Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2010 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2010 November 2010, NCJ 230812 -------------------------------------------------------- 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://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2231 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://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=8 ------------------------------------------------------- NCES 2011-002 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Simone Robers Education Statistics Services Institute – American Institutes for Research Jijun Zhang Education Statistics Services Institute – American Institutes for Research Jennifer Truman Bureau of Justice Statistics Thomas D. Snyder Project Officer National Center for Education Statistics U.S. Department of Education Arne Duncan Secretary Institute of Education Sciences John Q. Easton Director National Center for Education Statistics Stuart Kerachsky Acting Commissioner U.S. Department of Justice Eric Holder Attorney General Office of Justice Programs Laurie O. Robinson Assistant Attorney General Bureau of Justice Statistics James P. Lynch Director The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in other countries. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, publishing, and disseminating statistical information about crime, its perpetrators and victims, and the operation of the justice system at all levels of government. These data are critical to federal, state, and local policymakers in combating crime and ensuring that justice is both efficient and evenhanded. November 2010 This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Statistics under Contract No. ED-05-CO-0044 with Education Statistics Services Institute—American Institutes for Research. Mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Suggested Citation Robers, S., Zhang, J., and Truman, J. (2010). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2010 (NCES 2011-002/NCJ 230812). National Center for Education Statistics, 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://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov. Single hard copies can be ordered through ED Pubs at 1-877-4-ED- PUBS (NCES 2011-002) (TTY/TDD 1-877-576-7734), and the Bureau of Justice Statistics Clearinghouse at 1-800-851- 3420 (NCJ 230812). Contact at NCES Thomas Snyder (202) 502-7452 tom.snyder@ed.gov Contact at BJS Jennifer Truman 202-514-5083 jennifer.truman@usdoj.gov Executive Summary Introduction 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 thirteenth 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. 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 2007 to 2009. 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. Additional information about methodology and the datasets analyzed in this report may be found in appendix A. This report covers topics such as victimization, teacher injury, bullying, school conditions, fights, weapons, availability and student use of drugs and alcohol, and student perceptions of personal safety at school. Indicators of crime and safety are compared across different population subgroups and over time. Data on crimes that occur away from school are offered as a point of comparison where available. Key Findings In the 2008–09 school year, an estimated 55.6 million students were enrolled in prekindergarten through grade 12 (Snyder and Dillow 2010). Preliminary data show that among youth ages 5–18, there were 38 school-associated violent deaths1 from July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009 (Indicator 1). In 2008, among students ages 12–18, there were about 1.2 million victims of nonfatal crimes at school,2 including 619,000 thefts3 and 743,100 violent crimes4 (simple assault and serious violent crime5) (Indicator 2). In 2009, 8 percent of students reported being threatened or injured with a weapon, such as a gun, knife, or club, on school property (Indicator 4). The following section presents key findings from each section of the report. Violent Deaths • Of the 38 student, staff, and nonstudent school associated violent deaths1 occurring between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009, 24 were homicides, and 14 were suicides. From July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009, there were 15 homicides and 7 suicides of school-age youth (ages 5–18) at school (Indicator 1). • During the school year 2007–08, there were 1,701 homicides among school-age youth ages 5–18. During the 2007 calendar year, there were 1,231 suicides of youth ages 5–18 (Indicator 1). Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization • In 2008, students ages 12 to 18 were victims of about 1.2 million nonfatal crimes (theft3 plus violent crime4) at school,2 compared to about 1 million nonfatal crimes away from school (Indicator 2). • The total at-school crime and theft victimization rates of students ages 12 to 18 declined between 2007 and 2008. The total crime victimization rate of students ages 12 to 18 at school declined from 57 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2007 to 47 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2008 (Indicator 2). • The rates for serious violent crimes5 were lower at school than away from school in 2008. In 2008, students ages 12 to 18 were victims of 4 serious violent crimes per 1,000 students at school and 8 serious violent crimes per 1,000 students away from school (Indicator 2). • In 2007, 4 percent of students ages 12–18 reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months: 3 percent reported theft,3 and 2 percent reported violent victimization4 (Indicator 3). Less than half of a percent of students reported serious violent victimization.5 • Eight percent of students in grades 9–12 reported being threatened or injured with a weapon, such as a gun, knife, or club, on school property6 in 2009. Specifically, 3 percent of students were threatened or injured with a weapon one time, 2 percent were threatened or injured with a weapon two or three times, 1 percent were threatened or injured with a weapon four to eleven times, and 1 percent were threatened or injured with a weapon twelve or more times7 (Indicator 4). • In 2009, 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 5 percent of female students (Indicator 4). • During the 2007–08 school year, a greater percentage of teachers in city schools (10 percent) reported being threatened with injury than teachers in town schools (7 percent) and suburban or rural schools (6 percent each) (Indicator 5). A greater percentage of teachers in city schools (5 percent) and suburban schools (4 percent) reported being physically attacked, compared to teachers in rural schools (3 percent). • A greater percentage of secondary school teachers (8 percent) reported being threatened with injury by a student than elementary school teachers (7 percent) (Indicator 5). However, a greater percentage of elementary school teachers (6 percent) reported being physically attacked than secondary school teachers (2 percent). School Environment • During the 2007–08 school year, 85 percent of public schools recorded that one or more incidents of crime had taken place at school,2 amounting to an estimated 2.0 million crimes (table 6.1). This figure translates to a rate of 43 crimes per 1,000 public school students enrolled in 2007–08. During the same year, 62 percent of public schools reported an incident of crime that occurred at school to the police, amounting to about 704,000 crimes—or 15 crimes per 1,000 public school students enrolled (Indicator 6). • In 2007–08, 75 percent of public schools recorded one or more violent incidents of crime,4 17 percent recorded one or more serious violent incidents,5 47 percent recorded one or more thefts,8 and 67 percent recorded one or more other incidents.9 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, 31 percent reported at least one theft to police, and 49 percent reported one or more other incidents to police (Indicator 6). • During the 2007–08 school year, 25 percent of public schools reported that bullying occurred among students on a daily or weekly basis, and 11 percent reported that student acts of disrespect for teachers other than verbal abuse took place on a daily or weekly basis. With regard to other discipline problems reported as occurring at least once a week, 6 percent of public schools reported student verbal abuse of teachers, 4 percent reported widespread disorder in the classroom, 4 percent reported student racial/ethnic tensions, and 3 percent reported student sexual harassment of other students (Indicator 7). • Twenty percent of public schools reported that gang activities had happened at all during 2007–08 and 3 percent reported that cult or extremist activities had happened at all during that school year (Indicator 7). • In 2007, 23 percent of students ages 12–18 reported that there were gangs at their schools (Indicator 8). Overall, a smaller percentage of White students (16 percent) and Asian students (17 percent) reported a gang presence at school than Black students (38 percent) and Hispanic students (36 percent). • The percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported that drugs were offered, sold, or given to them decreased from 32 percent in 1995 to 23 percent in 2009 (Indicator 9). • In 2009 in grades 9–12, higher percentages of American Indian/Alaska Native students (34 percent) and Hispanic students (31 percent) than Black students (22 percent), White students (20 percent), and Asian students (18 percent) reported that drugs were made available to them on school property. In addition, smaller percentages of Asian students and White students than of students of two or more races (27 percent) reported that drugs were made available to them on school property (Indicator 9). • Ten percent of students ages 12–18 reported that someone at school had used hate-related words against them, and more than one-third (35 percent) reported seeing hate- related graffiti at school in 2007 (Indicator 10). • In 2007, 32 percent of students ages 12–18 reported having been bullied at school during the school year (Indicator 11). Twenty-one percent of students said that they had experienced bullying that consisted of being made fun of; 18 percent reported being the subject of rumors; 11 percent said that they were pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on; 6 percent said they were threatened with harm; 5 percent said they were excluded from activities on purpose; and 4 percent each said that someone tried to make them do things they did not want to do or that their property was destroyed on purpose. • In 2007–08, 34 percent of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that student misbehavior interfered with their teaching, and 32 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 89 percent reported that the principal enforced the school rules. • A higher percentage of secondary school teachers than elementary school teachers reported that student misbehavior (39 percent vs. 33 percent) and student tardiness and class cutting (45 percent vs. 26 percent) interfered with their teaching in 2007–08 (Indicator 12). During the same year, a lower percentage of secondary school teachers than elementary school teachers agreed that school rules were enforced by teachers (56 percent vs. 79 percent) and by the principal in their school (86 percent vs. 89 percent). Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances • In 2009, 31 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported they had been in a physical fight at least one time during the previous 12 months anywhere, and 11 percent said they had been in a fight on school property during the previous 12 months.6 Generally, a higher percentage of students in 9th grade reported having been in fights than students in any other grade, both anywhere and on school property. Generally, a smaller percentage of Asian students reported being in physical fights anywhere and on school property than students of other racial/ethnic groups. In addition, 4 percent of males said they had been in a fight anywhere twelve or more times, compared to 1 percent of females, and 1 percent of males said they had been in a fight on school property twelve or more times, compared to less than half a percent of females (Indicator 13). • Between 1993 and 2009, the percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon at least one day anywhere during the past 30 days declined from 22 percent to 17 percent, and the percentage who reported carrying a weapon at least one day on school property also declined, from 12 percent to 6 percent (Indicator 14). • In 2009, 27 percent of males carried a weapon anywhere, compared to 7 percent of females, and 8 percent of males carried a weapon on school property, compared to 3 percent of females (Indicator 14). • In 2009, about 42 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported having at least one drink of alcohol anywhere in the past 30 days, while 4 percent had at least one drink on school property (Indicator 15). • Since 2003, there has been no measurable difference between the percentages of male and female students in grades 9–12 who reported alcohol consumption anywhere. However, there were differences in the reporting of how often alcohol was consumed in 2009. For example, a higher percentage of females than males reported consuming alcohol either one or two days out of the previous 30 days in 2009 (23 percent vs. 18 percent). In addition, a higher percentage of males than females reported consuming alcohol from three to twenty-nine days (22 percent vs. 19 percent). One percent of male students reported consuming alcohol anywhere all thirty days (figure 15.2 and table 15.3). In terms of alcohol use on school property, males reported using alcohol at least one time during the previous 30 days at a greater percentage than did females in every survey year (Indicator 15). • In 2009, 21 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported using marijuana anywhere in the past 30 days, while 5 percent reported using marijuana on school property. According to students’ reports, male students were twice as likely as females to use marijuana on school property (6 percent vs. 3 percent, respectively). Six percent of male students reported using marijuana anywhere 40 times or more during the previous 30 days, compared to 2 percent of females. One percent of males reported using marijuana on school property 40 times or more, compared to less than one-half percent of females (Indicator 16). • Generally among 9th–12th-graders, the percentage of Asian students reporting using marijuana anywhere and on school property during the previous 30 days was smaller than that of most other racial/ethnic groups. In addition, the percentage of students reporting using marijuana anywhere increased with grade level: a smaller percentage of 9th-graders reported using marijuana anywhere (16 percent), than 10th-graders (21 percent), 11th-graders (23 percent), and 12th-graders (25 percent) (Indicator 16). Fear and Avoidance • In 2007, approximately 5 percent of students ages 12– 18 reported that they were afraid of attack or harm at school, and 3 percent reported that they were afraid of attack or harm away from school (Indicator 17). In 2007, smaller percentages of White students (4 percent) and Asian students (2 percent) reported being afraid of attack or harm at school than their Black (9 percent) and Hispanic (7 percent) peers. • In 2007, 7 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: 3 percent of students avoided a school activity, and 6 percent avoided one or more places in school (Indicator 18). Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures • Forty-six percent of public schools (approximately 38,500 schools) took at least one serious disciplinary action against a student during the 2007–08 school year. Of the 767,900 serious disciplinary actions taken, 76 percent were suspensions for 5 days or more, 19 percent were transfers to specialized schools, and 5 percent were removals with no services for the remainder of the school year (Indicator 19). • Although the overall percentage of public schools taking a serious disciplinary action declined between 1999– 2000 (54 percent) and 2003–04 (46 percent), there has been no measurable change since then. This same general pattern of decline between the period of 1999–2000 and 2003–04 with no measurable change in more recent survey years held both for the percentage of public schools that reported taking serious disciplinary actions for the offense of physical attacks or fights and for the offense of insubordination (Indicator 19). • Between the 1999–2000 and 2007–08 school years, there was an increase in the percentage of public schools reporting the use of the following safety and security measures: controlled access to the building during school hours (from 75 percent to 90 percent); controlled access to school grounds during school hours (from 34 percent to 43 percent); students required to wear badges or picture IDs (from 4 percent to 8 percent); faculty required to wear badges or picture IDs (from 25 percent to 58 percent); the use of one or more security cameras to monitor school (from 19 percent to 55 percent); the provision of telephones in most classrooms (from 45 percent to 72 percent); and the requirement that students wear uniforms (from 12 percent to 18 percent) (Indicator 20). • Between the 2003–04 and 2007–08 school years, there was an increase in the percentage of public schools reporting the drug testing of student athletes (from 4 percent to 6 percent), as well as an increase in the percentage of public schools reporting the drug testing of students in other extracurricular activities (from 3 percent to 4 percent) (Indicator 20). • During the 2007–08 school year, 43 percent of public schools reported that they had an electronic notification system for a school-wide emergency, and 31 percent of public schools reported that they had a structured, anonymous threat reporting system (Indicator 20). • The majority of students ages 12–18 reported that their school had a student code of conduct (96 percent) and a requirement that visitors sign in (94 percent) in 2007 (Indicator 21). Metal detectors were the least commonly observed security measure. Ten percent of students reported the use of metal detectors at their school. 1 School-associated violent death is defined as “a homicide, suicide, or legal intervention (involving a law enforcement officer), 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. 2 “At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. 3 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. 4 Violent crimes include serious violent incidents and simple assault. 5 Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. 6 “On school property” was not defined for survey respondents. 7 Subtotals do not add to total due to rounding. 8 Theft/larceny includes taking things worth over $10 without personal confrontation. Please see appendix B for a more detailed definition. 9 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. Foreword Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2010 provides the most recent national indicators on school crime and safety. 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 thirteenth 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 2010 edition of Indicators of School Crime and Safety 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 (CDC); 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 CDC; 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 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/ crimeindicators2010/). 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. Stuart Kerachsky Acting Commissioner National Center for Education Statistics James P. Lynch Director Bureau of Justice Statistics Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to the sponsoring agencies, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), for supporting this report. From BJS, we wish to thank Allen Beck, Doris James, Georgette Walsh, Michael Sinclair, and Michael Rand, who served as reviewers, Katrina Baum as program support, and Patsy Klaus, 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 of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Introduction Our nation’s schools should be safe havens for teaching and learning free of crime and violence. Any instance of crime or violence at school not only affects the individuals involved but also may disrupt the educational process and affect bystanders, the school itself, and the surrounding community (Henry 2000). For 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 (MacMillan and Hagan 2004; Wei and Williams 2004), dropping out of school (Beauvais et al. 1996; MacMillan and Hagan 2004), 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; Smith and Smith 2006). 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: 2010 is the thirteenth in a series of reports produced since 1998 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 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: 2010 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 comparison.1 Supplemental tables for each indicator provide more detailed breakouts and standard errors for estimates. A glossary of terms and a reference section appear at the end of the report. Standard errors for the estimate tables are available online. This year’s report contains updated data for eight indicators: violent deaths at school and away from school (Indicator 1), incidence of victimization at school and away from school (Indicator 2), threats and injuries with weapons on school property (Indicator 4), students’ reports of drug availability on school property (Indicator 9), physical fights on school property and anywhere (Indicator 13), students carrying weapons on school property and anywhere (Indicator 14), students’ use of alcohol on school property and anywhere (Indicator 15), and students’ use of marijuana on school property and anywhere (Indicator 16). 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 selected security and safety measures used in schools. Indicator 20 uses data collected from a survey of public school principals about safety and security practices used in their schools during the 2007–08 school year. The schools range from primary through high schools. Indicator 21, however, uses data collected from 12- through 18-year-old students residing in a sample of households. These students were asked whether they observed selected safety and security measures in their school in 2007, but they may not have known whether, in fact, the security measure was present. In addition, different indicators contain various approaches to the analysis of school crime data and, therefore, will show different perspectives on school crime. For example, both Indicators 2 and 3 report data on theft and violent crime at school based on the National Crime Victimization Survey and the School Crime Supplement to that survey, respectively. While Indicator 2 examines the number of incidents of crime, Indicator 3 examines the percentage or prevalence of students who reported victimization. Figure A provides a summary of some of the variations in the design and coverage of sample surveys used in this report. Several indicators in this report are based on self- reported survey data. Readers should note that limitations inherent to self-reported data may affect estimates (Addington 2005; 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 reported incidents 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. For example, in Indicator 11, which reports on bullying using data from the School Crime Supplement survey, the 2007 questionnaire was revised to include information on cyber-bullying. Due to this change, the text of this indicator no longer presents trend information. 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. With the exception of Indicator 2, in 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 Indicator 2, the “!” symbol cautions the reader that estimates marked indicate that the reported statistic was based on fewer than 10 cases. 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 Student’s t statistic, which tests the difference between two sample estimates. The t test formula was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Linear trend tests were used when differences among percentages were examined relative to interval 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 ordinal categories (such as grade), analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for a linear relationship between the two variables. Although percentages reported in the tables are generally rounded to one decimal place (e.g., 76.5 percent), percentages reported in the text and figures are generally rounded from the original number to whole numbers (with any value of 0.50 or above rounded to the next highest whole number). While the data labels on the figures have been rounded to whole numbers, the graphical presentation of these data is based on the unrounded estimates shown in the corresponding table. 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. 1 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. 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, and the percentage of youth suicides occurring at school remained at less than 1 percent of the total number of youth suicides over all available survey years. Violent deaths at schools are rare but tragic events with far-reaching effects on the school population and surrounding community. In this indicator, data on school- associated violent deaths are collected using the School Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study (SAVD). The most recent data collected for this survey covers the time period from July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009. During this time period, there were 38 school-associated violent deaths in elementary and secondary schools in the United States (figure 1.1 and tables 1.1 and 1.2). A school-associated violent death is defined as “a homicide, suicide, or legal intervention (involving a law enforcement officer), in which the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school in the United States.” Victims of school-associated violent deaths include not only students and staff members, but also others who are not students or staff members, such as parents. School-associated violent deaths include those that occurred while the victim was on the way to or returning from regular sessions at school or while the victim was attending or traveling to or from an official school-sponsored event. Of the 38 student, staff, and nonstudent school-associated violent deaths occurring between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009, 24 were homicides and 14 were suicides (table 1.2). Data for school- associated violent deaths for the 2008–09 school year are preliminary. Data on homicides and suicides at-school and away from- school were drawn from a number of sources, while ‘away- from-school’ is added as a point of comparison. The availability for data on homicides and data on suicides at- school and away-from-school differs in time period. The most recent data available for total suicides of school-age youth only (youth ages 5–18) are for the 2007 calendar year; the most recent data available for total homicides of youth ages 5–18 are for the 2007–08 school year. (Footnote 2. Data on total suicides are available only by calendar year, whereas data on suicides and homicides at school and data on total homicides are available by school year. Due to these differences in reference periods, please use caution when comparing violent deaths at school to total violent deaths. Data for total suicides (2008) and total homicides (2008–09) are not yet available.) During 2007– 08, there were 1,701 homicides of youth ages 5–18 (figure 1.2 and table 1.1). During the 2007 calendar year, there were 1,231 suicides of youth ages 5–18. From July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009, there were 15 homicides and 7 suicides of school-age youth at school (figure 1.1 and table 1.1). In each year during the period 1992–93 to 2007– 08, there were at least 50 times as many homicides of youth away from school than at school and generally at least 150 times as many suicides of youth away from school than at school. During the 2008–09 school year, there was approximately one homicide or suicide of a school-age youth at school per 2.5 million students enrolled.(Footnote 3. The total number of students enrolled in prekindergarten through 12th grade during the 2008–09 school year was 55,632,498 (Snyder and Dillow 2010). 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 (figure 1.1 and table 1.1). Between the 1992–93 and 2008–09 school years, from 1 to 10 school-age youth committed suicide at school each year, with no consistent pattern of increase or decrease in the number of suicides. The percentage of youth suicides occurring at school remained at less than 1 percent of the total number of youth suicides over all available survey years. Indicator 2 Incidence of Victimization at School and Away From School For students ages 12 to 18, the rates for serious violent crimes in 2008 were lower at school than away from school. The 2008 victimization rates for serious violent crimes were 4 per 1,000 students at school, and 8 per 1,000 students away from school. Theft and violence both at school and while going to and from school can affect the overall health and wellbeing of adolescents, interfere with educational goals, and stall normal healthy development (Fredland 2008). This type of victimization can also lead to higher than average rates of teacher turnover and increases in student dropout rates, students changing schools, and principals and teachers retiring early (Crews, Crews, and Turner 2008). In 2008, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey4 showed that more crimes were committed against students ages 12 to 18 at school than away from school. Students ages 12 to 18 experienced about 1.2 million nonfatal crimes (theft5 plus violent crime6) at school,7 compared to about 1 million nonfatal crimes away from school (table 2.1).8 These figures represent total crime victimization rates of 47 crimes per 1,000 students at school and 38 crimes per 1,000 students away from school. Victimization rates of students ages 12 to 18 generally declined between 1992 and 2008. This pattern held for the total crime rate both at school and away from school as well as for the rates of the three components making up the total crime rate: thefts, violent crimes, and serious violent crimes. Between 2007 and 2008, the total crime rates against students ages 12 to 18 at school declined from 57 victimizations per 1,000 students to 47 per 1,000 students. The rate of victimization by theft at school declined from 31 per 1,000 students ages 12 to 18 in 2007 to 24 per 1,000 in 2008. There was no measurable difference in the rate of victimization by violent crime against students ages 12 to 18 at school between 2007 and 2008. Additionally, total crime, theft, and violent crime victimization rates away from school were not measurably different between 2007 and 2008. Generally, between 1992 and 2007, the rate of theft at school among students ages 12 to 18 was higher than the rate of theft away from school. There were no measurable differences in these rates in 2008. For most years between 1992 and 2005,9 the rate of violent crimes per 1,000 students away from school was either higher than the at-school rate or not measurably different from the at-school rate. However, in 2007 the rate of violent crimes per 1,000 students ages 12 to 18 at school was higher than the rate for those away from school. In 2008, there was no measurable difference.10 Rates of serious violent crimes11 against students ages 12 to 18 at school were lower than those occurring away from school in each survey year between 1992 and 2008,6 except in 2007, when there was no difference detected. In 2008, students ages 12 to 18 were victims of 4 serious violent crimes per 1,000 students at school and 8 serious violent crimes per 1,000 students away from school. In 2008, the victimization rates for students ages 12 to 18 varied according to student characteristics. There were no measurable differences by age group (i.e., students ages 12 to 14 vs. students ages 15 to 18) in the rates of total crime, theft, and violent victimizations at school (figure 2.2 and table 2.2). However, the rates of total crime, theft, violent, and serious violent victimizations away from school were lower for younger students (ages 12 to 14) than for older students (ages 15 to 18) (figure 2.2 and table 2.3). For example, the total crime victimization rate away from school was 25 per 1,000 students ages 12 to 14 and 49 per 1,000 students ages 15 to 18. For students ages 12 to 14, violent victimization rates away from school were 12 per 1,000, compared to 25 per 1,000 for students ages 15 to 18. The serious violent victimization rate away from school was 4 per 1,000 students ages 12 to 14 and 11 per 1,000 students ages 15 to 18. No measurable differences were detected by gender between the rates of thefts per 1,000 students either at or away from school. Females had lower rates of violent crime victimization than males both at school and away from school in 2008. 4 Although Indicators 2 and 3 present information on similar topics, the survey sources for these two indicators differ with respect to time coverage and administration. For more information on these two surveys, please see appendix A. 5 Theft includes purse snatching, pick pocketing, all burglaries, attempted forcible entry, and all attempted and completed thefts except motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery in which threat or use of force is involved. 6 Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault. 7 “At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. 8 “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. 9 There was a redesign of the methods used to measure victimization in the 2006 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Due to this redesign, 2006 data are not presented in this indicator. For more information, please see appendix A. 10 The difference was not statistically significant at the .05 level, the level used to identify differences throughout the report. 11 Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Indicator 3 Prevalence of Victimization at School In 2007, 4 percent of students ages 12–18 reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months. About 3 percent of students reported theft, 2 percent reported violent victimization, and less than half of a percent reported serious violent victimization. Theft is the most frequent type of nonfatal victimization in the United States (U.S. Department of Justice 2007). Data from the School Crime Supplement12 show the percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported criminal victimization at school13 during the previous 6 months. In 2007, 4 percent of students ages 12–18 reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months. About 3 percent of students reported theft,14 2 percent reported violent victimization15 (figure 3.1 and table 3.1), and less than half of a percent reported serious violent victimization.16 In 2007, the prevalence of victimization varied somewhat according to student characteristics. For all types of victimization, no measurable differences were detected by sex in the likelihood of reporting victimization. The percentage of students reporting victimization was higher for students in the 7th or 9th grade than for students in the 12th grade; however, no other measurable differences in the percentages reporting victimization were found across grades. In 2007, no measurable differences were detected in the percentages of White, Black, or Hispanic students who reported victimization, theft, or violent victimization. However, a higher percentage of students of other races/ethnicities than Hispanic students reported victimization, and a higher percentage of students of other races/ethnicities than White or Hispanic students reported violent victimization. Some differences were also seen by school sector in the prevalence of victimization reported in 2007. A higher percentage of students in public schools reported victimization (5 percent) and theft (3 percent) than students in private schools (1 percent each). Overall, the percentage of students ages 12–18 who were victimized at school decreased between 1995 and 2005 from 10 to 4 percent. For each type of victimization, the percentage of students reporting victimization decreased between 1995 and 2005. Between the most recent survey years (2005 and 2007), there were no measurable changes in the percentage of students reporting any type of victimization. 12 Although Indicators 2 and 3 present information on similar topics, the survey sources for these two indicators differ with respect to time coverage and administration. For more information on these two surveys, please see appendix A. 13 “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and, from 2001 onward, going to and from school. 14 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. 15 Violent victimization includes serious violent crimes and simple assault. 16 Serious violent victimization includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Indicator 4 Threats and Injuries With Weapons on School Property From 1993 through 2009, the percentage of students who were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property fluctuated between 7 and 9 percent. Every year, some students are threatened or injured with a weapon while they are on school property. The percentage of students victimized in this way provides a measure of how safe our schools are, and if levels of safety in school have changed over time. In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9–12 were asked whether and how often they had been threatened or injured with a weapon on school property17 during the 12 months preceding the survey. From 1993 through 2009, the percentage of students who were threatened or injured with a weapon fluctuated between 7 and 9 percent. For example, in 2009, 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). Specifically, 3 percent of students were threatened or injured with a weapon one time, 2 percent were threatened or injured with a weapon two or three times, 1 percent were threatened or injured with a weapon four to eleven times, and 1 percent were threatened or injured with a weapon twelve or more times18 (figure 4.3 and table 4.3). The likelihood of being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property varied by student characteristics, including sex and grade level. In each survey year, a higher percentage of males than females reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property (table 4.1). In 2009, the percentage of male students who reported being threatened or injured in the past year was nearly twice as high as the percentage of female students (10 and 5 percent, respectively). Generally, the percentage of students who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property decreased with grade level (figure 4.1 and table 4.1). For example, in 2009, a smaller percentage of 12th-graders (5 percent) reported that they were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property than the percentages of 9th-, 10th-, and 11th-graders (9, 8, and 8 percent, respectively). The percentage of students who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property varied by race/ethnicity in 2009 (figure 4.2 and table 4.1). Specifically, smaller percentages of White students and Asian students (6 and 5 percent, respectively) than American Indian/Alaska Native students (16 percent), and Black students and Hispanic students (9 percent each) reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property. The percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native students who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon was higher than the percentages of Black students, Hispanic students, and students of two or more races (9 percent). In addition, higher percentages of Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian students and students of two or more races (13 and 9 percent, respectively) than Asian students reported being threatened or injured with a weapon. In 2009, the percentage of students being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property varied among the 39 states for which data were available. Among these states, the percentage of students who reported being threatened or injured on school property ranged from 6 percent in Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Vermont to 12 percent in Arkansas (table 4.2). 17 “On school property” was not defined for survey respondents. 18 Subtotals do not add to total due to rounding. Indicator 5 Teachers Threatened With Injury or Physically Attacked by Students A greater percentage of teachers in city schools than teachers in suburban, town, or rural schools reported being threatened with injury during the 2007–08 school year. 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. During the 2007–08 school year, a smaller percentage of teachers, 7 percent, were threatened with injury by a student from their school than in 1993–94 (12 percent) and 1999–2000 (9 percent), though this percentage was not measurably different from the percentage in 2003–04 (7 percent) (figure 5.1 and table 5.1). The percentage of teachers reporting that they had been physically attacked by a student from their school, 4 percent, was not measurably different in 2007–08 than in any previous survey year (table 5.2). A greater percentage of teachers in city schools than teachers in suburban, town, or rural schools reported being threatened with injury during the 2007–08 school year (figure 5.2 and table 5.1). Ten percent of teachers in city schools were threatened with injury by students, compared to 7 percent of teachers in town schools and 6 percent each of teachers in suburban and rural schools. A greater percentage of teachers in city schools (5 percent) and suburban schools (4 percent) than teachers in rural schools (3 percent) reported being physically attacked (table 5.2). During 2007–08, teachers’ reports of being threatened or physically attacked by students varied according to the instructional level of their school. A greater percentage of secondary school teachers (8 percent) than elementary school teachers (7 percent) reported being threatened with injury by a student, and this pattern held for teachers in suburban schools as well as for teachers in rural schools (table 5.1 and figure 5.2). The apparent difference in the percentage of elementary and secondary teachers in city schools who reported being threatened with injury was not statistically significant. However, a greater percentage of elementary school teachers (6 percent) reported having been physically attacked than secondary school teachers (2 percent), and this pattern held true for teachers in city, suburban, town, and rural schools (table 5.2). A greater percentage of public than private school teachers reported being threatened with injury (8 vs. 3 percent) or physically attacked (4 vs. 2 percent) by students during 2007–08 (tables 5.1 and 5.2). Among teachers in city schools, there were at least five times as many public school teachers as private school teachers who reported being threatened with injury (12 vs. 2 percent) and at least four times as many public school teachers as private school teachers who reported being physically attacked (6 vs. 1 percent). In all survey years, a greater percentage of male teachers reported having been threatened with injury than female teachers (table 5.1). For example, in 2007–08, 9 percent of male teachers reported that they were threatened with injury by students, compared to 7 percent of female teachers; this pattern held true for teachers in city and suburban schools in 2007–08, as well. Public school teachers’ reports of being threatened with injury or physically attacked varied among the states and the District of Columbia. During 2007–08, the percentage of public school teachers who reported being threatened with injury during the previous 12 months ranged from 3 percent in North Dakota to 17 percent in the District of Columbia (table 5.3), and the percentage who reported being physically attacked ranged from 2 percent in New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, and Ohio to 8 percent in Maryland (table 5.4). Indicator 6 Violent and Other Crime Incidents at Public Schools and Those Reported to the Police In 2007–08, 75 percent of public schools recorded one or more violent incidents of crime, 17 percent recorded one or more serious violent incidents, and 47 percent recorded one or more thefts. In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, public school principals were asked to provide the number of violent incidents,19 serious violent incidents,20 thefts of items valued at $10 or greater without personal confrontation, and other incidents21 that occurred at their school;22 public school principals were also asked to provide the number of incidents reported to the police. This indicator presents the percentage of public schools that recorded one or more of these specified crimes, the total number of these crimes recorded, and the rate of crimes per 1,000 students. These data are also presented for crimes that were reported to the police. During the 2007–08 school year, 85 percent of public schools recorded that one or more of these incidents of violence, theft, or other crimes, had taken place, amounting to an estimated 2.0 million crimes (figure 6.1 and table 6.1). This figure translates to a rate of 43 crimes per 1,000 students enrolled in 2007–08. During the same year, 62 percent of schools reported one of the specified crimes to the police, amounting to about 704,000 crimes—or 15 crimes per 1,000 students enrolled. In 2007–08, a greater percentage of schools recorded an incident of crime than reported an incident of crime to the police. This pattern held true for violent crimes, serious violent crimes, thefts, and other crimes. Similarly, the rate of recorded incidents per 1,000 students was higher than the rate of incidents reported to the police per 1,000 students; this held true for violent crime, serious violent crime, theft, and other crime. In 2007–08, 75 percent of schools recorded one or more violent incidents of crime, 17 percent recorded one or more serious violent incidents, 47 percent recorded one or more thefts, and 67 percent recorded one or more other incidents. In comparison, 38 percent of public schools reported at least one violent incident to police, 13 percent reported at least one serious violent incident to police, 31 percent reported at least one theft to police, and 49 percent reported one or more other incidents to police. The percentage of schools that recorded incidents of violent crime varied by school characteristics. For example, a smaller percentage of primary schools (65 percent) than middle schools or high schools (94 percent each) recorded violent incidents of crime (table 6.2). However, the rate of recorded violent crimes per 1,000 students was larger for middle schools (41 incidents per 1,000 students) than for primary schools (26 incidents per 1,000 students) or high schools (22 incidents per 1,000 students). With regard to public schools that reported incidents of violent crime to the police, a greater percentage of high schools (75 percent) reported violent crimes to the police than middle schools (64 percent) or primary schools (20 percent) (table 6.3). There was no measurable difference between the rate per 1,000 students of reported violent incidents at high schools and middle schools (11 incidents per 1,000). There was a range in the number of crimes recorded and reported by schools in 2007–08. One-quarter of schools recorded zero violent crimes, and 24 percent of schools recorded 20 or more violent crimes (figure 6.2 and table 6.4). Sixty-two percent of schools did not report a violent crime to the police, compared to 5 percent of schools that reported 20 or more violent crimes to the police. In regard to serious violent crimes, 83 percent of schools did not record a serious violent crime, compared to 1 percent of schools that recorded 10 or more such crimes (table 6.5). The range in the number of crimes recorded by schools varied by school characteristics. For example, a larger percentage of city schools recorded 20 or more violent incidents in 2007–08 than suburban schools, town schools, or rural schools (table 6.4). In 2007–08, 36 percent of city schools recorded 20 or more violent incidents, compared to 24 percent of suburban schools, 21 percent of town schools, and 14 percent of rural schools. The percentages of public schools recording incidents of crime or reporting incidents of crime to the police in 2007–08 were not measurably different from the percentages of schools doing so in 1999–2000 (figure 6.3 and table 6.1). While this pattern held true for the percentage of public schools reporting violent incidents, as well as the percentage of schools recording and reporting serious violent incidents and thefts, there was an increase in the percentage of schools recording violent incidents over this period (from 71 to 75 percent) and a decrease in the percentage of schools recording other incidents during this period (from 73 to 67 percent). 19 Violent incidents include serious violent incidents; physical attack or fight without a weapon; and threat of physical attack without a weapon. 20 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. 21 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. 22 “At school” was defined for respondents to include activities that happen in school buildings, on school grounds, on school buses, and at places that hold school- sponsored events or activities. Respondents were instructed to include incidents that occurred before, during, or after normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session. Indicator 7 Discipline Problems Reported by Public Schools During the 2007–08 school year, 25 percent of public schools reported that bullying occurred among students on a daily or weekly basis, 11 percent reported that student acts of disrespect for teachers other than verbal abuse took place on a daily or weekly basis, and 6 percent reported that student verbal abuse of teachers occurred on a daily or weekly basis. In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, public school principals were asked how often certain disciplinary problems happen in their schools.23 This indicator examines the daily or weekly occurrence of student racial/ethnic tensions, bullying, sexual harassment of other students, verbal abuse of teachers, acts of disrespect for teachers other than verbal abuse, and widespread disorder in the classroom. It also looks at occurrences of gang and cult or extremist group activities, and, due to the severe nature of these incidents, presents any reports of gang and cult or extremist group activities that occurred during the school year. During the 2007–08 school year, 25 percent of public schools reported that bullying occurred among students on a daily or weekly basis and 11 percent reported that student acts of disrespect for teachers other than verbal abuse took place on a daily or weekly basis (table 7.1). With regard to other discipline problems reported as occurring at least once a week, 6 percent of schools reported student verbal abuse of teachers, 4 percent reported widespread disorder in the classroom, 4 percent reported student racial/ethnic tensions, and 3 percent reported student sexual harassment of other students. Twenty percent of public schools reported that gang activities had happened at all during 2007–08 and 3 percent reported that cult or extremist activities had happened at all during this period. Discipline problems reported by public schools varied by school characteristics. In 2007–08, a higher percentage of middle schools than primary schools reported various types of discipline problems (figure 7.1). For example, 44 percent of middle schools compared to 21 percent of primary schools reported that student bullying occurred at least once a week. Also, a higher percentage of middle schools than high schools reported daily or weekly occurrences of student bullying. A greater percentage of high schools than middle schools reported any occurrence of gang activities or cult or extremist group activities during the school year. In 2007–08, the percentage of schools reporting discipline problems was generally smaller for schools where 25 percent or less of the students were eligible for free or reduced- price lunch than for schools where 76 percent or more of the students were eligible. For example, 13 percent of schools where 76 percent or more 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 25 percent or less of the students were eligible. The percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch programs is a proxy measure of school poverty. In 2007–08, a greater percentage of city schools than suburban schools, town schools, or rural schools reported student verbal abuse of teachers, student acts of disrespect for teachers other than verbal abuse, widespread disorder in the classroom, and gang activities. For example, 8 percent of city schools compared to 2 to 3 percent of suburban, town, or rural schools reported widespread disorder in the classroom. During the same school year, in general, the percentage of schools reporting discipline problems was higher in larger schools than in smaller schools. For example, 52 percent of schools with 1,000 or more students reported that gang activities occurred during the school year compared to 10 to 22 percent of schools with fewer than 1,000 students who reported this discipline problem. The percentage of schools reporting that student verbal abuse of teachers occurred at least once a week was 6 percent in 2007–08, lower than the percentage in 1999–2000 (13 percent). There were some measurable changes in the percentage of public schools reporting selected discipline problems between the two most recent data collections, 2005–06 and 2007–08. A smaller percentage of public schools reported cult or extremist activities in 2007–08 (3 percent) than in 2005–06 (4 percent). However, a larger percentage of public schools reported widespread disorder in the classroom in 2007–08 than in 2005–06 (4 vs. 2 percent), and a larger percentage reported gang activities in 2007–08 than in 2005–06 (20 vs. 17 percent). 23 “At school” was defined for respondents to include activities that happen in school buildings, on school grounds, on school buses, and at places that hold school- sponsored events or activities. Respondents were instructed to include incidents that occurred before, during, or after normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session. Indicator 8 Students’ Reports of Gangs at School In 2007, about 23 percent of students reported that gangs were present at their school. Gangs are organized groups often involved in drugs, weapons trafficking, and violence. Gangs at school can be disruptive to the school environment because their presence may incite fear among students and increase the level of school violence (Laub and Lauritsen 1998). In the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12–18 were asked if gangs were present at their school.24 In 2007, 23 percent of students reported that there were gangs at their schools during the school year (figure 8.1 and table 8.1). During the same year, a greater percentage of male students (25 percent) than female students (21 percent) reported a gang presence at their schools. Overall, a smaller percentage of White students (16 percent) and Asian students (17 percent) reported a gang presence at school than Black students (38 percent) and Hispanic students (36 percent) in 2007. Generally, a smaller percentage of 6th-, 7th-, and 8th- graders reported a gang presence at their school than 9th-, 10th-, 11th-, and 12th-graders. In 2007, between 15 and 21 percent of 6th-, 7th-, and 8th-graders reported a gang presence at school compared to 24 to 28 percent of students in the higher grades. In 2007, a higher percentage of students attending public schools (25 percent) reported a gang presence at school than students attending private schools (5 percent). The total percentage of students who reported the presence of gangs at school was higher in 2005 (24 percent) than in 2003 (21 percent); however there was no measurable change in the percentage of students who reported the presence of gangs at school between the two most recent survey years (2005 and 2007) (figure 8.2 and table 8.1). 24 “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Indicator 9 Students’ Reports of Drug Availability on School Property The percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported that drugs were offered, sold, or given to them decreased from 32 percent in 1995 to 23 percent in 2009. 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.25 The percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported that drugs were made available to them on school property increased from 1993 to 1995 (from 24 to 32 percent), but subsequently decreased to 23 percent in 2009 (table 9.1). There was no statistically significant difference, however, between the 2009 percentage and the 2007 percentage (22 percent) (table 9.1 and figure 9.1). Student reports of the availability of drugs on school property varied by student characteristics. A higher percentage of males than females reported that drugs were offered, sold, or given to them on school property in each survey year from 1993 to 2009 (figure 9.1 and table 9.1). For example, in 2009, 26 percent of males reported that drugs were made available to them, compared to 19 percent of females. There were no measurable differences across grades in the percentages of students reporting that drugs were made available to them in 2009. Twenty-four percent of 10th- and 11th-graders, 22 percent of 9th-graders and 21 percent of 12th-graders reported that drugs were made available to them. The percentage 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 2009, higher percentages of American Indian/Alaska Native students (34 percent) and Hispanic students (31 percent) than Black students (22 percent), White students (20 percent), and Asian students (18 percent) reported that drugs were made available to them on school property. In addition, a higher percentage of students of two or more races (27 percent) than of Asian students or White students reported that drugs were made available to them on school property. In 2009, student reports of the availability of drugs on school property varied across the 42 states for which data were available. Among these states, the percentage of students reporting that drugs were offered, sold, or given to them on school property ranged from 15 percent in Kansas to 36 percent in Hawaii and Nevada (table 9.2). 25 “On school property” was not defined for survey respondents. Indicator 10 Students’ Reports of Being Called Hate-Related Words and Seeing Hate-Related Graffiti In 2007, 10 percent of students ages 12–18 reported that someone at school had used hate-related words against them, and 35 percent had seen hate-related graffiti at school. In the 2007 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12–18 were asked if someone at school had called them a derogatory word having to do with their race, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender, or sexual orientation at school.26 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. With regard to hate-related words, students were asked to specify the characteristic to which the word was directed.27 In 2007, 10 percent of students ages 12–18 reported that someone at school had used hate- related words against them during the school year (figure 10.1 and table 10.1). Thirty-five percent of students reported seeing hate-related graffiti at school during the school year. In 2007, students’ experiences of being called specific types of hate-related words and seeing hate-related graffiti differed according to student and school characteristics. For example, a smaller percentage of 12th- graders (6 percent) reported being targets of a hate- related word than 6th-graders (12 percent); 7th-graders, 8th-graders, and 9th-graders (11 percent each); and 10th- graders (9 percent). A higher percentage of public school students than private school students reported being called a hate-related word (10 vs. 6 percent) and seeing hate- related graffiti (36 vs. 19 percent). In 2007, a higher percentage of White students than Asian students reported seeing hate-related graffiti. However, no other measurable differences were found by race/ethnicity or by sex in the percentages of students who reported being called hate- related words or seeing hate-related graffiti. Between 2001 and 2007, the percentage of students who reported being the target of a hate-related word decreased from 12 to 10 percent. Between the two most recent survey years, 2005 and 2007, the percentage of students who reported being the target of a hate-related word was lower in 2007 (10 percent) than in 2005 (11 percent). There was no pattern of increase or decrease in the percentage of students who reported seeing hate-related graffiti between 1999 and 2007. However, the percentage of students who reported seeing hate-related graffiti was smaller in 2007 (35 percent) than in 2005 (38 percent). With regard to the specific characteristic to which the hate-related word was directed, in 2007, 5 percent of students reported hate-related words concerning their race, 3 percent reported words related to their ethnicity, 2 percent each reported words concerning their religion or gender, and 1 percent each reported words related to their disability or sexual orientation (figure 10.2 and table 10.2). Students’ experiences of being targets of specific types of hate-related words in 2007 differed according to their sex and race/ethnicity (table 10.2). A greater percentage of female students than male students (3 vs. 1 percent) reported being called a gender-related hate word. However, a greater percentage of male students than female students reported being called hate-related words relating to race and ethnicity. Five percent of male students compared to 4 percent of female students reported being targets of a hate-related word regarding race and 4 percent of male students compared to 2 percent of female students reported being targets of a hate-related word regarding ethnicity. A smaller percentage of White students (3 percent) reported being called race-related hate words than Black students (7 percent), Hispanic students (6 percent), Asian students (11 percent), and students from other race/ethnicities (8 percent). Smaller percentages of both White students and Black students (2 percent each) reported hate-related words regarding their ethnicity than Hispanic and Asian students (7 percent each). 26 “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and, from 2001 onward, going to and from school. 27 “Hate-related” refers to derogatory terms used by others in reference to students’ personal characteristics. Indicator 11 Bullying at School and Cyber-Bullying Anywhere In 2007, about 32 percent of 12- to 18-year-old students reported having been bullied at school during the school year and 4 percent reported having been cyber-bullied. 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 2007 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12–18 were asked if they had been bullied at school during the school year and if they had been cyber-bullied anywhere. Cyber bullying is included as a point of comparison and is distinct from bullying at school.28 In 2007, about 32 percent of students reported having been bullied at school during the school year (figure 11.1 and table 11.1).29 Twenty-one percent of students said that they had experienced bullying that consisted of being made fun of; 18 percent reported being the subject of rumors; 11 percent said that they were pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on; 6 percent said they were threatened with harm; 5 percent said they were excluded from activities on purpose; and 4 percent each said that someone tried to make them do things they did not want to do and that their property was destroyed on purpose (figure 11.2 and table 11.1). Of those students in 2007 who reported being bullied during the school year, 79 percent said that they were bullied inside the school, 23 percent said that they were bullied outside on school grounds, 8 percent said they were bullied on the school bus, and 4 percent said they were bullied somewhere else (figure 11.3 and table 11.2). Of students who reported being pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on, 19 percent reported being injured as a result. Of these students who had been bullied, 63 percent said that they had been bullied once or twice during the school year, 21 percent had experienced bullying once or twice a month, 10 percent reported being bullied once or twice a week, and 7 percent said that they had been bullied almost daily (figure 11.4 and table 11.3). Thirty-six percent of students who were bullied notified a teacher or another adult at school about the event(s). In 2007, about 4 percent of students reported having been cyber-bullied30 anywhere (on or off school property) during the school year (figure 11.1 and table 11.1). Two percent of students said that they had experienced cyber-bullying that consisted of another student posting hurtful information about them on the Internet; and 2 percent of students reported unwanted contact, including being threatened or insulted, via instant messaging by another student during the school year (figure 11.2 and table 11.1). Of the students in 2007 who reported cyber-bullying during the school year, 73 percent said it had occurred once or twice during that period, 21 percent said it had occurred once or twice a month, and 5 percent said it had occurred once or twice a week (figure 11.4 and table 11.3). Thirty percent of students who were cyber-bullied notified a teacher or another adult at school about the event(s). Student reports of bullying and cyber-bullying varied by student characteristics. A greater percentage of female than male students reported being bullied at school and cyber-bullied anywhere during the school year (figure 11.1 and table 11.1). In 2007, 33 percent of female students reported being bullied at school compared to 30 percent of male students. Five percent of female students reported being cyber-bullied anywhere compared to 2 percent of male students. A higher percentage of White students (34 percent) reported being bullied at school in 2007 than Hispanic students (27 percent). In addition, a higher percentage of White students (34 percent) reported being bullied at school than Asian students (18 percent). 28 “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. 29 Bullying includes being made fun of; being the subject of rumors; being threatened with harm; being pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on; being pressured into doing things did not want to do; excluded from activities on purpose; and having property destroyed on purpose. 30 Cyber-bullying includes students who responded that another student posted hurtful information about the respondent on the Internet; made unwanted contact by threatening or insulting the respondent via instant messaging; or made unwanted contact by threatening or insulting the respondent via Short Message Service (SMS) text messaging. The latter category did not meet statistical standards to be reported separately. Indicator 12 Teachers’ Reports on School Conditions In 2007–08, a greater percentage of public school teachers than private school teachers reported that student misbehavior, student tardiness, and class cutting interfered with their teaching. 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, student tardiness, and class cutting interfered with their teaching. During the 2007–08 school year, 34 percent of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that student misbehavior interfered with their teaching, and 32 percent reported that student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching (figure 12.1 and table 12.1). Teachers were also asked whether school rules were enforced by other teachers at their school, even for students not in their classes, and whether they were enforced by the principal. In 2007–08, 72 percent of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that other teachers at their school enforced the school rules, and 89 percent reported that the principal enforced the school rules (figure 12.2 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 during 2007–08 (table 12.1). For example, a greater percentage of public school teachers than private school teachers reported that student misbehavior (36 vs. 21 percent) and student tardiness and class cutting (33 vs. 18 percent) interfered with their teaching. And a higher percentage of secondary school teachers than elementary school teachers reported that student misbehavior (39 vs. 33 percent) and student tardiness and class cutting (45 vs. 26 percent) interfered with their teaching. A greater percentage of teachers in city schools compared to teachers in suburban, town, or rural schools reported that student misbehavior, tardiness, and class cutting interfered with their teaching in 2007–08 (figure 12.1). Forty percent of teachers in city schools, compared to 32 percent of teachers in suburban schools, 34 percent of teachers in town schools, and 31 percent of teachers in rural schools reported that student misbehavior interfered with their teaching. Thirty-eight percent of teachers in city schools reported that student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching, compared to 29 percent of teachers in suburban schools, 32 percent of teachers in town schools, and 27 percent of teachers in rural schools who reported that these occurrences interfered with their teaching. The percentage of teachers who reported that student misbehavior interfered with their teaching fluctuated between 1987–88 and 1993–94; however, between 1993–94 and 2007–08 this percentage decreased (from 41 to 34 percent). The percentage of teachers reporting that student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching decreased between 1987–88 and 1993–94 (from 33 to 25 percent), but increased between 1993–94 and 2007–08 (from 25 to 32 percent). There were no measurable differences in the percentage of teachers reporting that student misbehavior or tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching between the two most recent survey years, 2003–04 and 2007–08. The percentage of teachers who agreed that school rules were enforced by other teachers and by the principal 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 and by the principal in their school (table 12.2). In 2007–08, 79 percent of elementary teachers, compared to 56 percent of secondary teachers reported that school rules were enforced by other teachers, and 89 percent of elementary school teachers, compared to 86 percent of secondary teachers, reported that school rules were enforced by the principal. Between 1987–88 and 2007–08, the percentage of teachers who agreed that school rules were enforced by other teachers fluctuated between 65 and 72 percent, and the percentage agreeing that rules were enforced by the principal varied between 84 and 89 percent, showing no consistent trends. There were no measurable differences in the percentage of teachers reporting that school rules were enforced by other teachers or by the principal between the two most recent survey years, 2003–04 and 2007–08. In 2007–08, the percentage of public school teachers who agreed or strongly agreed that student misbehavior and student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching and that school rules are enforced by other teachers and by the principal, varied among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. For example, among these states and the District of Columbia, the percentage of teachers who reported that student misbehavior interfered with their teaching ranged from 59 percent of teachers in the District of Columbia to 29 percent of teachers in Pennsylvania (table 12.3). Indicator 13 Physical Fights on School Property and Anywhere The percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported being in a physical fight anywhere decreased between 1993 and 2009, from 42 to 31 percent; this was also true for the percentage of students who reported being in a physical fight on school property, this percentage decreased from 16 to 11 percent. Physical fights on school property are considered a high- risk behavior that may disrupt a focused learning environment at school; and students involved in physical fights on school property may face difficulties 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 (referred to as “anywhere” in this indicator) during the preceding 12 months, as well as about their involvement in physical fights on school property.31 Fights occurring anywhere are included as a point of comparison with fights occurring on school property. Overall, the percentage of students who reported being in a physical fight anywhere decreased from 42 percent in 1993 to 31 percent in 2009. Similarly, the percentage of students who reported being in a physical fight on school property decreased between 1993 and 2009, from 16 to 11 percent (figure 13.1 and table 13.1). Between the two most recent survey years, 2007 and 2009, the percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported being in a fight anywhere decreased from 36 to 31 percent, but there was no measurable difference between these two survey years in the percentage of students who reported being in a fight on school property. Students were also asked how often they were in physical fights during the past year. In 2009, 24 percent reported being in a fight one to three times, 5 percent were in a fight four to eleven times, and 3 percent were in a fight twelve or more times. Ten percent of students reported being in a fight on school property one to three times, 1 percent were in a fight on school property four to eleven times, and less than 1 percent were in a fight on school property twelve or more times (table 13.2). From 1993 through 2009, the percentage of students who reported being in a physical fight anywhere and on school property decreased for all four grade levels (grades 9 through12) (figure 13.1 and table 13.1). Generally, a higher percentage of students in 9th grade reported being in fights than students in any other grade, both anywhere and on school property. For example, in 2009, 37 percent of 9th-graders, compared to 33 percent of 10th-graders, 29 percent of 11th-graders, and 25 percent of 12th-graders reported being in a fight anywhere. Similarly, 15 percent of 9th-graders, compared to 12 percent of 10th-graders, 10 percent of 11th-graders, and 7 percent of 12th-graders reported being in a fight on school property in 2009. A smaller percentage of 12th-graders were involved in physical fights anywhere and on school property than any other grade. The percentage of students who reported being in a physical fight differed by race/ethnicity in 2009 (figure 13.2 and table 13.1). Generally, a smaller percentage of Asian students reported being in physical fights anywhere and on school property than other racial/ethnic groups. In addition, smaller percentages of White students reported being in fights anywhere and on school property than Black, Hispanic, or American Indian/Alaska Native students. For example, 19 percent of Asian students reported being in a physical fight anywhere at least once during the previous 12 months, compared to 28 percent of White students, 36 percent of Hispanic students, 41 percent of Black students, and 42 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students. Eight percent of Asian students reported being in a fight on school property at least once during the previous 12 months, compared to 14 percent of Hispanic students, 17 percent of Black students, and 21 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students. For both males and females, the percentage of students who reported being in a fight anywhere was lower in 2009 than in 2007 (39 percent compared to 44 percent for males, and 23 percent compared to 27 percent for females). While the percentage of students who reported being in fights on school property in 2009 was lower than in 2007 for females (7 percent compared to 9 percent), there was no measurable difference in the percentage who reported being in fights on school property for males. A greater percentage of males than females reported being in a higher number of physical fights both anywhere and on school property. For example, 4 percent of males reported being in a fight twelve or more times in 2009, compared to 1 percent of females. One percent of males reported being in a fight on school property twelve or more times, compared to less than half a percent of females (figure 13.3 and table 13.2). Data for 2009 were available for 41 states. Among these states, the percentage of students who reported being in a fight anywhere ranged from 23 percent in Maine to 37 percent in New Mexico, while the percentage of students reporting being in a fight on school property ranged from 7 percent in North Dakota to 15 percent in Arkansas and New Mexico (table 13.3). 31 “On school property” was not defined for survey respondents. Indicator 14 Students Carrying Weapons on School Property and Anywhere Between 1993 and 2009, the percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported carrying a weapon at least one day anywhere during the past 30 days declined from 22 to 17 percent, and the percentage carrying a weapon on school property declined from 12 to 6 percent. The presence of weapons at school may interfere with teaching and learning by creating an intimidating and threatening atmosphere (Aspy et al. 2004). 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 if they had carried one of these weapons on school property during the same time period.32 Weapon carrying anywhere is included as a point of comparison with weapon carrying on school property. In 2009, 17 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported that they had carried a weapon anywhere on at least one day during the past 30 days: 8 percent carried a weapon anywhere on six or more days of the period, 6 percent carried a weapon on two to five days of the period, and 4 percent carried a weapon on one day of the period (tables 14.1 and 14.2). As for the percentages of students who reported carrying a weapon on school property during the past 30 days, 6 percent of students reported that they had carried a weapon on at least one day of the period. This percentage was composed of 2 percent of students reporting carrying a weapon on school property on six or more days, 1 percent reporting carrying a weapon on two to five days, and 2 percent reporting carrying a weapon on one day. The percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere in the past 30 days declined from 22 percent in 1993 to 17 percent in 2009. In addition, from 1993 to 2009 the percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon on school property declined from 12 to 6 percent. However, the percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon either anywhere or on school property was statistically unchanged from 2007 to 2009. In every survey year, the percentage of males who reported they had carried a weapon, either anywhere or on school property was higher than the percentage of females doing so (figure 14.1 and table 14.1). In 2009, for example, 27 percent of males carried a weapon anywhere, compared to 7 percent of females, and 8 percent of males carried a weapon on school property, compared to 3 percent of females. The percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere or on school property varied according to students’ race/ethnicity (figure 14.2 and table 14.1). In 2009, a smaller percentage of Asian students (8 percent) than of students from any other racial/ethnic group (the percentages for the other groups ranged from 14 to 21 percent) reported carrying a weapon anywhere during the previous 30 days. In addition, the percentage of White students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere was higher than that of Black students (19 vs. 14 percent). A smaller percentage of Asian students (4 percent) reported carrying a weapon on school property than of Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian students (10 percent), White students (6 percent), or Hispanic students (6 percent). In 2009, the percentages of 9th- through 12th-grade students reporting carrying a weapon anywhere during the past 30 days ranged from 16 to 18 percent, whereas the percentages of 9th- through 12th-graders reporting carrying a weapon on school property during that time period ranged from 5 to 6 percent. However, there were no significant differences in the percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere or on school property by grade level. State level data were available in 37 states for students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere and in 41 states for students who reported carrying a weapon on school property. In 2009, the percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere and on school property (varied among the states for which data were available (table 14.3). Among these states, the percentage of students reporting carrying a weapon anywhere ranged from 10 percent in New Jersey and Rhode Island to 27 percent in New Mexico, while the percentage of students reporting carrying a weapon on school property ranged from 3 percent in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to 12 percent in Wyoming. 32 “On school property” was not defined for survey respondents. Indicator 15 Students’ Use of Alcohol on School Property and Anywhere In 2009, about 42 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported having at least one drink of alcohol anywhere in the past 30 days, while 4 percent had at least one drink on school property. Alcohol consumption on school property is an illegal behavior of students, that may lead to additional crimes and misbehavior (Kodjo, Auinger, and Ryan 2003). In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9–12 were asked whether they had consumed alcohol at all (referred to as “anywhere” in this indicator) during the past 30 days and if they had consumed alcohol on school property.33 In most states, purchase and consumption of alcohol anywhere publicly by students in grades 9–12 (as they are under the legal drinking age of 21) is illegal. Alcohol consumption anywhere is included as a point of comparison with alcohol consumption on school property. Overall, the percentage of students reporting alcohol consumption anywhere in the past 30 days decreased from 48 percent in 1993 to 42 percent in 2009. The percentage of students reporting alcohol consumption on school property in the past 30 days in 2009 was not measurably different from the 1993 percentage (figure 15.1 and table 15.1). In 2009, 20 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported using alcohol anywhere on one or two days during the past 30 days. Twenty-one percent reported using alcohol anywhere from three to twenty-nine days during the past 30 days, and 1 percent reported using alcohol anywhere all 30 days (table 15.2). In addition, 3 percent of students reported using alcohol on school property on one or two days during the past 30 days, 1 percent of students reported using alcohol on school property from three to twenty-nine days during the past 30 days, and less than one-half percent of students reported using alcohol on school property all 30 days. Since 2003, there has been no measurable difference between the percentages of male and female students who reported alcohol consumption anywhere (figure 15.1 and table 15.1). However, there were differences in the reporting of how often alcohol was consumed in 2009. For example, a higher percentage of females than males reported consuming alcohol either one or two days out of the previous 30 days in 2009 (23 percent vs. 18 percent). However, a higher percentage of males than females reported consuming alcohol from three to twenty-nine days (22 percent vs. 19 percent). One percent of male students reported consuming alcohol anywhere all thirty days (figure 15.2 and table 15.2). In every survey year, a greater percentage of males reported using alcohol on school property than females (figure 15.1 and table 15.1). For example, in 2009, 5 percent of males reported consuming alcohol on school property at least one time, whereas 4 percent of females did so. Two percent of male students reported consuming alcohol on school property from three to twenty-nine days in 2009, whereas 1 percent of female students did so (figure 15.2 and table 15.2). In 2009, about one-half (52 percent) of 12th-graders reported consuming alcohol anywhere at least one time during the previous 30 days (figure 15.3 and table 15.1). This percentage was higher than the 2009 percentage of 9th- graders (32 percent), 10th-graders (41 percent), and 11th- graders (46 percent) who reported consuming alcohol anywhere at least one time during the previous 30 days. There also were differences in how often alcohol was consumed anywhere among the grades in 2009 (table 15.2). For example, a higher percentage of 12th-graders (27 percent) than of 9th-graders (13 percent), 10th-graders (20 percent), and 11th-graders (23 percent) reported consuming alcohol anywhere from three to twenty-nine days in the past 30 days. In terms of alcohol use on school property in 2009, there were no measurable differences in alcohol consumption among the grades. Alcohol consumption anywhere and on school property also varied by racial/ethnic group. In 2009, a smaller percentage of Asian students than of students of any other racial/ethnic group reported consuming alcohol anywhere (figure 15.4 and table 15.1). In addition, a smaller percentage of Black students (33 percent) than of White students (45 percent) and Hispanic students (43 percent) reported consuming alcohol anywhere at least one time during the previous 30 days. Asian students were less likely to consume alcohol on school property (3 percent) than Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian students (10 percent), Hispanic students and students of two or more races (7 percent), and Black students (5 percent); however there was no measurable difference in the alcohol consumption on school property of Asian students and White students (3 percent each). State level data were available in 42 states for students who reported drinking alcohol anywhere and in 38 states for students who reported drinking alcohol on school property. The percentage of students who reported drinking alcohol anywhere and on school property varied among the states for which data were available. Among these states, the percentage of students who reported drinking alcohol anywhere at least one day during the previous 30 days ranged from 18 percent in Utah to 47 percent in Louisiana, while the percentage of students who reported drinking on school property ranged from 3 percent in Alaska, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, and Vermont to 8 percent in Hawaii and New Mexico (table 15.3). 33 “On school property” was not defined for survey respondents. Indicator 16 Students’ Use of Marijuana on School Property and Anywhere In 2009, 21 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported using marijuana anywhere at least one time in the past 30 days, while 5 percent reported using marijuana at least one time on school property. The Youth Risk Behavior Survey asked students in grades 9– 12 whether they had used marijuana at all (referred to as “anywhere” in this indicator) in the past 30 days as well as whether they had used marijuana on school property in the past 30 days.34 According to students’ reports in 2009, students were four times more likely to use marijuana anywhere than on school property. Of students in grades 9– 12, twenty-one percent reported using marijuana at least one time anywhere in the past 30 days, while 5 percent reported using marijuana at least one time on school property in the past 30 days (figure 16.1 and table 16.1). The percentage of students who reported using marijuana anywhere at least one time in the past 30 days was higher in 1999 (27 percent) than in 1993 (18 percent). Between 1999 and 2009, the percentage of students who reported using marijuana anywhere had declined to 21 percent. However, there was no measurable difference between the percentage of students who reported using marijuana anywhere in 2005 and the percentage who reported using it anywhere in 2009. With regard to marijuana use on school property, the percentage of students who reported using marijuana decreased between 1993 and 2009. In 1999, 7 percent of students reported using marijuana at least one time during the past 30 days on school property, and by 2009 this percentage had declined to 5 percent (figure 16.1 and table 16.1). In every survey year, higher percentages of males than females reported using marijuana anywhere and on school property (figure 16.1 and table 16.1). For example, in 2009, 23 percent of males reported using marijuana anywhere during the previous 30 days, compared to 18 percent of females. According to students’ reports, male students were twice as likely as females to use marijuana on school property in 2009 (6 percent vs. 3 percent, respectively). There were also differences between males and females in the reported number of times using marijuana in the past 30 days. Six percent of males reported using marijuana 40 times or more anywhere in the past 30 days, compared to 2 percent of females. One percent of males reported using marijuana 40 times or more on school property, compared to less than one-half percent of females (figure 16.2 and table 16.2). Student reports on marijuana use anywhere and on school property differed by racial/ethnic group in 2009. Generally, the percentage of Asian students reporting using marijuana anywhere and on school property during the previous 30 days was smaller than that of most other racial/ethnic groups (figure 16.3 and table 16.1). For example, 7 percent of Asian students reported using marijuana anywhere, compared to 21 percent of White students; 22 percent each of Black students, Hispanic students, and students of two or more races; 25 percent of Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian students; and 32 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students. Similarly, a smaller percentage of Asian students (2 percent) reported using marijuana on school property than White students (4 percent), students of two or more races (5 percent), Black students and Hispanic students (6 percent each), and Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian students (9 percent). There was no statistically significant difference between the percentage of Asian students and the percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native students reporting using marijuana on school property. The percentages of 9th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students, who reported using marijuana anywhere in 2009 were lower than the percentages of students in those grades who used marijuana anywhere in 1999 (table 16.1). However, compared to a decade ago, there was no significant change in the percentage of 11th-graders who reported using marijuana anywhere. Lower percentages of students at each of grade levels 9 through 12 reported using marijuana on school property in 2009 than in 1999. In 2009, a smaller percentage of 9th-graders reported using marijuana anywhere (16 percent), than 10th-graders (21 percent), 11th-graders (23 percent), and 12th-graders (25 percent) (figure 16.4 and table 16.1). There were no measurable differences between the percentages of students in any of the grades 9 thought 12 who reported the use of marijuana on school property in 2009. State level data were available in 42 states for students who reported using marijuana anywhere and in 38 states for students who reported using marijuana on school property. The percentage of students who reported using marijuana anywhere and on school property, varied among the states for which data were available in 2009. Among these states, the percentage of students who reported using marijuana anywhere ranged from 10 percent in Utah to 28 percent in New Mexico, while the percentage of students who reported using marijuana on school property ranged from 3 percent in Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Dakota to 10 percent in New Mexico (table 16.3). 34 “On school property” was not defined for survey respondents. Indicator 17 Students’ Perceptions of Personal Safety at School and Away From School In 2007, approximately 5 percent of students ages 12–18 reported that they were afraid of attack or harm at school, compared to 3 percent of students who reported that they were afraid of attack or harm away from school. School violence can make students fearful and affect their readiness and ability to learn, and concerns about vulnerability to attacks detract from a positive school environment (Scheckner et al. 2002). In the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12–18 were asked how often35 they had been afraid of attack or harm “at school or on the way to and from school” and “away from school.”36 In 2007, a greater percentage of students ages 12–18 reported that they were afraid of attack or harm at school (5 percent) than away from school (3 percent) during the school year (figure 17.1 and table 17.1). Students’ reports on their fears about their safety varied by location and race/ethnicity. For example, in 2007, smaller percentages of White students (4 percent) and Asian students (2 percent) reported being afraid of attack or harm at school than their Black (9 percent) and Hispanic (7 percent) peers. Away from school, a smaller percentage of White students (3 percent) than Black students (5 percent) and Hispanic students (6 percent) reported being afraid of attack or harm. Other differences in students’ reports on their safety were detected by student and school characteristics in 2007. For example, a higher percentage of 6th-graders (10 percent) reported being afraid of attack or harm at school than 7th- graders (7 percent), 8th-graders (5 percent), 9th-graders (6 percent), 10th-graders (5 percent), and 11th- and 12th- graders (3 percent each). Away from school, a larger percentage of 6thgraders (6 percent) were afraid of attack or harm than students in the 10th, 11th, or 12th grades (2 to 3 percent). A greater percentage of female students (6 percent) feared for their safety at school than male students (5 percent) in 2007. The same was true away from school: 5 percent of females feared for their safety compared to 2 percent of males. School sector was also related to students’ fear of attack or harm. A greater percentage of students in public schools (6 percent) reported being afraid of being attacked or harmed at school than students attending private schools (2 percent). There was no significant difference in the percentage of public and private school students who reported being afraid of attack or harm away from school. Between 1995 and 2007, the percentage of students who feared attack or harm at school decreased from 12 to 5 percent. Between the two most recent survey years, 2005 and 2007, the percentage of students who feared attack or harm at school decreased from 6 percent to 5 percent. Away from school, there was no pattern of increase or decrease in the percentage of students who feared attack or harm between 1999 and 2007. However, the percentage of students who feared attack or harm away from school was smaller in 2007 (3 percent) than in 2005 (5 percent). 35 Students were asked if they “never,” “almost never,” “sometimes,” or “most of the time” feared attack or harm at school or away from school. Students responding “sometimes” or “most of the time” were considered fearful. 36 “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus. Indicator 18 Students’ Reports of Avoiding School Activities or Specific Places in School In 2007, 7 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 in school (Schreck and Miller 2003). The percentage of students who avoid school activities and certain areas in school is a measure of their perception of school safety. In the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12–18 were asked whether they had avoided school activities or one or more places in school because they were fearful that someone might attack or harm them.37 In 2007, 7 percent of students reported that they had avoided a school activity or one or more places in school during the previous school year because of fear of attack or harm. About 3 percent of students avoided a school activity, and 6 percent avoided one or more places in school38 (figure 18.1 and table 18.1). While there was no overall pattern of increase or decrease between 1999 and 2007 in the percentage of students who reported that they had avoided a school activity or one or more places in school because they were fearful that someone might attack or harm them, the percentage was higher in 2007 (7 percent) than in 2005 (6 percent). In 2007, 2 percent of students reported that they had avoided any activity, 1 percent of students reported that they had avoided a class, and 1 percent of students reported that they had stayed home from school because they were fearful someone might attack or harm them. One percent of students reported that they had avoided the entrance to the school, 3 percent that they had avoided the stairs or hallways, 2 percent that they had avoided parts of the school cafeteria, 3 percent that they had avoided any school restrooms, and 1 percent that they had avoided other places inside the school building because of fear of attack or harm in 2007. Students’ reports of avoiding one or more places in school because of fear of attack or harm varied by student and school characteristics. A higher percentage of 7th-graders (7 percent), 8th-graders (6 percent), 9th-graders (7 percent), and 10th-graders (5 percent) reported avoiding one or more places inside school than 12th-graders (3 percent) (figure 18.2). Additionally, a higher percentage of 6th graders (8 percent), 7th-graders (7 percent), and 9th-graders (7 percent) than 11th-graders (4 percent) reported avoiding one or more places in school because of fear of attack or harm. No measurable difference was detected in the extent to which females and males avoided one or more places in school in 2007 (5 and 6 percent, respectively). A larger percentage of public school students (6 percent) than private school students (1 percent) reported avoiding one or more places inside school because of fear of attack or harm. 37 For the 2001 survey, the wording was changed from “attack or harm” to “attack or threat of attack.” See appendix A for more information. 38 “Avoided school activities” includes avoiding any (extracurricular) activities, skipping class, or staying home from school. In 2007, the survey wording was changed from “any extracurricular activities” to “any activities.” Please use caution when comparing changes in this item over time. Avoiding one or more places in school includes the entrance, any hallways or stairs, parts of the cafeteria, restrooms, and other places inside the school building. Indicator 19 Serious Disciplinary Actions Taken by Public Schools Forty-six percent of public schools (approximately 38,500 schools) took a serious disciplinary action against a student for specific offenses during the 2007–08 school year. Approximately 767,900 serious disciplinary actions were taken by public schools during that period. In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, public school principals were asked to report the number of disciplinary actions their schools took against students for specific offenses. 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 firearm or explosive device; and use or possession of a weapon other than a firearm or explosive device. Forty-six percent of public schools (approximately 38,500 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 2007–08 school year (table 19.1). The largest percentage of schools that reported taking a disciplinary action in 2007–08 did so in response to a physical attack or fight: 31 percent of schools took a serious disciplinary action for physical attacks or fights (figure 19.1 and table 19.1). In response to other offenses, 21 percent of all schools took serious disciplinary action for insubordination; 19 percent for distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs; 15 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 3 percent did so for use or possession of a firearm or explosive device. A total of 767,900 serious disciplinary actions were taken during the 2007–08 school year. The largest number of disciplinary actions were taken for insubordination (327,100 actions) and physical attacks or fights (271,800). A smaller number of disciplinary actions were taken in response to the use or possession of a firearm or explosive device (5,200 actions) than for other offenses covered in the survey. Of the 767,900 serious disciplinary actions taken during the 2007–08 school year, 76 percent were suspensions for 5 days or more, 19 percent were transfers to specialized schools, and 5 percent were removals with no services for the remainder of the school year (figure 19.2). Although the most common disciplinary action taken was suspensions lasting 5 days or more, differences in serious disciplinary actions taken varied by the type of offense. Generally, greater percentages of out-of-school suspensions lasting 5 days or more were in response to insubordination (82 percent); physical attacks or fights (79 percent); and the distribution, possession, or use of alcohol (74 percent) than were in response to the other offenses covered in the survey (ranging from 53 to 60 percent). Greater percentages of removals with no services for the remainder of the school year were in response to the use or possession of a firearm or explosive device (18 percent); distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs (9 percent); and use or possession of a weapon other than a firearm or explosive device (8 percent) than were in response to the other offenses covered in the survey (ranging from 4 to 5 percent). Greater percentages of transfers to specialized schools were in response to the distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs (36 percent); the use or possession of a weapon other than a firearm or explosive device (32 percent); and the use or possession of firearm or explosive device (29 percent) than were in response to the other offenses covered in the survey (ranging from 13 to 22 percent). Although the overall percentage of schools taking a serious disciplinary action was lower in 2003–04 (46 percent) than in 1999–2000 (54 percent), there has been no measurable change since 2003–04 (figure 19.3 and table 19.2). This same general pattern held both for the percentage of schools taking serious disciplinary actions for the offense of physical attacks or fights and for the offense of insubordination. Between the two most recent survey years (2005–06 and 2007– 08), there was no measurable difference in the percentage of schools that took a serious disciplinary action in response to the distribution, possession, or use of alcohol or illegal drugs. A smaller percentage of schools reported taking a serious disciplinary action for the use or possession of a weapon other than a firearm or explosive device in 2007–08 (15 percent) than in 2005–06 (19 percent). Similarly, a smaller percentage of schools reported taking a serious disciplinary action for the use or possession of a firearm or explosive device in 2007–08 (3 percent) than in 2005–06 (5 percent). Indicator 20 Safety and Security Measures Taken by Public Schools During the 2007–08 school year, 43 percent of public schools reported that they had an electronic notification system for a school-wide emergency and 31 percent of public schools reported that they had a structured, anonymous threat reporting system. Public schools use a variety of practices and procedures intended to promote the safety of students and staff. In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, public school principals were asked about their school’s use of safety and security 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 2007–08 school year, nearly all public schools required visitors to sign in or check in (99 percent) (table 20.1). Other frequently reported safety and security measures included prohibiting all tobacco use on school grounds (91 percent of public schools) and controlling access to school buildings by locking or monitoring doors during school hours (90 percent of public schools) (figure 20.1 and table 20.1). Forty-three percent of public schools reported that they had an electronic notification system for a school-wide emergency and 31 percent of public schools reported that they had a structured, anonymous threat reporting system. One percent of public schools required students to pass through metal detectors daily. The use of safety and security measures varied by school level during the 2007–08 school year. In general, a greater percentage of high schools than middle schools and primary schools, and a greater percentage of middle schools than primary schools, reported using the following safety and security measures: drug testing for athletes; drug testing for students in extracurricular activities;39 requiring students to wear badges or picture ID’s; daily metal detector checks on students;40 random dog sniffs to check for drugs;39 random sweeps for contraband; 39,41 and security cameras to monitor school39 (table 20.2). For example, 19 percent of high schools, 14 percent of middle schools, and 3 percent of primary schools reported that students were required to wear badges or picture IDs. However, a smaller percentage of high schools than middle or primary schools reported controlling access to buildings during school hours and requiring students to wear uniforms. A greater percentage of middle schools reported having an electronic notification system for a school-wide emergency (49 percent) than primary schools (43 percent) or high schools (44 percent). In general, a higher percentage of schools with 1,000 or more students than schools with fewer students reported the use of each safety and security measure (the exceptions were controlling access to the building during school hours, drug testing for students in extracurricular activities, and requiring students to wear uniforms). For example, 56 percent of schools with 1,000 or more students had an electronic notification system for a school wide emergency, compared to 49 percent of schools with 500–999 students, 41 percent of schools with 300–499 students, and 31 percent of schools with less than 300 students. The percentage of schools using various security measures has changed over time. Between the 1999–2000 and 2007–08 school years, there was an increase in the percentage of public schools reporting the use of the following safety and security measures: controlled access to the building during school hours (from 75 to 90 percent); controlled access to school grounds during school hours (from 34 to 43 percent); students required to wear badges or picture IDs (from 4 to 8 percent); faculty required to wear badges or picture IDs (from 25 to 58 percent); the use of one or more security cameras to monitor school (from 19 to 55 percent); the provision of telephones in most classrooms (from 45 to 72 percent); and the requirement that students wear uniforms (from 12 to 18 percent) (figure 20.2 and table 20.1). Between the 2003–04 and 2007–08 school years, there was an increase in the percentage of schools reporting the drug testing of student athletes (from 4 to 6 percent) as well as an increase in the percentage of schools reporting the drug testing of students in other extracurricular activities (from 3 to 4 percent). 39 Students in extracurricular activities other than athletics. 40 One or more check, sweep, or camera. 41 For example, drugs or weapons. Does not include dog sniffs. Indicator 21 Students’ Reports of Safety and Security Measures Observed at School Sixty-six percent of students reported observing the use of one or more security cameras at their school in 2007 compared to 58 percent of students in 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 Supplement42 to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12–18 were asked whether their school used certain security measures.43 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 2007, nearly all students ages 12–18 observed the use of at least one of the selected security measures at their school (figure 21.1 and table 21.1). In 2007, the majority of students ages 12–18 reported that their school had a code of student conduct (96 percent) and a requirement that visitors sign in (94 percent). Ninety percent of students reported the presence of school staff or other adult supervision in the hallway, and 69 percent reported the presence of security guards and/or assigned police officers. Fifty-four percent of students reported locker checks, 61 percent reported locked entrance or exit doors during the day, and 66 percent reported the use of security cameras at their schools. Twenty-four percent of students reported that badges or picture identification were required. Metal detectors were the least observed of the selected safety and security measures: 10 percent of students reported the use of metal detectors at their school. The percentage of students reporting the presence of some of the selected security measures increased between the two most recent survey years as well as over longer time periods. For example, a greater percentage of students reported observing the use of one or more security cameras at their school in 2007 (66 percent) than in 2005 (58 percent). Over the longer time period of 2001 through 2007, the percentage of students who reported observing the use of one or more security cameras at their school increased from 39 to 66 percent. Similarly, a greater percentage of students reported locked entrance or exit doors during the day in 2007 (61 percent) than in 2005 (54 percent). Over the longer time period of 1999 through 2007, the percentage of students who reported locked entrance or exit doors during the day increased from 38 to 61 percent. In 2007, about 94 percent of students reported that their school had a requirement that visitors sign in compared to 93 percent of students in 2005. Between 1999 and 2007, the percentage of students who reported a visitor sign-in requirement increased from 87 to 94 percent. No significant differences were detected in the percentage of students who reported metal detectors, locker checks, the presence of security guards and/or assigned police officers, requirements that students wear badges or picture identification, or a code of student conduct in their schools across all survey years. 42 In 2005 and 2007, 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. 43 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. References Addington, L. (2005). Disentangling the Effects of Bounding and Mobility on Reports of Criminal Victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21(3): 1573–7799. 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., 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. 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. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2004). Suicide Attempts and Physical Fighting Among High School Students— United States, 2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 53(22): 474–476. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). School- Associated Student Homicides—United States, 1992–2006. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2008, 57(02): 33–36. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5702a1.htm. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2009. Surveillance Summaries. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2010, 59(No. SS-5). Committee on School Health. (1990). The Potentially Suicidal Student in the School Setting. Pediatrics, 86(3): 481–483. Coopersmith, J. (2009). Characteristics of Public, Private, and Bureau of Indian Education Elementary and Secondary School Teachers in the United States: Results From the 2007–08 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2009-324). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Crews, K., Crews, J., and Turner, F. (2008). School Violence Is Not Going Away So Proactive Steps Are Needed. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 4(1): 25–28. Crick, N.R., and Bigbee, M.A. (1998). Relational and Overt Forms of Peer Victimization: A Multiinformant 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 Bauer, L. (2010). Student Victimization in U.S. Schools: Results From the 2007 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCES 2010-319). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 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, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC. Eaton, D., Brener, D., Kann, L., and Pittman, V. (2007). High School Student Responses to Different Question Formats Assessing Race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41: 488–494. Fredland, Nina M. (2008). Nurturing Hostile Environments: The Problem of School Violence. Family & Community Health, 31(1): S32–S41. 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. Kodjo, C.M., Auinger, P., and Ryan, S.A. (2003). Demographic, Intrinsic, and Extrinsic Factors Associated With Weapon Carrying at School. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 157(1): 96–103. 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. MacMillan, R., and Hagan, J. (2004). Violence in the Transition to Adulthood: Adolescent Victimization, Education, and Socioeconomic Attainment in Later Life. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1(2): 127–158. 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. Neiman, S., and DeVoe, J.F. (2009). Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools: Findings From the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2007–08 (NCES 2009-326). 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. Smith, D.L., and Smith, B.J. (2006). Perceptions of Violence: The Views of Teachers Who Left Urban Schools. The High School Journal, 89(3): 34–42. Snyder, T.D., and Dillow, S.A. (2010). Digest of Education Statistics 2009 (NCES 2010-013). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Storch, E.A., Nock, M.K., Masia-Warner, C., and Barlas, M.E. (2003). Peer Victimization and Social-Psychological Adjustment in Hispanic and African-American Children. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 12: 439–455. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2007). Crime in the United States 2006. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Digest of Education Statistics, 2007 (NCES 2008-022). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Wei, H., and Williams, J.H. (2004). Relationship Between Peer Victimization and School Adjustment in Sixth-Grade Students: Investigating Mediation Effects. Violence and Victims, 19: 557–571. 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. The primary test procedure used in this report was Student’s t statistic, which tests the difference between two sample estimates. The t test formula was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Estimates displayed in the text, figures, and tables are rounded from original estimates, not from a series of rounding. The following is a description of data sources, accuracy of estimates, and statistical procedures used in this report. Sources of Data This section briefly describes each of the datasets used in this report: the School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study, the Supplementary Homicide Reports, the Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System Fatal, the National Crime Victimization Survey, the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the Schools and Staffing Survey, and the School Survey on Crime and Safety. Directions for obtaining more information are provided at the end of each description. 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 , or legal intervention in which 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 schools-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 LexisNexis newspaper and media database. Then law enforcement 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 law enforcement official and a school official are interviewed regarding details about the school, event, victim(s), and offender(s). A copy of the full law enforcement report is also sought for each case. The information obtained on schools includes school demographics, attendance/absentee rates, suspensions/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 and five school-associated violent deaths were identified from July 1, 1992, to 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, and June 30, 1999 (Anderson et al. 2001). Other publications from this study have described how the number of events change 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 most recent publication describes trends in school associated homicide from July 1, 1992, to June 30, 2006 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2008). 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. For several reasons, all data for years from 1999 to the present are flagged as “subject to change”. For some recent data, the interviews with school and law enforcement officials to verify case details have not been completed. The details learned during the interviews can occasionally change the classification of a case. Also, new cases may be identified because of the expansion of the scope of the media files used for case identification. Sometimes other cases not identified during earlier data years using the independent case finding efforts (which focus on nonmedia sources of information) will be discovered. Also, other cases may occasionally be identified while the law enforcement and school interviews are being conducted to verify known cases. 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 4770 Buford Highway NE Mailstop F63 Atlanta, GA 30341-3742 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 nonnegligent manslaughters in the United States from January 1976 to December 2008; that is, negligent manslaughters and justifiable homicides have been eliminated from the data. Based on law enforcement agency reports, the FBI estimates that 644,554 murders (including nonnegligent manslaughters) were committed from 1976 to 2008. Agencies provided detailed information on 582,405 victims and 648,526 offenders. About 90 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™ 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 both crimes reported to police and crimes not reported to the police. 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 question about race 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 showed that the new 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. There were changes in the sample design and survey methodology in the 2006 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) that impacted survey estimates. Due to this redesign, 2006 data are not presented in this indicator. Data from 2007 onward are comparable to earlier years. Analysis of the 2007 estimates indicate that the program changes made in 2007 had relatively small effects on NCVS changes. As discussed in Criminal Victimization, 2006 the substantial increases in victimization rates from 2005 to 2006 do not appear to be due to actual changes in crime during that period. The increases were attributed to the impact of methodological changes in the survey. For more information on the 2006 NCVS data, see Criminal Victimization, 2006 at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv06.pdf and the technical notes at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv06tn.pdf. The number of NCVS eligible households in sample in 2008 was about 42,000. 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 households 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. Since the survey’s inception, the initial interview at each sample unit has been used only to bound future interviews to establish a time frame to avoid duplication of crimes uncovered in these subsequent interviews. Beginning in 2006, data from the initial interview have been adjusted to account for the effects of bounding and included in the survey estimates. 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 in 2008 were about 86 percent. Weights were developed to permit estimates for the total U.S. population 12 years and older. For more information about the NCVS, contact: Jennifer Truman Victimization Statistics Branch Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Justice 810 7th Street NW Washington, DC 20531 Telephone: (202) 514-5083 E-mail: jennifer.truman@usdoj.gov Internet: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov School Crime Supplement (SCS) Created as a supplement to the NCVS and code signed 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, 2005, and 2007 to collect additional information about school- related victimizations on a national level. This report includes data from the 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007 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 through 2005, the SCS was conducted for a 6-month period from January to 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 has always been 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. In 2007, the questionnaire was changed and household members who attended school any time during the school year were included. 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, 2005, and 2007 was calculated by using NCVS incident variables appended to the 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007 SCS data ?les. The NCVS type of crime variable was used to classify victimizations of students in the SCS as serious violent, violent, or theft. The NCVS variables asking where the incident happened and what the victim was doing when it happened were used to ascertain whether the incident happened at school. For prevalence of victimization, the NCVS definition of “at school” includes in the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Only incidents that occurred inside the United States are included. In 2001, the SCS survey instrument was modified from previous collections. 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, 2005, and 2007. 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. A total of 9,700 students participated in the 1995 SCS, 8,400 in 1999, 8,400 in 2001, 7,200 in 2003, 6,300 in 2005, and 5,600 in 2007. In the 2007 SCS, the household completion rate was 90 percent. In the 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005 SCS, the household completion rates were 95 percent, 94 percent, 93 percent, 92 percent, and 91 percent, respectively, and the student completion rates were 78 percent, 78 percent, 77 percent, 70 percent, and 62 percent respectively. For the 2007 SCS, the student completion rate was 58 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, 56 percent in 2005, and 53 percent in 2007. 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, 2005, and 2007. Due to the low unit response rate in 2005 and 2007, a unit nonresponse bias analysis was done. 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 the NCVS, the unit completion rate for the 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 the 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. In 2005, 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. In 2007, the analysis of unit nonresponse bias found evidence of bias by the race/ethnicity and household income variables. Hispanic respondents had lower response rates than other race/ethnicities. Respondents from households with an income of $25,000 or more had higher response rates than those from households with incomes of less than $25,000. However, when responding students are compared to the eligible NCVS sample, there were no measurable differences between the responding students and the eligible students, suggesting the nonresponse bias has little impact on the overall estimates. 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. 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, 2005, 2007, and 2009 YRBS data. The YRBS uses a three-stage cluster sampling design to produce a nationally representative sample of students in grades 9–12 in the United States. The target population consisted of all public and private school students in grades 9–12 in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The first-stage sampling frame included selecting primary sampling units (PSUs) from strata formed on the basis of urbanization and the relative percentage of Black and Hispanic students in the PSU. These PSUs are either counties; subareas of large counties; or groups of smaller, adjacent counties. At the second stage, schools were selected with probability proportional to school enrollment size. The final stage of sampling consisted of randomly selecting, in each chosen school and in each of grades 9– 12, one or two classrooms from either a required subject, such as English or social studies, or a required period, such as homeroom or second period. All students in selected classes were eligible to participate. Three strategies were used to oversample Black and Hispanic students: (1) larger sampling rates were used to select PSUs that are in high- Black and high-Hispanic strata; (2) a modified measure of size was used that increased the probability of selecting schools with a disproportionately high percentage of combined Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian/Alaska Native enrollment; and (3) two classes per grade, rather than one, were selected in schools with a high percentage of combined Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian/Alaska Native enrollment. Approximately 16,300, 10,900, 16,300, 15,300, 13,600, 15,200, 13,900, 14,000, and 16,400 students participated in the 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 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, 67 percent for the 2005 survey, 68 percent for the 2007 survey, and 71 percent for the 2009 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. State-level data were downloaded from the Youth Online: Comprehensive Results web page. 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 that do not have appropriate documentation are not weighted and are not included in this report. In 2009, a total of 42 states and 20 districts had weighted data. In sites with weighted data, the student sample sizes for the state and local YRBS ranged from 965 to 14,870. School response rates ranged from 73 to 100 percent, student response rates ranged from 61 to 90 percent, and overall response rates ranged from 60 to 94 percent. Readers should note that reports of these data published by the CDC and in this report do not include percentages where the denominator includes less than 100 unweighted cases. 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, 2005, and 2007 and in the 2009 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 and in all 2007 and 2009 surveys, 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 classified as missing for students who did not answer the first question and for students who answered “no” to the first question but did not answer the second question. CDC has conducted two studies to understand the effect of changing the race/ethnicity item on the YRBS. Brener, Kann, and McManus (2003) found that allowing students to select more than one response to a single race/ethnicity question on the YRBS had only a minimal effect on reported race/ ethnicity among high school students. Eaton, Brener, Kann, and Pittman (2007) found that self-reported race/ethnicity was similar regardless of whether the single-question or a two-question format was used. 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, 2003–04, and 2007–08 SASS were collected by the U.S. Census Bureau and sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The 1993–94, 1999–2000, and 2003–04 administrations of SASS consisted of four sets of linked surveys, including surveys of schools, the principals of each selected school, a subsample of teachers within each school, and public school districts. The 2007–08 administration of SASS consisted of five types of questionnaires: district questionnaires, principal questionnaires, school questionnaires, teacher questionnaires, and school library media center questionnaires. 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 Education (BIE) school teachers. In 2003–04 and 2007–08, there were three sets of teacher surveys, public (including public charter), private, and BIE. For this report, BIE and public charter schools are included with public schools. The public school sampling frames for the 1993–94, 1999– 2000, 2003–04, and 2007–08 SASS were created using the 1991–92, 1997–98, 2001–02, and 2005–06 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 apart from a private home. 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 or school head). 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, 2003–04, and 2007–08 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 BIE- funded schools, and 1,100 charter schools) and 3,600 private schools were selected to participate in the 1999– 2000 SASS, 10,400 public schools (10,200 public schools and 200 BIE-funded schools) and 3,600 private schools were selected to participate in the 2003– 04 SASS, and 9,980 public schools (9,800 public schools and 180 BIE-funded schools) and 2,940 private schools were selected to participate in the 2007–08 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 BIE teachers, 4,400 public charter school teachers, and 10,800 private school teachers were sampled. In 2003–04, 52,500 public school teachers, 700 BIE teachers, and 10,000 private school teachers were sampled. In 2007–08, 47,440 public school teachers, 750 BIE teachers, and 8,180 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 BIE and public charter school teachers, respectively (which are included with public school teachers for this report). In 2003–04, the overall weighted response rates were 76 percent for public school teachers and 86 percent for BIE-funded school teachers (who are included with public school teachers). In 2007–08, the overall weighted response rates were 72 percent for public school teachers and 71 percent for BIE-funded school teachers (who are included with public school teachers). For private school teachers, the overall weighted response rates were 80 percent in 1993–94, 67 percent in 1999–2000, 70 percent in 2003–04, and 66 percent in 2007–08. 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) is managed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education. SSOCS collects extensive crime and safety data from principals and school administrators of U.S. public schools. Data from this collection can be used to examine the relationship between school characteristics and violent and serious violent crimes in primary schools, middle schools, high schools, and combined schools. In addition, data from SSOCS can be used to assess what crime prevention programs, practices, and policies are used by schools. SSOCS has been conducted in school years 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2005–06, and 2007–08. A fifth collection is planned for school year 2009–10. SSOCS was developed by NCES and is funded by the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools of the U.S. Department of Education. The 2007–08 SSOCS (SSOCS:2008) was conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. Data collection began on February 25, 2008, when questionnaire packets were mailed to sampled schools, and continued through June 18, 2008. A total of 2,560 public schools submitted usable questionnaires: 618 primary schools, 897 middle schools, 936 high schools, and 109 combined schools. The sampling frame for SSOCS:2008 was constructed from the public school universe file created for the 2007–08 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). The SASS frame was derived from the 2005–06 Common Core of Data (CCD) Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe data file. Certain types of schools were excluded from the CCD file in order to meet the sampling needs of SASS: those in U.S. outlying areas1 and Puerto Rico, overseas Department of Defense schools, newly closed schools, home schools, and schools with a high grade of kindergarten or lower. Additional schools were then excluded from the SASS frame to meet the sampling needs of SSOCS: special education schools, vocational schools, alternative schools (e.g., adult continuing education schools and remedial schools), ungraded schools, schools sponsored by the Bureau of Indian Education, and other “nonregular” schools.2 Charter schools were not excluded. The use of the modified SASS sampling frame for SSOCS:2008 is consistent with the 1999–2000 SSOCS (SSOCS:2000) and the 2003–04 SSOCS (SSOCS:2004). The 2005–06 SSOCS (SSOCS:2006) deviated from this by using the CCD directly as a sampling frame. This deviation was necessary because SSOCS:2006 occurred between SASS collections. A total of 3,484 schools were selected for the 2008 study. In February 2008, 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 2,560 schools completed the survey. The weighted overall response rate was 77.2 percent. A nonresponse bias analysis was conducted on the 13 items with weighted item nonresponse rates below 85 percent. 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 2007–08 school year. For information on the 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2005–06, and 2007–08 iterations, see Neiman and DeVoe (2009). For more information about the School Survey on Crime and Safety, contact: Kathryn A. Chandler National Center for Education Statistics 1990 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 502-7486 E-mail: kathryn.chandler@ed.gov Internet: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssoc 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. Standard error calculation for data from 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 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 Student’s t statistic, which tests the difference between two sample estimates. The t test formula was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The formula used to compute the t statistic is as follows: (1) INSERT EQUATION 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: (2) INSERT EQUATION 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. 1 “U.S. outlying areas” include the following: America Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 2 “Nonregular” schools includes cases of schools-within- schools, which were found in Minnesota and Georgia. Appendix B: Glossary of Terms General Terms 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 rural students in order to increase the sample sizes of rural students. Rural 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. Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) Geographic entities defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for use by federal statistical agencies in collecting, tabulating, and publishing federal statistics. 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. 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. Theft Completed or attempted theft of property or cash without personal contact. Victimization A crime as it affects one individual person or household. For personal crimes, the number of victimizations is equal to the number of victims involved. The number of victimizations may be greater than the number of incidents because more than one person may be victimized during an incident. Victimization rate A measure of the occurrence of victimizations among a specific population group. Violent crime Rape, sexual assault, robbery, 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 A school located outside a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Suburban school A school located inside an MSA, but outside the “central city.” Urban school A school located inside an 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 classified 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. City As collected by the Common Core of Data and appended to the SSOCS data ?le, city includes territories inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city and includes large cities (populations of 250,000 or more), midsize cities (population less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to 100,000) and small cities (population less than 100,000). 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 or 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. Rural As collected by the Common Core of Data and appended to the SSOCS data ?le, rural includes fringe rural areas (Census-defined rural territory that is less than or equal to 5 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural territory that is less than or equal to 2.5 miles from an urban cluster), distant rural areas (Census-defined rural territory that is more than 5 miles but less than or equal to 25 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural territory that is more than 2.5 miles but less than 10 miles from an urban cluster), and remote rural areas (Census-defined rural territory that is more than 25 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural territory that is more than 10 miles from an urban cluster). 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. Suburb As collected by the Common Core of Data and appended to the SSOCS data file, suburb includes territories outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area and includes large suburbs (populations of 250,000 or more), midsize suburbs (population less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to 100,000) and small suburbs (population less than 100,000). 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 pick pocketing, 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. Town As collected by the Common Core of Data and appended to the SSOCS data file, town includes fringe towns (territories inside an urban cluster that is less than or equal to 10 miles from an urbanized area), distant towns (territories inside an urban cluster that is more than 10 miles and less than or equal to 35 miles from an urbanized area), and remote towns (territories which are inside an urban cluster that is more than 35 miles from an urbanized area). 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