Researcher: Positive school climate lowers substance use but shows weaker protection for bias victims

Dr. Ron Aviaster, a long‑time school‑safety researcher, told the California Commission on the State of Hate that his team's analyses of California Healthy Kids Survey data find different patterns for general victimization and bias‑based victimization in K–12 schools.

"The positive school climate had much much weaker effects…with those that were victims of biased victimization," Aviaster said, describing a result he and colleagues have seen replicated in Europe and now across California schools. He said bias‑motivated victimization is strongly associated with suicidal ideation, sadness and hopelessness, and that those harms are not reduced as much by a generally supportive school environment.

Aviaster described two studies: one using data covering more than one million students across about 2,500 California schools and a second using over 600,000 students in more than 1,000 schools. He said the surveys include checklist items that ask students whether victimization occurred because of identity (race, religion, gender identity, disability, immigration status) and that separating bias‑based from non‑bias victimization yielded clearer relationships with mental‑health and substance‑use outcomes.

The researcher said that for substance use outcomes a positive school climate helps broadly: "a positive school climate really helps across the board," he said, noting climate-related programming reduced substance use even for students who reported bias‑based victimization. But he emphasized that interventions must be integrated into everyday school practices rather than delivered as ephemeral, externally run curricula: "window air conditioning" programs tend to disappear with grant cycles; central‑air, school‑wide approaches last.

Aviaster also described a pilot antibias instrument developed with Holocaust Museum Los Angeles that is being used as an intake for teachers and students; the instrument is designed to provide rapid, school‑level feedback so schools can follow up within weeks rather than years. He said the museum and partners are collecting initial data from teachers now and hope for a robust report after reaching sufficient sample sizes.

Commissioners asked about timelines, school anonymity, and how to ensure results are actionable at the local level. Aviaster said schools typically remain anonymous publicly until interventions are underway, and that quick, school‑specific reporting (ideally within a week) makes the data actionable.

The commission did not take formal action on policy following the presentation. The discussion underscored the commission's interest in making bias‑specific survey items and school‑level dashboards part of prevention and intervention planning.