Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005 November 2005 U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences NCES 2006-001 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs NCJ 210697 Jill F. DeVoe Education Statistics Services Institute Katharin Peter MPR Associates, Inc. Margaret Noonan Education Statistics Services Institute Thomas D. Snyder National Center for Education Statistics Katrina Baum Bureau of Justice Statistics Thomas D. Snyder Project Officer National Center for Education Statistics COPYRIGHT PAGE U.S. Department of Education Margaret Spellings Secretary Institute of Education Sciences Grover J. Whitehurst Director National Center for Education Statistics Mark Schneider Commissioner U.S. Department of Justice Alberto Gonzales Attorney General Office of Justice Programs Regina B. Schofield 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 2005 Suggested Citation DeVoe, J.F., Peter, K., Noonan, M., Snyder, T.D., and Baum, K. (2005). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005 (NCES 2006-001/NCJ 210697). U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 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 2006-001) (TTY/TDD 1-877-576-7734), and the Bureau of Justice Statistics Clearinghouse at 1-800-851-3420 (NCJ 210697). Contact at NCES: Thomas D. Snyder (202) 502-7452 E-mail: tom.snyder@ed.gov Contact at BJS: Katrina Baum (202) 307-5889 E-mail: katrina.baum@usdoj.gov EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Our nation's schools should be a safe haven for teaching and learning and be free of crime and violence. Even though students are less likely to be victims of a violent crime at school than away from school (Indicators 1 and 2), any instance of crime or violence at school not only affects the individuals involved but also may disrupt the educational process and affect bystanders, the school itself, and the surrounding community (Henry 2000). For parents, school staff, and policymakers to address school crime effectively, they must possess an accurate understanding of the extent and nature of the problem. However, it is difficult to gauge the scope of crime and violence in schools without collecting data, given the large amount of attention devoted to isolated incidents of extreme school violence. Ensuring safer schools requires establishing good indicators of the current state of school crime and safety across the nation and periodically monitoring and updating these indicators. This is the aim of Indicators of School Crime and Safety. Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005 is the eighth in a series of annual reports produced by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the U.S. Department of Education and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in the U.S. Department of Justice that present the most recent data available on school crime and student safety. The indicators in this report are based on information drawn from a variety of independent data sources, including national surveys of students, teachers, and principals, and data collections from federal departments and agencies, including BJS, NCES, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All the comparisons described in this report are statistically significant at the .05 level. More information about methodology and the datasets analyzed in this report may be found in appendix A. KEY FINDINGS In the 2002-03 school year, an estimated 54.2 million students in prekindergarten through grade 12 were enrolled in about 125,000 U.S. elementary or secondary schools (U.S. Department of Education 2004b). Preliminary data on fatal victimizations show youth ages 5-19 were victims of 22 school-associated violent deaths from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 20023 (17 homicides and 5 suicides) (Indicator 1). In 2003, students ages 12-18 were victims of about 1.9 million nonfatal crimes at school, including about 1.2 million thefts and 740,000 violent crimes (simple assault and serious violent crime)-150,000 of which were serious violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) (Indicator 2).1 These figures represent victimization rates of 45 thefts and 28 violent crimes, including 6 serious violent crimes, per 1,000 students at school in 2003. 1The total number of students ages 12-18 enrolled during the fall 2003 school year was 26.4 million. Students were more likely to be victims of serious violence or a homicide away from school.2 In 2003, students ages 12- 18 reported being victims of serious violence at a rate of 12 crimes per 1,000 students away from school and 6 crimes per 1,000 students at school. Similarly, in each school year from July 1, 1992, through June 30, 2002, youth ages 5-19 were over 70 times more likely to be murdered away from school than at school. For several measures, data show trends in student victimization decreasing over the last decade. The nonfatal victimization rate for students ages 12-18 at school generally declined between 1992 and 2003; this was true for the total crime rate and for thefts, violent crimes, and serious violent crimes (Indicator 2). However, when looking at the most recent years, no differences were detected between 2002 and 2003 in the rates of total victimization, violent victimization, or theft at school. For fatal victimization, between July 1, 1992, and June 30, 2003, the number of homicides of school-age youth at school declined as well (Indicator 1). Specifically, between the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 school years, the number of homicides of school- age youth at school declined from 33 to 14 homicides. Since then, there have been between 12 and 17 homicides in each school year through 2001-02. Violent Deaths • From July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002, there were 17 homicides and 5 suicides of school-age youth (ages 5-19) at school (Indicator 1).3 Combined, this figure translates into less than 1 homicide or suicide of a school-age youth at school per million students enrolled during the 2001-02 school year. Nonfatal Student Victimization • In 2003, students ages 12-18 were more likely to be victims of theft at school than away from school and were more likely to be victims of serious violence away from school than at school (Indicator 2). That year, 45 thefts per 1,000 students occurred at school and 28 thefts per 1,000 students occurred away from school, while students reported being victims of serious violence at a rate of 12 crimes per 1,000 students away from school and 6 crimes per 1,000 students at school. • In 2003, 5 percent of students ages 12-18 reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months: 4 percent reported theft, and 1 percent reported violent victimization (Indicator 3). Less than 1 percent of students reported serious violent victimization. • In 2003, male students in grades 9-12 were more likely than female students to report being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property in the past year (12 vs. 6 percent) (Indicator 4). 2Data in this report are not adjusted by the number of hours that youth spend on school property and the number of hours they spend elsewhere. 3Due to missing data for the 2002-03 school year, the findings for this indicator reflect data through the 2001-02 school year. Nonfatal Teacher Victimization • Annually, from 1999 through 2003, teachers were the victims of approximately 183,000 total nonfatal crimes at school, including 119,000 thefts and 65,000 violent crimes (Indicator 5). On average, these figures translate into an annual rate of 39 crimes per 1,000 teachers, including 25 thefts and 14 violent crimes (including 2 serious violent crimes) per 1,000 teachers. • Annually, from 1999 through 2003, senior high school teachers were more likely than elementary school teachers to be victims of violent crimes and thefts (22 vs. 9 violent crimes and 36 vs. 20 thefts per 1,000 teachers) (Indicator 5). • In 1999-2000, teachers in central city schools were more likely to have been threatened with injury or physically attacked during the previous 12 months than teachers in urban fringe or rural schools (Indicator 6). That is, 11 percent of teachers in central city schools had been threatened with injury by students, compared with 8 percent each in urban fringe and rural schools. Five percent of teachers in central city schools had been attacked by students, while 3 percent each of teachers in urban fringe and rural schools had experienced such attacks. School Environment • In 1999-2000, 71 percent of public schools experienced one or more violent incidents and 36 percent of public schools reported violent incidents to the police (Indicator 7). Twenty percent of public schools experienced one or more serious violent incidents, and 15 percent reported serious violent incidents to the police. • In 1999-2000, 19 percent of public schools reported weekly student acts of disrespect for teachers, 13 percent reported student verbal abuse of teachers, 3 percent reported student racial tensions, and 3 percent reported widespread disorder in classrooms (Indicator 8). Nineteen percent of public schools reported any undesirable gang activities, and 7 percent reported any undesirable cult or extremist activities during the 1999-2000 school year. • Middle schools were more likely than primary and secondary schools to report racial tensions, bullying, verbal abuse of teachers, and widespread disorder in classrooms in 1999-2000 (Indicator 8). For example, 43 percent of middle schools reported daily or weekly student bullying, compared with 26 percent of primary and 25 percent of secondary schools. • In 2003, 21 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that street gangs were present at their school during the previous 6 months (Indicator 9). Students in urban schools were the most likely to report the presence of street gangs at their school (31 percent), followed by suburban students and then rural students, who were the least likely to report them (18 and 12 percent, respectively). • In 2003, 29 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported that someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property in the 12 months before the survey (Indicator 10). • In 2003, 12 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that someone at school had used hate-related words against them (Indicator 11). Four percent of respondents reported that the hate-related words concerned their race, about 2 percent each reported that the words concerned their ethnicity or gender, and 1 percent each reported that the words were related to their religion, disability, or sexual orientation. • In 2003, 36 percent of students ages 12-18 reported they had seen hate-related graffiti at their school (for example, hate-related words or symbols written in classrooms, bathrooms, hallways, or on the outside of the school building) (Indicator 11). • In 2003, 7 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that they had been bullied (for example, picked on or made to do things they did not want to do) at school during the previous 6 months (Indicator 12). Public school students were more likely to report being bullied than private school students (7 vs. 5 percent). Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances • In 2003, 33 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported having been in a fight anywhere, and 13 percent said they had been in a fight on school property during the preceding 12 months (Indicator 13). Forty-one percent of males said they had been in a fight anywhere, compared with 25 percent of females, and 17 percent of males said they had been in a fight on school property, compared with 8 percent of females. • In 2003, 17 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported they had carried a weapon anywhere, and about 6 percent reported they had carried a weapon on school property (Indicator 14). Between 1993 and 2003, the percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere generally declined from 22 to 17 percent. Similarly, the percentage of students who carried a weapon at school also declined during this period-from 12 to 6 percent. • In 2003, 45 percent of students in grades 9-12 consumed at least one drink of alcohol anywhere in the last 30 days, and 5 percent consumed at least one drink on school property in the last 30 days (Indicator 15). In 2003, 22 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported using marijuana anywhere in the last 30 days, and 6 percent of students reported using marijuana on school property in the last 30 days (Indicator 16). Fear and Avoidance • In 1999 and 2001, students ages 12-18 were more likely to report they were afraid of being attacked at school or on the way to and from school than away from school; however, in 2003, no such difference was detected (Indicator 17). In 2003, 6 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that they had been afraid of attack at school or on the way to and from school, and 5 percent reported that they had been afraid of attack away from school. • In 2003, students ages 12-18 in urban schools were more likely than students in suburban and rural schools to fear being attacked both at school or on the way to and from school and away from school. Ten percent of students in urban schools feared being attacked at school, compared with 5 percent each of their peers in suburban and rural schools (Indicator 17). • In 2003, public school students ages 12-18 were more likely than private school students to fear an attack at school or on the way to and from school (6 vs. 3 percent), but no such difference was detected when they were asked whether they feared an attack away from school (5 percent each) (Indicator 17). • The percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that they either skipped school activities or avoided specific places in school because they were fearful decreased from 7 percent in 1999 to 5 percent in 2003 (Indicator 18). • In 2003, students ages 12-18 in urban areas were the most likely to avoid specific places in school because they were fearful: 6 percent of urban students reported that they had done so, compared with 4 percent of suburban and 3 percent of rural students (Indicator 18). Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures • In 1999-2000, about 54 percent of public schools took at least one serious disciplinary action against a student, amounting to about 1,163,000 actions (Indicator 19). Of those serious disciplinary actions, 83 percent were suspensions for 5 days or more, 11 percent were removals with no services, and 7 percent were transfers to specialized schools. • In 1999-2000, during school hours, 75 percent of schools controlled access to school buildings by locking or monitoring doors, and 34 percent of schools controlled access to school grounds with locked or monitored gates (Indicator 20). • In 1999-2000, 14 percent of primary schools, 20 percent of middle schools, and 39 percent of secondary schools used one or more security cameras to monitor the school (Indicator 20). • The percentage of students ages 12-18 who observed the presence of some school security measures increased between 1999 and 2003 (Indicator 21). The percentage of students who reported using visitor sign-in increased from 87 to 92 percent during this period, and the percentage who reported the presence of locked entrance or exit doors during the school day increased from 38 to 53 percent. Over the same period, there was also an increase in both the percentage observing security guards and/or police officers and the percentage observing other school staff or adult supervision in the hallway (from 54 to 70 percent and from 85 to 91 percent, respectively). FOREWORD Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005 provides the most recent national indicators on school crime and safety. These indicators demonstrate that improvements have occurred in student safety. The violent crime victimization rate at school declined from 48 violent victimizations per 1,000 students in 1992 to 28 such victimizations in 2003. Even so, violence, theft, bullying, drugs, and weapons are still widespread. In 2003, students ages 12-18 were victims of about 740,000 violent crimes and 1.2 million crimes of theft at school. Seven percent of students ages 12-18 reported that they had been bullied, 29 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported that drugs were made available to them on school property, and 9 percent of students were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property. Accurate information about the nature, extent, and scope of the problem being addressed is essential for developing effective programs and policies. The information in this report is intended to serve as a reference for policymakers and practitioners in the development of effective programs and policies aimed at violence and school crime prevention. This is the eighth edition of Indicators of School Crime and Safety, a joint publication of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics. This report provides detailed statistics to inform the nation on the current status of crime and safety in schools. The 2005 edition of Indicators includes the most recent available data, compiled from a number of statistical data sources supported by the federal government. Such sources include results from a study of violent deaths in schools, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the National Crime Victimization Survey and School Crime Supplement to the survey, sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics, respectively; the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and the Schools and Staffing Survey and School Survey on Crime and Safety, both sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics. The entire report is available on the Internet. The Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics continue to work toward providing timely and complete data on the issues of school-related violence and safety. Mark Schneider Commissioner National Center for Education Statistics Lawrence A. Greenfeld Director Bureau of Justice Statistics ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank the heads of the sponsoring agencies, Mark Schneider 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 Patsy Klaus and Erika Harrell of the Victimization Statistics Branch for their work in verifying data from the National Crime Victimization Survey. From NCES, we wish to thank Kathryn Chandler, Val Plisko, Marilyn Seastrom, John Sietsema, and Bruce Taylor, who served as reviewers. They all provided input that substantially improved the publication. We particularly appreciated their willingness to review the report under very strict time constraints. Outside of NCES and BJS, Nancy Brener and Mark Anderson of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention generously provided data and performed a review of data documentation. We also value the review of this report and the continued support provided by Bill Modzeleski of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Lisa Bridges of the Institute of Education Sciences provided helpful input on the final draft. Lynn Bauer assumed management of the final review process and production of this report. Without the assistance of the following staff, this report could not have been produced: Andrea Livingston, Barbara Kridl, Natesh Daniel, Annabelle Yang, and Patti Gildersleeve from MPR Associates, and Michael Hurwitz, Ruth Atchison, Aparna Sundaram, Jed Tank, and Todd Thomas from the Education Statistics Services Institute. They provided invaluable technical, editorial, graphic, and production assistance. CONTENTS Executive Summary iii Foreword ix Acknowledgments x List of Tables xii List of Figures xviii Introduction 1 Violent Deaths 5 1. Violent Deaths at School and Away From School 6 Nonfatal Student Victimization 9 2. Incidence of Victimization at School and Away From School 10 3. Prevalence of Victimization at School 14 4. Threats and Injuries With Weapons on School Property 16 Nonfatal Teacher Victimization 19 5. Nonfatal Teacher Victimization at School 20 6. Teachers Threatened With Injury or Attacked by Students 22 School Environment 25 7. Violent and Other Incidents at Public Schools and Those Reported to the Police 26 8. Discipline Problems Reported by Public Schools 30 9. Students' Reports of Gangs at School 32 10. Students' Reports of Drug Availability on School Property 34 11. Students' Reports of Being Called Hate-Related Words and Seeing Hate-Related Graffiti 36 12. Bullying at School 38 Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances 41 13. Physical Fights on School Property and Anywhere 42 14. Students Carrying Weapons on School Property and Anywhere 44 15. Students' Use of Alcohol on School Property and Anywhere 46 16. Students' Use of Marijuana on School Property and Anywhere 48 Fear and Avoidance 51 17. Students' Perceptions of Personal Safety at School and Away From School 52 18. Students' Reports of Avoiding School Activities or Specific Places in School 54 Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures 57 19. Serious Disciplinary Actions Taken by Public Schools 58 20. Safety and Security Measures Taken by Public Schools 60 21. Students' Reports of Safety and Security Measures Observed at School 62 References 65 Supplemental Tables 69 Standard Error Tables 109 Appendix A. Technical Notes 149 Appendix B. Glossary of Terms 177 LIST OF TABLES Supplemental Tables 1.1. Number of school-associated violent deaths and number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5-19, by location: 1992-2002 70 2.1. Number of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 and rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by location and year: 1992-2003 71 2.2. Number of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 at school and rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected student and school characteristics: 2003 72 2.3. Number of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 away from school and rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected student and school characteristics: 2003 73 3.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1995-2003 74 4.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous 12 months, by selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1993-2003 76 4.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous 12 months, by state: 2003 77 5.1. Average annual number of teacher-reported nonfatal crimes against teachers and average annual rate of crimes per 1,000 teachers at school, by type of crime and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1999-2003 78 6.1. Percentage and number of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury by a student during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 79 6.2. Percentage and number of public and private school teachers who reported that they were physically attacked by a student during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 80 7.1. Percentage of public schools experiencing and reporting incidents of crime, number of incidents, and the rate per 1,000 students, by type of crime: 1999-2000 81 7.2. Percentage of public schools experiencing incidents of crime, number of incidents, and the rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected school characteristics: 1999-2000 82 7.3. Percentage of public schools reporting incidents of crime to the police, number of incidents, and the rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected school characteristics: 1999-2000 84 8.1. Percentage of public schools that reported selected discipline problems by frequency, by school characteristics: 1999-2000 86 9.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that street gangs were present at school during the previous 6 months, by urbanicity and selected student and school characteristics: 2001 and 2003 88 10.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported that drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1993-2003 89 10.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported that drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by state: 2003 90 11.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being targets of hate-related words and seeing hate-related graffiti at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school characteristics: 1999, 2001, and 2003 91 11.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being targets of hate-related words at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school characteristics: 2003 92 12.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school characteristics: 1999, 2001, and 2003 93 13.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1993-2003 94 13.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by location and state: 2003 95 14.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1993-2003 96 14.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and state: 2003 97 15.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1993-2003 98 15.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and state: 2003 99 16.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1993-2003 100 16.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and state: 2003 101 17.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being afraid of attack or threat of attack during the previous 6 months, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1995-2003 102 18.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported avoiding school activities or avoiding one or more places in school during the previous 6 months: Selected years, 1995- 2003 103 18.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported avoiding one or more places in school during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1995-2003 104 19.1. Percentage and number of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action, number of actions taken, and percentage distribution of actions according to type, by type of offense: 1999-2000 105 20.1. Percentage of public schools that used selected safety and security measures, by school characteristics: 1999-2000 106 21.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported selected security measures at school: 1999, 2001, and 2003 108 Standard Error Tables S2.1. Standard errors for table 2.1: Number of student- reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 and rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by location and year: 1992-2003 110 S2.2. Standard errors for table 2.2: Number of student- reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 at school and rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected student and school characteristics: 2003 111 S2.3. Standard errors for table 2.3: Number of student- reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 away from school and rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected student and school characteristics: 2003 112 S3.1. Standard errors for table 3.1: Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1995-2003 113 S4.1. Standard errors for table 4.1: Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous 12 months, by selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1993-2003 115 S4.2. Standard errors for table 4.2: Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous 12 months, by state: 2003 116 S5.1. Standard errors for table 5.1: Average annual number of teacher-reported nonfatal crimes against teachers and average annual rate of crimes per 1,000 teachers at school, by type of crime and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1999-2003 117 S6.1. Standard errors for table 6.1: Percentage and number of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury by a student during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 118 S6.2. Standard errors for table 6.2: Percentage and number of public and private school teachers who reported that they were physically attacked by a student during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 119 S7.1. Standard errors for table 7.1: Percentage of public schools experiencing and reporting incidents of crime, number of incidents, and the rate per 1,000 students, by type of crime: 1999-2000 120 S7.2. Standard errors for table 7.2: Percentage of public schools experiencing incidents of crime, number of incidents, and the rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected school characteristics: 1999-2000 121 S7.3. Standard errors for table 7.3: Percentage of public schools reporting incidents of crime to the police, number of incidents, and the rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected school characteristics: 1999-2000 123 S8.1. Standard errors for table 8.1: Percentage of public schools that reported selected discipline problems by frequency, by school characteristics: 1999-2000 125 S9.1. Standard errors for table 9.1: Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that street gangs were present at school during the previous 6 months, by urbanicity and selected student and school characteristics: 2001 and 2003 127 S10.1. Standard errors for table 10.1: Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported that drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1993-2003 128 S10.2. Standard errors for table 10.2: Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported that drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by state: 2003 129 S11.1. Standard errors for table 11.1: Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being targets of hate- related words and seeing hate-related graffiti at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school characteristics: 1999, 2001, and 2003 130 S11.2. Standard errors for table 11.2: Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being targets of hate- related words at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school characteristics: 2003 131 S12.1. Standard errors for table 12.1: Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school characteristics: 1999, 2001, and 2003 132 S13.1. Standard errors for table 13.1: Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1993-2003 133 S13.2. Standard errors for table 13.2: Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by location and state: 2003 134 S14.1. Standard errors for table 14.1: Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1993-2003 135 S14.2. Standard errors for table 14.2: Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and state: 2003 136 S15.1. Standard errors for table 15.1: Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1993-2003 137 S15.2. Standard errors for table 15.2: Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and state: 2003 138 S16.1. Standard errors for table 16.1: Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1993-2003 139 S16.2. Standard errors for table 16.2: Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and state: 2003 140 S17.1. Standard errors for table 17.1: Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being afraid of attack or threat of attack during the previous 6 months, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1995-2003 141 S18.1. Standard errors for table 18.1: Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported avoiding school activities or avoiding one or more places in school during the previous 6 months: Selected years, 1995-2003 142 S18.2. Standard errors for table 18.2: Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported avoiding one or more places in school during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1995-2003 143 S19.1. Standard errors for table 19.1: Percentage and number of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action, number of actions taken, and percentage distribution of actions according to type, by type of offense: 1999-2000 144 S20.1. Standard errors for table 20.1: Percentage of public schools that used selected safety and security measures, by school characteristics: 1999-2000 145 S21.1. Standard errors for table 21.1: Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported selected security measures at school: 1999, 2001, and 2003 147 LIST OF FIGURES A. Nationally representative sample surveys used in this report 3 1.1. Number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5-19, by location: 2001-02 7 1.2. Number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5-19 at school: 1992-2002 7 2.1. Rate of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 per 1,000 students, by type of crime and location: 1992-2003 11 2.2. Rate of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 at school per 1,000 students, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 2003 12 2.3. Rate of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 away from school per 1,000 students, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 2003 13 3.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization: Selected years, 1995-2003 15 3.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization and grade: 2003 15 4.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous 12 months, by sex: Selected years, 1993- 2003 17 4.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous 12 months, by grade: 2003 17 5.1. Average annual rate of teacher-reported nonfatal crimes against teachers at school per 1,000 teachers, by type of crime and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1999- 2003 21 6.1. Percentage of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury or that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 23 6.2. Percentage of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury or that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and school sector: 1999-2000 23 7.1. Percentage of public schools that experienced various types of crime and percentage of public schools that reported various types of crime to the police and the rate per 1,000 students, by type of crime: 1999-2000 27 7.2. Percentage of public schools that experienced various types of crime and percentage of public schools that reported various types of crime to the police, by type of crime and school level: 1999-2000 28 7.3. Percentage of public schools that experienced various types of crime and percentage of public schools that reported various types of crime to the police, by type of crime and urbanicity: 1999-2000 29 8.1. Percentage of public schools that reported selected discipline problems, by school level: 1999-2000 31 9.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that street gangs were present at school during the previous 6 months, by urbanicity and race/ethnicity: 2003 33 9.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that street gangs were present at school during the previous 6 months, by school sector and urbanicity: 2003 33 10.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by sex: Selected years, 1993-2003 35 10.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by race/ethnicity: 2003 35 11.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being targets of hate-related words and seeing hate-related graffiti at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school characteristics: 2003 37 12.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by sex: 1999, 2001, and 2003 39 12.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by grade and school sector: 2003 39 13.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by location and sex: Selected years, 1993-2003 43 13.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by location and grade: 2003 43 14.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and sex: Selected years, 1993-2003 45 14.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and race/ethnicity: 2003 45 15.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and sex: Selected years, 1993-2003 47 15.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and grade: 2003 47 16.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and sex: Selected years, 1993-2003 49 16.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and grade: 2003 49 17.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being afraid of attack or threat of attack during the previous 6 months, by location: Selected years, 1995-2003 53 17.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being afraid of attack or threat of attack during the previous 6 months, by location and race/ethnicity: 2003 53 18.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported avoiding school activities or avoiding one or more places in school during the previous 6 months: Select years, 1995-2003 55 18.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported avoiding one or more places in school during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school characteristics: 2003 55 19.1. Percentage distribution of serious disciplinary actions taken by public schools, by type of action: 1999- 2000 59 19.2. Percentage of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action for selected offenses, by type of offense: 1999-2000 59 20.1. Percentage of public schools that used selected safety and security measures, by school level: 1999-2000 61 21.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported selected security measures at school: 1999, 2001, and 2003 63 Appendixes A.1. Descriptions of data sources and samples used in the report 163 A.2. Wording of survey questions used to construct indicators 164 A.3. Methods used to calculate standard errors of statistics for different surveys 174 INTRODUCTION Our nation's schools should be a safe haven for teaching and learning free of crime and violence. Even though students are less likely to be victims of a violent crime at school than away from school (Indicators 1 and 2), any instance of crime or violence at school not only affects the individuals involved but also may disrupt the educational process and affect bystanders, the school itself, and the surrounding community (Henry 2000). For both students and teachers, victimization at school can have lasting effects. In addition to experiencing loneliness, depression, and adjustment difficulties (Crick and Bigbee 1998; Crick and Grotpeter 1996; Nansel et al. 2001; Prinstein, Boergers, and Vernberg 2001; Storch et al. 2003), victimized children are more prone to truancy (Ringwalt et al. 2003), poor academic performance (Wei and Williams 2004), and dropping out of school (Beauvais et al. 1996). For teachers, incidents of victimization may lead to professional disenchantment and even prompt them to leave the profession altogether (Karcher 2002). For parents, school staff, and policymakers to effectively address school crime, they need an accurate understanding of the extent and nature of the problem. However, it is difficult to gauge the scope of crime and violence in schools given the large amount of attention devoted to isolated incidents of extreme school violence. Measuring progress toward safer schools requires establishing good indicators of the current state of school crime and safety across the nation and periodically monitoring and updating these indicators. This is the aim of Indicators of School Crime and Safety. PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005 is the eighth in a series of reports produced by NCES and BJS since 1998 that present the most recent data available on school crime and student safety. The report is not intended to be an exhaustive compilation of school crime and safety information, nor does it attempt to explore reasons for crime and violence in schools. Rather, the report is designed to provide a "first look" at information from an array of data sources and to make data on national school crime and safety accessible to policymakers, educators, parents, and the general public. Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005 has been reorganized from the 2004 report into sections that delineate specific concerns to readers, starting with a description of the most serious violent crimes. The sections cover Violent Deaths at School; Nonfatal Student Victimization; Nonfatal Teacher Victimization; School Environment; Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances; Fear and Avoidance; and Safety, Security, and Discipline Measures. Each section contains a set of indicators that, taken together, aim to describe a distinct aspect of school crime and safety. Where available, data on crimes that occur outside of school grounds are offered as a point of comparison.1 Supplemental tables for each indicator provide more detailed breakouts and standard errors for estimates. A glossary of terms and bibliography of works cited appear at the end of the report. 1Data in this report are not adjusted by the number of hours that youth spend on school property and the number of hours they spend elsewhere. This report provides updated and revised data on fatal student victimization (Indicator 1), nonfatal student victimization (Indicator 2), nonfatal victimization of teachers (Indicator 5), public school reports of selected crimes (Indicator 7), and student avoidance behaviors (Indicator 18).2 New to this year's report are two indicators that look at practices that schools use to promote school safety and security (Indicators 20 and 21). This year's report also repeats information and provides revised data from the 2004 edition on the prevalence of victimization at school (Indicator 3), threats to and injuries of students and teachers (Indicators 4 and 6), discipline problems reported by public schools (Indicator 8), student reports of gangs (Indicator 9), drugs (Indicator 10), hate-related words and graffiti (Indicator 11), bullying (Indicator 12), student reports of fights (Indicator 13), weapon carrying (Indicator 14), illegal substances (Indicators 15 and 16), student reports of being afraid at school (Indicator 17), and serious disciplinary actions taken by public schools (Indicator 19). Also new to this year's report are references to recent publications relevant to each indicator that the reader may want to consult for additional information or analyses. These references can be found in the "For More Information" sidebars at the bottom of each indicator. In response to requests for state-level information, tables showing available state-level estimates have been added for the indicators based on the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) data. (See figure A for a list of indicators based on the YRBSS.) DATA The indicators in this report are based on information drawn from a variety of independent data sources, including national surveys of students, teachers, and principals, and universe data collections from federal departments and agencies, including BJS, NCES, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Each data source has an independent sample design, data collection method, and questionnaire design or is the result of a universe data collection. The combination of multiple, independent sources of data provide a wide perspective on school crime and safety that could not be achieved through any single source of information. However, readers should be cautious when comparing data from different sources. While every effort has been made to keep key definitions consistent across indicators, differences in sampling procedures, populations, time periods, and question phrasing can all affect the comparability of results. For example, both Indicators 20 and 21 report data on select security and safety measures used in schools. Indicator 20 uses data collected from a stratified random sample of principals about safety and security practices used in their schools during the 1999- 2000 school year. Indicator 21, however, uses data collected from 12- through 18-year-olds collected in a rotated panel design of households. These students were asked whether they observed select safety and security measures in their school in 2003, but they may not have known, in fact, if the security measure was present. In addition, different types of analysis approaches will show different perspectives on school crime. For example, both Indicators 2 and 3 report data on theft and violent crime at school based on the National Crime Victimization Survey and the School Crime Supplement to that survey, respectively. While Indicator 2 examines the number of incidents of crime, Indicator 3 examines the percentage or prevalence of students who reported victimization. Figure A provides a summary of some of the variations in the design and coverage of sample surveys used in this report. 2Indicators noted as "updated" in their sidebars have been updated to include the most recently available data. Indicators noted as "revised" in their sidebars have been revised to include revisions to data since the last publication or corrections to errors published in prior reports. Several indicators in this report are based on self-reported survey data. Readers should note that limitations inherent to self-reported data may affect estimates (Cantor and Lynch 2000). First, unless an interview is "bounded" or a reference period is established, estimates may include events that exceed the scope of the specified reference period. This may artificially increase reports because respondents may recall events outside of the given reference period. Second, many of the surveys rely on the respondent to "self-determine" a condition. This allows the respondent to define a situation based upon his or her own interpretation of whether the incident was a crime or not. On the other hand, the same situation may not necessarily be interpreted in the same way by a bystander or the offender. Third, victim surveys emphasize crime events as incidents that take place at one point in time. However, victims can often experience a state of victimization in which they are threatened or victimized regularly or repeatedly. Finally, respondents may recall an event inaccurately. For instance, people may forget the event entirely or recall the specifics of the episode incorrectly. These and other reasons may affect the precision of the estimates based on these surveys. Data trends are discussed in this report when possible. Where trends are not discussed, either the data are not available in earlier surveys or the wording of the survey question changed from year to year, eliminating the ability to discuss any trend. Where data from samples are reported, as is the case with most of the indicators in this report, the standard error is calculated for each estimate provided in order to determine the "margin of error" for these estimates. The standard errors of the estimates for different subpopulations in an indicator can vary considerably and should be taken into account when making comparisons. Some estimates and standard errors have been revised from those provided in earlier editions of Indicators of School Crime and Safety and other previously published reports. 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 variation. 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. Linear trend tests were used when differences among percentages were examined relative to ordered categories of a variable, rather than the differences between two discrete categories. This test allows one to examine whether, for example, the percentage of students who reported using drugs increased (or decreased) over time or whether the percentage of students who reported being physically attacked in school increased (or decreased) with age. Finally, in this report, when differences among percentages were examined relative to a variable with ordered categories (such as grade), Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test for a linear relationship between the two variables. Appendix A of this report contains descriptions of all the datasets used in this report as well as a discussion of how standard errors were calculated for each estimate. Data are currently being collected for the 2005 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the School Crime Supplement (SCS) to that survey, and the 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). The NCVS and SCS will provide updated data on theft and violent crimes against students, bullying, teacher victimization, student fear at school, student avoidance behaviors, hate-related words and graffiti, and the presence of gangs. The YRBSS will provide updated data on students who were threatened or injured with a weapon, engaged in a physical fight, carried weapons, used alcohol or marijuana, and reported drug availability on school property. These findings will be reported in Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006. VIOLENT DEATHS VIOLENT DEATHS AT SCHOOL AND AWAY FROM SCHOOL Indicator 1 Between the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 school years, the number of homicides of youth ages 5-19 decreased at school (from 33 to 14 homicides). Since then, there have been between 12 and 17 homicides in each school year through 2001-02.3 Violent deaths in schools are rare but tragic events with far-reaching effects on the school population and surrounding community (Small and Dressler-Tetrick 2001). From July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002, there were 38 school-associated violent deaths in elementary and secondary schools in the United States (table 1.1). In this indicator, a school-associated violent death is a homicide, suicide, legal intervention (involving a law enforcement officer), or unintentional firearm-related death in which the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school in the United States. Deaths that occurred while the victim was on the way to or from regular sessions at school, or while the victim was attending or traveling to or from an official school-sponsored event, were also considered school-associated violent deaths. Victims of school-associated violent deaths include students, staff members, and others who were not students. Data were drawn from a number of datasets to enable comparisons of homicides and suicides at school and away from school. Data for school-associated violent deaths of youth ages 5-19 during the 1999-2000 through 2001-02 school years are preliminary. From July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002, there were 17 homicides and 5 suicides of school-age youth (ages 5-19) at school (table 1.1).4 Combined, this number translates into less than 1 homicide or suicide of a school-age youth at school per million students enrolled during the 2001-02 school year.5 Away from school, there were 2,036 homicides of youth ages 5-19. The most recent data available for suicides of youth ages 5-19 away from school are from calendar year 2002. That year, 5 school-age youth committed suicide at school, and 1,772 school-age youth committed suicide away from school (figure 1.1).6 Over the 10-year time period from July 1, 1992, through June 30, 2002, there were 462 school-associated violent deaths on campuses of U.S. elementary or secondary schools. Of these violent deaths, 261 were homicides and 55 were suicides of school-age youth. Between July 1, 1992, and June 30, 1999, no consistent pattern of increase or decrease was observed in the number of homicides at school (figure 1.2 and table 1.1). During this period, between 28 and 34 homicides of school-age youth occurred at school in each school year. However, the number of homicides of school-age youth at school declined between the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 school years: from 33 to 14 homicides. Between the 1992 and 2002 school years, between 1 and 8 school-age youth committed suicide at school with no consistent pattern of increase or decrease. In each school year, youth were over 70 times more likely to be murdered and 240 times more likely to commit suicide away from school than at school. 3Due to missing data for suicides for the 2002-03 school year, the findings for this indicator reflect data through the 2001-02 school year. 4Between July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2002, there were 38 student, staff, and nonstudent school-associated violent deaths, including 27 homicides and 9 suicides. 5The total projected number of students in prekindergarten through 12th grade enrolled during the fall 2003 school year was 54,158,000 (U.S. Department of Education 2004b). 6Suicides at school are for the 2001-02 school year and suicides away from school are for the 2002 calendar year. This indicator has been updated to include revisions to previously published data. • • • For more information: Table 1.1 Anderson et al. 2001 NONFATAL STUDENT VICTIMIZATION INCIDENCE OF VICTIMIZATION AT SCHOOL AND AWAY FROM SCHOOL Indicator 2 In each survey year from 1992-2003, students reported lower rates of serious violent victimization (rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) at school than away from school. Theft and violence at school and on the way to and from school can be an obstacle to student achievement by creating a disruptive and threatening environment at school and can lead to emotional stress and physical injury for students (Payne, Gottfredson, and Gottfredson 2003). In the 2003 school year, an estimated 26.4 million students ages 12-18 were enrolled in U.S. schools. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that students ages 12-18 were victims of about 1.9 million nonfatal crimes at school, including about 1.2 million thefts and 740,000 violent crimes (simple assault and serious violent crime)-150,000 of which were serious violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault; table 2.1).7 In the same year, students ages 12-18 were victims of about 1.6 million crimes while they were away from school, including about 750,000 thefts and 850,000 violent crimes-320,000 of which were serious violent crimes. These figures represent victimization rates of 73 total crimes per 1,000 students at school, and 60 total crimes per 1,000 students away from school. While, overall, students ages 12-18 were more likely to be victims of crime at school than away from school, this relationship varied by type of crime. In 2003, students were more likely to be victims of theft at school and of serious violence away from school.8 That year, 45 thefts per 1,000 students occurred at school and 28 thefts per 1,000 students occurred away from school, while students reported being victims of serious violence at a rate of 12 crimes per 1,000 students away from school and 6 crimes per 1,000 students at school. In the same year, no difference was detected in the rates of violent victimization at school and away from school. The victimization rate for students ages 12-18 generally declined both at school and away from school between 1992 and 2003; this was true for the total crime rate and for thefts, violent crimes, and serious violent crimes (figure 2.1 and table 2.1). However, when looking at the most recent years, no differences were detected between 2002 and 2003 in the rates of total victimization, violent victimization, or theft at school or away from school. In 2003, males were more likely than females to be the victims of violent and serious violent crimes at school and away from school (figures 2.2 and 2.3 and tables 2.2 and 2.3). In the same year, younger students (ages 12-14) were more likely than older students (ages 15-18) to be victims of violent and serious violent crime at school, while older students were more likely to be victims away from school. The rates of violent and serious violent victimization at school were higher for urban students than for suburban and rural students, while away from school, rural students were more likely to report violent victimization than suburban students. No differences could be detected in the rate of theft at school by students' sex, age, or urbanicity in 2003. While it appears that victimization at school varied by students' race/ethnicity, few significant differences were found. Black and White students were more likely to be victims of theft than Hispanic students and students of other race/ethnicities, but no other differences were detected by race/ethnicity in the rates of theft, violent crime, and serious violent crime. 7"Students" refers to persons 12-18 years old who reported being in any elementary or secondary grade at the time of the survey. An unknown percentage of these persons may not have attended school during the survey reference period. 8These 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. This indicator has been updated to include 2003 data. • • • For more information: Tables 2.1,2.2, & 2.3 Catalano 2004 PREVALENCE OF VICTIMIZATION AT SCHOOL Indicator 3 In 2003, 5 percent of students ages 12-18 reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months: 4 percent reported theft, and 1 percent reported violent victimization. Less than 1 percent of students reported serious violent victimization. Theft is the most frequent type of nonfatal crime in the United States, though violent crime continues to be important in examining school safety (U.S. Department of Justice 2000). Data from the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey show the percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months. In 2003, 5 percent of students ages 12-18 reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months: 4 percent reported theft, and 1 percent reported violent victimization (serious violent victimization plus simple assaults; table 3.1). Less than 1 percent of students reported serious violent victimization (including rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault). Overall, the percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months decreased between 1995 and 2003 (from 10 to 5 percent); however, no difference was detected between the percentage of students victimized in the most recent survey years, 2001 and 2003 (figure 3.1 and table 3.1). This pattern was true for both the percentage of students who reported being victims of theft and those who were victims of violent crime. In 2003, prevalence of victimization varied somewhat according to student characteristics. Male students were more likely than female students to report being victims of violent crime at school (2 vs. 1 percent), but no difference was detected in their likelihood of reporting theft (4 percent for both). In the same year, 6th-graders were less likely than 7th-graders to be victims of theft, and 12th- graders were less likely to report being victims of violent crime than students in the lower grades (6th through 9th grades; figure 3.2 and table 3.1). Hispanic students were less likely than White students to report being victims of theft (3 vs. 4 percent), and students in urban schools were more likely than their rural school counterparts to report being victims of violent crime (2 vs. 1 percent). Differences in the prevalence of victimization of students who attended public versus private schools were found for sector of school by serious violent victimization in 1995 (0.7 vs. 0.1 percent) and sector by theft victimization in 1995 and 2001 (7.3 vs. 5.2 percent; 4.4 vs. 2.5 percent, respectively). Nonetheless, few other differences were detected, and no more than 2 percent of students reported being victims of violent crime in 2003-regardless of their student characteristics. This indicator has been revised from the 2004 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. • • • For more information: Table 3.1 Addington et al. 2002 THREATS AND INJURIES WITH WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY Indicator 4 In 2003, male students in grades 9-12 were more likely than female students to report being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property in the past year (12 vs. 6 percent). Every year, some students are threatened or injured with a weapon while they are on school property. The percentage of students victimized in this way provides an important measure of how safe our schools are and how their safety has changed over time. In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9-12 were asked whether they had been threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the 12 months preceding the survey. In 2003, 9 percent of students reported being threatened or injured with a weapon, such as a gun, knife, or club, on school property (table 4.1). The percentage of students who were threatened or injured with a weapon has fluctuated between 1993 and 2003, but without a clear trend. In all survey years from 1993 through 2003, 7-9 percent of students reported being threatened or injured in this way. The likelihood of being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property varied by student characteristics. In each survey year, males were more likely than females to report being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property (figure 4.1 and table 4.1). In 2003, 12 percent of male students reported being threatened or injured in the past year, compared with 6 percent of female students. Among students in grades 9-12, those in lower grades were more likely to report being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property than those in higher grades in each survey year (figure 4.2 and table 4.1). In 2003, 12 percent of 9th-graders reported that they were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property, compared with 9 percent of 10th-graders, 7 percent of 11th-graders, and 6 percent of 12th-graders. Students' likelihood of being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property was examined by race/ethnicity. In 2003, American Indian students were more likely than Black, Hispanic, and White students to report being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property (22 percent vs. 11, 9, and 8 percent, respectively). In addition, Black students were more likely than White students to report being threatened or injured in this way. Although it appears that urban students were more likely than suburban and rural students to report being threatened or injured on school property (11 percent vs. 9 and 8 percent, respectively), the difference was not statistically significant. Student reports of being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property varied among states for which data were available, ranging from 5 to 13 percent (table 4.2). This indicator has been revised from the 2004 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. • • • For more information: Tables 4.1 & 4.2 Grunbaum et al. 2004 NONFATAL TEACHER VICTIMIZATION NONFATAL TEACHER VICTIMIZATION AT SCHOOL Indicator 5 Over the 5-year period from 1999 through 2003, teachers reported being victims of nonfatal crimes at a rate of 39 crimes per 1,000 teachers annually, including 25 thefts and 14 violent crimes. Much like their students, teachers can also be targets of violence and theft in schools. The personal toll violence may take on teachers can lead to safety concerns and may interfere with their ability to teach. Moreover, the cumulative effects of these concerns may ultimately cause a teacher to leave the profession (Scheckner et al. 2002; Ingersoll 2001). Looking at the number of crimes against teachers at school can demonstrate the extent of the problem. The National Crime Victimization Survey provides information about teacher victimization by collecting data on the occupations of its respondents. The survey reports offenses committed against teachers at school by both students and others. Annually, from 1999 through 2003, teachers were the victims of approximately 183,000 total nonfatal crimes at school, including 119,000 thefts and 65,000 violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault; table 5.1).9 Among the violent crimes committed against teachers during this 5-year period, there were about 7,000 serious violent crimes annually, including rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. On average, these figures translate into an annual rate of 39 crimes per 1,000 teachers, including 25 thefts and 14 violent crimes (including 2 serious violent crimes), per 1,000 teachers.10 The average annual rate of violent victimization for teachers varied according to their sex, instructional level,11 and urbanicity (figure 5.1 and table 5.1). From 1999 through 2003, male teachers were more likely than female teachers to be victims of violent crimes (22 vs. 11 crimes per 1,000 teachers annually). Senior high school teachers were more likely than elementary school teachers to be victims of violent crimes (22 vs. 9 violent crimes per 1,000 teachers annually). In addition, annually over the 5- year period, urban teachers were more likely than rural and suburban teachers to be victims of violent crimes (20 vs. 9 and 7 crimes per 1,000 teachers, respectively). No differences were detected in the likelihood of teachers being victimized by violent crime according to their race/ethnicity. Few differences were detected according to teacher characteristics in the rate of theft from 1999 through 2003, with the exceptions that White teachers were more likely than Black teachers to be victimized in this way (27 vs. 15 thefts per 1,000 teachers annually) and senior high school teachers were more likely than elementary school teachers to be victimized (36 vs. 20 thefts per 1,000 teachers annually). 9The average annual total number of crimes is the sum of all teacher victimizations across the 5 years, divided by 5. 10The average annual rate is the sum of all teacher victimizations across the 5 years divided by the sum of all teachers over those years, multiplied by 1,000. 11Instructional level was identified by respondent teachers. This indicator has been updated to include 2003 data. • • • For more information: Table 5.1 Duhart 2001 TEACHERS THREATENED WITH INJURY OR ATTACKED BY STUDENTS Indicator 6 In 1999-2000, teachers in central city schools were more likely than their peers in urban fringe or rural schools to report being threatened with injury or physically attacked. Some offenses against teachers are committed by students. Data on the extent to which students make threats or physically attack elementary and secondary teachers can provide a snapshot of this problem. In the Schools and Staffing Survey, teachers were asked whether they had been threatened with injury or physically attacked by a student in the previous 12 months. The survey results indicate that a smaller percentage of elementary and secondary school teachers were threatened with injury by a student at their school in the 1999-2000 school year than in the 1993-94 school year (9 vs. 12 percent; table 6.1). However, no difference was detected in the percentage of teachers physically attacked by a student between the 1999-2000 and 1993-94 school years (4 percent in both years; table 6.2). In both survey years, teachers in central city schools were more likely to be threatened with injury or physically attacked than teachers in urban fringe or rural schools (figure 6.1 and tables 6.1 and 6.2). For example, in 1999- 2000, 11 percent of teachers in central city schools had been threatened with injury by students, compared with 8 percent each in urban fringe and rural schools. Five percent of teachers in central city schools had been attacked by students, while 3 percent each of teachers in urban fringe and rural schools had experienced such attacks. In 1999-2000, few differences were detected in the likelihood of teachers being victims of attacks or threats by students according to teachers' race/ethnicity (tables 6.1 and 6.2). One such difference was that Black teachers were more likely to be threatened than White teachers (12 vs. 9 percent). In 1999-2000, teachers' reports of being victimized or attacked by a student varied according to the level and sector of their school. Secondary school teachers were more likely than elementary school teachers to have been threatened with injury by a student (10 vs. 8 percent); however, secondary school teachers were less likely to have been physically attacked (2 vs. 6 percent). Public school teachers were more likely than private school teachers to be victimized by students in school (figure 6.2 and tables 6.1 and 6.2): 10 percent of public school teachers had been threatened with injury, compared with 4 percent of private school teachers. Likewise, 4 percent of public school teachers and 2 percent of private school teachers had been physically attacked by students. Among teachers in central city schools, those at public schools were four times more likely to be threatened with injury than their colleagues at private schools (14 vs. 3 percent) and about three times more likely to be physically attacked (6 vs. 2 percent). This indicator repeats information from the 2004 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. • • • For more information: Tables 6.1 & 6.2 Appendix Bfor definitions of school levels Gruber et al. 2002 SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT VIOLENT AND OTHER INCIDENTS AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THOSE REPORTED TO THE POLICE Indicator 7 In 1999-2000, 71 percent of public schools experienced one or more violent incidents and 36 percent of public schools reported violent incidents to the police. This indicator presents the percentage of schools that experienced one or more crimes, the total number of these crimes reported by schools, and the rate of crimes per 1,000 students. These data are also presented for the crimes that were reported to the police. In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, public school principals were asked to provide the number of serious violent incidents (rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with a weapon, threat of physical attack with a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon); violent incidents (serious violent incidents plus physical attack or fight without a weapon and threat of physical attack without a weapon); thefts valuing $10 or greater; and other incidents that occurred at their school, as well as the number of these incidents reported to the police. In 1999-2000, 86 percent of public schools responded that one or more incidents of crime had taken place (including violent, theft, and other crimes), amounting to an estimated 2.3 million crimes (table 7.1). This figure translates into a rate of 48 crimes per 1,000 students enrolled in 1999-2000. In the same year, 63 percent of schools reported an incident of crime to the police amounting to about 660,000 crimes-or 14 crimes per 1,000 students enrolled. In 1999-2000, 71 percent of public schools experienced one or more violent incidents, 20 percent experienced one or more serious violent incidents, 46 percent experienced one or more thefts, and 73 percent experienced another type of crime (figure 7.1 and table 7.1). When looking at reports to the police, 36 percent of public schools reported violent incidents, 15 percent reported serious violent incidents, 28 percent reported thefts, and 52 percent reported other crimes. The prevalence of violent incidents at school and those reported to the police varied by the level of the school (figure 7.2 and tables 7.2 and 7.3). Primary schools were the least likely to experience any violent incident: 61 percent of primary schools experienced a violent incident, compared with 87 percent of middle schools and 92 percent of secondary schools. Similar relationships were observed for serious violent incidents and those violent and serious violent incidents that were reported to the authorities. However, when looking at the rate of violent crimes per 1,000 students enrolled, secondary schools had lower rates than primary and middle schools. In 1999-2000, there were 22 violent crimes per 1,000 students in secondary schools, compared with 31 and 46 violent crimes per 1,000 students enrolled in primary and middle schools, respectively. Nonetheless, regardless of school level, there were no more than two serious violent crimes per 1,000 students enrolled in 1999-2000. When examining violent incidents by the location of public schools, city schools were more likely than urban fringe schools to experience or report to the police at least one violent incident during the 1999-2000 school year (figure 7.3 and tables 7.2 and 7.3). Seventy-seven percent of city schools had one or more violent incidents, and 44 percent reported one or more incidents to the police, compared with 67 and 35 percent, respectively, of urban fringe schools. Rural schools were the least likely to experience serious violent incidents (12 percent of rural schools vs. 20-27 percent of schools in other locations) and to report serious violent incidents to the police (9 percent vs. 14-21 percent). This indicator has been revised from the 2004 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. • • • For more information: Tables 7.1,7.2, & 7.3 Appendix B for definitions of school levels Miller 2003 revised DISCIPLINE PROBLEMS REPORTED BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Indicator 8 In 1999-2000, middle schools were more likely than primary and secondary schools to report racial tensions, bullying, verbal abuse of teachers, and widespread disorder in classrooms. Discipline problems in a school may contribute to an overall environment in which violence and crime may occur. In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, school principals were asked how often certain disciplinary problems happen in their schools. This indicator examines racial tensions, bullying, student verbal abuse of teachers, widespread classroom disorder, and student acts of disrespect for teachers that happened daily or once a week. If gang or cult activities ever occurred in the school, they were included as problematic due to the severe nature of these occurrences. In 1999-2000, more than one-quarter (29 percent) of public schools reported that student bullying took place on a daily or weekly basis (table 8.1). Among the other frequently occurring discipline problems in public schools, 19 percent reported student acts of disrespect for teachers, 13 percent reported student verbal abuse of teachers, 3 percent reported student racial tensions, and 3 percent reported widespread disorder in classrooms. Furthermore, 19 percent of public schools reported undesirable gang activities, and 7 percent reported that undesirable cult or extremist activities occurred during the 1999-2000 school year. Frequently occurring discipline problems reported by public schools varied by school characteristics. For example, middle schools were more likely than primary and secondary schools to report racial tensions, bullying, verbal abuse of teachers, and widespread disorder in classrooms (figure 8.1 and table 8.1). Middle schools were also more likely than primary schools, but less likely than high schools, to report gang or extremist cult activity. The prevalence of frequently occurring discipline problems was related to school size. As school enrollment increased, so did the likelihood of schools reporting each discipline problem at their school except widespread disorder in the classroom-which was reported by relatively few principals (less than 5 percent at all enrollment levels). Twenty-six percent of principals at schools with 1,000 or more students reported student verbal abuse of teachers, compared with 14 percent of schools with 500-999 students, 10 percent of schools with 300-499 students, and 7 percent of schools with less than 300 students. Schools that reported one or more violent incidents were more likely to report each of the disciplinary problems discussed above than schools with no violent incidents. For example, 34 percent of schools with one or more violent incidents reported that bullying happened at least once a week, compared with 17 percent of schools with no violent incidents. This indicator repeats information from the 2004 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. • • • For more information: Table 8.1 Appendix B for definitions of school levels Miller 2003 revised STUDENTS' REPORTS OF GANGS AT SCHOOL Indicator 9 In 2003, students ages 12-18 in urban schools were the most likely to report the presence of street gangs at their school, followed by their counterparts in suburban and rural schools. Street gangs are organized groups often involved in drugs, weapons trafficking, and violence. Such street gangs at school can be very disruptive to the school environment because their presence may incite fear among students and increase the level of school violence (Laub and Lauritsen 1998). In the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 were asked if street gangs were present at their school during the previous 6 months. In 2003, 21 percent of students reported that there were gangs at their schools (table 9.1). Of all the students surveyed, students in urban schools were the most likely to report the presence of street gangs at their school (31 percent), followed by suburban students and rural students, who were the least likely to do so (18 and 12 percent, respectively). Between 2001 and 2003, no difference was detected in the percentage of students who reported the presence of street gangs, regardless of school location. Hispanic and Black students were more likely than White students to report the existence of street gangs in their schools in 2003 (37 and 29 percent, respectively, vs. 14 percent; figure 9.1 and table 9.1). This pattern also held among students in urban schools and suburban schools. For rural students, although it appears that Black students (22 percent) were more likely than White and Hispanic students (11 and 13 percent, respectively) to report the existence of street gangs, the difference was not statistically significant. Students in public schools were more likely to report the presence of street gangs than students in private schools regardless of the school's location (figure 9.2 and table 9.1). In 2003, 23 percent of students in public schools reported that there were street gangs in their schools, compared with 4 percent of students in private schools. Among public school students, students in urban schools were the most likely to report the presence of street gangs at their school, followed by suburban students and rural students (34, 20, and 13 percent, respectively). For private school students, no significant difference was detected according to urbanicity. This indicator repeats information from the 2004 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. • • • For more information: Table 9.1 Addington et al. 2002 STUDENTS' REPORTS OF DRUG AVAILABILITY ON SCHOOL PROPERTY Indicator 10 In 2003, 29 percent of all students in grades 9-12 reported that someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property in the 12 months before the survey. The availability of drugs on school property has a disruptive and corrupting influence on the school environment (Nolin et al. 1997). The Youth Risk Behavior Survey asked students in grades 9-12 whether someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property in the 12 months before the survey. In 2003, 29 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported that drugs were made available to them on school property (table 10.1). The percentage of such students increased from 24 percent in 1993 to 32 percent in 1995. In each survey year since 1995, between 29 and 32 percent of students reported drugs were offered, sold, or given to them on school property. Males were more likely than females to report that drugs were offered, sold, or given to them on school property in each survey year (figure 10.1 and table 10.1). For example, in 2003, 32 percent of males reported the availability of drugs, while 25 percent of females did so. No differences were detected in the percentage of students who reported that drugs were made available to them according to grade level or urbanicity. Students' racial/ethnic backgrounds were examined in relation to whether they reported having illegal drugs offered, sold, or given to them on school property (figure 10.2 and table 10.1). In 2003, Hispanic students were more likely than Asian, Black, and White students to report that drugs were made available to them (37 percent vs. 23-28 percent). While it appears that American Indian and Pacific Islander students were also more likely than Asian, Black, and White students to report drug availability at school, the differences were not statistically significant. Student reports of availability of drugs on school property varied among states for which data were available, ranging from 18 to 33 percent (table 10.2). This indicator has been revised from the 2004 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. • • • For more information: Tables 10.1 & 10.2 Grunbaum et al. 2004 STUDENTS' REPORTS OF BEING CALLED HATE-RELATED WORDS AND SEEING HATE-RELATED GRAFFITI Indicator 11 In 2003, 12 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that someone at school had used hate-related words against them, and more than one-third (36 percent) of students ages 12-18 had seen hate-related graffiti at school. A student's exposure to hate-related words or symbols at school may increase that student's feeling of vulnerability. Discriminatory behavior in schools can create a hostile environment that is not conducive to learning (Cobia and Carney 2002). In the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 were asked if someone at school had called them a derogatory word having to do with their race, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender, or sexual orientation during the previous 6 months. In the 2003 administration of the survey, they were then asked to specify the characteristic to which the hate-related word was directed. In 2003, 12 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that someone at school had used hate-related words against them (table 11.1). Four percent of respondents reported that the hate-related words concerned their race, about 2 percent each reported that the words concerned their ethnicity or gender, and 1 percent each reported that the words were related to their religion, disability, or sexual orientation (table 11.2). In 1999, 2001, and 2003, students were also asked if they had seen hate-related graffiti at their school-that is, hate-related words or symbols written in classrooms, bathrooms, hallways, or on the outside of the school building (table 11.1). In each survey year, 36 percent of students saw hate-related graffiti at school. Students' experiences of being called specific types of hate-related words in 2003 differed according to their sex and race/ethnicity (table 11.2). Not surprisingly, females were more likely to report gender-related hate words than males (4 vs. 1 percent), and White students were less likely to report race-related hate words than students of other race/ethnicities (2 percent of White students vs. 7 percent of Black students, 5 percent of Hispanic students, and 9 percent of students in other racial/ethnic groups). In 2003, differences were detected according to urbanicity and sector in students' reports of being called hate-related words or seeing hate-related graffiti (figure 11.1 and table 11.1). Urban students were more likely than rural students to see graffiti and more likely than suburban students to be called a hate-related word, but no other differences were detected according to urbanicity. Public school students were more likely than their private school counterparts to report seeing graffiti, but no such difference was detected in the likelihood of being called a hate-related word. This indicator repeats information from the 2004 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. • • • For more information: Tables 11.1 & 11.2 Addington et al. 2002 BULLYING AT SCHOOL Indicator 12 In 2003, 7 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that they had been bullied at school during the last 6 months. The percentage of students who reported being bullied increased between 1999 and 2001, but no difference was detected between 2001 and 2003. Bullying can contribute to an environment of fear and intimidation in schools (Carney, Hazler, and Higgins 2002; Ericson 2001). In the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 were asked if they had been bullied (for example, picked on or made to do things they did not want to do) at school during the previous 6 months. In recent years, fewer than 1 in 10 students reported being bullied at school during the last 6 months. Although the percentage who had been bullied increased from 5 percent in 1999 to 8 percent in 2001, no difference was detected between 2001 and 2003 (figure 12.1 and table 12.1). In 2003, 7 percent of students reported that they had been bullied at school. In 2003, White students were more likely than Hispanic students to report being bullied (8 vs. 6 percent; table 12.1). No other differences were detected in the percentage of students who reported that they had been bullied according to students' race/ethnicity or sex. Grade level was inversely related to students' likelihood of being bullied: as grade level increased, students' likelihood of being bullied decreased (figure 12.2 and table 12.1). For example, in 2003, 14 percent of 6th-graders, 7 percent of 9th-graders, and 2 percent of 12th-graders reported that they had been bullied at school. In 2003, public school students were more likely to report being bullied than private school students (7 vs. 5 percent). In the same year, rural students were more likely than their urban and suburban counterparts to report being bullied (10 percent of rural students vs. 7 percent each of urban and suburban students). This indicator repeats information from the 2004 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. • • • For more information: Table 12.1 DeVoe and Kaffenberger 2005 FIGHTS, WEAPONS, AND ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES PHYSICAL FIGHTS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE Indicator 13 The percentage of 9th- to 12th-grade students who reported being in a physical fight on school property has declined- from 16 percent in 1993 to 13 percent in 2003. Schools where physical fights occur frequently may not be able to maintain a focused learning environment for students. Further, students who participate in fights on school property may have difficulty succeeding in their studies (Payne, Gottfredson, and Gottfredson 2003). In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9-12 were asked about their general involvement in physical fights during the preceding 12 months (referred to as "anywhere" in this report) and their involvement in physical fights on school property. In 2003, 33 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported being in a fight anywhere, and 13 percent said they had been in a fight on school property (table 13.1). Between 1993 and 2003, the percentage of students who reported being in a fight anywhere declined-from 42 percent in 1993 to 33 percent in 2003. Similarly, the percentage of students who reported fighting on school property in these years declined-from 16 to 13 percent. In all survey years, males were more likely than females to have been in a fight anywhere and on school property (figure 13.1 and table 13.1). In 2003, 41 percent of males said they had been in a fight anywhere, compared with 25 percent of females. In the same year, 17 percent of males said they had been in a fight on school property, compared with 8 percent of females. When looking at grade levels, students in lower grades reported being in fights more frequently than students in higher grades, both anywhere and on school property (figure 13.2 and table 13.1). For example, in 2003, 18 percent of 9th-graders, 13 percent of 10th-graders, 10 percent of 11th-graders, and 7 percent of 12th-graders reported being in a fight on school property. In 2003, the percentage of students engaging in fights anywhere varied according to race/ethnicity. Specifically, Black and Hispanic students were more likely than White students, and American Indian students were more likely than Asian and White students to report being in a fight anywhere and on school property. In 2003, 24 percent of American Indian students, 17 percent each of Black and Hispanic students, 13 percent of Asian students, and 10 percent of White students reported being in a fight on school property. Urban students were more likely than rural students to engage in fights both anywhere and on school property. In 2003, 15 percent of urban students reported being in a fight on school property, compared with 10 percent of rural students. Student reports of being in a fight varied among states for which data were available, ranging from 26 to 35 percent anywhere and from 9 to 15 percent on school property (table 13.2). This indicator has been revised from the 2004 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. • • • For more information: Tables 13.1 & 13.2 Grunbaum et al. 2004 STUDENTS CARRYING WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE Indicator 14 Between 1993 and 2003, the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon at school declined from 12 to 6 percent. The presence of weapons at school may interfere with teaching and learning by creating an intimidating and threatening atmosphere (Aspy et al. 2004). The percentage of students who report that they carry a gun or other weapon on school property is an indication of the extent of the problem. In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students were asked if they had carried a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club in the past 30 days (referred to as "anywhere" in this report) or had carried one of these weapons onto school property in the past 30 days. In 2003, 17 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported they had carried a weapon anywhere, and about 6 percent reported they had carried a weapon on school property (table 14.1). Between 1993 and 2003, the percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere generally declined from 22 to 17 percent. Similarly, the percentage of students who carried a weapon at school also declined during this period- from 12 to 6 percent. When looking at the characteristics of students who carried weapons, males were at least two times more likely than females to carry a weapon-either anywhere or on school property-in all survey years (figure 14.1 and table 14.1). For example, in 2003, some 9 percent of males carried a weapon on school property, compared with 3 percent of females, and 27 percent of males carried a weapon anywhere, compared with 7 percent of females. In 2003, there were few differences detected in the percentage of students carrying weapons anywhere and on school property according to students' race/ethnicity (figure 14.2 and table 14.1). American Indian students were more likely than White, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic students to carry a weapon on school property and more likely than Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian students to carry a weapon anywhere. However, no differences were detected among Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Islander students in the likelihood of carrying a weapon anywhere or on school property. In 2003, no relationship was detected by grade level or urbanicity for students who reported carrying a weapon at school or anywhere. Student reports of carrying a weapon varied among states for which data were available, ranging from 12 to 25 percent anywhere and from 3 to 10 percent on school property (table 14.2). This indicator has been revised from the 2004 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. • • • For more information: Tables 14.1 & 14.2 Grunbaum et al. 2004 STUDENTS' USE OF ALCOHOL ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE Indicator 15 In 2003, 45 percent of students in grades 9-12 had at least one drink of alcohol anywhere, and 5 percent had at least one drink on school property in the 30 days before being surveyed. Students' illegal consumption of alcohol on school property may lead to additional crimes and misbehavior. It may also lead to a school environment that is harmful to students, teachers, and staff (Fagan and Wilkinson 1998). In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9-12 were asked whether they had consumed alcohol at all in the past 30 days (referred to as "anywhere" in this report) and if they had consumed alcohol on school property. In 2003, 45 percent of students consumed at least one drink of alcohol anywhere, and 5 percent consumed at least one drink on school property (table 15.1). No consistent pattern was detected in the percentage of students who reported consuming alcohol on school property between 1993 and 2003: over these years, the percentage who reported consuming alcohol at school fluctuated between 5 and 6 percent. The percentage of students who reported using alcohol anywhere increased from 48 to 52 percent between 1993 and 1995 and then declined to 45 percent in 2003. The likelihood of drinking alcohol varied by student characteristics including sex, grade level, and race/ethnicity. In 2003, males were more likely than females to use alcohol on school property (6 vs. 4 percent), a difference not found in the percentage who reported drinking anywhere (figure 15.1 and table 15.1). In 2003, students in higher grades were more likely to report drinking alcohol anywhere than students in lower grades (figure 15.2 and table 15.1). However, no relationship was found across grade levels for students' likelihood of drinking alcohol on school property. In 2003, Black and Hispanic students were more likely to use alcohol on school property than White students (6 and 8 percent, respectively, vs. 4 percent). In the same year, Asian and Black students were less likely to use alcohol anywhere than American Indian, White, or Hispanic students. Twenty-eight percent of Asian students and 37 percent of Black students reported using alcohol anywhere, compared with 46 to 52 percent of White, Hispanic, and American Indian students. Alcohol use by students did not differ by where students lived. In 2003, no differences were detected in the percentage of students who consumed alcohol anywhere or on school property among urban, suburban, and rural students. Student reports of using alcohol varied among states for which data were available, ranging from 21 to 51 percent anywhere and from 3 to 7 percent on school property (table 15.2). This indicator has been revised from the 2004 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. • • • For more information: Tables 15.1 & 15.2 Grunbaum et al. 2004 STUDENTS' USE OF MARIJUANA ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE Indicator 16 In 2003, 22 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported using marijuana anywhere, and 6 percent of students reported using marijuana on school property during the last 30 days. The use of marijuana or other illicit drugs at school may contribute to a harmful environment for students, teachers, and administrators. The Youth Risk Behavior Survey asked students in grades 9-12 whether they had used marijuana at all in the past 30 days (referred to as "anywhere" in this report) and whether they had used marijuana on school property. In 2003, 22 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported using marijuana anywhere during the last 30 days, and 6 percent reported using marijuana on school property (table 16.1). The percentage of students who reported using marijuana on school property increased from 6 percent in 1993 to 9 percent in 1995, and then declined to 6 percent in 2003. The percentage of students who reported using marijuana anywhere also increased between 1993 and 1995 (from 18 to 25 percent), and in 1995, 1997, and 1999, roughly one-quarter of students reported using marijuana anywhere (between 25 and 27 percent). By 2003, however, the percentage of students who reported using marijuana anywhere had declined to 22 percent. Both students' sex and grade level were associated with the use of marijuana among students in grades 9-12. Males were more likely than females to have used marijuana in every survey year, anywhere or on school property (figure 16.1 and table 16.1). For example, in 2003, 8 percent of males and 4 percent of females reported using marijuana on school property. In that same year, students in lower grades were less likely than students in higher grades to report using marijuana anywhere (figure 16.2 and table 16.1). While it appears that 9th-grade students were slightly more likely to use marijuana on school property, the difference was not statistically significant, and no differences were detected in students' use of marijuana on school property by grade level. In 2003, Asian students were less likely than students of other race/ethnicities to report using marijuana anywhere (10 percent vs. 22-33 percent of students in other racial/ethnic groups). At school, Hispanic students were more likely to report using marijuana than Asian or White students (8 percent vs. 4 and 5 percent, respectively). However, few other differences were found in students' likelihood of using marijuana at school among racial/ethnic groups. Urban, rural, and suburban students did not differ in their use of marijuana anywhere in 2003, but at school, rural students (4 percent) were less likely to report using marijuana than their urban counterparts (7 percent). Student reports of using marijuana varied among states for which data were available, ranging from 11 to 31 percent anywhere and from 3 to 8 percent on school property (table 16.2). This indicator has been revised from the 2004 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. • • • For more information: Tables 16.1 & 16.2 Grunbaum et al. 2004 FEAR AND AVOIDANCE STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL SAFETY AT SCHOOL AND AWAY FROM SCHOOL Indicator 17 In 2003, 6 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that they had been afraid of attack at school or on the way to and from school during the previous 6 months. Ten percent of urban students reported being fearful, compared to 5 percent each of suburban and rural students. School violence can make students fearful and affect their readiness and ability to learn. Concerns about vulnerability to attacks are detrimental to a positive school environment (Schneckner et al. 2002). In the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 were asked how often they had been afraid of attack "at school or on the way to and from school" and "away from school" during the previous 6 months.12 In 2003, 6 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that they had been afraid of attack at school or on the way to and from school, and 5 percent reported that they had been afraid of attack away from school. In 1999 and 2001, students were more likely to report they were afraid of being attacked at school or on the way to and from school than away from school; however, in 2003, no such difference was detected (figure 17.1 and table 17.1). The percentage of students who reported that they were afraid of being attacked at school or on the way to and from school decreased from 12 percent in 1995 to 6 percent in 2003; however, no difference was detected in the percentage of students who feared such an attack between the most recent survey years, 2001 and 2003. In 2003, female students were more likely than male students to fear for their safety both at school and away from school. In the same year, Black and Hispanic students were more likely than White students to fear for their safety regardless of location (figure 17.2 and table 17.1). Eleven percent of Black students and 10 percent of Hispanic students reported that they were afraid of being attacked at school or on the way to and from school, compared with 4 percent of White students. Away from school, 10 percent of Black students, 7 percent of Hispanic students, and 4 percent of White students reported that they were afraid of an attack. In 2003, grade level was inversely related to students' likelihood of fearing an attack at school or on the way to and from school: as grade level increased, their likelihood of fearing an attack decreased. In the same year, 10 percent of 6th-graders, 6 percent of 9th-graders, and 4 percent of 12th-graders feared for their safety at school or on the way to and from school. In addition, school location was related to students' fear of attack. In 2003, students in urban schools were more likely than students in suburban and rural schools to fear being attacked both at school or on the way to and from school and away from school. Ten percent of students in urban schools feared being attacked at school, compared with 5 percent each of their peers in suburban and rural schools. In the same year, public school students were more likely than private school students to fear an attack at school (6 vs. 3 percent), but no such difference was detected when they were asked whether they feared an attack away from school (5 percent each). 12In 1995 and 1999, students reported fear of "attack or harm" at school or on the way to and from school during the previous 6 months. In 2001 and 2003, students reported fear of "attack or threat of attack" at school or on the way to and from school during the previous 6 months. Includes students who reported that they sometimes or most of the time feared being victimized in this way. This indicator repeats information from the 2004 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. • • • For more information: Table 17.1 Addington et al. 2002 STUDENTS' REPORTS OF AVOIDING SCHOOL ACTIVITIES OR SPECIFIC PLACES IN SCHOOL Indicator 18 The percentage of students who reported that they either skipped school activities or avoided specific places in school because they were fearful decreased from 7 percent in 1999 to 5 percent in 2003. School crime may lead students to perceive school as unsafe, and in trying to ensure their own safety, students may begin to skip school activities or avoid certain places within school (Schreck and Miller 2003). Changes in the percentage of students who avoid school activities and certain areas in school may be a good barometer of their perceptions of school safety. In the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 were asked whether they had avoided school activities or one or more places in the school because they were fearful. In 2003, 5 percent of students reported that they avoided school activities or one or more places in school in the previous 6 months because they were fearful: 2 percent of students avoided school activities (skipped extracurricular activities, skipped class, or stayed home from school), and 4 percent of students avoided one or more places in school (the entrance to the school, any hallways or stairs in the school, any parts of the school cafeteria, any school restrooms, and other places inside the school building; table 18.1). The percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that they either avoided school activities or one or more places in school because they were fearful decreased from 7 percent in 1999 to 5 percent in 2003 (table 18.1 and figure 18.1). Students' reports of avoiding one or more places in school varied according to race/ethnicity. In 2003, 3 percent of White students reported avoiding certain areas, compared with 5 percent of Black students and 6 percent of Hispanic students (table 18.2). As in all previous survey years, in 2003, no difference was detected in the extent to which students avoided places according to their sex. Generally, grade level was inversely associated with students' likelihood of avoiding places in school. In 2003, 6 percent of 6th-graders avoided one or more places in school, compared with 1 percent of 12th-graders (figure 18.2 and table 18.2). In the same year, students in urban areas were the most likely to avoid places in school: 6 percent of urban students reported that they had done so, compared with 4 percent of suburban and 3 percent of rural students. In addition, public school students were more likely than private school students to avoid places in school (4 vs. 2 percent). This indicator has been revised from the 2004 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. • • • For more information: Tables 18.1 & 18.2 Addington et al. 2002 DISCIPLINE, SAFETY, AND SECURITY MEASURES SERIOUS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS TAKEN BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Indicator 19 About 54 percent of public schools took a serious disciplinary action against a student in the 1999-2000 school year. Of those disciplinary actions, 83 percent were suspensions lasting 5 days or more, 11 percent were removals with no services (i.e., expulsions), and 7 percent were transfers to specialized schools. Removal of a student by a school for behavior problems stemming from crime and violence has serious impact on student instruction. In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, public school principals were asked to report the number of disciplinary actions taken against students during the 1999-2000 school year for specific offenses unrelated to academic infractions. About 54 percent of public schools took at least one serious disciplinary action against a student, including suspensions lasting 5 days or more, removals with no services (i.e., expulsions), and transfers to specialized schools, for any offense that occurred in the 1999-2000 school year (table 19.1). Altogether, about 1,163,000 actions were taken. Of those serious disciplinary actions, 83 percent were suspensions for 5 days or more, 11 percent were removals with no services, and 7 percent were transfers to specialized schools (figure 19.1 and table 19.1). Two percent of all public schools took one or more serious disciplinary actions in response to students' use of a firearm or explosive device, and 4 percent did so for the possession of such a device (figure 19.2 and table 19.1). Use of weapons other than firearms resulted in at least one serious disciplinary action in 5 percent of schools, while possession of weapons other than firearms led to a serious disciplinary action in 19 percent of schools. Ten percent of all public schools took one or more serious disciplinary actions for the distribution of illegal drugs, and 20 percent for the possession or use of illegal drugs or alcohol. In 1999-2000, public schools took serious disciplinary actions for offenses such as fights (35 percent), threats (22 percent), insubordination (18 percent), and other nonacademic infractions (14 percent). This indicator repeats information from the 2004 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. • • • For more information: Table 19.1 Miller 2003 revised SAFETY AND SECURITY MEASURES TAKEN BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Indicator 20 In 1999-2000, 14 percent of primary schools, 20 percent of middle schools, and 39 percent of secondary schools used one or more security cameras to monitor the school. Public schools employ a variety of practices and procedures intended to promote the safety of students and staff. While there has been little research on how these practices affect the rate of crime, these measures do show the array of practices that schools use and how frequently they use them. In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, public school principals were asked about the practices that their schools used during the 1999-2000 school year. Certain practices are intended to limit or control the access of people to school campuses, while others are intended to monitor or restrict their behavior once they are on campus using various technologies and tactics such as metal detectors, security cameras, and drug sweeps. In 1999-2000, during school hours, 75 percent of schools controlled access to school buildings by locking or monitoring doors, and 34 percent of schools controlled access to school grounds with locked or monitored gates (table 20.1). The vast majority of public schools required visitors to sign or check in when entering the school building (97 percent), while few schools required either students or visitors to pass through metal detectors regularly (1 percent each). Many security measures varied by school level, and not surprisingly, primary schools were generally less likely than middle schools and secondary schools to report using most security measures. While roughly one-quarter of schools required faculty or staff to wear picture IDs, 2 percent of primary schools, 6 percent of middle schools, and 13 percent of secondary schools required badges or picture IDs for students (figure 20.1 and table 20.1). Six percent of schools required clear book bags or banned book bags altogether, but this practice ranged from 2 percent of primary schools to 13 percent of middle schools and 12 percent of secondary schools. Between 3 and 4 percent of primary schools reported performing one or more random metal detector checks on students, using one or more random dog sniffs to check for drugs, and performing one or more random sweeps for contraband not including dog sniffs. In comparison, 15 percent of secondary schools reported random metal detector checks, half reported random dog sniffs, and one-quarter reported random sweeps for contraband. In 1999- 2000, 14 percent of primary schools, 20 percent of middle schools, and 39 percent of secondary schools used one or more security cameras to monitor the school. These practices also varied by school size, location, and other school characteristics. For example, in 1999-2000, urban fringe schools were more likely than city, town, or rural schools to use one or more security cameras to monitor the school (25 percent vs. 14-20 percent), and city schools were more likely than urban fringe, town, or rural schools to perform one or more random metal detector checks on students (16 percent vs. 4-6 percent; table 20.1). This is a new indicator. • • • For more information: Table 20.1 Appendix B for definitions of school levels U.S. Department of Education 2004a STUDENTS' REPORTS OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MEASURES OBSERVED AT SCHOOL Indicator 21 In 2003, nearly all students ages 12-18 observed the presence of one or more of the selected security measures at their school. Schools use a variety of measures to promote the safety of students, ranging from codes of student conduct to metal detectors. However, research suggests that aggressive use of some security measures in schools can alienate students, increase distrust and misbehavior among students, and disrupt the school environment by interfering with learning (Beger 2003). The School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey asked students ages 12-18 whether they observed certain security measures at their schools. Readers should note that this indicator relies on student reports of security measures and provides estimates based on students' awareness of the measure rather than actual practice. (See Indicator 20 for use of measures as reported by schools.) In 2003, nearly all (99 percent) of students ages 12-18 observed one or more of the selected security measures at their school including metal detectors, locker checks, security cameras, security guards and/or police officers, adult supervision in hallways, a requirement that students wear badges or picture IDs, a code of student conduct, locked entrance or exit doors during the day, and a requirement that visitors sign in (figure 21.1 and table 21.1). In 2003, 95 percent of students reported that their school had a student code of conduct, making it the most often observed safety and security measure, and 92 percent reported a requirement that visitors sign in. While 7 in 10 students observed security guards and/or police officers, 9 in 10 students reported observing other school staff or adult supervision in the hallway. Roughly half of students each reported locker checks, locked entrance or exit doors during the day, and observing one or more security cameras to monitor the school (53, 53, and 48 percent, respectively). Twenty-three percent of students reported ID badges were required at school, and 1 in 10 students reported the use of metal detectors. The percentage of students reporting the presence of many school security measures increased between 1999 and 2003 (figure 21.1 and table 21.1). The percentage of students who reported their schools using visitor sign-in increased from 87 to 92 percent during this period, and the percentage who reported the presence of locked entrance or exit doors during the school day increased from 38 to 53 percent. Over the same period, there was also an increase in both the percentage observing security guards and/or police officers and the percentage observing other school staff or adult supervision in the hallway (from 54 to 70 percent and from 85 to 91 percent, respectively). The percentage of students who observed security cameras, a question that was only asked in the 2001 and 2003 surveys, increased as well-from 39 to 48 percent. In all survey years reported, no differences could be detected in the percentage reporting metal detectors, locker checks, the requirement of ID badges, or a code of student conduct. This is a new indicator. • • • For more information: Table 21.1 Addington et al. 2002 REFERENCES Addington, L.A., Ruddy, S.A., Miller, A.K., and DeVoe, J.F. (2002). Are America's Schools Safe? Students Speak Out: 1999 School Crime Supplement (NCES 2002-331). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Anderson, M., Kaufman, J., Simon, T., Barrios, L., Paulozzi, L., Ryan, G., Hammond, R., Modzeleski, W., Feucht, T., Potter, L., and the School-Associated Violent Deaths Study Group. (2001). School-Associated Violent Deaths in the United States, 1994-1999. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286: 2695-2702. Aspy, C.B., Oman, R.F., Vesely, S.K., McLeroy, K., Rodine, S., and Marshall, L. (2004). Adolescent Violence: The Protective Effects of Youth Assets. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82: 269-277. Beauvais, F., Chavez, E., Oetting, E., Deffenbacher, J., and Cornell, G. (1996). Drug Use, Violence, and Victimization Among White American, Mexican American, and American Indian Dropouts, Students With Academic Problems, and Students in Good Academic Standing. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43: 292-299. Beger, R. (2003). The "Worst of Both Worlds": School Security and the Disappearing Fourth Amendment Rights of Students. Criminal Justice Review, 28: 336-354. Brener, N.D., Kann, L., Kinchen, S.A., Grunbaum, J.A., Whalen, L., Eaton, D., Hawkins, J., and Ross, J.G. (2004). Methodology of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2004, 53 (No. RR-12): 1-13. Brener, N.D., Kann, L., and McManus, T. (2003). A Comparison of Two Survey Questions on Race and Ethnicity Among High School Students. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67: 227-236. Cantor, D., and Lynch, J.P. (2000). Self-Report Surveys as Measures of Crime and Criminal Victimization. In D. Duffee (Ed.), Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice (pp. 85-138). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Carney, J.L., Hazler, R.J., and Higgins, J. (2002). Characteristics of School Bullies and Victims as Perceived by Public School Professionals. Journal of School Violence, 1: 91-106. Catalano, S.M. (2004). Criminal Victimization, 2003 (NCJ 205455). U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001). Temporal Variations in School-Associated Student Homicide and Suicide Events-United States, 1992-1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 50(31): 657-660. Cobia, D.C., and Carney, J.S. (2002). Creating a Culture of Tolerance in Schools: Everyday Actions to Prevent Hate- Motivated Violent Incidents. Journal of School Violence, 1: 87-104. Crick, N.R., and Bigbee, M.A. (1998). Relational and Overt Forms of Peer Victimization: A Multi-informant Approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66: 337-347. Crick, N.R., and Grotpeter, J.K. (1996). Children's Treatment by Peers: Victims of Relational and Overt Aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8: 367-380. DeVoe, J.F., and Kaffenberger, S. (2005). Student Reports of Bullying: Results From the 2001 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCES 2005-310). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Duhart, D.T. (2001). Violence in the Workplace, 1993-1999 (NCJ 190076). U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Ericson, N. (2001). Addressing the Problem of Juvenile Bullying. OJJDP Fact Sheet #27. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Fagan, J., and Wilkinson, D.L. (1998). Social Contexts and Functions of Adolescent Violence. In D.S. Elliott, B. Hamburg, and K.R. Williams (Eds.), Violence in American Schools (pp. 55-93). New York: Cambridge University Press. Gruber, K.J., Wiley, S.D., Broughman, S.P., Strizek, G.A., and Burian-Fitzgerald, M. (2002). Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999-2000: An Overview of Public, Private, Public Charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs Elementary and Secondary Schools (NCES 2002-313). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Grunbaum, J., Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Ross, J., Hawkins, J., Lowry, R., Harris, W.A., McManus, T., Chyen, D., and Collins, J. (2004). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance-United States, 2003. In Surveillance Summaries (MMWR (No. SS-2)). Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Henry, S. (2000). What Is School Violence? An Integrated Definition. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567: 16-29. Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher Turnover and Teacher Shortages: An Organizational Analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3): 499-534. Kachur, S.P., Stennies, G.M., Powell, K.E., Modzeleski, W., Stephens, R., Murphy, R., Kresnow, M., Sleet, D., and Lowry, R. (1996). School-Associated Violent Deaths in the United States, 1992 to 1994. Journal of the American Medical Association, 275: 1729-1733. Karcher, M. (2002). The Cycle of Violence and Disconnection Among Rural Middle School Students: Teacher Disconnection as a Consequence of Violence. Journal of School Violence, 1: 35-51. Kauffman, J., Modzeleski, W., Feucht, T., Simon, T.R., Anderson, M., Shaw, K., Arias, I., and Barrios, L. (2004). School-Associated Suicides-United States, 1994-1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 53(22): 476-478. Laub, J.H., and Lauritsen, J.L. (1998). The Interdependence of School Violence With Neighborhood and Family Conditions. In D.S. Elliott, B. Hamburg, and K.R. Williams (Eds.), Violence in American Schools (pp. 127-155). New York: Cambridge University Press. Miller, A. (2003 revised). Violence in U.S. Public Schools: 2000 School Survey on Crime and Safety (NCES 2004-314). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Nansel, T., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R., Ruan, W., Simons- Morton, B., and Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying Behaviors Among U.S. Youth: Prevalence and Association With Psychosocial Adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285: 2094-2100. Nolin, M.J., Vaden-Kiernan, N., Feibus, M.L., and Chandler, K.A. (1997). Student Reports of Availability, Peer Approval, and Use of Alcohol, Marijuana, and Other Drugs at School: 1993 (NCES 97-279). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Payne, A.A., Gottfredson, D.C., and Gottfredson, G.D. (2003). Schools as Communities: The Relationship Between Communal School Organization, Student Bonding, and School Disorder. Criminology, 41: 749-778. Prinstein, M.J., Boergers, J., and Vernberg, E.M. (2001). Overt and Relational Aggression in Adolescents: Social- Psychological Adjustment of Aggressors and Victims. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30: 479-491. Reza, A., Modzeleski, W., Feucht, T., Anderson, M., Simon, T.R., and Barrios, L. (2003). Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths-United States, 1992-1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 52(9): 169-172. Ringwalt, C.L., Ennett, S., and Johnson, R. (2003). Factors Associated With Fidelity to Substance Use Prevention Curriculum Guides in the Nation's Middle Schools. Health Education & Behavior, 30: 375-391. Scheckner, S., Rollins, S.A., Kaiser-Ulrey, C., and Wagner, R. (2002). School Violence in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness. Journal of School Violence, 1: 5-34. Schreck, C.J., and Miller, J.M. (2003). Sources of Fear of Crime at School: What Is the Relative Contribution of Disorder, Individual Characteristics, and School Security? Journal of School Violence, 2(4): 57-79. 67 References Small, M., and Dressler-Tetrick, K. (2001). School Violence: An Overview. Juvenile Justice VIII (I): 3-12. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Storch, E.A., Nock, M.K., Masia-Warner, C., and Barlas, M.E. (2003). Peer Victimization and Social-Psychological Adjustment in Hispanic and African-American Children. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 12: 439-455. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2004a). Crime and Safety in America's Public Schools: Selected Findings From the School Survey on Crime and Safety (NCES 2004-370). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2004b). Digest of Education Statistics, 2003 (NCES 2005-025). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2000). Uniform Crime Report 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Wei, H., and Williams, J.H. (2004). Relationship Between Peer Victimization and School Adjustment in Sixth-Grade Students: Investigating Mediation Effects. Violence and Victims, 19: 557-571. TECHNICAL NOTES Appendix A GENERAL INFORMATION The indicators in this report are based on information drawn from a variety of independent data sources, including national surveys of students, teachers, and principals, and data collections from federal departments and agencies, including the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Center for Education Statistics, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Each data source has an independent sample design, data collection method, and questionnaire design or is the result of a universe data collection. Universe data collections include a census of all known entities in a specific universe (e.g., all deaths occuring on school property). Readers should be cautious when comparing data from different sources. Differences in sampling procedures, populations, time periods, and question phrasing can all affect the comparability of results. For example, some questions from different surveys may appear the same, but asked of different populations of students (e.g., students ages 12-18 or students in grades 9-12); in different years; about experiences that occurred within different periods of time (e.g., in the past 30 days or during the past 12 months); or at different locations (e.g., in school or anywhere). The following is a description of data sources, accuracy of estimates, and statistical procedures used in this report. SOURCES OF DATA This section briefly describes each of the data sets used in this report: the School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study, the Supplementary Homicide Reports, the Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System Fatal, the National Crime Victimization Survey, the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the Schools and Staffing Survey, and the School Survey on Crime and Safety. Directions for obtaining more information are provided at the end of each description. Figure A.1 presents some key information for each of the data sets used in the report, including the survey year(s), target population, response rate, and sample size. The wording of the interview questions used to construct the indicators are presented in figure A.2. (Figures appear at the end of appendix A.) School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study (SAVD) The School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance 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 surveillance system includes descriptive data on all school-associated violent deaths in the United States, including all homicides, suicides, and unintentional firearm-related deaths where the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school, while the victim was on the way to or from regular sessions at such a school, or while attending or on the way to or from an official school-sponsored event. Victims of such events include nonstudents as well as students and staff members. SAVD includes descriptive information about the school, event, victim(s), and offender(s). The SAVD Surveillance System has collected data from July 1, 1992, through present. SAVD uses a four-step process to identify and collect data on school-associated violent deaths. Cases are initially identified through a search of the Lexis/Nexis newspaper and media database. 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 five school-associated violent deaths were identified from July 1, 1992-June 30, 1994 (see Kachur et al. 1996). A more recent report from this data collection identified 253 school-associated violent deaths between July 1, 1994-June 30, 1999 (see Anderson et al. 2001). Other publications from this study have described how the number of events changes during the school year (Centers for Disease Control 2001), the source of the firearms used in these events (Reza et al. 2003), and suicides that were associated with schools (Kauffman et al. 2004). The interviews conducted on cases between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1999 achieved a response rate of 97 percent for police officials and 78 percent for school officials. Data for subsequent study years are preliminary and subject to change. For additional information about SAVD, contact: Mark Anderson Division of Violence Prevention National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop K60 4770 Buford Highway NE Atlanta, GA 30341 Telephone: (770) 488-4646 E-mail: mea6@cdc.gov Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) The Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), which are a part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, provide incident-level information on criminal homicides including situation (number of victims to number of offenders); the age, sex, and race of victims and offenders; types of weapons used; circumstances of the incident; and the relationship of the victim to the offender. The data are provided monthly to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) by local law enforcement agencies participating in the FBI's UCR program. The data include murders and non- negligent manslaughters in the United States from January 1976-December 2003; that is, negligent manslaughters and justifiable homicides have been eliminated from the data. Based on law enforcement agency reports, the FBI estimates that 561,412 murders were committed from 1976 to 2003. Agencies provided detailed information on 561,412 victims and 561,412 offenders. About 91 percent of homicides are included in the SHR. However, adjustments can be made to the weights to correct for missing reports. Estimates from the SHR used in this report were generated by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) using a weight developed by BJS that reconciles the counts of SHR homicide victims with those in the UCR for the 1992 through 2003 data years. The weight is the same for all cases for a given year. The weight represents the ratio of the number of homicides reported in the UCR to the number reported in the SHR. For additional information about SHR, contact: Communications Unit Criminal Justice Information Services Division Federal Bureau of Investigation Module D3 1000 Custer Hollow Road Clarksburg, WV 26306 Telephone: (304) 625-4995 E-mail: cjis_comm@leo.gov Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System Fatal (WISQARS(tm)Fatal) WISQARS Fatal provides mortality data related to injury. The mortality data reported in WISQARS Fatal come from death certificate data reported to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data include causes of death reported by attending physicians, medical examiners, and coroners. It also includes demographic information about decedents reported by funeral directors who obtain that information from family members and other informants. NCHS collects, compiles, verifies, and prepares these data for release to the public. The data provide information about what types of injuries are leading causes of deaths, how common they are, and who they affect. These data are intended for a broad audience-the public, the media, public health practitioners and researchers, and public health officials-to increase their knowledge of injury. WISQARS Fatal mortality reports provide tables of the total numbers of injury-related deaths and the death rates per 100,000 U.S. population. The reports list deaths according to cause (mechanism) and intent (manner) of injury by state, race, Hispanic origin, sex, and age groupings. For more information on WISQARS Fatal, contact: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Mailstop K59 4770 Buford Highway NE Atlanta, GA 30341-3724 Telephone: (770) 488-1506 E-mail: ohcinfo@cdc.gov Internet: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), administered for the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, is the nation's primary source of information on crime and the victims of crime. Initiated in 1972 and redesigned in 1992, the NCVS collects detailed information annually 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 to police as well. Readers should note that in 2003, in accordance with changes to the Office of Management and Budget's standards for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicity, the NCVS item on race/ethnicity was modified. A question on Hispanic origin is followed by a question on race. The new race question allows the respondent to choose more than one race and delineates Asian as a separate category from Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Analysis conducted by the Demographic Surveys Division at the U.S. Census Bureau shows that the new race question had very little impact on the aggregate racial distribution of the NCVS respondents with one exception. There was a 1.6 percentage point decrease in the percent of respondents who reported themselves as White. Due to changes in race/ethnicity categories, comparisons of race/ethnicity across years should be made with caution. The NCVS sample consists of about 63,124 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, U.S. Bureau of the Census 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. The first NCVS interview with a housing unit is conducted in person. Subsequent interviews are conducted by telephone, if possible. About 87,422 persons ages 12 and older are interviewed each 6 months. Households remain in the sample for 3 years and are interviewed seven times at 6-month intervals. The initial interview at each sample unit is used only to bound future interviews to establish a time frame to avoid duplication of crimes uncovered in these subsequent interviews. After their seventh interview, households are replaced by new sample households. The NCVS has consistently obtained a response rate of about 92 percent at the household level. The completion rates for persons within households were about 87 percent. Thus, final response rates were about 79 percent in 2003. Weights were developed to permit estimates for the total U.S. population 12 years and older. For more information about the NCVS, contact: Katrina Baum Victimization Statistics Branch Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Justice 810 7th Street NW Washington, DC 20531 Telephone: (202) 307-5889 E-mail: katrina.baum@usdoj.gov Internet: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs School Crime Supplement (SCS) Created as a supplement to the NCVS and codesigned by the National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Justice Statistics, the School Crime Supplement (SCS) survey was conducted in 1989, 1995, 1999, 2001, and 2003 to collect additional information about school-related victimizations on a national level. This report includes data from the 1995, 1999, 2001, and 2003 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 after-school activities, students' perceptions of school rules, the presence of weapons and street gangs in school, the presence of hate-related words and graffiti in school, student reports of bullying and reports of rejection at school, and the availability of drugs and alcohol in school, as well as attitudinal questions relating to fear of victimization and avoidance behavior at school. In all SCS survey years, the SCS was conducted for a 6-month period from January-June in all households selected for the NCVS (see discussion above for information about the NCVS sampling design and changes to the race/ethnicity item made in 2003). It should be noted that the initial NCVS interview is included in the SCS data collection. Within these households, the eligible respondents for the SCS were those household members who had attended school at any time during the 6 months preceding the interview, and were enrolled in grades 6-12 in a school that would help them advance toward eventually receiving a high school diploma. The age range of students covered in this report is 12-18 years of age. Eligible respondents were asked the supplemental questions in the SCS only after completing their entire NCVS interview. In 2001, the SCS survey instrument was modified from previous collections in three ways. First, in 1995 and 1999, "at school" was defined for respondents as in the school building, on the school grounds, or on a school bus. In 2001, the definition for "at school" was changed to mean in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. This change was made to the 2001 questionnaire in order to be consistent with the definition of "at school" as it is constructed in the NCVS and was also used as the definition in 2003. Cognitive interviews conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census on the 1999 School Crime Supplement suggested that modifications to the definition of "at school" would not have a substantial impact on the estimates. The prevalence of victimization for 1995, 1999, 2001, and 2003 was calculated by using NCVS incident variables appended to the 1995, 1999, 2001, and 2003 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 changed between 1999 and 2001. 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 and 2003, 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 and 2003 data. Third, the SCS question pertaining to gangs 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 based on the 2001 and 2003 SCS 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, 8,374 in 2001, and 7,152 in 2003. In the 2003 SCS, the household completion rate was 92 percent. In the 1995, 1999, and 2001 SCS, the household completion rates were 95 percent, 94 percent, and 93 percent, respectively; and the student completion rates were 78 percent, 78 percent, and 77 percent, respectively. For the 2003 SCS, the student completion rate was 70 percent. Thus, the overall unweighted SCS response rate (calculated by multiplying the household completion rate by the student completion rate) was 74 percent in 1995, 73 percent in 1999, 72 percent in 2001, and 64 percent in 2003. 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, 2001, and 2003. For SCS data, a full nonresponse bias analysis has not been conducted. For more information about SCS, contact: Kathryn A. Chandler National Center for Education Statistics 1990 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 502-7486 E-mail: kathryn.chandler@ed.gov Internet: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crime 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.1 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, 2001, and 2003 YRBS data. 1For more information on the YRBSS methodology, see Brener et al. (2004). The YRBS uses a three-stage cluster sampling design to produce a nationally representative sample of students in grades 9-12 in the United States. The target population consisted of all public and private school students in grades 9-12 in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The first-stage sampling frame included selecting primary sampling units (PSUs) from strata formed on the basis of urbanization and the relative percentage of Black and Hispanic students in the PSU. These PSUs are either large counties or groups of smaller, adjacent counties. At the second stage, schools were selected with probability proportional to school enrollment size. Schools with substantial numbers of Black and Hispanic students were sampled at relatively higher rates than all other schools. The final stage of sampling consisted of randomly selecting within each chosen school at each grade 9-12 one or two intact classes of a required subject, such as English or social studies. All students in selected classes were eligible to participate. Approximately 16,300, 10,900, 16,300, 15,300, 13,600, and 15,200 students participated in the 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 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, 63 percent for the 2001 survey, and 67 percent for the 2003 survey. NCES standards call for response rates of 85 percent or better for cross-sectional surveys and bias analyses are called for by NCES when that percentage is not achieved. For YRBS data, a full nonresponse bias analysis has not been done because the data necessary to do the analysis are not available. The weights were developed to adjust for nonresponse and the oversampling of Black and Hispanic students in the sample. The final weights were constructed so that only weighted proportions of students (not weighted counts of students) in each grade matched national population projections. Where YRBS data are presented, accurate national population projections are provided from the Digest of Education Statistics. State level data were downloaded from Youth Online: Comprehensive Results web page http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/yrbss/. Each state and local school-based YRBS employs a two-stage, cluster sample design to produce representative samples of students in grades 9-12 in their jurisdiction. All except a few state and local samples include only public schools, and each local sample includes only schools in the funded school district (e.g., San Diego Unified School District) rather than in the entire city (e.g., greater San Diego area). In the first sampling stage in all except a few states and districts, schools are selected with probability proportional to school enrollment size. In the second sampling stage, intact classes of a required subject or intact classes during a required period (e.g., second period) are selected randomly. All students in sampled classes are eligible to participate. Certain states and districts modify these procedures to meet their individual needs. For example, in a given state or district, all schools, rather than a sample of schools, might be selected to participate. State and local surveys that have a scientifically selected sample, appropriate documentation, and an overall response rate greater than 60 percent are weighted. The overall response rate reflects the school response rate multiplied by the student response rate. These three criteria are used to ensure that the data from those surveys can be considered representative of students in grades 9-12 in that jurisdiction. A weight is applied to each record to adjust for student nonresponse and the distribution of students by grade, sex, and race/ethnicity in each jurisdiction. Therefore, weighted estimates are representative of all students in grades 9-12 attending schools in each jurisdiction. Surveys that do not have an overall response rate of greater than or equal to 60 percent and do not have appropriate documentation are not weighted and are not included in this report. In 2003, a total of 32 states and 20 districts had weighted data. In sites with weighted data, the student sample sizes for the state and local YRBS ranged from 968 to 9,320. School response rates ranged from 67 to 100 percent, student response rates ranged from 60 to 94 percent, and overall response rates ranged from 60 to 90 percent. Readers should note that reports of these data published by the CDC do not include percentages where the denominator includes less than 100 unweighted cases. However, NCES publications do not include percentages where the denominator includes less than 30 unweighted cases. Therefore, estimates presented here may not appear in CDC publications of YRBS estimates and are considered unstable by CDC standards. 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, 2001, and 2003 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, 2001, and 2003 results in the possibility of respondents marking more than one category. While more accurately reflecting respondents' racial and ethnic identity, the new item cannot be directly compared to responses to the old item. A recent study by Brener, Kann, and McManus (2003) found that allowing students to select more than one response to the race/ethnicity question on the YRBS had only a minimal effect on reported race/ethnicity among high school students. For additional information about the YRBS, contact: Laura Kann Division of Adolescent and School Health National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Mailstop K-33 4770 Buford Highway NE Atlanta, GA 30341-3717 Telephone: (770) 488-6181 E-mail: lkk1@cdc.gov Internet: http://www.cdc.gov/yrbs 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 schools and national- and affiliation-level data on private schools. The 1993-94 and 1999-2000 SASS were collected by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 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. The sampling frames for the 1993-94 and 1999-2000 SASS were created using the 1991-92 and 1997-98 NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) Public School Universe File, respectively. Data were collected by multistage sampling, which began with the selection of schools. This report uses 1993-94 and 1999-2000 SASS data. Approximately 9,900 public schools and 3,300 private schools were selected to participate in the 1993-94 SASS and 9,900 public schools and 3,600 private schools were selected to participate in the 1999-2000 SASS. Within each school, teachers selected were further stratified into one of five teacher types in the following hierarchy: (1) Asian or Pacific Islander; (2) American Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo; (3) teachers who teach classes designed for students with limited English proficiency; (4) teachers in their first, second, or third year of teaching; and (5) teachers not classified in any of the other groups. Within each teacher stratum, teachers were selected systematically with equal probability. In 1993-94, approximately 53,000 public school teachers and 10,400 private school teachers were sampled. In 1999-2000, 56,400 public school teachers and 10,800 private school teachers were sampled. This report focuses on responses from teachers. The overall weighted response rates were 83 percent and 77 percent for public school teachers in 1993-94 and 1999-2000, respectively. For private school teachers, the overall weighted response rates were 73 percent and 67 percent in 1993-94 and 1999-2000, respectively. Values were imputed for questionnaire items that should have been answered but were not. For additional information about SASS, contact: Kerry Gruber National Center for Education Statistics 1990 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 502-7349 E-mail: kerry.gruber@ed.gov Internet: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) The School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) was conducted by NCES in Spring/Summer of the 1999-2000 school year. SSOCS focuses on incidents of specific crimes/offenses and a variety of specific discipline issues in public schools. It also covers characteristics of school policies, school violence prevention programs and policies, and school characteristics that have been associated with school crime. The survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of regular public elementary, middle, and high schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Special education, alternative and vocational schools, schools in the territories, and schools that taught only prekindergarten, kindergarten, or adult education were not included in the sample. The sampling frame for the SSOCS:2000 was constructed from the public school universe file created for the 2000 Schools and Staffing Survey from the 1997-98 NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) Public School Universe File. The sample was stratified by instructional level, type of locale, and enrollment size. Within the primary strata, schools were also sorted by geographic region and by percentage of minority enrollment. The sample sizes were then allocated to the primary strata in rough proportion to the aggregate square root of the size of enrollment of schools in the stratum. A total of 3,300 schools were selected for the study. Among those, 2,270 schools completed the survey. In March 2000, questionnaires were mailed to school principals, who were asked to complete the survey or to have it completed by the person most knowledgeable about discipline issues at the school. The weighted overall response rate was 70 percent, and item nonresponse rates ranged from 0-2.7 percent on the public-use data file. For SSOCS data, a full nonresponse bias analysis was conducted and no bias on the basis of nonresponse was detected. The weights were developed to adjust for the variable probabilities of selection and differential nonresponse and can be used to produce national estimates for regular public schools in the 1999-2000 school year. For more information about the School Survey on Crime and Safety, contact: Kathryn A. Chandler National Center for Education Statistics 1990 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 502-7486 E-mail: kathryn.chandler@ed.gov Internet: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs 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. The features of complex sampling require different techniques to calculate standard errors than are used for data collected using a simple random sampling. 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. Figure A.3 lists the various methods used to compute standard errors for different data sets. Standard error calculation for data from the National Crime Victimization Survey and the School Crime Supplement was based on the Taylor series approximation method using PSU and strata variables available from each data set. For statistics based on all years of NCVS data, standard errors were derived from a formula developed by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, 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 figure A.3. STATISTICAL PROCEDURES The comparisons in the text have been tested for statistical significance to ensure that the differences are larger than might be expected due to sampling variation. Unless otherwise noted, all statements cited in the report are statistically significant at the .05 level. Several test procedures were used, depending upon the type of data being analyzed and the nature of the statement being tested. The primary test procedure used in this report was the Student's t statistic, which tests the difference between two sample estimates, for example, between males and females. The formula used to compute the t statistic is as follows: (1) t = (E1-E2)/SQUARE ROOT(se1^2+se2^2) where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding standard errors. Note that this formula is valid only for independent estimates. When the estimates are not independent (for example, when comparing a total percentage with that for a subgroup included in the total), a covariance term (i.e., 2*se1*se2) must be added to the denominator of the formula: (2) t = (E1-E2)/SQUARE ROOT((se1^2+se2^2)+(2*se1*se2)) 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 .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 is statistically significant at the 95 percent level. A linear trend test was used when differences among percentages were examined relative to ordered categories of a variable, rather than the differences between two discrete categories. This test allows one to examine whether, for example, the percentage of students using drugs increased (or decreased) over time or whether the percentage of students who reported being physically attacked in school increased (or decreased) with their age. Based on a regression with, for example, student's age as the independent variable and whether a student was physically attacked as the dependent variable, the test involves computing the regression coefficient (b) and its corresponding standard error (se). The ratio of these two (b/se) is the test statistic t. If t is greater than 1.96, the critical value for one comparison at the .05 alpha level, the hypothesis that there is a linear relationship between student's age and being physically attacked is not rejected. When using data sets in which multiple years of data are available, a Bonferroni adjustment to the significance level was used when one year's estimate was compared to another. The Bonferroni adjustment to the significance level was used to ensure that the significance level for the tests as a series was at the .05 level. Generally, when multiple statistical comparisons are made, it becomes increasingly likely that an indication of a population difference is erroneous. Even when there is no difference in the population, at an alpha of .05, there is still a 5 percent chance of concluding that an observed t value representing one comparison in the sample is large enough to be statistically significant. As the number of years and thus the number of comparisons increase, so does the risk of making such an erroneous inference. The Bonferroni procedure corrects the significance (or alpha) level for the total number of comparisons made within a particular classification variable. For each classification variable, there are (K*(K-1)/2) possible comparisons (or nonredundant pairwise combinations), where K is the number of categories. The Bonferroni procedure divides the alpha level for a single t test by the number of possible pairwise comparisons in order to produce a new alpha level that is corrected for the fact that multiple contrasts are being made. As a result, the t value for a certain alpha level (e.g., .05) increases, which makes it more difficult to claim that the difference observed is statistically significant. While many descriptive comparisons in this report were tested using t statistic or the F statistic, some comparisons among categories of an ordered variable with three or more levels involved a test for a linear trend across all categories, rather than a series of tests between pairs of categories. In this report, when differences among percentages were examined relative to a variable with ordered categories, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test for a linear relationship between the two variables. To do this, ANOVA models included orthogonal linear contrasts corresponding to successive levels of the independent variable. The squares of the Taylorized standard errors (that is, standard errors that were calculated by the Taylor series method), the variance between the means, and the unweighted sample sizes were used to partition total sum of squares into within- and between-group sums of squares. These were used to create mean squares for the within- and between-group variance components and their corresponding F statistics, which were then compared with published values of F for a significance level of .05. Significant values of both the overall F and the F associated with the linear contrast term were required as evidence of a linear relationship between the two variables. Figure A.1. Descriptions of data sources and samples used in the report Figure A.2. Wording of survey questions used to construct indicators Figure A.3. Methods used to calculate standard errors of statistics for different surveys GLOSSARY OF TERMS Appendix B 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. Multistage 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 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 School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study 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. National Crime Victimization Survey 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. 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. Rape Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion, as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempts and verbal threats of rape. This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Robbery Completed or attempted theft, directly from a person, of property or cash by force or threat of force, with or without a weapon, and with or without injury. Rural A place not located inside the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). This category includes a variety of localities, ranging from sparsely populated rural areas to cities with populations of less than 50,000. Serious violent crime Rape, sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault. Sexual assault A wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between the victim and offender. Sexual assault may or may not involve force and includes such things as grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also includes verbal threats. Simple assault Attack without a weapon resulting either in no injury, minor injury, or an 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. Urban The largest city (or grouping of cities) in an MSA. Victimization A crime as it affects one individual person or household. For personal crimes, the number of victimizations is equal to the number of victims involved. The number of victimizations may be greater than the number of incidents because more than one person may be victimized during an incident. Victimization rate A measure of the occurrence of victimizations among a specific population group. Violent crime Rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, or simple assault. School Crime Supplement At school In the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to or from school. Serious violent crime Rape, sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault. Total victimization Combination of violent victimization and theft. If a student reported an incident of either type, he or she is counted as having experienced any victimization. If the student reported having experienced both, he or she is counted once under "total victimization." Violent crime Rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, or simple assault. Youth Risk Behavior Survey Illegal drugs Examples of illegal drugs were marijuana, cocaine, inhalants, steroids, or prescription drugs without a doctor's permission, heroin, and methamphetamines. On school property On school property is included in the question wording, but was not defined for respondents. Rural school is located outside a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Suburban school is located inside a MSA, but outside the "central city." Urban school is located inside a MSA and inside the "central city." Weapon Examples of weapons appearing in the questionnaire include guns, knives, and clubs. 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 A school in which the lowest grade is less than or equal to grade 6 and the highest grade is less than or equal to grade 8. Elementary school teachers An elementary school teacher is one who, when asked for the grades taught, checked: (1) only "ungraded" and was designated as an elementary teacher on the list of teachers provided by the school; (2) 6th grade or lower, or "un graded," 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 Metropolitan Statistical Area, 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 A school in which the lowest grade is greater than or equal to grade 7 and the highest grade is less than or equal to grade 12. 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 Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of a mid-size central city and defined as urban by the U.S. Bureau of the Census) or a large town (a place not within an MSA, but with a population greater or equal to 25,000 and defined as urban by the U.S. Bureau of the Census). School Survey on Crime and Safety At school/at your school Includes activities that happened in school buildings, on school grounds, on school buses, and at places that held school-sponsored events or activities. Unless otherwise specified, respondents were requested to report on activities that occurred during normal school hours or when school activities/events were in session. Combined schools Schools that include all combinations of grades, including K-12 schools, other than primary, middle, and secondary schools (see definitions for these school levels later in this section). Cult or extremist group A group that espouses radical beliefs and practices, which may include a religious component, that are widely seen as threatening the basic values and cultural norms of society at large. Firearm/explosive device Any weapon that is designed to (or may readily be converted to) expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. This includes guns, bombs, grenades, mines, rockets, missiles, pipe bombs, or similar devices designed to explode and capable of causing bodily harm or property damage. Gang An ongoing loosely organized association of three or more persons, whether formal or informal, that has a common name, signs, symbols, or colors, whose members engage, either individually or collectively, in violent or other forms of illegal behavior. Insubordination A deliberate and inexcusable defiance of or refusal to obey a school rule, authority, or a reasonable order. It includes but is not limited to direct defiance of school authority, failure to attend assigned detention or on-campus supervision, failure to respond to a call slip, and physical or verbal intimidation/abuse. Intimidation To frighten, compel, or deter by actual or implied threats. It includes bullying and sexual harassment. Middle school A school in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. 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. Primary school A school in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Rape Forced sexual intercourse (vaginal, anal, or oral penetration). Includes penetration from a foreign object. Robbery The taking or attempting to take anything of value that is owned by another person or organization, under confrontational circumstances by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear. A key difference between robbery and theft/larceny is that a threat or battery is involved in robbery. Secondary school A school in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 12. Serious violent incidents Include rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attacks or fights with a weapon, threats of physical attack with a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. Sexual battery An incident that includes threatened rape, fondling, indecent liberties, child molestation, or sodomy. Principals were instructed that classification of these incidents should take into consideration the age and developmentally appropriate behavior of the offenders. Sexual harassment Unsolicited, offensive behavior that inappropriately asserts sexuality over another person. The behavior may be verbal or nonverbal. Specialized school A school that is specifically for students who were referred for disciplinary reasons. The school may also have students who were referred for other reasons. The school may be at the same location as the respondent's school. Theft/larceny Taking things over $10 without personal confrontation. Specifically, the unlawful taking of another person's property without personal confrontation, threat, violence, or bodily harm. Included are pocket picking, stealing purse or backpack (if left unattended or no force was used to take it from owner), theft from a building, theft from a motor vehicle or motor vehicle parts or accessories, theft of bicycles, theft from vending machines, and all other types of thefts. Urbanicity As collected by the Common Core of Data and appended to the SSOCS data file, city includes large cities and mid-size cities, urban fringe includes urban fringe of large and mid-sized cities, town includes large and small towns, and rural includes rural outside a MSA and inside a MSA. Vandalism The willful damage or destruction of school property including bombing, arson, graffiti, and other acts that cause property damage. Includes damage caused by computer hacking. Violent incidents Include rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attacks or fights with or without a weapon, threats of physical attack with or without a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. Weapon Any instrument or object used with the intent to threaten, injure, or kill. Includes look-alikes if they are used to threaten others.