Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2002 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics November 2002, NCJ 196753 ---------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.wk1) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/iscs02.htm This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#indicators. ----------------------------------------------------- Katharin Peter Phillip Kaufman MPR Associates, Inc. Jill F. DeVoe Sally A. Ruddy Amanda K. Miller Mike Planty Education Statistics Services Institute Thomas D. Snyder National Center for Education Statistics Detis T. Duhart Michael R. Rand Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Education Rod Paige, Secretary Office of Educational Research and Improvement Grover J. Whitehurst, Assistant Secretary National Center for Education Statistics Gary W. Phillips, Deputy Commissioner U.S. Department of Justice John Ashcroft, Attorney General Office of Justice Programs Deborah J.Daniels, Assistant Attorney General Bureau of Justice Statistics Lawrence A. Greenfeld, Director The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in other countries. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, publishing, and disseminating statistical information about crime, its perpetrators and victims, and the operation of the justice system at all levels of government. These data are critical to federal, state, and local policymakers in combating crime and ensuring that justice is both efficient and evenhanded. November 2002 Suggested Citation DeVoe, J.F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Ruddy, S.A., Miller, A.K., Planty, M., Snyder, T.D., Duhart, D.T., and Rand, M.R. Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2002. U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. NCES 2003-009/NCJ 196753. Washington, DC: 2002. 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 2003-009) (TTY/TDD 1-877-576-7734), and the Bureau of Justice Statistics Clearinghouse at 1-800-732-3277 (NCJ 196753). Contact at NCES: Thomas D. Snyder (202) 502-7452 E-mail: Tom.Snyder@ed.gov Contact at BJS: Detis T. Duhart (202) 307-6116 E-mail: duhartd@ojp.usdoj.gov FOREWORD The safety of our students, teachers, and staff at our nation's schools continues to be an issue of paramount importance. While the most recent national indicators demonstrate that important gains have been made in recent years, crime and safety issues remain substantial problems in our nation's schools. Between 1992 and 2000, there was a 46 percent decrease in the violent crime victimization rate at school. Despite this decline, students ages 12 through 18 were victims of about 700,000 violent crimes and 1.2 million crimes of theft at school in the year 2000. Violence, theft, bullying, drugs, and firearms remain problems in many schools throughout the country indicating that more remains to be done to make our schools safer. Accurate information about the nature, extent, and scope of the problem being addressed is essential in developing effective programs and policies. The information contained in this report is intended to serve as a foundation for policy- makers and practitioners in the development of effective programs and policies to prevent and cope with violence and crime in schools. This is the fifth 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. This edition of Indicators includes the most recent available data, including data from 2001. The data in this report were compiled from a number of statistical series supported by the federal government. Sources include results from a study of violent deaths in schools, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the National Crime Victimization Survey and School Crime Supplement to the survey, sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and the Schools and Staffing Survey, sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics. This report is available on the Internet in its entirety. The Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics continue to work toward providing more timely and complete data on the issue of school-related violence and safety. Gary W. Phillips Deputy Commissioner of Education Statistics Lawrence A. Greenfeld 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 may have difficulty teaching and students may find their environment a difficult one in which to learn. Priorities set by schools, local authorities, and state and federal government have prompted the nation to focus on improving the safety of American schools. The effort toward providing safer schools requires establishing good indicators of the current state of school crime and safety, and periodically monitoring and updating these indicators. Student safety is of concern outside of school as well. In fact, as the data in this report show, a larger number of serious violent victimizations happen away from school than at school. ***Footnote 1:These data are not adjusted by the number of hours that students spend on school property and the number of hours they spend elsewhere.*** In 2000, students were more than twice as likely to be victims of serious violent crime away from school than at school (Indicator 2). ***Footnote 2:For this indicator, "students" refers to persons 12 through 18 years of age regardless of whether they attended school during the survey reference period.*** In 2000, students ages 12 through 18 were victims of about 1.9 million total crimes of violence or theft at school (Indicator 2). In that same year, students in this age range were victims of about 128,000 serious violent crimes at school (i.e., rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault). There were also 47 school- associated violent deaths in the United States between July 1, 1998 and June 30, 1999, including 38 homicides, 33 of which involved school-aged children (Indicator 1). The total nonfatal victimization rate for students ages 12 through 18 generally declined between 1992 and 2000, from 144 per 1,000 students in 1992 to 72 per 1,000 students in 2000 (Indicator 2). The percentage of students being victimized at school also has declined over the last few years. Between 1995 and 2001, the percentage of students who reported being victims of crime at school decreased from 10 percent to 6 percent (Indicator 3). This decline was due in large part to the decrease in the percentage of students reporting being victims of theft at school, which declined from 7 percent in 1995 to 4 percent in 2001. However, the prevalence of other problem behavior at school has increased. For example, in 2001, 8 percent of students reported that they had been bullied at school in the last 6 months, up from 5 percent in 1999 (Indicator 6). For some other types of crime at school, the prevalence has not changed. Between 1993 and 2001, 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 relatively constant-- between 7 and 9 percent (Indicator 4). As the rates of criminal victimization in schools have 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 from 9 percent in 1995 to 5 percent in 1999 and 2001 (Indicator 13). The data shown in this report present a mixed picture of school safety. While overall victimization rates have declined, more work needs to be done to address the issues related to school violence and safety. ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT This report, the fifth in a series of annual reports on school crime and safety from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), presents the latest available data on school crime and student safety. The report repeats many indicators from the 2001 report and also provides updated data on fatal and nonfatal student victimization; nonfatal teacher victimization and threats against teachers; and student reports of being threatened or injured with a weapon at school, being in fights at school, and being bullied at school; and students' perceptions of personal safety. This report also includes updated data on students' reports of avoiding places at school, being called hate-related words, seeing hate-related graffiti, gangs at school, carrying weapons to school, using alcohol and marijuana, and drug availability on school property. The report is organized as a series of indicators, with each indicator presenting data on a different aspect of school crime and safety. It starts with 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 BJS, NCES, 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." ***Footnote 3: See appendix C, Glossary of Terms, for specific definitions used in each survey.*** 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 All of the comparisons described in this report are statistically significant at the 0.05 level. ***Footnote 4: See appendix B for details on the statistical methodology.*** Following are key findings from the various sections of the report: VIOLENT DEATHS AT SCHOOL From July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999, there were 47 school-associated violent deaths in the United States (Indicator 1). Thirty-eight of these violent deaths were homicides, six were suicides, two involved suspects killed by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, and one was unintentional. Thirty-three of the 38 school- associated homicides were of school- aged children. These 33 homicides are relatively few (1 percent of all homicides of youth) compared to a total of 2,391 children ages 5 to 19 who were victims of homicide in the United States from July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999. Four of the six school-associated suicides occurring from July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999 were of school-aged children. Away from school, there were a total of 1,855 suicides of children ages 5 to 19 during the 1999 calendar 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 2000, students in this age range were victims of about 373,000 serious violent crimes away from school, compared with about 128,000 at school. This translates into a rate of 14 per 1,000 students away from school and 5 per 1,000 students at school. * The percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who have been threatened or injured with a weapon on school property ***Footnote 5: Definitions for "on school property" and "at school" may differ. See appendix C for specific definitions.*** has not changed significantly in recent years (Indicator 4). In 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001, between 7 and 9 percent of students reported being threatened or injured with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property in the past 12 months. * The percentage of students who reported being in a fight anywhere declined from 1993 to 2001--from 42 percent to 33 percent (Indicator 5). Similarly, the percentage of students who reported fighting on school property also declined over this period, from 16 percent to 13 percent. * Both males and females were more likely to be bullied in 2001 than in 1999 (Indicator 6). In 2001, males were more likely than females to be bullied (9 and 7 percent, respectively); however, in 1999, no such difference could be detected (5 percent each). * Between 1992 and 2000, there was a 46 percent decrease in the violent crime victimization rate at school and a 52 percent decrease away from school (from 48 to 26 and from 71 to 34 per 1,000 students ages 12 through 18, respectively) (Indicator 2). In 2000, younger students (ages 12 through 14) were not victimized at a different rate than older students (ages 15 through 18) either at or away from school (Indicator 2). * In 2001, 8 percent of 12- through 18- year- old students reported being bullied at school in the last 6 months (Indicator 6), up from 5 percent in 1999. 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 (Indicator 7). 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 at least one 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. * Elementary schools were less likely than either middle or high schools to report any type of crime in 1996-97. Elementary schools were more likely to report vandalism (31 percent) than any other crime (19 percent or less) (Indicator 8). * 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) (Indicator 8). Theft or larceny was more common at the high school level than at the middle school level (6 vs. 4 incidents per 1,000 students). NONFATAL TEACHER VICTIMIZATION AT SCHOOL-- TEACHER REPORTS Over the 5-year period from 1996 through 2000, teachers were victims of approximately 1,603,000 nonfatal crimes at school, including 1,004,000 thefts and 599,000 violent crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault) (Indicator 9). On average, this translates into 74 crimes per 1,000 teachers per year. * During the 1996 through 2000 period, 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 (35 and 49, respectively, vs. 15 crimes per 1,000 teachers) (Indicator 9). * Teachers were differentially victimized by violent crimes at school according to where they taught (Indicator 9). Over the 5-year period from 1996 through 2000, urban teachers were more likely to be victims of violent crimes than suburban and rural teachers (36 vs. 21 and 17, respectively, per 1,000 teachers). * In the 1999-2000 school year, 9 percent of all elementary and secondary school teachers were threatened with injury by a student, and 4 percent were physically attacked by a student (Indicator 10). This represented about 305,000 teachers who were victims of threats of injury by students that year and 135,000 teachers who were victims of attacks by students. SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT Between 1995 and 1999, there was a decrease in the percentage of students ages 12 through 18 feeling unsafe while they were at school (Indicator 12). However, between 1999 and 2001, there was no significant change in the percentage of students feeling unsafe. In both 1999 and 2001, students were more likely to be afraid of being attacked at school than away from school. * Between 1993 and 2001, the percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported carrying a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property within the previous 30 days declined from 12 percent to 6 percent (Indicator 11). * Between 1995 and 1999, there was a decrease in the percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who avoided one or more places at school-- from 9 percent to 5 percent (Indicator 13). However, between 1999 and 2001, the percentage remained stable at 5 percent. * In 2001, 12 percent of students ages 12 through 18 reported that someone at school had used hate-related words against them (Indicator 14). That is, in the prior 6 months, someone at school had called them a derogatory word having to do with race, religion, ethnicity, disability, gender, or sexual orientation. During the same period, about 36 percent of students saw hate- related graffiti at school. * In 2001, 20 percent of students reported that street gangs were present at their schools (Indicator 15). Students in urban schools were more likely to report that there were street gangs at their schools (29 percent) than were suburban and rural students (18 percent and 13 percent, respectively). * In 1999-2000, student tardiness and absenteeism were reported as serious or moderate problems by about 30 percent of public school principals (32 percent and 29 percent, respectively) (Indicator 16). Vandalism of school property and robbery or theft were considered to be serious or moderate problems in 6 percent and 4 percent of public schools, respectively, and student possession of weapons was reported as a serious or moderate problem by 1 percent of public school principals. * In 2001, 5 percent of students in grades 9 through 12 had at least one drink of alcohol on school property in the 30 days prior to the survey (Indicator 17). Forty- seven percent of students had at least one drink anywhere during the same period. * Between 1993 and 2001, there were no consistent patterns of increase or decrease found in the percentage of students who had used marijuana--both anywhere and on school property (Indicator 18). In 2001, 24 percent of students reported using marijuana anywhere in the last 30 days, and 5 percent reported using marijuana on school property. * In 2001, 29 percent of students in grades 9 through 12 reported that someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property in the 12 months prior to the survey (Indicator 19). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank the heads of their respective agencies, Gary W. Phillips of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and Lawrence Greenfeld of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), for supporting this report. From BJS, we wish to thank Callie Rennison of the Victimization Statistics Branch for her work in verifying data from the NCVS. From NCES, we wish to thank Bruce Taylor, Shelley Burns, Kathryn Chandler, and Ghedam Bairu, who served as reviewers. The Office of the Deputy Secretary conducted an agency review as well. They all provided input that substantially improved the publication. Outside of NCES and BJS, Mark Anderson and Steve James of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention generously provided data and performed reviews of data documentation. In addition, school crime experts who reviewed the report were Wayne Welsh of Temple University and Richard Lawrence of St. Cloud State University. Margaret Burchinal of the University of North Carolina also provided valuable input. Their advice was gratefully accepted. We particularly appreciated their willingness to review the report under very strict time constraints. We also value the review of this report and the continued support provided by Bill Modzeleski of the Safe and Drug-free Schools program. Without the assistance of the following staff at MPR Associates, this report could not have been produced: Barbara Kridl (overall production), Francesca Tussing (production, proofreading, layout, and editing), and Andrea Livingston (editing). They provided invaluable editorial, graphic, and production assistance. TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword Executive Summary Acknowledgments List of Tables List of Figures Violent Deaths at School 1. Violent deaths at school and away from school Nonfatal Student Victimization--Student Reports 2. Victimization of students at school and away from school 3. Prevalence of students being victimized at school 4. Prevalence of students being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property 5. Prevalence of students involved in physical fights on school property 6. Prevalence of students being bullied at school Violence and Crime at School--Public School Principal/Disciplinarian Reports 7. Crimes reported to the police 8. Specific crimes reported to the police Nonfatal Teacher Victimization at School-- Teacher Reports 9. Nonfatal teacher victimization at school 10. Prevalence of teachers being threatened with injury or attacked by students School Environment 11. Prevalence of students carrying weapons on school property 12. Students' perceptions of personal safety at school or on the way to or from school and away from school 13. Students' reports of avoiding places in school 14. Students' reports of being called hate- related words and seeing hate-related graffiti 15. Students' reports of gangs at school 16. Public school principals' perceptions of discipline issues at school 17. Prevalence of students using alcohol 18. Prevalence of students using marijuana 19. Prevalence of students reporting drugs were made available to them on school property Supplemental Tables Standard Error Tables Appendix A. School Practices and Policies Related to Safety and Discipline Appendix B. Technical Notes Appendix C. Glossary of Terms LIST OF TABLES 1.1. Number of school-associated violent deaths occurring at school and away from school: 1992-93 to 1998-99 2.1. Number of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12 through 18 occurring at school or on the way to or from school, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 1992 to 2000 2.2. Number of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12 through 18 occurring at school or on the way to or from school per 1,000 students, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 1992 to 2000 2.3. Number of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12 through 18 occurring away from school, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 1992 to 2000 2.4. Number of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12 through 18 occurring away from school per 1,000 students, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 1992 to 2000 3.1. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization and selected student characteristics: 1995, 1999, and 2001 4.1. Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the last 12 months, by selected student characteristics: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 5.1. Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported having been in a physical fight in the last 12 months, by selected student characteristics: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 6.1. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported being bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 1999 and 2001 7.1. Percentage of public schools that reported one or more criminal incidents to police, by seriousness of the incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 7.2. Number of public schools that reported one or more criminal incidents to police, by seriousness of the incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 7.3. Number of criminal incidents occurring in public schools reported to police, by seriousness of the incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 7.4. Number of criminal incidents reported to police per 1,000 public school students, by seriousness of the incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 8.1. Percentage of public schools that reported one or more incidents of serious violent crime to police, by type of incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 8.2. Percentage of public schools that reported one or more less serious violent or nonviolent criminal incidents to police, by type of incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 8.3. Number of public schools that reported one or more incidents of serious violent crime to police, by type of incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 8.4. Number of public schools that reported one or more less serious violent or nonviolent criminal incidents to police, by type of incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 8.5. Number of serious violent criminal incidents occurring in public schools reported to police, by type of incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 8.6. Number of less serious violent or nonviolent criminal incidents occurring in public schools reported to police, by type of incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 8.7. Number of serious violent criminal incidents reported to police per 1,000 public school students, by type of incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 8.8. Number of less serious violent or nonviolent criminal incidents reported to police per 1,000 public school students, by type of incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 9.1. Number of nonfatal crimes against teachers and average annual number of crimes per 1,000 teachers at school, by type of crime and selected teacher characteristics: Aggregated from 1996 through 2000 10.1. Percentage and number of teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury by a student during the past 12 months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 10.2. Percentage and number of teachers who reported that they were physically attacked by a student during the past 12 months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 11.1. Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported carrying a weapon on school property at least 1 day in the past 30 days, by selected student characteristics: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 11.2. Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported carrying a weapon anywhere at least 1 day in the past 30 days, by selected student characteristics: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 12.1. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported fear at school or on the way to and from school and away from school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 1995, 1999, and 2001 13.1. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported that they avoided one or more places in school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 1995, 1999, 2001 14.1. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported being targets of hate- related words at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 2001 14.2. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who saw hate-related graffiti at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 1999 and 2001 15.1. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported that street gangs were present at school during the previous 6 months, by urbanicity and selected student characteristics: 2001 16.1 Percentage of public school principals who reported that selected discipline issues were a serious or moderate problem in their school, by school level and urbanicity: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 17.1. Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported using alcohol in the last 30 days, by selected student characteristics: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 18.1. Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported using marijuana in the last 30 days, by selected student characteristics: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 19.1. Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported that drugs were made available to them on school property during the last 12 months, by selected student characteristics: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 Standard Error Tables S2.1. Standard errors for table 2.1: Number of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12 through 18 occurring at school or on the way to or from school, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 1992 to 2000 S2.2. Standard errors for table 2.2: Number of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12 through 18 occurring at school or on the way to or from school per 1,000 students, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 1992 to 2000 S2.3. Standard errors for table 2.3: Number of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12 through 18 occurring away from school, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 1992 to 2000 S2.4. Standard errors for table 2.4: Number of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12 through 18 occurring away from school per 1,000 students, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 1992 to 2000 S3.1. Standard errors for table 3.1: Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization and selected student characteristics: 1995, 1999, and 2001 S4.1. Standard errors for table 4.1: Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the last 12 months, by selected student characteristics: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 S5.1. Standard errors for table 5.1: Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported having been in a physical fight in the last 12 months, by selected student characteristics: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 S6.1. Standard errors for table 6.1: Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported being bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 1999 and 2001 S7.1. Standard errors for table 7.1: Percentage of public schools that reported one or more criminal incidents to police, by seriousness of the incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 S7.2. Standard errors for table 7.2: Number of public schools that reported one or more criminal incidents to police, by seriousness of the incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 S7.3. Standard errors for table 7.3: Number of criminal incidents occurring in public schools reported to police, by seriousness of the incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 S7.4. Standard errors for table 7.4: Number of criminal incidents reported to police per 1,000 public school students, by seriousness of the incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 S8.1. Standard errors for table 8.1: Percentage of public schools that reported one or more incidents of serious violent crime to police, by type of incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 S8.2. Standard errors for table 8.2: Percentage of public schools that reported one or more less serious violent or nonviolent criminal incidents to police, by type of incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 S8.3. Standard errors for table 8.3: Number of public schools that reported one or more incidents of serious violent crime to police, by type of incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 S8.4. Standard errors for table 8.4: Number of public schools that reported one or more less serious violent or nonviolent criminal incidents to police, by type of incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 S8.5. Standard errors for table 8.5: Number of serious violent criminal incidents occurring in public schools reported to police, by type of incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 S8.6. Standard errors for table 8.6: Number of less serious violent or nonviolent criminal incidents occurring in public schools reported to police, by type of incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 S8.7. Standard errors for table 8.7: Number of serious violent criminal incidents reported to police per 1,000 public school students, by type of incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 S8.8. Standard errors for table 8.8: Number of less serious violent or nonviolent criminal incidents reported to police per 1,000 public school students, by type of incident, urbanicity, and selected school characteristics: 1996-97 S9.1. Standard errors for table 9.1: Number of nonfatal crimes against teachers and average annual number of crimes per 1,000 teachers at school, by type of crime and selected teacher characteristics: Aggregated from 1996 through 2000 S10.1. Standard errors for table 10.1: Percentage and number of teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury by a student during the past 12 months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 S10.2. Standard errors for table 10.2: Percentage and number of teachers who reported that they were physically attacked by a student during the past 12 months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 S11.1. Standard errors for table 11.1: Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported carrying a weapon on school property at least 1 day in the past 30 days, by selected student characteristics: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 S11.2. Standard errors for table 11.2: Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported carrying a weapon anywhere at least 1 day in the past 30 days, by selected student characteristics: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 S12.1. Standard errors for table 12.1: Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported fear at school or on the way to and from school and away from school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 1995, 1999, and 2001 S13.1. Standard errors for table 13.1: Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported that they avoided one or more places in school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 1995, 1999, and 2001 S14.1 Standard errors for table 14.1: Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported being targets of hate-related words at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 2001 S14.2 Standard errors for table 14.2: Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who saw hate-related graffiti at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student characteristics: 1999 and 2001 S15.1. Standard errors for table 15.1: Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported that street gangs were present at school during the previous 6 months, by urbanicity and selected student characteristics: 2001 S16.1. Standard errors for table 16.1: Percentage of public school principals who reported that selected discipline issues were a serious or moderate problem in their school, by school level and urbanicity: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 S17.1. Standard errors for table 17.1: Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported using alcohol in the last 30 days, by selected student characteristics: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 S18.1. Standard errors for table 18.1: Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported using marijuana in the last 30 days, by selected student characteristics: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 S19.1. Standard errors for table 19.1: Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported that drugs were made available to them on school property during the last 12 months, by selected student characteristics: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 Appendix Tables A1. Percentage of public schools that reported that they have a zero tolerance policy for various specified student offenses, by selected school characteristics: 1996-97 A2. Percentage of public schools that reported that students were required to wear school uniforms, by selected school characteristics: 1996-97 A3. Percentage of public schools that reported that they use various types of security measures at their schools, by selected school characteristics: 1999-2000 A4. Percentage of public schools that reported various levels of police or other law enforcement representatives' presence during a typical week, by selected school characteristics: 1996-97 A5. Percentage of public schools that reported school violence prevention programs in their schools, by selected school characteristics: 1999-2000 A6. Number and percentage of schools in which specified disciplinary actions were taken against students, total number of actions taken, and percentage of specific disciplinary actions taken against students, by type of infraction: 1996-97 SA1. Standard errors for table A1: Percentage of public schools that reported that they have a zero tolerance policy for various specified student offenses, by selected school characteristics: 1996-97 SA2. Standard errors for table A2: Percentage of public schools that reported that students were required to wear school uniforms, by selected school characteristics: 1996-97 SA3. Standard errors for table A3: Percentage of public schools that reported that they use various types of security measures at their schools, by selected school characteristics: 1999-2000 SA4. Standard errors for table A4: Percentage of public schools that reported various levels of police or other law enforcement representatives' presence during a typical week, by selected school characteristics: 1996-97 SA5. Standard errors for table A5: Percentage of public schools that reported school violence prevention programs in their schools, by selected school characteristics: 1999-2000 SA6. Standard errors for table A6: Number and percentage of schools in which specified disciplinary actions were taken against students, total number of actions taken, and percentage of specific disciplinary actions taken against students, by type of infraction: 1996-97 B1. Descriptions of data sources and samples used in the report B2. Wording of survey questions used to construct indicators B3. Methods used to calculate standard errors of statistics for different surveys LIST OF FIGURES 1.1. Number of homicides and suicides of students at school: 1992-93 to 1998-99 1.2. Number of homicides and suicides of students at school and of youth ages 5 to 19 away from school: 1998-99 2.1. Number of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12 through 18 per 1,000 students, by type of crime and location: 1992 to 2000 2.2. Number of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12 through 18 occurring at school or going to or from school per 1,000 students, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 2000 2.3. Number of nonfatal crimes against students ages 12 through 18 occurring away from school per 1,000 students, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 2000 3.1. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported nonfatal criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by grade level: 1995, 1999, and 20010 4.1. Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the last 12 months, by gender: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 4.2. Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the last 12 months, by grade: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 5.1. Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported having been in a physical fight in the last 12 months, by gender: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 5.2. Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported having been in a physical fight in the last 12 months, by grade: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 6.1. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported being bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by gender: 1999 and 2001 7.1. Percentage distribution of public schools according to types of crimes reported to police: 1996-97 7.2. Percentage of public schools that reported one or more criminal incidents to police and number of incidents reported per 1,000 students, by seriousness of crimes, instructional level, and urbanicity: 1996-97 8.1. Percentage of public schools that reported one or more criminal incidents to police, by type of crime and instructional level: 1996-97 8.2. Number of crimes per 1,000 public school students, by type of crime, instructional level, and urbanicity: 1996-97 9.1. Average annual number of nonfatal crimes against teachers at school per 1,000 teachers, by type of crime and selected characteristics: Aggregated from 1996 through 2000 10.1. Percentage of teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury or that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the past 12 months, by urbanicity: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 10.2. Percentage of teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury or that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the past 12 months, by urbanicity and control: 1999-2000 11.1. Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day in the past 30 days, by gender: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 11.2. Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day in the past 30 days, by grade: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 12.1. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported fear at school or on the way to and from school during the previous 6 months, by race/ethnicity: 1995, 1999, and 2001 12.2. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported fear away from school during the previous 6 months, by race/ethnicity: 1999 and 2001 13.1. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported that they avoided one or more places in school during the previous 6 months, by race/ethnicity: 1995, 1999, and 2001 13.2. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported that they avoided one or more places in school during the previous 6 months, by urbanicity: 1995, 1999, and 2001 14.1. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported being targets of hate- related words or who saw hate-related graffiti at school during the previous 6 months, by gender and race/ethnicity: 2001 15.1. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported that street gangs were present at school during the previous 6 months, by urbanicity and control: 2001 16.1. Percentage of public school principals who reported that selected discipline issues were a serious or moderate problem in their school, by school level: 1999-2000 17.1. Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported using alcohol in the last 30 days, by gender: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 17.2. Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported using alcohol in the last 30 days, by grade: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 18.1. Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported using marijuana in the last 30 days, by gender: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 18.2. Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported using marijuana in the last 30 days, by grade: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 19.1. Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported that drugs were made available to them on school property during the last 12 months, by gender: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 19.2. Percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported that drugs were made available to them on school property during the last 12 months, by race/ethnicity: 1999 and 2001 VIOLENT DEATHS AT SCHOOL 1. Violent deaths at school and away from school**NOTE: This indicator has been updated to include 1992 through 1999 data and revised from previously published estimates.** 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. * From July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1999, there were 358 school-associated violent deaths ***Footnote 1: A school-associated violent death is a homicide, suicide, legal intervention, or unintentional firearm- related death in which the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school in the United States, 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.*** in the United States, including 255 deaths of school- aged children (ages 5 to 19) (table 1.1). In each survey year, school-aged children were at least 70 times more likely to be murdered away from school than they were to be murdered at school. * In the most recent school year for which data are available, from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999, there were 47 school- associated violent deaths (table 1.1). Thirty-eight of these violent deaths were homicides, six were suicides, a law enforcement officer in the line of duty killed two, and one was unintentional. * There was no consistent pattern of increase or decrease in the number of homicides or suicides of school-aged children at school between July 1, 1992 and June 30, 1999 (figure 1.1 and table 1.1). * Of the 358 total school-associated violent deaths that occurred between July 1, 1992 and June 30, 1999, 218 were homicides of school- aged children and 37 were suicides of school- aged children (table 1.1). Away from school, during the same period, there were a total of 22,323 homicides of children ages 5 to 19. During the 1993 to 1999 calendar years, there were 14,813 suicides of children in this age group away from school. * In the most recent year, from July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999, 33 of the 38 school- associated homicides were of school-aged children (figure 1.2 and table 1.1). During this same time frame, there were 2,358 homicides of children ages 5 to 19 away from school. * Four of the six school-associated suicides, which occurred from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999, were of school-aged children (figure 1.2 and table 1.1). Away from school, there were 1,855 suicides of children ages 5 to 19 during the 1999 calendar year. NONFATAL STUDENT VICTIMIZATION--STUDENT REPORTS 2. Victimization of students at school and away from school**NOTE: This indicator has been updated to include 2000 data.** The number of crimes committed in the nation's schools continues to be a concern. Even though crime has decreased in recent years, theft and violence at school and while going to and from school still can lead to disruptive and threatening environments, physical injury, and emotional stress, and can be an obstacle to student achievement. * 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 (tables 2.1 and 2.3). ***Footnote 2: "Students" refers to persons 12 though 18 years of age who have attended any grade equal to or less than high school. An uncertain percentage of these persons may not have attended school during the survey reference period. These data do not take into account the number of hours that students spend at school and the number of hours they spend away from school.*** In 2000, students in this age group were victims of about 128,000 such crimes at school, and about 373,000 away from school. The victimization rate for serious violent crime at school and away from school generally declined from 1992 to 2000 (figure 2.1 and tables 2.2 and 2.4). * Students were victims of about 700,000 nonfatal violent crimes (that is, serious violent crime plus simple assault) at school, and about 921,000 away from school in 2000 (tables 2.1 and 2.3). Between 1992 and 2000, there was a 46 percent decrease in the violent crime victimization rate at school and a 52 percent decrease away from school (from 48 to 26 and from 71 to 34 per 1,000 students ages 12 through 18, respectively) (figure 2.1 and tables 2.2 and 2.4). Between 1992 and 2000, the victimization rates for nonfatal violent crime were generally lower at school than away from school, except in 1998 and 1999. In these years, no differences were detected between nonfatal victimizations at school and away from school. * Students were more likely to be victims of theft at school than away from school for all years between 1992 and 2000, except for 1997 and 2000. In these years, no differences were detected between victimization rates due to thefts occurring at and away from school. In 2000, about 1.2 million thefts occurred at school (64 percent of all crimes at school), and about 1.1 million away from school (54 percent of all crimes away from school) (tables 2.1 and 2.3). * Regarding nonfatal crime (theft plus violent crime), students were victims of about 1.9 million crimes while they were in school in 2000, and about 2.0 million away from school (tables 2.1 and 2.3). * In 2000, the rate of serious violent crime at school and away from school was higher for males than for females (figures 2.2 and 2.3 and tables 2.2 and 2.4). * In 2000, no difference was found in the rates of serious violent crime at school among students living in urban, suburban, and rural areas (figure 2.2 and table 2.2). Away from school, suburban students were more vulnerable to serious violent crime than rural students. But there were no differences between urban and suburban students' vulnerability to such victimization (figure 2.3 and table 2.4). * In 2000, younger students (ages 12 through 14) were victimized by serious violent crime at a rate not different than older students (ages 15 through 18) either at school or away from school (figures 2.2 and 2.3 and tables 2.2 and 2.4). 3. Prevalence of students being victimized at school**NOTE: This indicator has been updated to include 2001 data.** 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 percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported being victims of nonfatal crimes (including theft or violent crime) at school during the previous 6 months was smaller in 2001 than in 1999 or 1995 (6, 8, and 10 percent, respectively) (table 3.1). Student reports of theft at school decreased from 7 percent in 1995 to 4 percent in 2001. Student reports of violence at school also decreased from 1995 to 1999 and then showed no difference between 1999 and 2001 (3 percent in 1995 and 2 percent in 1999 and 2001). * Between 1995 and 2001, the percentage of students in each grade level who reported being victims of nonfatal crimes declined (figure 3.1 and table 3.1). For example, between 1995 and 2001, the prevalence of reported victimization dropped from 10 percent to 6 percent for 6th-graders and from 6 percent to 3 percent for 12th- graders. * In each survey year, public school students were more likely to report having been victims of violent crime 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 in 1995 and 2001, but no such differences were detected in 1999. 4. Prevalence of students being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property**NOTE: This indicator has been updated to include 2001 data.** 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. * 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 fluctuated in recent years, but without a clear trend (table 4.1). In all survey years from 1993 to 2001, between 7 and 9 percent of students reported being threatened or injured with a weapon, such as a gun, knife, or club on school property. * In each survey year, males were more likely than females to report being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property (figure 4.1 and table 4.1). For example, in 2001, 12 percent of males reported being threatened or injured in the past year, compared with 7 percent of females. * Among 9th- through 12th-grade students, 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 in all survey years (figure 4.2 and table 4.1). * No differences could be detected in the race/ethnicity of students being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property in 1999 or 2001 (table 4.1). ***Footnote 3: While there appear to be large differences among racial/ethnic groups, these differences are associated with large standard errors and should be interpreted with caution.*** 5. Prevalence of students involved in physical fights on school property**NOTE: This indicator has been updated to include 2001 data.** Schools where there are numerous physical fights may not be able to maintain a focused learning environment. Students who are involved in fights on school property may have difficulty being successful in school. * In 2001, 33 percent of students in grades 9 through 12 reported that they had been in a physical fight anywhere ***Footnote 4: The term "anywhere" is not used in the YRBS questionnaire. Rather, students are simply asked how many times in the last 12 months they had been in a physical fight.*** in the last 12 months (table 5.1). In that same year, about 13 percent of all students said that they had been in a physical fight on school property. * The percentage of students who reported being in a fight anywhere declined from 1993 to 2001--from 42 percent in 1993 to 33 percent in 2001 (figure 5.1 and table 5.1). Similarly, the percentages of students who reported fighting on school property for these years also declined, from 16 percent in 1993 to 13 percent in 2001. * In all survey years, males were more likely than females to have been in a fight anywhere and on school property (figure 5.1 and table 5.1). In 2001, 43 percent of males said they had been in a fight anywhere, and 18 percent said they had been in a fight on school property. In that same year, about 24 percent of females reported they had been in a fight anywhere, and 7 percent said they had been in a fight on school property. * Of 9th- through 12th-grade students, those in lower grades reported being in more fights than students in higher grades anywhere and on school property in all survey years (figure 5.2 and table 5.1). * In 2001, Asian students were less likely than students from other racial/ethnic backgrounds to report being in a fight anywhere (22 percent for Asian students compared to 32 to 52 percent for all other students) (table 5.1). However, in 2001, no difference could be detected in the percentage of students who reported being in fights on school property by race/ethnicity. ***Footnote 5: While there appear to be large differences among racial/ethnic groups, these differences are associated with large standard errors and should be interpreted with caution.*** 6. Prevalence of students being bullied at school**NOTE: This indicator has been updated to include 2001 data.** Bullying can contribute 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. * In 2001, 8 percent of students reported that they had been bullied at school in the last 6 months, up from 5 percent in 1999 (table 6.1). * Both males and females were more likely to be bullied in 2001 than in 1999 (figure 6.1 and table 6.1). In 2001, males were more likely than females to be bullied (9 and 7 percent, respectively); however, in 1999 no such difference could be detected (5 percent each). * The percentage of students who reported that they had been bullied increased between 1999 and 2001 for each racial/ethnic group except Black students (table 6.1). About 6 percent of Black students in both years reported they had been bullied. Between 1999 and 2001, the percentage of students bullied increased from 5 percent to 9 percent for White students, from 4 percent to 8 percent for Hispanic students, and from 3 percent to 7 percent for other, non-Hispanic students. * In 2001, there were few differences detected among racial/ethnic groups in the percentage of students who reported being bullied (table 6.1). The exception was that White students were more likely to report being victimized by bullies than were Black students (9 percent and 6 percent, respectively). * In 2001, students in lower grades were generally more likely to be bullied than students in higher grades (table 6.1). For example, 14 percent of students in 6th grade reported being bullied, compared with 2 percent of students in grade 12. VIOLENCE AND CRIME AT SCHOOL--PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPAL/DISCIPLINARIAN REPORTS 7. Crimes reported to the police**NOTE: This indicator repeats information from the 2000 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report.** 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. * In 1996-97, 10 percent of all public schools reported at least one serious violent crime to a law enforcement representative (figure 7.1 and table 7.1). 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 7.3). * No differences were found between the percentage of schools reporting crimes at the middle and high school levels (figure 7.2 and table 7.1). 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 did not differ for middle and high schools for both serious violent and less serious violent and nonviolent crimes (figure 7.2 and table 7.4). 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 7.2 and table 7.1). 8. Specific crimes reported to the police**NOTE: This indicator repeats information from the 2000 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report.** 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. * Forty-four 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 8.1 and table 8.2). 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 8.1). * 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 8.1 and tables 8.1 and 8.2). 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 8.2 and table 8.8). Theft or larceny was more common at the high school level than at the middle school level (6 vs. 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 8.2 and tables 8.7 and 8.8). NONFATAL TEACHER VICTIMIZATION AT SCHOOL-- TEACHER REPORTS 9. Nonfatal teacher victimization at school**NOTE: This indicator has been updated to include 2000 data.** Students are not the only ones who are victims of crime at school. Teachers are also targets of violence and theft in schools. In addition to the personal toll that violence may take on teachers, those who worry about their safety may have difficulty teaching and may leave the profession altogether. Information on the number of crimes against teachers at school can help show the nature and prevalence of the problem. * Over the 5-year period from 1996 through 2000, teachers were the victims of approximately 1,603,000 nonfatal crimes at school, including 1,004,000 thefts and 599,000 violent crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault) (table 9.1). On average, this translates into 321,000 nonfatal crimes per year, or 74 crimes per 1,000 teachers per year. Among the violent crimes against teachers during this 5-year period, there were about 69,000 serious violent crimes (11 percent of the violent crimes), including rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. On average, this translates into 14,000 serious violent crimes per year. * The average annual violent crime rate for teachers at school varied by gender (figure 9.1 and table 9.1). Over the 5- year period from 1996 through 2000, male teachers were more likely to be victims of violent crimes than female teachers (50 vs. 20 crimes per 1,000 teachers). * During the 1996-2000 period, 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 (35 and 49, respectively, vs. 15 crimes per 1,000 teachers) (figure 9.1 and table 9.1). Senior high school and middle/junior high school teachers also were more likely to experience theft at school than elementary school teachers (56 and 59, respectively, vs. 36 thefts per 1,000 teachers). * Teachers were differentially victimized by violent crimes at school according to the location of where they taught (figure 9.1 and table 9.1). For example, over the 5-year period from 1996 through 2000, urban teachers were more likely to be victims of violent crimes than suburban and rural teachers (36 vs. 21 and 17, respectively, per 1,000 teachers). Teachers in urban areas were more likely to experience theft at school than those in rural areas (53 and 31 respectively, per 1,000 teachers), but no differences were detected when urban teachers' experiences of theft were compared to suburban teachers (53 and 46, per 1,000 teachers). 10. Prevalence of teachers being threatened with injury or attacked by students**NOTE: This indicator has been updated to include 1999-2000 data.** Some of the offenses against teachers are committed by students. Data on threats and physical attacks against elementary and secondary teachers by students can provide a snapshot of the prevalence of this problem. * A smaller percentage of elementary and secondary school teachers were threatened with injury by a student from their school in the 1999-2000 school year than in the 1993-1994 school year (9 percent vs. 12 percent, respectively) (table 10.1). In both years, 4 percent of teachers were physically attacked by a student (table 10.2). * In both survey years, teachers in central city schools were more likely to be threatened with injury or physically attacked than were teachers in urban fringe or rural schools (figure 10.1 and tables 10.1 and 10.2). In 1999-2000, 11 percent of teachers in central city schools had been threatened with injury by students, compared with 8 percent in both urban fringe and rural schools. Five percent of teachers in central city schools had been attacked by students, compared with 3 percent in both urban fringe and rural schools. No differences were detected in the percentage of teachers being threatened or attacked when urban fringe and rural schools were compared. * Black teachers were more likely to be threatened than White teachers in 1999-2000 (12 percent vs. 9 percent); however, the prevalence of teachers being attacked by students did not vary according to the racial/ethnic backgrounds of teachers (tables 10.1 and 10.2). * In 1999-2000, secondary school teachers were more likely than elementary school teachers to have been threatened with injury by a student from their school (10 percent vs. 8 percent) (table 10.1). However, they were less likely than elementary school teachers to have been physically attacked by a student (2 percent vs. 6 percent) (table 10.2). * Public school teachers were more likely than private school teachers to be victimized by students in school in 1999-2000 (figure 10.2 and tables 10.1 and 10.2). Ten percent of public school teachers had been threatened with injury by students, compared with 4 percent of private school teachers. Four 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 four 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 1999-2000 (figure 10.2 and tables 10.1 and 10.2). SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT 11. Prevalence of students carrying weapons on school property**NOTE: This indicator has been updated to include 2001 data.** The presence of weapons at school can create an intimidating and threatening atmosphere, making teaching and learning difficult. The percentage of students who report that they carry a gun or other weapon on school property is an indicator of the breadth of the problem of weapons at school. * In 2001, 17 percent of students in grades 9 through 12 reported carrying a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club anywhere ***Footnote 6: The term "anywhere" is not used in the YRBS questionnaire. Rather, students are simply asked during the past 30 days, on how many days they carried a weapon.*** in the past 30 days (table 11.2). About 6 percent reported they had carried a weapon on school property (table 11.1). * Between 1993 and 2001, the percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere generally declined from 22 percent to 17 percent (table 11.2). There was also a decline in the percentage of students who carried a weapon at school-- from 12 percent in 1993 to 6 percent in 2001 (table 11.1). * In all years, males were at least three times more likely than females to carry a weapon--both anywhere and on school property (figure 11.1 and tables 11.1 and 11.2). For example, in 2001, 10 percent of males carried a weapon on school property, compared with 3 percent of females. * Students in lower grades were generally more likely to have carried a weapon anywhere than were students in higher grades in all survey years except 1999 (figure 11.2 and table 11.2). However, at school, no differences were found among grade levels for students carrying a weapon at school in all years except 1995 (table 11.1). * In 2001, few differences could be detected by race/ethnicity in the percentages of students carrying weapons anywhere and on school property (tables 11.1 and 11.2). ***Footnote 7: While there appear to be large differences among racial/ethnic groups, these differences are associated with large standard errors and should be interpreted with caution.*** 12. Students' perceptions of personal safety at school or on the way to and from school and away from school**NOTE: This indicator has been updated to include 2001 data. See appendix B for details on changes to the questionnaire among survey years.** 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 away from school may also have a detrimental effect on the school environment and learning. * Between 1995 and 1999, there was a decrease in the percentage of students feeling unsafe while they were at school or on the way to and from school (table 12.1). However, between 1999 and 2001, there was no significant change in the percentage of students feeling unsafe at school or on the way to or from school. In 1995, 12 percent of students ages 12 through 18 reported that they sometimes or most of the time were fearful at school, compared to 7 percent in 1999 and 6 percent in 2001. * In both 1999 and 2001, students were more likely to be afraid of being attacked at school or on the way to and from school than away from school (table 12.1). For example, in 2001, 6 percent feared being attacked at school, while 5 percent feared being attacked away from school. * In both 1999 and 2001, Black and Hispanic students were more likely than White students to fear for their safety both at school or on the way to and from school and away from school (figures 12.1 and 12.2 and table 12.1). * For all survey years, students in lower grades were more likely than students in higher grades to fear attacks at school or on the way to and from school. For example, in 2001, 11 percent of students in grade 6 feared for their safety while at school, compared with 3 percent of students in grade 12. * Students in urban schools were more likely than students in suburban and rural schools to fear being attacked when at school or on the way to and from school in all three survey years (table 12.1). In 2001, 10 percent of students in urban schools feared being attacked when at school, compared with 5 percent of students in suburban schools and 6 percent of students in rural schools. 13. Students' reports of avoiding places in school**NOTE: This indicator has been updated to include 2001 data. See appendix B for details on changes to the questionnaire among survey years.** Crime in school may lead students 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. * Between 1995 and 1999, the percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who avoided one or more places in school decreased from 9 percent in 1995 to 5 percent in 1999 (figure 13.1 and table 13.1). However, between 1999 and 2001, the percentage remained stable at 5 percent. * In 1995 and 1999, both Black and Hispanic students were more likely than White students to report avoiding places (figure 13.1 and table 13.1). In 2001, Black students were more likely than White students to report avoiding places in school. No differences were detected between students of other racial/ethnic backgrounds in this year. * In 2001, students in lower grades were more likely than students in higher grades to report avoiding areas in school (table 13.1). For example, 7 percent of 6th- graders avoided areas in school, compared with 3 percent of 12th-graders. * In both 1995 and 2001, students in urban areas were more likely than suburban students to avoid places in school (6 percent vs. 4 percent, respectively, in 2001) (figure 13.2 and table 13.1). However, in 1999, there were no such differences between urban and suburban students. 14. Students' reports of being called hate- related words and seeing hate-related graffiti**NOTE: This indicator has been updated to include 2001 data.** A student's exposure to hate-related words or symbols at school may increase his or her feeling of vulnerability. An environment in which students are confronted with discriminatory behavior creates a climate of hostility that is not conducive to learning. * In 2001, 12 percent of students ages 12 through 18 reported that someone at school had used hate-related words against them (table 14.1). That is, in the 6 months prior to the survey, someone at school called them a derogatory word having to do with race, religion, ethnicity, disability, gender, or sexual orientation. Over 4 percent of respondents reported that the hate-related words related to their race, about 3 percent reported that the hate- related words related to their ethnicity or gender, and between 1 and 2 percent reported that the hate-related words related to their religion, disability, or sexual orientation. * In both 1999 and 2001, 36 percent of students saw hate-related graffiti at school (table 14.2). * In 2001, there were no differences measured by race/ethnicity or gender in students' likelihood of reporting either being called hate-related words or seeing hate-related graffiti at school (tables 14.1 and 14.2 and figure 14.1). However, there were differences among these groups in terms of exposure to specific types of hate- related words. For example, females were more likely to report gender-related hate words than males, and Blacks were more likely to report race- related hate words than Whites (4 percent of females vs. 1 percent of males and 8 percent of Blacks vs. 3 percent of Whites). * Students in public schools were more likely than students in private schools to report being called hate-related words or to see hate-related graffiti in 2001 (tables 14.1 and 14.2). 15. Students' reports of gangs at school**NOTE: This indicator has been updated to include 2001 data. See appendix B for details on questionnaire changes in 2001.** 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. * In 2001, 20 percent of students reported that street gangs were present at their schools (figure 15.1 and table 15.1). Students in urban schools were more likely to report that there were street gangs at their schools (29 percent) than were suburban and rural students (18 percent and 13 percent, respectively). * Hispanic and Black students were more likely than White students to report the existence of street gangs in their schools in 2001 (32 percent and 29 percent, respectively, vs. 16 percent) (table 15.1). This was also true for students in urban schools and suburban schools. * Gangs were more likely to be reported in public schools than in private schools (figure 15.1 and table 15.1). In 2001, 22 percent of students in public schools reported that street gangs were present in their schools, compared with 5 percent in private schools. Among public schools, students in urban schools were more likely than students in suburban or rural schools to report street gangs. However, among private schools, no differences were found in students' reports of gangs irrespective of where their schools were located. 16. Public school principals' perceptions of discipline issues at school**NOTE: This indicator has been updated to include 1999-2000 data.** 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, physical conflicts, or student disrespect for teachers may be filled with pressures that result in school violence. * Public school principals were more likely to consider some discipline issues at their schools serious or moderate problems than other issues. ***Footnote 8: The issues were student tardiness, student absenteeism, student disrespect for teachers, student use of alcohol, physical conflicts among students, student drug abuse, students cutting class, vandalism of school property, robbery or theft, and student possession of weapons.*** For example, in 1999-2000, student tardiness and absenteeism were reported as problems by about 30 percent of principals (32 percent and 29 percent, respectively) (table 16.1). However, vandalism of school property and robbery or theft were considered to be serious or moderate problems in 6 percent and 4 percent of public schools, respectively. Student possession of weapons was reported as a serious or moderate problem by 1 percent of public school principals. * With the exception of physical conflicts among students, secondary school principals were more likely than elementary school principals to report disciplinary issues as a serious or moderate problem in their school in 1999-2000 (table 16.1 and figure 16.1). * Reports of disciplinary issues from secondary school principals varied between 1993-94 and 1999-2000. Reports of student tardiness as a serious or moderate problem increased from 43 percent to 48 percent, and reports of student drug abuse also increased from 30 percent to 39 percent (table 16.1). On the other hand, secondary school principal reports of physical conflicts, vandalism, robbery or theft, and student possession of weapons decreased during this time period (from 20 to 12 percent, 10 to 7 percent, 11 to 7 percent, and 7 to 2 percent, respectively). 17. Prevalence of students using alcohol**NOTE: This indicator has been updated to include 2001 data.** 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. * In 2001, 47 percent of students in grades 9 through 12 had at least one drink of alcohol anywhere ***Footnote 9: The term "anywhere" is not used in the YRBS questionnaire. Rather, students are simply asked during the past 30 days, on how many days did they have at least one drink of alcohol.*** in the 30 days before being surveyed (table 17.1). A small percentage (5 percent) had at least one drink on school property during the same period. * There were no consistent patterns of increase or decrease found in the percentage of students who had consumed alcohol between 1993 and 2001--both anywhere and on school property (figure 17.1 and table 17.1). * In every survey year except for 1995, males were more likely than females to have used alcohol anywhere (figure 17.1 and table 17.1). Furthermore, in every survey year, males were more likely than females to use alcohol on school property. For example, in 2001, 6 percent of males had used alcohol on school property, compared with 4 percent of females. * In every survey year, students in higher grades were more likely to report drinking alcohol anywhere than were students in lower grades (figure 17.2 and table 17.1). However, no differences were found among grade levels for students' reports of drinking alcohol on school property in every survey year. * Asian students were less likely to use alcohol anywhere than White, Hispanic or Latino, and American Indian or Alaska Native students in 2001 (28 percent compared to 50, 49, and 51 percent, respectively) (table 17.1). However, when comparing Asian students' use of alcohol on school property to these groups' use, no difference could be detected (7 percent compared to 4, 7, and 8 percent, respectively). ***Footnote 10: While there appear to be large differences among racial/ethnic groups, these differences are associated with large standard errors and should be interpreted with caution.*** 18. Prevalence of students using marijuana**NOTE: This indicator has been updated to include 2001 data.** The use of drugs at school may cause disruptions in the learning environment. The consumption of these substances, such as marijuana, can lead to a school environment that is harmful to students, teachers, and school administrators. * In 2001, 24 percent of students in grades 9 through 12 reported using marijuana anywhere ***Footnote 11: The term "anywhere" is not used in the YRBS questionnaire. Rather, students are simply asked how many times during the past 30 days they used marijuana.*** during the last 30 days, whereas 5 percent of students reported using marijuana on school property (table 18.1). * Overall, there were no consistent patterns of increase or decrease found in the percentage of students who had used marijuana between 1993 and 2001--both anywhere and on school property (table 18.1). * Males were more likely than females to have used marijuana in every survey year-- both anywhere and on school property (figure 18.1 and table 18.1). For example, in 2001, 8 percent of males and 3 percent of females reported using marijuana on school property. * In 2001, students in lower grades were less likely than students in higher grades to report using marijuana anywhere (figure 18.2 and table 18.1). However, students' grade in school was not associated with their use of marijuana on school property. * In 2001, Asian students were less likely than White, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, and American Indian or Alaska Native students to report using marijuana anywhere (table 18.1). However, regarding marijuana use at school among these groups, no differences could be detected. ***Footnote 12: While there appear to be large differences among racial/ethnic groups, these differences are associated with large standard errors and should be interpreted with caution.*** 19. Prevalence of students reporting drugs were made available to them on school property**NOTE: This indicator has been updated to include 2001 data.** 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. * In 2001, 29 percent of all students in grades 9 through 12 reported that someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property in the 12 months prior to the survey (table 19.1). There were no consistent patterns of increase or decrease found in the percentage of students who had reported that drugs were made available to them on school property between 1993 and 2001. * In each survey year, males were more likely than females to report that drugs were offered, sold, or given to them on school property (figure 19.1 and table 19.1). For example, in 2001, 35 percent of males reported the availability of drugs, while 23 percent of females did so. * Students' grade level in school does not appear to be associated with whether they had been offered, sold, or given drugs on school property (table 19.1). Generally, in each survey year, the percentage of students in each grade level who reported the availability of illegal drugs did not differ. * In 1999 and 2001, there were few differences by racial/ethnic background in students' reports of having illegal drugs offered, sold, or given to them on school property (figure 19.2 and table 19.1). ***Footnote 13: While there appear to be large differences among racial/ethnic groups, these differences are associated with large standard errors and should be interpreted with caution.*** APPENDIX A. SCHOOL PRACTICES AND POLICIES RELATED TO SAFETY AND DISCIPLINE **NOTE: This appendix has been updated from the 2001 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 was drawn from two sources. First, some information and tables were drawn from an 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 the FRSS report for more detailed findings on variation by school characteristics. Second, data from the 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey were used to update existing information with timely data on practices and policies related to safety and discipline. Zero Tolerance Policies * In 1996-97, 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, in 1999-2000, 97 percent of public schools reported that visitors were required to sign in before entering the school building (table A3); 90 percent of public schools reported having a closed campus policy that prohibited most students from leaving the campus for lunch; 23 percent of schools reported the daily presence of police or security personnel; and 15 percent reported using video surveillance to monitor students and their school. In addition, 21 percent of public schools reported conducting drug sweeps, with secondary schools and combined elementary/secondary schools being more likely to use drug sweeps than elementary schools (49 and 40 percent, respectively, vs. 10 percent). While 8 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 as common: only 2 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, in 1996-97, 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 (table A4). 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. Violence Prevention or Reduction Programs * A majority of public schools (59 percent) reported having a school violence prevention program in 1999-2000 (table A5). Of those schools with a program, 58 percent employed a formal procedure to assess the effectiveness of the violence prevention program. 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(s), target population, response rate, and sample size. The remainder of the section briefly describes each data set and provides directions for obtaining more information. The exact wording of the interview questions used to construct the indicators are presented in table B2. Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) This report draws upon data on teacher victimization from the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), which provides national- and state-level data on public and national- and affiliation-level on private schools, principals, school districts, and teachers. The 1993-94 and 1999-2000 SASS consists of four sets of linked surveys, including surveys of schools, the principals of each selected school, a subsample of teachers within each school, and public school districts. Data were collected by multistage sampling. Stratified by state, control (public vs. private), type, association membership (for example, in private school associations), and grade level (for private schools), schools were sampled first. This report uses 1993-1994 and 1999-2000 SASS data. Approximately 9,900 public schools and 3,300 private schools were selected to participate in the 1993-1994 SASS and 9,900 public schools and 3,600 private schools were selected to participate in the 1999-2000 SASS. Within each school, teachers were further stratified into one of five teacher types in the following hierarchy: (1) Asian or Pacific Islander; (2) American Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo; (3) 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. In 1993-1994, approximately 53,000 public school teachers and 10,400 private school teachers were sampled. In 1999-2000, 56,400 public school teachers and 10,800 private school teachers were sampled. This report focuses on responses from both teachers and principals. The overall weighted response rates were between 83 and 88 percent for public school teachers and between 77 and 80 percent for private school teachers. For public school principals, the overall weighted response rates were between 90 and 97 percent. Values were imputed for questionnaire items that should have been answered but were not. For additional information about SASS contact: Kerry Gruber National Center for Education Statistics 1990 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 502-7349 E-mail: Kerry.Gruber@ed.gov National School-Based Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) The National School-Based Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) is one component of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), an epidemiological surveillance system developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to monitor the prevalence of youth behaviors that most influence health. The YRBS focuses on priority health-risk behaviors established during youth that result in the most significant mortality, morbidity, disability, and social problems during both youth and adulthood. This report uses 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 YRBS data. The YRBS used a three-stage cluster sampling design to produce a nationally representative sample of students in grades 9 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, 16,300, 15,300, and 13,600 students were selected to participate in the 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 surveys, respectively. The overall response rate was 70 percent for the 1993 survey, 60 percent for the 1995 survey, 69 percent for the 1997 survey, 66 percent for the 1999 survey, and 63 percent for the 2001 survey. NCES standards call for response rates of 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. In 1999, in accordance with changes to the Office of Management and Budget's standards for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicity, the YRBS item on race/ethnicity was modified. The version of the race and ethnicity question used in 1993, 1995, and 1997 was: How do you describe yourself? 1. White - not Hispanic 2. Black - not Hispanic 3. Hispanic or Latino 4. Asian or Pacific Islander 5. American Indian or Alaskan Native 6. Other The version used in 1999 and 2001 was: How do you describe yourself? (Select one or more responses.) A. American Indian or Alaska Native B. Asian C. Black or African American D. Hispanic or Latino E. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander F. White This new version of the question used in 1999 and 2001 results in the possibility of respondents marking more than one category. While more accurately reflecting respondents' racial and ethnic identity, the new item cannot be directly compared to responses to the old item. Thus, comparisons of responses by race/ ethnicity of the 1999 and 2001 YRBS with prior years' YRBS are not advisable. For additional information about the YRBS contact: Laura Kann Division of Adolescent and School Health National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop K-33 4770 Buford Highway NE Atlanta, GA 30341-3717 Telephone: (404) 488-6181 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 Census Bureau, is the nation's primary source of information on crime victimization and the victims of crime. Initiated in 1972 and redesigned in 1992, the NCVS collects detailed information on the frequency and nature of the crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft experienced by Americans and their households each year. The survey measures crimes reported as well as those not reported to police. The NCVS sample consists of about 53,730 households selected using a stratified, multistage cluster design. In the first stage, the primary sampling units (PSUs), consisting of counties or groups of counties, were selected. In the second stage, smaller areas, called Enumeration Districts (EDs), were selected from each sampled PSU. Finally, from selected EDs, clusters of four households, called segments, were selected for interview. At each stage, the selection was done proportionate to population size in order to create a self-weighting sample. The final sample was augmented to account for housing units constructed after the decennial Census. Within each sampled household, Census Bureau personnel interviewed all household members ages 12 and older to determine whether they had been victimized by the measured crimes during the 6 months preceding the interview. About 79,360 persons ages 12 and older are interviewed each 6 months. Households remain in the sample for 3 years and are interviewed 7 times at 6-month intervals. The initial interview at each sample unit is used only to bound future interviews to establish a time frame to avoid duplication of crimes uncovered in these subsequent interviews. After their seventh interview, households are replaced by new sample households. The NCVS has consistently obtained a response rate of about 93 percent at the household level. During the study period, the completion rates for persons within households were about 90 percent. Thus, final response rates were about 83 percent. Weights were developed to permit estimates for the total U.S. population 12 years and older. For more information about the NCVS, contact: Detis Duhart Victimization Statistics U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics 810 7th Street NW Washington, DC 20531 Telephone: (202) 307-6116 E-mail: duhartd@ojp.usdoj.gov Internet: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ School Crime Supplement (SCS) Created as a supplement to the NCVS and co- designed by the National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Justice Statistics, the School Crime Supplement (SCS) survey was conducted in 1989, 1995, 1999, and 2001 to collect additional information about school-related victimizations on a national level. This report includes data from the 1995, 1999, and 2001 collections. The 1989 data are not included in this report as a result of methodological changes to the NCVS and SCS. The survey was designed to assist policymakers as well as academic researchers and practitioners at the federal, state, and local levels so that they can make informed decisions concerning crime in schools. The SCS asks students a number of key questions about their experiences with and perceptions of crime and violence that occurred inside their school, on school grounds, on a school bus, or on the way to or from school. Additional questions not included in the NCVS were also added to the SCS, such as those concerning preventive measures used by the school, students' participation in afterschool activities, students' perceptions of school rules, the presence of weapons and street gangs in school, the presence of hate-related words and graffiti in school, student reports of bullying and reports of rejection at school, and the availability of drugs and alcohol in school, as well as attitudinal questions relating to fear of victimization and avoidance behavior at school. In all SCS survey years, the SCS was conducted for a 6-month period from January 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 NCVS interview is included in the SCS data analysis. Within these households, the eligible respondents for the SCS were those household members who had attended school at any time during the 6 months preceding the interview, and were enrolled in grades 6 through 12 in a school that would help them advance toward eventually receiving a high school diploma. The age range of students covered in this report is 12 through 18 years of age. Eligible respondents were asked the supplemental questions in the SCS only after completing their entire NCVS interview. In 2001, the SCS survey instrument was modified from previous collections in three ways. First, in 1995 and 1999, "at school" was defined for respondents as in the school building, on the school grounds, or on a school bus. In 2001, the definition for "at school" was changed to mean in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. This change was made to the 2001 questionnaire in order to be consistent with the definition of "at school" as it is constructed in the National Crime Victimization survey. Unlike prior Indicators reports, the prevalence of victimization for 1995, 1999, and 2001 was calculated by using NCVS incident variables appended to the 1995, 1999, and 2001 SCS data files. The NCVS type of crime variable was used to classify victimizations of students in the SCS as serious violent, violent, or theft. The NCVS variables asking where the incident happened and what the victim was doing when it happened were used to ascertain whether the incident happened at school. For prevalence of victimization, the NCVS definition of "at school" includes in the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Second, the SCS questions pertaining to fear and avoidance have changed between the 1995 and 1999 SCS and the 2001 SCS. In 1995 and 1999, students were asked if they avoided places or were fearful because they thought someone would "attack or harm" them. In 2001, students were asked if they avoided places or were fearful because they thought someone would "attack or threaten to attack them." These changes should be considered when making comparisons between the 1995 and 1999 data and the 2001 data. Readers should also note that separate estimates were provided in the Indicators of School Crime and Safety 2001 report for the prevalence of fear at school and on the way to and from school. This year's report provides one estimate that combines at school with on the way to and from school and compares it to those students who report fear away from school. Third, the SCS question pertaining to gangs has changed in the 2001 SCS. The introduction and definition of gangs as well as the placement of the item in the questionnaire changed in the 2001 SCS. Because of these changes, the reader should be cautioned not to compare results presented in this report with those estimates of gangs presented in previous reports. Total victimization is a combination of violent victimization and theft. If the student reported an incident of either violent or theft victimization or both, he or she is counted as having experienced "total" victimization. Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault. A total of 9,728 students participated in the 1995 SCS, 8,398 in 1999, and 8,374 in 2001. In the 2001 SCS, the household completion rate was 93 percent. In the 1995 and 1999 SCS, the household completion rates were 95 percent and 94 percent, respectively; and the student completion rates were both 78 percent. For the 2001 SCS, the student completion rate was 77 percent. Thus, the overall SCS response rate (calculated by multiplying the household completion rate by the student completion rate) was 74 percent in 1995, 73 percent in 1999 and 72 percent in 2001. Response rates for most survey items were high-typically over 95 percent of all eligible respondents. The weights were developed to compensate for differential probabilities of selection and nonresponse. The weighted data permit inferences about the eligible student population who were enrolled in schools in 1995, 1999, and 2001. For 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 unintentional firearm-related deaths where the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school, while the victim was on the way to or from regular sessions at such a school, or while attending or on the way to or from an official school-sponsored event. Victims of such events include nonstudents as well as students and staff members. SAVD includes descriptive information about the school, event, victim(s), and offender(s). The first SAVD study collected data for July 1, 1992- June 30, 1994 and the follow-up study includes July 1, 1994-June 30, 1999. SAVD uses a four-step process to identify and collect data on school-associated violent deaths. Cases were initially identified through a search of the Lexis/Nexis and Dialog newspaper and media databases. Then police officials are contacted to confirm the details of the case to determine if the event meets the case definition. Once a case is confirmed, a police official and a school official are interviewed regarding details about the school, event, victim(s), and offender(s). If police officials are unwilling or unable to complete the interview, a copy of the full police report is obtained. The information obtained on schools includes school demographics, attendance/absentee rates, suspension/expulsions and mobility, school history of weapon carrying, security measures, violence prevention activities, school response to the event, and school policies about weapon carrying. Event information includes the location of injury, the context of injury (while classes held, during break, etc.), motives for injury, method of injury, and school and community events happening around the time period. Information obtained on victim(s) and offender(s) includes demographics, circumstances of the event (date/time, alcohol or drug use, number of persons involved), types and origins of weapons, criminal history, psychological risk factors, school-related problems, extracurricular activities, and family history, including structure and stressors. One hundred and five school-associated violent deaths were identified from July 1, 1992-June 30, 1994 (See Kachur et al. June 12, 1996. JAMA. 275:22: 1729-1733). The most recent study identified 253 school- associated violent deaths between July 1, 1994-June 30, 1999 (See Anderson et al. December 5, 2001. JAMA. 286:21: 2695-2702). The first study achieved a response rate of 85 percent for police officials and 81 percent for school officials. The current study has achieved a response rate of 97 percent for police officials and 78 percent for school officials. For additional information about SAVD, contact: Mark Anderson, MD, MPH Division of Violence Prevention National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop K60 4770 Buford Highway NE Atlanta, GA 30341 Telephone: (770) 488-4762 E-mail: mea6@cdc.gov Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) The Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), which is a part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, provide incident- level information on criminal homicides including location, circumstances, and method of offense, as well as demographic characteristics of victims and perpetrators and the relationship between the two. The data are provided monthly to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) by local law enforcement agencies participating in the FBI's UCR program. The data include murders and non-negligent manslaughters in the United States from January 1976 through December 1999. That is, negligent manslaughters and justifiable homicides have been eliminated from the data. For the years 1976 through 1999, contributing agencies provided homicide reports for 452,965 of the estimated 497,030 murder victims, and for 500,946 of the estimated 549,874 offenders. Although national coverage is quite high (about 92% of homicides are included in the SHR), missing reports can be corrected using weights to match national and state estimates prepared by the FBI's UCR. A weight on the SHR data file reconciles the counts of SHR homicide victims with those in the UCR. The weight is the same for all cases for a given year. The weight represents the ratio of the number of homicides reported in the UCR to the number reported in the SHR. For additional information about SHR, contact: James Fox Principal Investigator Uniform Crime Reports: Supplementary Homicide Reports Northeastern University 360 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115 Telephone: (617) 373-3296 E-mail: jfox@neu.edu Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System Fatal (WISQARS(tm) Fatal) WISQARS Fatal provides mortality data related to injury. The mortality data reported in WISQARS Fatal come from death certificate data reported to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data includes causes of death reported by attending physicians, medical examiners, and coroners. It also includes demographic information about decedents reported by funeral directors, who obtain that information from family members and other informants. NCHS collects, compiles, verifies and prepares these data for release to the public. The data provides information about what types of injuries are leading causes of deaths, how common they are, and who they affect. This data is intended for a broad audience-the public, the media, public health practitioners and researchers, and public health officials-to increase their knowledge of injury. WISQARS Fatal mortality reports provide tables of the total numbers of injury- related deaths and the death rates per 100,000 population. The reports list deaths according to cause (mechanism) and intent (manner) of injury by state, race, Hispanic origin, sex, and age groupings. For more information on WISQARS Fatal, contact: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Mailstop K65 4770 Buford Highway NE Atlanta, GA 30341-3724 Telephone: (770) 488-1506 E-mail: OHCINFO@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. These features of complex sampling require different techniques to calculate standard errors than are used for data collected with a simple random sample. Therefore, calculation of standard errors requires procedures that are markedly different from the ones used when the data are from a simple random sample. The Taylor series approximation technique or the balanced repeated replication (BRR) method was used to estimate most of the statistics and their standard errors in this report. Table 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 were based on the Taylor series approximation method using PSU and strata variables available from the data set was employed. For statistics based on all years of NCVS data standard errors were derived from a formula developed by the Census Bureau, which consists of three generalized variance function (gvf) constant parameters that represent the curve fitted to the individual standard errors calculated using the Jackknife Repeated Replication technique. The formulas used to compute the adjusted standard errors associated with percentages or population counts can be found in table 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: (See equation in original report) 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: (See equation in original report) 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. While many descriptive comparisons in this report were tested using t statistic or the F-statistic, some comparisons among categories of an ordered variable with three or more levels involved a test for a linear trend across all categories, rather than a series of tests between pairs of categories. In this report, when differences among percentages were examined relative to a variable with ordered categories, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test for a linear relationship between the two variables. To do this, ANOVA models included orthogonal linear contrasts corresponding to successive levels of the independent variable. The squares of the Taylorized standard errors (that is, standard errors that were calculated by the Taylor series method), the variance between the means, and the unweighted sample sizes were used to partition total sum of squares into within- and between-group sums of squares. These were used to create mean squares for the within- and between-group variance components and their corresponding F statistics, which were then compared with published values of F for a significance level of .05. Significant values of both the overall F and the F associated with the linear contrast term were required as evidence of a linear relationship between the two variables. APPENDIX 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 other students to be sampled. Specific Terms Used in Various Surveys National Crime Victimization Survey At school (students) Inside the school building, on school property (school parking area, play area, school bus, etc.), or on the way to or from school. At school (teachers) Inside the school building, on school property (school parking area, play area, school bus, etc.), at worksite, or while working. For thefts, "while working" was not considered, since thefts of teachers' property kept at school can occur when teachers are not present. Aggravated assault Attack or attempted attack with a weapon, regardless of whether or not an injury occurs, and attack without a weapon when serious injury results. Rape Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion, as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by the offender(s). 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 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." At school In the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to or from school. 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 Examples of weapons appearing in the questionnaire include guns, knives, and clubs. Illegal drugs Examples of illegal drugs were marijuana, cocaine, inhalants, steroids, or prescription drugs without a doctor's permission, heroin, and methamphetamines. 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 The percent of students enrolled in the school who are eligible for the federally lunch 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 percentage 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 An elementary school teacher is one who, when asked for the grades taught, teachers 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. End of file 10/31/02 pm