U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.wk1) and the full report including tables and graphics in http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/iscs00.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip Kaufman Xianglei Chen Susan P. Choy MPR Associates, Inc. Sally A. Ruddy Amanda K. Miller Jill K. Fleury Education Statistics Services Institute Kathryn A. Chandler National Center for Education Statistics Michael R. Rand Patsy Klaus Michael G. Planty Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, NCES 2001-017 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, NCJ 184176 U.S. Department of Education Richard W. Riley, Secretary U.S. Department of Justice Janet Reno, Attorney General Office of Educational Research and Improvement C. Kent McGuire, Assistant Secretary Office of Justice Programs Mary Lou Leary, Acting Assistant Attorney General National Center for Education Statistics Gary Phillips, Acting Commissioner Bureau of Justice Statistics Jan M. Chaiken, Director This report is one in a series. To determine if a more recent version is available, go to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#indicators 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 report on education activities in foreign 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 2000 Suggested Citation Kaufman, P., Chen, X., Choy, S.P., Ruddy, S.A., Miller, A.K., Fleury, J.K., Chandler, K.A., Rand, M.R., Klaus, P., and Planty, M.G. Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2000. U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. NCES 2001-017/NCJ-184176. Washington, D.C.: 2000. 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 2001-017) (TTY/TDD 1-877-576-7734), and the Bureau of Justice Statistics Clearinghouse at 1-800-732-3277 (NCJ-184176). Contact at NCES: Kathryn Chandler (202) 502-7326 (e-mail) kathryn_chandler@ed.gov Contact at BJS: Michael Planty (202) 514-3214 (e-mail) Michael.Planty@usdoj.gov Foreword The national focus on school crime and safety continues to be of paramount importance. During the past year, overall levels of crime in school decreased, and students seem to feel more safe in school than they did in the last few years. Yet, violence and theft still mar the school experiences of many students and challenge parents, teachers, and school officials to respond. Continued progress in improving the safety of our children entrusted to schools relies on having accurate information about the nature, extent, and scope of the problem. This report is intended to provide information that will assist in developing policies and/or programs to prevent and cope with violence and crime in schools. This is the third edition of Indicators of School Crime and Safety, a joint effort by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics. The report provides detailed statistical information to inform the nation on the current nature of crime in schools, and is a companion document to the Annual Report on School Safety: 2000. The Annual Report is a joint publication of the Departments of Education and Justice that provides an overview of the nature and scope of school crime and describes actions schools and communities can take to address this critical issue. The two reports respond to a 1998 request by President Clinton for an annual report card on school violence. This edition of Indicators contains the most recent available data on school crime and safety drawn from a number of statistical series supported by the federal government. These data include results from a study of violent deaths in school, sponsored by the Department of Education and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the 1999 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which is conducted by the Census Bureau on behalf of our agencies. The Bureau of Justice Statistics and National Center for Education Statistics continue to work towards providing more timely and complete data on the issue of school-related violence and safety. Not only is this report available on the Internet in its entirety, but individual indicators are updated there throughout the year as new data become available. The inclusion of detailed data from the full calendar year 1999 NCVS (this edition includes only selected statistics from January-June 1999) and from a new survey of school administrators on crime and victimization in the schools is planned for next year's edition of Indicators. Gary Phillips, Ph.D. Acting Commissioner of Education Statistics Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics Executive Summary Schools should be safe and secure places for all students, teachers, and staff members. Without a safe learning environment, teachers cannot teach and students cannot learn. In fact, as the data in this report show, more victimizations happen away from school than at school. In 1998, students were about two times as likely to be victims of serious violent crime away from school as at school (Indicator 2). In 1998, students ages 12 through 18 were victims of more than 2.7 million total crimes at school (Indicator 2). In that same year, these students were victims of about 253,000 serious violent crimes at school (that is, rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault). There were also 60 school-associated violent deaths in the United States between July 1, 1997 and June 30, 1998-including 47 homicides (Indicator 1). The total nonfatal victimization rate for young people declined between 1993 and 1998. The percentage of students being victimized at school also declined over the last few years. Between 1995 and 1999, the percentage of students who reported being victims of crime at school decreased from 10 percent to 8 percent (Indicator 3). This decline was due in part to a decline for students in grades 7 through 9. Between 1995 and 1999, the prevalence of reported victimization dropped from 11 percent to 8 percent for 7th graders, from 11 percent to 8 percent for 8th graders, and from 12 percent to 9 percent for 9th graders. However, for some types of crimes at school, rates have not changed. For example, between 1993 and 1997, the percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property in the past 12 months remained constant-at about 7 or 8 percent (Indicator 4). The percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported being in a physical fight on school property in the past 12 months also remained unchanged between 1993 and 1997-at about 15 percent (Indicator 5). As the rate of victimization in schools has declined or remained constant, students also seem to feel more secure at school now than just a few years ago. The percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported avoiding one or more places at school for their own safety decreased between 1995 and 1999-from 9 to 5 percent (Indicator 14). Furthermore, the percentage of students who reported that street gangs were present at their schools decreased from 1995 to 1999. In 1999, 17 percent of students ages 12 through 18 reported that they had street gangs at their schools compared with 29 percent in 1995 (Indicator 16). There was an increase in the use of marijuana among students between 1993 and 1995, but no change between 1995 and 1997. In 1997, about 26 percent of these students had used marijuana in the last 30 days (Indicator 19). Furthermore, almost one-third of all students in grades 9 through 12 (32 percent) reported that someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property-an increase from 24 percent in 1993 (Indicator 20). Therefore, the data shown in this report present a mixed picture of school safety. While overall school crime rates have declined, violence, gangs, and drugs are still evident in some schools, indicating that more work needs to be done. Organization of the Current Report This report, the third in a series of annual reports on school crime and safety from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics, presents the latest available data on school crime and student safety. The report repeats many indicators from the 1999 report but also provides updated data on fatal and nonfatal student victimization, nonfatal teacher victimization, students' perceptions of safety and the presence of gangs, and students' avoidance of places at school. In addition, it provides new data on students' reports of being the target of derogatory hate-related language and seeing hate-related graffiti at school. 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 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 Principal/Disciplinarian 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 Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Center for Education Statistics, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Each data source has an independent sample design, data collection method, and questionnaire design, all of which may be influenced by the unique perspective of the primary funding agency. By combining multiple and independent sources of data, it is hoped that this report will present a more complete portrait of school crime and safety than would be possible with any single source of information. However, because the report relies on so many different data sets, the age groups, the time periods, and the types of respondents analyzed can vary from indicator to indicator. Readers should keep this in mind as they compare data from different indicators. Furthermore, while every effort has been made to keep key definitions consistent across indicators, different surveys sometimes use different definitions, such as those for specific crimes and "at school." Therefore, caution should be used in making comparisons between results from different data sets. Descriptions of these data sets are located in appendix B of this report. Key Findings Some of the key findings from the various sections of this report are as follows: Violent Deaths at School From July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998, there were 60 school-associated violent deaths in the United States. Forty-seven of these violent deaths were homicides, 12 were suicides, and one was a teenager killed by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty (Indicator 1). Thirty-five of the 47 school-associated homicides were of school age children. By comparison, a total of 2,752 children ages 5 through 19 were victims of homicide in the United States from July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998. Seven of the 12 school-associated suicides occurring from July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998 were of school age children. A total of 2,061 children ages 5 through 19 committed suicide that year. Nonfatal Student Victimization--Student Reports Students ages 12 through 18 were more likely to be victims of nonfatal serious violent crime-including rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault-away from school than when they were at school (Indicator 2). In 1998, students in this age range were victims of about 550,000 serious violent crimes away from schools, compared with about 253,000 at school. The percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who have been threatened or injured with a weapon on school property has not changed significantly in recent years. In 1993, 1995, and 1997, about 7 to 8 percent of students reported being threatened or injured with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property in the past 12 months (Indicator 4). In 1998, 12- through 18-year-old students living in urban, suburban, and rural locales were equally vulnerable to serious violent crime and theft at school. Away from school, however, urban and suburban students were more vulnerable to serious violent crime and theft than were rural students. (Indicator 2). Younger students (ages 12 through 14) were more likely than older students (ages 15 through 18) to be victims of crime at school. However, older students were more likely than younger students to be victimized away from school (Indicator 2). Violence and Crime at School--Public School Principal/Disciplinarian Reports In 1996-97, 10 percent of all public schools reported at least one serious violent crime to the police or a law enforcement representative. Principals' reports of serious violent crimes included murder, rape or other type of sexual battery, suicide, physical attack or fight with a weapon, or robbery. Another 47 percent of public schools reported a less serious violent or nonviolent crime (but not a serious violent one). Crimes in this category include physical attack or fight without a weapon, theft/larceny, and vandalism. The remaining 43 percent of public schools did not report any of these crimes to the police (Indicator 8). Elementary schools were much less likely than either middle or high schools to report any type of crime in 1996-97. They were much more likely to report vandalism (31 percent) than any other crime (19 percent or less) (Indicator 9). At the middle and high school levels, physical attack or fight without a weapon was generally the most commonly reported crime in 1996-97 (9 and 8 per 1,000 students, respectively). Theft or larceny was more common at the high school than at the middle school level (6 versus 4 per 1,000 students) (Indicator 9). Nonfatal Teacher Victimization at School--Teacher Reports Over the 5-year period from 1994 through 1998, teachers were victims of 1,755,000 nonfatal crimes at school, including 1,087,000 thefts and 668,000 violent crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault) (Indicator 10). This translates into 83 crimes per 1,000 teachers per year. In the period from 1994 through 1998, 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 (38 and 60, respectively, versus 18 crimes per 1,000 teachers) (Indicator 10). In the 1993-94 school year, 12 percent of all elementary and secondary school teachers were threatened with injury by a student, and 4 percent were physically attacked by a student. This represented about 341,000 teachers who were victims of threats of injury by students that year, and 119,000 teachers who were victims of attacks by students (Indicator 11). School Environment Between 1995 and 1999, the percentages of students who felt unsafe while they were at school and while they were going to and from school decreased. In 1995, 9 percent of students ages 12 through 18 sometimes or most of the time feared they were going to be attacked or harmed at school. In 1999, this percentage had fallen to 5 percent. During the same period, the percentage of students fearing they would be attacked while traveling to and from school fell from 7 percent to 4 percent (Indicator 13). Between 1993 and 1997, the percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported carrying a weapon on school property within the previous 30 days fell from 12 percent to 9 percent (a 25 percent reduction) (Indicator 12). Between 1995 and 1999, the percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who avoided one or more places at school for fear of their own safety decreased, from 9 to 5 percent. In 1999, this percentage represented 1.1 million students (Indicator 14). Between 1995 and 1999, the percentage of students who reported that street gangs were present at their schools decreased. In 1995, 29 percent of students reported gangs being present in their schools. By 1999, this percentage had fallen to 17 percent (Indicator 16). In 1997, about 51 percent of students in grades 9 through 12 had at least one drink of alcohol in the previous 30 days. A much smaller percentage (about 6 percent) had at least one drink on school property during the same period (Indicator 18). There was an increase in the use of marijuana among students between 1993 and 1995, but no change between 1995 and 1997. About one quarter (26 percent) of ninth graders reported using marijuana in the last 30 days in 1997. However, marijuana use on school property did not increase significantly between 1993 and 1995, nor between 1995 and 1997 (Indicator 19). In 1995 and 1997, almost one-third of all students in grades 9 through 12 (32 percent) reported that someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property. This was an increase from 1993 when 24 percent of such students reported that illegal drugs were available to them on school property (Indicator 20). In 1999, about 13 percent of students ages 12 through 18 reported that someone at school had used hate-related words against them. That is, in the prior 6 months someone at school called them a derogatory word having to do with race/ethnicity, religion, disability, gender, or sexual orientation. In addition, about 36 percent of students saw hate-related graffiti at school (Indicator 15). Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank the heads of their respective agencies, Gary Phillips of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and Jan Chaiken of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), for backing this report. We also appreciate their support of our larger data collection and reporting agendas on school crime and safety. From BJS, we wish to thank Cathy Maston of the Victimization Statistics Branch for her work in preparing and verifying data from the NCVS. From NCES, we wish to thank Bruce Taylor, Shelley Burns, Arnold Goldstein, Aurora D'Amico, and Ellen Bradburn, who served as reviewers. They each provided input that substantially improved the publication. Outside of NCES and BJS, others who reviewed the report were Richard Lawrence of St. Cloud University; Meg Small, of the OESE/Safe and Drug Free Schools; Mary Schifferli, of the Office for Civil Rights of the U. S. Department of Education; and Joanne Wiggins of the Planning and Evaluation Service of the U. S. Department of Education. 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 MPR Associates this report could not have been produced: Barbara Kridl (overall production and proofreading), Francesca Tussing (production, proofreading, layout, and editing), Andrea Livingston (editing), and Leslie Retallick (figure design and text layout). They provided invaluable editorial, graphic, and production assistance. Violent Deaths at School 1. Violent deaths at school and away from school* Violent deaths are tragic events that affect not only the individuals and their families directly involved but also everyone in the schools where they occur. Violent deaths at school receive national attention; accurate data on the magnitude of this problem are important. *The data reported here are new. From July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998, there were 60 school-associated violent deaths in the United States. Forty-seven of these violent deaths were homicides, 12 were suicides, and one was a teenager killed by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty. Thirty-five of the 47 school-associated homicides were of school age children. There were a total of 2,752 homicides of children ages 5 through 19 occurring from July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998. Seven of the 12 school-associated suicides occurring between July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998 were of school age children. There were a total of 2,061 suicides of children ages 5 through 19 occurring that calendar year. Nonfatal Student Victimization-Student Reports 2. Victimization of students at school and away from school* The amount of crime committed in the nation's schools continues to be a concern. While crime has decreased in recent years, theft and violence at school and to and from school can lead to disruptive and threatening environments reducing student performance. *This indicator has been updated to include 1998 data. Students ages 12 through 18 experienced fewer nonfatal serious violent crimes (that is, rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) when they were at school than away from school. In 1998, students in this age group were victims of about 253,000 such crimes at school, and about 550,000 away from school (tables 2.1 and 2.3). The victimization rate for serious violent crime was about the same at school from 1992 to 1998 and declined from 1992 to 1998 away from school (figure 2.1 and tables 2.2 and 2.4). Students ages 12 through 18 were victims of about 1.2 million nonfatal violent crimes (that is, serious violent crime plus simple assault) at school, and about 1.3 million away from school in 1998 (tables 2.1 and 2.3). There was a decline in the victimization rate between 1992 and 1998 at school as well as away from school (from 48 to 43 and from 71 to 48 per 1,000 students ages 12 through 18, respectively) (figure 2.1 and tables 2.2 and 2.4). During most of this period, the victimization rates for nonfatal violent crime were generally lower at school than away from school. Students ages 12 through 18 were more likely to be victims of theft at school than away from school each year between 1992 and 1998, except for 1997. In that year, about the same number of thefts occurred at and away from school. In 1998, about 1.6 million thefts occurred at school (58 percent of all crimes at school), and about 1.2 million away from school (49 percent of all crimes away from school) (tables 2.1 and 2.3). The victimization rate declined for thefts at school between 1992 and 1998 as it did for thefts away from school during this period (figure 2.1 and tables 2.2 and 2.4). Considering total nonfatal crime (theft plus violent crime), 12- through 18-year-old students were victims of about 2.7 million crimes while they were at school in 1998, and about 2.5 million away from school (tables 2.1 and 2.3). These represent victimization rates of 101 crimes per 1,000 students at school, and 95 crimes per 1,000 students away from school (figure 2.1 and tables 2.2 and 2.4). In 1998, the rates for serious violent crimes and theft were about the same for males and females at school, but higher for males than females away from school (figures 2.2 and 2.3 and tables 2.2 and 2.4). In 1998, 12- through 18-year-old students living outside urban areas were just as vulnerable to serious violent crime and theft at school as were urban students (figure 2.2 and table 2.2). Away from school, urban and suburban students were more vulnerable to serious violent crime and theft than were rural students (figure 2.3 and table 2.4). Younger students (ages 12 through 14) were more likely than older students (ages 15 through 18) to be victims of crime at school. However, older students were more likely than younger students to be victimized away from school (figures 2.2 and 2.3 and tables 2.2 and 2.4). 3. Prevalence of students being victimized at school* Some of the crimes committed against students involve violence, while others involve their property. Presenting information on the prevalence of victimization for students helps clarify what percentage of students are affected by different types of crime. *The data reported here are new. In 1999, a smaller percentage of students ages 12 through 18 reported being victims of nonfatal crimes (including either theft or violent crimes) at school during the previous 6 months than in 1995 (10 percent and 8 percent, respectively)(figure 3.1 and table 3.1). About 7 percent in 1995 were victims of theft compared with 6 percent in 1999. Also, 3 percent of students in 1995 reported being victims of violence at school compared with 2 percent in 1999. The decline in the prevalence of victimization between 1995 and 1999 was due in part to a decline for students in grades 7 through 9 (figure 3.1 and table 3.1). Between 1995 and 1999, the prevalence of reported victimization dropped from 11 percent to 8 percent for 7th graders, from 11 percent to 8 percent for 8th graders, and from 12 percent to 9 percent for 9th graders. During the same period, the prevalence of victimization remained relatively constant for 6th, 10th, 11th, and 12th graders. In both 1995 and 1999, public school students were more likely to report having been victims of violent crime during the previous 6 months than were private school students (table 3.1). Public school students were also more likely than private school students to report being victims of theft at school in 1995, but equally likely to experience theft in 1999. 4. Prevalence of students being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property* Every year, some students are threatened or injured with a weapon while they are on school property. The percentages of students victimized in this way provide an important measure of how safe our schools are and how this is changing over time. *This indicator repeats information from the 1999 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. The percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property in the 12 months before the survey has remained constant in recent years. In 1993, 1995, and 1997, about 7 to 8 percent of students reported being threatened or injured with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property in the past 12 months (figure 4.1 and table 4.1). 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 1997, 10 percent of males reported being threatened or injured in the past year, compared with 4 percent of females. Moreover, the percentage of females who reported being threatened or injured declined slightly over the period-from about 5 percent in 1993 to 4 percent in 1997. Of 9th through 12th graders, those students in lower grades were more likely to be threatened or injured with a weapon on school property than were students in higher grades (figure 4.2 and table 4.1). For example, in 1993, 9 percent of 9th graders reported being threatened or injured, compared with 6 percent of 12th graders. The comparable percentages in 1997 were 10 percent for 9th graders and 6 percent for 12th graders. There were few racial/ethnic differences in the percentages of students being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property in the 12 months in each year (figure 4.3 and table 4.1). About the same percentage of students from each racial/ethnic group reported being threatened or injured. 5. Prevalence of students involved in physical fights on school property* Schools where there are numerous physical fights may not be able to maintain a focused learning environment. Students who are constantly involved in fights on school property cannot be ready to learn. *This indicator repeats information from the 1999 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. In 1997, about 15 percent of all students in grades 9 through 12 said that they had been in a physical fight on school property in the last 12 months (figure 5.1 and table 5.1). In that same year, 37 percent reported that they had been in a physical fight in any location (including on school property). The percentage of students who reported being in a fight anywhere declined slightly from 1993 to 1997-from 42 percent in 1993 to 37 percent in 1997 (figure 5.1 and table 5.1). However, the percentages of students who reported fighting on school property across these years were similar. 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 1997, 46 percent of males said they had been in a fight in the last 12 months, and 20 percent said they had been in a fight on school property. In that same year, about 26 percent of females reported they had been in a fight, and 9 percent said they had been in a fight on school property. Of 9th through 12th graders, those students in lower grades reported being in more fights than students in higher grades anywhere and on school property (figure 5.2 and table 5.1). For example, in 1997, 21 percent of 9th graders reported that they were in a fight on school property in the last 12 months; in contrast, 10 percent of 12th graders were in fights on school property. 6. Prevalence of students being bullied at school* Bullying contributes to a climate of fear and intimidation in schools. Students ages 12 through 18 were asked if they had been bullied (that is, picked on or made to do things they did not want to do) at school. *The data reported here are from a different source than the data presented for this indicator in earlier editions. In 1999, about 5 percent of students ages 12 through 18 reported that they had been bullied at school in the last 6 months (table 6.1). In general, females were as likely as males to report being bullied. Males were more likely to be bullied in grades 6 and 7 than were females (12 percent versus 7 percent respectively), while there was little difference in the percentage of males and females being bullied in the other two grade levels (table 6.1 and figure 6.1). There were few differences among racial/ethnic groups in the percentage of students who reported being bullied (table 6.1). The exception was that white and black students were more likely to report being victimized by bullies than were students of other, non-Hispanic origin. About 2 percent in this group, which includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, American Indians, and Alaskan Natives, reported being bullied, compared with about 5 percent of white and 6 percent of black students. Students in lower grades were more likely to be bullied than students in higher grades (table 6.1 and figure 6.1). About 10 percent of students in grades 6 and 7 reported being bullied, compared with about 5 percent of students in grades 8 and 9 and about 2 percent in grades 10 through 12. 7. Prevalence of students having property stolen or deliberately damaged on school property* One way that students are victimized at school is by having their personal property stolen or deliberately damaged. While less harmful than attacks on students themselves, such crimes have financial consequences and can divert students' attention from their studies as well as contribute to perceptions of schools as unsafe places. *This indicator repeats information from the 1999 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. It is relatively common for students to have something stolen or damaged on school property. In 1997, about one-third of all students in grades 9 through 12 said that someone stole or deliberately damaged their property, such as their car, clothing, or books, on school property during the last 12 months (figure 7.1 and table 7.1). This proportion was similar in 1993 and 1995. Generally, males were more likely than females to report being victims of theft or deliberate property damage on school property. In 1993, 1995, and 1997, about 28 percent of females reported being victimized, compared with 37 percent of males in 1993, 41 percent in 1995, and 36 percent in 1997 (table 7.1). Students in lower grades were more likely than students in higher grades to report having something stolen or deliberately damaged at school (figure 7.2 and table 7.1). For example, in 1997, 37 percent of 9th graders had something of theirs damaged or stolen, compared with 28 percent of 12th graders. Violence and Crime at School-Public School Principal/Disciplinarian Reports 8. Crimes reported to the police* The number of crimes that principals indicated they reported to police or other law enforcement representatives is a useful measure of the occurrences of serious crimes in the nation's schools. The percentage of schools reporting crimes provides an indication of how widespread crime is, while the number of crimes reported provides information on the magnitude of the problem. *This indicator repeats information from the 1999 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. In 1996-97, 10 percent of all public schools reported at least one serious violent crime to a law enforcement representative (figure 8.1 and table 8.1). Another 47 percent of public schools reported a less serious violent or nonviolent crime (but not a serious violent one). The remaining 43 percent of public schools did not report any of these crimes to the police. The vast majority of crimes reported by public schools were of the less serious violent or nonviolent type in 1996-97 (402,000 out of the 424,000 total crimes reported to the police) (table 8.3). The percentage of schools reporting crimes was similar at the middle and high school levels (figure 8.2 and table 8.1). At each level, about 20 percent of the schools reported at least one serious violent crime, and about 55 percent reported at least one less serious violent or nonviolent crime, but no serious violent crime in 1996-97. The numbers of reported incidents per 1,000 students were similar for middle and high schools for both serious violent and less serious violent and nonviolent crimes (figure 8.2 and table 8.4). For both types of crimes, there was a lower rate at the elementary level than at the middle or high school levels. The percentage of schools reporting at least one serious violent crime was much higher in cities (17 percent) than in towns (5 percent) or rural areas (8 percent) during 1996-97 (figure 8.2 and table 8.1). 9. Specific crimes reported to the police* Data on the prevalence of specific types of crimes add detail to the more general discussion of serious violent crimes and less serious violent and nonviolent crimes. Each type of crime affects students and schools differently. *This indicator repeats information from the 1999 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. About one-half (44 to 55 percent) of all public middle and high schools reported incidents of vandalism, theft or larceny, and physical attacks or fights without weapons to the police or other law enforcement representatives in the 1996-97 school year (figure 9.1 and table 9.2). Considerably smaller percentages of public middle and high schools reported the more serious violent crimes of rape or other type of sexual battery (5 and 8 percent, respectively); robbery (5 and 8 percent); or physical attack or fight with a weapon (12 and 13 percent) (table 9.1). Elementary schools were much less likely than either middle or high schools to report any of the types of crime described here in 1996-97 (figure 9.1 and tables 9.1 and 9.2). They were much more likely to report vandalism (31 percent) than any other crime (19 percent or less). In 1996-97, physical attack or fight without a weapon was generally the most commonly reported crime at the middle and high school levels (9 and 8 per 1,000 public school students, respectively) (figure 9.2 and table 9.8). Theft or larceny was more common at the high school than the middle school level (6 versus 4 per 1,000 students). Overall, there was relatively little variation by urbanicity in the crime rates at school discussed here during the 1996-97 school year (as measured by the number of crimes reported per 1,000 public school students) (figure 9.2 and tables 9.7 and 9.8). Nonfatal Teacher Victimization at School-Teacher Reports 10. Nonfatal teacher victimization at school* Students are not the only ones who are victims of crime at school. Teachers in school can also be the targets of violence and theft. In addition to the personal toll such violence takes on teachers, those who worry about their safety may have difficulty teaching and may leave the profession altogether. Information on the number of crimes against teachers at school can help show how severe and widespread the problem is. *The data reported here are new. Over the 5-year period from 1994 through 1998, teachers were the victims of approximately 1,755,000 nonfatal crimes at school, including 1,087,000 thefts and 668,000 violent crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault) (table 10.1). On average, this translates into 351,000 nonfatal crimes per year, or 83 crimes per 1,000 teachers per year. Among the violent crimes against teachers during this 5-year period, there were about 80,000 serious violent crimes (12 percent of the violent crimes), including rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. On average, this translates into 16,000 serious violent crimes per year. During the 1994-98 period, the average annual rate of serious violent crime was similar for teachers (on average, 4 per 1,000 teachers), regardless of their instructional level, gender, race/ethnicity, and the urbanicity of the schools where they taught (figure 10.1 and table 10.1). In the period from 1994 through 1998, 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 (38 and 60, respectively, versus 18 crimes per 1,000 teachers) (figure 10.1 and table 10.1). During the 1994-98 period, senior high and middle/junior high school teachers were more likely to be targets of theft than elementary school teachers (63 and 67, respectively, versus 39 thefts per 1,000 teachers) (figure 10.1 and table 10.1). The average annual violent crime rate for teachers at school varied by gender. Over the 5-year period from 1994 through 1998, male teachers were more likely to be victims of violent crimes than female teachers (53 versus 25 crimes per 1,000 teachers) (figure 10.1 and table 10.1). Teachers were differentially victimized by crimes at school according to where they taught. For example, over the 5-year period from 1994 through 1998, urban teachers were more likely to be victims of violent crimes than rural and suburban teachers (40 versus 24 and 24, respectively, per 1,000 teachers). Urban teachers were also more likely to experience theft than suburban and rural teachers (63 versus 46 and 31 per 1,000 teachers, respectively) (figure 10.1 and table 10.1). 11. Prevalence of teachers being threatened with injury or attacked by students* Some of the offenses against teachers are committed by students. Data on physical attacks and threats against elementary and secondary teachers by students can provide a snapshot of the prevalence of this problem. *This indicator repeats information from the 1999 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. In the 1993-94 school year, 12 percent of all elementary and secondary school teachers (341,000) were threatened with injury by a student from their school, and 4 percent (119,000) were physically attacked by a student (table 11.1). Teachers in central city schools were more likely to be victims than were teachers in urban fringe or rural schools in 1993-94 (table 11.1). About 15 percent of teachers in central city schools had been threatened with injury by students, compared with 11 and 10 percent of teachers in urban fringe and rural schools. About 6 percent of teachers in central city schools had been attacked by students, compared with 4 and 3 percent of teachers in urban fringe and rural schools. Public school teachers were more likely than private school teachers to be victimized by students in school in 1993-94 (figure 11.1 and table 11.1). Almost 13 percent of public school teachers had been threatened with injury by students, compared with 4 percent of private school teachers, and 4 percent of public school teachers had been physically attacked by students, compared with 2 percent of private school teachers. Teachers in public central city schools were about five times more likely to be targets of threats of injury and about three times more likely to be targets of attacks than their colleagues in private central city schools. In 1993-94, secondary school teachers were more likely than elementary school teachers to have been threatened with injury by a student from their school (15 percent versus 9 percent) (table 11.1). However, elementary school teachers were more likely than secondary school teachers to have been physically attacked by a student (5 percent versus 3 percent). The prevalence of teacher victimization by students did not vary according to the racial/ethnic backgrounds of teachers. School Environment 12. Prevalence of students carrying weapons on school property* The presence of weapons at school can create an intimidating and threatening atmosphere, making teaching and learning difficult. The percentages of students who report that they carry a gun or other weapon on school property is an indicator of how widespread the problem of weapons at school is. *This indicator repeats information from the 1999 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. In 1997, 18 percent of students reported carrying a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club at any time in the past 30 days. About 9 percent reported they had carried a weapon on school property in the past 30 days (figures 12.1 and 12.2 and tables 12.1 and 12.2). Between 1993 and 1997, the percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported carrying a weapon on school property at least 1 day within 30 days before the survey fell from 12 percent to 9 percent (a 25 percent reduction) (figure 12.1 and table 12.1). There was also a decline in the percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who carried a weapon at any time during the past 30 days-from 22 percent in 1993 to 18 percent in 1997 (figure 12.2 and table 12.2). Males were about three times more likely than females to carry a weapon on school property. For example, in 1997, 13 percent of males carried a weapon on school property, compared with 4 percent of females (figure 12.1 and table 12.1). Students in lower grades were more likely to have carried a weapon anywhere in the previous 30 days than were students in higher grades (figure 12.2 and table 12.2). For example, in 1997, 23 percent of 9th graders had carried a weapon compared with 15 percent of 12th graders. Generally, students in lower grades were no more likely to carry a weapon to school than other students (figure 12.2 and table 12.1). The one exception to this general trend was in 1995, in which 12th graders were less likely to carry a weapon to school than were 10th or 9th grade students. 13. Students' perceptions of personal safety at school and when traveling to and from school* One consequence of school violence is the fear that it can instill in students. Students who fear for their own safety may not be able or ready to learn. Concerns about vulnerability to attacks by others at school and on the way to and from school may also have a detrimental effect on the school environment and learning. *The 1999 data reported here are new. Comparisons between the 1989 data and the 1995 and 1999 data should be made with caution due to changes in the questionnaire. See appendix B for details. Between 1995 and 1999, there were decreases in the percentages of students feeling unsafe while they were at school and while they were going to and from school (figures 13.1 and 13.2 and table 13.1). In 1995, 9 percent of students ages 12 through 18 sometimes or most of the time feared they were going to be attacked or harmed at school, while in 1999 this percentage fell to 5 percent. Between these years, the percentage of students fearing they would be attacked while traveling to and from school fell from 7 percent to 4 percent. Between 1995 and 1999, there was a decline in fear of attacks at school and when traveling to and from school among all racial/ethnic groups. However, in both years, larger percentages of black and Hispanic students than white students feared such attacks (figures 13.1 and 13.2 and table 13.1). In both 1995 and 1999, students in lower grades were more likely to fear for their safety at school than were students in higher grades (table 13.1). For example, in 1999, 9 percent of students in grade 6 feared for their safety while at school, compared with 3 percent of students in grade 12. Between 1995 and 1999 there was a decline in fear of attacks at school and to and from school within almost all grades. However, in both 1995 and 1999, students in lower grades were also more likely than students in higher grades to fear being attacked on the way to and from school (table 13.1). Between 1995 and 1999 there was a decline in fear of attacks at school and to and from school for students in all areas-urban, suburban and rural. However, in 1999, as in 1995, students in urban schools were more likely than students in suburban or rural schools to fear being attacked at school and when travelling to and from school (table 13.1). 14. Students' reports of avoiding places in school* One consequence of crime in school is that students begin to perceive specific areas in school as unsafe. In trying to ensure their own safety, they begin to avoid these areas. Changes in the percentage of students avoiding areas in school may be a good barometer of how safe schools are?at least in the minds of those who attend these schools. *The 1999 data reported here are new. Comparisons between the 1989 data and the 1995 and 1999 data should be made with caution due to changes in the questionnaire. See appendix B for details. Between 1995 and 1999, there was a decrease in the percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who avoided one or more places in school-from 9 percent in 1995 to 5 percent in 1999 (figure 14.1 and table 14.1). Despite this decline, this percentage still represented 1.1 million students in 1999 who reported avoiding some areas in school out of fear for their own safety. The percentage of students of all racial/ethnic groups avoiding specific areas in school fell between 1995 and 1999 (figure 14.1 and table 14.1). In both 1995 and 1999, black and Hispanic students were more likely to avoid areas in school than were white students. Between 1995 and 1999, there was a decrease in the percentage of students reporting avoiding areas in school among students of almost all grade levels (table 14.1). However, in both years, students in lower grades were more likely than students in higher grades to report avoiding areas in school. While in 1995, students in urban areas were more likely than suburban students to avoid areas in school (12 percent versus 8 percent, respectively), by 1999 urban and suburban students were equally as likely to avoid areas in school (figure 14.2 and table 14.1). 15. Students' reports of being called hate-related words and seeing hate-related graffiti* A student's exposure to hate-related words or symbols at school can increase his or her feeling of vulnerability. An environment in which students are confronted with discriminatory behavior is not conducive to learning and creates a climate of hostility. *This is a new indicator. In 1999, about 13 percent of students ages 12 through 18 reported that someone at school had used hate-related words against them (figure 15.1 and table 15.1). That is, in the prior 6 months someone at school called them a derogatory word having to do with race/ethnicity, religion, disability, gender, or sexual orientation. In addition, about 36 percent of students saw hate-related graffiti at school. There was very little variation in these percentages based on the location of the students' households (table 15.1). Students in urban, suburban, and rural households were equally as likely to report being called hate-related words and to see hate-related graffiti. Females were more likely than males to report being targets of derogatory words and were also more likely to report seeing hate-related graffiti at their school (figure 15.1 and table 15.1). About 14 percent of females reported being called hate words in 1999, compared with 12 percent of males. About 39 percent of females had seen hate-related graffiti, compared with 34 percent of males. Black students were more likely than white or Hispanic students to report being called hate words (table 15.1). About 17 percent of black students ages 12 through 18 reported being targets of derogatory words, compared with 13 percent of white students and 12 percent of Hispanic students. Students of all racial/ethnic groups were equally likely to report hate-related graffiti at school. 16. Students' reports of gangs at school* 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. Street gangs may not only create fear among students but also increase the level of violence in school. The percentage of students who report the presence of street gangs in their schools indicates the existence and severity of the gang problem in schools. *The 1999 data reported here are new. Comparisons between the 1989 data and the 1995 and 1999 data should be made with caution due to changes in the questionnaire. See appendix B for details. Between 1995 and 1999, the percentage of students who reported that street gangs were present at their schools decreased (figure 16.1 and table 16.1). In 1995, 29 percent of students reported street gangs being present in their schools. By 1999, this percentage had fallen to 17 percent. Gangs were more likely to be reported in public schools than in private schools (figure 16.1 and table 16.1). In 1999, 19 percent of students in public schools reported that street gangs were present in their schools, compared with 4 percent in private schools. A similar pattern of results was reported in 1995. However, between these two years, the percentage of public school students reporting that gangs were present in their schools decreased by about 40 percent (from 31 percent in 1995 to 19 percent in 1999) as did the percentage of private school students reporting gang presence (from 7 percent to 4 percent). In 1999, urban students were more likely to report that there were street gangs at their schools (25 percent) than were suburban and rural students (16 percent and 11 percent, respectively) (figure 16.2 and table 16.1). Between 1995 and 1999, reports of gang presence decreased regardless of students' place of residence. In both years, Hispanic and black students were more likely than white students to report the existence of street gangs in their schools. In 1995, Hispanic students were more likely than black students to do so (figure 16.3 and table 16.1), while in 1999 they were equally as likely. Between 1995 and 1999, reports of gang presence decreased for whites, blacks, Hispanics, and students of other race/ethnicities. 17. Public school principals' reports of discipline problems at school* Discipline problems in a school may contribute to an overall climate in which violence may occur. Schools that suffer from student drug or alcohol use, racial tensions, or verbal and physical abuse of teachers may be filled with pressures that result in school violence. *This indicator repeats information from the 1999 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. During the 1996-97 school year, 16 percent of all public school principals reported that one or more discipline issues had been a serious problem in their school (figure 17.1 and table 17.1). About the same percentage of principals in city, urban fringe, town, and rural settings reported one or more serious discipline problems. Public elementary schools were the least likely to report any serious discipline issues, followed by middle schools and then high schools (figure 17.1 and table 17.1). About 8 percent of elementary school principals reported one or more of these issues as a serious problem, while 18 percent of principals in middle schools and 37 percent of those in high schools did so. While overall there were no significant differences in reported serious problems by urbanicity, a greater percentage of principals in public city high schools than in rural high schools reported having serious discipline problems?47 percent compared with 28 percent (figure 17.1 and table 17.1). 18. Prevalence of students using alcohol* The consumption of alcohol by students on school property, a crime in itself, may also lead to other crimes and misbehavior. It can lead to a school environment that is harmful to students, teachers, and staff. *This indicator repeats information from the 1999 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. In 1997, 51 percent of students in grades 9 through 12 had at least one drink of alcohol in the 30 days before being surveyed (figure 18.1 and table 18.1). A much smaller percentage (6 percent) had at least one drink on school property during the same period. Approximately the same percentage of students had drunk alcohol in 1997 as in 1993 and 1995-both in general and on school property. Males were more likely than females to have used alcohol in 1993 and 1997 (figure 18.1 and table 18.1). Furthermore, males were more likely than females to use alcohol on school property. For example, in 1997, 7 percent of males had used alcohol on school property compared with 4 percent of females. Of 9th through 12th graders, in every survey year, students in higher grades were more likely to report drinking alcohol anywhere than were students in lower grades (figure 18.2 and table 18.1). However, there were no differences by grade among students who said they had drunk alcohol on school property during 1993, 1995, or 1997. 19. Prevalence of students using marijuana* The use of other drugs such as marijuana on school property may also cause disruptions in the learning environment. The consumption of these substances leads to a school environment that is harmful to students, teachers, and school administrators. *This indicator repeats information from the 1999 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. Between 1993 and 1997, 6 to 9 percent of students in grades 9 through 12 reported using marijuana on school property during the last 30 days. About 18 to 26 percent reported using marijuana anywhere during the last 30 days (figure 19.1 and table 19.1). There was an increase in the use of marijuana among students between 1993 and 1995. In 1995, about 25 percent of all students in grades 9 through 12 had used marijuana in the last 30 days, compared with 18 percent in 1993 (figure 19.1 and table 19.1). Marijuana use in 1997, at 26 percent, was similar to that in 1995. However, marijuana use on school property did not increase significantly between 1993 and 1995, or between 1995 and 1997. Males were more likely than females to have used marijuana in every survey year (figure 19.1 and table 19.1), both in general and on school property. Both males and females increased their overall use of marijuana from 1993 to 1997 (figure 19.1 and table 19.1). The percentage of males who reported using marijuana in the 30 days before the survey increased from 21 percent in 1993 to 30 percent in 1997. The percentage of females increased from 15 percent to 21 percent. Students' grade in school was not associated with their use of marijuana on school property (figure 19.2 and table 19.1). However, in 1993 and 1995, students in lower grades were less likely than students in higher grades to report using marijuana at any time during the last 30 days. In 1997, this difference by grade was not apparent, with students in lower grades about as likely to report using marijuana as students in higher grades. This pattern occurred because the overall use of marijuana in 9th, 10th, and 11th grades increased from 1993 to 1997, while its use by 12th graders remained relatively constant. 20. Prevalence of students reporting drugs were made available to them on school property* Schools can be places where young people are offered or can purchase illegal drugs. The availability of drugs on school property is a disruptive and corrupting influence in the school environment. *This indicator repeats information from the 1999 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. In 1995 and 1997, almost one-third of all students in grades 9 through 12 (32 percent) reported that someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property (figure 20.1 and table 20.1). This was an increase from 1993 when 24 percent of such students reported that illegal drugs were available to them on school property. The percentages of both males and females reporting that illegal drugs were made available to them on school property increased between 1993 and 1995. However, in each survey year, males were more likely than females to report that drugs were offered, sold, or given to them on school property. For example, in 1997, 37 percent of males reported the availability of drugs, while 25 percent of females did so. Students' grade level in school did not appear to be associated with whether they had been offered, sold, or given drugs on school property (figure 20.2 and table 20.1). Generally, in each survey year, about the same percentage of students in each grade level reported the availability of illegal drugs. The racial/ethnic background of students was associated with whether they reported having illegal drugs offered, sold, or given to them on school property (figure 20.3 and table 20.1). In general, Hispanics were more likely than students from other racial/ethnic groups to report having drugs available to them on school property. Supplemental Tables Standard Error Tables may be obtained by contacting ASK_BJS@ojp.usdoj.gov APPENDIX A. SCHOOL PRACTICES AND POLICIES RELATED TO SAFETY AND DISCIPLINE* *This appendix repeats information from the 1999 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. Concern over school crime and violence has prompted many public schools to take various measures to reduce and prevent violence and ensure safety in schools. Such measures include adopting zero tolerance policies; requiring students to wear uniforms; employing various security measures such as requiring visitor sign-in and using metal detectors; having police or other law enforcement representatives stationed at the school; and offering students various types of violence prevention programs. Presented in this appendix are data on the implementation of such safety measures in public schools. This report does not evaluate the effectiveness of any of these efforts or strategies, and the inclusion of a strategy does not suggest that it is endorsed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) or the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) as an effective means of reducing or preventing violence. Likewise, the omission of a possible strategy does not suggest it is rejected by NCES or BJS as a policy to reduce or prevent violence. This information, along with supporting tables, was drawn from a recent NCES report titled Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996-97 (NCES 98-030). The report was based on data from the 1996-97 Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) Principal/School Disciplinarian Survey on School Violence. Readers should consult that report for more detailed findings on variation by school characteristics. Zero Tolerance Policies Most public schools reported having zero tolerance policies toward serious student offenses (table A1). A "zero tolerance policy" was defined as a school or district policy that mandates predetermined consequences or punishments for specific offenses. At least 9 out of 10 schools reported zero tolerance policies for firearms (94 percent) and weapons other than firearms (91 percent). Eighty-seven percent of schools had policies of zero tolerance for alcohol and 88 percent had zero tolerance policies for drugs. Most schools also had zero tolerance policies for violence and tobacco (79 percent each). School Uniforms Requiring students to wear school uniforms was not common. Three percent of all public schools required students to wear uniforms during the 1996-97 school year (table A2). Security Measures Schools took a number of measures to secure their schools. For example, 96 percent of public schools reported that visitors were required to sign in before entering the school building (table A3); 80 percent of public schools reported having a closed campus policy that prohibited most students from leaving the campus for lunch; 53 percent of public schools controlled access to their school building; and 24 percent of public schools controlled access to their school grounds. In addition, 19 percent of public schools reported conducting drug sweeps, with middle schools and high schools being more likely to use drug sweeps than elementary schools (36 and 45 percent, respectively, versus 5 percent). While 4 percent of public schools reported that they performed random metal detector checks on students, daily use of metal detectors as a security measure was not common: only 1 percent of public schools reported taking this measure. Presence of Police or Other Law Enforcement Representatives in Schools In addition to the security measures described above, 6 percent of public schools reported having police or other law enforcement representatives stationed 30 hours or more at the school in a typical week during the 1996-97 school year; 1 percent of schools had them stationed from 10 to 29 hours; and 3 percent had them stationed from 1 to 9 hours. Twelve percent of schools did not have police or other law enforcement representatives stationed during a typical week but made them available as needed, and 78 percent of schools did not have any such persons stationed at their schools (table A4). Violence Prevention or Reduction Programs A majority of public schools (78 percent) reported having some type of formal school violence prevention or reduction program (table A5). The percentage of schools with both 1-day and ongoing programs (43 percent) was higher than schools with only ongoing programs (24 percent) and schools with only 1-day programs (11 percent). Policies to Prevent Firearms in School In the 1996-97 school year, there were over 5,000 student expulsions for possession or use of a firearm (table A6). An additional 3,300 students were transferred to alternative schools for possession or use of a firearm, while 8,144 were placed in out-of-school suspensions lasting 5 or more days. About 5 percent of all public schools (or 4,170) took one or more of these actions. APPENDIX B. 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., high school seniors or students in grades 9 through 12); in different years; about experiences that occurred within different periods of time (e.g., in the past 4 weeks 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 B1 presents some key information for each of the data sets used in the report, including the survey year, target population, response rates, and sample sizes. 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 B2. Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) This report draws upon data on teacher victimization from the 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS:93-94), which provides national- and state-level data on public and private schools, principals, school districts, and teachers. The 1993-94 survey was the third in a series of cross-sectional, school-focused surveys, following ones conducted in 1990-91 and 1987-88. It consisted of four sets of linked questionnaires, 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. Stratified by state, control, type, association membership, and grade level (for private schools), schools were sampled first. Approximately 9,900 public schools and 3,300 private schools were selected to participate in the 1993-94 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) bilingual/ESL; 4) new teachers (those with 1 to 3 years of experience); and 5) experienced teachers (those with more than 3 years of experience). Within each teacher stratum, teachers were selected systematically with equal probability. Approximately 56,700 public school teachers and 11,500 private school teachers were sampled. This report focuses on teachers' responses. The overall weighted response rates were 84 percent for public school teachers and 73 percent for private school teachers. In the Public School Teacher Questionnaire, 91 percent of the items had a response rate of 90 percent or more, and in the Private School Teacher Questionnaire, 89 percent of the items had this level of response. Values were imputed for questionnaire items that should have been answered but were not. For additional information about SASS, refer to R. Abramson, C. Cole, S. Fondelier, B. Jackson, R. Parmer, and S. Kaufman, 1996, 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation (NCES 96-089), or 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 that was 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, and 1997 YRBS data. The YRBS used a three-stage cluster sampling design to produce a nationally representative sample of students in grades 9 through 12 in the United States. The target population consisted of all public and private school students in grades 9 through 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 through 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, and 16,300 students were selected to participate in the 1993 survey, the1995 survey, and the 1997 survey, respectively. The overall response rate was 70 percent for the 1993 survey, 60 percent for the 1995 survey, and 69 percent for the 1997 survey. NCES standards call for response rates of 70 percent or better and bias analyses are called for by NCES when that percentage is not achieved. For the YRBS data, a full nonresponse bias analysis has not been done to date. The weights were developed to adjust for nonresponse and the oversampling of black and Hispanic students in the sample. The final weights were normalized so that only weighted proportions of students (not weighted counts of students) in each grade matched national population projections. 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, Georgia 30341 Telephone: (404) 488-5330 E-mail: lkk1@cdc.gov Fast Response Survey System: Principal/School Disciplinarian Survey on School Violence The Principal/School Disciplinarian Survey was conducted through the NCES Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) during the spring and summer of 1997. The FRSS is a survey system designed to collect small amounts of issue-oriented data with minimal burden on respondents and within a relatively short time frame. The FRSS Principal/School Disciplinarian Survey focused on incidents of specific crimes/offenses and a variety of specific discipline issues in public schools. 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 sample of public schools was selected from the 1993-94 NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) Public School Universe File. The sample was stratified by instructional level, locale, and school 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 1,415 schools were selected. Among them, 11 schools were found no longer to be in existence, and 1,234 schools completed the survey. In April 1997, 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 raw response rate was 88 percent (1,234 schools divided by the 1,404 eligible schools in the sample). The weighted overall response rate was 89 percent, and item nonresponse rates ranged from 0 percent to 0.9 percent. 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 1996-97 school year. For more information about the FRSS: Principal/School Disciplinarian Survey on School Violence, contact: Shelley Burns National Center for Education Statistics 1990 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 502-7319 E-mail: Shelley_Burns@ed.gov National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), administered for the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics by the Bureau of the Census, 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 55,000 households selected using a stratified, multi-stage cluster design. In the first stage, the primary sampling units (PSUs), consisting of counties or groups of counties, are 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 90,000 persons ages 12 and older are interviewed each 6 months. Households remain in 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 95 percent at the household level. During the study period, the completion rates for persons within households were about 91 percent. Thus, final response rates were about 86 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 Planty Victimization Statistics U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics 810 7th Street NW Washington, DC 20531 Telephone: (202) 514-3214 E-mail: Michael.Planty@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, and 1999 to collect additional information about school-related victimizations on a national level. 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, 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 at school, and the availability of drugs and alcohol in school, as well as attitudinal questions relating to fear of victimization and avoidance behavior in school. In 1989, 1995, and 1999, the SCS was conducted for a 6-month period from January through June in all households selected for the NCVS (see discussion above for information about the sampling design). It should be noted that the initial 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 through 12 in a school that would help them advance toward eventually receiving a high school diploma. Eligible respondents were asked the supplemental questions in the SCS only after completing their entire NCVS interview. For the 1989 and the 1995 SCS, 19-year-old household members also were considered eligible for the SCS interview. This upper age range was lowered to 18 for eligibility in the 1999 SCS because it was determined that most 19-year-olds did not meet the other eligibility requirement of being currently enrolled in a secondary school. In this report, 19-year-olds were excluded from the analysis of the 1995 data in order to meet the eligibility requirements and to allow for comparisons to the 1999 SCS. However, the 19-year-olds were not dropped from the analysis of the 1989 data. Comparisons between the 1989 data and the 1995 and 1999 data should be made with caution due to the redesign of the NCVS in 1992. A new victimization screening procedure, put in place in 1992, was meant to elicit a more complete tally of victimization incidents than did the one used in prior NCVS collections. Therefore, NCVS item-based cross-year changes in reported victimization rates, or lack thereof, may only be the result of changes in how the questions were asked and not of actual changes in the incidence of victimization. Because NCVS questionnaires were completed before students were given the SCS, it is likely that these changes to the NCVS victimization screening procedures differentially affected responses to the 1989 and 1995 SCS victimization items. Other items in this report, such as fear at school, avoidance of places at school, and reports of gangs at school, followed the victimization items on the SCS survey. Unlike prior Indicators reports, the prevalence of victimization for 1995 and 1999 was calculated by using NCVS incident variables appended to the 1995 and 1999 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. Total victimization is a combination of violent victimization and theft. If the student reported an incident of either, he or she is counted as having experienced "total" victimization. If the student reported having experienced both, he or she is counted once under "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 10,449 students participated in the 1989 SCS, 9,728 in the 1995 SCS and 8,398 in 1999. In the 1999 SCS, the household completion rate was 94 percent. In the 1989 and 1995 SCS, the household completion rates were 97 percent and 95 percent, respectively, and the student completion rates were 86 percent and 78 percent, respectively. For the 1999 SCS, the student completion rate was 78 percent. Thus, the overall SCS response rate (calculated by multiplying the household completion rate by the student completion rate) was 84 percent in 1989, 74 percent in 1995 and 73 percent in 1999. Response rates for most survey items were high-mostly 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 1989, 1995 and 1999. For more information about SCS, contact: Kathryn A. Chandler National Center for Education Statistics 1990 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 502-7326 E-mail: Kathryn_Chandler@ed.gov School Associated Violent Death Study (SAVD) The School Associated Violent Death Study (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 study includes descriptive data on all school-associated violent deaths in the United States including all homicides, suicides and 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 first SAVD study collected data for July 1, 1992-June 30, 1994 and the follow-up study includes July 1, 1994-June 30, 1999. The follow-up study is nearing completion, and data presented in this report include preliminary findings for the 1997-1998 school year. 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 in regards to 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 about 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). While the current study is still ongoing, over 250 school-associated violent deaths have been identified for July 1, 1994-June 30, 1999. The first study achieved a response rate of 85% for police officials and 81% for school officials. To date, the current study has achieved 96% for police officials and 79% for school officials. For additional information about SAVD, contact: Mark Anderson 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: (404) 488-4762 E-mail: mea6@cdc.gov 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. In these sampling designs, data were collected through stratification, clustering, unequal selection probabilities, or multistage sampling. These features of the sampling usually result in estimated statistics that are more variable (that is, have larger standard errors) than they would have been if they had been based on data from a simple random sample of the same size. 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 B3 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 relied on a combination of procedures. For statistics based on the 1995 and 1999 SCS data, 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 and the 1989 SCS 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 B3. 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. The formula used to compute the t statistic is as follows: (1) where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding standard errors. Note that this formula is valid only for independent estimates. When the estimates are not independent (for example, when comparing a total percentage with that for a subgroup included in the total), a covariance term (i.e., 2*se1*se2) must be added to the denominator of the formula: (2) 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. When multiple comparisons among more than two groups were made, for example, among racial/ethnic groups, a Bonferroni adjustment to the significance level was used to ensure that the significance level for the tests as a group 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 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. Finally, 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. APPENDIX C. 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 - 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 non-minority 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 work site, 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). 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, or assault. Urban - The largest city (or grouping of cities) in an MSA. School Crime Supplement At school - In the school building, on the school grounds, or on a school bus. Any victimization - Combination of violent and property victimization. If a student reported an incident of either, he or she is counted as having experienced any victimization. If the student reported having experienced both, he or she is counted once under "any victimization." Property victimization - Theft of property from a student's desk, locker, or other locations at school. Violent victimization - Physical attacks or taking property from the student directly by force, weapons, or threats. Youth Risk Behavior Survey On school property - On school property is included in the question wording but was not defined for respondents. Weapon Any instrument or object used with the intent to threaten, injure, or kill. 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, LSD, PCP, ecstasy, mushrooms, speed, ice, and heroin. FRSS Principal/School Disciplinarian Survey At school - In school buildings, on school buses, on school grounds, or at places that hold school-sponsored events or activities, but are not officially on school grounds. Central region - Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. City - A central city of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Elementary school - A school that has a low grade of 3 or less and a high grade of 1 through 8. Free/reduced-price lunch - The percent of students enrolled in the school who are eligible for the federally funded free or reduced-price lunch program. High school/combined - A school that has a low grade of 9 through 12 and a high grade of 10 through 12. Schools that do not precisely meet these qualifications, and are not elementary and middle schools, are classified as "combined" and are included in the analyses with high schools. Less serious or nonviolent crime - Physical attack or fight without a weapon, theft or larceny, or vandalism. Minority enrollment - The percent of students enrolled in the school whose race or ethnicity is classified as one of the following: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, black, or Hispanic, based on data in the 1993-94 Common Core of Data (CCD) file. Middle school - A school that has a low grade of 4 through 9 and a high grade of 4 through 9. Northeast region - Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. 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. 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. This category should be used only when the attack is serious enough to warrant calling the police or other law enforcement representative. Rural - A place with a population less than 2,500 and defined as rural by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. School enrollment - Total number of students enrolled as defined by the 1993-94 CCD. Serious violent crime - Murder, suicide, rape or sexual battery, physical attack or fight with a weapon, or robbery. Sexual battery - An incident that includes rape, fondling, indecent liberties, child molestation, or sodomy. Southeast region - Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Theft or larceny - The unlawful taking of another person's property without personal confrontation, threat, violence, or bodily harm. Town - A place not within an MSA, but with a population greater than or equal to 2,500 and defined as urban by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Urban fringe - A place within an MSA of a central city, but not primarily its central city. Vandalism - The damage or destruction of school property. West region - Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. 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). S. Patrick Kachur et al., "School-Associated Violent Deaths in the United States, 1992 to 1994" 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.