Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2007 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2007 December 2007, NCJ 219553 -------------------------------------------------------- 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/iscs07.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 ------------------------------------------------------- NCES 2008-021 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Rachel Dinkes Education Statistics Services Institute- American Institutes for Research Emily Forrest Cataldi MPR Associates, Inc. Wendy Lin-Kelly Bureau of Justice Statistics Thomas D. Snyder Project Officer National Center for Education Statistics Department of Education Margaret Spellings Secretary Department of Justice Michael B. Mukasey Attorney General Institute of Education Sciences Grover J. Whitehurst Director Office of Justice Programs Cybele K. Daley Acting 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. Th ese data are critical to federal, state, and local policymakers in combating crime and ensuring that justice is both efficient and evenhanded. December 2007 Suggested Citation Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E.F., and Lin-Kelly, W. (2007). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2007 (NCES 2008- 021/NCJ 219553). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC. 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 2008-021) (TTY/TDD 1-877-576-7734), and the Bureau of Justice Statistics Clearinghouse at 1-800-851-3420 (NCJ 219553). Contact at NCES Thomas D. Snyder (202) 502-7452 tom.snyder@ed.gov Contact at BJS Michael Rand 202-616-3494 micheal.rand@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). Ensuring safer schools requires establishing good indicators of the current state of school crime and safety across the nation and regularly updating and monitoring these indicators. This is the aim of Indicators of School Crime and Safety. This report is the tenth 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 data sources, including national surveys of students, teachers, and principals. 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 most recent data collection for each indicator varied by survey, from 2003-04 to 2005-06. 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 final response rate for students age 12 to 18 for the School Crime Supplement (56 percent),1 fell below the NCES statistical standards; therefore, interpret the 2005 data from Indicators 3, 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 21 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, classroom disorder, weapons, student perceptions of school safety, teacher injury, and availability and student use of 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. 1 Analysis of unit nonresponse found evidence that for some demographic groups, there may be a response bias in that the nonrespondents have different characteristics than those who responded. Weighting adjustments, which corrected for differential response rates, should have reduced the problem. Therefore, while the results are valid, in interpreting the data from Indicators 3, 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 21, a reader should understand that these estimates may have larger and unmeasured sources of survey error than other estimates. KEY FINDINGS In the 2005-06 school year, an estimated 54.8 million students were enrolled in prekindergarten through grade 12 (U.S. Department of Education 2007). Preliminary data show that among youth ages 5-18, there were 17 school- associated violent deaths2 from July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006 (14 homicides and 3 suicides) (Indicator 1). In 2005, among students ages 12-18, there were about 1.5 million victims of nonfatal crimes at school,3 including 868,100 thefts4 and 628,200 violent crimes5 (simple assault and serious violent crime6) (Indicator 2). There is some evidence that student safety has improved. The victimization rate of students ages 12-18 at school declined between 1992 and 2005 (Indicator 2). However, violence, theft, drugs, and weapons continue to pose problems in schools. During the 2005-06 school year, 86 percent of public schools reported that at least one violent crime, theft, or other crime occurred at their school (Indicator 6). In 2005, 8 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported being threatened or injured with a weapon in the previous 12 months, and 25 percent reported that drugs were made available to them on school property (Indicators 4 and 9). In the same year, 28 percent of students ages 12-18 reported having been bullied at school during the previous 6 months (Indicator 11). The following section presents key findings from each section of the report. Violent Deaths • From July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, there were 14 homicides and 3 suicides of school-age youth (ages 5-18) at school (Indicator 1), or about 1 homicide or suicide of a school-age youth at school per 3.2 million students enrolled during the 2005-06 school year. Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization • In 2005, students ages 12-18 were victims of about 1.5 million nonfatal crimes at school, including thefts4 and violent crimes5 (Indicator 2). • Students ages 12-18 were generally more likely to be victims of theft4 at school than away from school (Indicator 2). In 2005, 33 thefts4 per 1,000 students occurred at school and 23 thefts4 per 1,000 students occurred away from school. • In 2005, 4 percent of students ages 12-18 reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months: 3 percent reported theft,4 and 1 percent reported violent victimization5 (Indicator 3). Less than half of a percent of students reported serious violent victimization.6 2 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 included students, staff members, and others who are not students. 3 See appendix B for a detailed definition of "at school." 4 Theft includes purse snatching, pick pocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts except motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery in which threat or use of force is involved. 5 Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault. 6 Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. • Between 2003 and 2005, the percentage of students ages 12-18 reporting victimization declined (from 5 to 4 percent), as did the percentage reporting theft4 (from 4 to 3 percent); there were no measurable changes in the percentages reporting violent5 and serious violent crime6 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 to 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). 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 the 2003-04 school year, a greater percentage of teachers in city schools reported being threatened with injury or physically attacked in 2003-04 than teachers in suburban, town, or rural schools (Indicator 5). For example, in 2003-04, 10 percent of teachers in city schools were threatened with injury by students, compared to 6 percent of teachers in suburban schools, 5 percent of teachers in town schools, and 5 percent of teachers in rural schools. • A greater percentage of secondary school teachers (8 percent) reported being threatened with injury by a student than elementary school teachers (6 percent) (Indicator 5). However, a greater percentage of elementary school teachers (4 percent) reported having been physically attacked than secondary school teachers (2 percent). • A greater percentage of public than private school teachers reported being threatened with injury (7 vs. 2 percent) or physically attacked (4 vs. 2 percent) by students in school (Indicator 5). Among teachers in 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 • In 2005-06, 86 percent of public schools reported one or more serious violent incidents,7 violent incidents,8 thefts of items valued at $10 or greater, or other crimes had occurred at their school, amounting to an estimated 2.2 million crimes (Indicator 6). This figure translates into a rate of 46 crimes per 1,000 students enrolled in 2005-06. • The percentage of public schools experiencing incidents of crime was lower in 2005- 06 than in 2003-04 (Indicator 6). However, the percentage of schools experiencing crimes in 2005-06 was not measurably different from the percentage of schools experiencing crimes in 1999-2000. 7 Serious violent incidents include rape or attempted 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. Serious violent incidents are a subset of violent incidents. 8 Violent incidents include serious violent incidents plus physical attacks or fights without a weapon and threats of physical attacks without a weapon. Serious violent incidents are a subset of violent incidents. • In 2005-06, 24 percent of public schools reported that student bullying was a daily or weekly problem (Indicator 7). With regard to other discipline problems occurring at least once a week, 18 percent of public school principals reported student acts of disrespect for teachers, 9 percent reported student verbal abuse of teachers, 3 percent reported daily or weekly occurrences of racial/ethnic tensions among students, and 2 percent reported widespread disorder in classrooms. With regard to other discipline problems occurring at least once per school year, 17 percent of principals reported undesirable gang activities and 4 percent reported undesirable cult or extremist activities during 2005-06. • In 2005-06, a higher percentage of middle schools than primary schools reported various types of discipline problems (Indicator 7). Also, a higher percentage of middle schools than high schools reported daily or weekly occurrences of student bullying and student sexual harassment of other 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) reported seeing 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 previous 6 months (Indicator 11). Of these students, 53 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 injury9 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). 9 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. • In 2003-04, 35 percent of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that student misbehavior interfered with their teaching and 31 percent reported that student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching (Indicator 12). Seventy-two percent of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that other teachers at their school enforced the school rules, and 88 percent reported that the principal enforced the school rules in 2003-04. • A higher percentage of elementary school teachers than secondary school teachers agreed that school rules were enforced by teachers in their school, even for students not in their class (Indicator 12). In 2003-04, 79 percent of elementary teachers reported that school rules were enforced by other teachers, compared to 56 percent of secondary teachers. 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 13). In the same year, 43 percent of males said they had been in a fight anywhere, compared to 28 percent of females, and 18 percent of males said they had been in a fight on school property, compared to 9 percent of females. • Nineteen percent of students in grades 9-12 in 2005 reported they had carried a weapon anywhere, and 6 percent reported they had carried a weapon on school property during the previous 30 days (Indicator 14). 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, 10 percent of males carried a weapon on school property, compared to 3 percent of females, and 30 percent of males carried a weapon anywhere, compared to 7 percent of females. • In 2005, 43 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported having consumed at least one drink of alcohol anywhere, and 4 percent reported having consumed at least one drink on school property during the previous 30 days (Indicator 15). Hispanic students (8 percent) were more likely to report using 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 16). 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 17). 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 2005. • Black and Hispanic students were more likely than White students to fear for their safety regardless of location in 2005 (Indicator 17). 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 to 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 18). 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 to 4 percent of suburban and rural students. Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures • Forty-eight percent of public schools reported taking 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 2005-06 school year (Indicator 19). Of those serious disciplinary actions, 74 percent were suspensions for 5 days or more, 5 percent were expulsions, and 20 percent were transfers to specialized schools. • The largest percentage of schools that reported taking a disciplinary action in 2005-06 did so in response to a physical attack or fight: 32 percent of schools reported taking a serious disciplinary action for physical attacks or fights (Indicator 19). • In the 2005-06 school year, 5 percent of public schools reported performing drug testing on athletes and 3 percent reported doing so for students in other extracurricular activities (Indicator 20). A higher percentage of public high schools than middle or primary schools reported performing drug tests on students: 13 percent of high schools reported performing drug tests on athletes, compared to 7 percent of middle schools and 1 percent of primary schools. • 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 21). Metal detectors were the least commonly observed security measure, with 11 percent of students reporting their use at their school. FOREWORD Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2007 provides the most recent national indicators on school crime and safety. Some of these indicators document that student safety has improved. The victimization rate of students ages 12-18 at school declined between 1992 and 2005. However, reports of violence, theft, drugs, and weapons did not decline during this same period. During the 2005- 06 school year, 86 percent of public schools reported that at least one violent crime, theft, or other crime occurred at their school. In 2005, 8 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported being threatened or injured with a weapon in the previous 12 months, and 25 percent reported that drugs were made available to them on school property. 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 tenth 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 2007 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 Katrina Baum, Allen Beck, Doris James, and Michael Rand who served as reviewers and Patsy Klaus and Erika Harrell who verified data from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Outside of NCES and BJS, Nancy Brener, Mark Anderson, Jeffrey Hall, and Latasha Butler 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 Deborah Rudy of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Several staff members at the Education Statistics Services Institute (ESSI) contributed to this report. ESSI is funded by NCES and composed of staff from the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and a number of partner organizations. Mary Ann Fox of ESSIAIR provided overall guidance, research support, and statistical analysis. Elizabeth Jacinto (ESSI-AIR), Qingshu Xie (ESSI-Macrosys), and Paul Guerino (ESSI-AIR) gave programming and data support. Lauren Drake (ESSI- MacroSys), Jana Kemp (ESSI-Child Trends), and Kevin Bianco (ESSI-Macrosys) provided research and formatting support. Tom Nachazel (ESSI-AIR) copyedited updates to this year's report. Barbara Kridl, Natesh Daniel, Alicia Broadway, and Patricia Gildersleeve of MPR Associates worked on the cover design and report layout. Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2007 has received extensive reviews by several people, both within and outside of the Department of Education. We would like to thank them for their time and expert advice: Kristin Flanagan and Sandy Eyster, both of ESSI-AIR; Alexandra Henning of ESSI-Quality Information Partners; Xiaolie Wang of ESSI-National Institute of Statistical Sciences; Shijie Chen of ESSI-Research Triangle Institute; Siri Warkentien of ESSI-Child Trends; and Kevin Bromer and Hannah Dodd of ESSI-AIR. CONTENTS Executive Summary iii Foreword ix Acknowledgments x List of Tables xii List of Figures xx Introduction 1 Violent Deaths 5 1. Violent Deaths at School and Away From School 6 Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization 9 2. Incidence of Victimization at School and Away From School 10 3. Prevalence of Victimization at School 14 4. Threats and Injuries With Weapons on School Property 16 5. Teachers Threatened With Injury or Physically Attacked by Students 18 School Environment 21 6. Violent and Other Crime Incidents at Public Schools and Those Reported to the Police 22 7. Discipline Problems Reported by Public Schools 26 8. Students' Reports of Gangs at School 28 9. Students' Reports of Drug Availability on School Property 30 10. Students' Reports of Being Called Hate-Related Words and Seeing Hate-Related Graffiti 32 11. Bullying at School 34 12. Teachers' Reports of School Conditions 36 Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances 39 13. Physical Fights on School Property and Anywhere 40 14. Students Carrying Weapons on School Property and Anywhere 42 15. Students' Use of Alcohol on School Property and Anywhere 44 16. Students' Use of Marijuana on School Property and Anywhere 46 Fear and Avoidance 49 17. Students' Perceptions of Personal Safety at School and Away From School 50 18. Students' Reports of Avoiding School Activities or Specific Places in School 52 Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures 55 19. Serious Disciplinary Actions Taken by Public Schools 56 20. Safety and Security Measures Taken by Public Schools 58 21. Students' Reports of Safety and Security Measures Observed at School 60 References 63 Supplemental Tables 67 Standard Error Tables 117 Appendix A. Technical Notes 165 Appendix B. Glossary of Terms 195 Supplemental Tables 1.1. Number of school-associated violent deaths, homicides, and suicides of youth ages 5-18, by location and year: 1992-2006 68 1.2. Number of school-associated violent deaths of students, staff, and nonstudents, by type: 1992-2006 69 2.1. Number of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 and rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by location and year: 1992-2005 70 2.2. Number of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 at school and rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected student and school characteristics: 2005 71 2.3. Number of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 away from school and rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected student and school characteristics: 2005 72 3.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization and selected student and school characteristics: Various years, 1995-2005 73 4.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous 12 months, by selected student and school characteristics: Various years, 1993- 2005 75 4.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous 12 months, by state: 2003 and 2005 76 5.1. 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: Various school years, 1993-94, 1999- 2000, and 2003-04 77 5.2. 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: Various school years, 1993-94, 1999- 2000, and 2003-04 78 5.3. 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 79 5.4. 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 80 6.1. 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: Various school years, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2005-06 81 6.2. 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: School year 2005-06 82 6.3. 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: School year 2005-06 84 7.1. Percentage of public schools reporting selected discipline problems that occurred at school, by frequency: Various school years, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2005-06 86 7.2. Percentage of public schools reporting selected discipline problems that occurred at school, by frequency and school characteristics: School year 2005-06 87 8.1. 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 89 9.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported that drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by selected student and school characteristics: Various years, 1993-2005 90 9.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported that drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by state: 2003 and 2005 91 10.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being targets of hate-related words and seeing hate- related graffiti at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school characteristics: Various years, 1999-2005 92 10.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being targets of hate-related words at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school characteristics: 2005 93 11.1. 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 94 11.2. 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 95 11.3. 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 96 12.1. Percentage of public and private school teachers who agreed or strongly agreed that student misbehavior and student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching, by selected teacher and school characteristics: Various school years, 1987-88 through 2003-04 97 12.2. Percentage of public and private school teachers who agreed or strongly agreed that school rules are enforced by other teachers and by the principal, by selected teacher and school characteristics: Various school years, 1987-88 through 2003-04 98 13.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Various years, 1993-2005 100 13.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by location and state: 2003 and 2005 .... 101 14.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Various years, 1993-2005 102 14.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and state: 2003 and 2005 103 15.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Various years, 1993-2005 104 15.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and state: 2003 and 2005 105 16.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Various years, 1993-2005 106 16.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and state: 2003 and 2005 ........................... 107 17.1. 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 108 18.1. 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 109 18.2. 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 110 19.1. 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: School year 2005-06 111 19.2. Percentage of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action and number of serious actions taken, by type of offense: Various school years, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2005-06 112 20.1. Percentage of public schools that used selected safety and security measures, by school characteristics: School year 2005-06 113 20.2. Percentage of public schools that used safety and security measures: Various school years, 1999-2000, 2003- 04, and 2005-06 115 21.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported selected security measures at school: Various years, 1999-2005 116 Standard Error Tables S2.1. 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: 1992-2005 118 S2.2. 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 and school characteristics: 2005 119 S2.3. 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: 2005 120 S3.1. 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 121 S4.1. 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 123 S4.2. 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 124 S5.1. 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: Various school years, 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 125 S5.2. 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: Various school years, 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 126 S5.3. 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 2003-04 127 S5.4. 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 2003-04 128 S6.1. 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: Various school years, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2005-06 129 S6.2. 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: School year 2005-06 130 S6.3. 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: School year 2005-06 132 S7.1. Standard errors for the percentage of public schools reporting selected discipline problems that occurred at school, by frequency: Various school years, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2005-06 134 S7.2. Standard errors for the percentage of public schools reporting selected discipline problems that occurred at school, by frequency and school characteristics: School year 2005-06 135 S8.1. 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 137 S9.1. 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 138 S9.2. 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 139 S10.1. 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 140 S10.2. 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 141 S11.1. 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 142 S11.2. 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 143 S11.3. 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 144 S12.1. Standard errors for the percentage of public and private school teachers who agreed or strongly agreed that student misbehavior and student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching, by selected teacher and school characteristics: Various school years, 1987-88 through 2003-04 145 S12.2. Standard errors for the percentage of public and private school teachers who agreed or strongly agreed that school rules are enforced by other teachers and by the principal, by selected teacher and school characteristics: Various school years, 1987-88 through 2003-04 146 S13.1. 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 147 S13.2. 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 148 S14.1. 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 149 S14.2. 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 150 S15.1. 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 151 S15.2. 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 152 S16.1. 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 153 S16.2. 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 154 S17.1. 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 155 S18.1. 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 156 S18.2. 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 157 S19.1. 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: School year 2005-06 158 S19.2. Standard errors for the percentage of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action and number of serious actions taken, by type of offense: Various years, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2005-06 159 S20.1. Standard errors for the percentage of public schools that used selected safety and security measures, by school characteristics: School year 2005-06 160 S20.2. Standard errors for the percentage of public schools that used safety and security measures: Various school years, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2005-06 162 S21.1. Standard errors for the percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported selected security measures at school: Various years, 1999-2005 163 List of Figures A. Nationally representative sample surveys used in this report 3 1.1. Number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5-18, by location: 2004-05 7 1.2. Number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5-18 at school: 1992-2006 7 2.1. Rate of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 per 1,000 students, by type of crime and location: 1992-2005 11 2.2. Rate of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 at school per 1,000 students, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 2005 12 2.3. Rate of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 away from school per 1,000 students, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 2005 13 3.1. 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 15 4.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous 12 months, by sex: Various years, 1993-2005 17 4.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous 12 months, by grade: 2005 17 5.1. Percentage of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury or that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months: Various school years, 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 19 5.2. Percentage of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury or that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and instructional level: School year 2003-04 19 6.1. 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: School year 2005-06 23 6.2. Percentage of public schools experiencing and reporting incidents of crime that occurred at school, by type of crime and school level: School year 2005-06 24 6.3. Percentage of public schools experiencing and reporting incidents of crime that occurred at school, by type of crime: Various school years, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2005-06 25 7.1. Percentage of public schools reporting selected discipline problems that occurred at school, by school enrollment size: School year 2005-06 27 8.1. 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 29 8.2. 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 29 9.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported that drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by sex: Various years, 1993-2005 31 9.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported that drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by race/ ethnicity: 2005 31 10.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being targets of hate-related words and seeing hate- related graffiti at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school characteristics: 2005 33 11.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported selected bullying problems at school during the previous 6 months, by type of bullying: 2005 35 11.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by location of bullying and injury: 2005 35 12.1. Percentage of public and private school teachers who agreed or strongly agreed that school rules are enforced by other teachers and by the principal, by school level: School year 2003-04 37 12.2. Percentage of public and private school teachers who agreed or strongly agreed that student misbehavior interfered with their teaching, by sector: Various school years, 1987-88 through 2003-04 37 13.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by location and sex: Various years, 1993-2005 41 13.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by location and grade: 2005 41 14.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and sex: Various years, 1993-2005 43 14.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and race/ethnicity: 2005 43 15.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and sex: Various years, 1993-2005 45 15.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and grade: 2005 45 16.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and sex: Various years, 1993-2005 47 16.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and grade: 2005 47 17.1. 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 51 17.2. 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 51 18.1. 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 53 18.2. 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 53 19.1. Percentage of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action for specific offenses, by type of offense: School year 2005-06 57 19.2. Percentage of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action, by type of offense: Various school years, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2005-06 57 20.1. Percentage of public schools that used selected safety and security measures: School year 2005-06 59 20.2. Percentage of public schools that used selected safety and security measures: Various school years, 1999- 2000, 2003-04, and 2005-06 59 21.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported selected security measures at school: Various years, 1999-2005 61 Appendixes A.1. Descriptions of data sources and samples used in the report 181 A.2. Wording of survey questions used to construct indicators 183 A.3. Methods used to calculate standard errors of statistics for different surveys 192 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 school1 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 regularly updating and monitoring 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: 2007 is the tenth 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: 2007 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; Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization; 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 1 See appendix B for a detailed definition of "at school." comparison.2 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 updated data on violent deaths (Indicator 1), nonfatal student victimization (Indicator 2), public school reports of selected crimes (Indicator 6), discipline problems (Indicator 7), serious disciplinary actions (Indicator 19), and safety and security measures (Indicator 20). A new classification scheme for school level has been applied to the most recent data available on teachers who were threatened with injury or physically attacked in Indicator 5. In addition, one new indicator appears in this year's report: Indicator 12 summarizes teachers' reports of the conditions at their schools, including student misbehavior, tardiness, and class cutting and school rule enforcement by other teachers and principals. 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 20 and 21 report data on select security and safety measures used in schools. Indicator 20 uses data collected from a sample of principals about safety and security practices used in their schools during the 2005- 06 school year. Indicator 21, however, uses data collected from 12- through 18-year-olds residing in a sample 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 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. 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. 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 percentage of youth homicides occurring at school remained at less than 2 percent of the total number of youth homicides over all available survey years even though the absolute number of homicides of school-age youth at school varied to some degree across the years. Violent deaths at schools are rare but tragic events with far-reaching effects on the school population and surrounding community. From July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, there were 35 school-associated violent deaths in elementary and secondary schools in the United States (tables 1.1 and 1.2).3 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 included students, staff members, and others who are not students. School-associated violent deaths include violent 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. At school and away from school homicides and suicides data were drawn from a number of sources. Data for school-associated violent deaths for the 2005-06 school year are preliminary. Data for total homicides and suicides are available for 2004-05.4 The most recent data available for the total number of homicides of school-age youth are from the 2004-05 school year (figure 1.1 and table 1.1), during which there were 1,534 homicides. In the 2004 calendar year, there were 1,471 suicides of school-age youth. In each school year, youth were over 50 times more likely to be murdered and were over 150 times more likely to commit suicide when they were away from school than at school. From July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, there were 14 homicides and 3 suicides of school-age youth (ages 5-18) at school (figure 1.2 and table 1.1). Combined, this number translates into 1 homicide or suicide of a school-age youth at school per 3.2 million students enrolled during the 2005-06 school year.5 Between July 1, 1992, and June 30, 1999, no consistent pattern of increase or decrease was observed in the number of homicides at school (figure 1.2 and table 1.1). During this period, between 28 and 34 homicides of school-age youth occurred at school in each school year. 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. The number of homicides of school-age youth at school increased from 11 to 21 between the 2000-01 and 2004-05 school years, but dropped to 14 in 2005-06. The percentage of youth homicides occurring at school remained at less than 2 percent of the total number of youth homicides over all available survey years even though the absolute number of homicides of school-age youth at school varied to some degree across the years. Between the 1992-93 and 2004-05 school years, from one to eight school-age youth committed suicide at school each year, with no consistent pattern of increase or decrease. 3 Between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, there were 35 student, staff, and nonstudent school-associated violent deaths, including 26 homicides, 7 suicides, and 2 legal interventions (table 1.2). 4 Data on total suicides are available only by calendar year, whereas data on suicides and homicides at school and total homicides are available by school year. Data for total suicides (2005) and total homicides (2005-06) are not yet available. 5 The total projected number of students enrolled in prekindergarten through 12th grade during the 2005-06 school year was 54,772,000 (U.S. Department of Education 2007). This indicator has been updated to include 2005-06 data. For more information: Tables 1.1 & 1.2 Anderson et al. 2001 NONFATAL STUDENT AND TEACHER VICTIMIZATION INDICATOR 2 INCIDENCE OF VICTIMIZATION AT SCHOOL AND AWAY FROM SCHOOL At school, total crime and theft victimization rates for students were not measurably different between 2004 and 2005. The victimization rate of students age 12 to 18 at school was 55 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2004 and 57 victimizations in 2005. 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 (Elliot, Hamburg, and Williams 1998). Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that students age 12 to 18 were victims of about 1.5 million nonfatal crimes (theft plus violent crime) while they were at school and about 1.2 million nonfatal crimes while they were away from school in 2005 (table 2.1).6 These figures represent total crime victimization rates of 57 crimes per 1,000 students at school, and 47 crimes per 1,000 students away from school (figure 2.1 and table 2.1). Between 1992 and 2005, the total crime victimization rates for students age 12 to 18 generally declined both at school and away from school; this pattern held for the total crime rate as well as for thefts,7 violent crimes,8 and serious violent crimes9 (figure 2.1 and table 2.1). At school, total crime and theft victimization rates for students were not measurably different between 2004 and 2005. The victimization rate of students age 12 to 18 at school was 55 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2004 and 57 victimizations in 2005. There were an estimated 33 theft victimizations per 1,000 students at school in both 2004 and 2005. Away from school, total crime and violent crime victimization rates were also not measurably different between 2004 and 2005. There were 48 total crime victimizations per 1,000 students away from school in 2004 and 47 victimizations in 2005. There were 21 violent victimizations per 1,000 students away from school in 2004 and 24 violent victimizations in 2005. Generally, more students age 12 to 18 were victims of theft at school than away from school between 1992 and 2005. In 2005, students were victims of 868,000 crimes of theft at school and 610,000 crimes of theft away from school. This translates into 33 thefts per 1,000 students at school, compared to 23 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 2005, 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 2005. In 2005, students age 12 to 18 were victims of 5 serious violent crimes per 1,000 students at school, compared to 10 serious violent crimes per 1,000 students away from school. The victimization rates for students age 12 to 18 varied according to certain student characteristics in 2005. A greater percentage of younger students (age 12 to 14) than older students (age 15 to 18) were victims of crime at school, but the reverse was true away from school (figures 2.2 and 2.3 and tables 2.2 and 2.3). Students residing in suburban areas had a lower rate of violent victimization at school and away from school than students in urban areas, while no measurable difference was found between the rates of violent victimization in suburban and rural areas. 6 "Students" refers to youth ages 12-18 whose educational attainment did not exceed grade 12 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. 7 Theft includes purse snatching, pick pocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts except motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery in which threat or use of force is involved. 8 Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault. 9 Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. This indicator has been updated to include 2005 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 Supplement10 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,11 1 percent reported violent victimization12 (figure 3.1 and table 3.1), and less than half of a percent of students reported serious violent victimization.13 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 (figure 3.1 and table 3.1). 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 differences were detected by sex 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. 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. 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. 12 Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault. 13 Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. This indicator repeats information from the 2006 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. 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 (table 4.1). 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 (figure 4.1 and table 4.1). 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 (figure 4.2 and table 4.1). Eleven percent of 9thgraders 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 (table 4.2). This indicator repeats information from the 2006 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. For more information: Tables 4.1 & 4.2 Eaton et al. 2006 INDICATOR 5 TEACHERS THREATENED WITH INJURY OR PHYSICALLY ATTACKED BY STUDENTS In the 2003-04 school year, a greater percentage of public teachers in city schools than their peers in suburban, town, or rural schools reported 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, 7 percent, were threatened with injury by a student from their school in the 2003-04 school year than in 1993-94 and 1999-2000 school years, 12 and 9 percent respectively (figure 5.1 and table 5.1). A smaller percentage of teachers reported being physically attacked in 2003-04, 3 percent, than in 1993-94, 4 percent (table 5.2). A greater percentage of teachers in city schools reported being threatened with injury or physically attacked in 2003-04 than teachers in suburban, town, or rural schools (figure 5.2 and tables 5.1 and 5.2). For example, in 2003-04, 10 percent of teachers in city schools were threatened with injury by students, compared to 6 percent of teachers in suburban schools, 5 percent of teachers in town schools, and 5 percent of teachers in rural schools. Five percent of teachers in city schools were physically attacked by students, compared to 3 percent of teachers in suburban schools, 3 percent of teachers in town schools, and 2 percent of teachers in rural schools. A greater percentage of teachers in suburban schools reported being threatened with injury or physically attacked than teachers in rural schools. In the 2003-04 school year, teachers' reports of being threatened or physically attacked by students varied according to the level of their school. A greater percentage of secondary school teachers, 8 percent, reported being threatened with injury by a student than elementary school teachers, 6 percent (table 5.1). However, a greater percentage of elementary school teachers, 4 percent, reported having been physically attacked than secondary school teachers, 2 percent (table 5.2). Generally, a greater percentage of elementary and secondary teachers in city schools reported being threatened with injury or physically attacked than elementary or secondary teachers in suburban, town, or rural schools (figure 5.2). For example, in the 2003-04 school year, 12 percent of secondary teachers in city schools reported being threatened with injury compared to 7 percent of secondary suburban school teachers, and 6 percent of town and rural secondary school teachers. A greater percentage of public than private school teachers reported being threatened with injury (7 vs. 2 percent) or physically attacked (4 vs. 2 percent) by students in school (tables 5.1 and 5.2). Among teachers in 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 (table 5.3), and the percentage who were physically attacked ranged from 1 to 7 percent (table 5.4). This indicator has been modified to include new urbanicity codes. For more information: Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, & 5.4 Appendix B for definitions of school levels and urbanicity codes Strizek et al.2006 SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT INDICATOR 6 VIOLENT AND OTHER CRIME INCIDENTS AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THOSE REPORTED TO THE POLICE In 2005-06, 78 percent of schools experienced one or more violent incidents of crime, 17 percent experienced one or more serious violent incidents, 46 percent experienced one or more thefts, and 68 percent experienced another type of crime. 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,14 violent incidents,15 thefts of items valued at $10 or greater, and other incidents16 that occurred at their school, as well as the number of these incidents reported to the police. During the 2005- 06 school year, 86 percent of public schools responded that one or more incidents of these crimes had taken place (including violent incidents, theft, and other crimes), amounting to an estimated 2.2 million crimes (figure 6.1 and table 6.1). This figure translates into a rate of 46 crimes per 1,000 students enrolled in 2005-06. During the same year, 61 percent of schools reported an incident of one of the specified crimes to the police, amounting to about 763,000 crimes-or 16 crimes per 1,000 students enrolled. In 2005-06, 78 percent of schools experienced one or more violent incidents of crime, 17 percent experienced one or more serious violent incidents, 46 percent experienced one or more thefts, and 68 percent experienced another type of crime. Thirty-eight percent of public schools reported at least one violent incident to police, 13 percent reported at least one serious violent incident to police, 28 percent reported at least one theft to police, and 51 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 (figure 6.2 and tables 6.2 and 6.3). A smaller percentage of primary schools than middle or high schools experienced any violent incident: 67 percent of primary schools did so, compared to 94 percent of middle schools and 95 percent of high schools. Similar relationships were observed for serious violent incidents, theft, and other incidents. However, both primary schools and high schools had lower rates of violent crime per 1,000 students than middle schools. In 2005-06, there were 25 to 26 violent crimes per 1,000 students in primary schools and high schools, compared to 52 violent crimes in middle schools. Rates of serious violent crime ranged between 1 and 2 per 1,000 students for different school levels in 2005-06. The percentage of public schools experiencing incidents of crime was lower in 2005-06 than in 2003-04. In 2003- 04, 88 percent of schools experienced crimes, compared to 86 percent of schools in 2005-06 (figure 6.3 and table 6.1). The percentage of schools experiencing crimes in 2005-06 was not measurably different from the percentage of schools experiencing crimes in 1999-2000. The percentage of public schools that reported crimes to the police followed a similar pattern. In 1999-2000, 62 percent of schools reported crimes to the police, in 2003-04, 65 percent of schools reported crimes to the police, and in 2005-06, 61 percent of schools did so. 14 Serious violent incidents include rape or attempted 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. 15 Violent incidents include serious violent incidents plus physical attacks or fights without a weapon and threats of physical attacks without a weapon. 16 Other incidents include possession of a firearm or explosive device, possession of a knife or sharp object, distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs or alcohol, and vandalism. This indicator has been updated to include 2005-06 data. For more information: Tables 6.1, 6.2, & 6.3 Appendix B for definitions of school levels and urbanicity Nolle, Guerino, and Dinkes 2007 INDICATOR 7 DISCIPLINE PROBLEMS REPORTED BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Between 1999-2000 and 2005-06, the percentage of principals reporting student bullying as a frequently occurring discipline problem declined from 29 to 24 percent and student verbal abuse of teachers declined from 13 to 9 percent. The existence of discipline problems in a school may contribute to an environment that facilitates school violence and crime. 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, sexual harassment of other students, verbal abuse of teachers, widespread classroom disorder, and acts of disrespect for teachers in public schools. It also looks at occurrences of undesirable gang and cult activities, and due to the severe nature of these incidents, presents all reports of gang and cult activities during the school year. Twenty-four percent of public schools reported that bullying occurred among students on a daily or weekly basis and 18 percent reported that student acts of disrespect for teachers took place on a daily or weekly basis during the 2005-06 school year (figure 7.1 and table 7.1). With regard to other frequently occurring discipline problems in public schools (those occurring at least once a week), 9 percent of principals reported student verbal abuse of teachers, 3 percent reported student sexual harassment of other students, 3 percent reported student racial/ethnic tensions, and 2 percent reported widespread disorder in classrooms. Seventeen percent of public schools reported that undesirable gang activities and 4 percent reported that undesirable cult or extremist activities had happened at all during 2005- 06. The percentage of principals reporting that student bullying and student verbal abuse of teachers occurred at least once a week declined between 1999-2000 and 2005-06 (table 7.1). During this period, the percentage of principals reporting student bullying as a frequently occurring discipline problem declined from 29 to 24 percent and student verbal abuse of teachers declined from 13 to 9 percent. Discipline problems reported by public schools varied by school characteristics in 2005-06. In general, the percentage of principals reporting discipline problems was higher in large schools than in small schools (figure 7.1 and table 7.2). For example, 35 percent of principals at schools with 1,000 or more students reported that student acts of disrespect for teachers occurred at least once a week, whereas 12 percent at schools with less than 300 students reported this discipline problem. Also, in 2005-06, a higher percentage of middle schools than primary schools reported various types of discipline problems. Also, a higher percentage of middle schools than high schools reported daily or weekly occurrences of student bullying and student sexual harassment of other students. In 2005-06, the percentage of schools reporting the discipline problems of widespread disorder in the classroom, student acts of disrespect for teachers, student verbal abuse of teachers, and undesirable gang activities was generally smaller for schools where 20 percent or fewer of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch than for schools where more than 50 percent of the students were eligible (table 7.2). For example, 14 percent of schools where more than 50 percent of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch reported the daily or weekly occurrence of student verbal abuse of teachers compared to 3 percent of schools where 20 percent or fewer of the students were eligible. The percentage of students eligible for free or reduced- price lunch programs is a proxy measure of school poverty. This indicator has been updated to include 2005-06 data. For more information: Tables 7.1 & 7.2 Appendix B for definitions of school levels Nolle, Guerino, and Dinkes 2007 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 Supplement17 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 (figure 8.1 and table 8.1). 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. The only statistically significant increase in the reported presence of gangs occurred in urban schools; the percentage of students who reported that gangs were present at school increased from 31 to 36 percent during this period. 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 (table 8.1). 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. 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. This indicator repeats information from the 2006 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. 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 (figure 9.1 and table 9.1). 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 (figure 9.2 and table 9.1). 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 (table 9.2). This indicator repeats information from the 2006 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. 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 Supplement18 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 (figure 10.1 and table 10.1). 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 (table 10.2). 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 (figure 10.1 and table 10.1). Some 38 percent of students reported seeing 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 (table 10.2). 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). 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. This indicator repeats information from the 2006 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. 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 Supplement19 to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 were asked if they had been bullied at school during the previous 6 months.20 In 2005, about 28 percent of students reported having been bullied at school during the last 6 months (figure 11.1 and table 11.1). 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 (figure 11.2 and table 11.1). 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 (figure 11.2 and table 11.2). 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 (table 11.3). 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 (table 11.1). 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 injury21 as a result (table 11.2). 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). 19 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. 20 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. 21 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. This indicator repeats information from the 2006 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. For more information: Tables 11.1, 11.2, & 11.3 DeVoe and Kaffenberger 2005 INDICATOR 12 TEACHERS' REPORTS OF SCHOOL CONDITIONS The percentage of teachers who reported that student misbehavior, class cutting, and tardiness interfered with their teaching varied by teacher and school characteristics. A higher percentage of teachers in city schools than in suburban, rural, or town schools reported that misbehavior and student tardiness interfered with their teaching in 2003-04. Classroom disruptions are associated with lower student achievement for the offending student as well as for that student's classmates (Lannie and McCurdy 2007). In the Schools and Staffing Survey, public and private school teachers were asked if student misbehavior and student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching. In 2003-04, 35 percent of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that student misbehavior interfered with their teaching, and 31 percent reported that student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching (table 12.1). Teachers were also asked if school rules were enforced by other teachers at their school, even for students not in their classes, or by the principal. Seventy-two percent of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that other teachers at their school enforced the school rules and 88 percent reported that the principal enforced the school rules in 2003-04 (figure 12.1 and table 12.2). The percentage of teachers who reported that student misbehavior, class cutting, and tardiness interfered with their teaching varied by teacher and school characteristics. In 2003-04, a higher percentage of teachers in city schools than in suburban, town, or rural schools reported that misbehavior and student tardiness interfered with their teaching (table 12.1). For example, 42 percent of teachers in city schools reported that student misbehavior in their school interfered with their teaching, compared to 33 percent of suburban teachers, 34 percent of town teachers, and 31 percent of rural teachers. Between 1987-88 and 2003-04, a larger percentage of public school teachers than private school teachers reported that student misbehavior and tardiness interfered with their teaching (figure 12.2 and table 12.1). In 2003- 04, about 37 percent of public school teachers reported that student misbehavior interfered with their teaching, compared to 21 percent of private school teachers. In 2003-04, a higher percentage of secondary school teachers than elementary school teachers agreed that student misbehavior, student tardiness, and class cutting interfered with their teaching (table 12.1). In 2003-04, for example, 40 percent of secondary school teachers reported that student misbehavior interfered with their teaching, compared to 34 percent of elementary teachers. The percentage of teachers who agreed that school rules were enforced by other teachers varied by teacher and school characteristics. In every survey year, a higher percentage of elementary school teachers than secondary school teachers agreed that school rules were enforced by teachers in their school, even for students not in their class (table 12.2 and figure 12.1). In 2003-04, for example, 79 percent of elementary teachers reported that school rules were enforced by other teachers compared to 56 percent of secondary teachers. Generally, the percentage of teachers who agreed or strongly agreed that school rules were enforced by other teachers was greater in schools with smaller school enrollment (table 12.2). In 2003-04, about 84 percent of teachers in schools with fewer than 200 students agreed that school rules were enforced by other teachers, compared to 56 percent of teachers in schools with 1,000 or more students. This is a new indicator. For more information: Tables 12.1 & 12.2 Appendix B for definitions of school levels and urbanicity codes Strizek et al. 2006 FIGHTS, WEAPONS, AND ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES INDICATOR 13 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. Fights occurring anywhere are included as a point of comparison with fights occurring 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 (figure 13.1 and table 13.1). 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 (figure 13.1 and table 13.1). 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 (figure 13.2 and table 13.1). 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 (table 13.2). This indicator repeats information from the 2006 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. For more information: Tables 13.1 & 13.2 Eaton et al. 2006 INDICATOR 14 STUDENTS CARRYING WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE There was no measurable change in the percentage of students who reported carrying 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. Weapon carrying anywhere is included as a point of comparison with weapon carrying on school property. 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 (figure 14.1 and table 14.1). 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 (figure 14.1 and table 14.1). 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 (figure 14.2 and table 14.1). Asian students were less likely than students from all other racial/ ethnic groups, except Pacific Islanders,22 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 (table 14.2). 22 No observed measurable differences may be due to large standard errors. This indicator repeats information from the 2006 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. For more information: Tables 14.1 & 14.2 Eaton et al. 2006 INDICATOR 15 STUDENTS' USE OF ALCOHOL ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE In 2005, some 43 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported having 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. Alcohol consumption anywhere is included as a point of comparison with alcohol consumption 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 (figure 15.1 and table 15.1). 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 (figure 15.1 and table 15.1). 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 (figure 15.2 and table 15.1). 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 (table 15.2). This indicator repeats information from the 2006 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. For more information: Tables 15.1 & 15.2 Eaton et al. 2006 INDICATOR 16 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 (figure 16.1 and table 16.1). 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 (figure 16.1 and table 16.1). 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 (figure 16.2 and table 16.1). 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 (table 16.2). This indicator repeats information from the 2006 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. For more information: Tables 16.1 & 16.2 Eaton et al. 2006 FEAR AND AVOIDANCE INDICATOR 17 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 Supplement23 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.24 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 17.1 and table 17.1). 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 (figure 17.2 and table 17.1). 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. Although it appears that the public school students were generally more likely than their counterparts in private schools to fear being attacked away from school in 2005, these differences were not found to be statistically significant. 23 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. 24 For the 2001 survey, the wording was changed to "attack or threat of attack." Includes students who reported that they sometimes or most of the time feared being victimized in this way. This indicator repeats information from the 2006 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. For more information: Table 17.1 Addington et al. 2002 INDICATOR 18 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 Supplement25 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.26 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. About 2 percent of students avoided a school activity, and 4 percent avoided one or more places in school27 (figure 18.1 and table 18.1). 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 (figure 18.1 and table 18.1). 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 (table 18.2). 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 (figure 18.2 and table 18.2). 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). 25 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. 26 For the 2001 survey, the wording was changed from "attack or harm" to "attack or threat of attack." See appendix A for more information. 27 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. This indicator repeats information from the 2006 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. For more information: Tables 18.1 & 18.2 Addington et al. 2002 DISCIPLINE, SAFETY, AND SECURITY MEASURES INDICATOR 19 SERIOUS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS TAKEN BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Forty-eight percent of public schools (approximately 39,600 schools) took a serious disciplinary action against a student for specific offenses during the 2005- 06 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 20 percent were transfers to specialized schools. 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. Forty-eight percent of public schools (approximately 39,600 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 2005-06 school year (figure 19.1 and table 19.1). 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 or explosive device; and use or possession of a firearm or explosive device. Of the 830,700 serious disciplinary actions taken during the 2005 -06 school year, 74 percent were suspensions for 5 days or more, 5 percent were removals with no services, and 20 percent were transfers to specialized schools. The largest percentage of schools that reported taking a disciplinary action in 2005-06 did so in response to a physical attack or fight: 32 percent of schools took a serious disciplinary action for physical attacks or fights (figure 19.1 and table 19.1). Of the schools that reported taking a serious disciplinary action, 21 percent took action for insubordination and for distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs; 19 percent took action as a result of use or possession of a weapon other than a firearm or explosive device; 10 percent did so for distribution, possession, or use of alcohol; and 5 percent did so for use or possession of a firearm or explosive device. The percentage of schools that took a serious disciplinary action for use or possession of a weapon other than a firearm was higher in 2005-06, 19 percent, than in 2003-04, 17 percent (table 19.2). The percentage of schools that took a serious disciplinary action in response to the other offenses covered in the survey were not measurably different between 2003-04 and 2005-06. The percentage of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action was smaller in 2003-04, 46 percent, than in 1999-2000, 54 percent (figure 19.2 and table 19.2). This pattern held for physical attacks or fights: in 1999-2000, 35 percent of public schools took a serious disciplinary action for a physical attack or fight, compared to 32 percent in 2003-04. This indicator has been updated to include 2005-06 data. For more information: Tables 19.1 & 19.2 Nolle, Guerino, and Dinkes 2007 INDICATOR 20 SAFETY AND SECURITY MEASURES TAKEN BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Between the 1999-2000 and 2005-06 school years, the percentage of schools using one or more security cameras to monitor the school increased from 19 to 43 percent. 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. 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 2005-06 school year, 85 percent of public schools controlled access to school buildings by locking or monitoring doors during school hours, and 41 percent controlled access to school grounds with locked or monitored gates (figure 20.1 and table 20.1). About 48 percent of public schools required faculty and staff to wear badges or picture identification, and 43 percent used one or more security cameras to monitor the school. Five percent of public schools performed drug testing on athletes and 3 percent did so for students in other extracurricular activities. Students were required to wear uniforms in 14 percent of public schools in 2005-06. The use of security measures varied by school level. Although a lower percentage of primary schools than middle and high schools reported using many of these measures, a higher percentage of primary schools than middle and high schools controlled access to school buildings and grounds during school hours (table 20.1). In addition, a larger percentage of primary schools than high schools reported requiring students to wear uniforms: 16 percent of primary schools required uniforms in 2005-06, compared to 5 percent of high schools. A higher percentage of public high schools than primary or middle schools reported performing drug tests on student athletes and students in extracurricular activities, random dog sniffs to check for drugs, random sweeps for contraband, and using security cameras. Thirteen percent of high schools reported performing drug tests on athletes, compared to 7 percent of middle schools and 1 percent of primary schools; and 61 percent of high schools performed random dog sniffs to check for drugs, compared to 41 percent and 4 percent of middle and primary schools, respectively. The percentage of schools using various security measures has changed over time. Between the 1999-2000 and 2005-06 school years, the percentage of schools using one or more security cameras to monitor the school increased from 19 to 43 percent (figure 20.2 and table 20.2). The percentage of public schools providing telephones in most classrooms also increased, from 45 percent in 1999-2000 to 67 percent in 2005-06. This indicator has been updated to include 2005-06 data. For more information: Tables 20.1 & 20.2 Appendix B for definitions of school levels and urbanicity Nolle, Guerino, and Dinkes 2007 INDICATOR 21 STUDENTS' REPORTS OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MEASURES OBSERVED AT SCHOOL The percentage of students who reported observing 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. In the School Crime Supplement28 to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 were asked whether their school used certain security measures.29 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 (table 21.1). 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 21.1 and table 21.1). 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 (figure 21.1 and table 21.1). 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. 28 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. 29 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 20 for a summary of the use of various security measures as reported by schools. This indicator repeats information from the 2006 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. For more information: Table 21.1 Addington et al. 2002 REFERENCES Addington, L.A., Ruddy, S.A., Miller, A.K., and DeVoe, J.F. (2002). Are America's Schools Safe? Students Speak Out: 1999 School Crime Supplement (NCES 2002-331). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. 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. 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 2005 310). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC. 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. Lannie, A.L., and McCurdy, B.L. (2007). Preventing Disruptive Behavior in the Urban Classroom: Effects of the Good Behavior Game on Student and Teacher Behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(1): 85-98. 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. 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). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Nolle, K.L., Guerino, P., and Dinkes, R. (2007). Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools: Findings From the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2005-06 (NCES 2007-361). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. 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. 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). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Digest of Education Statistics, 2002 (NCES 2003-060). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Digest of Education Statistics, 2005 (NCES 2006-030). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Digest of Education Statistics, 2006 (NCES 2007-017). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. 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). All comparisons described in this report are statistically significant at the .05 level. Estimates displayed in the text, figures, and tables are rounded from original estimates, not from a series of roundings. The following is a description of data sources, accuracy of estimates, and statistical procedures used in this report. SOURCES OF DATA This section brifly 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 death in the United States, and identify potential risk factors for these deaths. The surveillance system includes descriptive data on all school-associated violent deaths in the United States, including all homicides, suicides, and unintentional firearm-related deaths where the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school, while the victim was on the way to or from regular sessions at such a school, or while attending or on the way to or from an official school- sponsored event. Victims of such events include nonstudents as well as students and staff members. SAVD includes descriptive information about the school, event, victim(s), and offender(s). The SAVD Surveillance System has collected data from July 1, 1992, through 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. 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 2005; that is, negligent manslaughters and justifiable homicides have been eliminated from the data. Based on law enforcement agency reports, the FBI estimates that 594,277 murders were committed from 1976 to 2005. Agencies provided detailed information on 538,210 victims and 597,359 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 2005 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 percentage 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 number of NCVS eligible households in 2005 was about 42,500. 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 67,000 persons age 12 and older are interviewed each 6 months. Households remain in the sample for 3 years and are interviewed seven times at 6-month intervals. The initial interview at each sample unit is used only to bound future interviews to establish a time frame to avoid duplication of crimes uncovered in these subsequent interviews. After their seventh interview, households are replaced by new sample households. The NCVS has consistently obtained a response rate of over 90 percent at the household level. The completion rates for persons within households were about 84 percent. Thus, final response rates were about 77 percent in 2005. Weights were developed to permit estimates for the total U.S. population 12 years and older. For more information about the NCVS, contact: Wendy Lin-Kelly Victimization Statistics Branch Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Justice 810 7th Street NW Washington, DC 20531 Telephone: (202) 353-2034 E-mail: Wendy.Lin-Kelly@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 files. The NCVS type of crime variable was used to classify victimizations of students in the SCS as serious violent, violent, or theft. The NCVS variables asking where the incident happened and what the victim was doing when it happened were used to ascertain whether the incident happened at school. For prevalence of victimization, the NCVS definition of "at school" includes in the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. 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 (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 it is not known 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 the extent of nonresponse bias cannot be determined, 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.1 The YRBS focuses on priority health-risk behaviors established during youth that result in the most significant mortality, morbidity, disability, and social problems during both youth and adulthood. This report uses 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005 YRBS data. 1 For more information on the YRBSS methodology, see Brener et al. (2004). The YRBS uses a three-stage cluster sampling design to produce a nationally representative sample of students in grades 9-12 in the United States. The target population consisted of all public and private school students in grades 9-12 in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The first-stage sampling frame included selecting primary sampling units (PSUs) from strata formed on the basis of urbanization and the relative percentage of Black and Hispanic students in the PSU. These PSUs are either large counties or groups of smaller, adjacent counties. At the second stage, schools were selected with probability proportional to school enrollment size. Schools with substantial numbers of Black and Hispanic students were sampled at relatively higher rates than all other schools. The final stage of sampling consisted of randomly selecting within each chosen school at each grade 9-12 one or two intact classes of a required subject, such as English or social studies. All students in selected classes were eligible to participate. Approximately 16,300, 10,900, 16,300, 15,300, 13,600, 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 definition 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 spring of the 2005-06 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. The sampling frame for the 2005-06 SSOCS was constructed from the 2003-04 NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) Public Elementary/Secondary 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 SSOCS, including those in the outlying U.S. areas2 and Puerto Rico; overseas Department of Defense schools; newly closed schools, home schools, and schools with high grades of kindergarten or lower; special education, vocational, or alternative schools; schools sponsored by the Bureau of Indian Affairs; ungraded schools; and "intermediate units"3 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 3,565 schools were selected for the study. In March 2006, 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 2,724 schools completed the survey. The weighted overall response rate was 80.6 percent, and weighted item nonresponse rates ranged from 0.0-27.7 percent. A nonresponse bias analysis was conducted on the 13 items with weighted item nonresponse rates above 15 percent, and the detected bias was not deemed problematic enough to suppress any items from the data file. 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 2005-06 school year. For information on the 1999-2000 and 2003-04 iterations, see Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006. For more information about the School Survey on Crime and Safety, contact: 2 "U.S. outlying areas" include the following: America Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 3 These are generally schools specializing in special education, alternative education, or juvenile halls. 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: t = (E1 - E2) / (se1^2 + se2^2)^1/2 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 * r * se1 * se2) must be subtracted from the denominator of the formula: t = (E1 - E2) / [se1^2 + se2^2 - (2 * r * se1 * se2)]^1/2 where r is the correlation coefficient. 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. At school (teachers) Inside the school building, on school property (school parking area, play area, school bus, etc.), at worksite, or while working. For thefts, "while working" was not considered, since thefts of teachers' property kept at school can occur when teachers are not present. Rape Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempts and verbal threats of rape. This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object, such as a bottle. Robbery Completed or attempted theft, directly from a person, of property or cash by force or threat of force, with or without a weapon, and with or without injury. Rural A place not located inside the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). This category includes a variety of localities, ranging from sparsely populated rural areas to cities with populations of less than 50,000. Serious violent crime Rape, sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault. Sexual assault A wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between the victim and offender. Sexual assault may or may not involve force and includes such things as grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also includes verbal threats. Simple assault Attack without a weapon resulting either in no injury, minor injury, or an undetermined injury requiring less than 2 days of hospitalization. Also includes attempted assault without a weapon. Suburban A county or counties containing a central city, plus any contiguous counties that are linked socially and economically to the central city. On the data tables, suburban areas are categorized as those portions of metropolitan areas situated "outside central cities." Theft Completed or attempted theft of property or cash without personal contact. Urban The largest city (or grouping of cities) in an MSA. Victimization A crime as it affects one individual person or household. For personal crimes, the number of victimizations is equal to the number of victims involved. The number of victimizations may be greater than the number of incidents because more than one person may be victimized during an incident. Victimization rate A measure of the occurrence of victimizations among a specific population group. Violent crime Rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, or simple assault. School Crime Supplement At school In the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to or from school. 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 City A territory inside an urbanized area (defined as densely settled "cores" with populations of 50,000 or more of Census-defined blocks with adjacent densely settled surrounding areas) and inside a principal city (defined as a city that contains the primary population and economic center of a metropolitan statistical area, which, in turn, is defined as one or more contiguous counties that have a "core" area with a large population nucleus and adjacent communities that are highly integrated economically or socially with the core). 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. Instructional level Instructional levels divide teachers into elementary or secondary based on a combination of the grades taught, main teaching assignment, and the structure of the teacher's class(es). Those with only ungraded classes are categorized as elementary level teachers if their main assignment is early childhood/prekindergarten or elementary, or they teach either special education in a self-contained classroom or an elementary enrichment class. All other teachers with ungraded classes are classifi ed as secondary level. Among teachers with regularly graded classes, in general, elementary level teachers teach any of grades prekindergarten through 5th; report an early childhood/prekindergarten, elementary, self-contained special education, or elementary enrichment main assignment; or are those whose preponderance of grades taught are kindergarten through 6th. In general, secondary level teachers instruct any of grades 7 through 12 but usually no grade lower than 5th. They also teach more of grades 7 through 12 than lower level grades. Rural A territory outside any urbanized area (defined as densely settled "cores" with populations of 50,000 or more of Census-defined blocks with adjacent densely settled surrounding areas) or urban cluster (defined as densely settled "cores" with populations between 25,000 and 50,000 of Census-defined blocks with adjacent densely settled surrounding areas). 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. Suburban A territory outside a principal city (defined as a city that contains the primary population and economic center of a metropolitan statistical area, which, in turn, is defined as one or more contiguous counties that have a "core" area with a large population nucleus and adjacent communities that are highly integrated economically or socially with the core) and inside an urbanized area (defined as densely settled "cores" with populations of 50,000 or more of Census-defined blocks with adjacent densely settled surrounding areas). Town A territory inside an urban cluster (defined as densely settled "cores" with populations between 25,000 and 50,000 of Census-defined blocks with adjacent densely settled surrounding areas). 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 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. Hate crime A criminal offense of threat against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, color, national origin, ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, or sexual orientation. 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. (Intimidation was not defined in the front of the questionnaire in 2005-06.) 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 valued at over $10 without personal confrontation. Specifically, the unlawful taking of another person's property without personal confrontation, threat, violence, or bodily harm. Included are pocket picking, stealing purse or backpack (if left unattended or no force was used to take it from owner), theft from a building, theft from a motor vehicle or motor vehicle parts or accessories, theft of bicycles, theft from vending machines, and all other types of thefts. Urbanicity As collected by the Common Core of Data and appended to the SSOCS data file, city includes large cities and midsize cities, urban fringe includes urban fringe of large and mid-sized cities, town includes large and small towns, and rural includes rural outside an 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 12/2/07