Cited by 3Indigenous Health, Education, and RightsSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesCrime Patterns and Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 61 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

The Safe Futures Initiative at Chief Leschi Schools: A School-Based Tribal Response to Alcohol-Drug Abuse, Violence-Gang Violence, and Crime on an Urban Reservation

Open access
Guilmet, George M., Whited, David L., Dorpat, Norm, Pijanowski, Cherlyn·1998·American Indian Culture and Research Journal

Abstract

INTRODUCTION\nThis article will first describe the Puyallup Reservation in Tacoma-Pierce County, Washington, focusing on its urban context and the demographics of the multitribal community it serves. The authors will then consider the Chief Leschi Schools system (pre-K through 12) in historic perspective and in its contemporary form. The community and family risk factors associated with the escalating problem of alcohol/drug abuse and violence/youth violence in the surrounding urban community and within the Puyallup Reservation will be discussed. The impact of the broader urban alcohol/drug abuse and violence on Chief Leschi Schools and its children and families will then be analyzed. The tribal programmatic response to this situation and particularly the development and the evolution of the prevention programs, Positive Reinforcement in Drug Education (PRIDE) and Puyallups Against Violence (PAV) will be discussed. These programs were designed to provide positive alternative activities to American Indian and Alaska Native students and the general multitribal community. The current design of the alcohol-drug-violence-gang prevention program (Safe Futures) and the future goals and plans for this program will then be reviewed. Special attention will be placed on reviewing the risk factors and protective factors targeted for intervention through the Safe Futures Program. Finally, the relevance of this project to a selected sample of the research literature will be discussed. This article is based on an analysis of historic data and a set of interviews with school staff, prevention staff, and general Puyallup tribal employees.

Overview

CoChat Summary

Written by AI from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This article describes the Puyallup Reservation’s urban context and Chief Leschi Schools’ Safe Futures Initiative, a school-based tribal prevention program addressing alcohol/drug abuse, violence/gang violence, and crime. It reports risk-factor assessment and early outcome data suggesting improved attendance and reduced gang- and substance-related incidents after PRIDE/PAV/Safe Futures programming.

Key findings

  • The Puyallup Reservation is highly urbanized and economically deprived: the December 1995 BIA report showed Native American unemployment at 69 percent, and during 1995–96, 95 percent of Chief Leschi students qualified for free or reduced-cost lunches.
  • Gang and violence indicators were severe: Chief Leschi Middle and High Schools documented 196 gang-related incidents in 1993–94; 12 of 76 middle school students (15.8 percent) and 44 of 105 high school students (41.9 percent) were identified as gang members.
  • After PAV/PRIDE programming, high-school attendance improved from 74 to 84 percent between 1994–95 and 1995–96 (13.5 percent improvement); gang-related incidents fell from 1.02 to .27 per student between 1993–94 and 1995–96 (73.5 percent reduction); substance-abuse-related incidents fell from .10 to .05 per student (50 percent reduction).
  • Safe Futures added multiple strategies, including PRIDE revision, teacher training, Natural Helpers, Parenting Plus/Positive Indian Parenting, year-round GED/high-school completion and night school, dropout retrieval, and outreach to at least 250 Native American youth monthly.

Methods

  • The article is based on analysis of historic data and interviews with school staff, prevention staff, and general Puyallup tribal employees.
  • The 1994 risk assessment drew on Chief Leschi student and parent surveys, prevention workshops, tribal and nontribal social service/juvenile justice agency surveys, and census data from the BIA, Tacoma, and Pierce County; internal and external assessments used the Communities That Care model.
  • The Safe Futures outcome evaluation included qualitative interviews conducted in four sets and quantitative data: school attendance, achievement, and negative behavior incidents; Tri-Ethnic Center substance abuse surveys administered four times to grades 4–12; and Safe Futures Community School/Outreach service records.

Limitations

  • The paper states that inadequate funding limited staff positions, support materials, specialized chemical dependency training, and crisis/long-term intervention services; BIA cuts of about 8.7 percent in 1995–96 precluded enhancing PAV and PRIDE, conducting rigorous program evaluation, and providing needed staff development.
  • The paper states that PRIDE and PAV had not been formally evaluated before Safe Futures, and that the Safe Futures evaluation results were not yet available; the authors also recognize that improved attendance and behavior may be influenced by other factors such as improved socioeconomic conditions and an overall reduction in youth violence and criminality.
  • Evident from the text: the analysis relies on multiple agency records and surveys without a controlled comparison, and some 1980 census data were not specific to the Puyallup but included other Indians and Alaska Natives in the area.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.17953/aicr.22.4.701052u136p16722

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

61 Sources not found · 60 Own result · 37 Own interpretation · 24 No basis given · 10 Own method · 3 Not checked yet

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 147
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 57
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

Create a free account to see these claims.

Create a free account to see these assumptions.

25 more claims

Create a free account to see all 195 claims and every source verdict.

See all claims — free account

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Marian W. Smith (New York: Columbia University Press, 1949).
  2. For similar traditions in other Coast Salish tribes, see Pamela T Amoss, Coast Salish Spirit Dancing: The Survival of an Ancestral Religion (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1978);
  3. "President Honors Leschi School," News Tribune, June 20, 1989, B1. In February of 1989 the tribal school was listed as one of ten in its class designat- ed as "exemplary" by the Department of the Interior, which administers con- tracts with tribes through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This honor came on the heels of Chief Leschi's selection as one of sixty schools in the nation with an exemplary "Chapter One" remedial reading program. In June of 1989 the Chief Leschi School of the Puyallup tribe was one of forty-seven schools honored at a White House ceremony by the United States Department of Education for its model anti-drug program (PRIDE); it was the only school in Washington state and the only American Indian or Alaska Native school in the nation to receive this recognition.
  4. Spero M. Manson and Norman G. Dinges, American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, Monograph Series, vol. 1, monograph 1 (1988): 311.
  5. Norman Dorpat, "PRIDE: Substance Abuse Education/Intervention Program," and "Community Development as Context for Alcohol Policy," American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research 4.3 (1992): 82-84;
  6. Judy M. Thorne and Erin O. Newton, "Chief Leschi School System: Prevention Programs with Notable Community Involvement," Chapter 3 in How Do We Know They Work, An Examination of Evidence for Effectiveness in School-Based Drug Prevention Programs, Report to Congress, United States Department of Education, Office of the Undersecretary, Multilevel and Special Populations Division, 1993, 37-39.

Cited by

See all 3

Metadata

Authors
Guilmet, G. M., Whited, D. L., Dorpat, N., & Pijanowski, C.
Affiliations
University of Puget Sound (US)
Venue
American Indian Culture and Research Journal
Published
1998-01-01
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
407-440
ISSN
0161-6463 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W90677270
Cited by
3
References
12
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Indian Culture and Research Journal (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
Keywords
youth violence, gang violence, crime prevention, tribal education, American Indian and Alaska Native students, risk and protective factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-27, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-27 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review