U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006 December 2006, NCJ 214262 -------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/iscs06.htm This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#indicators ------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Department of Education NCES 2007-003 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs NCJ 214262 U.S. Department of Education NCES 2007-003 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs NCJ 214262 Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006 December 2006 Rachel Dinkes Education Statistics Services Institute-American Institutes for Research Emily Forrest Cataldi MPR Associates, Inc. Grace Kena Education Statistics Services Institute-American Institutes for Research Katrina Baum Bureau of Justice Statistics Thomas D. Snyder Project Officer National Center for Education Statistics U.S. Department of Education Margaret Spellings Secretary U.S. Department of Justice Alberto Gonzales Attorney General Institute of Education Sciences Grover J. Whitehurst Director Office of Justice Programs Regina B. Schofield Assistant Attorney General National Center for Education Statistics Mark Schneider Commissioner Bureau of Justice Statistics Jeffrey L. Sedgwick 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. December 2006 Suggested Citation Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E.F., Kena, G., and Baum, K. (2006). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006 (NCES 2007-003/NCJ 214262). 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 2007-003) (TTY/TDD 1-877-576-7734), and the Bureau of Justice Statistics Clearinghouse at 1-800- 851-3420 (NCJ 214262). 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 safe havens for teaching and learning, free of crime and violence. 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, without collecting data, it is difficult to adequately gauge the scope of crime and violence in schools 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. This report is the ninth in a series of annual publications produced jointly by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Institute of Education Sciences (IES), in the U.S. Department of Education and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in the U.S. Department of Justice. This report presents 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. The most recent data collection for each indicator varied by survey, from 2003-04 to 2005. Each data source has an independent sample design, data collection method, and questionnaire design or is the result of a universe data collection. All comparisons described in this report are statistically significant at the .05 level. In 2005, the unit response rate for the School Crime Supplement did not meet NCES statistical standards; therefore, interpret the 2005 data from Indicators 3, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 20 with caution. Additional information about methodology and the datasets analyzed in this report may be found in appendix A. This report covers topics such as victimization, fights, bullying, disorder, weapons, student perceptions of school safety, teacher injury, and drugs and alcohol. Indicators of crime and safety are compared across different population subgroups and over time. Data on crimes that occur outside of school grounds are offered as a point of comparison where available. KEY FINDINGS In the 2004-05 school year, an estimated 54.9 million students were enrolled in prekindergarten through grade 12 (U.S. Department of Education forthcoming). Preliminary data on fatal victimizations show youth ages 5-18 were victims of 28 school-associated violent deaths from July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005 (21 homicides and 7 suicides) (Indicator 1). In 2004, students ages 12-18 were victims of about 1.4 million nonfatal crimes at school, including about 863,000 thefts***Footnote 5: Theft includes purse snatching, pick pocketing, all burglaries, attempted forcible entry, and all attempted and completed thefts except motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery in which threat or use of force is involved.*** and 583,000 violent crimes***Footnote 6: Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault.*** (simple assault and serious violent crime)-107,000 of which were serious violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) (Indicator 2). These figures represent victimization rates of 33 thefts and 22 violent crimes, including 4 serious violent crimes, per 1,000 students at school in 2004. Some of these indicators document that student safety has improved. The victimization rate***Footnote 1: The victimization rate is based on the number of thefts, violent crimes, or serious crimes per 1,000 students.*** of students ages 12-18 at school***Footnote 2: See appendix B for a detailed definition of "at school."*** declined from 73 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2003 to 55 victimizations in 2004. ***Footnote 3: Data in this report are not adjusted by the number of hours that youths spend on school property versus the number of hours they spend elsewhere.*** However, other aspects of crime have not improved. The number of homicides of school- age youth ages 5-18 at school was higher in 2004-05 than in 2000-01 (21 vs. 11 homicides), but remained below the number of homicides of school-age youth for most years in the 1990's.***Footnote 4: Data from 1999-2005 are preliminary and subject to change.*** Violence, theft, drugs, and weapons continue to pose problems in schools. In 2005, 25 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported that drugs were made available to them on school property and 8 percent of students were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property in the previous 12 months. The following section presents key findings of the report. Violent Deaths * From July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005, there were 21 homicides and 7 suicides of school-age youth (ages 5-18) at school (Indicator 1). Combined, this number translates into about 1 homicide or suicide of a school-age youth at school per 2 million students enrolled during the 2004-05 school year. Nonfatal Student Victimization * In 2004, students ages 12-18 were victims of about 1.4 million nonfatal crimes at school, including about 863,000 thefts and 583,000 violent crimes-107,000 of which were serious violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) (Indicator 2). * In 2004, students ages 12-18 were more likely to be victims of theft at school than away from school (Indicator 2). That year, 33 thefts per 1,000 students occurred at school and 27 thefts occurred away from school (Indicator 2). * Total crime and theft victimization rates for students both at school and away from school were lower in 2004 than 2003 (Indicator 2). In 2003, there were 73 victimizations per 1,000 students at school, compared with 55 victimizations in 2004. Theft victimization at school declined from 45 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2003 to 33 victimizations of students in 2004. * Away from school, total crime and violent crime victimization rates for students also decreased between 2003 and 2004 (Indicator 2). In 2003, there were 60 victimizations per 1,000 students away from school, compared with 48 victimizations in 2004. Violent victimization declined from 32 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2003 to 21 victimizations in 2004. * In 2005, 4 percent of students ages 12-18 reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months: 3 percent reported theft, and 1 percent reported violent victimization (Indicator 3). Less than half of a percent of students reported serious violent victimization. * Between 2003 and 2005, the percentage of students reporting victimization declined (from 5 to 4 percent), as did the percentage reporting theft (from 4 to 3 percent); there were no measurable declines in the percentages reporting violent and serious violent crime during the same period (Indicator 3). * In 2005, 10 percent of male students in grades 9-12 reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property in the past year, compared with 6 percent of female students (Indicator 4). * Hispanic students were more likely than White students to report being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property in 2005 (10 vs. 7 percent) (Indicator 4). Threats and Attacks on Teachers * In 2003-04, teachers' reports of being threatened or attacked by students during the previous 12 months varied according to their school level (Indicator 5). Secondary school teachers were more likely than elementary school teachers to have been threatened with injury by a student (8 vs. 6 percent). However, elementary school teachers were more likely than secondary teachers to report having been physically attacked (4 vs. 2 percent). * Ten percent of teachers in central city schools reported in 2003-04 that they were threatened with injury by students, compared with 6 percent of teachers in urban fringe schools and 5 percent in rural schools (Indicator 5). Five percent of teachers in central city schools were attacked by students, compared with 3 percent of teachers in urban fringe and 2 percent in rural schools. * Public school teachers were more likely than private school teachers to have been threatened (7 vs. 2 percent) or physically attacked (4 vs. 2 percent) by students in school (Indicator 5). Among teachers in central city schools, those in public schools were at least five times more likely to be threatened with injury than their colleagues in private schools (12 vs. 2 percent) and at least four times more likely to be physically attacked (5 vs. 1 percent). School Environment * The percentage of public schools experiencing one or more violent incidents increased between the 1999-2000 and 2003-04 school years, from 71 to 81 percent (Indicator 6). Both primary schools and high schools had lower rates of violent crimes per 1,000 students than middle schools. In 2003-04, there were 28 violent crimes per 1,000 students in both primary schools and high schools, compared with 53 violent crimes in middle schools. * In 2003-04, 2 percent of public schools reported daily or weekly occurrences of racial tensions among students and 27 percent reported daily or weekly student bullying (Indicator 7). With regard to other frequently occurring discipline problems in public schools (those occurring at least once a week), 11 percent of principals reported student verbal abuse of teachers, 3 percent reported widespread disorder in classrooms, and 19 percent reported student acts of disrespect for teachers. About 17 percent of public schools reported undesirable gang activities and 3 percent reported undesirable cult or extremist activities. * The prevalence of frequently occurring discipline problems was related to school enrollment size in the 2003-04 school year (Indicator 7). In general, principals in large schools were more likely to report discipline problems than principals in small schools. Thirty-four percent of principals at schools with 1,000 or more students reported student acts of disrespect for teachers at least once per week, compared with 21 percent of those at schools with 500-999 students, 17 percent of those at schools with 300-499 students, and 14 percent of those at schools with less than 300 students. * In 2005, 24 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that there were gangs at their schools (Indicator 8). Students in urban schools (36 percent) were more likely to report the presence of gangs at their school than suburban students (21 percent) and rural students (16 percent). * The percentage of students reporting the presence of gangs increased from 21 to 24 percent between 2003 and 2005 (Indicator 8). The percentage of students at urban schools reporting the presence of gangs at school increased from 31 to 36 percent during this period. * In 2005, one-quarter of all students in grades 9-12 reported that someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property in the past 12 months (Indicator 9). * Eleven percent of students ages 12-18 reported that someone at school had used hate-related words against them, and more than one-third (38 percent) had seen hate-related graffiti at school in 2005 (Indicator 10). * In 2005, 28 percent of students ages 12-18 reported having been bullied at school during the last 6 months (Indicator 11). Of these students, 58 percent said that the bullying had happened once or twice during that period, 25 percent had experienced bullying once or twice a month, 11 percent reported having been bullied once or twice a week, and 8 percent said they had been bullied almost daily. * Of those students who reported bullying incidents that involved being pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on (9 percent), 24 percent reported that they had sustained an injury***Footnote 7: Injury includes bruises or swelling; cuts, scratches, or scrapes; black eye or bloody nose; teeth chipped or knocked out; broken bones or internal injuries; knocked unconscious; or other injuries.*** during the previous 6 months as a result (Indicator 11). While no measurable differences were found by sex in students' likelihood of reporting a bullying incident in 2005, among students who reported being bullied, males were more likely than females to report being injured during such an incident (31 vs. 18 percent). Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances * In 2005, 36 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported they had been in a fight anywhere, and 14 percent said they had been in a fight on school property during the previous 12 months (Indicator 12). In the same year, 43 percent of males said they had been in a fight anywhere, compared with 28 percent of females, and 18 percent of males said they had been in a fight on school property, compared with 9 percent of females. * Nineteen percent of students in grades 9-12 in 2005 reported they had carried a weapon anywhere, and about 6 percent reported they had carried a weapon on school property during the previous 30 days (Indicator 13). Males were two times more likely than females to carry a weapon-either anywhere or on school property-in all survey years (1993-2005). In 2005, for example, 10 percent of males carried a weapon on school property, compared with 3 percent of females, and 30 percent of males carried a weapon anywhere, compared with 7 percent of females. * In 2005, 43 percent of students in grades 9-12 consumed at least one drink of alcohol anywhere, and 4 percent consumed at least one drink on school property during the previous 30 days (Indicator 14). Hispanic students (8 percent) were more likely to use alcohol on school property than White, Black, or Asian students (4, 3, and 1 percent, respectively). * Twenty percent of students in grades 9-12 in 2005 reported using marijuana anywhere during the past 30 days, and 5 percent reported using marijuana on school property during this period (Indicator 15). At school, Hispanic students (8 percent) and American Indian students (9 percent) were more likely to report using marijuana than White or Black students (4 and 5 percent, respectively). Fear and Avoidance * In 2005, approximately 6 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that they were afraid of attack or harm at school, and 5 percent reported that they were afraid of attack or harm away from school (Indicator 16). The percentage of students who reported that they were afraid of being attacked at school (including on the way to and from school) decreased from 12 to 6 percent between 1995 and 2001; however, no difference was detected in the percentage of students who feared an attack away from school between 1999 and 2005. * Black and Hispanic students were more likely than White students to fear for their safety regardless of location in 2005 (Indicator 16). Nine percent of Black students and 10 percent of Hispanic students reported that they were afraid of being attacked at school (including on the way to and from school), compared with 4 percent of White students. Away from school, 7 percent of Black students, 6 percent of Hispanic students, and 4 percent of White students reported that they were afraid of an attack. * In 2005, 6 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that they had avoided a school activity or one or more places in school in the previous 6 months because of fear of attack or harm: 2 percent of students avoided a school activity, and 4 percent avoided one or more places in school (Indicator 17). Consistent with most previous years, students in urban areas in 2005 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 rural students. Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures * About 46 percent of public schools took at least one serious disciplinary action against students-including suspensions lasting 5 days or more, removals with no services (i.e., expulsions), and transfers to specialized schools-for specific offenses during the 2003-04 school year (Indicator 18). Of those serious disciplinary actions, 74 percent were suspensions for 5 days or more, 5 percent were removals with no services, and 21 percent were transfers to specialized schools. * Four percent of all public schools took one or more serious disciplinary actions in response to students' use or possession of a firearm or explosive device in 2003-04 (Indicator 18). Students' use or possession of weapons other than firearms resulted in at least one serious disciplinary action in 17 percent of schools. * In 2003-04, 83 percent of public schools controlled access to school buildings by locking or monitoring doors during school hours, and 36 percent controlled access to school grounds with locked or monitored gates (Indicator 19). Nearly all public schools required visitors to sign or check in when entering the school building (98 percent), while few schools required either students or visitors to pass through metal detectors regularly (1 percent each). * The vast majority of students ages 12-18 reported that their school had a student code of conduct (95 percent) and a requirement that visitors sign in (93 percent) in 2005 (Indicator 20). Metal detectors were the least observed security measure, with 11 percent of students reporting their use at their school. FOREWORD Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006 provides the most recent national indicators on school crime and safety. Some of these indicators document that student safety has improved. For example, the victimization rate of students ages 12-18 at school declined from 73 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2003 to 55 per 1,000 students victimizations in 2004. However, other aspects of crime have not improved. For example, the number of homicides of school-age youth ages 5-18 was higher in 2004-05 than 2000-01 (21 vs. 11 homicides), but the number remained below most years during the 1990's. In 2004, students ages 12-18 were victims of about 583,000 violent crimes and 863,000 crimes of theft at school. In 2005, 25 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported that drugs were made available to them on school property and 8 percent of students were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property in the previous 12 months. The information presented in this report is intended to serve as a reference for policymakers and practitioners so that they can develop effective programs and policies aimed at violence and school crime prevention. Accurate information about the nature, extent, and scope of the problem being addressed is essential for developing effective programs and policies. This is the ninth edition of Indicators of School Crime and Safety, a joint publication of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). This report provides detailed statistics to inform the nation about current aspects of crime and safety in schools. The 2006 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 BJS and NCES, 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 NCES. The entire report is available on the Internet. The Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics continue to work together in order to provide timely and complete data on the issues of school-related violence and safety. Mark Schneider Commissioner National Center for Education Statistics Jeffrey L. Sedgwick Director Bureau of Justice Statistics ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors are grateful to the heads of the sponsoring agencies, Mark Schneider of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and Jeffrey L. Sedgwick of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), for supporting this report. From NCES, we wish to thank Kathryn Chandler, Val Plisko, Marilyn Seastrom, and Bruce Taylor, who served as reviewers. They all provided input that substantially improved the publication. From BJS, we wish to thank Patsy Klaus and Erika Harrell of the Victimization Statistics Unit for their work in verifying data from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Outside of NCES and BJS, Nancy Brener, Mark Anderson, and Thomas Simon 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 and Maria Worthen of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Lisa Bridges of the Institute of Education Sciences provided helpful input on the final draft. Without the assistance of the following staff, this report could not have been produced: Andrea Livingston, Barbara Kridl, Natesh Daniel, Patricia Gildersleeve, and Alicia Broadway of MPR Associates and Wendy Lin-Kelly from BJS. Much of the work for this report was performed by staff at the Education Statistics Services Institute (ESSI), which is funded by NCES and composed of staff from the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and a number of partner organizations. The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals from ESSI for their assistance with analysis, editorial comments, and guidance: Mary Ann Fox, Paul Guerino, Lynn Bauer, Stacey Bielick, Kristin Flanagan, and Sandy Eyster of AIR; and Kevin Bianco of Macro-Sys Research and Technology. CONTENTS Executive Summary Foreword Acknowledgments List of Tables List of Figures Introduction Violent Deaths Violent Deaths at School and Away From School Nonfatal Student Victimization Incidence of Victimization at School and Away From School Prevalence of Victimization at School Threats and Injuries With Weapons on School Property Threats and Attacks on Teachers Teachers Threatened With Injury or Attacked by Students School Environment Violent and Other Incidents at Public Schools and Those Reported to the Police Discipline Problems Reported by Public Schools Students' Reports of Gangs at School Students' Reports of Drug Availability on School Property Students' Reports of Being Called Hate-Related Words and Seeing Hate-Related Graffiti Bullying at School Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances Physical Fights on School Property and Anywhere Students Carrying Weapons on School Property and Anywhere Students' Use of Alcohol on School Property and Anywhere Students' Use of Marijuana on School Property and Anywhere Fear and Avoidance Students' Perceptions of Personal Safety at School and Away From School Students' Reports of Avoiding School Activities or Specific Places in School Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures Serious Disciplinary Actions Taken by Public Schools Safety and Security Measures Taken by Public Schools Students' Reports of Safety and Security Measures Observed at School References Supplemental Tables Standard Error Tables Appendix A. Technical Notes Appendix B. Glossary of Terms List of Tables Supplemental Tables Number of school-associated violent deaths, homicides, and suicides of youth ages 5-18, by location: 1992-2005 Number of school-associated violent deaths of students, staff, and nonstudents, by type: 1992-2005 Number of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 and rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by location and year: 1992-2004 Number of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 at school and rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected student characteristics: 2004 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 characteristics: 2004 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: Various years, 1995-2005 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: Various years, 1993-2005 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 and 2005 Percentage and number of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 Percentage and number of public and private school teachers who reported that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 Percentage and number of public school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by state: 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 Percentage and number of public school teachers who reported that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by state: 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 Percentage of public schools experiencing and reporting incidents of crime that occurred at school, number of incidents, and the rate per 1,000 students, by type of crime: 1999-2000 and 2003-04 Percentage of public schools experiencing incidents of crime that occurred at school, number of incidents, and the rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected school characteristics: 2003-04 Percentage of public schools reporting incidents of crime that occurred at school to the police, number of incidents, and the rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected school characteristics: 2003-04 Percentage of public schools that reported selected discipline problems that occurred at school, by frequency and school characteristics: 2003-04 Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that gangs were present at school during the previous 6 months, by urbanicity and selected student and school characteristics: 2001, 2003, and 2005 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: Various years, 1993-2005 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 and 2005 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: Various years, 1999-2005 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: 2005 Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported selected bullying problems at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school characteristics: 2005 Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by location of bullying, injury, and selected student and school characteristics: 2005 Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported selected bullying problems at school during the previous 6 months and percentage distribution of the frequency of bullying reports, by selected student and school characteristics: 2005 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: Various years, 1993-2005 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 and 2005 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: Various years, 1993-2005 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 and 2005 Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Various years, 1993-2005 103 Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and state: 2003 and 2005 Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Various years, 1993-2005 Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and state: 2003 and 2005 Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being afraid of attack or harm during the previous 6 months, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Various years, 1995-2005 Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported avoiding school activities or one or more places in school during the previous 6 months because of fear of attack or harm: Various years, 1995-2005 Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported avoiding one or more places in school during the previous 6 months because of fear of attack or harm, by selected student and school characteristics: Various years, 1995-2005 109 Number and percentage of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action, number of serious actions taken, and percentage distribution of serious actions, by type of action and type of offense: 2003-04 Percentage of public schools that used selected safety and security measures, by school characteristics: 2003-04 Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported selected security measures at school: Various years, 1999-2005 Standard Error Tables Standard errors for the number of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 and rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by location and year: 1992-2004 Standard errors for the number of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 at school and rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected student characteristics: 2004 Standard errors for the 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: 2004 Standard errors for the 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: Various years, 1995-2005 Standard errors for the 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: Various years, 1993-2005 Standard errors for the 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 and 2005 Standard errors for the percentage and number of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 Standard errors for the percentage and number of public and private school teachers who reported that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 Standard errors for the percentage and number of public school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by state: 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 Standard errors for the percentage and number of public school teachers who reported that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by state: 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 Standard errors for the percentage of public schools experiencing and reporting incidents of crime that occurred at school, number of incidents, and the rate per 1,000 students, by type of crime: 1999-2000 and 2003-04 ... Standard errors for the percentage of public schools experiencing incidents of crime that occurred at school, number of incidents, and the rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected school characteristics: 2003-04 Standard errors for the percentage of public schools reporting incidents of crime that occurred at school to the police, number of incidents, and the rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected school characteristics: 2003-04 Standard errors for the percentage of public schools that reported selected discipline problems that occurred at school, by frequency and school characteristics: 2003-04 Standard errors for the percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that gangs were present at school during the previous 6 months, by urbanicity and selected student and school characteristics: 2001, 2003, and 2005 Standard errors for the 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: Various years, 1993-2005 Standard errors for the 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 and 2005 Standard errors for the 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: Various years, 1999-2005 Standard errors for the 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: 2005 Standard errors for the percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported selected bullying problems at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school characteristics: 2005 Standard errors for the percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by location of bullying, injury, and selected student and school characteristics: 2005 Standard errors for the percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported selected bullying problems at school during the previous 6 months and percentage distribution of the frequency of bullying reports, by selected student and school characteristics: 2005 Standard errors for the 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: Various years, 1993-2005 Standard errors for the 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 and 2005 Standard errors for the 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: Various years, 1993-2005 Standard errors for the 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 and 2005 Standard errors for the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Various years, 1993-2005 Standard errors for the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and state: 2003 and 2005 Standard errors for the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Various years, 1993-2005 Standard errors for the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and state: 2003 and 2005 Standard errors for the percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being afraid of attack or harm during the previous 6 months, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Various years, 1995-2005 Standard errors for the percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported avoiding school activities or one or more places in school during the previous 6 months because of fear of attack or harm: Various years, 1995-2005 Standard errors for the percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported avoiding one or more places in school during the previous 6 months because of fear of attack or harm, by selected student and school characteristics: Various years, 1995-2005 Standard errors for the number and percentage of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action, number of serious actions taken, and percentage distribution of serious actions, by type of action and type of offense: 2003-04 155 Standard errors for the percentage of public schools that used selected safety and security measures, by school characteristics: 2003-04 Standard errors for the percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported selected security measures at school: Various years, 1999-2005 LIST OF FIGURES Nationally representative sample surveys used in this report Number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5-18, by location: 2003-04 Number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5-18 at school: 1992-2005 Rate of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 per 1,000 students, by type of crime and location: 1992-2004 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: 2004 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: 2004 Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization: Various years, 1995-2005 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: Various years, 1993-2005 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: 2005 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: 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 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: 2003-04 Percentage of public schools experiencing and reporting incidents of crime that occurred at school and the rate per 1,000 students, by type of crime: 2003-04 Percentage of public schools experiencing and reporting incidents of crime that occurred at school, by type of crime and school level: 2003-04 Percentage of public schools experiencing and reporting incidents of crime that occurred at school, by type of crime and urbanicity: 2003-04 Percentage of public schools reporting selected discipline problems that occurred at school, by school level: 2003-04 Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that gangs were present at school during the previous 6 months, by urbanicity: Various years, 2001-2005 Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that gangs were present at school during the previous 6 months, by urbanicity and race/ethnicity: 2005 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 sex: Various years, 1993-2005 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 race/ ethnicity: 2005 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: 2005 Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported selected bullying problems at school during the previous 6 months, by type of bullying: 2005 Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by location of bullying and injury: 2005 Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by location and sex: Various years, 1993-2005 Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by location and grade: 2005 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: Various years, 1993-2005 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: 2005 Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and sex: Various years, 1993-2005 Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and grade: 2005 Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and sex: Various years, 1993-2005 Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and grade: 2005 Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being afraid of attack or harm during the previous 6 months, by location: Various years, 1995-2005 Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being afraid of attack or harm during the previous 6 months, by location and race/ethnicity: 2005 Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported avoiding school activities or one or more places in school during the previous 6 months because of fear of attack or harm: Various years, 1995-2005 Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported avoiding one or more places in school during the previous 6 months because of fear of attack or harm, by selected student and school characteristics: 2005 Percentage distribution of serious disciplinary actions taken by public schools for specific offenses, by type of action: 2003-04 Percentage of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action for specific offenses, by type of offense: 2003-04 Percentage of public schools that used selected safety and security measures, by school level: 2003-04 Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported selected security measures at school: Various years, 1999-2005 Appendixes Descriptions of data sources and samples used in the report Wording of survey questions used to construct indicators Methods used to calculate standard errors of statistics for different surveys 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***Footnote 1: 1 See appendix B for a detailed definition of "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, Ennett, and Johnson 2003), poor academic performance (Wei and Williams 2004), dropping out of school (Beauvais et al. 1996), and violent behaviors (Nansel et al. 2003). For teachers, incidents of victimization may lead to professional disenchantment and even departure from the profession altogether (Karcher 2002). For parents, school staff, and policymakers to effectively address school crime, they need an accurate understanding of the extent, nature, and context 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: 2006 is the ninth in a series of reports produced by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (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, it is designed to provide a brief summary of 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: 2006 is organized 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; Threats and Attacks on Teachers; School Environment; Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances; Fear and Avoidance; and Discipline, Safety, and Security 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.***Footnote 2: 2 Data in this report are not adjusted to reflect the number of hours that youths spend on school property versus the number of hours they spend elsewhere.*** Supplemental tables for each indicator provide more detailed breakouts and standard errors for estimates. A glossary of terms and references section appear at the end of the report. This year's report contains updates for all indicators and the expansion of two existing indicators, Indicator 5 on threats to and injuries of teachers and Indicator 11 on bullying. In response to requests for state-level information, tables showing available state-level estimates have been added to Indicator 5. These estimates have been added for the past three survey years. Indicator 11 looks at seven types of bullying, where reported incidents of bullying took place in school, whether any injuries were sustained as a result of being bullied, and the frequency of bullying incidents among students who were bullied. The indicator related to nonfatal teacher victimization at school has been discontinued. Because of sample cuts to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and declining victimization rates, the survey's capacity to provide useful estimates of teacher victimization has diminished, especially for disaggregated subcategories of teacher characteristics. The indicator has been determined to no longer be an adequate measure of teacher victimization. Also found in 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. 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 provides a broad 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 19 and 20 report data on select security and safety measures used in schools. Indicator 19 uses data collected from a stratified random sample of principals about safety and security practices used in their schools during the 2003-04 school year. Indicator 20, however, uses data collected from 12- through 18-year-olds in a rotated panel design of households. These students were asked whether they observed selected safety and security measures in their school in 2005, but they may not have known if, in fact, the security measure was present. In addition, different indicators contain various approaches to the analysis of school crime data and, therefore, 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. 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 factor 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 factor 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 perceived offender. Third, victim surveys tend to 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 factors 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. Throughout this report, in cases where the standard error was at least 30 percent of the associated estimate, the estimates were noted with a "!" symbol (interpret data with caution). In cases where the standard error was greater than 50 percent of the associated estimate, the estimate was suppressed. See appendix A for more information. 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. 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 and a discussion of how standard errors were calculated for each estimate. VIOLENT DEATHS INDICATOR 1 VIOLENT DEATHS AT SCHOOL AND AWAY FROM SCHOOL The number of homicides of youth ages 5-18 at school was higher in 2004-05 than 2000-01 (21 vs. 11 homicides), but remained lower than most years during the 1990's. Violent deaths at 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, 2004, through June 30, 2005, there were 48 school-associated violent deaths in elementary and secondary schools in the United States. In this indicator, a school-associated violent death is defined as "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." Victims of school-associated violent deaths include students, staff members, and others who are not students. 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. To enable comparisons of homicides and suicides at school and away from school, data were drawn from a number of sources. Data for school-associated violent deaths from the 1999- 2000 through 2004-05 school years are preliminary. From July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005, there were 21 homicides and 7 suicides of school-age youth (ages 5-18) at school.***Footnote 3: 3 Between July 1, 2004, and June 30, 2005, there were 48 student, staff, and nonstudent school- associated violent deaths, including 37 homicides, 9 suicides, and 2 legal interventions.*** Combined, this number translates into about 1 homicide or suicide of a school-age youth at school per 2 million students enrolled during the 2004-05 school year.***Footnote 4: The total projected number of students enrolled in prekindergarten through 12th grade during the 2004-05 school year was 54,593,000 (U.S. Department of Education 2006).*** The most recent data available for the total number of homicides of school-age youth are from the 2003-04 school year, at which time there were 1,437 homicides. In the 2003 calendar year, there were 1,285 suicides of school-age youth.***Footnote 5: Data on suicides away from school are available only by calendar year, whereas data on suicides and homicides at school and homicides away from school are available by school year.*** In each school year, youth were over 50 times more likely to be murdered and almost 150 times more likely to commit suicide when they were away from school than at school. Between July 1, 1992, and June 30, 1999, no consistent pattern of increase or decrease was observed in the number of homicides at school. 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 13 homicides. Between the 2000-01 and 2004-05 school years, the number of homicides of school- age youth at school increased from 11 to 21. While the absolute number of homicides of school-age youth at school has varied, the percentage of youth homicides occurring at school remained at less than 2 percent of the total number of youth homicides over all survey years. Between the 1992-93 and 2004- 05 school years, from one to nine school-age youth committed suicide at school each year, with no consistent pattern of increase or decrease. ------------------------------------ This indicator has been updated to include revisions to previously published data and new data for 2002 onward. For more information: Tables 1.1 & 1.2 Anderson et al. 2001 ----------------------------------- NONFATAL STUDENT VICTIMIZATION INDICATOR 2 INCIDENCE OF VICTIMIZATION AT SCHOOL AND AWAY FROM SCHOOL Between 1992 and 2004, the victimization rates for students ages 12-18 generally declined both at school and away from school. Theft and violence at school and while going to and from school can lead to a disruptive and threatening environment, physical injury, and emotional stress, and can be an obstacle to student achievement (Elliott, Hamburg, and Williams 1998). Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that students ages 12-18 were victims of about 1.4 million nonfatal crimes (theft plus violent crime) while they were at school and about 1.3 million crimes while they were away from school in 2004.***Footnote 6: "Students" refers to persons ages 12-18 who reported being in any elementary or secondary grade at the time of the survey. An uncertain percentage of these persons may not have attended school during the survey reference period. These data do not take into account the number of hours that students spend at school or away from school.*** These figures represent victimization rates of 55 crimes per 1,000 students at school, and 48 crimes per 1,000 students away from school. Between 1992 and 2004, the victimization rates for students ages 12-18 generally declined both at school and away from school; this pattern held for the total crime rate as well as for thefts,***Footnote 7: Theft includes purse snatching, pick pocketing, all burglaries, attempted forcible entry, and all attempted and completed thefts except motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery in which threat or use of force is involved.*** violent crimes,***Footnote 8: Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault.*** and serious violent crimes.***Footnote 9: Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.*** At school, total crime and theft victimization rates for students were lower in 2004 than in 2003. For example, the victimization rate of students ages 12-18 at school declined from 73 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2003 to 55 such victimizations in 2004. Theft victimization at school declined from 45 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2003 to 33 such victimizations of students in 2004. Away from school, total crime and violent crime victimization rates were lower in 2004 than in 2003. There were 48 victimizations per 1,000 students away from school in 2004, compared with 60 victimizations in 2003. Violent victimization away from school declined from 32 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2003 to 21 victimizations in 2004. Students ages 12-18 were more likely to be victims of theft at school than away from school in most years between 1992 and 2004. In 2004, students were victims of 863,000 crimes of theft at school and 706,000 crimes of theft away from school. This translates into 33 thefts per 1,000 students at school, compared with 27 thefts per 1,000 students away from school. From 1992 to 1997, the victimization rates for violent crime were generally lower at school than away from school; however, there were no measurable differences in these rates in the years between 1998 and 2004, except in 2000, when victimization rates at school were lower. The rates for serious violent crime were lower at school than away from school in each survey year from 1992 to 2004. In 2004, students ages 12-18 were victims of 4 serious violent crimes per 1,000 students at school compared with 9 serious violent crimes per 1,000 students away from school. In 2004, the victimization rates for students ages 12-18 varied according to certain student characteristics. Older students (ages 15-18) were less likely than younger students (ages 12-14) to be victims of crime at school, but the reverse was true for the likelihood of crime away from school (figures 2.2 and 2.3 and tables 2.2 and 2.3). Females had a lower rate of violent victimization at school and a lower rate of serious violent victimization away from school than males, but no measurable gender differences were found in the rates of theft at and away from school. -------------------------------- This indicator has been updated to include 2004 data. For more information: Tables 2.1, 2.2, & 2.3 Catalano 2006 -------------------------------- INDICATOR 3 PREVALENCE OF VICTIMIZATION AT SCHOOL In 2005, some 4 percent of students ages 12-18 reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months. About 3 percent reported theft, 1 percent reported violent victimization, and less than half of a percent of students reported serious violent victimization. Theft is the most frequent type of nonfatal crime in the United States (U.S. Department of Justice 2006). Data from the School Crime Supplement***Footnote 10: In 2005, the unit response rate for this survey did not meet NCES statistical standards; therefore, interpret the data with caution. For more information, please see appendix A.*** 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 2005, some 4 percent of students ages 12-18 reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months. About 3 percent reported theft,***Footnote 11: Theft includes purse snatching, pick pocketing, all burglaries, attempted forcible entry, and all attempted and completed thefts except motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery in which threat or use of force is involved.*** 1 percent reported violent victimization,***Footnote 12: Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault.*** and less than half of a percent of students reported serious violent victimization.***Footnote 13: Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.*** Overall, the percentage of students ages 12-18 who were victimized at school during the previous 6 months decreased between 1995 and 2005 from 10 to 4 percent. For each type of victimization, the percentage of students reporting victimization decreased between 1995 and 2005). Between the most recent survey years (2003 and 2005), the percentage of students reporting victimization declined from 5 to 4 percent, and the percentage reporting theft declined from 4 to 3 percent. There were no measurable changes in the percentages reporting violent and serious violent crime during this period. In 2005, the 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 measurable gender differences were detected in the likelihood of reporting theft (3 percent each). There were also no measurable differences in the percentages reporting victimization across grades. Further, in 2005, no measurable differences were detected in the percentages of White, Black, or Hispanic students who reported victimization, theft, or violent victimization. Students in urban schools were more likely to report victimization (5 percent) and theft (4 percent) than students in rural schools (3 and 2 percent, respectively). However, no other measurable differences were observed by urbanicity. ------------------------------ This indicator has been updated to include 2005 data. For more information: Table 3.1 Addington et al. 2002 ----------------------------- INDICATOR 4 THREATS AND INJURIES WITH WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY The percentage of students who were threatened or injured with a weapon has fluctuated between 7-9 percent in all survey years from 1993 through 2005. 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 2005, some 8 percent of students reported being threatened or injured with a weapon, such as a gun, knife, or club, on school property. The percentage of students who were threatened or injured with a weapon fluctuated between 1993 and 2005 without a clear trend. In all survey years from 1993 through 2005, between 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. In 2005, some 10 percent of male students reported being threatened or injured in the past year, compared with 6 percent of female students. In each survey year, students in lower grades were generally more likely to report being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property than those in higher grades. Eleven percent of 9th graders reported that they were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property in 2005, compared with 9 percent of 10th-graders and 6 percent of 11th- and 12th-graders. Students' likelihood of being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property varied by race/ethnicity in 2005. Hispanic students were more likely than White students to report being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property (10 vs. 7 percent). However, no measurable differences were found in the percentages of Black and White students or Black and Hispanic students who reported being threatened or injured in this way. In 2005, student reports of being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property varied among states for which data were available. Among states, the percentage of students with such reports ranged from 5 to 12 percent. ------------------------------- This indicator has been updated to include 2005 data. For more information: Tables 4.1 & 4.2 Eaton et al. 2006 ------------------------------ THREATS AND ATTACKS ON TEACHERS INDICATOR 5 TEACHERS THREATENED WITH INJURY OR ATTACKED BY STUDENTS In 2003-04, 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. Students are not the only victims of intimidation or violence in schools. Teachers are also subject to threats and physical attacks, and students from their schools sometimes commit these offenses. In the Schools and Staffing Survey, teachers were asked whether they had been threatened with injury or physically attacked by a student from their school in the previous 12 months. A smaller percentage of teachers reported they were threatened with injury by a student from their school in 2003-04 (7 percent) than in 1993-94 and 1999-2000 (12 and 9 percent, respectively; figure 5.1 and table 5.1). Teachers were also less likely in 2003-04 than in 1993-94 to report having been physically attacked (3 vs. 4 percent; figure 5.1 and table 5.2). Teachers in central city schools were consistently more likely to be threatened with injury or physically attacked than teachers in urban fringe or rural schools between 1993-94 and 2003-04. For example, in 2003-04, some 10 percent of teachers in central city schools were threatened with injury by students, compared with 6 percent of teachers in urban fringe schools and 5 percent of teachers in rural schools. Five percent of teachers in central city schools were attacked by students, compared with 3 percent of teachers in urban fringe and 2 percent of teachers in rural schools. In 2003-04, gender differences in the victimization of teachers were apparent. Although a larger percentage of male than female teachers reported having been threatened with injury (9 vs. 6 percent), female teachers were more likely than their male counterparts to have been physically attacked (4 vs. 3 percent). In 2003-04, teachers' reports of being threatened or attacked by students varied according to the level of their school. Secondary school teachers were more likely than elementary school teachers to have been threatened with injury by a student (8 vs. 6 percent; table 5.1). However, elementary school teachers were more likely than secondary school teachers to report having been physically attacked (4 vs. 2 percent; table 5.2). Public school teachers were more likely than private school teachers to have been threatened with injury (7 vs. 2 percent) or physically attacked (4 vs. 2 percent) by students in school. Among teachers in central city schools, those in public schools were at least five times more likely to be threatened with injury than their colleagues in private schools (12 vs. 2 percent)and at least four times more likely to be physically attacked (5 vs. 1 percent). Public school teachers' reports of being threatened with injury or physically attacked varied among states. In 2003-04, the percentage of public school teachers who reported being threatened in the previous 12 months ranged from 4 to 18 percent, and the percentage who were physically attacked ranged from 1 to 7 percent. -------------------------------------- This indicator has been updated to include 2003-04 data. For more information: Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, & 5.4 Appendix B for definitions of school levels Strizek et al. 2006 -------------------------------------- SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT INDICATOR 6 VIOLENT AND OTHER INCIDENTS AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THOSE REPORTED TO THE POLICE The percentage of public schools experiencing one or more violent incidents increased between the 1999-2000 and 2003-04 school years from 71 to 81 percent. This indicator presents the percentage of schools that experienced one or more specified 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,***Footnote 14: Serious violent incidents include rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with a weapon, threat of physical attack with a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon.*** violent incidents,***Footnote 15: Violent incidents include serious violent incidents plus physical attacks or fights without a weapon and threats of physical attacks 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 2003-04, some 88 percent of public schools responded that one or more incidents of these crimes had taken place (including violent, theft, and other crimes), amounting to an estimated 2.1 million crimes. This figure translates into a rate of 46 crimes per 1,000 students enrolled in 2003-04. During the same year, 65 percent of schools reported an incident of one of the specified crimes to the police amounting to about 764,400 crimes-or 16 crimes per 1,000 students enrolled. The percentage of public schools experiencing one or more violent incidents increased between 1999-2000 and 2003-04 from 71 to 81 percent. In 2003-04, 18 percent of schools experienced one or more serious violent incidents, 46 percent experienced one or more thefts, and 64 percent experienced another type of crime. Forty-four percent of public schools reported at least one violent incident to police, 13 percent reported at least one serious violent incident to police, 31 percent reported at least one theft to police, and 50 percent reported one of the other specified crimes to police. The prevalence of violent incidents at public schools and those reported to the police varied by school level. Primary schools were the least likely to experience any violent incident: 74 percent of primary schools did so, compared with 94 percent of middle schools and 96 percent of high 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, both primary schools and high schools had lower rates than middle schools. In 2003-04, there were 28 violent crimes per 1,000 students in both primary schools and high schools, compared with 53 such violent crimes in middle schools. Regardless of school level, there were no more than two serious violent crimes per 1,000 students enrolled in 2003-04. When examining violent incidents by the location of public schools, city schools were more likely than urban fringe schools to experience violent incidents). Eighty-eight percent of city schools had one or more violent incidents, compared with 80 percent of urban fringe schools. ------------------------------ This indicator has been updated to include 2003-04 data. For more information: Tables 6.1, 6.2, & 6.3 Appendix B for definitions of school levels and urbanicity Miller 2003 revised ------------------------------ INDICATOR 7 DISCIPLINE PROBLEMS REPORTED BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS The prevalence of frequently occurring discipline problems was related to school size in the 2003-04 school year. In general, principals in large schools were more likely to report discipline problems than principals in small schools. The existence of discipline problems in a school may contribute to an environment that facilitates school violence and crime (Miller 2003 revised). In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, school principals were asked how often certain disciplinary problems happen in their schools. This indicator examines the daily or weekly occurrence of student racial tensions, bullying, verbal abuse of teachers, widespread classroom disorder, and acts of disrespect for teachers in public schools. It also looks at occurrences of gang and cult activities, and due to the severe nature of these incidents, presents all reports of gang and cult activities during the 2003-04 school year. Two percent of public schools reported racial tensions among students on a daily or weekly basis and 27 percent reported that student bullying took place daily or weekly during the 2003-04 school year. With regard to other frequently occurring discipline problems in public schools (those occurring at least once a week), 11 percent of principals reported student verbal abuse of teachers, 3 percent reported widespread disorder in classrooms, and 19 percent reported student acts of disrespect for teachers. Some 17 percent of public schools reported undesirable gang activities and 3 percent reported undesirable cult or extremist activities. Public school reports of student racial tensions were lower in 2003-04 than in 1999-2000 (2 vs. 3 percent), as were any reports of cult or extremist group activities (3 vs. 7 percent; data not shown, see DeVoe et al. 2005). Discipline problems reported by public schools varied by school characteristics. For example, middle schools were more likely than primary schools to report various types of discipline problems (figure 7.1 and table 7.1). Middle schools were also more likely than high schools to report daily or weekly incidences of student bullying (42 vs. 21 percent) and student acts of disrespect for teachers (32 vs. 26 percent). During the school year, high schools were more likely than both middle and primary schools to report gang activity (41 vs. 31 and 8 percent, respectively) and more likely than middle schools to report extremist cult activity (13 vs. 6 percent). The prevalence of frequently occurring discipline problems was related to school enrollment size. In general, principals in large schools were more likely to report discipline problems than principals in small schools. Thirty-four percent of principals at schools with 1,000 or more students reported student acts of disrespect for teachers at least once a week, compared with 21 percent of schools with 500-999 students, 17 percent of schools with 300-499 students, and 14 percent of schools with less than 300 students. Schools where 20 percent or fewer of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch were less likely to report student bullying, verbal abuse of teachers, widespread disorder in the classroom, acts of disrespect for teachers, and undesirable gang activities than schools where more students were eligible. Schools where 50 percent or more of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch were generally more likely to report discipline problems than schools where fewer students qualified, except for student racial tensions, bullying, and cult activities. ------------------------------ This indicator has been updated with 2003-04 data. For more information: Table 7.1 Appendix B for definitions of school levels Miller 2003 revised ----------------------------- INDICATOR 8 STUDENTS' REPORTS OF GANGS AT SCHOOL The percentage of students reporting the presence of gangs at school increased from 21 to 24 percent between 2003 and 2005. Gangs are organized groups often involved in drugs, weapons trafficking, and violence. Such gangs at school can be 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***Footnote 16: In 2005, the unit response rate for this survey did not meet NCES statistical standards; therefore, interpret the data with caution. For more information, please see appendix A.*** to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 were asked if gangs were present at their school during the previous 6 months. In 2005, some 24 percent of students reported that there were gangs at their schools. Students in urban schools were more likely to report the presence of gangs at their school than suburban students and rural students (36 vs. 21 and 16 percent, respectively). No measurable difference was found between suburban and rural students in their likelihood of reporting gang presence. The total percentage of students who reported the presence of gangs at school increased from 21 percent in 2003 to 24 percent in 2005. Similarly, the percentage of students at urban schools who reported that gangs were present at school also increased during this period from 31 to 36 percent. No measurable change was found for the percentage of suburban or rural students reporting gang presence during this period. Hispanic and Black students were more likely than White students to report gangs in their schools in 2005 (38 and 37 percent, respectively, vs. 17 percent; figure 8.2 and table 8.1). This pattern held among students in both urban and suburban schools. Between 2003 and 2005, reports of gangs increased among both Black students (29 vs. 37 percent) and White students (14 vs. 17 percent). No measurable change was detected in the percentage of Hispanic students reporting the presence of gangs between 2003 and 2005. Students in public schools were more likely to report the presence of gangs than were students in private schools regardless of the school's location. In 2005, some 25 percent of students in public schools reported that there were gangs in their schools, compared with 4 percent of students in private schools. In 2005, there were no measurable differences between males and females in the extent to which they reported gang presence in their schools, with the exception of males at suburban schools, who were more likely to report gang presence than females (22 vs. 19 percent). Between 2001 and 2005, the percentage of male students reporting the presence of gangs increased (from 21 to 25 percent), as did the percentage of suburban males reporting gang activity (from 19 to 22 percent). In the same time period, the percentage of urban females reporting gang activity also increased from 26 to 34 percent. -------------------------------- This indicator has been updated to include 2005 data. For more information: Table 8.1 Addington et al. 2002 -------------------------------- INDICATOR 9 STUDENTS' REPORTS OF DRUG AVAILABILITY ON SCHOOL PROPERTY In 2005, one-quarter of all students in grades 9-12 reported that someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property in the past 12 months. The availability of drugs on school property has a disruptive and corrupting influence on the school environment (Nolin et al. 1997). In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9-12 were asked whether someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property in the 12 months before the survey. In 2005, some 25 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported that drugs were made available to them on school property (table 9.1). There was no measurable change in the percentage of students who reported that drugs were offered, sold, or given to them at school between 2003 and 2005. Males were more likely than females to report that drugs were offered, sold, or given to them on school property in each survey year from 1993 to 2005. For example, in 2005, some 29 percent of males reported that drugs were available, compared with 22 percent of females. No measurable differences were detected in the percentage of students who reported that drugs were made available to them according to grade level in 2005. The percentages of students who reported having illegal drugs offered, sold, or given to them on school property differed across racial/ethnic groups. Specifically, in 2005, Hispanic students were more likely than Asian, Black, American Indian, and White students to report that drugs were made available to them (34 vs. 16-24 percent). Although it appears that Pacific Islander students were more likely than Hispanic students to report that drugs were made available to them, the difference was not found to be statistically significant. In 2005, student reports of the availability of drugs on school property varied among states for which data were available. Among states, the percentage of students who reported that drugs were available to them at school ranged from 16 to 39 percent. -------------------------------- This indicator has been updated to include 2005 data. For more information: Tables 9.1 & 9.2 Eaton et al. 2006 ------------------------------- INDICATOR 10 STUDENTS' REPORTS OF BEING CALLED HATE-RELATED WORDS AND SEEING HATE-RELATED GRAFFITI In 2005, some 11 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that someone at school had used hate-related words against them, and more than one-third (38 percent) had seen hate-related graffiti at school. In the 2005 School Crime Supplement***Footnote 17: In 2005, the unit response rate for this survey did not meet NCES statistical standards; therefore, interpret the data with caution. For more information, please see appendix A.*** 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 and if they had seen hate-related graffiti during the previous 6 months. With regard to hate-related words, students were also asked to specify the characteristic to which the word was directed. In 2005, some 11 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that someone at school had used hate-related words against them. Five percent of students reported that the hate-related words concerned their race, 3 percent reported that the words were related to their ethnicity, about 2 percent each reported that the words concerned their religion or gender, and 1 percent each reported that the words were related to their disability or sexual orientation. Students were also asked if they had seen hate-related graffiti at their school-that is, hate- related words or symbols written in classrooms, bathrooms, hallways, or on the outside of the school building. Some 38 percent of students saw hate-related graffiti at school. Students' experiences of being called specific types of hate-related words in 2005 differed according to their sex and race/ethnicity. Females were more likely to report gender-related hate words than were males (3 vs. 1 percent) while male students were more likely than female students to report hate words related to both race (5 vs. 4 percent) and ethnicity (3 vs. 2 percent). White students were less likely to report race-related hate words than were Black and Hispanic students as well as students whose racial/ethnic group was categorized as "Other" (3 percent of White students vs. 7 percent of Black students, 6 percent of Hispanic students, and 9 percent of Other students). In 2005, measurable differences were found in students' reports of being called hate-related words and seeing hate-related graffiti according to the urbanicity and sector of their schools (figure 10.1 and table 10.1). Suburban students were less likely than both urban students (9 vs. 12 percent) and rural students (9 vs. 15 percent) to report being called a hate-related word. Public school students were more likely than their private school counterparts to report being called a hate-related word (12 vs. 7 percent) and seeing hate-related graffiti (39 vs. 18 percent). -------------------------------- This indicator has been updated to include 2005 data. For more information: Tables 10.1 & 10.2 Addington et al. 2002 -------------------------------- INDICATOR 11 BULLYING AT SCHOOL In 2005, about 28 percent of 12- to 18-year-old students reported having been bullied at school during the last 6 months. Both bullying and being bullied at school are associated with key violence-related behaviors, including carrying weapons, fighting, and sustaining injuries from fighting (Nansel et al. 2003). In the 2005 School Crime Supplement***Footnote 18: In 2005, the unit response rate for this survey did not meet NCES statistical standards; therefore, interpret the data with caution. For more information, please see appendix A.*** to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 were asked if they had been bullied at school during the previous 6 months.***footnote 19: In 2005, the questionnaire wording for the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey was modified with regard to bullying. In the 1999, 2001, and 2003 surveys, students were simply asked whether they had been bullied in the previous 6 months, while the 2005 iteration posed a series of questions on bullying and provided respondents with more examples of bullying behavior. Bullying includes being made fun of; subject of rumors; threatened with harm; pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on; pressured into doing things did not want to do; excluded; or property destroyed on purpose.*** In 2005, about 28 percent of students reported having been bullied at school during the last 6 months. Nineteen percent of students said that they had experienced bullying that consisted of being made fun of; 15 percent reported being the subject of rumors; and 9 percent said that they were pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on . Of those students who had been bullied, 79 percent said that they were bullied inside the school, and 28 percent said that they were bullied outside on school grounds. Of the students in 2005 who reported being bullied during the previous 6 months, 53 percent said that they had been bullied once or twice during that period, 25 percent had experienced bullying once or twice a month, 11 percent reported being bullied once or twice a week, and 8 percent said that they had been bullied almost daily. White and Black students (30 and 29 percent) were more likely than Hispanic students to report being bullied in 2005 (22 percent; table 11.1). White students were also more likely than students of Other racial/ethnic groups to report being bullied (30 vs. 25 percent), and to report that they were the subject of rumors than were Hispanic students and students of Other racial/ethnic groups (16 vs. 12 percent). In general, grade level was inversely related to students' likelihood of being bullied: as grade level increased, students' likelihood of being bullied decreased. In 2005, about 37 percent of 6th-graders, 28 percent of 9th-graders, and 20 percent of 12th-graders reported that they had been bullied at school. Students in public schools were more likely to report bullying incidents than were their private school counterparts (29 vs. 23 percent). Of those students who reported bullying incidents that involved being pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on (9 percent), 24 percent reported that they had sustained an injury***Footnote 20: Injury includes bruises or swelling; cuts, scratches, or scrapes; black eye or bloody nose; teeth chipped or knocked out; broken bones or internal injuries; knocked unconscious; or other injuries.*** as a result. While no measurable differences were found by sex in students' likelihood of reporting a bullying incident in 2005, among students who reported being bullied, males were more likely than females to report being injured during such an incident (31 vs. 18 percent). ------------------------------------- This indicator has been updated with 2005 data. For more information: Tables 11.1, 11.2, & 11.3 DeVoe and Kaffenberger 2005 ------------------------------------ FIGHTS, WEAPONS, AND ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES INDICATOR 12 PHYSICAL FIGHTS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE The percentage of 9th- to 12th-grade students who reported being in a physical fight anywhere increased from 33 to 36 percent between 2003 and 2005. 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 2005, some 36 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported being in a fight anywhere, and 14 percent said they had been in a fight on school property. Between 2003 and 2005, the percentage of students who reported being in a fight anywhere increased from 33 to 36 percent. However, there was no measurable change in the percentage of students who reported fighting on school property during the same period. In all survey years, males were more likely than females to have been in a fight anywhere and on school property. In 2005, 43 percent of males said they had been in a fight anywhere, compared with 28 percent of females. In the same year, 18 percent of males said they had been in a fight on school property, compared with 9 percent of females. Between 2003 and 2005, the percentage of females who reported having been in a physical fight anywhere increased from 25 to 28 percent. In 2005, students in lower grades were more likely to report being in fights than students in higher grades, both anywhere and on school property. In that year, 19 percent of 9th-graders, 14 percent of 10th-graders, 10 percent of 11th-graders, and 9 percent of 12th-graders reported being in a fight on school property. While it appears that students in most grades were more likely to report being in a physical fight in 2005 than in 2003, the only measurable increase found was for 9th-grade students anywhere: between 2003 and 2005, the percentage of 9th-graders who reported having been in a fight anywhere increased from 39 to 43 percent. In 2005, the percentage of students engaging in fights varied according to their race/ethnicity. Specifically, Asian students were less likely than students from all other racial/ethnic groups to report being in a fight anywhere or on school property. Six percent of Asian students reported being in a fight on school property, compared with 12 to 24 percent of students from other racial/ethnic groups. Between 2003 and 2005, the percentage of Hispanic students who reported having been in a fight anywhere increased from 36 to 41 percent. During the same period, the percentage of Asian students who reported having been in a fight on school property declined from 13 to 6 percent. In 2005, the percentage of students who reported being in a fight varied among states for which data were available. Among states, the percentages ranged from 24 to 37 percent for being in a fight anywhere, and from 8 to 16 percent for being in a fight on school property. ------------------------------------ This indicator has been updated to include 2005 data. For more information: Tables 12.1 & 12.2 Eaton et al. 2006 ----------------------------------- INDICATOR 13 STUDENTS CARRYING WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE There was no measurable change in the percentage of students who carried a weapon at school between 1999 and 2005: about 6 percent did so in both years. The presence of weapons at school may interfere with teaching and learning by creating an intimidating and threatening atmosphere (Aspy et al. 2004). 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 on school property in the past 30 days. In 2005, some 19 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. The percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere declined from 22 to 18 percent between 1993 and 1997. However, subsequently, there was no measurable change in the percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere. Similar to the pattern for carrying a weapon anywhere, between 1993 and 1999, the percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon at school declined from 12 to 7 percent. However, there was no measurable change in the percentage of students who carried a weapon at school between 1999 and 2005. When looking at the characteristics of students who reported carrying weapons, males were more than two times more likely than females to carry a weapon-either anywhere or on school property-in all survey years. In 2005, for example, some 10 percent of males carried a weapon on school property, compared with 3 percent of females, and 30 percent of males carried a weapon anywhere, compared with 7 percent of females. In 2005, few differences were detected in the percentage of students who reported carrying weapons anywhere and on school property according to students' race/ethnicity. Asian students were less likely than students from all other racial/ethnic groups, except Pacific Islanders,***Footnote 21: No observed measurable differences may be due to large standard errors.*** to report carrying a weapon anywhere, but no measurable differences were detected among Black, White, and Hispanic students. Asian students were also less likely than students from all other racial/ethnic groups, except for Blacks, to report carrying a weapon on school property, but no differences were detected among Black, White, and American Indian students. Hispanic students were more likely than Black students to report carrying a weapon during the previous 30 days on school property in 2005 (8 vs. 5 percent). Between 2003 and 2005, the percentage of Hispanic students who reported doing so increased from 6 to 8 percent. In 2005, the percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon varied among states for which data were available. Among states, the percentages ranged from 11 to 28 percent for carrying a weapon anywhere, and from 4 to 11 percent for carrying a weapon on school property. ----------------------------------- This indicator has been updated to include 2005 data. For more information: Tables 13.1 & 13.2 Eaton et al. 2006 ----------------------------------- INDICATOR 14 STUDENTS' USE OF ALCOHOL ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE In 2005, some 43 percent of students in grades 9-12 had at least one drink of alcohol anywhere, and 4 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 foster 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 2005, some 43 percent of students consumed at least one drink of alcohol anywhere, and 4 percent consumed at least one drink on school property (table 14.1). The percentage of students who reported drinking alcohol anywhere increased from 48 to 52 percent between 1993 and 1995 and then declined to 43 percent in 2005. No consistent pattern was detected in the percentage of students who reported consuming alcohol on school property between 1993 and 2005: over these years, the percentage fluctuated from 4 to 6 percent. The likelihood of drinking alcohol varied by student characteristics including sex, grade level, and race/ethnicity. In 2005, males were more likely than females to report using alcohol on school property (5 vs. 3 percent), a difference not found in the percentage who reported drinking anywhere. In 2005, students in higher grades were more likely to report drinking alcohol anywhere than were students in lower grades. For example, 51 percent of 12th-graders reported using alcohol, compared with 36 percent of 9th-graders. However, no measurable difference was found across grade levels in students' likelihood of drinking alcohol on school property. In 2005, Asian and Black students were less likely to report using alcohol anywhere than were American Indian, White, or Hispanic students. Twenty-two percent of Asian students and 31 percent of Black students reported using alcohol anywhere, compared with 46 percent of White students, 47 percent of Hispanic students, and 57 percent of American Indian students. In the same year, Hispanic students (8 percent) were more likely to use alcohol on school property than were White, Black, or Asian students (4, 3, and 1 percent, respectively). In 2005, the percentage of students who reported drinking alcohol varied among states for which data were available. Among states, the percentages ranged from 16 to 49 percent for drinking alcohol anywhere, and from 2 to 9 percent for drinking alcohol on school property. ------------------------------ This indicator has been updated to include 2005 data. For more information: Tables 14.1 & 14.2 Eaton et al. 2006 ----------------------------- INDICATOR 15 STUDENTS' USE OF MARIJUANA ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE In 2005, some 20 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported using marijuana anywhere during the past 30 days, and 5 percent reported using marijuana on school property. In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9-12 were asked whether they had used marijuana at all during the past 30 days (referred to as "anywhere" in this report) and whether they had used marijuana on school property during this period. In 2005, some 20 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported using marijuana anywhere during the past 30 days, and 5 percent reported using marijuana on school property. The percentage of students who reported using marijuana anywhere 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 2005, however, the percentage of students who reported using marijuana anywhere had declined to 20 percent. The percentage of students who reported using marijuana on school property increased from 6 to 9 percent between 1993 and 1995 and then declined to 5 percent in 2001. No measurable change was found in the percentage of students who reported using marijuana during the past 30 days on school property between 2001 and 2005. Both students' sex and grade level were associated with the use of marijuana among those in grades 9-12. Males were more likely than females to have reported using marijuana during the past 30 days in every survey year, both anywhere and on school property. For example, in 2005, some 6 percent of males and 3 percent of females reported using marijuana on school property. In that same year, 9th-grade students were less likely than 11th- and 12th-grade students to report using marijuana anywhere. While it appears that 9th-grade students were slightly more likely to report using marijuana on school property than were their peers in other grades, no measurable differences were detected in student reports of using marijuana on school property by grade level. In 2005, Asian students were less likely than students from other racial/ethnic groups, except Pacific Islander students, to report using marijuana anywhere (7 vs. 17-30 percent of students in other racial/ethnic groups). American Indian students were more likely than students from other racial/ethnic groups, except Hispanic students, to report using marijuana anywhere (30 vs. 7-20 percent of students in other racial/ethnic groups). At school, Hispanic students (8 percent) and American Indian students (9 percent) were more likely to report using marijuana than were White or Black students (4 and 5 percent, respectively). In 2005, the percentage of students who reported using marijuana varied among states for which data were available. Among states, the percentages ranged from 8 to 26 percent for using marijuana anywhere, and from 2 to 8 percent for using it on school property. -------------------------------- This indicator has been updated to include 2005 data. For more information: Tables 15.1 & 15.2 Eaton et al. 2006 -------------------------------- FEAR AND AVOIDANCE INDICATOR 16 STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL SAFETY AT SCHOOL AND AWAY FROM SCHOOL In 2005, as grade level increased, the percentage of students reporting fear of an attack at school or on the way to and from school decreased. School violence can make students fearful and affect their readiness and ability to learn, and concerns about vulnerability to attacks detract from a positive school environment (Scheckner et al. 2002). In the School Crime Supplement***Footnote 22: In 2005, the unit response rate for this survey did not meet NCES statistical standards; therefore, interpret the data with caution. For more information, please see appendix A.*** 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.***Footnote 23: For the 2001 survey, the wording was changed to "attack or threat of attack." Includes students who report ed that they sometimes or most of the time feared being victimized in this way.*** In 2005, approximately 6 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that they were afraid of attack or harm at school, and 5 percent reported that they were afraid of attack or harm away from school. There was no measurable change between 2003 and 2005 in the percentage of students reporting fear of attack or harm at or away from school (figure 16.1 and table 16.1). Consistent with findings from 1999 and 2001, students in 2005 were more likely to report being afraid of an attack at school than away from school. The percentage of students who reported that they were afraid of being attacked at school (including on the way to and from school) decreased from 12 to 6 percent between 1995 and 2001; however, no measurable difference was detected between 2001 and 2005. Similarly, there was no change in the percentage of students who feared such an attack away from school between 1999 and 2005. Black and Hispanic students were more likely than White students to fear for their safety regardless of location in 2005. Nine percent of Black students and 10 percent of Hispanic students reported that they were afraid of being attacked at school (including on the way to and from school), compared with 4 percent of White students. Away from school, 7 percent of Black students, 6 percent of Hispanic students, and 4 percent of White students reported that they were afraid of an attack. There was no measurable change between 2003 and 2005 in the percentage of students who feared for their safety in either location among White, Black, or Hispanic students. In 2005, as grade level increased, students' fear of an attack at school or on the way to and from school decreased. In the same year, 10 percent of 6th-graders, 6 percent of 9th-graders, and 3 percent of 12th-graders feared for their safety at school or on the way to and from school. School location was also related to students' fear of attack. In 2005, students in urban schools were more likely than students in suburban and rural schools to fear being attacked at school or on the way to and from school. 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. School sector was also related to students' fear of attack. In every survey year, students in public schools were more likely than students in private schools to fear being attacked at school. In 2005, about 6 percent of public school students feared being attacked at school, compared with 4 percent of private school students. While it appears that the public school students were generally more likely than their counterparts in private schools to fear being attacked away from school, these differences were not found to be statistically significant. ------------------------------------ This indicator has been updated to include 2005 data. For more information: Table 16.1 Addington et al. 2002 ----------------------------------- INDICATOR 17 STUDENTS' REPORTS OF AVOIDING SCHOOL ACTIVITIES OR SPECIFIC PLACES IN SCHOOL In 2005, some 6 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that they avoided school activities or one or more places in school because they thought someone might attack or harm them. 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). The percentage of students who avoid school activities and certain areas in school is a measure of their perceptions of school safety. In the School Crime Supplement***Footnote 24: In 2005, the unit response rate for this survey did not meet NCES statistical standards; therefore, interpret the data with caution. For more information, please see appendix A.*** to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 were asked whether they had avoided school activities or one or more places in school because they were fearful that someone might attack or harm them.***Footnote 25: For the 2001 survey, the wording was changed from "attack or harm" to "attack or threat of attack." See appendix A for more information.*** In 2005, some 6 percent of students reported that they had avoided a school activity or one or more places in school in the previous 6 months because of fear of attack or harm: 2 percent of students avoided a school activity, and 4 percent avoided one or more places in school.***Footnote 26: Avoided a school activity includes avoiding extracurricular activities, skipping class, or staying home from school. Places include the entrance, any hallways or stairs, parts of the cafeteria, restrooms, and other places inside the school building.*** The percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that they avoided school activities because they thought someone might attack or harm them there decreased from 3 to 2 percent between 1999 and 2001 and remained at about 2 percent through 2005. Between 4 and 5 percent of students reported avoiding one or more places in school during the same period. Students' reports of avoiding one or more places in school varied according to their race/ethnicity. In 2005, Black and Hispanic students (7 and 6 percent, respectively) were more likely than White students or those from some Other racial/ethnic background (4 and 3 percent, respectively) to report avoiding one or more places in school because they were afraid someone might attack or harm them. As in all previous survey years, no measurable difference was detected in the extent to which males and females avoided places in 2005. Generally, grade level was inversely associated with students' likelihood of avoiding one or more places in school. Eight percent of 6th-graders avoided one or more places in school in 2005, compared with 1 percent of 12th-graders. Consistent with most previous years, students in urban areas in 2005 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 rural students. In addition, public school students were more likely than private school students to avoid places in school (5 vs. 1 percent). ------------------------------------ This indicator has been updated to include 2005 data. For more information: Tables 17.1 & 17.2 Addington et al. 2002 ----------------------------------- DISCIPLINE, SAFETY, AND SECURITY MEASURES INDICATOR 18 SERIOUS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS TAKEN BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS About 46 percent of public schools (approximately 36,800 schools) took a serious disciplinary action against a student for specific offenses during the 2003-04 school year. Of those disciplinary actions, 74 percent were suspensions lasting 5 days or more, 5 percent were removals with no services (i.e., expulsions), and 21 percent were transfers to specialized schools. Removing a student from school because of behavior problems stemming from crime and violence has a serious impact on the instruction of students. In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, public school officials were asked to report the number of disciplinary actions their schools took against students for specific offenses during the 2003-04 school year. About 46 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 specific offenses during the 2003-04 school year. The offenses included physical attacks or fights; insubordination; distribution, possession, or use of alcohol; distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs; use or possession of a weapon other than a firearm; and use or possession of a firearm or explosive device. Altogether, about 655,700 serious disciplinary actions were taken against students for these offenses in 2003-04. Of those actions, 74 percent were suspensions for 5 days or more, 5 percent were removals with no services, and 21 percent were transfers to specialized schools. Four percent of all public schools took one or more serious disciplinary actions in response to students' use or possession of a firearm or explosive device. Students' use or possession of weapons other than firearms resulted in at least one serious disciplinary action in 17 percent of schools. Thirty-two percent of public schools took at least one serious disciplinary action for a physical attack or fight, and 22 percent responded to insubordination with a serious disciplinary action. Nine percent of all public schools took one or more serious disciplinary actions for students' distribution, possession, or use of alcohol, and 21 percent did so for the distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs. ----------------------------- This indicator has been updated with 2003-04 data. For more information: Table 18.1 Miller 2003 revised ---------------------------- INDICATOR 19 SAFETY AND SECURITY MEASURES TAKEN BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS In the 2003-04 school year, 28 percent of primary schools, 42 percent of middle schools, and 60 percent of high schools used one or more security cameras to monitor the school. Public schools use a variety of practices and procedures intended to promote the safety of students and staff. This indicator provides information on what types of safety and security measures schools use and how frequently they use them. In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, public school officials were asked about their school's use of such measures and procedures during the 2003-04 school year. Certain practices, such as locked or monitored doors or gates, are intended to limit or control access to school campuses, while others, such as metal detectors, security cameras, and drug sweeps, are intended to monitor or restrict students' and visitors' behavior on campus. In the 2003-04 school year, some 83 percent of public schools controlled access to school buildings by locking or monitoring doors during school hours, and 36 percent controlled access to school grounds with locked or monitored gates. Nearly all public schools required visitors to sign or check in when entering the school building (98 percent), while few schools required either students or visitors to pass through metal detectors daily (1 percent each). The use of security measures varied by school level. Primary schools were generally less likely than middle schools, and middle schools generally less likely than high schools, to report using most of these measures. About 48 percent of public schools required faculty and staff to wear badges or picture IDs, compared with 6 percent of schools that required students to do so (3 percent of primary schools, 11 percent of middle schools, and 16 percent of high schools; figure 19.1 and table 19.1). Six percent of public schools required clear book bags or banned book bags altogether, but the use of this specific practice also varied by school level, with 3 percent of primary schools, 13 percent of middle schools, and 9 percent of high schools using it. In the 2003-04 school year, some 28 percent of primary schools, 42 percent of middle schools, and 60 percent of secondary schools used one or more security cameras to monitor the school. About 13 percent of high schools reported performing one or more random metal detector checks on students, 59 percent reported using one or more random dog sniffs to check for drugs, and 28 percent reported performing one or more random sweeps for contraband, not including dog sniffs. In comparison, between 3 and 5 percent of primary schools reported using these security measures. The use of these practices also varied by school size, location, and other school characteristics. For example, in 2003-04, schools with enrollments of 1,000 students or more were more likely than schools with smaller enrollments to use random dog sniffs to check for drugs (40 vs. 16-21 percent), random sweeps for contraband (24 vs. 8-14 percent), and security cameras to monitor the school (55 vs. 26-37 percent; table 19.1). ---------------------------------- This indicator has been updated with 2003-04 data. For more information: Table 19.1 Appendix B for definitions of school levels and urbanicity U.S. Department of Education 2004 ---------------------------------- INDICATOR 20 STUDENTS' REPORTS OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MEASURES OBSERVED AT SCHOOL The percentage of students who observed the use of security cameras at their schools increased from 39 to 58 percent between 2001 and 2005. 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). In the School Crime Supplement***Footnote 27: In 2005, the unit response rate for this survey did not meet NCES statistical standards; therefore, interpret the data with caution. For more information, please see appendix A.*** to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 were asked whether their school used certain security measures.***Footnote 28: 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 on documented practice. See Indicator 19 for a summary of the use of various security measures as reported by schools.*** Security measures include metal detectors, locker checks, security cameras, security guards or police officers, adult supervision in hallways, badges or picture identification for students, a code of student conduct, locked entrance or exit doors during the day, and a requirement that visitors sign in. In 2005, nearly all (99 percent) students ages 12-18 observed the use of at least one of the selected security measures at their school. In 2005, the vast majority of students ages 12-18 reported that their school had a student code of conduct (95 percent) and a requirement that visitors sign in (93 percent; figure 20.1 and table 20.1). Ninety percent of students reported observing school staff or other adult supervision in the hallway, and 68 percent reported the presence of security guards and/or assigned police officers. Between 53 and 58 percent of students reported locker checks, locked entrance or exit doors during the day, and security cameras at their schools. One-quarter of students reported that badges or picture identification were required. Metal detectors were the least observed of the selected safety and security measures: 11 percent of students reported the use of metal detectors at their school. The percentage of students reporting the presence of many of the selected security measures increased between 2001 and 2005. For example, the percentage of students who observed the use of security cameras at their schools increased from 39 to 58 percent during this period, and the percentage who reported that students were required to wear badges or picture identification increased from 21 to 25 percent. Between 1999 and 2005, there was also an increase in the percentage of students observing locked entrance or exit doors during the day (from 38 to 54 percent), the percentage reporting a visitor sign-in requirement (from 87 to 93 percent), and the percentage reporting the presence of security guards and/or assigned police officers (from 54 to 68 percent). No differences were detected in the percentage of students reporting locker checks or a code of student conduct in their schools across all survey years. ------------------------------------ This indicator has been updated to include 2005 data. For more information: Table 20.1 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. Catalano, S.M. (2006). Criminal Victimization, 2005 (NCJ 214644). 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. 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 2005310). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Justice Statistics. 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: National Center for Education Statistics. Eaton, D.K., Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Ross, J., Harris, W.A., Lowry, R., McManus, T., Chyen, D., Shanklin, S., Lim, C., Grunbaum, J.A., Wechsler, H. (2006). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance-United States, 2005. In Surveillance Summaries (MMWR (No. SS-5)). Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Elliott, D.S., Hamburg, B.A., and Williams, K.R. (1998). Violence in American Schools: An Overview. In D.S. Elliott, B.A. Hamburg, and K.R. Williams (Eds.), Violence in American Schools (pp. 3-18). New York: Cambridge University Press. Fagan, J., and Wilkinson, D.L. (1998). Social Contexts and Functions of Adolescent Violence. In D.S. Elliott, B.A. Hamburg, and K.R. Williams (Eds.), Violence in American Schools (pp. 55-93). New York: Cambridge University Press. Henry, S. (2000). What Is School Violence* An Integrated Definition. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567: 16-29. 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.A. 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.R., Overpeck, M.D., Haynie, D.L., Ruan, W.J., and Scheidt, P.C. (2003). Relationships Between Bullying and Violence Among U.S. Youth. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 157(4): 348-353. Nansel, T.R., 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. 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. Strizek, G.A., Pittsonberger, J.L., Riordan, K.E., Lyter, D.M., and Orlofsky, G.F. (2006). Characteristics of Schools, Districts, Teachers, Principals, and School Libraries in the United States: 2003-04 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2006-313 Revised). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). 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. (2003). Digest of Education Statistics, 2002 (NCES 2003-060). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Digest of Education Statistics, 2005 (NCES 2006-030). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (forthcoming). Digest of Education Statistics, 2006 (NCES 2007-017). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2006). Crime in the United States 2005. Retrieved November 13, 2006, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/ table_01.html. 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. APPENDIX A TECHNICAL NOTES 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 occurring 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 were 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 datasets 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 datasets 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 deaths 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 the 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 and 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). A copy of the full police report is also sought for each case. The information obtained on schools includes school demographics, attendance/ absentee rates, suspension/expulsions and mobility, school history of weapon-carrying incidents, 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 were being 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 (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 (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 and Prevention 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. The SAVD data are considered preliminary until interviews with school and law enforcement officials have been completed. The details learned during the interviews can occasionally change the classification of a case. For additional information about SAVD, contact: Jeff Hall 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) 488-4648 E-mail: jhall2@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 2004; 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 2004. Agencies provided detailed information on 574,574 victims and 640,722 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 2004 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. Census Bureau, 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 indicator from NCVS related to nonfatal teacher victimization at school has been discontinued. Because of sample cuts to the NCVS and declining victimization rates, the survey's capacity to provide useful estimates of teacher victimization has diminished, especially for disaggregated subcategories of teacher characteristics. The indicator has been determined to no longer be an adequate measure of teacher victimization. The number of NCVS eligible households in 2004 was about 46,200. They were 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. Census Bureau personnel interviewed all household members age 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 74,300 persons age 12 and older are interviewed every 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 over 90 percent at the household level. The completion rates for persons within households were about 86 percent. Thus, final response rates were about 78 percent in 2004. 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, 2003, and 2005 to collect additional information about school-related victimizations on a national level. This report includes data from the 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005 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 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 for 2003 onward). 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, were enrolled in grades 6-12, and were not home schooled. 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. The prevalence of victimization for 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005 was calculated by using NCVS incident variables appended to the 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005 SCS data .les. 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. Only incidents that occurred inside the United States are included. 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 and 2005. Cognitive interviews conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau on the 1999 SCS suggested that modifications to the definition of "at school" would not have a substantial impact on the estimates. Second, the SCS questions pertaining to fear and avoidance were changed for the 2001 SCS survey. In 1995, 1999, 2003, and 2005, students were asked if they were fearful or avoidant because they thought someone would "attack or harm" them. In 2001, students were asked if they were fearful or avoidant because they thought someone would "attack or threaten to attack" them. In the 1999 and 2001 SCS, students were asked to exclude times they were at school or going to or from school in the question about fear away from school. In 2003 and 2005, when asked about fear away from school, students were asked to exclude times they were at school; however, in these years the definition of "at school" included going to and from school. These changes should be considered when making comparisons across survey years. Third, the SCS question pertaining to gangs changed beginning with 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 from 2001 onwards (presented in this report) with estimates of gang presence in 1995 and 1999 (presented in previous editions of this report). In 2005, the SCS instrument was modified again. In this year, the SCS question(s) pertaining to bullying changed. In 1999, 2001, and 2003, students were asked a single bullying question. The 2005 SCS included a series of questions about bullying. Because of substantive changes in questionnaire wording, comparisons between the 2005 SCS bullying indicator and all other survey years should be made with caution. 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. Theft includes purse snatching, pick pocketing, all burglaries, attempted forcible entry, and all attempted and completed thefts except motor vehicle thefts. A total of 9,728 students participated in the 1995 SCS, 8,398 in 1999, 8,374 in 2001, 7,152 in 2003, and 6,297 in 2005. In the 2005 SCS, the household completion rate was 91 percent. In the 1995, 1999, 2001 and 2003 SCS, the household completion rates were 95 percent, 94 percent, 93 percent, and 92 percent, respectively; and the student completion rates were 78 percent, 78 percent, 77 percent, and 70 percent, respectively. For the 2005 SCS, the student completion rate was 62 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, 64 percent in 2003, and 56 percent in 2005. 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, 2003, and 2005. Due to the low unit response rate in 2005, a unit nonresponse bias analysis was commissioned. There are two types of nonresponse: unit and item nonresponse. Unit response rates indicate how many sampled units have completed interviews. Because interviews with students could only be completed after households had responded to NCVS, the unit completion rate for SCS reflects both the household interview completion rate and the student interview completion rate. Nonresponse can greatly affect the strength and application of survey data by leading to an increase in variance as a result of a reduction in the actual size of the sample and can produce bias if the nonrespondents have characteristics of interest that are different from the respondents. Furthermore, imputation, a common recourse to nonresponse, can lead to the risk of underestimating the sampling error if imputed data are treated as though they were observed data. In order for response bias to occur, respondents must have different response rates and responses to particular survey variables. The magnitude of unit nonresponse bias is determined by the response rate and the differences between respondents and nonrespondents on key survey variables. Although the bias analysis cannot measure response bias since SCS is a sample survey and we do not know how the population would have responded, the SCS sampling frame has four key student or school characteristic variables for which data is known for respondents and nonrespondents: sex, race/ethnicity, household income, and urbanicity, all of which are associated with student victimization. To the extent that there are differential responses by respondents in these groups, nonresponse bias is a concern. The analysis of unit nonresponse bias found evidence of bias for the race, household income, and urbanicity variables. White, non-Hispanic and Other, non-Hispanic respondents had higher response rates than Black, non-Hispanic, and Hispanic respondents. Respondents from households with an income of $35,000-49,999 and $50,000 or more had higher response rates than those from households with incomes of less than $7,500, $7,500-14,999, $15,000-24,999, and $25,000-34,999. Respondents who live in urban areas had lower response rates than those who live in rural or suburban areas. Although we cannot assess the extent of nonresponse bias, weighting adjustments, which corrected for differential response rates, should have reduced the problem. 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.***Footnote 1: For more information on the YRBSS methodology, see Brener et al. (2004).*** 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, 2003, and 2005 YRBS data. 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, 15,200, and 13,900 students participated in the 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005 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, 67 percent for the 2003 survey, and 67 percent for the 2005 survey. NCES standards call for response rates of 85 percent or better for cross-sectional surveys, and bias analyses are required 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, 2002 and 2005 (U.S. Department of Education 2003, 2006). State level data were downloaded from the 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 or equal to 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 2005, a total of 40 states and 21 districts had weighted data. In sites with weighted data, the student sample sizes for the state and local YRBS ranged from 942 to 9,708. School response rates ranged from 72 to 100 percent, student response rates ranged from 61 to 93 percent, and overall response rates ranged from 60 to 85 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* A. White - not Hispanic B. Black - not Hispanic C. Hispanic or Latino D. Asian or Pacific Islander E. American Indian or Alaskan Native F. Other The version used in 1999, 2001, 2003, and in the 2005 state and local surveys 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 In the 2005 national survey, race/ethnicity was computed from two questions: 1) "Are you Hispanic or Latino*" (response options were "yes" and "no"), and 2) "What is your race*" (response options were "American Indian or Alaska Native," "Asian," "Black or African American," "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander," or "White"). For the second question, students could select more than one response option. For this report, students were classified as "Hispanic" if they answered "yes" to the first question, regardless of how they answered the second question. Students who answered "no" to the first question and selected more than one race/ethnicity in the second category were classified as "More than one race." Students who answered "no" to the first question and selected only one race/ethnicity were classified as that race/ethnicity. Race/ ethnicity was set to missing for students who did not answer the first question (176 cases) or for students who answered "no" to the first question but did not answer the second question (48 cases). The questions used in 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005 result 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. 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. CDC is examining the effect of using a two-question format to assess race/ethnicity in the 2005 national YRBS. 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, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 SASS were collected by the U.S. Census Bureau 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. In 1993-94, there were two sets of teacher surveys, public and private school teachers. In 1999-2000, there were four sets of teacher surveys, public, private, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) school teachers. In 2003-04, there were three sets of teacher surveys, public (including public charter), private, and BIA. For this report, BIA and public charter schools are included with public schools. The public school sampling frames for the 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 SASS were created using the 1991-92, 1997-98, and 2001-02 NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) Public School Universe Files, respectively. In SASS, a school was defined as an institution or part of an institution that provides classroom instruction to students; has one or more teachers to provide instruction; serves students in one or more of grades 1-12 or the ungraded equivalent and is located in one or more buildings. It was possible for two or more schools to share the same building; in this case they were treated as different schools if they had different administrations (i.e., principals). Since CCD and SASS differ in scope and their definitions of a school, some records were deleted, added, or modified in order to provide better coverage and a more efficient sample design for SASS. Data were collected by multistage sampling, which began with the selection of schools. This report uses 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 SASS data. Approximately 10,000 public schools and 3,300 private schools were selected to participate in the 1993-94 SASS, 11,100 public schools (9,900 public schools, 100 BIA-funded schools, and 1,100 charter schools) and 3,600 private schools were selected to participate in the 1999-2000 SASS, and 10,400 public schools (10,200 public schools and 200 BIA-funded schools) and 3,600 private schools were selected to participate in the 2003-04 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 57,000 public school teachers and 11,500 private school teachers were sampled. In 1999- 2000, 56,300 public school teachers, 500 BIA teachers, 4,400 public charter school teachers, and 10,800 private school teachers were sampled. In 2003-04, 52,500 public school teachers, 700 BIA teachers, and 10,000 private school teachers were sampled. This report focuses on responses from teachers. The overall weighted response rate for public school teachers in 1993-94 was 88 percent. In 1999-2000, the overall weighted response rates were 77 percent for public school teachers, and 86 and 72 percent for BIA and public charter school teachers, respectively (which are included with public school teachers for this report). In 2003-2004, the overall weighted response rates were 76 percent for public school teachers and 86 percent for BIA-funded school teachers (who are included with public school teachers). For private school teachers, the overall weighted response rates were 80 percent, 67 percent, and 70 percent in 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04, 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 the winter and spring of the 2003-04 school year. SSOCS focuses on incidents of specific crimes and 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 primary, middle, high, and combined 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 2004 SSOCS was constructed from the public school universe .le created for the 2003-04 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) from the 2001-02 NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) Public School Universe File. The CCD is an annual national database of all public K-12 schools and school districts. Certain types of schools were excluded from the CCD Public School Universe File in order to meet the sampling needs of SASS, including those in the outlying U.S. territories,***Footnote 2: "U.S. outlying areas" include the following: America Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.*** overseas Department of Defense schools, newly closed schools, home schools, and schools with high grades of kindergarten or lower. Additional schools were then excluded from the SASS frame to meet the sampling needs of SSOCS, including; local education agencies that appear to be schools, special education, vocational, or alternative schools, department of defense schools, Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, ungraded schools, and "intermediate units"***Footnote 3: These are generally schools specializing in special education, alternative education, or juvenile halls.** in California and Pennsylvania. The sample was stratified by instructional level, type of locale (e.g., city, urban fringe, etc.), and enrollment size. Within the primary strata, schools were also sorted by geographic region and by percentage of minority enrollment. The sample was then allocated to the primary strata in rough proportion to the square root of the total sum of individual enrollments of schools within the stratum. A total of 3,743 schools were selected for the study. In March 2004, 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. A total of 2,772 schools completed the survey. The weighted overall response rate was 77.2 percent, and weighted item nonresponse rates ranged from 0-33.3 percent. A nonresponse bias analysis was conducted on the nine items with weighted item nonresponse rates above 15 percent, and minimal bias was detected. 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 2003-04 school year. For information on the 1999-2000 iteration, see Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005. 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 datasets. 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 dataset. For statistics based on all years of NCVS data, standard errors were derived from a formula developed by the U.S. Census Bureau, which consists of three generalized variance function(gvf)constant parameters that represent the curve fitted to the individual standard errors calculated using the Jackknife Repeated Replication technique. The formulas used to compute the adjusted standard errors associated with percentages or population counts can be found in figure A.3. The coefficient of variation (Cv) represents the ratio of the standard error to the mean. As an attribute of a distribution, the Cv is an important measure of the reliability and accuracy of an estimate. In this report, the Cv was calculated for all estimates, and in cases where the Cv was at least 30 percent the estimates were noted with a ! symbol (interpret data with caution). In cases where the Cv was greater than 50 percent, the estimate was determined not to meet reporting standards and was suppressed. 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) / sq 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) / sq 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. 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 the total sum of squares into within- and between-group sums of squares. These were used to create mean squares for the within- and between-group variance components and their corresponding F statistics, which were then compared with published values of F for a significance level of .05. Significant values of both the overall F and the F associated with the linear contrast term were required as evidence of a linear relationship between the two variables. APPENDIX B GLOSSARY OF TERMS GENERAL TERMS Cluster sampling Cluster sampling is a technique in which the sampling of respondents or subjects occurs within clusters or groups. For example, selecting students by sampling schools and the students that attend that school. Crime Any violation of a statute or regulation or any act that the government has determined is injurious to the public, including felonies and misdemeanors. Such violation may or may not involve violence, and it may affect individuals or property. Incident A specific criminal act or offense involving one or more victims and one or more offenders. 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 oversample 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. 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. Gang Street gangs, fighting gangs, crews, or something else. Gangs may use common names, signs, symbols, or colors. All gangs, whether or not they are involved in violent or illegal activity, are included. 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 midsize 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 "ungraded," and no grade higher than 6th; (3) 6th grade or lower and 7th grade or higher, and reported a primary assignment of prekindergarten, kindergarten, or general elementary; (4) 7th and 8th grades only, and reported a primary assignment of prekindergarten, kindergarten, or general elementary; (5) 6th grade or lower and 7th grade or higher, and reported a primary assignment of special education and was designated as an elementary teacher on the list of teachers provided by the school; or (6) 7th and 8th grades only, and reported a primary assignment of special education and was designated as an elementary teacher on the list of teachers provided by the school. A teacher at a 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. Census Bureau) 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. Census Bureau). 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 midsize city (a place within an Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of a midsize central city and defined as urban by the U.S. Census Bureau) 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. Census Bureau). 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 instructed to report on activities that occurred during normal school hours or when school activities/events were in session. Combined schools that include all combinations of grades, including K-12 schools, other than primary, middle, and high 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. High school A school in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 12. 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. 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 .le, city includes large cities and midsize 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 an 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. End of file 12/01/06 ih