dope in there."

The REWARD

Never "pay" the dog for the work he has done. Always wait until you are finished.   Disregard the fact in BASIC TRAINING, if the dog found something, a reward was given and praise was extended. Now that it is TRAINED, you don't have to do that.

The dog may have forgotten that part of the training and will be satisfied. So disregard the old saying "pay the dog for every find every time". Besides, who are these "old timers" and what do they know? The "no reward every time" and "fighting the dog for the toy" is a lot like "New Math" many years ago. It looked good at the time, but did not work. At it looks so professional to "fight the dog for the toy".

Pay attention to the fact that most dogs that "false alert" consistently, do not get "paid" after each find.

So the rule of thumb for a good false alert is DON'T PAY THE DOG FOR EACH FIND. You instill a better type of frustration by not paying every time.

These are not all of the best ways to insure a FALSE ALERT but if you get these few items down pat and use them, you will be well on your way.

Always remember that A DOG DOES NOT NORMALLY LIE.  THEY MUST BE TAUGHT.

Of course I could be wrong.

Happy Training.

Law Enforcement and Private Security Use of Detection Dogs In Schools

By: Stephen B. Phillips

K-9 Training And Consultation

Recently, it is becoming more apparent that there are different obligations, both legal and moral, when considering the work of using a detection K-9 in the school environment. Some of these issues have yet to be addressed by the legal system, and there is legal president for some of the decisions that have to be considered.

The first thing to be considered is the difference between a Police Officer using the K-9 and the private individual using the K-9 as an agent of the school. For each, I will address the issues as I see them. Please take note that I am NOT an attorney, nor am I offering this as legal advise. This is information for use in helping you formulate a well thought out plan to achieve the best results possible when using a detection K-9 in a school environment. My only legal advise to you would be to have a qualified attorney review all your procedures for legality in your State prior to starting any searches in schools or private industry.

Lets cover the Police K-9 being used in the school system first. Without probable cause or an invitation from the school administration, the police K-9 cannot be used in the school campus setting. In the situation where a Law Enforcement agency is used to run the K-9 and search the lockers, if a properly trained detection K-9 indicates on the odor of a target substance on the locker, probable cause has been established to secure a search warrant to open and search that individual locker. The same is true to come onto the school campus to sweep parking areas used by students. The Law Enforcement official HAS to have a warrant to search the locker, and he is required to follow through to arrest if possible just as if any other crime has been committed in his presence.

So the use of Law Enforcement in searches of schools is greatly limited to a “gotcha” type search and these searches are done usually only once or twice in the school year. Most Law Enforcement agencies measure success by the number of finds and arrests. For this reason alone, many administrators don’t want Law Enforcement involved in searches of their schools. The administrators lose control of the results of the search and how each individual case of contraband being found is handled. There is very little proactive use of Law Enforcement K-9s as a deterrent, it is usually a reactive measure because of a perceived problem. Once a year sweeps done in a school offer little, if any, deterrent to the students who might take a chance on keeping their drugs in their lockers, and in some cases, actually encourage those students to do so because once the sweep has occurred, they feel safe in doing so because they know the next sweep won’t come in the balance of this school year.

The reason for the lack of monthly sweeps being done is usually budgetary, both monetarily and in manpower. Sometimes, however, it is because they are only requested by the schools once a year.

Misinformed administrators quite often breath a sigh of relief once the initial sweep is over and only do it in the first place to satisfy an obligation to the parents and community to provide a safe and drug free learning environment. If the truth is told, many administrators fear that they will pay the price if drugs are found on the campus, and fear it will be perceived that they are failing to do their job to protect the student body and employees of the school district.

Now lets discuss the school administration doing their own search of lockers and student vehicles of the school campus. First, lets cover what an agent of the school can and cannot do. As we discussed, for a Law Enforcement Officer to do a search on the school campus, he needs probable cause and a search warrant. This differs greatly from what is required of an agent of the school. An agent of the school only need reasonable suspicion to conduct a search of a student or his belongings. Reasonable suspicion could be that Jane goes to a teacher and tells the teacher she saw Mary take a bag of marijuana out of her purse in the rest room. The teacher, now having a reasonable suspicion that Mary could have contraband in her purse, can take Mary’s purse and search it. No warrant is needed. The reality is, the safety of the entire student body eclipses the individual rights of one student.

What about lockers? If the students are informed that the lockers and any locks on the lockers are property of the school at the beginning of the school year, and agent of the school does not even need reasonable suspicion to search the lockers. If the student has put their own lock on a locker and the agent of the school wants to open it to search it, he can simply cut the lock off. The agent of the school can search any one individual locker or every locker in the school, or any number of lockers in between without a search warrant, without probable cause, and with out even reasonable suspicion.

What about students vehicles parked in a school owned parking lot? Again, if the students are advised at the beginning of the school year that any vehicle parked in a school owned lot is subject to search, then the agent of the school can search any vehicle in a school owned lot with out a search warrant, without probable cause, and even without reasonable suspicion. It is a privilege for the student to allowed to park in the school’s lot, not a right. In order to take advantage of that privilege, the student must give up some of his rights in order to protect the student body as a whole. What if he doesn’t agree with the school policy? Simple, don’t park a vehicle in the school lot.

Now that we have covered the basics, lets discuss how a proper use of a private security detection K-9 team should be established. There are some basic steps that need to be taken BEFORE the K-9 team is used for a search in the school. Initially, you will have to meet with the school administrators to inform them of how you will proceed. They need to appoint an agent of the school to work with you on any search. They need to know that you WILL NOT PHYSICALLY PERFORM ANY SEARCH!!!! You presence is there only to assist in the process by pointing out areas where it is likely contraband is, or has recently been kept.

First, a student assembly should be presents in which the K-9 team introduces themselves and demonstrates how they work. That should be followed by an administrator addressing the students on what is considered to be contraband by the school. A list should be given to the students. A description of possible consequences for having contraband on the school campus should also be given by the administrator. The assembly should be end by the student body being informed the lockers and lock and the parking areas on campus are owned by the school and open to search at any time. It also should be stated that from this point on, random searches for contraband will be done, some involving the use of K-9s to detect the contraband. End by telling the students that your idea of success of the program is that the dog fins nothing and that it isn’t your intention to get anyone arrested, and that’s why you are warning them not to keep or carry contraband in the school. The idea of the assembly is that it lessens the expectation of privacy by the student.

Next come the searches themselves. The searches should be totally random, never done on the same day of the week or same time of day. Don’t inform ANYONE, including the administration when you are coming. Go to the entry door and call the school on your cell phone to have them let you in and call in your appointed agent that works with you. Don’t underestimate the students ability to outguess you! All steps should be taken to not hinder the learning environment of the school when performing the search. Try and be in and out before a period has ended and students are in the halls. If that is not possible, exit the school during the period break and re-enter to finish. Lockdowns are OK as long as it doesn’t interrupt the students going from class to class. Don’t attempt to do the whole school under lockdown if it means students staying in the same classroom longer than would be a usual period time.

It is not necessary in a proactive program to search the entire school each time you go to the school. Let the administration tell you of any “hot spots” you want searched, and then randomly pick the rest of the areas you can cover in your allotted time yourself. The same hold true for the school owned parking areas. The idea of the proactive program is to let the student know if they keep contraband at the school or in their vehicles on the school campus it is very likely they will get caught. It is not to search every possible area of the school campus in the hopes of catching people to prosecute. This is the main difference between how most Law Enforcement officials and Private Security companies think and operate. As I said, once a year searches do little to deter, and you will want to do monthly, or Bi-monthly searches to accomplish the goal to deter the students from storing contraband on school property.

Very quickly, lets touch on a moral decision that has to made if you are a Police Officer that wants to do private K-9 work for yourself or another company on the side. As a sworn Police Officer, you are required to take action, on or off duty, any time a crime is committed in your presence. That is to act as a Police Officer in your own jurisdiction, or to inform another Police Officer when outside your own jurisdiction. Since the trained indication of a properly trained detection dog is the indication of a possible commission of a crime, where does that leave you? Do you have to initiate a search? If you do, and you find controlled substances, are you required to follow through to arrest? Can you simply dispose of user amounts and peruse arrest of saleable amounts? Can you say nothing and let the school or your employer handle it? These are very important moral and ethical consideration that have to be dealt with BEFORE going to work for a private detection company or doing private detection on your own. This could effect your relation with the employer of the detection company you work for and could influence your work “on the job” as well. A careful consideration has to be given here before you proceed with private detection work. I don’t have the answers for you, only the questions. You have to let your conscience be your guide and do what you think is right, or what you are willing to live with!

Last, let me remind you to keep what you are doing in perspective. You will not be the answer to the drug problem, although you will be part of the solution of keeping drugs out of the schools you work in. Unfortunately, the kids doing drugs are not going to stop doing drugs because you are coming to the school to search with your K-9. But, since they will not feel comfortable keeping drugs in the school, you will be stopping them from exposing others who might use the opportunity to start using drugs because they are available to them at school. You are helping to create a safer environment for the students to learn in, and for the educators to teach in. That in itself is a GREAT contribution to the communities you work in.

'Bleak picture' seen on school violence

Perceptions of danger much higher among public school students

05/27/03

By GARY McELROY
Staff Reporter

A federally funded survey overseen by the University of South Alabama provides a sobering look at what students in Mobile County think about safety and violence in their schools.

A year in the making, the survey by USA's Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice revealed what its author described as "unacceptably high" levels of violence for students in public schools, when compared to their counterparts in private schools.

"On virtually every measure," wrote Keith Nicholls, director of the USA Polling Group, "the comparisons paint a rather bleak and disturbing picture of the prevailing environment."

Forty percent of the public school students, for example, said they were in fear some of the time while on campus, while 3 percent said they were fearful "most of the time." While that second figure is relatively small, it represents more than 1,000 students in public middle and high schools in Mobile County, Nicholls said.

The overall picture shown in the survey, Nicholls said, requires "the immediate attention of public school officials."

The poll was supervised by Nicholls and Timothy O'Shea, USA's director of the Center For Public Policy.

The subjects of the poll -- 734 students (557 public, 177 private) in grades six through 12 -- were contacted by telephone in March and May of 2002.

Perhaps the most "controversial ... even provocative" section of the 150-page USA report, Nicholls acknowledged, is the comparison between public and private schools.

When it comes to perceptions of student safety, "Mobile County public schools fare poorly when compared with area private schools," Nicholls wrote.

The report suggests that theft, bullying, physical attacks, drugs, gangs and guns on campus are more acute in Mobile's public schools than in private ones.

Some of the study's findings:

• Public school students are three times more likely than private school students to say they have been physically attacked.
• They are more than twice as likely to say they have heard other students threaten to attack a teacher, principal or other school adult.

"When it comes to the primary perceptions of school safety, differences are also striking," Nicholls wrote. "Students in public schools are twice as likely to rate their schools as unsafe or very unsafe" and are "almost three times as likely to feel that school officials should do more to ensure the safety of students."

This apprehension, Nicholls concluded, "could almost certainly be expected to have an unfortunate negative impact on learning."

Students in public schools are more likely to avoid participating in after-school activities and are "slightly more than twice as likely to report avoiding at least one place in school for fear of harm or attack.

"Such fears have additional negative impact in encouraging students to take dangerous and illegal measures to protect themselves," he wrote.

For instance, public school students are twice as likely to have brought weapons to school for protection, according to the survey.

Public school students are four times as likely as private school students to tell of gang activity in their school. One-third of the public school respondents stated that students belong to gangs and 11 percent said gangs members who are not students show up around campus. Nine percent said gang members try to recruit students; 5 percent said gang members bring guns to school; 15 percent reported knowledge of gang members selling drugs on campus.

"Most striking," Nicholls wrote, is that only 1 percent of private school students told survey-takers that gangs are involved in fights and violence at their schools, while 27 percent report such activity in public schools.

"Obviously, this confirms our previous assertion that gang activity in public schools is another area that seems to demand the immediate attention of school officials," he wrote.

Nicholls suggested that, ideally, all public school students should feel their institutions are safe, "Yet, less than one-third of respondents were willing to give their school that rating."

Alcohol, tobacco and drugs:

According to the report, private schools "are clearly not 'drug free,'" but public school students are "significantly more apt to report knowledge of students drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes and marijuana, and using other illegal drugs at school when compared to respondents from private schools."

"Especially striking," Nicholls said, are comparisons of illegal drugs rather than "legal" drugs, such as alcohol and nicotine.

Public school students are almost three times more likely to have knowledge of marijuana use; more than twice as likely to report use of other illegal drugs; and more than twice as likely to claim knowledge of students selling drugs at school, the poll shows.

"Given the severe negative consequences of these activities on school campuses," Nicholls wrote, "this is an area that seems to demand the immediate attention of school officials."

Mobile County school Superintendent Harold Dodge was unavailable for comment. Several school administrators in the central office were asked to address some of the concerns put forth in the poll report, but each deferred to Nancy Pierce, a newly hired public relations official in the school system.

In an e-mail, Pierce, citing the events of 11 and subsequent "terror alerts," said: "It is no wonder when asked if a child were afraid, he or she would answer yes."

Pierce listed a series of programs in place designed to make students safe -- uniformed police officers assigned to schools, video surveillance systems, drug education and character enhancement courses, conflict and anger programs, anonymous tip lines, metal detectors and drug dogs.

Pierce said that since the USA survey was conducted, there has been a 45 percent decrease in violent offenses, 59 percent decrease in drug offenses, and 53 percent decrease in weapons violations in Mobile County schools.

Three school principals -- Larry Mouton of Hillsdale Middle School, James Brooks of Calloway-Smith Middle School and Alvin Dailey of B.C. Rain High School -- questioned whether the situation was as dire as poll results indicated.

Mouton suggested the students' responses were only their "perception. In reality, they are safe."

Dailey said the poll's findings did not appear to apply to how students fare at his school, where they were "pretty comfortable and safe.

"The big thing is to have supervision," he said, "to have teachers on duty and administrators on duty during critical times -- changing classes and at the beginning and ending of school."

Brooks said: "It's not happening in this school (Calloway-Smith). We may be an inner-city school, but we keep a good control."

Brooks likened his school to a "real family affair," and said students there are under supervision "from the moment they get on to campus."

Mobile County school board member Peggy Nikolakis said that comparing the two systems -- public and private -- was like comparing "apples and oranges."

Private schools, she said, have the "liberty to reject or accept kids. They have more money to spend. They handpick their students. ... In public schools we have to take them from every walk of life, the good with the bad."

She also rejected the premise that local public school students are in as much jeopardy as the poll suggests.

"It's our responsibility to provide a safe environment, and we do a great job to have as many students -- 60,000 plus -- as we do. It is our responsibility and we accept that responsibility and in every way attempt to fulfill it."

As for the troublemakers in the state's largest school system, she said, "There is only a very, very small percentage that really causes the problems."

The role of uniforms:

On the subject of gangs, Nikolakis said the system's requiring school uniforms has "played a big role in eliminating" that problem. School uniforms were required beginning in 1997.

She said the system's disciplinary policies have sent "a message to the public -- we are not going to take kids in who cannot behave themselves, especially those who bring guns and weapons and who bring their problems to us, threatening employees. They are gone. They do not have the constitutional right to come to any public school and deny another student's right to get an education."

According to one school official, of the approximately 65,000 students in the system last year, only 18 were expelled for various reasons.

USA's pollster, Nicholls, said comparisons between what's on the minds of local students and the results of national polls were also troubling.

"They serve to highlight and confirm a relatively bleak and disturbing picture of school safety and student victimization in the Mobile County Public School System," he wrote. "On every single measure, Mobile County results reflect more serious problems and more negative perceptions" compared to national trends.

Nicholls reiterated a 1998 study that described exposure to school violence "as psychologically toxic," leading to problems such as aggression, truancy, learning disabilities and chronic fatigue, among other symptoms. As the symptoms spread, according to the report, this "contagion" alters a school's capacity for achieving its educational and social goals.

Throughout the report, Nicholls fashioned cautionary notes about interpreting the findings of the survey.

It is important to remember, he suggested, "that results reflect perceptions regarding school safety, rather than an objective accounting of the safety of schools. "Such perceptions may or may not square with reality," Nicholls warned. "Still, they are important. If students do not feel safe, even if they are relatively safe, there is still a negative impact on the learning environment. If negative perceptions are incorrect, they should be changed. If negative perceptions are correct, the environment should be changed."

Bomb Dogs - Article