Are Drug-Free School Zones Effective? Evidence From Matching Schools and School-like Entities

• Date: 01 July 2022
• Published date: 01 July 2022
• Author: Erica Freer,Quinn Keefer
• DOI: 10.1177/00220426211057905
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Journal of Drug Issues

2022, Vol. 52(3) 283–305

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00220426211057905

journals.sagepub.com/home/jod

Are Drug-Free School Zones

Effective? Evidence From

Matching Schools and

School-like Entities

Erica Freer

1

and Quinn Keefer

1

Abstract

Using a combination of spatial and statistical analysis, this paper focuses on analyzing the ef-

fectiveness of drug-free school zones (DFSZ) around K-12 schools in Los Angeles County. A

propensity score matching model is employed to match schools and school-like entities to

compare the amount of drug crimes in two distinct 1000-foot buffers surrounding them. The

model is then compared to a coarsened exact matching model. The average treatment effects

(ATE) and average treatment effects on the treated (ATT) are estimated. Our results indicate that

there are 2.7 and 1.7 fewer drug crimes and non–marijuana-related drug crimes respectively near

schools, as a result of the policy. The total effect of the policy is estimated to reduce drug crime

near schools by between 1065 to 1643 fewer incidences per year. Furthermore, we f‌ind no

signif‌icant differences in gang-related drug crimes, gang-related violent crimes, or property crimes

as a result of the policy.

Introduction

America has a long history of medicinal and recreational drug use dating back to its inception.

Many of today’s illicit drugs were often used to treat common health issues. For example, cocaine

was commonly used to treat toothaches and heroin was used for asthma. The f‌irst drug control law

in the United States dates back to the late 1800s, known as The San Francisco Den Ordinance of

1875, which was passed to stop the spread of opium dens (Drew, 2015;Editors, n.d.). Not long

after, the f‌irst federal regulations of drugs began in the early 1900s, with the passage of The Pure

Food and Drug Act in 1906 and The Smoking Opium Exclusion Act in 1909. However, it was not

until the perceived debauchery of the 1960s, an era of recreational drug use that encouraged

experimentation with newer drugs like lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana, and cocaine,

that set off the drastic increase in drug regulation (Berridge & Bourne, 2005).

1

Economics Department, College of Humanities, Arts, Behavioral and Social Sciences, California State University, San

Marcos, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Erica Freer, Economics Department, College of Humanities, Arts, Behavioral and Social Sciences, California State

University, San Marcos, San Marcos, CA 92096, USA.

Email: efreer@csusm.edu

The War on Drugs off‌icially began in the early 1970s when President Nixon declared drug

abuse to be “public enemy number one”and, in response, increased funding for drug-control

agencies, created the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and proposed mandatory min-

imum sentencing laws for drug crimes. The Reagan administration in the 1980s followed suit by

reinforcing and expanding on The War on Drugs initiative. One such contribution was the passing

the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which created mandatory minimum prison sentences on certain

drug offenses and established the “schoolyard”law making it a federal offense to distribute drugs

within 1000 feet of a school (Editors, n.d.).

Gradually, all 50 states adopted some form of drug-free school zone (DFSZ) laws, though they

differ inthe zone size, covered locations,covered offenses, and penalties. For example,Alabama has

the largest DFSZ setting a boundary of 15,460 feet (approximately three miles) from all schools,

colleges, andpublic housing projects. This has ledto 73% of the entire state being coveredby drug-

free school zones (Fractl, 2020). Massachusetts has the smallest drug-free zoning size of 100 feet

around parks and 300 feet around schools and preschools. However, a majority of states have kept

the standard size for these zones at 1000 feet. The type of locations or entities that areprotected by

the zones also vary greatly across states and include places such as schools, school buses, parks,

churches, daycare centers, movie theaters, libraries,ball parks, youth centers, public pools,arcades,

public housing, mental health facilities, etc. The type of offenses covered under these laws are

typically for the sale,distribution, manufacturing,or possession of certain illicit drugs, and manyof

the penaltiesinclude enhanced f‌ines and/or increasedminimum mandatory sentencingterms as well

as limits on paroleeligibility (Porter & Clemons, 2013).The main objective of drug-freeschool zone

laws is to reduce drugcrimes where children are present in orderto protect them from being exposed

or involved in drug-related activities and secondly, to reduce drug use overall.

Unintended Consequences

Though the intention of the DFSZ laws to protect children is a good one, adverse consequences of

these laws have been called into question over the last two decades. Conversations regarding the

extent of coverage of zones and racial disparities in who receives the harsher penalties are

commonplace and have encouraged lawmakers to reevaluate specif‌ications of DFSZ laws that

may be problematic. One study that has inspired these conversations, performed by Ciarmella and

Krisia with The Ready Foundation, employs spatial analysis to analyze the DFSZ in Tennessee.

They demonstrate that the geographic proximity of protected entities created a blanket of coverage

much larger than intended. The result is only a small amount of cumulative space where the DFSZ

laws do not apply. The authors highlight the point that “States created drug-free school zones

thinking that the threat of Draconian prison sentences would keep dealers away from schools. But

the very size of these zones undercuts the premise”(Ciaramella & Krisai, 2017, p. 23). Fur-

thermore, since the implementation of DFSZ laws, many states have applied protections that

expand beyond just K-12 schools to include places like parks, churches, daycare centers, etc. The

problem with expanding these laws, and setting arbitrary zone sizes across entire states, is that they

can create expansive areas of coverage where the DFSZ laws apply. This no longer separates out

the immediate vicinity around schools as “special areas”to deter criminals away from, making the

real-world impact of these laws out of line with their original intent.

The issue of geographic coverage is exacerbated in dense urban areas where protected entities

are much closer together and entire cities may be nearly covered by DFSZ laws, essentially

making them “zoned out”for drug crime. An example of this comes from a case study done in

2004 which analyzed Drug-Free Zones in three large cities in Massachusetts, where at the time the

zone parameters for DFSZ were set at 1000 feet (Brownsberger, Aromaa, Brownsberger, &

Brownsberge, 2004). The study showed that the zones “cover 29% of the areas of the study cities

284 Journal of Drug Issues 52(3)