Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2003 October 2003 ---------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.wk1) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/iscs03.htm This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#indicators. ----------------------------------------------------- Jill F. DeVoe Education Statistics Services Institute Katharin Peter Phillip Kaufman MPR Associates, Inc. Sally A. Ruddy Amanda K. Miller Mike Planty Education Statistics Services Institute Thomas D. Snyder National Center for Education Statistics Michael R. Rand Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Education Rod Paige, Secretary U.S. Department of Justice John Ashcroft Attorney General Institute of Education Sciences Grover J. Whitehurst Director Office of Justice Programs Deborah J. Daniels Assistant Attorney General National Center for Education Statistics Val Plisko Associate Commissioner Bureau of Justice Statistics Lawrence A. Greenfeld Director U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences NCES 2004-004 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs NCJ 201257 The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in other countries. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, publishing, and disseminating statistical information about crime, its perpetrators and victims, and the operation of the justice system at all levels of government. These data are critical to federal, state, and local policymakers in combating crime and ensuring that justice is both efficient and evenhanded. October 2003 Suggested Citation DeVoe, J.F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Ruddy, S.A., Miller, A.K., Planty, M., Snyder, T.D., and Rand, M.R. Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2003. NCES 2004-004/NCJ 201257. U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Washington, DC: 2003. This publication can be downloaded from the World Wide Web at http://nces.ed.gov or http:// www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/. Single hard copies can be ordered through ED Pubs at 1-877-4ED-PUBS (NCES 2004-004) (TTY/TDD 1-877-576-7734), and the Bureau of Justice Statistics Clearinghouse at 1-800-732-3277 (NCJ 201257). Contact at NCES: Thomas D. Snyder (202) 502-7452 E-mail:Tom.Snyder@ed.gov Contact at BJS: Michael R. Rand (202) 616-3494 E-mail: randm@ojp.usdoj.gov FOREWORD The Indicators of School Crime and Safety provides the most recent national indicators on school crime and safety. These indicators demonstrate that sizable improvements have occurred in the safety of students: between 1992 and 2001, the violent crime victimization rate at school declined from 48 violent victimizations per 1,000 students in 1992 to 28 such victimizations in 2001. Even so, violence, theft, bullying, drugs, and firearms are still prevalent: students ages 12-18 were victims of about 764,000 violent crimes and 1.2 million crimes of theft at school in 2001. Accurate information about the nature, extent, and scope of the problem being addressed is essential in developing effective programs and policies. The information in this report is intended to serve as a foundation for policymakers and practitioners so that they can develop effective programs and policies to prevent violence and crime in schools and cope with it when it occurs. This is the sixth edition of Indicators of School Crime and Safety, a joint publication of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics. This report provides detailed statistical information to inform the nation on the current status of crime in schools. The 2003 edition of Indicators includes the most recent available data, including 2001 data and newly released data from the 2000 School Survey on Crime and Safety, a survey of our nation's public schools. The data in this report were compiled from a number of statistical data sources supported by the federal government. Such sources include results from a study of violent deaths in schools, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the National Crime Victimization Survey and School Crime Supplement to the survey, sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics, respectively; the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and the Schools and Staffing Survey, sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics. The entire report is available on the Internet. The Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics continue to work toward providing more timely and complete data on the issues of school-related violence and safety. Val Plisko Associate Commissioner National Center for Education Statistics Intstitute of Education Sciences Lawrence A. Greenfeld Director Bureau of Justice Statistics EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For youth to fulfill their potential in school, schools should be safe and secure places for all students, teachers, and staff members. Without a safe learning environment, teachers may have difficulty teaching and students may have difficulty learning. Gauging the safety of the school environment, however, may be difficult given the large amount of attention devoted to isolated incidents of extreme school violence nationwide. Ensuring safer schools requires establishing good indicators of the current state of school crime and safety across the nation and periodically monitoring and updating these indicators. Indicators of School Crime and Safety is designed to provide an annual snapshot of specific crime and safety indicators, covering topics such as victimization, fights, bullying, disorder, teacher injury, weapons, student perceptions of school safety, and others. In addition to covering a wide range of topics, the indicators are based on information drawn from surveys of students, teachers, and principals, and data collections by federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Students ages 12-18 were victims of about 2 million nonfatal crimes of violence or theft at school in 2001, with the majority (62 percent) of all victimizations at school being thefts. However, this report is not only concerned with the safety of students in schools. Where comparable data are available for crimes that occur outside of school grounds, these data are offered as a point of comparison. In fact, as the data in this report show, a larger number of serious violent victimizations (that is, rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) take place away from school than at school. Footnote 1: These data are not adjusted by the number of hours that students spend on school property and the number of hours they spend elsewhere. Data on homicides and suicides at school show there were 32 school-associated violent deaths in the United States between July 1, 1999 and June 30, 2000, including 24 homicides, 16 of which involved school-aged children. In each school year from 1992 to 2000, youth ages 5-19 were at least 70 times more likely to be murdered away from school than at school. Trends in school crime over time are also of interest to researchers, educators, and families. Data show that the percentage of students being victimized at school has declined over recent years. Between 1995 and 2001, the percentage of students who reported being victims of crime at school decreased from 10 percent to 6 percent. This included a decrease in theft (from 7 percent to 4 percent) and a decrease in violent victimization (from 3 percent to 2 percent) over the same time period. For some other types of crime at school, the frequency of these behaviors has shown no detectable pattern of increase or decrease over time. These include the percentage of suicides of school-age youth between 1992 and 1999, the percentage of students being threatened or injured with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property between 1993 and 2001, and the percentage of teachers being physically attacked by a student between 1993-94 and 1999-2000. Hate-related graffiti between 1999 and 2001, and measures of marijuana use, alcohol use, and drug distribution at school between 1993 and 2001 have also shown no detectable pattern of change over their respective survey periods. The prevalence of one problem behavior at school has increased. In 2001, 8 percent of students reported that they had been bullied at school in the last 6 months, up from 5 percent in 1999. ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT This report, the sixth in a series of annual reports on school crime and safety from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), presents the latest available data on school crime and student safety. The report repeats some indicators from the 2002 report and also provides updated data on nonfatal student victimization; nonfatal victimization of teachers; principal reports of select crimes; and principal reports of disciplinary problems and actions at school. This year's report also includes data from last year's Indicators on fatal student victimization and students' reports of being threatened or injured with a weapon, being in fights, being bullied, avoiding places, being called hate-related words, and seeing hate-related graffiti. Data are also included on students' perceptions of personal safety, gangs, carrying weapons at school, using alcohol and marijuana, and drug availability on school property. The report is organized as a series of indicators, with each indicator presenting data on a different aspect of school crime and safety. It starts with a description of the most serious violence. There are five sections to the report: Violent Deaths at School; Nonfatal Student Victimization-Student Reports; Violence and Crime at School- Public School Reports; Nonfatal Teacher Victimization at School-Teacher Reports; and School Environment. Each section contains a set of indicators that, taken together, describe a distinct aspect of school crime and safety. Rather than relying on data from a large omnibus survey of school crime and safety, this report uses a variety of independent data sources from federal departments and agencies, including the BJS, NCES, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Each data source has an independent sample design, data collection method, and questionnaire design. By combining multiple and independent sources of data, this report aims to present a more complete portrait of school crime and safety than would be possible using any single source of information. However, because the report relies on so many data sets, the age groups, time periods, and types of respondents analyzed can vary from indicator to indicator. Readers should keep these variations in mind when they compare data from different indicators. Readers should also note that trends in the data are discussed when possible. Where trends are not discussed, either the data are not available in earlier surveys or survey question wording changed from year to year, eliminating the ability to discuss any trend. Furthermore, while every effort has been made to keep key definitions consistent across indicators, readers should always use caution in making comparisons between results from different data sets for several reasons: the data sets may contain definitional differences, such as those used for specific crimes and crimes that occur "at school," and respondent differences, such as examining students who report a victimization (at the individual level) and a school reporting one or more victimizations school wide. Appendix A of this report contains descriptions of all the data sets used in this report. KEY FINDINGS All the comparisons described in this report are statistically significant at the 0.05 level. The following section presents the key findings of the report: Violent Deaths at School From July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000, 32 school-associated violent deaths occurred in the United States (Indicator 1). Twenty-four of these violent deaths were homicides and 8 were suicides. Sixteen of the 24 school-associated homicides involved school-aged children. These 16 homicides are relatively few (1 percent of all homicides of youth) when comparing them with a total of 2,124 children ages 5-19 who were victims of homicide in the United States over the same period. Six of the 8 school-associated suicides from July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000 involved school-aged children. Away from school, there were a total of 1,922 suicides of children ages 5-19 during the 2000 calendar year. Nonfatal Student Victimization-Student Reports Students ages 12-18 were more likely to be victims of nonfatal serious violent crime-including rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault-when they were away from school than at school (Indicator 2). In 2001, students in this age range were victims of about 290,000 serious violent crimes away from school, compared with about 161,000 at school. Between 1992 and 2001, the violent crime victimization rates (that is, serious violent crime plus simple assault) for students ages 12-18 both at school and away from school decreased from 48 violent crimes per 1,000 students in 1992 to 28 violent crimes per 1,000 students in 2001 (Indicator 2). While this trend indicates an overall decline during this time frame, no difference was detected between 2000 and 2001 in the number of violent victimizations. In 2001, younger students (ages 12-14) were more likely to be victimized at school than older students (ages 15-18); however, away from school, older students were more likely to be victimized than their younger counterparts (Indicator 2). The percentages of students in grades 9-12 who have been threatened or injured with a weapon on school property2 have shown no measurable differences in recent years (Indicator 4). In 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001, between 7 and 9 percent of students reported being threatened or injured with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property in the preceding 12 months. The percentage of students who reported being in a fight anywhere declined between 1993 and 2001, from 42 percent to 33 percent (Indicator 5). Similarly, the percentage of students who reported fighting on school property also declined over this period, from 16 percent to 13 percent. In 2001, 8 percent of 12- through 18-year-old students reported being bullied at school in the last 6 months, up from 5 percent in 1999 (Indicator 6). Both males and females were more likely to report being bullied in 2001 than in 1999 (Indicator 6). In 2001, males were more likely than females to report being bullied (9 and 7 percent, respectively); however, in 1999, no such difference could be detected (5 percent each). Violence and Crime at School-Public School Reports In 1999-2000, 20 percent of all public schools experienced one or more serious violent crimes such as rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Seventy-one percent of schools reported at least one violent incident. Forty-six percent of public schools reported property crimes, or thefts (Indicator 7). This report also provides the number of disciplinary actions taken by school principals for reasons not related to academics. About 54 percent of public schools reported taking a serious disciplinary action in the 1999-2000 school year. Of those disciplinary actions, 83 percent were suspensions lasting 5 days or more, 11 percent were removals with no services (i.e., expulsions), and 7 percent were transfers to specialized schools (Indicator 8). Secondary schools were more likely than other schools to experience a violent incident during the 1999-2000 school year (92 vs. 61-87 percent for elementary, middle, and combined schools). Likewise, larger schools were more likely to experience a violent incident than smaller schools. About 89 percent of schools with 1,000 or more students experienced a violent incident, compared with 61 percent of schools with less than 300 students (Indicator 7). Footnote 2: Definitions for "on school property" and "at school" may differ. See appendix B for specific definitions. Two percent of public schools took a serious disciplinary action for the use of a firearm or explosive device, and 4 percent did so for the possession of such a device (Indicator 8). Nonfatal Teacher Victimization at School-Teacher Reports Over the 5-year period from 1997 through 2001, teachers were victims of approximately 1.3 million nonfatal crimes at school, including 817,000 thefts and 473,000 violent crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault) (Indicator 9). From 1997 through 2001, senior high school and middle/junior high school teachers were more likely to be victims of violent crimes (most of which were simple assaults) than elementary school teachers (Indicator 9). Teachers were differentially victimized by violent crimes at school according to where they taught (Indicator 9). From 1997 through 2001, urban teachers were more likely to be victims of violent crimes than suburban and rural teachers. In the 1999-2000 school year, 9 percent of all elementary and secondary school teachers were threatened with injury by a student, and 4 percent were physically attacked by a student (Indicator 10). This represented about 305,000 teachers who were victims of threats of injury by students that year and 135,000 teachers who were victims of attacks by students. School Environment Between 1995 and 1999, the percentage of students ages 12-18 who felt unsafe while they were at school or on the way to and from school decreased (Indicator 12). However, between 1999 and 2001, no change was found in the percentage of students who felt unsafe. In both 1999 and 2001, students were more likely to be afraid of being attacked when they were at school than away from school. Between 1993 and 2001, the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property within the previous 30 days declined from 12 percent to 6 percent (Indicator 11). Between 1999 and 2001, no differences were detected in the percentage of students ages 12-18 who avoided one or more places at school (about 5 percent in each year) (Indicator 13). These estimates represented a decrease from 1995, when 9 percent of students avoided places at school. In 2001, 12 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that someone at school had used hate-related words against them (Indicator 14). That is, in the previous 6 months, someone at school had called them a derogatory word related to race, religion, ethnicity, disability, gender, or sexual orientation. During the same period, about 36 percent of students saw hate-related graffiti at school. In 2001, 20 percent of students reported that street gangs were present at their schools (Indicator 15). Students in urban schools were more likely to report the presence of street gangs at their schools (29 percent) than were suburban and rural students (18 and 13 percent, respectively). In 1999-2000, public school principals were asked to report how often certain disciplinary problems occurred at their schools. Twenty-nine percent of public schools reported that student bullying occurred on a daily or weekly basis and 19 percent reported student acts of disrespect for teachers occurred at the same frequency (Indicator 16). Additionally, 13 percent reported student verbal abuse of teachers and 3 percent reported occurrences of student racial tensions and widespread disorder in the classrooms with the same frequency. Between 1993 and 2001, no consistent patterns of increase or decrease were found in the percentage of students who had consumed alcohol, both anywhere and on school property (Indicator 17). In 2001, 5 percent of students in grades 9-12 had at least one drink of alcohol on school property in the 30 days prior to the survey. Forty-seven percent of students had at least one drink anywhere during the same period. Between 1993 and 2001, no consistent patterns of increase or decrease were found in the percentage of students who had used marijuana-both anywhere and on school property (Indicator 18). In 2001, 24 percent of students reported using marijuana anywhere during the previous 30 days, and 5 percent reported using marijuana on school property. In 2001, 29 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported that someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property in the 12 months prior to the survey (Indicator 19). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank the heads of the sponsoring agencies, Val Plisko of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and Lawrence Greenfeld of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), for supporting this report. From BJS, we wish to thank Cathy Maston of the Victimization Statistics Branch for her work in verifying data from the NCVS and Tom Hester for his continued contribution to the report. From NCES, we wish to thank Bruce Taylor, Shelley Burns, Marilyn Seastrom, and Kathryn Chandler, who served as reviewers. They all provided input that substantially improved the publication. Outside of NCES and BJS, Mark Anderson, Nancy Brener, and Dionne White of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention generously provided and verified data and performed reviews of data documentation. We also value the review of this report and the continued support provided by Bill Modzeleski of the Office of Safe and Drug-free Schools (OSDFS). Kristen Hayes and Maria Worthen of the OSDFS provided valuable comments and continue to be supportive of this report. Reviews from various offices in the Department of Education were provided by the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, the Office of Special Education Programs, the Office for Civil Rights, the Policy and Program Studies Service, the Office of the Deputy Secretary, and the Institute of Education Sciences. In addition, school crime experts who reviewed the report were Allison Payne of the College of New Jersey and Richard Lawrence of St. Cloud State University. Their advice was gratefully accepted. We particularly appreciated their willingness to review the report under very strict time constraints. Without the assistance of the following staff at the Education Statistics Services Institute and MPR Associates, this report could not have been produced: Margaret Noonan, Sandy Eyster, Barbara Kridl, Wes Nations, Francesca Tussing, Andrea Livingston, and Leslie Retallick. They provided invaluable analytical, editorial, graphic, and production assistance. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Foreword ................................................................................................................... ..... iii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ v Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................... xi List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xiv List of Figures ................................................................................................................. xix Violent Deaths at School ................................................................................................ 1 1. Violent deaths at school and away from school .................................................... 2 Nonfatal Student Victimization-Student Reports .......................................................... 5 2. Victimization at school and away from school ..................................................... 6 3. Victimization of students at school ....................................................................... 10 4. Threats and injuries with weapons on school property ........................................ 12 5. Physical fights on school property ........................................................................ 14 6. Bullying at school ................................................................................................. 16 Violence and Crime at School-Public School Reports ................................................. 19 7. Violent and other incidents at public schools and those reported to the police ........ 20 8. Serious disciplinary actions taken by public schools ............................................... 24 Nonfatal Teacher Victimization at School-Teacher Reports ......................................... 27 9. Nonfatal teacher victimization at school ................................................................. 28 10. Teachers threatened with injury or attacked by students .......................................... 30 School Environment ....................................................................................................... 33 11. Students carrying weapons on school property .................................................... 34 12. Students' perceptions of personal safety at school or on the way to and from school and away from school ............................................................................... 36 13. Students' reports of avoiding places in school ...................................................... 38 14. Students' reports of being called hate-related words and seeing hate-related graffiti ................................................................................................. 40 15. Students' reports of gangs at school ...................................................................... 42 16. Discipline problems reported by public schools ................................................... 44 17. Students' use of alcohol ........................................................................................ 46 18. Students' use of marijuana .................................................................................... 48 19. Students' reports of drug availability on school property ...................................... 50 Supplemental Tables .......................................................................................... 53 Standard Error Tables .......................................................................................... 95 Appendix A. Technical Notes ......................................................................................... 133 Appendix B. Glossary of Terms ...................................................................................... 157 References .................................................................................. 163 LIST OF TABLES 1.1. Number of school-associated violent deaths occurring at school and away from school: 1992-2002 ..................................................................................... 54 2.1. Number of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 occurring at school or on the way to or from school, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 1992-2001 ................................................................................. 55 2.2. Rate of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 occurring at school or on the way to or from school per 1,000 students, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 1992-2001 ..................................................................... 59 2.3. Number of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 occurring away from school, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 1992-2001 ........ 63 2.4. Rate of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 occurring away from school per 1,000 students, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 1992-2001 ................................................................................. 67 3.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization and selected student characteristics: 1995, 1999, and 2001 ................................................... 71 4.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous 12 months, by selected student characteristics: Selected years 1993-2001 ............................... 72 5.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by selected student characteristics: Selected years 1993-2001 ................................................................................................. 73 6.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 1999 and 2001 .................................................................................................. 74 7.1. Number and percentage of public schools with various types of crime and number of incidents, by selected school characteristics: 1999-2000 .......... 75 7.2. Number and percentage of public schools that reported various types of crime to the police and number of incidents, by selected school characteristics: 1999-2000 .............................................................................................. 77 8.1. Percentage and number of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action, number of actions taken, and percentage distribution of actions according to type, by type of offense: 1999-2000 ............................................. 79 9.1. Number of nonfatal crimes against teachers and average annual rate of crimes per 1,000 teachers at school, by type of crime and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1997-2001 ...................................................................... 80 10.1. Percentage and number of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury by a student during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 .................................................................................... 81 10.2. Percentage and number of public and private school teachers who reported that they were physically attacked by a student during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 .................................................................................... 82 11.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by selected student characteristics: Selected years 1993-2001 .................................................................................. 83 12.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being afraid at school or on the way to and from school and away from school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 1995, 1999, and 2001 .................. 84 13.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that they avoided one or more places in school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 1995, 1999, and 2001 ................................................................ 85 14.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being targets of hate-related words at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 2001 ........................................................................................... 86 14.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who saw hate-related graffiti at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 1999 and 2001 ...... 87 15.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that street gangs were present at school during the previous 6 months, by urbanicity and selected student characteristics: 2001 ............................................................................... 88 16.1. Percentage of public schools that reported selected discipline problems according to frequency, by school characteristics: 1999-2000 .......................... 89 17.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by selected student characteristics: Selected years 1993-2001 .......................................................................................................... 91 18.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by selected student characteristics: Selected years 1993-2001 .......................................................................................................... 92 19.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported that drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by selected student characteristics: Selected years 1993-2001 ............................... 93 Standard Error Tables S2.1. Standard errors for table 2.1: Number of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 occurring at school or on the way to or from school, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 1992-2001 ................................................ 96 S2.2. Standard errors for table 2.2: Rate of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 occurring at school or on the way to or from school per 1,000 students, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 1992-2001 ..................... 100 S2.3. Standard errors for table 2.3: Number of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 occurring away from school, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 1992-2001 ................................................................................. 104 S2.4. Standard errors for table 2.4: Rate of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 occurring away from school per 1,000 students, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 1992-2001 ....................................................... 108 S3.1. Standard errors for table 3.1: Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization and selected student characteristics: 1995, 1999, and 2001 ........ 112 S4.1. Standard errors for table 4.1: Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous 12 months, by selected student characteristics: Selected years 1993-2001 S5.1. Standard errors for table 5.1: Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by selected student characteristics: Selected years 1993-2001 ............................... 114 S6.1. Standard errors for table 6.1: Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 1999 and 2001 ........................................................................... 115 S7.1. Standard errors for table 7.1: Number and percentage of public schools with various types of crime and number of incidents, by selected school characteristics: 1999-2000 ................................................................................. 116 S7.2. Standard errors for table 7.2: Number and percentage of public schools that reported various types of crime to the police and number of incidents, by selected school characteristics: 1999-2000 ........................................................ 117 S8.1. Standard errors for table 8.1: Percentage and number of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action, number of actions taken, and percentage distribution of actions according to type, by type of offense: 1999-2000 .......... 118 S9.1. Standard errors for table 9.1: Number of nonfatal crimes against teachers and average annual rate of crimes per 1,000 teachers at school, by type of crime and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1997-2001 ............................. 119 S10.1. Standard errors for table 10.1: Percentage and number of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury by a student during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 ................................................ 120 S10.2. Standard errors for table 10.2: Percentage and number of public and private school teachers who reported that they were physically attacked by a student during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 ........................................................... 121 S11.1. Standard errors for table 11.1: Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by selected student characteristics: Selected years 1993-2001 ............................... 122 S12.1. Standard errors for table 12.1: Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being afraid at school or on the way to and from school and away from school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 1995, 1999, and 2001 S13.1. Standard errors for table 13.1: Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that they avoided one or more places in school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 1995, 1999, and 2001 .................. 124 S14.1. Standard errors for table 14.1: Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being targets of hate-related words at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 2001 .............................................. 125 S14.2. Standard errors for table 14.2: Percentage of students ages 12-18 who saw hate-related graffiti at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 1999 and 2001 .............................................................. 126 S15.1. Standard errors for table 15.1: Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that street gangs were present at school during the previous 6 months, by urbanicity and selected student characteristics: 2001 ...................... 127 S16.1. Standard errors for table 16.1: Percentage of public schools that reported selected discipline problems according to frequency, by school characteristics: 1999-2000 ................................................................................. 128 S17.1. Standard errors for table 17.1: Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by selected student characteristics: Selected years 1993-2001 .......................................................... 130 S18.1. Standard errors for table 18.1: Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by selected student characteristics: Selected years 1993-2001 .......................................................... 131 S19.1. Standard errors for table 19.1: Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported that drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by selected student characteristics: Selected years 1993-2001 Appendix Tables A-1. Descriptions of data sources and samples used in the report ............................. 146 A-2. Wording of survey questions used to construct indicators .................................. 147 A-3. Methods used to calculated standard errors of statistics for different surveys ..... 154 LIST OF FIGURES 1.1. Number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5-19 at school and away from school: 1999-2000 ..................................................................................... 3 1.2. Number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5-19 at school: 1992-2002 ........................................................................................ 3 2.1. Rate of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 per 1,000 students, by type of crime and location: 1992-2001 .............................................................. 7 2.2. Rate of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 occurring at school or going to or from school per 1,000 students, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 1992-2001 ..................................................................... 8 2.3. Rate of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 occurring away from school per 1,000 students, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 2001 ........................................................................................... 9 3.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported nonfatal criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by grade level: 1995, 1999, and 2001 ................................................................................................... 11 4.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous 12 months, by sex: Selected years 1993-2001 ...................................................................... 13 4.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous 12 months, by grade: Selected years 1993-2001 ....................................................................... 13 5.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by sex: Selected years 1993-2001 ........... 15 5.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by grade: Selected years 1993-2001 ....... 15 6.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by sex: 1999 and 2001 ...................................... 17 6.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by grade: 1999 and 2001 ................................... 17 7.1. Percentage of public schools with various types of crime and percentage of public schools that reported various types of crime to the police, by school level: 1999-2000 ................................................................................................ 21 7.2. Percentage of public schools with various types of crime and percentage of public schools that reported various types of crime to the police, by enrollment: 1999-2000 ....................................................................................... 22 7.3. Percentage of public schools with various types of crime and percentage of public schools that reported various types of crime to the police, by urbanicity: 1999-2000 ........................................................................................ 23 8.1. Percentage distribution of serious disciplinary actions taken by public schools according to type of action: 1999-2000 ............................................................. 25 8.2. Percentage of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action for selected offenses, by type of offense: 1999-2000 ............................................... 25 9.1. Average annual rate of nonfatal crimes against teachers at school per 1,000 teachers, by type of crime and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1997-2001 .......................................................................................................... 29 10.1. Percentage of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury or that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 ................................................................................................... 31 10.2. Percentage of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury or that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and school sector: 1999-2000 ................................................................................... 31 11.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by sex: Selected years 1993-2001 ..... 35 11.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by grade: Selected years 1993-2001 .. 35 12.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being afraid at school or on the way to and from school during the previous 6 months, by race/ethnicity: 1995, 1999, and 2001 ........................................................................................ 37 12.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being afraid away from school during the previous 6 months, by race/ethnicity: 1999 and 2001 ........... 37 13.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that they avoided one or more places in school during the previous 6 months, by race/ethnicity: 1995, 1999, and 2001 ................................................................................................... 39 13.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that they avoided one or more places in school during the previous 6 months, by urbanicity: 1995, 1999, and 2001 ................................................................................................... 39 14.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being targets of hate-related words or who saw hate-related graffiti at school during the previous 6 months, by student and school characteristics: 2001 ....................................................... 41 15.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that street gangs were present at school during the previous 6 months, by urbanicity and school sector: 2001 ......................................................................................................... 43 16.1. Percentage of public schools that reported selected discipline problems, by school level: 1999-2000 ..................................................................................... 45 17.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by sex: Selected years 1993-2001 ......................................... 47 17.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by grade: Selected years 1993-2001 ..................................... 47 18.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by sex: Selected years 1993-2001 ................................... 49 18.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by grade: Selected years 1993-2001 ............................... 49 19.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by sex: Selected years 1993-2001 19.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by race/ethnicity: 1999 and 2001 VIOLENT DEATHS AT SCHOOL INDICATOR 1 VIOLENT DEATHS AT SCHOOL AND AWAY FROM SCHOOL In each school year from July 1, 1992 to June 30, 2000, youth ages 5-19 were at least 70 times more likely to be murdered away from school than at school. Violent deaths in schools are tragic events that affect not only the individuals and families directly involved, but also everyone in the schools and communities where they occur. In the 2001-02 school year, 17 school-aged youth were victims of a school-associated violent death. In this indicator, a school-associated violent death is a homicide, suicide, legal intervention (involving a law enforcement officer), or unintentional firearm-related death in which the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school in the United States. Deaths that occurred while the victim was on the way to or from regular sessions at school, or while the victim was attending or traveling to or from an official school-sponsored event, were also considered a school-associated violent death. Victims of school-associated violent deaths include students, staff members, and other nonstudents. Data were drawn from a number of data sets to enable comparisons of homicides and suicides at school and away from school. Data for school-associated violent deaths during the 1999-2000 through 2000- 01 school years are preliminary. In the most recent school year for which data from all sources are available, from July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000, there were 32 school-associated violent deaths (table 1.1). Of these violent deaths, 24 were homicides and 8 were suicides. Sixteen of the homicides and 6 of the suicides were of school-aged youth (ages 5-19) at school (figure 1.1 and table 1.1). Combined, this translates into less than 1 homicide or suicide of a school-aged youth at school per million students enrolled during the 1999-2000 school year.1 Away from school, during roughly the same time period, there were 2,124 homicides and 1,922 suicides of youth ages 5-19. From July 1, 1992 to June 30, 2000, 390 school-associated violent deaths occurred on campuses of U.S. elementary or secondary schools. Of these violent deaths, 234 were homicides and 43 were suicides of school-aged youth (ages 5-19). Away from school during roughly the same period,2 24,406 children ages 5-19 were victims of homicide and 16,735 children committed suicide. In each school year, youth were at least 70 times more likely to be murdered away from school than at school. Between July 1, 1992 and June 30, 1998, no consistent pattern of increase or decrease was observed in the number of homicides or suicides of school-aged youth at school (figure 1.2 and table 1.1). During this period, between 28 and 34 homicides and between 1 and 7 suicides of school-aged youth occurred at school in each year. However, from July 1, 1998 to This indicator has been updated to include the most recent data available. June 30, 2002, there has been a decline in the number of homicides at school, from 33 homicides of youth at school during the 1998-99 school year, to 14 during the 2001-2002 school year. Footnote 1: The total number of students in grades K-12 enrolled during the Fall of the 1999 school year was 52,020,000 (U.S. Department of Education 2003). Footnote 2: The estimates include homicides of youth ages 5-19 occurring from July 1, 1992 to June 30, 2000 and suicides of youth ages 5-19 occurring from 1993 to 2000 calendar years. NONFATAL STUDENT VICTIMIZATION--STUDENT REPORTS INDICATOR 2 VICTIMIZATION AT SCHOOL AND AWAY FROM SCHOOL Between 1992 and 2001, the victimization rate for students ages 12-18 generally declined for thefts, violent crimes, and serious violent crimes at school and away from school. Theft and violence at school and while going to and from school can lead to a disruptive and threatening environment, physical injury, and emotional stress and can be an obstacle to student achievement (Elliott, Hamburg, and Williams 1998). Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that students ages 12-18 were victims of about 2 million nonfatal crimes (theft plus violent crime) while they were at school and about 1.7 million crimes while they were away from school in 2001 (tables 2.1 and 2.3).3 These figures represent victimization rates of 73 crimes per 1,000 students at school, and 61 crimes per 1,000 students away from school (figure 2.1 and tables 2.2 and 2.4). Students ages 12-18 were more likely to be victims of theft at school than away from school between 1992 and 2001, in all but 2 years (1997 and 2000) (tables 2.1 and 2.3). In 2001, about 1.2 million thefts occurred at school, and about 913,000 occurred away from school. In 2001, students ages 12-18 were victims of about 764,000 violent crimes at school (rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault), including 161,000 serious violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault). Away from school, students were victims of about 758,000 violent crimes, including 290,000 serious violent crimes. Although during most of the period between 1992 and 2001, the victimization rates for violent crime and serious violent crime were lower at school than away from school, no difference could be detected in the violent victimization rate for students at school and away from school in 2001. The victimization rate for students ages 12-18 generally declined for thefts, violent crimes, and serious violent crimes at school and away from school between 1992 and 2001 (figure 2.1 and tables 2.2 and 2.4). Specifically, the violent victimization rate generally declined between 1992 and 2001 from 48 to 28 crimes per 1,000 students at school and from 71 to 28 crimes per 1,000 students away from school. While this trend indicates an overall decline during this time frame, no difference was detected between 2000 and 2001 in the number of violent victimizations. In 2001, the rate of serious violent crime away from school was higher for urban students than for both suburban and rural students (figures 2.2 and 2.3, and tables 2.2 and 2.4). However, no differences were detected in the likelihood of theft, violent victimization, and serious violent victimization at school between students living in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Younger students (ages 12-14) were more likely than older students (ages 15-18) to be victims of crime at school while older students were more likely than older students (ages 15 18) to be victims of crime at school while older students were more likely than younger students to be victimized away from school. No differences could be detected in the rate of theft, violent victimization, and serious violent victimization between males and females both at school and away from school. Footnote 3: "Students" refers to persons 12-18 years of age who reported being in any elementary or secondary grade at the time of the survey. An uncertain percentage of these persons may not have attended school during the survey reference period. These data do not take into account the number of hours that students spend at school and the number of hours they spend away from school. INDICATOR 3 VICTIMIZATION OF STUDENTS AT SCHOOL In recent years, as student grade level increased from 6th to 12th, reports of victimization generally decreased. The most frequently occurring type of nonfatal crime in the United States is theft, though violent crime continues to be of importance in examining school safety (U.S. Department of Justice 2000). Data from the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey show a decrease in the percentage of students affected by most types of victimization in recent years. For example, the percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being victims of nonfatal crimes at school during the previous 6 months was lower in 2001 than in 1999 and 1995 (6 percent vs. 8 and 10 percent, respectively) (table 3.1). Student reports of theft at school decreased from 7 percent in 1995 to 4 percent in 2001. In addition, student reports of violence at school decreased from 1995 to 1999 but were not measurably different between 1999 and 2001 (3 percent in 1995 and 2 percent in both 1999 and 2001). In 2001, male students were more likely than female students to report any criminal victimization (6 vs. 5 percent). Among 6th-12th-grade students, as student grade level increased, reports of victimization generally decreased in all survey years (figure 3.1 and table 3.1). Nonetheless, for students in each grade level, the percentage who reported being victims of nonfatal crimes declined between 1995 and 2001. During this period, reports of victimization dropped from 10 percent to 6 percent for 6th-graders and from 6 percent to 3 percent for 12th-graders. Nonfatal victimization rates varied according to school sector. In each survey year, public school students were more likely to report having been victims of violent crime than their private school counterparts. Public school students were also more likely than private school students to report being victims of theft in 1995 and 2001. This indicator repeats information from the 2002 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. INDICATOR 4 THREATS AND INJURIES WITH WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY The percentage of students in grades 9-12 who were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property has fluctuated in recent years without a clear trend. Every year, some students are threatened or injured with a weapon while they are on school property. The percentage of students victimized in this way provides an important measure of how safe our schools are and how this changes over time. In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9-12 were asked whether they had been threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the 12 months preceding the survey. Results show that the percentage of students who were threatened or injured in this way has fluctuated in recent years without a clear trend. In all survey years from 1993 to 2001, between 7 percent and 9 percent of students reported being threatened or injured with a weapon, such as a gun, knife, or club, on school property (table 4.1). The likelihood of being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property varied by student characteristics. In each survey year, males were more likely than females to report being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property (figure 4.1 and table 4.1). For example, in 2001, 12 percent of male students reported being threatened or injured in the past year, compared with 7 percent of female students. Among 9th-12th-grade students, those in lower grades were more likely to be threatened or injured with a weapon on school property than were those in higher grades in all survey years (figure 4.2 and table 4.1). In 2001, 13 percent of 9th-graders reported that they were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property, compared with 9 percent of 10th-graders, 7 percent of 11th-graders, and 5 percent of 12th-graders. Finally, students' likelihood of being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property was examined by race/ethnicity. In 2001, Pacific Islander students were more likely than Black, Hispanic, or White students to report being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property. While there appear to be large differences in other racial/ ethnic groups, some of these estimates are associated with large standard errors and should be interpreted with caution. INDICATOR 5 PHYSICAL FIGHTS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY In recent years, the percentage of 9th-12th-grade students who reported being in a physical fight on school property has declined-from 16 percent in 1993 to 13 percent in 2001. Schools at which there are numerous physical fights may not be able to maintain a focused learning environment for students. Further, students who are involved in fights on school property may have difficulty succeeding in their studies (Hamburg 1998). In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9-12 were asked about their general involvement in physical fights during the preceding 12 months (referred to as "anywhere" in this analysis) and their involvement in physical fights on school property. The percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported being in a fight anywhere declined from 1993 to 2001-from 42 percent in 1993 to 33 percent in 2001 (table 5.1). Similarly, the percentages of students who reported fighting on school property in these years also declined, from 16 percent in 1993 to 13 percent in 2001. In all survey years, males were more likely than females to have been in a fight anywhere and on school property (figure 5.1 and table 5.1). In 2001, 43 percent of males said they had been in a fight anywhere, and 18 percent said they had been in a fight on school property. In that same year, 24 percent of females reported they had been in a fight anywhere, and 7 percent said they had been in a fight on school property. When looking at different grade levels, students in lower grades reported being in fights more frequently than students in higher grades both anywhere and on school property in all survey years (figure 5.2 and table 5.1). For example, in 2001, 17 percent of 9th-graders reported being in a fight on school property, while 8 percent of 12th-graders reported the same. In 2001, the percentages of students engaging in fights anywhere varied according to students' race/ethnicity. Specifically, Asian students were less likely than Black, White, and Hispanic students to report being in a fight anywhere (22 percent vs. 32-37 percent for Black, White, and Hispanic students). However, a similar pattern could not be detected in the percentages of students who reported being in a fight at school. While there appear to be large differences in other racial/ethnic groups, these estimates are associated with large standard errors and should be interpreted with caution. INDICATOR 6 BULLYING AT SCHOOL The percentage of students who reported that they had been bullied at school increased from 5 percent in 1999 to 8 percent in 2001. Bullying can contribute to an environment of fear and intimidation in schools (Arnette and Walsleben 1998; Ericson 2001). In the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 were asked if they had been bullied (for example, picked on or made to do things they did not want to do) at school. In 2001, 8 percent of students reported that they had been bullied at school in the last 6 months, up from 5 percent in 1999 (table 6.1). In 2001, males were more likely than females to be bullied (9 vs. 7 percent); however, no differences could be detected according to students' sex in 1999 (about 5 percent each) (figure 6.1 and table 6.1). The percentage of students who reported that they had been bullied increased between 1999 and 2001 for all racial/ethnic groups except Blacks. About 6 percent of Black students in both years reported they had been bullied. During this period, the percentage of students who had been bullied increased from 5 to 9 percent for White students, and from 4 to 8 percent for Hispanic students. In 2001, one difference could be detected among racial/ethnic groups in the percentage of students who reported being bullied: White students were more likely than Black students to report being bullied (9 vs. 6 percent). In 1999 and 2001, grade level was inversely related to students' likelihood of being bullied: as grade level increased, students' likelihood of being bullied decreased (figure 6.2 and table 6.1). For example, in 2001, 14 percent of 6th-graders, 9 percent of 9th­graders, and 2 percent of 12th-graders reported that they had been bullied at school. In 1999, public school students were more likely to report being bullied than private school students (5 vs. 3 percent); however, no differences were detected between public and private school students' reports of being bullied in 2001. This indicator repeats information from the 2002 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. VIOLENCE AND CRIME AT SCHOOL-PUBLIC SCHOOL REPORTS INDICATOR 7 VIOLENT AND OTHER INCIDENTS AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THOSE REPORTED TO THE POLICE Seventy-one percent of public schools experienced one or more violent incidents, while 36 percent reported one or more such incidents to the police. This indicator provides the percentage of schools that experienced one or more crimes and the total number of crimes reported by schools. In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, principals of public schools were asked to provide the number of violent incidents, serious violent incidents, thefts, and other incidents that occurred at their school, as well as the number of incidents that were reported to the police. Violent incidents include rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with or without a weapon, threat of physical attack with or without a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. In 1999-2000, an estimated 1.5 million violent incidents occurred in public elementary and secondary schools (table 7.1). Seventy-one percent of public schools experienced one or more violent incidents and 36 percent of schools reported one or more such incidents to the police (tables 7.1 and 7.2). Twenty percent of schools experienced one or more serious violent incidents (which are a subset of violent incidents and include rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with a weapon, threat of physical attack with a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon) and 46 percent of public schools experienced one or more thefts. These translate into an estimated 61,000 serious violent incidents and 218,000 thefts at public schools in 1999-2000. When looking at reports to police, 15 percent of public schools reported one or more serious violent incidents to the police and 28 percent reported one or more thefts to the police. The prevalence of violent incidents and those reported to the police varied by the school level and size of the school (figures 7.1 and 7.2 and tables 7.1 and 7.2). Schools with students in higher grades were more likely to experience a violent incident than those with students in lower grades. Specifically, secondary schools were more likely to have a violent incident than elementary, middle, or combined schools (92 percent vs. 61-87 percent for the other school levels). A similar pattern was observed for those incidents that were reported to the authorities: 71 percent of secondary schools reported a violent incident, compared with 20 percent of elementary schools, 56 percent of middle schools, and 51 percent of combined schools. Likewise, larger schools were more likely to have a violent incident and report one or more violent incidents to the police than smaller schools. About 89 percent of schools with 1,000 students or more had a violent incident, compared with 61 percent of schools with less than 300 students. This is a new indicator. When examining violent incidents by the location of public schools, city schools were more likely than urban fringe schools to experience or report to the police at least one violent incident during the 1999-2000 school year (figure 7.3 and tables 7.1 and 7.2). Seventy-seven percent of urban schools had one or more violent incidents and 44 percent reported one or more incidents to the police, compared with 67 and 35 percent, respectively, of urban fringe schools. Rural schools were the least likely to report one or more violent incidents to the police (28 percent vs. 35-44 percent for public schools in urban fringe and city areas). INDICATOR 8 SERIOUS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS TAKEN BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS About 54 percent of public schools took a serious disciplinary action in the 1999- 2000 school year. Of those disciplinary actions, 83 percent were suspensions lasting 5 days or more, 11 percent were removals with no services (i.e., expulsions), and 7 percent were transfers to specialized schools. The extent to which schools remove students from regular instruction as a result of crime and violence has important consequences for student instruction. In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, public school principals were asked to report the number of disciplinary actions taken during the 1999-2000 school year for specific offenses that were not academic infractions. About 54 percent of public schools took at least one serious disciplinary action, including suspensions lasting 5 days or more, removals with no services (i.e., expulsions), and transfers to specialized schools, for any of the offenses that occurred in the 1999-2000 school year (table 8.1). Altogether, about 1,163,000 actions were taken. Of those serious disciplinary actions, 83 percent were suspensions for 5 days or more, 11 percent were removals with no services, and 7 percent were transfers to specialized schools (figure 8.1 and table 8.1). Two percent of all public schools took one or more serious disciplinary actions in response to the use of a firearm or explosive device, and 4 percent did so for the possession of such a device (figure 8.2 and table 8.1). Use of weapons other than firearms resulted in at least one serious disciplinary action in 5 percent of schools, while possession of weapons other than firearms led to a serious disciplinary action in 19 percent of schools. Ten percent of all public schools took one or more serious disciplinary actions for the distribution of illegal drugs, and 20 percent for the possession or use of illegal drugs or alcohol. In 1999-2000, public schools took serious disciplinary actions for offenses such as fights (35 percent), threats (22 percent), insubordination (18 percent), and other non­academic infractions (14 percent). This is a new indicator. NONFATAL TEACHER VICTIMIZATION AT SCHOOL-TEACHER REPORTS INDICATOR 9 NONFATAL TEACHER VICTIMIZATION AT SCHOOL From 1997 to 2001, teachers were the victims of approximately 1.3 million nonfatal crimes at school, including 817,000 thefts and 473,000 violent crimes. Students are not the only victims of crime at school. Teachers are also targets of violence and theft in schools. In addition to the personal toll that violence may take on teachers, those who worry about their safety may have difficulty teaching and may leave the profession altogether (Elliott, Hamburg, and Williams 1998). Information on the number of crimes against teachers at school can help show the extent of the problem. Estimates of teacher victimization are drawn from the National Crime Victimization Survey, which obtains information about the occupation of survey respondents. These events are not limited to offenses committed by students; offenses committed by others against teachers at school are also included. Over the 5-year period from 1997 to 2001, teachers were the victims of approximately 1.3 million nonfatal crimes at school, including 817,000 thefts and 473,000 violent crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault) (table 9.1). Among the violent crimes against teachers during this 5-year period, there were about 48,000 serious violent crimes (accounting for 10 percent of the violent crimes), including rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. On average, these figures translate into a rate of 21 violent crimes per 1,000 teachers, and 2 serious violent crimes per 1,000 teachers annually. During the 5-year period, the annual rate of violent victimization for teachers varied according to their sex and their instructional level (figure 9.1 and table 9.1). Over the 5­year period from 1997 to 2001, male teachers were more likely than female teachers to be victims of violent crimes (39 vs. 16 crimes per 1,000 teachers). Also, senior high school and middle/junior high school teachers were more likely than elementary school teachers to be victims of violent crimes (31 and 33 vs. 12 violent crimes per 1,000 teachers, respectively). Teachers in urban areas were more vulnerable to violent crime victimization at school than others. For example, annually over the 5-year period, urban teachers were more likely than rural and suburban teachers to be victims of violent crimes (28 vs. 13 and 16 crimes, respectively, per 1,000 teachers). Teachers in urban areas were more likely than those in rural areas to experience theft at school (42 and 26 crimes per 1,000 teachers, respectively). This indicator has been updated to include 2001 data. Footnote 4: The average annual rate is the sum of all teacher victimizations across the 5 years divided by the sum of all teachers over those years, multiplied by 1,000. INDICATOR 10 TEACHERS THREATENED WITH INJURY OR ATTACKED BY STUDENTS Teachers in central city schools were more likely than their peers in urban fringe or rural schools to be threatened with injury or physically attacked. Some of the offenses against teachers are committed by students. Data on the extent to which students make threats or physically attack elementary and secondary teachers can provide a snapshot of this problem. In the Schools and Staffing Survey, teachers were asked whether they had been threatened with injury or physically attacked by a student in the previous 12 months. The survey results indicate that a smaller percentage of elementary and secondary school teachers were threatened with injury by a student at their school in the 1999-2000 school year than in the 1993-94 school year (9 vs. 12 percent) (table 10.1). No difference was detected in the percentage of teachers physically attacked by a student in the 1999-2000 school year compared to the 1993-94 school year (4 percent) (table 10.2). In 1999-2000, few differences could be detected in the likelihood of teachers being victimized by students according to teachers' race/ethnicity (tables 10.1 and 10.2). One such difference was that Black teachers were more likely to be threatened than White teachers in 1999-2000 (12 vs. 9 percent). In both survey years, teachers in central city schools were more likely to be threatened with injury or physically attacked than teachers in urban fringe or rural schools (figure 10.1 and tables 10.1 and 10.2). For example, in 1999-2000, 11 percent of teachers in central city schools had been threatened with injury by students, compared with 8 percent each in urban fringe and rural schools. Five percent of teachers in central city schools had been attacked by students, while 3 percent each of teachers in urban fringe and rural schools had experienced such attacks. In 1999-2000, teachers' reports of being victimized or attacked by a student varied according to the level and sector of their school. Secondary school teachers were more likely than elementary school teachers to have been threatened with injury by a student (10 vs. 8 percent); however, secondary school teachers were less likely to have been physically attacked (2 vs. 6 percent). Public school teachers were more likely than private school teachers to be victimized by students in school (figure 10.2 and tables 10.1 and 10.2): 10 percent of public school teachers had been threatened with injury, compared with 4 percent of private school teachers. Likewise, 4 percent of public school teachers and 2 percent of private school teachers had been physically attacked by students. Among This indicator teachers in central city schools, those at public schools were four times more likely to be repeats targets of threats of injury than their colleagues in private schools (14 vs. 3 percent) and information from about three times more likely to be targets of attacks (6 vs. 2 percent). the 2002 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT INDICATOR 11 STUDENTS CARRYING WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY Between 1993 and 2001, the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon anywhere and at school declined. The presence of weapons at school can create an intimidating and threatening atmosphere, making teaching and learning difficult (Ingersoll and LeBoeuf 1997). The percentage of students who report that they carry a gun or other weapon on school property is an indicator of the breadth of the problem of weapons at school. In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students were asked if they had carried a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club in the past 30 days (referred to as "anywhere" in this analysis) or carried one of these weapons onto school property in the past 30 days. In 2001, 17 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported they had carried a weapon anywhere, and about 6 percent reported they had carried a weapon on school property (table 11.1). Between 1993 and 2001, the percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere generally declined from 22 to 17 percent. Similarly, the percentage of students who carried a weapon at school also declined during this period-from 12 to 6 percent. When looking at the types of students who carried weapons to school, the survey results show that in all years, males were at least two times more likely than females to carry a weapon-both anywhere and on school property (figure 11.1 and table 11.1). For example, in 2001, 10 percent of males carried a weapon on school property, compared with 3 percent of females. For most survey years, the likelihood of students reporting that they carried a weapon anywhere was inversely related to their grade level: students in lower grades were more likely to report that they did so than their peers in higher grades in all survey years except in 1999, at which time no such relationship was found (figure 11.2 and table 11.1). However, no consistent pattern could be detected by grade level for students who reported carrying a weapon at school in almost all of the survey years. In 2001, there were some differences in the percentages of students carrying weapons anywhere and on school property according to students' race/ethnicity. Although there appear to be large differences in the prevalence of carrying weapons among students of various racial/ethnic groups, some of these estimates are associated with large standard errors and should be interpreted with caution. This indicator repeats information from the 2002 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. INDICATOR 12 STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL SAFETY AT SCHOOL OR ON THE WAY TO AND FROM SCHOOL AND AWAY FROM SCHOOL In both 1999 and 2001, students were more likely to be afraid of being attacked at school or on the way to and from school than away from school. School violence can make students fearful and affect their readiness and ability to learn. Concerns about vulnerability to attacks also have a detrimental effect on the school environment (Elliott, Hamburg, and Williams 1998). In the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 were asked how often they were afraid of attack "at school or on the way to and from school" and "away from school" during the previous 6 months. Footnote 5: In 1995 and 1999, students reported fear of "attack or harm" at school or on the way to and from school during the previous 6 months. In 2001, students reported fear of "attack or threat of attack" at school or on the way to and from school during the previous 6 months. Includes students who reported that they sometimes or most of the time feared being victimized in this way. Between 1999 and 2001, there was no change detected in the percentage of students who felt unsafe at school or on the way to and from school (table 12.1). However, between 1995 and 1999, there was a decrease in the percentage of students who felt unsafe. In 2001, 6 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that they sometimes or most of the time were fearful about their safety at school compared with 12 percent in 1995. Away from school in 2001, 5 percent of students feared being attacked. In both 1999 and 2001, Black and Hispanic students were more likely than White students to fear for their safety at school or on the way to and from school and away from school (figures 12.1 and 12.2 and table 12.1). In all survey years, students in lower grades were generally more likely than students in higher grades to fear such attacks at school or on the way to and from school. For example, in 2001, 11 percent of 6th-graders, 6 percent of 9th-graders, and 3 percent of 12th-graders feared for their safety at school or on the way to and from school. The location of the school was also related to the extent to which students feared attack: students in urban schools were more likely than students in suburban and rural schools to fear being attacked at school or on the way to and from school in all three survey years. In the most recent survey year, 10 percent of students in urban schools feared being attacked at school, compared with 5 percent of their counterparts in suburban and 6 percent in rural schools. This indicator repeats information from the 2002 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. INDICATOR 13 STUDENTS' REPORTS OF AVOIDING PLACES IN SCHOOL In 2001, 6th-grade students and urban students were more likely to avoid places in school than 12th-grade students and students from suburban and rural areas, respectively. School crime may lead students to perceive specific areas at school as unsafe. In trying to ensure their own safety, they begin to avoid these areas (Ingersoll and LeBoeuf 1997). Changes in the percentage of students avoiding certain areas in school may be a good barometer of how safe schools are, at least in the minds of those who attend them. In the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12- 18 were asked whether they had avoided certain places in school-such as the entrance, any hallways or stairs, parts of the cafeteria, restrooms, and other places inside the school building-during the previous 6 months. This indicator provides estimates of those students who responded that they avoided at least one of these places. No difference could be detected in the percentage of students who avoided one or more places in school between 1999 and 2001 (5 percent in both years) (table 13.1). Between 1995 and 1999, the percentage of students ages 12-18 who avoided one or more places in school decreased from 9 to 5 percent. In all survey years, both Black and Hispanic students were more likely than White students to report avoiding specific places in school (figure 13.1 and table 13.1). In 2001, for example, 4 percent of White students reported avoiding certain areas, compared with 7 percent of Black students and 6 percent of Hispanic students. In the most recent survey year, students' avoidance of certain places in school differed according to their grade level and the location of their school. Grade level was inversely associated with the likelihood of avoiding places at school. In 2001, 7 percent of 6th­graders and 3 percent of 12th-graders avoided certain areas in school. In the same year, students in urban areas were the most likely to avoid specific places in school (figure 13.2 and table 13.1): 6 percent of urban students reported that they had done so, compared with 4 percent each of suburban and rural students. This indicator repeats information from the 2002 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. INDICATOR 14 STUDENTS' REPORTS OF BEING CALLED HATE-RELATED WORDS AND SEEING HATE-RELATED GRAFFITI In 2001, 12 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that someone at school had used hate-related words against them, and more than one-third of students (36 percent) saw hate-related graffiti at school. A student's exposure to hate-related words or symbols at school may increase that student's feeling of vulnerability. Discriminatory behavior in schools can create a hostile environment that is not conducive to learning (McLaughlin and Brilliant 1997). In the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12- 18 were asked if someone at school called them a derogatory word having to do with race, religion, ethnicity, disability, gender, or sexual orientation during the previous 6 months. In the 2001 administration of the survey, they were then asked to specify the characteristic to which the hate-related word was directed. In 2001, 12 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that someone at school had used hate-related words against them (figure 14.1 and table 14.1). Four percent of respondents reported that the hate-related words concerned their race, about 3 percent each reported that the hate-related words concerned their ethnicity or gender, and between 1 and 2 percent each reported that the words were related to their religion, disability, or sexual orientation. Students were also asked if they had seen hate-related graffiti at their school-that is, hate-related words or symbols written in classrooms, bathrooms, hallways, or on the outside of the school building. In both 1999 and 2001, more than one-third (36 percent) of students saw hate-related graffiti at school (table 14.2). In 2001, there were differences across sex and race/ethnicity in students' experience being called specific types of hate-related words (tables 14.1 and 14.2). For example, females were more likely to report gender-related hate words than males (4 percent of females vs. 1 percent of males). Whites were less likely to report race-related hate words than students of other race/ethnicities (3 percent of Whites compared to 8 percent of Blacks, 5 percent of Hispanics, and 10 percent of students of other races). Students in public schools were more likely than students in private schools to report being called hate-related words or seeing hate-related graffiti in 2001. Specifically, public school students were more likely to report exposure to hate words related to their race, ethnicity, or disability. This indicator repeats information from the 2002 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. INDICATOR 15 STUDENTS' REPORTS OF GANGS AT SCHOOL In 2001, students ages 12-18 in urban schools were the most likely to report the presence of street gangs at their school, followed by suburban students and rural students. Street gangs are organized groups that are often involved in drugs, weapons trafficking, and violence. The presence of street gangs in school can be very disruptive to the school environment because they may not only create fear among students but also increase the level of violence in school (Laub and Lauritsen 1998). In the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 were asked if street gangs are present in their schools. In 2001, 20 percent of students reported that there were gangs at their schools (table 15.1). Students in urban schools were the most likely to report the presence of street gangs at their school (29 percent), followed by suburban students and rural students, who were the least likely to do so (18 and 13 percent, respectively). Hispanic and Black students were more likely than White students to report the existence of street gangs in their schools in 2001 (32 and 29 percent, respectively, vs. 16 percent). This pattern also held among students in urban schools and suburban schools. Students in public schools were more likely to report the presence of street gangs than students in private schools (figure 15.1 and table 15.1). In 2001, 22 percent of students in public schools reported that there were street gangs in their schools, compared with 5 percent in private schools. This indicator repeats information from the 2002 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. INDICATOR 16 DISCIPLINE PROBLEMS REPORTED BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS In 1999-2000, more than one-quarter (29 percent) of public schools reported daily or weekly student bullying. Discipline problems in a school may contribute to an overall environment in which violence and crime may occur. In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, school principals were asked how often certain disciplinary problems occur. Behaviors discussed in this indicator include racial tensions, bullying, student verbal abuse of teachers, widespread classroom disorder, and student acts of disrespect for teachers that happened daily or once a week. If gang or cult activities happened at all in the school, they were included as problematic. In 1999-2000, more than one-quarter (29 percent) of public schools reported daily or weekly student bullying (table 16.1). Among the other discipline problems reported, 19 percent of public schools reported student acts of disrespect for teachers, 13 percent reported student verbal abuse of teachers, and 3 percent reported student racial tensions and widespread disorder in classrooms. Furthermore, 19 percent of public schools reported undesirable gang activities and 7 percent of schools reported undesirable cult or extremist activities occurred at some point in time during the 1999-2000 school year. Discipline problems reported by public schools varied by school characteristics. For example, middle schools were more likely than elementary and secondary schools to report racial tensions, bullying, verbal abuse of teachers, and widespread disorder in classrooms (figure 16.1 and table 16.1). Middle schools were more likely than elementary schools, but less likely than high schools to report gang or extremist cult activity. The prevalence of discipline problems was positively related to school size. As school enrollment increased, so did the likelihood of schools reporting each discipline problem at their school except widespread disorder in the classroom-which was reported by relatively few principals (less than 5 percent at all enrollment levels). Twenty-six percent of principals at schools with 1,000 or more students reported student verbal abuse of teachers, compared to 14 percent of schools with 500-999 students, 10 percent of schools with 300-499 students, and 7 percent of schools with less than 300 students. Schools that had one or more violent incidents occur at their school were more likely to report each of the disciplinary problems discussed above, than those schools with no violent incidents. For example, 34 percent of schools with one or more violent incidents reported that bullying happened at least once a week, compared with 17 percent of schools with no violent incidents. This is a new indicator. INDICATOR 17 STUDENTS' USE OF ALCOHOL In 2001, 47 percent of students in grades 9-12 had at least one drink of alcohol anywhere in the 30 days before being surveyed and 5 percent had at least one drink on school property. The consumption of alcohol by students on school property, a crime in itself, may lead to other crimes and misbehavior on the part of students. It may also lead to a school environment that is harmful to students, teachers, and staff (Fagan and Wilkinson 1998). In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9-12 were asked whether they had consumed alcohol at all in the past 30 days (referred to as "anywhere" in this analysis) and if they had consumed alcohol on school property. In 2001, 47 percent of students had consumed at least one drink of alcohol anywhere in the 30 days before being surveyed, and a smaller percentage (5 percent) had consumed at least one drink on school property (table 17.1). When examining students' reports of drinking between 1993 and 2001, no consistent patterns of increase or decrease were found in the percentage of students who had consumed alcohol, both anywhere and on school property. In every survey year except 1995, males were more likely than females to have used alcohol anywhere (figure 17.1 and table 17.1). Furthermore, in every survey year, males were more likely than females to use alcohol on school property. For example, in 2001, 6 percent of males had reported using alcohol on school property, compared with 4 percent of females. Grade level was positively associated with the likelihood that students reported drinking alcohol anywhere in every survey year: students in higher grades were more likely to report drinking alcohol anywhere than students in lower grades (figure 17.2 and table 17.1). However, no such relationship was found across grade levels for students' reports of drinking alcohol on school property. In 2001, Asian and Black students were less likely to use alcohol anywhere than American Indian, Pacific Islander, White, and Hispanic students. Roughly one-third of Asian (28 percent) and Black (33 percent) students reported using alcohol anywhere, compared with about one-half (between 45 and 52 percent) of students in other racial/ ethnic groups. While there also appear to be differences by race/ethnicity in students' use of alcohol on school property, few differences could be detected due to large standard errors associated with these estimates. This indicator repeats information from the 2002 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. INDICATOR 18 STUDENTS' USE OF MARIJUANA In 2001, 24 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported using marijuana anywhere during the last 30 days and 5 percent of students reported using marijuana on school property. The use of drugs, such as marijuana, at school may lead to a school environment that is harmful to students, teachers, and school administrators. In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9-12 were asked whether they had used marijuana at all in the past 30 days (referred to as "anywhere" in this analysis) and whether they had used marijuana on school property. In 2001, about one-quarter (24 percent) of students in grades 9-12 reported using marijuana anywhere during the last 30 days, whereas 5 percent of students reported using marijuana on school property (table 18.1). Overall, no consistent patterns of increase or decrease were found in the percentage of students who had used marijuana between 1993 and 2001, both anywhere and on school property. Both students' sex and grade level were associated with students' use of marijuana at school. Males were more likely than females to have used marijuana in every survey year, both anywhere and on school property (figure 18.1 and table 18.1). For example, in 2001, 8 percent of males and 3 percent of females reported using marijuana on school property. In that same year, students in lower grades were less likely than students in higher grades to report using marijuana anywhere (figure 18.2 and table 18.1). However, no corresponding difference could be detected in students' use of marijuana on school property according to grade in school-between 5 and 6 percent of students in grades 9- 12 reported such use. In 2001, Asian students were less likely than students of all other race/ethnicities to report using marijuana anywhere. However, few differences could be found among these groups for students' marijuana use at school. One such difference was that American Indian/ Alaska Native students were more likely than students of all other race/ethnicities to report marijuana use at school in 2001. However, there was no difference detected in American Indian/Alaska Native students' use of marijuana at school between 1999 and 2001. While students from various racial/ethnic groups appear to differ in their use of marijuana, these estimates are associated with large standard errors and should be interpreted with caution. This indicator repeats information from the 2002 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. INDICATOR 19 STUDENTS' REPORTS OF DRUG AVAILABILITY ON SCHOOL PROPERTY In 2001, 29 percent of all students in grades 9-12 reported that someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property in the 12 months before the survey. The availability of drugs on school property has a disruptive and corrupting influence on the school environment (Nolin et al. 1997). In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9-12 were asked whether someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property in the 12 months before the survey. In 2001, 29 percent of all students in grades 9-12 reported that drugs were made available to them on school property (table 19.1). No consistent patterns of increase or decrease were found in the percentage of students who had reported that drugs were made available to them from 1993 to 2001, with between 24 and 32 percent of students reporting that this occurred in each survey year. Males were more likely than females to report that drugs were offered, sold, or given to them on school property in each survey year (figure 19.1 and table 19.1). For example, in 2001, 35 percent of males reported the availability of drugs, while 23 percent of females did so. In 1999 and 2001, students' racial/ethnic backgrounds were examined in relation to whether they reported having illegal drugs offered, sold, or given to them on school property (figure 19.2 and table 19.1). In 2001, Black and Asian students were less likely than Hispanic, Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders and students of multiple race/ethnicities to report that drugs were made available to them. While there appear to be other differences among students in various racial/ethnic groups, these estimates are associated with large standard errors and should be interpreted with caution. This indicator repeats information from the 2002 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. APPENDIX A TECHNICAL NOTES GENERAL INFORMATION The information presented in this report was obtained from many data sources, including databases from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). While some of the data were collected from universe surveys, most were gathered by sample surveys. Some questions from different surveys may appear the same, but they were actually asked of different populations of students (e.g., students ages 12-18 or students in grades 9-12); in different years; about experiences that occurred within different periods of time (e.g., in the past 30 days or during the past 12 months); and at different locations (e.g., in school or at home). Readers of this report should take particular care when comparing data from the different data sources. Because of the variation in collection procedures, timing, phrasing of questions, and so forth, the results from the different sources may not be strictly comparable. After introducing the data sources used for this report, the next section discusses the accuracy of estimates and describes the statistical procedures used. SOURCES OF DATA Table A-1 presents some key information for each of the data sets used in the report, including the survey year(s), target population, response rate, and sample size. The remainder of the section briefly describes each data set and provides directions for obtaining more information. The exact wording of the interview questions used to construct the indicators are presented in table A-2. Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) This report draws upon data on teacher victimization from the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), which provides national- and state-level data on public and national-and affiliation-level on private schools. The 1993-94 and 1999-2000 SASS consists of four sets of linked surveys, including surveys of schools, the principals of each selected school, a subsample of teachers within each school, and public school districts. Data were collected by multistage sampling, which began with the selection of schools. This report uses 1993-1994 and 1999-2000 SASS data. Approximately 9,900 public schools and 3,300 private schools were selected to participate in the 1993-1994 SASS and 9,900 public schools and 3,600 private schools were selected to participate in the 1999-2000 SASS. Within each school, teachers were further stratified into one of five teacher types in the following hierarchy: (1) Asian or Pacific Islander; (2) American Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo; (3) teachers who teach classes designed for students with Limited English Proficiency; (4) teachers in their first, second, or third year of teaching; and (5) teachers not classified in any of the other groups. Within each teacher stratum, teachers were selected systematically with equal probability. In 1993-1994, approximately 53,000 public school teachers and 10,400 private school teachers were sampled. In 1999-2000, 56,400 public school teachers and 10,800 private school teachers were sampled. This report focuses on responses from teachers. The overall weighted response rates were 83 percent and 77 percent for public school teachers in 1993-1994 and 1999- 2000, respectively. For private school teachers, the overall weighted response rates were 73 percent and 67 percent in 1993-1994 and 1999-2000, respectively. Values were imputed for questionnaire items that should have been answered but were not. For additional information about SASS contact: Kerry Gruber National Center for Education Statistics 1990 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 502-7349 E-mail: Kerry.Gruber@ed.gov National School-Based Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) The National School-Based Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) is one component of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), an epidemiological surveillance system developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to monitor the prevalence of youth behaviors that most influence health. The YRBS focuses on priority health-risk behaviors established during youth that result in the most significant mortality, morbidity, disability, and social problems during both youth and adulthood. This report uses 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 YRBS data. The YRBS used a three-stage cluster sampling design to produce a nationally representative sample of students in grades 9-12 in the United States. The target population consisted of all public and private school students in grades 9-12 in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The first-stage sampling frame included selecting primary sampling units (PSUs) from strata formed on the basis of urbanization and the relative percentage of Black and Hispanic students in the PSU. These PSUs are either large counties or groups of smaller, adjacent counties. At the second stage, schools were selected with probability proportional to school enrollment size. Schools with substantial numbers of black and Hispanic students were sampled at relatively higher rates than all other schools. The final stage of sampling consisted of randomly selecting within each chosen school at each grade 9- 12 one or two intact classes of a required subject, such as English or social studies. All students in selected classes were eligible to participate. Approximately 16,300, 10,900, 16,300, 15,300, and 13,600 students were selected to participate in the 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 surveys, respectively. The overall response rate was 70 percent for the 1993 survey, 60 percent for the 1995 survey, 69 percent for the 1997 survey, 66 percent for the 1999 survey, and 63 percent for the 2001 survey. NCES standards call for response rates of 85 percent or better for cross-sectional surveys and bias analyses are called for by NCES when that percentage is not achieved. For YRBS data, a full nonresponse bias analysis has not been done because the data necessary to do the analysis are not available. The weights were developed to adjust for nonresponse and the oversampling of black and Hispanic students in the sample. The final weights were constructed so that only weighted proportions of students (not weighted counts of students) in each grade matched national population projections. In 1999, in accordance with changes to the Office of Management and Budget's standards for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicity, the YRBS item on race/ethnicity was modified. The version of the race and ethnicity question used in 1993, 1995, and 1997 was: How do you describe yourself? 1. White - not Hispanic 2. Black - not Hispanic 3. Hispanic or Latino 4. Asian or Pacific Islander 5. American Indian or Alaskan Native 6. Other The version used in 1999 and 2001 was: How do you describe yourself? (Select one or more responses.) A. American Indian or Alaska Native B. Asian C. Black or African American D. Hispanic or Latino E. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander F. White This new version of the question used in 1999 and 2001 results in the possibility of respondents marking more than one category. While more accurately reflecting respondents' racial and ethnic identity, the new item cannot be directly compared to responses to the old item. A recent study by Brener, Kann, and McManus (2003) found that allowing students to select more than one response to the race/ethnicity question on the YRBS had only a minimal effect on reported race/ethnicity among high school students. For additional information about the YRBS contact: Laura Kann Division of Adolescent and School Health National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop K-33 4770 Buford Highway NE Atlanta, GA 30341-3717 Telephone: (770) 488-6181 E-mail: LKK1@cdc.gov Internet: www.cdc.gov/yrbs School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2000 The School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) was conducted by NCES in Spring/ Summer of the 1999-2000 school year. SSOCS focuses on incidents of specific crimes/offenses and a variety of specific discipline issues in public schools. It also covers characteristics of school policies, school violence prevention programs and policies and school characteristics that have been associated with school crime. The survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of regular public elementary, middle, and high schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Special education, alternative and vocational schools, schools in the territories, and schools that taught only prekindergarten, kindergarten, or adult education were not included in the sample. The sampling frame for the SSOCS:2000 was constructed from the public school universe file created for the 2000 Schools and Staffing Survey from the 1997-98 NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) Public School Universe File. The sample was stratified by instructional level, type of locale, and enrollment size. Within the primary strata, schools were also sorted by geographic region and by percent minority enrollment. The sample sizes were then allocated to the primary strata in rough proportion to the aggregate square root of the size of enrollment of schools in the stratum. A total of 3,300 schools were selected for the study. Among those, 2,270 schools completed the survey. In March of 2000, questionnaires were mailed to school principals, who were asked to complete the survey or to have it completed by the person most knowledgeable about discipline issues at the school. The weighted overall response rate was 70 percent, and item nonresponse rates ranged from 0-2.7 percent on the public-use data file. For SSOCS data, a full nonresponse bias analysis was conducted and no bias on the basis of nonresponse was detected. The weights were developed to adjust for the variable probabilities of selection and differential nonresponse and can be used to produce national estimates for regular public schools in the 1999-2000 school year. For more information about the School Survey on Crime and Safety, contact: Kathryn A. Chandler National Center for Education Statistics 1990 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 502-7486 E-mail: Kathryn.Chandler@ed.gov Internet: nces.ed.gov/programs/crime National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), administered for the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics by the Census Bureau, is the nation's primary source of information on crime victimization and the victims of crime. Initiated in 1972 and redesigned in 1992, the NCVS collects detailed information on the frequency and nature of the crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft experienced by Americans and their households each year. The survey measures crimes reported as well as those not reported to police. The NCVS sample consists of about 53,841 households selected using a stratified, multistage cluster design. In the first stage, the primary sampling units (PSUs), consisting of counties or groups of counties, were selected. In the second stage, smaller areas, called Enumeration Districts (EDs), were selected from each sampled PSU. Finally, from selected EDs, clusters of four households, called segments, were selected for interview. At each stage, the selection was done proportionate to population size in order to create a self-weighting sample. The final sample was augmented to account for housing units constructed after the decennial Census. Within each sampled household, Census Bureau personnel interviewed all household members ages 12 and older to determine whether they had been victimized by the measured crimes during the 6 months preceding the interview. About 76,760 persons ages 12 and older are interviewed each 6 months. Households remain in the sample for 3 years and are interviewed 7 times at 6-month intervals. The initial interview at each sample unit is used only to bound future interviews to establish a time frame to avoid duplication of crimes uncovered in these subsequent interviews. After their seventh interview, households are replaced by new sample households. The NCVS has consistently obtained a response rate of about 92 percent at the household level. During the study period, the completion rates for persons within households were about 87 percent. Thus, final response rates were about 80 percent. Weights were developed to permit estimates for the total U.S. population 12 years and older. For more information about the NCVS, contact: Michael Rand Victimization Statistics U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics 810 7th Street NW Washington, DC 20531 Telephone: (202) 616-3494 E-mail: randm@ojp.usdoj.gov Internet: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ School Crime Supplement (SCS) Created as a supplement to the NCVS and co-designed by the National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Justice Statistics, the School Crime Supplement (SCS) survey was conducted in 1989, 1995, 1999, and 2001 to collect additional information about school-related victimizations on a national level. This report includes data from the 1995, 1999, and 2001 collections. The 1989 data are not included in this report as a result of methodological changes to the NCVS and SCS. The survey was designed to assist policymakers as well as academic researchers and practitioners at the federal, state, and local levels so that they can make informed decisions concerning crime in schools. The SCS asks students a number of key questions about their experiences with and perceptions of crime and violence that occurred inside their school, on school grounds, on a school bus, or on the way to or from school. Additional questions not included in the NCVS were also added to the SCS, such as those concerning preventive measures used by the school, students' participation in afterschool activities, students' perceptions of school rules, the presence of weapons and street gangs in school, the presence of hate-related words and graffiti in school, student reports of bullying and reports of rejection at school, and the availability of drugs and alcohol in school, as well as attitudinal questions relating to fear of victimization and avoidance behavior at school. In all SCS survey years, the SCS was conducted for a 6-month period from January- June in all households selected for the NCVS (see discussion above for information about the sampling design). It should be noted that the initial NCVS interview is included in the SCS data analysis. Within these households, the eligible respondents for the SCS were those household members who had attended school at any time during the 6 months preceding the interview, and were enrolled in grades 6-12 in a school that would help them advance toward eventually receiving a high school diploma. The age range of students covered in this report is 12-18 years of age. Eligible respondents were asked the supplemental questions in the SCS only after completing their entire NCVS interview. In 2001, the SCS survey instrument was modified from previous collections in three ways. First, in 1995 and 1999, "at school" was defined for respondents as in the school building, on the school grounds, or on a school bus. In 2001, the definition for "at school" was changed to mean in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. This change was made to the 2001 questionnaire in order to be consistent with the definition of "at school" as it is constructed in the National Crime Victimization Survey. Cognitive interviews conducted by the Census Bureau on the 1999 School Crime Supplement suggested that modifications to the definition of "at school" would not have a substantial impact on the estimates. The prevalence of victimization for 1995, 1999, and 2001 was calculated by using NCVS incident variables appended to the 1995, 1999, and 2001 SCS data files. The NCVS type of crime variable was used to classify victimizations of students in the SCS as serious violent, violent, or theft. The NCVS variables asking where the incident happened and what the victim was doing when it happened were used to ascertain whether the incident happened at school. For prevalence of victimization, the NCVS definition of "at school" includes in the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Second, the SCS questions pertaining to fear and avoidance have changed between the 1999 and the 2001 SCS. In 1995 and 1999, students were asked if they avoided places or were fearful because they thought someone would "attack or harm" them. In 2001, students were asked if they avoided places or were fearful because they thought someone would "attack or threaten to attack them." These changes should be considered when making comparisons between the 1995 and 1999 data and the 2001 data. Readers should also note that separate estimates were provided in the Indicators of School Crime and Safety 2001 report for the prevalence of fear at school and on the way to and from school. This year's report provides one estimate that combines at school with on the way to and from school and compares it to those students who report fear away from school. Third, the SCS question pertaining to gangs has changed in the 2001 SCS. The introduction and definition of gangs as well as the placement of the item in the questionnaire changed in the 2001 SCS. Because of these changes, the reader should be cautioned not to compare results presented in this report with those estimates of gangs presented in previous reports. Total victimization is a combination of violent victimization and theft. If the student reported an incident of either violent or theft victimization or both, he or she is counted as having experienced "total" victimization. Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault. A total of 9,728 students participated in the 1995 SCS, 8,398 in 1999, and 8,374 in 2001. In the 2001 SCS, the household completion rate was 93 percent. In the 1995 and 1999 SCS, the household completion rates were 95 percent and 94 percent, respectively; and the student completion rates were both 78 percent. For the 2001 SCS, the student completion rate was 77 percent. Thus, the overall SCS response rate (calculated by multiplying the household completion rate by the student completion rate) was 74 percent in 1995, 73 percent in 1999 and 72 percent in 2001. Response rates for most survey items were high-typically over 95 percent of all eligible respondents. The weights were developed to compensate for differential probabilities of selection and nonresponse. The weighted data permit inferences about the eligible student population who were enrolled in schools in 1995, 1999, and 2001. For SCS data, a full nonresponse bias analysis has not been conducted. For more information about SCS, contact: Kathryn A. Chandler National Center for Education Statistics 1990 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 502-7486 E-mail: Kathryn.Chandler@ed.gov Internet: nces.ed.gov/programs/crime School Associated Violent Death Surveillance System (SAVD) The School Associated Violent Death Surveillance System (SAVD) is an epidemiological study developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice. SAVD seeks to describe the epidemiology of school-associated violent deaths, identify common features of these deaths, estimate the rate of school-associated violent death in the United States, and identify potential risk factors for these deaths. The surveillance system includes descriptive data on all school-associated violent deaths in the United States, including all homicides, suicides, and unintentional firearm-related deaths where the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school, while the victim was on the way to or from regular sessions at such a school, or while attending or on the way to or from an official school-sponsored event. Victims of such events include nonstudents as well as students and staff members. SAVD includes descriptive information about the school, event, victim(s), and offender(s). The SAVD Surveillance System has collected data from July 1, 1992 through June 30, 2002. SAVD uses a four-step process to identify and collect data on school-associated violent deaths. Cases were initially identified through a search of the Lexis/Nexis and Dialog newspaper and media databases. Then police officials are contacted to confirm the details of the case to determine if the event meets the case definition. Once a case is confirmed, a police official and a school official are interviewed regarding details about the school, event, victim(s), and offender(s). If police officials are unwilling or unable to complete the interview, a copy of the full police report is obtained. The information obtained on schools includes school demographics, attendance/absentee rates, suspension/expulsions and mobility, school history of weapon carrying, security measures, violence prevention activities, school response to the event, and school policies about weapon carrying. Event information includes the location of injury, the context of injury (while classes held, during break, etc.), motives for injury, method of injury, and school and community events happening around the time period. Information obtained on victim(s) and offender(s) includes demographics, circumstances of the event (date/time, alcohol or drug use, number of persons involved), types and origins of weapons, criminal history, psychological risk factors, school-related problems, extracurricular activities, and family history, including structure and stressors. One hundred and five school-associated violent deaths were identified from July 1, 1992-June 30, 1994 (See Kachur et al. June 12, 1996. JAMA. 275:22: 1729-1733). The most recent data collection effort identified 253 school-associated violent deaths between July 1, 1994-June 30, 1999 (See Anderson et al. December 5, 2001. JAMA. 286:21: 2695-2702). The first effort achieved a response rate of 85 percent for police officials and 81 percent for school officials. The most recent SAVD has achieved a response rate of 97 percent for police officials and 78 percent for school officials. Data for subsequent study years are still preliminary and subject to change. For additional information about SAVD, contact: Mark Anderson, MD, MPH Division of Violence Prevention National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop K60 4770 Buford Highway NE Atlanta, GA 30341 Telephone: (770) 488-4646 E-mail: mea6@cdc.gov Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) The Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), which are a part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, provide incident-level information on criminal homicides including situation (number of victims to number of offenders); the age, sex, and race of victims and offenders; types of weapons used; circumstances of the incident; and the relationship of the victim to the offender. The data are provided monthly to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) by local law enforcement agencies participating in the FBI's UCR program. The data include murders and non-negligent manslaughters in the United States from January 1976-December 2001. That is, negligent manslaughters and justifiable homicides have been eliminated from the data. Based on law enforcement agency reports, the FBI estimates that 528,648 murders were committed from 1976 to 2001. Agencies provided detailed information on 480,455 victims and 532,177 offenders. National coverage is quite high (about 91 percent of homicides are included in the SHR). However, missing reports can be corrected using weights to match national and state estimates. Estimates from the SHR used in this Indicators report were generated by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) using a weight developed by BJS that reconciles the counts of SHR homicide victims with those in the UCR for the 1992 through 2001 data years. The weight is the same for all cases for a given year. The weight represents the ratio of the number of homicides reported in the UCR to the number reported in the SHR. For additional information about SHR, contact: Communications Unit Criminal Justice Information Services Division Federal Bureau of Investigation Module D3 1000 Custer Hollow Road Clarksburg, WV 26306 Telephone: (304) 625-4995 E-mail: cjis_comm@leo.gov Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System Fatal (WISQARS(tm) Fatal) WISQARS Fatal provides mortality data related to injury. The mortality data reported in WISQARS Fatal come from death certificate data reported to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data include causes of death reported by attending physicians, medical examiners, and coroners. It also includes demographic information about decedents reported by funeral directors who obtain that information from family members and other informants. NCHS collects, compiles, verifies and prepares these data for release to the public. The data provide information about what types of injuries are leading causes of deaths, how common they are, and who they affect. These data are intended for a broad audience-the public, the media, public health practitioners and researchers, and public health officials-to increase their knowledge of injury. WISQARS Fatal mortality reports provide tables of the total numbers of injury-related deaths and the death rates per 100,000 U.S. population. The reports list deaths according to cause (mechanism) and intent (manner) of injury by state, race, Hispanic origin, sex, and age groupings. For more information on WISQARS Fatal, contact: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Mailstop K59 4770 Buford Highway NE Atlanta, GA 30341-3724 Telephone: (770) 488-1506 E-mail: OHCINFO@cdc.gov Internet: www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars ACCURACY OF ESTIMATES The accuracy of any statistic is determined by the joint effects of "nonsampling" and "sampling" errors. Both types of error affect the estimates presented in this report. Several sources can contribute to nonsampling errors. For example, members of the population of interest are inadvertently excluded from the sampling frame; sampled members refuse to answer some of the survey questions (item nonresponse) or all of the survey questions (questionnaire nonresponse); mistakes are made during data editing, coding, or entry; the responses that respondents provide differ from the "true" responses; or measurement instruments such as tests or questionnaires fail to measure the characteristics they are intended to measure. Although nonsampling errors due to questionnaire and item nonresponse can be reduced somewhat by the adjustment of sample weights and imputation procedures, correcting nonsampling errors or gauging the effects of these errors is usually difficult. Sampling errors occur because observations are made on samples rather than on entire populations. Surveys of population universes are not subject to sampling errors. Estimates based on a sample will differ somewhat from those that would have been obtained by a complete census of the relevant population using the same survey instruments, instructions, and procedures. The standard error of a statistic is a measure of the variation due to sampling; it indicates the precision of the statistic obtained in a particular sample. In addition, the standard errors for two sample statistics can be used to estimate the precision of the difference between the two statistics and to help determine whether the difference based on the sample is large enough so that it represents the population difference. Most of the data used in this report were obtained from complex sampling designs rather than a simple random design. These features of complex sampling require different techniques to calculate standard errors than are used for data collected with a simple random sample. Therefore, calculation of standard errors requires procedures that are markedly different from the ones used when the data are from a simple random sample. The Taylor series approximation technique or the balanced repeated replication (BRR) method was used to estimate most of the statistics and their standard errors in this report. Table A-3 lists the various methods used to compute standard errors for different data sets. Standard error calculation for data from the National Crime Victimization Survey and the School Crime Supplement were based on the Taylor series approximation method using PSU and strata variables available from the data set was employed. For statistics based on all years of NCVS data standard errors were derived from a formula developed by the Census Bureau, which consists of three generalized variance function (gvf) constant parameters that represent the curve fitted to the individual standard errors calculated using the Jackknife Repeated Replication technique. The formulas used to compute the adjusted standard errors associated with percentages or population counts can be found in table A-3. Statistical Procedures The comparisons in the text have been tested for statistical significance to ensure that the differences are larger than might be expected due to sampling variations. Unless otherwise noted, all statements cited in the report are statistically significant at the .05 level. Several test procedures were used, depending upon the type of data being analyzed and the nature of the statement being tested. The primary test procedure used in this report was the Student's t statistic, which tests the difference between two sample estimates, for example, between males and females Once the t value was computed, it was compared with the published tables of values at certain critical levels, called alpha levels. For this report, an alpha value of 0.05 was used, which has a t value of 1.96. If the t value was larger than 1.96, then the difference between the two estimates was statistically significant at the 95 percent level. A linear trend test was used when a statement describing a linear trend, rather than the differences between two discrete categories, was made. This test allows one to examine whether, for example, the percentage of students using drugs increased (or decreased) over time or whether the percentage of students who reported being physically attacked in school increased (or decreased) with their age. Based on a regression with, for example, student's age as the independent variable and whether a student was physically attacked as the dependent variable, the test involves computing the regression coefficient (b) and its corresponding standard error (se). The ratio of these two (b/se) is the test statistic t. If t is greater than 1.96, the critical value for one comparison at the .05 alpha level, the hypothesis that there is a linear relationship between student's age and being physically attacked is not rejected. When using data sets in which multiple years of data are available, a Bonferroni adjustment to the significance level was used when one year's estimate was compared to another. The Bonferroni adjustment to the significance level was used to ensure that the significance level for the tests as a series was at the .05 level. Generally, when multiple statistical comparisons are made, it becomes increasingly likely that an indication of a population difference is erroneous. Even when there is no difference in the population, at an alpha of .05, there is still a 5 percent chance of concluding that an observed t value representing one comparison in the sample is large enough to be statistically significant. As the number of years, and thus the number of comparisons increase, the risk of making such an erroneous inference also increases. The Bonferroni procedure corrects the significance (or alpha) level for the total number of comparisons made within a particular classification variable. For each classification variable, there are (K*(K-1)/2) possible comparisons (or nonredundant pairwise combinations), where K is the number of categories. The Bonferroni procedure divides the alpha level for a single t test by the number of possible pairwise comparisons in order to produce a new alpha level that is corrected for the fact that multiple contrasts are being made. As a result, the t value for a certain alpha level (e.g., .05) increases, which makes it more difficult to claim that the difference observed is statistically significant. While many descriptive comparisons in this report were tested using t statistic or the F-statistic, some comparisons among categories of an ordered variable with three or more levels involved a test for a linear trend across all categories, rather than a series of tests between pairs of categories. In this report, when differences among percentages were examined relative to a variable with ordered categories, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test for a linear relationship between the two variables. To do this, ANOVA models included orthogonal linear contrasts corresponding to successive levels of the independent variable. The squares of the Taylorized standard errors (that is, standard errors that were calculated by the Taylor series method), the variance between the means, and the unweighted sample sizes were used to partition total sum of squares into within- and between-group sums of squares. These were used to create mean squares for the within- and between-group variance components and their corresponding F statistics, which were then compared with published values of F for a significance level of .05. Significant values of both the overall F and the F associated with the linear contrast term were required as evidence of a linear relationship between the two variables. APPENDIX B GLOSSARY OF TERMS GENERAL TERMS Cluster sampling Cluster sampling is a technique in which the sampling of respondents or subjects occurs within clusters or groups. For example, selecting students by sampling schools and the students that attend that school. Crime Any violation of a statute or regulation or any act that the government has determined is injurious to the public, including felonies and misdemeanors. Such violation may or may not involve violence, and it may affect individuals or property. Incident A specific criminal act or offense involving one or more victims and one or more offenders. Multi-stage sampling A survey sampling technique in which there is more than one wave of sampling. That is, one sample of units is drawn, and then another sample is drawn within that sample. For example, at the first stage, a number of Census blocks may be sampled out of all the Census blocks in the United States. At the second stage, households are sampled within the previously sampled Census blocks. Prevalence The percentage of the population directly affected by crime in a given period. This rate is based upon specific information elicited directly from the respondent regarding crimes committed against his or her person, against his or her property, or against an individual bearing a unique relationship to him or her. It is not based upon perceptions and beliefs about, or reactions to, criminal acts. School An education institution consisting of one or more of grades K through 12. School crime Any criminal activity that is committed on school property. School year The 12-month period of time denoting the beginning and ending dates for school accounting purposes, usually from July 1 through June 30. Stratification is a survey sampling technique in which the target population is divided into mutually exclusive groups or strata based on some variable or variables (e.g., metropolitan area) and sampling of units occurs separately within each stratum. Unequal probabilities A survey sampling technique in which sampled units do not have the same probability of selection into the sample. For example, the investigator may over-sample minority students in order to increase the sample sizes of minority students. Minority students would then be more likely than other students to be sampled. SPECIFIC TERMS USED IN VARIOUS SURVEYS National Crime Victimization Survey At school (students) Inside the school building, on school property (school parking area, play area, school bus, etc.), or on the way to or from school. At school (teachers) Inside the school building, on school property (school parking area, play area, school bus, etc.), at worksite, or while working. For thefts, "while working" was not considered, since thefts of teachers' property kept at school can occur when teachers are not present. Aggravated assault Attack or attempted attack with a weapon, regardless of whether or not an injury occurs, and attack without a weapon when serious injury results. Rape Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion, as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempts and verbal threats of rape. This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Robbery Completed or attempted theft, directly from a person, of property or cash by force or threat of force, with or without a weapon, and with or without injury. Rural A place not located inside the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). This category includes a variety of localities, ranging from sparsely populated rural areas to cities with populations of less than 50,000. Serious violent crime Rape, sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault. Sexual assault A wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between the victim and offender. Sexual assault may or may not involve force and includes such things as grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also includes verbal threats. Simple assault Attack without a weapon resulting either in no injury, minor injury, or in undetermined injury requiring less than 2 days of hospitalization. Also includes attempted assault without a weapon. Suburban A county or counties containing a central city, plus any contiguous counties that are linked socially and economically to the central city. On the data tables, suburban areas are categorized as those portions of metropolitan areas situated "outside central cities." Theft Completed or attempted theft of property or cash without personal contact. Victimization A crime as it affects one individual person or household. For personal crimes, the number of victimizations is equal to the number of victims involved. The number of victimizations may be greater than the number of incidents because more than one person may be victimized during an incident. Victimization rate A measure of the occurrence of victimizations among a specific population group. Violent crime Rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, or simple assault. Urban The largest city (or grouping of cities) in an MSA. School Crime Supplement Total victimization Combination of violent victimization and theft. If a student reported an incident of either type, he or she is counted as having experienced any victimization. If the student reported having experienced both, he or she is counted once under "total victimization." At school In the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to or from school. Serious violent crime Rape, sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault. Violent crime Rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, or simple assault. Youth Risk Behavior Survey On school property On school property is included in the question wording, but was not defined for respondents. Weapon Examples of weapons appearing in the questionnaire include guns, knives, and clubs. Illegal drugs Examples of illegal drugs were marijuana, cocaine, inhalants, steroids, or prescription drugs without a doctor's permission, heroin, and methamphetamines. School Survey on Crime and Safety At school/at your school Includes activities that happened in school buildings, on school grounds, on school buses, and at places that held school-sponsored events or activities. Unless otherwise specified, respondents were requested to report on activities that occurred during normal school hours or when school activities/events were in session. Cult or extremist group A group that espouses radical beliefs and practices, which may include a religious component, that are widely seen as threatening the basic values and cultural norms of society at large. Firearm/explosive device Any weapon that is designed to (or may readily be converted to) expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. This includes guns, bombs, grenades, mines, rockets, missiles, pipe bombs, or similar devices designed to explode and capable of causing bodily harm or property damage. Gang An ongoing loosely organized association of three or more persons, whether formal or informal, that has a common name, signs, symbols or colors, whose members engage, either individually or collectively, in violent or other forms of illegal behavior. Insubordination A deliberate and inexcusable defiance of or refusal to obey a school rule, authority, or a reasonable order. It includes but is not limited to direct defiance of school authority, failure to attend assigned detention or on-campus supervision, failure to respond to a call slip, and physical or verbal intimidation/abuse. Intimidation To frighten, compel, or deter by actual or implied threats. It includes bullying and sexual harassment. Physical attack or fight An actual and intentional touching or striking of another person against his or her will, or the intentional causing of bodily harm to an individual. Rape Forced sexual intercourse (vaginal, anal, or oral penetration). Includes penetration from a foreign object. Robbery The taking or attempting to take anything of value that is owned by another person or organization, under confrontational circumstances by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear. A key difference between robbery and theft/larceny is that a threat or battery is involved in robbery. Serious violent incidents Include rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attacks or fights with a weapon, threats of physical attack with a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. Sexual battery An incident that includes threatened rape, fondling, indecent liberties, child molestation, or sodomy. Principals were instructed that classification of these incidents should take into consideration the age and developmentally appropriate behavior of the offenders. Sexual harassment Unsolicited, offensive behavior that inappropriately asserts sexuality over another person. The behavior may be verbal or non-verbal. Specialized school A school that is specifically for students who were referred for disciplinary reasons. The school may also have students who were referred for other reasons. The school may be at the same location as the respondent's school. Theft/larceny (taking things over $10 without personal confrontation) The unlawful taking of another person's property without personal confrontation, threat, violence, or bodily harm. Included are pocket picking, stealing purse or backpack (if left unattended or no force was used to take it from owner), theft from a building, theft from a motor vehicle or motor vehicle parts or accessories, theft of bicycles, theft from vending machines, and all other types of thefts. Vandalism The willful damage or destruction of school property including bombing, arson, graffiti, and other acts that cause property damage. Includes damage caused by computer hacking. Violent incidents Include rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attacks or fights with or without a weapon, threats of physical attack with or without a weapon, robbery with or without a weapon. Weapon Any instrument or object used with the intent to threaten, injure, or kill. Includes look-alikes if they are used to threaten others. Schools and Staffing Survey Central city A large central city (a central city of a Metropolitan Statistical Area [MSA] with population greater than or equal to 400,000, or a population density greater than or equal to 6,000 per square mile) or a mid-size central city (a central city of an MSA, but not designated as a large central city). Elementary school teachers An elementary school teacher is one who, when asked for the grades taught, checked: (1) only "ungraded" and was designated as an elementary teacher on the list of teachers provided by the school; (2) 6th grade or lower, or "ungraded," and no grade higher than 6th; (3) 6th grade or lower and 7th grade or higher, and reported a primary assignment of prekindergarten, kindergarten, or general elementary; (4) 7th and 8th grades only, and reported a primary assignment of prekindergarten, kindergarten, or general elementary; (5) 6th grade or lower and 7th grade or higher, and reported a primary assignment of special education and was designated as an elementary teacher on the list of teachers provided by the school; or (6) 7th and 8th grades only, and reported a primary assignment of special education and was designated as an elementary teacher on the list of teachers provided by the school. A teacher at school that has grade 6 or lower, or one that is "ungraded" with no grade higher than the 8th. Rural or small town Rural area (a place with a population of less than 2,500 and defined as rural by the U.S. Bureau of the Census) or a small town (a place not within an MSA, with a population of less than 25,000, but greater than or equal to 2,500, and defined as nonurban by the U.S. Bureau of the Census). Secondary school teachers A secondary school teacher is one who, when asked for the grades taught, checked: (1) "ungraded" and was designated as a secondary teacher on the list of teachers provided by the school; (2) 6th grade or lower and 7th grade or higher, and reported a primary assignment other than prekindergarten, kindergarten, or general elementary; (3) 9th grade or higher, or 9th grade or higher and "ungraded"; (4) 7th and 8th grades only, and reported a primary assignment other than prekindergarten, kindergarten, general elementary, or special education; (5) 7th and 8th grades only, and reported a primary assignment of special education and was designated as a secondary teacher on the list of teachers provided by the school; or (6) 6th grade or lower and 7th grade or higher, or 7th and 8th grades only, and was not categorized above as either elementary or secondary. Urban fringe or large town Urban fringe of a large or mid-size city (a place within an MSA of a mid-size central city and defined as urban by the U.S. Bureau of the Census) or a large town (a place not within an MSA, but with a population greater or equal to 25,000 and defined as urban by the U.S. Bureau of the Census). School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance System Homicide An act involving a killing of one person by another resulting from interpersonal violence. School-associated violent death A homicide or suicide in which the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school in the United States, while the victim was on the way to or from regular sessions at such a school, or while the victim was attending or traveling to or from an official school-sponsored event. Victims included nonstudents as well as students and staff members. Suicide An act of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally. REFERENCES Anderson, M., Kaufman, J., Simon, T., Barrios, L., Paulozzi, L., Ryan, G., Hammond, R., Modzeleski, W., Feucht, T., Potter, L., and the School-Associated Violent Deaths Study Group. (2001). School-Associated Violent Deaths in the United States, 1994-1999. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286: 2695- 2702. Arnette, J.L., and Walsleben, M.C. (1998). Combating Fear and Restoring Safety in Schools (NCJ 167888). Bulletin. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Brener N.D., Kann L., and McManus T. (2003). A Comparison of Two Survey Questions on Race and Ethnicity Among High School Students. Public Opinion Quarterly67: 227-236. Ericson, N. (2001). Addressing the Problem of Juvenile Bullying. OJJDP Fact Sheet #27. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Elliott, D.S., Hamburg, B.A., and Williams, K.R. (1998). Violence in American Schools: An Overview. In Elliott, D.S., Hamburg, B.A., and Williams, K.R. (Eds.), Violence in American Schools (pp. 3-28). New York: Cambridge University Press. Fagan, J., and Wilkinson, D.L. (1998). Social Contexts and Functions of Adolescent Violence. In Elliott, D.S., Hamburg, B.A., and Williams, K.R. (Eds.), Violence in American Schools (pp. 55-93). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hamburg, M.A. (1998). Youth Violence Is a Public Health Concern. In Elliott, D.S., Hamburg, B.A., and Williams, K.R. (Eds.), Violence in American Schools(pp. 31- 54). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ingersoll, S., and LeBoeuf, D. (1997). Reaching Out to Youth Out of the Mainstream. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Kachur, S.P., Stennies, G.M., Powell, K.E., Modzeleski, W., Stephens, R., Murphy, R., Kresnow, M., Sleet, D., and Lowry, R. (1996). School-Associated Violent Deaths in the United States, 1992 to 1994. Journal of the American Medical Association, 275: 1729-1733. Laub, J.H., and Lauritsen, J.L. (1998). The Interdependence of School Violence With Neighborhood and Family Conditions. In Elliott, D.S., Hamburg, B.A., and Williams, K.R. (Eds.), Violence in American Schools (pp. 127-155). New York: Cambridge University Press. McLaughlin, K.A., and Brilliant, K.J. (1997). Healing the Hate: A National Hate Crime Prevention Curriculum for Middle Schools. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Nolin, M.J., Vaden-Kiernan, N., Feibus, M.L., and Chandler, K.A. (1997). Student Reports of Availability, Peer Approval, and Use of Alcohol, Marijuana, and Other Drugs at School: 1993 (NCES 97-279). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Digest of Education Statistics 2002 (NCES 2003-060). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2000). Uniform Crime Report 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. End of file 11-03-03