A Look at School Crime Safety (Safety and Risk in Society)

SAFETY AND RISK IN SOCIETY A LOOK AT SCHOOL CRIME SAFETY No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored i...

Author: Megan Hauserman

40 downloads 957 Views 8MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

SAFETY AND RISK IN SOCIETY

A LOOK AT SCHOOL CRIME SAFETY

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

SAFETY AND RISK IN SOCIETY Additional books in this series can be found on Nova’s website under the Series tab.

Additional E-books in this series can be found on Nova’s website under the E-books tab.

SAFETY AND RISK IN SOCIETY

A LOOK AT SCHOOL CRIME SAFETY

MAEGAN E. HAUSERMAN EDITOR

Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York

Copyright © 2010 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. For permission to use material from this book please contact us: Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175 Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com

NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Available upon request

ISBN: 978-1-61209-608-7 (eBook)

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.  New York

CONTENTS Preface Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4 Index

vii Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act: Program Overview and Reauthorization Issues Gail McCallion School and Campus Safety Programs and Requirements in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Higher Education Act Rebecca R. Skinner and Gail McCallion Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools Findings from the School Survey on Crime and Safety - 2007-08 United States Department of Education Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2009 United States Department of Education

1

15

31 101 251

PREFACE 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. 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 book presents the most recent data available on school crime and student safety with information drawn from a variety of sources, including national surveys of students, teachers and principals. Chapter 1 - The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA), Title IVA of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), is the federal government’s major initiative to prevent drug abuse and violence in and around schools. It was most recently reauthorized by the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (P.L. 107-110), in January of 2002. Like all No Child Left Behind Act programs, it is being considered for reauthorization in the 110th Congress. The SDFSCA supports two major grant programs — one for states and one for National Activities. State Grants are distributed to the states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, by a formula that allocates 50% of the funds on the basis of school-aged population, and 50% in proportion to ESEA Title I, Part A, concentration grants for the preceding fiscal year. State governors are permitted to use up to 20% of their state’s grant for comprehensive activities that deter youth from using drugs and committing violent acts in schools. National Activities grants are awarded by the Secretary for a variety of National Activities to prevent substance abuse and support violence prevention. States award grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) using a formula that allocates 40% of an LEA’s grant on the basis of school enrollment and 60% on the basis of an LEA’s relative share of total Title I-A grants for the preceding fiscal year. The statute permits LEAs to use funds for a wide variety of activities intended to enhance violence prevention efforts and reduce drug and alcohol abuse. For FY2008, $513 million was appropriated for the SDFSCA. The majority of these funds are provided for State Grants ($295 million), with the remaining funds ($219 million) supporting National Activities. For FY2009, the Administration has requested $282 million for the SDFSCA. Under this proposal, appropriations for State Grants would be reduced to $100 million, and appropriations for National Activities would be decreased to $182 million. In justifying the requested reduction in State Grant appropriations, the Administration has

viii

Maegan E. Hauserman

argued that the structure of the State Grants program is flawed and spreads funding too broadly to support quality interventions. Many issues are likely to be considered during reauthorization of the SDFSCA program. Issues discussed in this chapter include the Administration’s proposal, recommendations of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Advisory Board, recommendations of the Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), following the Virginia Tech tragedy, and issues of potential concern to Members of Congress. Chapter 2 - In the United States, more than 73 million students are enrolled in elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education (IHEs). Safeguarding their security while they pursue an education is a paramount concern of federal, state, and local governments, as well as the school districts, schools, and institutions that enroll these students. Both the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA; P.L. 107- 110), and the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) contain requirements regarding crime and student safety. The ESEA also includes specific grant programs that support efforts to prevent school violence. ESEA authorizes the federal government’s major programs to assist disadvantaged students, address teacher quality issues, provide support to limited English proficient and immigrant students, prevent school violence and drug abuse, and provide support for public school choice in elementary and secondary schools. While the prevention of school violence is not the primary focus of the ESEA, several ESEA programs could potentially contribute to this effort, most notably ESEA Title IV, Part A, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA). In addition, the ESEA contains specific provisions related to students attending unsafe schools — the Unsafe School Choice Option. The HEA authorizes the federal government’s major student aid programs to support postsecondary education attendance, as well as other significant programs such as those providing aid to special groups of IHEs and support services to enable disadvantaged students to complete secondary school and enter and complete college. While the HEA does not authorize specific programs to address campus crime and security issues, Section 485(f) of Title IV of the HEA contains statutory requirements related to campus crime and security, known collectively as the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clery Act). Institutions must comply with these requirements to participate in the federal student aid programs and other programs authorized by Title IV (e.g., Pell Grants). Unlike funding for K- 12 education, there are limited federal funds available through the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to support institutions of higher education in addressing campus crime and security issues. This chapter discusses these provisions and programs as they apply to elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education. It begins with a description of programs and requirements included in the ESEA, which is followed by a discussion of relevant requirements included in the HEA. Chapter 3 - This chapter presents findings on crime and violence in U.S. public schools,1 using data from the 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS:2008). First administered in school year 1999–2000 and repeated in school years 2003–04, 2005–06, and 2007–08, SSOCS provides information about school crime-related topics from the perspective of schools. Developed and managed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the Institute of Education Sciences and supported by the Office of

Preface

ix

Safe and Drug- Free Schools of the U.S. Department of Education, SSOCS asks public school principals about the frequency of incidents, such as physical attacks, robberies, and thefts, in their schools. Portions of this survey also focus on school programs, disciplinary actions, and the policies implemented to prevent and reduce crime in schools. Chapter 4 - 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 chapter is the twelfth 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 chapter presents the most recent data available on school crime and student safety. The indicators in this chapter 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 2006 to 2007–08. 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 chapter are statistically significant at the .05 level. Additional information about methodology and the datasets analyzed in this chapter may be found in appendix A. This chapter 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

In: A Look at School Crime Safety Editor: Maegan E. Hauserman

ISBN: 978-1-61668-773-1 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 1

SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES ACT: PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND REAUTHORIZATION ISSUES 

Gail McCallion SUMMARY The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA), Title IV-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), is the federal government’s major initiative to prevent drug abuse and violence in and around schools. It was most recently reauthorized by the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (P.L. 107-110), in January of 2002. Like all No Child Left Behind Act programs, it is being considered for reauthorization in the 110th Congress. The SDFSCA supports two major grant programs — one for states and one for National Activities. State Grants are distributed to the states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, by a formula that allocates 50% of the funds on the basis of school-aged population, and 50% in proportion to ESEA Title I, Part A, concentration grants for the preceding fiscal year. State governors are permitted to use up to 20% of their state’s grant for comprehensive activities that deter youth from using drugs and committing violent acts in schools. National Activities grants are awarded by the Secretary for a variety of National Activities to prevent substance abuse and support violence prevention. States award grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) using a formula that allocates 40% of an LEA’s grant on the basis of school enrollment and 60% on the basis of an LEA’s relative share of total Title I-A grants for the preceding fiscal year. The statute permits LEAs to use funds for a wide variety of activities intended to enhance violence prevention efforts and reduce drug and alcohol abuse. For FY2008, $513 million was appropriated for the SDFSCA. The majority of these funds are provided for State Grants ($295 million), with the remaining funds ($219 million) supporting National Activities. For FY2009, the Administration has requested $282 million 

This is an edited, reformatted and augmented version of a CRS Report for Congress publication dated May 2008.

2

Gail McCallion

for the SDFSCA. Under this proposal, appropriations for State Grants would be reduced to $100 million, and appropriations for National Activities would be decreased to $182 million. In justifying the requested reduction in State Grant appropriations, the Administration has argued that the structure of the State Grants program is flawed and spreads funding too broadly to support quality interventions. Many issues are likely to be considered during reauthorization of the SDFSCA program. Issues discussed in this chapter include the Administration’s proposal, recommendations of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Advisory Board, recommendations of the Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), following the Virginia Tech tragedy, and issues of potential concern to Members of Congress.

OVERVIEW The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA), Title IV-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), is the federal government’s major initiative to prevent drug abuse and violence in and around schools. The SDFSCA supports two major grant programs — one for states and one for National Activities. It was most recently reauthorized by the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (P.L. 107110), in January of 2002. Like all No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) programs, it is being considered for reauthorization in the 110th Congress.1

State Grants The SDFSCA supports two major grant programs — one for States and one for National Activities. Of the funds authorized for State Grants, 1% or $4.75 million (whichever is greater), is reserved for Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of Mariana Islands; and the same amount is reserved for the Secretary of the Interior to administer programs for Indian youth. In addition, 0.2% is reserved to provide programs for Native Hawaiians. The remaining funds are distributed to the states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, by a formula that allocates 50% of the funds on the basis of school-aged population, and 50% in proportion to ESEA Title I, Part A, concentration grants for the preceding fiscal year.2 States are guaranteed to receive the greater of one-half of one percent of the total allotted to all states, or the amount the state received for FY2001. State governors are permitted to use up to 20% of their state’s grant allocation for comprehensive activities that deter youth from using drugs and committing violent acts in schools. Of funds remaining after the governor’s share, states are permitted to use up to 3% of their allotment on state administrative activities, and up to 5% of their allotment on other state activities. States must use 93% of their allotment to make formula grants to local educational agencies (LEAs). Practically, this requirement of allocating 93% of state allotments to LEAs means that states must reserve less than the maximum percentage set-aside for state administration or other state activities.

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act: Program Overview…

3

Governors’ Grants Governors are to use their grants for comprehensive activities targeted to children and youth not normally served by State Educational Agency (SEA) or LEA programs, or to children and youth that need special services or additional resources (such as children and youth who are in juvenile detention, runaways or homeless, pregnant or parenting youth, or school dropouts.) Governors award these funds as discretionary grants to LEAs, community based organizations (CBOs), other private or public entities, or consortia thereof. Governors may reserve up to 3% of their grant for administrative costs. Local Educational Agency Grants States award grants to LEAs according to a formula that allocates 40% of an LEA’s grant on the basis of school enrollment3 and 60% on the basis of an LEA’s relative share of total Title I-A grants for the preceding fiscal year. To receive an SDFSCA grant, all LEAs are required to submit an application to their SEA that includes a detailed explanation of the LEA’s comprehensive plan for drug and violence prevention.4 The LEA must also provide assurances that the LEA or the schools to be served have appropriate policies in place to prohibit, among other things, the illegal possession of weapons and that the school has prevention activities designed to create and maintain a safe, disciplined, and drug-free environment. An assurance must also be included that the LEA or schools to be served have a crisis management plan for responding to violent or traumatic events on school grounds.5 LEAs may reserve up to 2% of their award for administrative costs. No more than 40% of an LEA’s award after reservations may fund school security activities. Of that amount, no more than 50% may be used for security activities other than hiring and training security personnel. The statute permits LEAs to use funds for a wide variety of activities.6 Because the list of specifically authorized activities is quite lengthy, these activities have been grouped here into six broad categories. 1. Security Activities     

Acquiring and installing metal detectors and related devices Reporting criminal offenses committed on school property Developing and implementing comprehensive school security plans or obtaining technical assistance on such plans Supporting safe zones of passage for students to and from school Hiring and mandatory training, based on scientific research, of school security personnel

2. Student Testing and Data Reporting  

Drug testing and locker checks (consistent with all legal requirements) Establishing or implementing a system to transfer suspension and expulsion records to other schools

4

Gail McCallion 3. Education Activities     

Drug and violence prevention activities designed to reduce truancy Violence prevention and education activities to reduce victimization due to prejudice and intolerance Alternative education programs for violent or drug abusing students, particularly students who have been or are at risk of being suspended or expelled Developing and implementing character education programs as part of drug and violence prevention that takes into account the views of students’ parents Providing for community service and service learning projects

4. Counseling, Mentoring and Other Student Support Activities 

 

  

Expanded and improved school-based mental health services including early identification of violence and illegal drug use, assessment, and counseling services for students, parents, families, or school personnel by qualified providers Conflict resolution programs, including peer mediation programs and youth anticrime and anti-drug councils and activities Counseling, mentoring, referral services, and other student assistance practices and programs, including assistance from qualified mental health service providers Programs that encourage students to confide in and seek advice from trusted adults regarding violence and illegal drug use Establishing and maintaining a school safety hotline Programs that respond to the needs of students who are faced with domestic violence or child abuse

5. Training and Monitoring of School Personnel 





Professional development and training in prevention education, early identification and intervention, mentoring, or rehabilitation referral, for school personnel, parents and interested community members Conducting background checks on all school personnel and prospective employees to see whether they have been convicted of a crime that bears upon the employee’s fitness Creating an action plan and providing training to school personnel on how to prevent youth suicide

6. Family, Community, and Emergency Activities 

Activities involving families, communities, and drug and violence prevention providers that set expectations and explain the consequences of illegal drug use and violence

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act: Program Overview…  

5

Dissemination of drug and violence prevention information to schools and the community Community-wide planning and organizing activities which may include gang activity prevention

Reporting Requirements The SDFSCA requires states to establish a Uniform Management Information and Reporting System (UMIRS) for the collection and reporting of information related to school safety and drug prevention.7 Under this system, states must collect and make publicly available the following information:  





truancy rates; the frequency, seriousness, and incidence of violence and drug- related offenses resulting in suspensions and expulsions in elementary and secondary schools in the state; the types of curricula, programs, and services provided by the state’s chief executive officer, the state educational agency (SEA), LEAs, and other recipients of funds under the act; and the incidence and prevalence, age of onset, perception of health risk, and perception of social disapproval of violence and drug use by youth in schools and communities.

The first 2 items must be collected and reported on a school-by-school basis; states determine the frequency of data collection. The SDFSCA also includes a gun- free schools provision that requires all states receiving ESEA funds to have a law imposing at least a oneyear expulsion for any student who brings a firearm to school. Each state must report data collected from LEAs on any such incidents to the Secretary annually.8 States are also required to submit a report annually on the progress they have made on their identified performance measures; this information is submitted as part of the Consolidated State Performance Report required by NCLB. LEAs are required to submit information which is needed by the state to complete this chapter. States must make this information available to the public. In addition, the statute requires NCES to collect data on the incidence and prevalence of illegal drug use and violence in elementary and secondary schools. NCES does collect data regarding crime and violence occurring in schools.9 NCES does not collect data on drug use in schools because three surveys are already collecting this data: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Youth Risk Behavior Survey, HHS’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health (formerly the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse), and the HHS-funded University of Michigan Monitoring the Future study.

Program Performance The U. S. Department of Education (ED) is currently conducting a study on the extent to which LEAs are implementing research-based drug and violence programs; and whether the programs are being implemented consistently with that research. Data for this study were collected from a nationally representative sample of school districts for the 2004-2005 school year; follow-up data are being collected for the 2007-2008 school year. These two questions also serve as Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures for the State Grant

6

Gail McCallion

program. (Assessment of progress on meeting these goals cannot be made until 2007-08 data are collected and analyzed). There are five other GPRA measures for the State Grants Program. These five are the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who were offered, sold, or given an illegal drug on school property during the past 12 months; the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who used marijuana one or more times during the past 30 days; the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who had five or more drinks of alcohol in a row one or more times during the past 30 days; the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who were in a physical fight on school property one or more times during the past 12 months; and the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who carried a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property one or more times during the past 30 days. The 2005 targets (the latest data available) for the first 3 indicators were exceeded; the remaining two indicators did not meet their 2005 targets (but the results were not statistically significant). However, these data do not compare participants in SDFSCA programs to non-participants, rather they are nationally representative data from the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System.10 In addition, ED is conducting a national evaluation of the impact of a particular intervention on reducing middle school violence. This evaluation is assessing the impact of combining a curriculum-based program (Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways) with a whole school program (Best Behavior), that among other things, is intended to improve teachers’ classroom management skills. This evaluation is to compare disruptive, aggressive and violent incidents in 20 middle schools randomly assigned to participate in this program to 20 other middle schools serving as the control group. The first year of data were collected for the 2005-2006 school year. Three years of data are to be collected; results from the study are expected to be released in 2010.

National Activities The SDFSCA provides general authority to the Secretary to award grants for a variety of National Activities to prevent substance abuse and support violence prevention. The following programs are currently receiving SDFSCA funding under National Activities. 

Alcohol Abuse Reduction. Grants to LEAs to develop and implement innovative and effective programs to reduce alcohol abuse in secondary schools. ED may transfer up to 20% of the appropriation for alcohol abuse reduction to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) of HHS to provide technical assistance to grantees. Grantees are required to implement one of the programs that SAMHSA has determined to be effective in reducing underage alcohol abuse.



Mentoring Programs. Grants are provided to LEAs, non-profit community based organizations (CBOs), or partnerships thereof, to support mentoring programs for children at risk of: educational failure; dropping out of school; involvement in criminal or delinquent activities; or for children who lack positive role models. Priority is to be given to programs that are school-based. Funding must be used for


7

(but is not limited to) training and hiring mentors and other staff, and disseminating outreach materials. However, mentors may not be paid out of grant funds. 

Impact Evaluation. Currently impact evaluation funds are used for the study, described above, on the extent to which LEAs are implementing research-based drug and violence programs, and whether they are being implemented consistently with the research based model. Other evaluations are being financed by general National Activities funding.



Project Serv (School Emergency Response to Violence). This program provides education-related services to LEAs that have been disrupted by a violent or traumatic crisis. Project Serv funds may be used for a wide variety of activities, including mental health assessments, referrals, and services for victims and witnesses of violence; enhanced school security; technical assistance on developing a response to the crisis; and training for teachers and staff in implementing the response. Appropriations for this program are requested on a no-year basis; funds remain available for obligation at the federal level until needed. Thus, funds can be carried over from year to year in the event that there are no school- related crises in a given year.



Drug Testing. Supports drug testing programs for K-12 students; funds are also awarded to Institutions of Higher Education for drug prevention and campus safety.



Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools. Previously called the Emergency Response and Crisis Management Grant Program. This competitive grant program provides funds to LEAs to strengthen and improve their emergency response and crisis plans at the district and school levels. LEAs are required to form partnerships and collaborate with community organizations, local law enforcement agencies, heads of local government, and offices of public safety, health, and mental health as they review and revise these plans. Plans are required to be coordinated with state or local homeland security plans and must support the implementation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS). Grants may be used for training school safety teams and students, conducting facility audits, informing families about emergency response policies, implementing an Incident Command System (ICS), conducting drills and simulation exercises, preparing and distributing copies of crisis plans, and, to a limited extent, for purchasing school safety equipment. Grantees under this program may receive support in managing and implementing their projects and sustaining their efforts over time from the Emergency Response and Crisis Management Technical Assistance Center.11



SDFSCA Advisory Committee. This committee was created by ED’s Secretary, Margaret Spellings in June of 2006. The Committee was given a mandate to examine several specific issues and has issued a report providing its responses and recommendations (discussed below).

8

Gail McCallion 

Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Grant Program. The SS/HS is funded jointly by ED and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The program is administered by ED, SAMHSA, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The SS/HS initiative is a discretionary grant program that provides services for students, schools, and communities with federal funding via LEAs, to implement an enhanced, coordinated, comprehensive plan of activities, programs, and services that focus on healthy childhood development and the prevention of violence and alcohol and drug abuse. Grantees are required to establish partnerships with local law enforcement, public mental health, and juvenile justice agencies/entities.

Additionally, specifically authorized programs that previously have received SDFSCA National Activities funding are  

National Coordinator Program (funded from 1999-2004). Community Service Grant Program (funded in 2002 and 2003).

Specifically authorized programs that have never received SDFSCA National Activities funding are   

Hate Crimes Prevention, School Security and Technology Resource Center, and National Center for School and Youth Safety.

Funding For FY2008, $513 million was appropriated for the SDFSCA.12 The majority of these funds are provided for State Grants ($295 million), with the remaining funds ($219 million) supporting National Activities. For FY2009, the President has requested $282 million for the SDFSCA. Under this proposal, appropriations for State Grants would be reduced to $100 million and appropriations for National Activities would be decreased to $182 million. In justifying the requested reduction in State Grant appropriations, the Administration has argued that the structure of the State Grants program is flawed and spreads funding too broadly to support quality interventions.13

REAUTHORIZATION ISSUES The following discussion of SDFSCA reauthorization issues and proposals is divided into 4 sections. Firstly, the Administration’s proposal for a major restructuring of the SDFSCA program is discussed. Secondly, recommendations of the Safe and Drug-Free Advisory Committee are summarized. This Committee was convened by Secretary Spellings in June of 2006 to examine a variety of issues — including the SDFSCA state grants program and data collection. Thirdly, the findings of the Secretaries of ED and HHS, and the Attorney General,


9

regarding proposals to improve violence prevention in light of the Virginia Tech incident are summarized. Finally, major reauthorization issues that are likely to be considered by Congress are addressed.

The Administration’s FY2009 Reauthorization Proposal The Administration has proposed restructuring the SDFSCA program by significantly decreasing the role of State Grants and refocusing National Activities. The Administration argues that currently State Grants are not targeted to LEAs most in need of funding, and that the grants received by LEAs are often too small to fund a quality program:

SDFSC State Grants provide more than half of local educational agencies (LEAs) with allocations of less than $10,000, amounts typically too small to mount comprehensive and effective drug and school safety programs.14

Funding for State Grants would be reduced in FY2009 to $100 million (FY2008 funding equals $294.8 million) and would no longer be distributed by states to LEAs by formula. The Administration proposes that SEAs use these funds to provide training, technical assistance and information on effective programs to LEAs. States could also use funds to provide competitive grants to a limited number of LEAs. National Activities would be funded in FY2009 at $182 million (FY2008 funding was $218.6 million) and reorganized into a single flexible grant program focusing on four broad areas: emergency planning; preventing violence and drug use, school culture and climate; and emerging needs. According to the Administration most of these grants would provide direct support to LEAs ... in sufficient amounts to make a real difference, for targeted projects that address key national concerns and are structured in a manner that permits grantees and independent evaluators to measure progress, hold projects accountable, and determine which interventions are most effective.15

Related programs authorized under ESEA provisions other than Title IV include Mentoring, Physical Education, Elementary and Secondary School Counseling, and Civic Education. All four would be eliminated under the Administration’s proposal.16 In addition, Character Education would no longer be a distinct program with its own authority (currently it is authorized by ESEA Title V-D, Subpart 3), but it would continue to receive funding under the National Grants Program in the FY2009 proposal.

The SDFSCA Advisory Committee Recommendations The SDFSCA Advisory Committee was created in June 2006 by ED Secretary, Margaret Spellings.17 The Committee is made up of representatives from several Federal agencies, state and local government representatives, and individuals with relevant expertise. The Committee

10

Gail McCallion

was asked by the Secretary to examine the SDFSCA State Grants Program, the NCLB unsafe school choice option (discussed briefly below), and the collection of safety data. Following the Virginia Tech tragedy, the Secretary asked the Committee to also examine three additional issues: trauma; nonpublic schools; and urban/rural challenges. On June 11, 2007, the Committee issued a report with its findings and recommendations regarding the issues it was charged with examining.18 The Committee held six meetings, conducted six conference calls, and heard testimony from 38 witnesses. The Committee’s recommendations are summarized below by issue (recommendations on trauma, nonpublic schools and urban/rural challenges are incorporated within the discussion of the other issues).

State Grant Issues According to the Committee’s report: Underlying all of the Committee’s recommendations is the need for clearer standards for all recipients of grant funds, including the Governors portion of the program.19

The Committee expressed support (with some reservations) for allowing states to use a larger share of SDFSCA state grants for state purposes, in particular, to provide technical assistance and help with data collection to LEAs. There was also support for making changes to the Governors funds. Proposals included making the funds contingent on the collection of data on school safety and drug abuse, or shifting the funds back to the states. The Committee noted that presently there is no consensus at the federal or state level on the definition of safety and drug and alcohol problems, and as a consequence no consensus on desired outcomes or measures of effectiveness. The Committee report stated: ―...at all levels, the current implementation of the State Grants Program has not required the use of data to determine needs.‖ It recommended that ED provide states and LEAs with clear measurable outcomes of success, encourage improved program assessment, and provide clear guidelines on effective prevention programs. These changes would require collection of uniform data on key indicators of safety and drug and alcohol abuse from all schools and LEAs. Because of limited federal funding for the SDFSCA program, the Committee recommended that there be more incentives incorporated into the program to foster local partnerships, possibly including a requirement for local matching funds. In addition, there was significant support among the Committee members for changing the program from the current system of allocating funds to all LEAs by formula), to a system in which funds are controlled by states and grants are awarded competitively to LEAs to fund priority needs. The Committee recommended increased emphasis be placed on program compliance with the SDFSCA ―Principles of Effectiveness,‖ and on the identification and testing of promising innovative programs. It encouraged ED to develop separate guidelines for rural and urban schools appropriate to the unique challenges faced by each in implementing drug and alcohol prevention programs and safety efforts. And, it recommended the development of explicit guidelines on the requirements LEAs must meet in working with nonpublic schools. In addition, the Committee recommended that cooperation among the Federal agencies providing support for drug and alcohol prevention and increased safety be improved and enhanced.


11

Unsafe School Choice Option (USCO) USCO is authorized by the ESEA, Title IX-E-2, Section 9532, not as part of the SDFSCA. It requires states to establish statewide policies under which any student who attends a persistently dangerous public elementary or secondary school, or who becomes a victim of a violent crime while in or on the grounds of the public elementary or secondary school he or she attends, must be offered the opportunity to transfer to another public school within the same LEA. (For information on USCO see CRS Report RL33371, K-12 Education, Implementation Status of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107- 110).) The Committee found the USCO ―has not been as effective as the need it addresses requires.‖ The Committee made several recommendations for improvements including the following. 









Allowing, in addition to consideration of violent incidents, other indicators (such as substance abuse, bullying, gang activity, racism) of school safety to be factored into the determination of whether a school is safe. The provision, by ED, of training for administrators, teachers and other school personnel on how best to assist students who are victims or victimizers, including transfer options. Reexamination of the term ―persistently dangerous.‖ The Committee felt that this terminology stigmatizes schools and unduly penalizes schools that accurately report violent incidents. It recommended using more neutral terminology; for example, schools might be put on a ―watch list‖ and given priority for SDFSCA state grant funding. The Committee also recommended assistance be provided to schools experiencing significant safety problems. The provision, by ED, of guidelines for schools with safety problems on ways to improve safety including information on best practices. ED could also provide support and technical assistance to these schools. Improving the ability of schools to cope with potential tragedies by educating school personnel on how these events can affect students and on how to identify warning signs that a student needs intervention (such as counseling). ED could provide assistance by distributing information on best practices and providing training on how to identify and refer students at risk for assistance early on.

Data Requirements The Committee recommended that serious consideration should be given to what data are most important and whether it is possible for states and LEAs to collect it. Data collection could be coordinated by agencies working on alcohol and drug abuse and safety to minimize the burden on states and LEAs. ED could play an important role in coordinating data collection by federal agencies so that only one set of data are being collected. Coordination between federal agencies and state and local governments would also be useful. Consideration should be given to formulating a uniform set of questions for states and LEAs to use for program evaluation.

12

Gail McCallion

The Secretary’s Recommendations Following the Virginia Tech tragedy, President George W. Bush asked Secretary Margaret Spellings, Secretary Mike Leavitt of the Department of Health and Human Services and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales of the Department of Justice to meet with local officials and experts across the country, and to report on their findings on issues raised by the tragedy. On June 13, 2007, the group issued its report that included the following findings regarding important issues in need of local, state, and federal action. 

  



Information sharing is critical in instances such as the Virginia Tech tragedy. However, there is confusion among education, public safety, and mental health staff regarding what information can be shared on individuals who are a threat to themselves or others. Information regarding individuals who may not legally own a gun is crucial, but currently is not always accurate and complete. Prevention of future tragedies requires improved awareness and communication. People with mental illnesses must get the services they need — currently some feel that there are insufficient resources available to meet this need, especially at colleges and universities. Make better use of current knowledge of best practices in emergency preparedness and violence prevention. Disseminate information on examples of successful programs, and facilitate their implementation.20

Reauthorization Status in the 110th Congress As of the date of this chapter there has been no action on legislation to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act in the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate. A draft House reauthorization bill was circulated for public comment, but a bill has not yet been introduced. Some of the major SDFSCA reauthorization issues that may to be considered by Congress include the following. 





Whether (absent significant increases in appropriations) the funding level for the program is sufficient to support the allocation of funds to all LEAs by formula. Currently more than half of LEAs receive SDFSCA grants of less than $10,000. Questions have been raised regarding whether such small grants can support effective programs. Although the last reauthorization adjusted the formula to put more emphasis on awarding grants on the basis of poverty, some argue that switching to competitively awarded LEA grants would allow for better targeting of school districts most in need of SDFSCA funds. Strengthened data collection and reporting requirements. Currently Uniform Management Information and Reporting System (UMIRS) data is collected by each state relying upon state definitions of required data items. As a consequence data are not comparable across states. States are required to report these data to the public, but










13

the frequency of collection and reporting is determined by each state. ED has recently issued a publication providing definitions of UMIRS reporting items titled The Uniform Data Set: A Guide to Measures for the Uniform Management Information and Reporting System. It would require states to report some required data items using these definitions, to the extent feasible. ED may accelerate these efforts once the data requirements adopted in a reauthorized program are known. During reauthorization the issue of uniform data standards may be considered. Reauthorization legislation may require annual reporting of these data to ED, as well as to the public. An increased emphasis on programs to prevent bullying and harassment (believed to be key to violence prevention). Bullying is a serious problem at many schools; in 2005, approximately 28% of 12 to 18 year old students reported that they were bullied at school in the last six months.21 Provision of comprehensive mental health programs. The Virginia Tech tragedy and similar events heightened awareness that access to mental health services is an important component of preventing school violence. How to improve performance measures for the program. ED is currently collecting data on the extent to which LEAs are implementing research based programs, and if the implementation of those programs is consistent with the research based model. ED has collected data for 2005, which is serving as the base year. Targets for these measures have been set for 2008; these data are not yet available. In addition, ED collects data for five measures tabulating the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who (1) were offered, sold, or given an illegal drug on school property during the past 12 months; (2) had 5 or more drinks in a row during the past 30 days, (3) were in a physical fight on school property during the past 12 months, or (4) carried a weapon on school property one or more times during the past 30 days. These data are from the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey, which is based on a nationally representative biennial sample of students in grades 9-12. However, given the scope of SDFSCA programs under current funding levels, only a small percentage of students in grades 9-12 can be served by comprehensive violence and drug abuse prevention programs. As a consequence, some believe these national measures do not accurately reflect the program’s performance. Emergency Management. Legislation to reauthorize the SDFSCA may increase the emphasis on enhancing local emergency planning for all potential hazards in and around schools through a variety of mechanisms, including increased cooperation with first responders, and relevant local, state, and federal agencies. A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that most school districts would benefit from more federal guidance in developing emergency plans.22 Its recommendations for ED (in cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and HHS, as appropriate) included developing procedures for continuing student education during a prolonged school closure due to an emergency; the examination and identification of successful practices for evacuating and sheltering students and staff with special needs during emergencies; identifying the impediments to collaboration in emergencies between LEAs, first responders, and community partners, and the development and dissemination of strategies to enhance such cooperation.

14

Gail McCallion

End Notes 1

The SDFSCA was initially enacted in 1994 in response to concerns about increased school violence and drug use among school-aged youth. This legislation extended, amended and renamed the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1988 (DFSCA), extending the DFSCA’s mission of drug abuse prevention to include violence prevention. For more detailed information on the history of this program, see CRS Report RL3 0482, The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program: Background and Context, by Edith Fairman Cooper. 2 CRS Report RL3373 1, Education for the Disadvantaged: Issues for ESEA Title I-A Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle. 3 Allocations are based on relative enrollments in public and private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools within the LEA’s boundaries compared to total such enrollment for all LEAs within the state. 4 ESEA, Section 4114(d). 5 ED maintains a website that provides links to resources of potential use to school leaders developing a crisis management plan. More information is available at [http://www.ed.gov/ admins/lead/safety/ emergencyplan/index.html]. 6 ESEA, Section 4115. 7 ESEA, Section 41 12(c)(3). 8 ESEA Title IV-A, Subpart 3. The chief administering officer of a local educational agency may modify this expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the LEA may provide the student with educational services in an alternative setting (Section 4141). 9 Currently it conducts a survey of school principals called School Survey on Crime Safety and it has a supplement (School Crime Supplement) to the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s (DOJ) National Crime Victimization Survey of students ages 12 through 18. 10 The program has also been evaluated with the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) twice. The OMB issued the PART to help assess the management and performance of executive agency programs. In 2002, the SDFSCA State Grants program was rated ―ineffective,‖ in 2006, the program was rated ―results not demonstrated.‖ 11 Additional information is available at [http://www.ercm.org/] and [http://www.ed.gov/ programs/dvpemergencyresponse/resources.html]. 12 The House passed an amendment to the FY2008 Labor HHS Education Appropriations bill that would shift $46.5 million in funding from Reading First to the SDFSCA program, in order to maintain FY2008 funding ($513 million) at roughly the FY2007 level. 13 U.S. Department of Education. Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Congress: Fiscal Year 2009, Volume I. 14 U.S. Department of Education. Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Congress: Fiscal Year 2009, Volume I, p. F-20. 15 U.S. Department of Education. Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Congress: Fiscal Year 2008, Volume I, p. F-15. 16 Physical Education and Elementary and Secondary School Counseling are authorized by ESEA, Title V, Part D, Fund for the Improvement of Education. Civic Education is authorized by ESEA, Title II, Part C, Subpart 3. 17 It is authorized by ESEA, Section 4124. 18 U.S. Department of Education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory Committee, Enhancing Achievement And Proficiency Through Safe And Drug-Free Schools, Washington, D.C., June 2007. 19 Ibid. 20 Michael Leavitt, Margaret Spellings, and Alberto Gonzales, Report To The President On Issues Raised By The Virginia Tech Tragedy. June 13, 2007. 21 Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E., and Lin-Kelly, W. (2007), Indicators of School Crime and Safety. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Education and Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept of Justice. Washington, D.C. 22 GAO-07-609, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: Most School Districts Have Developed Emergency Management Plans, but Would Benefit from Additional Federal Guidance. U. S. Government Accountability Office, June 2007.



Chapter 2

SCHOOL AND CAMPUS SAFETY PROGRAMS AND REQUIREMENTS IN THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT AND HIGHER EDUCATION ACT 

Rebecca R. Skinner and Gail McCallion Education Policy Domestic Social Policy Division

SUMMARY In the United States, more than 73 million students are enrolled in elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education (IHEs). Safeguarding their security while they pursue an education is a paramount concern of federal, state, and local governments, as well as the school districts, schools, and institutions that enroll these students. Both the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA; P.L. 107- 110), and the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) contain requirements regarding crime and student safety. The ESEA also includes specific grant programs that support efforts to prevent school violence. ESEA authorizes the federal government’s major programs to assist disadvantaged students, address teacher quality issues, provide support to limited English proficient and immigrant students, prevent school violence and drug abuse, and provide support for public school choice in elementary and secondary schools. While the prevention of school violence is not the primary focus of the ESEA, several ESEA programs could potentially contribute to this effort, most notably ESEA Title IV, Part A, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA). In addition, the ESEA contains specific provisions related to students attending unsafe schools — the Unsafe School Choice Option.



This is an edited, reformatted and augmented version of a CRS Report for Congress publication dated March 2008.

16

Rebecca R. Skinner and Gail McCallion

The HEA authorizes the federal government’s major student aid programs to support postsecondary education attendance, as well as other significant programs such as those providing aid to special groups of IHEs and support services to enable disadvantaged students to complete secondary school and enter and complete college. While the HEA does not authorize specific programs to address campus crime and security issues, Section 485(f) of Title IV of the HEA contains statutory requirements related to campus crime and security, known collectively as the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clery Act). Institutions must comply with these requirements to participate in the federal student aid programs and other programs authorized by Title IV (e.g., Pell Grants). Unlike funding for K- 12 education, there are limited federal funds available through the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to support institutions of higher education in addressing campus crime and security issues. This chapter discusses these provisions and programs as they apply to elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education. It begins with a description of programs and requirements included in the ESEA, which is followed by a discussion of relevant requirements included in the HEA.

OVERVIEW In the United States, more than 73 million students are enrolled in elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education.1 During the 2005-2006 school year, elementary and secondary students aged 5-18 were victims of 17 school- associated violent deaths.2 In 2005, students aged 12-18 were victims of about 1.5 million nonfatal crimes at school, including thefts, simple assault, rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. At institutions of higher education in 2004, about 46,000 criminal incidents were reported as having occurred on campus, including 15 incidents of murder, 2,649 forcible sex offenses, 3,009 aggravated assaults, and 30,451 burglaries.3 Safeguarding the security of students as they pursue an education is a paramount concern of federal, state, and local governments, as well as the school districts, schools, and institutions that enroll these students. Both the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA; P.L. 107-110), and the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) contain requirements regarding crime and student safety. The ESEA also includes specific programs that support efforts to prevent school violence. While the HEA does not authorize specific programs to address campus crime and security issues, Section 485(f) of Title IV of the HEA contains statutory requirements related to campus crime and security, known collectively as the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act). Institutions must comply with these requirements to participate in the federal student aid programs and other programs authorized by Title IV (e.g., Pell Grants). Unlike K- 12 education, there are limited federal funds available through ED to support institutions of higher education in addressing campus crime and security issues. This chapter discusses these provisions and programs as they apply to elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education. It begins with a description of

School and Campus Safety Programs and Requirements in the Elementary…

17

programs and requirements included in the ESEA, which is followed by a discussion of relevant requirements included in the HEA.

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (ESEA) The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), whose programs are administered primarily by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), includes the federal government’s major programs to assist disadvantaged students, address teacher quality issues, provide support to limited English proficient and immigrant students, prevent school violence and drug abuse, and provide support for public school choice.4 While the prevention of school violence is not the primary focus of the ESEA, there are several ESEA programs that could potentially contribute to this effort, most notably ESEA Title IV, Part A, the Safe and DrugFree Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA). In addition, the ESEA contains specific provisions related to students attending unsafe schools. This section focuses primarily on the SDFSCA and the state and national program activities it authorizes. It also includes a discussion of other ESEA programs that could support efforts to prevent violence in elementary and secondary schools. The section concludes with an examination of the Unsafe Schools Choice Option, with which all elementary and secondary schools receiving funds under the ESEA are required to comply.

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act As previously mentioned, the SDFSCA (Title IV-A) is the federal government’s major initiative to prevent drug abuse and violence in and around schools.5 The SDFSCA was initially enacted in 1994 (P.L. 103-3 82) in response to concerns about increased school violence and drug use among school-aged youth.6 The 1994 legislation extended, amended, and renamed the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1988 (DFSCA; P.L. 1 00-297).7 Violence prevention was added to DFSCA’s original drug abuse-prevention purpose by incorporating the Safe Schools Act. Funding was authorized for federal, state, and local programs to assist schools in providing a disciplined learning environment free of violence and drug use, including alcohol and tobacco. The SDFSCA was subsequently reauthorized as part of the ESEA in P.L.107- 110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Like all NCLBA programs, its authorization expires at the end of FY2008, and it is likely to be considered for reauthorization in the 110th Congress. The SDFSCA program supports two major grant programs — one for states and one for national programs. Grants are awarded to states based on a formula that incorporates poverty and population factors. States must use 93% of their allocation to make formula grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) based on poverty factors and each LEA’s share of student enrollment in public and private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools. State governors are permitted to use up to 20% of their state’s grant allocation for comprehensive activities that deter youth from using drugs and committing violent acts in schools. Governors award these funds as discretionary grants to LEAs, community-based organizations (CBOs), other private or public entities, or consortia thereof. National grants are used primarily for a variety

18


of discretionary programs designed to prevent drug abuse and violence in elementary and secondary schools. In addition, the SDFSCA includes a provision requiring all states receiving ESEA funds to have a law requiring not less than a one-year expulsion for any student who brings a firearm to school.8

Grants to States To receive an allotment under the SDFSCA, a state must submit an application, providing extensive information to ED that includes, among other things, a comprehensive plan to provide safe, orderly, and drug-free schools and communities through activities that meet the ―principles of effectiveness‖ under Section 4115 (a) of the SDFSCA. Funded activities must foster a safe and drug-free learning environment that supports academic achievement. States must develop their applications in coordination with all appropriate state officials, and must coordinate all funded activities with other relevant programs, including the governor’s drug and violence prevention programs. The application must also provide the results of a needs assessment for drug and violence prevention activities, including detailed information on illegal drug use and violence among youth, as well as other relevant data. The state must indicate how the needs assessment will be used to establish state performance measures, in consultation with LEAs, for funded programs; and how the state will provide technical assistance as needed, and will monitor, assess, and report on progress toward meeting performance goals. Grants to LEAs To receive an SDFSCA grant, all LEAs are required to submit an application to the state education agency (SEA).9 This application must include, among other things, a detailed explanation of the LEAs’ comprehensive plan for drug and violence prevention and an assurance that funded activities will meet the SDFSCA ―principles of effectiveness‖ contained in section 4115(a). The application must describe how the plan will be coordinated with other agencies and what performance measures will be put in place and evaluated. The application must be developed in consultation with experts, state and local officials, and representatives from the schools to be served. The LEA must also provide assurances that the LEA has, or the schools to be served have, appropriate policies in place that prohibit, among other things, the illegal possession of weapons and that the school has prevention activities designed to create and maintain a safe, disciplined, and drug- free environment. The LEA must provide an assurance that it will provide security procedures at school and while students are on their way to and from school, as well as an assurance that the LEA has, or schools to be served have, a crisis management plan for responding to violent or traumatic events on school grounds.10 The programs and activities provided by the LEA must be designed to prevent or reduce violence. They must also create a well-disciplined environment, which includes consultation among school personnel to identify the early warning signs of violence. The statute permits LEAs to use funds for a wide variety of activities. While some activities, such as developing and implementing comprehensive school security plans, obtaining technical assistance regarding these plans, and the hiring and provision of mandatory training to school personnel in support of prevention activities implemented at the school, may be more directly relevant to the prevention of school violence issues, many if not all of the allowable activities could


19

potentially contribute to these efforts. Below is a list of the authorized activities that are most closely related to prevention or amelioration of school violence:        

     

 



Acquiring and installing metal detectors and related devices. Reporting criminal offenses committed on school property. Developing and implementing comprehensive school security plans or obtaining technical assistance on such plans. Supporting safe zones of passage for students to and from school. Violence prevention and education activities to reduce victimization due to prejudice and intolerance. Alternative education programs for violent or drug-abusing students, particularly students who have been or are at risk of being suspended or expelled. Developing and implementing character education programs as part of drug and violence prevention that takes into account the views of students’ parents. Expanded and improved school-based mental health services, including early identification of violence and illegal drug use, assessment, and counseling services for students, parents, families, or school personnel by qualified providers. Conflict resolution programs, including peer mediation programs and youth anticrime and anti-drug councils and activities. Counseling, mentoring, referral services, and other student assistance practices and programs, including assistance from qualified mental health service providers. Programs that encourage students to confide in and seek advice from trusted adults regarding violence and illegal drug use. Establishing and maintaining a school safety hotline. Programs that respond to the needs of students who are faced with domestic violence or child abuse. Professional development and training in prevention education, early identification and intervention, mentoring, or rehabilitation referral, for school personnel, parents and interested community members. Hiring and mandatory training of school security personnel. Conducting background checks on all school personnel and prospective employees to see whether they have been convicted of a crime that bears upon the employee’s fitness. Creating an action plan and providing training to school personnel to prevent youth suicide.

National Programs The SDFSCA provides general authority to the Secretary to award grants for a wide variety of national activities to prevent substance abuse and support violence prevention. Currently, funds are appropriated to support several national programs designed to prevent violence in elementary and secondary schools.11 National Program funds support, among other activities: 

Emergency Response and Crisis Management Grant Program: This competitive grant program provides funds to LEAs to strengthen and improve their emergency

20

Rebecca R. Skinner and Gail McCallion response and crisis plans at the district and school levels. LEAs are required to form partnerships and collaborate with community organizations, local law enforcement agencies, heads of local government, and offices of public safety, health, and mental health as they review and revise these plans. Plans are required to be coordinated with state or local homeland security plans and must support the implementation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS).12 Grants may be used for training school safety teams and students, conducting facility audits, informing families about emergency response policies, implementing an Incident Command System (ICS),13 conducting drills and tabletop simulation exercises, preparing and distributing copies of crisis plans, and, to a limited extent, for purchasing school safety equipment. Grantees under this program may receive support in managing and implementing their projects and sustaining their efforts over time from the Emergency Response and Crisis Management Technical Assistance Center.14 

Project SERV (School Emergency Response to Violence): This program provides education-related services to LEAs that have been disrupted by a violent or traumatic crisis. Project Serv funds may be used for a wide variety of activities, including mental health assessments, referrals, and services for victims and witnesses of violence; enhanced school security; technical assistance in developing a response to the crisis, and training for teachers and staff in implementing the response. Appropriations for this program are requested on a no-year basis, to remain available for obligation at the federal level until expended. Thus, funds can be carried over from year to year in the event that there are no school-related crises in a given year.



Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) grant program: The SS/HS initiative is funded jointly by ED and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The program is administered by ED, SAMHSA, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The SS/HS initiative is a discretionary grant program that provides schools and communities with federal funding, via LEAs, to implement an enhanced, coordinated, comprehensive plan of activities, programs, and services that focus on healthy childhood development and the prevention of violence and alcohol and drug abuse. Grantees are required to establish partnerships with local law enforcement, public mental health, and juvenile justice agencies/entities.

In addition, there are several specifically authorized activities within the National Grant Program — three of these have never received funding (Hate Crimes Prevention, the School Security and Resource Center, and the National Center for School and Youth Safety). Other specifically authorized national activities include data collection by the National Center for Education Statistics on the incidence and prevalence of illegal drug use and violence in elementary and secondary schools; the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory Committee; the National Coordinator Program; the Community Service Grant Program; Grants to Reduce Alcohol Abuse; and mentoring programs.15


21

Reporting Requirements The SDFSCA also requires states to establish a Uniform Management Information and Reporting System (UMIRS) for the collection and reporting of information related to school safety.16 Under this system, states must collect and make publicly available the following information:  

 

truancy rates; the frequency, seriousness, and incidence of violence and drug- related offenses resulting in suspensions and expulsions in elementary and secondary schools in the state; the types of curricula, programs, and services provided by the state’s chief executive officer, the SEA, LEAs, and other recipients of funds under the act; and the incidence and prevalence, age of onset, perception of health risk, and perception of social disapproval of violence and drug use by youth in schools and communities.

The first two items for which states are required to collect and publish data must be reported on a school-by-school basis. The collected data are to include incident reports by school officials, anonymous student surveys, and anonymous teacher surveys. Additional reporting requirements related to schools identified as persistently dangerous are discussed in the unsafe school choice option section. In addition, states are required to submit biennial reports to ED on the implementation and outcome of state and LEA programs funded under the SDFSCA, including data on progress in reaching performance measures for drug and violence prevention. States must also include information on efforts that have been taken to inform and include parents in violence and drug abuse prevention efforts.

Funding For FY2007, $577.4 million was appropriated for the SDFSCA.17 The appropriation was reduced to $513.4 for FY2008. The majority of these funds are provided for state grants ($294.8 million), with the remaining funds supporting national activities. For FY2009, the President requested $282.0 million for the SDFSCA. Under this proposal, appropriations for state grants would be reduced to $100.0 million, and appropriations for national grants would reduced from $218.6 million in FY2008 to $182.0 million for FY2009. In justifying the requested reduction in state grant appropriations, the Administration has argued that the structure of the state grants program is flawed and spreads funding too broadly to support quality interventions.18

Other Relevant ESEA Programs In addition to the SDFSCA, there are several smaller ESEA programs that could potentially contribute to violence prevention efforts. A brief summary of the most relevant programs is included in this section.19

22


Innovative Programs Innovative Programs, the only federal K-12 education block grant program, is authorized by Title V-A. Under this program, aid is provided to SEAs and LEAs for a wide range of educational services and activities. Formula grants are made to states on the basis of total population aged 5-17. States must subsequently distribute funds to LEAs using statedeveloped formulas that take into consideration various enrollment factors. LEAs may use their funds for any of 27 different types of ―innovative assistance programs.‖ Of these, one of the allowable uses of funds is for school safety programs. Funds may also be used to expand and improve school-based mental health services, including the early identification of violence. For FY2007, $99.0 million was appropriated for this program.20 The program was not funded for FY2008. In the FY2009 budget request, the President did not request funding for this program. Elementary and Secondary School Counseling The Elementary and Secondary School Counseling program is authorized by Title V-D-2. This program provides competitive grants to LEAs to help them establish or expand elementary and secondary school counseling programs. ED is to give priority to applicants that demonstrate the greatest need for counseling programs, propose to implement promising and innovative programs, and show potential for replication and dissemination. For FY2007, $34.7 million was appropriated for this program.21 The appropriation was increased to $48.6 million for FY2008. In the FY2009 budget request, the President did not request funding for this program. Partnerships in Character Education The Partnerships in Character Education program is authorized by Title V-D-3. The program provides competitive grants to SEAs in partnership with LEAs or nonprofit entities, or to LEAs alone or in consortia with other entities (including institutions of higher education). The grants must be used for character education programs that are based on scientifically based research that can be integrated into classroom instruction, are consistent with state academic standards, and are carried out in conjunction with other educational reform efforts. Grantees are required to use a portion of their grant for program evaluation and information dissemination. For FY2007 and FY2008, $24.2 million and $23.8 million, respectively, were appropriated for this program.22 In the FY2009 budget request, the President did not request funding for character education as a distinct program, instead requesting that it be included as part of the SDFSCA national programs.

Unsafe School Choice Option23 The Unsafe School Choice Option (USCO) policy is authorized under Title IX- E-2.24 Under the USCO policy, states are required to establish statewide policies under which any student who attends a persistently dangerous public elementary or secondary school,25 or who becomes a victim of a violent crime while in or on the grounds of the public elementary or secondary school the student attends, must be offered the opportunity to transfer to another


23

public school located within the same LEA. To be considered in compliance with the USCO policy, states are required to do the following:     

establish a state USCO policy (through consultation with a representative sample of LEAs within the state); identify persistently dangerous schools; identify types of offenses that are considered to be violent criminal offenses; provide a safe public school option; and certify annually compliance with the USCO.

HIGHER EDUCATION ACT (HEA) The HEA, whose programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), includes the federal government’s major student aid programs to support postsecondary education attendance, as well as other significant programs such as those providing aid to special groups of institutions of higher education (IHEs) and support services to enable disadvantaged students to complete secondary school and enter and complete college. Although important support from outside of the HEA is provided through multiple federal agencies for activities such as research and development, the federal government’s presence in postsecondary education is shaped to a substantial degree by the HEA. The principal objective of the HEA is to expand postsecondary education opportunity, particularly for low-income individuals, and increase college affordability.26 Title IV of the HEA authorizes programs that provide student financial aid (e.g., student loans, Pell Grants) to support attendance at a variety of postsecondary education institutions. During the 20062007 academic year, a total of 6,700 public, private nonprofit, and private for-profit (proprietary) institutions were classified as Title IV IHEs.27 It is estimated that Title IV federal student aid programs made more than $70 billion available to students attending IHEs during the 2006-2007 academic year.28 This section begins with an overview of institutional eligibility requirements that institutions must meet to participate in the Title IV programs. That is followed by a detailed discussion of the campus crime and security requirements included in the HEA, including provisions to enforce compliance with these requirements. The section concludes with an examination of funding and related support available for complying with these requirements and addressing campus crime and security issues, as well as a discussion about crime statistics and information made publicly available.

HEA Title IV Institutional Eligibility Requirements To participate in the Title IV federal student aid programs, institutions must meet specific criteria, including requirements related to program offerings, student enrollment, and operations.29 For example, Title IV eligible IHEs must be licensed to operate in the state in which they are located, be accredited by an accrediting agency or association recognized by the Secretary of Education, and meet eligibility and certification requirements established by

24


ED. Institutions that do not meet these requirements are ineligible to participate in the Title IV programs, meaning that students attending these institutions are unable to access federal student aid. While not all postsecondary institutions in the United States are Title IV-eligible institutions, the vast majority are, in order to ensure that their students will be eligible for federal aid.

Campus Crime and Security Requirements in the HEA Campus crime and security requirements were first included in the HEA with the enactment of the Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act (P.L. 101-542) in 1990. Title II of this act, the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990, amended the HEA. HEA campus crime and security requirements were subsequently amended in 1992, 1998, and 2000. Under current law, Section 485(f) contains the statutory requirements related to campus crime and security. These requirements are collectively known as the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (the Clery Act).30 Institutions must comply with these requirements to participate in Title IV programs. As part of these requirements, each institution31 is required to provide an annual security report to all current students and employees and to any prospective students or employees, upon request, that provides information about campus security policies and campus crime statistics.32 The report must include, at a minimum, the following items: 

 



 



Statement of current campus policies regarding procedures for the reporting of criminal actions or other emergencies occurring on campus and the institution’s response to these reports. Statement of current policies concerning security and access to campus facilities, including residence halls. Statement of current policies concerning campus law enforcement, including the relationship between campus law enforcement and state and local law enforcement agencies and policies to promote the accurate and prompt reporting of all crimes to campus police and appropriate law enforcement agencies. Description of the type and frequency of programs designed to inform students and employees about campus security procedures and to encourage them to be responsible for their own security and the security of others. Description of programs designed to inform students and employees about crime prevention. Statistics on criminal offenses reported to campus security or local police agencies that occurred on campus, in dormitories or other student residential facilities on campus, in or on noncampus buildings or property, and on public property during the most recent calendar year and two preceding calendar years for which data are available.33 Statement of policy concerning the monitoring and recording of criminal activity of off-campus student organizations that are recognized by the institution, including those organizations with off- campus housing.

School and Campus Safety Programs and Requirements in the Elementary…   

25

Statement regarding the possession, use, and sale of alcoholic beverages and the possession, use, or sale of illegal drugs. Statement indicating where information about registered sex offenders may be obtained. Statement of policy regarding the institution’s sexual assault prevention programs and procedures that will be followed if a sexual offense has occurred.

Institutions are also required to make timely reports to the campus community on crimes considered to be a threat to students or employees that have been reported to campus police or local law enforcement. Statutory language notes that these reports must be made in a manner that is ―timely‖ and will aid in the prevention of similar occurrences.34 Each institution that has a police or security department is also required to maintain a daily crime log that includes the nature, date, time, and general location of each crime, as well as the disposition of the complaint, if known. All entries, unless prohibited by law or where disclosure of the information would jeopardize the confidentiality of the victim, must be made public within two business days of the initial report. Information may also be withheld if there is evidence that releasing such information would jeopardize an ongoing investigation, cause a suspect to flee, or result in the destruction of evidence. The information must be released, however, once these factors are no longer a concern.

Enforcement of Requirements As previously discussed, institutional compliance with the Clery Act is required for participation in Title IV programs. All institutions that are eligible to participate in these programs are required to sign a Program Participation Agreement (PPA), which conditions an institution’s initial and continued participation in any Title IV program on the institution’s compliance with the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements. The PPA also lists specific requirements with which an institution must comply. Included on this list is a requirement that the institution certify that it has established a campus security policy and that it has complied with the disclosure requirements of the Clery Act.35 While failure to comply with the requirements of the Clery Act or the PPA can result in a loss of Title IV eligibility, if it is determined that an institution has substantially misrepresented the number, location, or nature of crimes, the institution may be subject to civil penalties. For each violation or misrepresentation, the Secretary may impose a fine not to exceed $25,000.36

Funding and Related Support IHEs do not receive specific funding from the federal government to aid in compliance with these requirements. However, to assist IHEs in meeting the requirements of the Clery Act, a series of seminars co-sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)37 is being offered. The four regional seminars being offered in 2007 will focus on victim assistance policies, crime statistics, reporting through timely warnings and public crime logs, the annual security report, promising practices, and the development of collaborative partnerships.38

26


Also available to aid IHEs in meeting the requirements of the Clery Act is the Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting produced by ED.39 It provides procedures, examples, and references for IHEs to use in complying with the Clery Act requirements. ED provides support for campus-based violence prevention through the Safe and DrugFree Schools and Communities (SDFSC) program authorized by Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA; P.L. 107-110).40 The SDFSC program supports both formula grants to states and national programs. While the formula grants and most of the national programs are primarily focused on elementary and secondary schools, one national program provides support to IHEs. Grants to Prevent High-Risk Drinking and Violent Behavior Among College Students provide funds to develop, enhance, implement, and evaluate campus-based or community-based prevention strategies designed to reduce high-risk drinking and violent behavior among college students.41 Grants are made to consortia of IHEs and other public and private nonprofit organizations. For FY2007, the program received $2.5 million to award 17 new grants and $1.6 million to support 12 continuation grants. Most of the FY2007 grant recipients indicated the funds would be used to address high-risk drinking behaviors.42 In FY2008, $211,000 was appropriated to support 1 new grant, and $2.5 million was appropriated to support 18 continuation grants. The President’s FY2009 budget request included $2.4 million for 17 new grants and $211,000 to support 1 continuation grant.43 SDFSC national program funds are also used to support the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention.44 The Center serves as ED’s primary provider of services related to alcohol and drug abuse and violence prevention in higher education. One aspect of the Center’s mission is to assist ED in serving IHEs in developing and implementing programs that will promote campus and community safety by preventing violence among college students. For example, the Center publishes a newsletter, The Catalyst, which provides information about relevant innovative practices at IHEs. Appropriations for the Center for FY2008 were $2.4 million. For FY2009, the President’s budget request would provide $2.5 million. The President’s budget request for FY2009 also included a request for $5.0 million to support initiatives in emergency preparedness for IHEs under the SDFSC national programs.45 ED would use these funds to develop and disseminate information about emergency planning that is specific to the needs of IHEs.

Public Information Availability As previously discussed, the Clery Act requires IHEs to make information about crime public and to submit an annual report on campus security to ED. In addition to the measures taken by individual IHEs to provide this information to current and prospective students and their families, ED makes the data publicly available online. ED maintains a campus crime statistics website known as the Campus Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool (CSDACT).46 For each Title IV IHE, data are reported on the number of criminal offenses, hate crimes, and arrests over the most recent three-year period for which data are available. Information is provided to indicate whether the data include incidents occurring in residence halls and whether data include local statistics. ED also provides a link to these data from the College


27

Navigator website, operated by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).47 The College Navigator website provides myriad information about all Title IV eligible IHEs such as enrollment data, tuition and fees, financial aid, and graduation rates. For each institution, it also includes information on campus security, which is linked to the CSDACT.48 ED also makes summary crime statistics available on its website.49 Data are provided in four major categories — arrests, criminal offenses, hate crimes, and crimes involving drug arrests, illegal weapon possessions, and liquor law violations — that are subsequently broken into subcategories (e.g., aggravated assault, arson, murder/non-negligent manslaughter), if appropriate.50 For each subcategory, data are available based on the reporting location of where the incident occurred (i.e., on campus, in a residence hall, at a non-campus location, and on public property) and are provided by institutional sector (e.g., public, four-year or above institutions).51 Data are provided for the three most recent years for which data are available.

End Notes 1

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Digest of Education Statistics: 2007, Table 2; available at [http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/ tables/dt07_002.asp]. 2 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2007 (NCES 2008-02 1); available at [http://nces.ed. gov/pubs2008/200802 1 .pdf]. 3 CRS compilation of data available from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Summary Campus Crime and Security Statistics, available at [http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/crime/summary.html]. 4 For more information about programs authorized by the ESEA, see CRS Report RL33960, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act: A Primer, by Wayne C. Riddle and Rebecca R. Skinner. 5 For more detailed information about this program, see CRS Report RL30482, The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program: Background and Context, by Edith Fairman Cooper. This chapter, however, is now being handled by Gail McCallion. 6 On October 20, 1994, President Clinton signed into law the Improving America’s School Act (P.L. 103-382), which reauthorized the ESEA, and created the SDFSCA as Title IV. 7 The Safe Schools Act was originally created by Title VII of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-227). 8 The chief administering officer of a local educational agency may modify this expulsion requirement on a case-bycase basis. In addition, the LEA may provide the student with educational services in an alternative setting (Section 4141). 9 The Safe Schools Act was originally created by Title VII of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-227). 10 ED maintains a website that provides links to resources of potential use to school leaders developing a crisis management plan. More information is available at [http://www.ed.gov/ admins/lead/safety /emergencyplan/index.html]. 11 National programs also provide financial and technical assistance to institutions of higher education for drug prevention and campus safety programs for students. 12 For more information about NIMS, see [http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/index. shtm]. 13 For more information about ICS, see [http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/is100.asp]. 14 Additional information is available at [http://www.ercm.org/] and [http://www.ed.gov/ programs/dvpemergencyresponse/resources.html]. 15 These activities have received funding for one or more fiscal years under the SFDSCA. 16 Section 41 12(c)(3). Additional information about the UMIRS is available from ED at [http://www.ed.gov /policy/elsec/guid/unsafeschoolchoice.doc]. 17 Data for FY2007 and FY2008 appropriations and the FY2009 budget request were provided by the U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service, January 23, 2008. The FY2007 appropriation includes $9 million for Persistently Dangerous Schools appropriated by Section 5502 of the U.S. Troops, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-28). Funds for Persistently Dangerous Schools were appropriated to support the implementation of programs and strategies that address

28


youth violence and related issues in local educational agencies that have been identified as persistently dangerous under Section 9532 of the ESEA. (U.S. Department of Education. Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Congress: Fiscal Year 2009, Volume I, p. F-34. Hereafter referred to as ED, Budget Justifications: FY2009.) 18 ED, Budget Justifications: FY2009, p. F-20. 19 Given the breadth of programs authorized by the ESEA, it is possible that other programs not covered in this chapter could also be used to support violence prevention programs. 20 Data for FY2007 and FY2008 appropriations and the FY2009 budget request were provided by the U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service, January 23, 2008. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 A more detailed discussion of the Unsafe School Choice Option policy is included in CRS Report RL33506, School Choice Under the ESEA: Programs and Requirements, by David P. Smole. 24 Section 9532. 25 Most states establish some threshold number of violent offenses relative to school enrollment that must be exceeded for either two or three consecutive years in order for a school to be identified as persistently dangerous. 26 For more information about federal student aid programs authorized by the HEA, see CRS Report RL24214, A Primer on the Higher Education Act (HEA), by Blake Alan Naughton. 27 This includes institutions in the United States and outlying areas. (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007, Postsecondary Institutions in the United States: Fall 2006 and Degrees and Other Awards Conferred: 2005-06, NCES 2007- 166, Table 1. Available at [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007 1 66.pdf].) 28 This includes federal loans, work-study, and grants. College Board, October 2007, Trends in Student Aid: 2007, Table 1a. Available at [http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_ndownloads/about/news_info/ trends /trends_aid_07.pdf]. 29 For more information about institutional eligibility requirements, see CRS Report RL33909, Institutional Eligibility for Participation in Title IV Student Aid Programs Under the Higher Education Act: Background and Reauthorization Issues, by Rebecca R. Skinner. 30 The campus crime and security requirements were named for Jeanne Clery, a freshman at Lehigh University who was asleep in her residence hall before she was raped and murdered in 1986. The 1998 HEA amendments formally named the law in memory of Ms. Clery. 31 An institution must comply with these requirements for each separate campus (34 CFR 668.46). 32 Regulatory requirements for the annual security report and reporting and disclosure of information are included in 34 CFR 668.41 and 34 CFR 668.46. 33 Criminal offenses must be reported in the following categories: murder; sex offenses, forcible or nonforcible; robbery; aggravated assault; burglary; motor vehicle theft; manslaughter; arson; and arrests or persons referred for disciplinary action for liquor law violations, drug-related violations, and weapons possession. With the exception of the last category of criminal offenses, if the victim in any of the other types of crimes was deliberately selected due to the individual’s actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability, the crime must be reported as a hate crime. The statistics must be compiled according to the definitions used in the uniform crime reporting system of the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the modifications of these definitions included in the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. These statistics must be submitted annually to ED. (See 34 CFR 668.46 for related regulatory requirements.) 34 See 34 CFR 668.46 for related regulatory requirements. 35 Section 487(a) and 34 CFR 668.14. 36 Section 487(c)(3)(B). 37 The training seminars are being supported by DOJ and conducted in partnership with Security on Campus, Inc., and in collaboration with the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). 38 The first of the four seminars has already occurred. Additional information about these training seminars is available at [http://www.securityoncampus.org/cat/]. 39 The handbook is available at [http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/handbook.pdf]. 40 U.S. Department of Education. Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Congress: Fiscal Year 2008, Volume I, p. F-3 1. 41 Additional information about this program is available at [http://www.ed.gov/programs/ dvphighrisk/index.html]. 42 More information is available at [http://www.higheredcenter.org/grants/high-risk/0701/awardees.html]. 43 All data on FY2007 and FY2008 awards and the FY2009 budget request are available from ED, Budget Justifications: FY2009, p. F-36. 44 Additional information about the Center is available at [http://www.higheredcenter.org/] and [http://www.ed.gov/ about/offices/list/osdfs/resources.html#tac]. 45 ED, Budget Justifications: FY2009, p. F-32.

School and Campus Safety Programs and Requirements in the Elementary… 46

29

The CSDACT can be accessed at [http://ope.ed.gov/security/]. The COOL website can be accessed at [http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/]. 48 The major difference between these websites are that COOL focuses on multiple aspects of an institution, while CSDACT only provides data on campus security. If campus security data are accessed directly from CSDACT (as opposed to linking to the data through COOL), users have more options for analyzing the campus security data. 49 These data are available at [http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/crime/summary.html]. 50 Statistics on arrests are reported for drug arrests, illegal weapon possessions, and liquor law violations only. 51 In higher education, institutions are divided into nine sectors based on institutional control (public, private nonprofit, and private for-profit) and institutional level (four-year or above, two-year, less than two-year).

47



Chapter 3

CRIME, VIOLENCE, DISCIPLINE, AND SAFETY IN U.S. PUBLIC SCHOOLS - FINDINGS FROM THE SCHOOL SURVEY ON CRIME AND SAFETY - 2007-08 

United States Department of Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to extend special thanks to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS) for funding this survey, and offer specific gratitude to Bill Modzeleski and Deborah Rudy of OSDFS for their continued support and guidance. Finally, the authors would like to thank all of the schools and school staff who responded to the SSOCS survey. This chapter would not be possible without their participation.

INTRODUCTION This chapter presents findings on crime and violence in U.S. public schools,1 using data from the 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS:2008). First administered in school year 1999–2000 and repeated in school years 2003–04, 2005–06, and 2007–08, SSOCS provides information about school crime-related topics from the perspective of schools. Developed and managed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the Institute of Education Sciences and supported by the Office of Safe and Drug- Free Schools of the U.S. Department of Education, SSOCS asks public school principals about the frequency of incidents, such as physical attacks, robberies, and thefts, in their schools. Portions of this survey also focus on school programs, disciplinary actions, and the policies implemented to prevent and reduce crime in schools.

32

United States Department of Education

SSOCS:2008 is based on a nationally representative stratified random sample of 3,484 U.S. public schools. Data collection began on February 25, 2008, when questionnaires were mailed to principals, and continued through June 18, 2008. A total of 2,560 public primary, middle, high, and combined schools provided usable questionnaires, yielding an unweighted response rate of approximately 75 percent. When the responding schools were weighted to account for their original sampling probabilities, the response rate increased to approximately 77 percent. A nonresponse bias analysis was performed because the weighted response rate was less than 85 percent, and the results indicate that nonresponse bias is not an issue for SSOCS:2008. For more information about the methodology and design of SSOCS, including how response rates were calculated and the details of the nonresponse bias analysis, please see Appendix B: Methodology and Technical Notes in this chapter. Because the purpose of this chapter is to introduce new NCES data through the presentation of tables containing descriptive information, only selected findings are presented below. These findings have been chosen to demonstrate the range of information available when using SSOCS:2008 data rather than to discuss all of the observed differences. The tables in this chapter contain totals and percentages generated from bivariate crosstabulation procedures. All of the results are weighted to represent the population of U.S. public schools. Comparisons drawn in the bulleted items below have been tested for statistical significance at the .05 level using Student’s t statistic to ensure that the differences are larger than those that might be expected due to sampling variation. Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not included. Many of the variables examined are related to one another, and complex interactions and relationships have not been explored. Due to the large sample size, many differences (no matter how substantively minor) are statistically significant; thus, only differences of 5 percentage points or more between groups are mentioned in the findings. More information about the SSOCS survey and other SSOCS products can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs.

SELECTED FINDINGS: SCHOOL YEAR 2007–08 







During the 2007–08 school year, the rate of violent incidents2 per 1,000 students was higher in middle schools (41 incidents) than in primary schools (26 incidents) or high schools (22 incidents) (table 1). While 48 percent of schools reported at least one student threat of physical attack without a weapon, 9 percent of schools reported such a threat with a weapon (table 2). The rate of the distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs was higher in schools with 1,000 or more students (5 incidents per 1,000 students) than in schools with lower enrollments (1 to 2 incidents per 1,000 students) (table 3).

This is an edited, reformatted and augmented version of a U. S. Department of Education publication dated May 2009.

Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools... 















33

About 13 percent of city schools reported at least one gang crime, a higher percentage than that reported by suburban (5 percent), town (5 percent), or rural schools (3 percent) (table 4). About 18 percent of city schools reported that student acts of disrespect for teachers (other than verbal abuse) happen daily or at least once a week, a higher percentage than that reported by suburban (9 percent), town (11 percent), or rural schools (5 percent) (table 5). For students involved in the use or possession of a weapon other than a firearm or explosive device at school, the most frequently used disciplinary action was an outof-school suspension lasting 5 or more days (41 percent) (table 6). A lower percentage of schools with 1,000 or more students reported that more than 75 percent of students had a parent or guardian who attended regularly scheduled parent-teacher conferences (22 percent) than did schools with lower enrollments (49 to 59 percent) (table 7). A higher percentage of schools with minority enrollments of 50 percent or more involved students in resolving student conduct problems as a component of violence prevention programs (58 percent) than did schools with minority enrollments of less than 5 percent (42 percent) or 20 to less than 50 percent (51 percent) (table 8). Compared to schools in towns (31 percent) or rural areas (34 percent) larger percentages of city (49 percent) and suburban (43 percent) schools reported having a written plan for procedures to be followed if the Department of Homeland Security issues a warning for a severe risk of terrorist attack (table 9). A higher percentage of middle schools reported drilling students on a written plan describing the procedures to be performed during a shooting (63 percent) than high schools (57 percent) or primary schools (49 percent) (table 10). Among the factors that were reported to limit schools’ efforts to reduce or prevent crime ―in a major way,‖ three were more likely to be reported than others: a lack of or inadequate alternative placements or programs for disruptive students (25 percent); inadequate funds (24 percent); and federal, state, or district policies on disciplining special education students (18 percent) (table 11)

ESTIMATE TABLES Table 1. Number and percentage of public schools reporting incidents of crime that occurred at school, the number of incidents, and the rate of incidents per 1,000 students, by incident type and selected school characteristics: School year 2007-08

268,900

5.6

55,900

67.4

439,500

9.2

65.1 94.3 94.0 75.5

588,700 400,900 277,200 65,700

25.6 41.3 22.3 24.7

6,400 3,400 3,400 1,100

13.0 22.0 28.9 16.4

24,000 18,600 14,100 1,700

1.0 1.9 1.1 0.6

15,000 10,600 10,000 3,600

30.6 69.5 83.7 54.7

48,300 80,500 122,600 17,500

2.1 8.3 9.9 6.6

27,100 12,900 11,100 4,800

55.1 84.0 93.5 72.9

112,200 119,700 183,700 23,800

4.9 12.3 14.8 9.0

60.6 69.1 83.4 97.0

137,700 242,600 601,700 350,400

34.4 24.3 30.0 25.5

2,400 2,800 6,000 3,200

12.3 11.4 19.8 34.0

7,300! 7,800 24,400 18,800

1.8! 0.8 1.2 1.4

6,400 8,700 16,300 7,900

33.3 35.6 54.0 84.9

21,400 31,800 101,700 114,000

5.4 3.2 5.1 8.3

9,100 15,100 22,800 8,900

47.6 62.1 75.5 95.5

36,200 64,600 155,000 183,600

9.1 6.5 7.7 13.4

82.1 73.7 80.0 69.5

494,800 380,600 158,700 298,300

35.8 22.8 26.4 26.4

4,300 4,200 2,100 3,700

20.2 17.4 17.6 14.4

26,800 15,500 7,200 8,800

1.9 0.9 1.2 0.8

11,600 9,600 5,800 12,300

54.5 40.3 49.1 47.1

85,100 84,100 32,100 67,700

6.2 5.0 5.3 6.0

16,500 15,900 7,800 15,700

77.5 66.7 66.4 60.2

160,000 138,100 49,300 92,100

11.6 8.3 8.2 8.2

66.7

116,500

21.7

2,100

15.0

4,600

0.8

6,300

46.1

31,700

5.9

8,300

60.6

39,600

7.4

Rate per 1,000 students

47.3

Number of incidents

39,300

Percent of schools

1.2

Number of schools

58,300


17.2

Number of incidents

14,300

Percent of schools

27.9

Number of schools

1,332,400


Number of incidents

75.5


Percent of schools

Other incidents4

Number of schools

Theft3

Number of incidents

All public 83,000 62,600 schools Level5 Primary 49,200 32,000 Middle 15,300 14,400 High school 11,900 11,200 Combined 6,600 5,000 Enrollment size Less than 300 19,200 11,600 300–499 24,300 16,800 500–999 30,200 25,200 1,000 or more 9,300 9,000 Urbanicity City 21,300 17,500 Suburb 23,900 17,600 Town 11,800 9,400 Rural 26,000 18,100 Percent minority enrollment Less than 5 13,700 9,100 percent

Serious violent incidents2

Percent of schools

Number of schools

Total number of schools

School characteristic

Violent incidents1

7,400

0.6

9,200

43.0

66,400

5.5

13,300

62.0

87,400

7.3

20,300

15,700

77.3

349,600

27.1

3,100

15.2

10,500

0.8

9,300

45.8

67,600

5.2

14,200

70.0

108,600

8.4

27,600

22,300

80.5

640,300

36.6

6,200

22.5

35,800

2.0

14,500

52.4

103,300

5.9

20,100

72.9

203,900

11.7


13.7

Number of incidents

2,900

Percent of schools

Number of schools

18.8



226,100

Number of incidents

Number of incidents

72.7

Percent of schools

Percent of schools

15,500

Number of schools

Number of schools

21,400


Number of incidents

Other incidents4

Percent of schools

Theft3

Number of schools

5 to less than 20 percent 20 to less than 50 percent 50 percent or more




Violent incidents1

!Interpret data with caution. The standard error for this estimate is from 30 percent to 50 percent of the estimate’s value. Violent incidents include rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with or without a weapon, threat of physical attack with or without a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. 2Serious violent incidents include rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with a weapon, threat of physical attack with a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. 3 Theft or larceny (taking things worth over $10 without personal confrontation) was defined for respondents as "the unlawful taking of another person's property without personal confrontation, threat, violence, or bodily harm. This includes pocket picking, stealing a 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 a bicycle, theft from a vending machine, and all other types of thefts." 4 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. 5 Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 12. Combined schools include all other combinations of grades, including K–12 schools. Note: "At school" was defined for respondents to include activities happening in school buildings, on school grounds, on school buses, and at places that hold school-sponsored events or activities. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.

1

Table 2. Number and percentage of public schools reporting student threats of physical attack and incidents of robbery that occurred at school, the number of incidents, and the rate of incidents per 1,000 students, by selected school characteristics: School year 2007–08

Number of schools

Percent of schools

Number of incidents


Number of schools

Percent of schools

Number of incidents


Number of schools

Percent of schools

Number of incidents


Robbery without a weapon2,3


Robbery with a weapon2,3

Number of incidents

All public 7,740 schools Level4 Primary 4,160 Middle 1,790 High school 1,400 Combined 390! Enrollment size Less than 300 1,270 300–499 1,910 500–999 3,300 1,000 or more 1,260 Urbanicity City 2,150 Suburb 2,170 Town 1,280 Rural 2,150 Percent minority enrollment Less than 5 1,460 percent

Student threat of physical attack without a weapon1,2

9.3

20,260

0.4

39,660

47.8

461,910

9.7

370!

0.4!

680!

#

4,290

5.2

18,710

0.4

8.5 11.7 11.8 5.8!

9,820 6,310 3,670 450!

0.4 0.7 0.3 0.2!

18,670 10,170 8,040 2,780

38.0 66.5 67.4 42.1

185,030 142,970 100,340 33,570!

8.0 14.7 8.1 12.6!

‡ 100! 150! ‡

‡ 0.6! 1.2! ‡

‡ 260! ‡ ‡

‡ # ‡ ‡

1,410 990 1,380 510!

2.9 6.5 11.6 7.7!

‡ 6,000 6,500 960!

‡ 0.6 0.5 0.4!

6.6 7.9 10.9 13.5

2,310! 4,780 7,890 5,280

0.6! 0.5 0.4 0.4

6,940 9,520 16,220 6,980

36.2 39.2 53.7 75.0

57,950 96,050 194,900 113,010

14.5 9.6 9.7 8.2

‡ ‡ ‡ 140

‡ ‡ ‡ 1.5

‡ ‡ ‡ 250!

‡ ‡ ‡ #

870! 670! 1,260 1,490

4.5! 2.8! 4.2 16.0

‡ 1,570! 3,760 9,140

‡ 0.2! 0.2 0.7

10.1 9.1 10.9 8.2

5,560 5,800 4,690 4,210

0.4 0.3 0.8 0.4

11,970 10,870 5,680 11,140

56.3 45.5 48.3 42.8

168,450 124,370 63,410 105,680

12.2 7.5 10.6 9.4

200! 150! ‡ ‡

0.9! 0.6! ‡ ‡

350! 210! ‡ ‡

# # ‡ ‡

1,760 1,060 590! 870

8.3 4.4 5.0! 3.4

10,990 4,220 1,210! 2,290

0.8 0.3 0.2! 0.2

10.7

2,740

0.5

6,340

46.3

49,330

9.2

‡

‡

‡

‡

510!

3.7!

1,280!

0.2 !

Percent of schools

Number of schools


Student threat of physical attack with a weapon1,2

Number of incidents


Number of schools

Percent of schools


Percent of schools

9,480

44.4

80,770

6.7

‡

‡

‡

‡

690

3.2

1,430

0.1

1,380

6.8

4,010!

0.3!

9,530

46.9

118,020

9.1

50!

0.3!

‡

‡

730

3.6

3,310

0.3

3,220

11.6

9,530

0.5

14,310

51.8

213,800

12.2

270!

1.0!

410!

#

2,360

8.5

12,680

0.7

Number of incidents

Number of schools

0.3

Number of incidents

3,990

Percent of schools

7.9

Number of schools


Robbery without a weapon2,3

1,680

Number of incidents


Robbery with a weapon2,3

Percent of schools


Student threat of physical attack without a weapon1,2

Number of schools


Student threat of physical attack with a weapon1,2

# Rounds to zero. !Interpret data with caution. The standard error for this estimate is from 30 percent to 50 percent of the estimate’s value. ‡ Reporting standards not met. The standard error for this estimate is equal to 50 percent or more of the estimate's value. 1 Physical attack or fight was defined for respondents as 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." 2 Weapon was defined for respondents as "any instrument or object used with the intent to threaten, injure, or kill. This includes look-alikes if they are used to threaten others." 3 Robbery was defined for respondents as "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 robbery involves a threat or battery." 4 Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 12. Combined schools include all other combinations of grades, including K–12 schools. Note: "At school" was defined for respondents to include activities happening in school buildings, on school grounds, on school buses, and at places that hold school-sponsored events or activities. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.

Table 3. Number and percentage of public schools reporting at least one incident of the distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs or alcohol at school, or of vandalism at school, the number of incidents reported, and the rate of incidents per 1,000 students, by selected school characteristics: School year 2007–08


Distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs Number Percent Number Rate per of of of 1,000 schools schools incidents students 19,200 23.2 107,300 2.2

All public schools Level2 Primary 1,500 Middle 6,700 High school 9,200 Combined 1,800 Enrollment size Less than 300 1,800 300–499 3,000 500–999 7,500 1,000 or more 7,000 Urbanicity City 5,700 Suburb 5,000 Town 3,000 Rural 5,500 Percent minority enrollment Less than 5 3,100 percent 5 to less than 4,600 20 percent

Vandalism1

Distribution, possession, or use of alcohol Number of schools 12,300

Percent of schools 14.9

Number of incidents 37,800

Rate per 1,000 students 0.8

Number of schools 40,900




3.1 43.8 76.8 27.7

3,200 24,500 72,800 6,900

0.1 2.5 5.8 2.6

1,300 2,900 6,700 1,400

2.7 19.1 56.1 21.2

1,500 6,600 26,900 2,800

0.1 0.7 2.2 1.1

19,300 9,900 8,800 3,000

39.2 64.5 73.5 45.7

78,100 65,800 58,600 9,500

3.4 6.8 4.7 3.6

9.5 12.2 24.7 75.2

6,800! 6,800 27,100 66,600

1.7! 0.7 1.4 4.8

1,500 1,300 4,400 5,200

7.6 5.4 14.5 55.6

2,300 2,200 10,800 22,400

0.6 0.2 0.5 1.6

6,800 11,100 15,700 7,300

35.6 45.8 52.1 78.0

19,900 41,900 82,500 67,700

5.0 4.2 4.1 4.9

26.6 20.9 25.9 21.2

35,800 31,100 13,300 27,100

2.6 1.9 2.2 2.4

3,600 3,300 1,800 3,600

17.1 13.7 15.2 13.9

11,900 11,800 4,900 9,300

0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8

13,100 12,600 5,300 10,000

61.5 52.5 44.7 38.6

83,100 73,200 19,800 36,000

6.0 4.4 3.3 3.2

22.7

11,300

2.1

1,800

12.9

4,300

0.8

5,300

38.5

15,800

2.9

21.6

24,900

2.1

3,300

15.6

10,500

0.9

9,600

45.1

36,000

3.0

School characteristic 20 to less than 50 percent 50 percent or more

Distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs Number Percent Number Rate per of of of 1,000 schools schools incidents students 4,800 23.5 28,000 2.2 6,700

24.4

43,100

2.5

Vandalism1

Distribution, possession, or use of alcohol Number of schools 3,200




Number of schools 10,700




4,000

14.5

12,700

0.7

15,300

55.4

112,200

6.4

! Interpret data with caution. The standard error for this estimate is from 30 percent to 50 percent of the estimate’s value. 1 Vandalism was defined for respondents as "the willful damage or destruction of school property including bombing, arson, graffiti, and other acts that cause property damage. This includes damage caused by computer hacking." 2 Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 12. Combined schools include all other combinations of grades, including K–12 schools. Note: "At school" was defined for respondents to include activities happening in school buildings, on school grounds, on school buses, and at places that hold school-sponsored events or activities. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.

Table 4. Number and percentage of public schools reporting incidents of hate crime, gang-related crime, and gang-related hate crime at school, the number of incidents reported, and the rate of incidents per 1,000 students, by selected school characteristics: School year 2007–08

All public schools Level3 Primary Middle High school Combined Enrollment size Less than 300 300–499 500–999 1,000 or more Urbanicity City Suburb Town Rural


Number of incidents

Percent of schools

Number of schools

Gang-related hate crime1,2 Rate per 1,000 students

Number of incidents

Percent of schools

Number of schools

Gang-related crime2 Rate per 1,000 students

Number of incidents

Percent of schools


Number of schools

Hate crime1

3,130

3.8

9,220

0.2

5,210

6.3

38,350

0.8

760

0.9

3,120

0.1

990 880 1,100 ‡

2.0 5.7 9.2 ‡

1,950 3,830 3,200 ‡

0.1 0.4 0.3 ‡

1,010 1,850 2,220 ‡

2.0 12.1 18.6 ‡

5,800! 14,740 17,370 ‡

0.3! 1.5 1.4 ‡

‡ 280 310 ‡

‡ 1.8 2.6 ‡

‡ 1,550! 1,410 ‡

‡ 0.2! 0.1 ‡

500! 500! 1,090 1,040

2.6! 2.0! 3.6 11.2

760! 1,740! 3,810! 2,900

0.2! 0.2! 0.2! 0.2

520! 510 2,030 2,160

2.7! 2.1 6.7 23.2

2,030! 1,800! 14,760 19,770

0.5! 0.2! 0.7 1.4

‡ ‡ 240! 320

‡ ‡ 0.8! 3.4

‡ ‡ 740! 1,520

‡ ‡ # 0.1

1,000 1,050 290! 790

4.7 4.4 2.5! 3.0

3,380! 2,580 1,610! 1,650

0.2! 0.2 0.3! 0.1

2,690 1,250 560 710

12.7 5.2 4.7 2.7

20,300 10,970 2,900 4,180

1.5 0.7 0.5 0.4

420 200! 80! 60!

2.0 0.8! 0.7! 0.2!

1,840 380 ‡ ‡

0.1 # ‡ ‡

Percent minority enrollment Less than 5 percent 570! 5 to less than 20 percent 600 20 to less than 50 percent 720 50 percent or more 1,240

4.1! 2.8 3.6 4.5

860 1,830 2,610 3,920

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

80! 430 1,190 3,510

0.6! 2.0 5.9 12.7

100! 1,450 6,300 30,490

# 0.1 0.5 1.7

‡ ‡ 220! 360

‡ ‡ 1.1 ! 1.3

‡ ‡ 720! 1,750


Number of incidents

Percent of schools

Number of schools

Gang-related hate crime1,2 Rate per 1,000 students

Number of incidents

Percent of schools

Number of schools

Number of incidents

Percent of schools

Number of schools


Gang-related crime2 Rate per 1,000 students

Hate crime1

‡ ‡ 0.1 ! 0.1

# Rounds to zero. ! Interpret data with caution. The standard error for this estimate is from 30 percent to 50 percent of the estimate’s value. ‡ Reporting standards not met. The standard error for this estimate is equal to 50 percent or more of the estimate's value. 1 A hate crime was defined for respondents as "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." 2 Gang was defined for respondents as "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." 3 Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 12. Combined schools include all other combinations of grades, including K–12 schools. Note: "At school" was defined for respondents to include activities happening in school buildings, on school grounds, on school buses, and at places that hold school-sponsored events or activities. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.

Table 5. Percentage of public schools reporting selected types of disciplinary problems occurring at school daily or at least once a week, or at all, by selected school characteristics: School year 2007–08

All public schools Level5 Primary Middle High school Combined Enrollment size Less than 300 300–499 500–999 1,000 or more Urbanicity City Suburb Town Rural Percent minority nnnenrollment Less than 5 percent

Gang activities3

Cult or extremist group activities4

Happens at all Student acts of disrespect for teachers other than verbal abuse2

Widespread disorder in classroom

Student verbal abuse of teachers

Student sexual harassment of other students1

Student bullying


Student racial/ethnic tensions

Happens daily or at least once a week

3.7

25.3

3.0

6.0

4.0

10.5

19.8

2.6

2.6 5.6 5.3 4.3!

20.5 43.5 21.7 24.9

1.3 ! 6.5 5.7 ‡

3.7 9.8 12.1 2.9 !

3.1 6.6 4.8 ‡

7.7 17.7 16.9 3.8!

10.0 35.4 43.1 14.3

0.6 ! 3.1 8.0 6.4 !

3.2! 1.4! 5.3 5.5

18.7 20.8 30.6 33.2

2.7 ! 1.8 ! 3.4 5.7

4.5 ! 3.1 6.4 15.3

3.2 ! 2.6 ! 5.1 6.1

5.6! 8.4 11.9 22.0

9.8 12.8 21.8 52.4

1.3 ! 1.0 ! 2.6 9.4

5.4 2.9 2.8! 3.4

27.5 24.6 30.3 21.7

4.0 2.9 3.1 ! 2.4 !

11.5 5.0 4.5 3.0

7.7 3.3 2.9 2.2

18.2 9.3 10.6 5.4

33.9 18.8 16.8 10.6

3.3 2.6 2.5 ! 2.0

1.2!

25.6

2.7 !

2.8 !

2.0 !

5.6

3.9

‡


2.7 3.0 6.2

24.9 22.1 27.6

2.5 2.2 4.2

2.6 5.5 10.5

2.1 2.3 ! 7.8

5.6 11.5 16.1

Gang activities3

Cult or extremist group activities4

Happens at all Student acts of disrespect for teachers other than verbal abuse2

Widespread disorder in classroom


Student sexual harassment of other students1

Student bullying

Happens daily or at least once a week Student racial/ethnic tensions


9.9 21.3 34.2

1.7 ! 2.7 3.6

! Interpret data with caution. The standard error for this estimate is from 30 percent to 50 percent of the estimate’s value. ‡ Reporting standards not met. The standard error for this estimate is equal to 50 percent or more of the estimate's value. 1 Sexual harassment was defined for respondents as "unsolicited, offensive behavior that inappropriately asserts sexuality over another person. This behavior may be verbal or nonverbal." 2 The wording of this item has changed between the 2006 and 2008 collections. In 2008, the phrase "other than verbal abuse" was added to this item. Caution should be exercised when making direct comparisons to prior School Survey on Crime and Safety collections. 3 Gang was defined for respondents as "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." 4 Cult or extremist group was defined for respondents as "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." 5 Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 12. Combined schools include all other combinations of grades, including K–12 schools. Note: "At school" was defined for respondents to include activities happening in school buildings, on school grounds, on school buses, and at places that hold school-sponsored events or activities. Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.

Table 6. Number and percentage of students in public schools involved in the use or possession of a weapon other than a firearm or explosive device at school receiving various disciplinary actions, by selected school characteristics: School year 2007–08


Disciplinary actions taken for students involved in the use or possession of a weapon other than a firearm or explosive device1 at school Removals without Transfers to Out-of-school suspensions Other disciplinary actions3 2 continuing services for at specialized schools lasting 5 or more days, but least the remainder of the less than the remainder of school year the school year Number of Percent of Number of Percent of Number of Percent of Number of Percent of students students students students students students students students 2,860 5.3 11,750 21.7 22,170 41.0 17,270 31.9

All public schools Level4 Primary Middle High school Combined Enrollment size Less than 300 300–499 500–999 1,000 or more Urbanicity City Suburb Town Rural Percent minority enrollment Less than 5 percent

‡ 1,000 1,640 ‡

‡ 6.6 8.2 ‡

1,600 3,890 5,990 ‡

9.8 25.6 29.7 ‡

5,710 6,820 8,820 810!

34.7 45.0 43.8 35.4!

9,120 3,470 3,680! 1,000!

55.5 22.8 18.3! 43.3!

240! ‡ 690 1,760

5.9! ‡ 3.1 8.6

550! 930 3,530 6,740

13.3! 12.7 15.9 33.0

1,080! 3,010! 9,560 8,520

26.0! 41.3 43.1 41.7

2,270! 3,190 8,390 3,430

54.8 43.7 37.8 16.8

830 860 400! 770!

3.9 6.2 5.4! 6.7!

5,170 3,350 960 2,270

24.3 24.1 13.1 ! 19.6

8,820 5,790 2,530 5,030

41.5 41.7 34.3 43.5

6,410 3,880 3,480! 3,490

30.2 28.0 47.2 30.2

‡

‡

790!

20.9

1,710!

45.2

1,080

28.4!


Disciplinary actions taken for students involved in the use or possession of a weapon other than a firearm or explosive device1 at school Removals without Transfers to Out-of-school suspensions Other disciplinary actions3 2 continuing services for at specialized schools lasting 5 or more days, but least the remainder less than the remainder of of the school year the school year Number of Percent of Number of Percent of Number of Percent of Number of Percent of students students students students students students students students 560 6.3 1,390 15.6 3,700 41.5 3,250 36.5

5 to less than 20 percent 20 to less than 50 ‡ ‡ 3,910 27.2 6,480 45.2 3,210 22.4 percent 50 percent or more 1,350 5.0 5,660 20.9 10,280 38.0 9,730 36.0 ! Interpret data with caution. The standard error for this estimate is from 30 percent to 50 percent of the estimate’s value. ‡ Reporting standards not met. The standard error for this estimate is equal to 50 percent or more of the estimate's value. 1 Firearm or explosive device was defined for respondents as "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." 2 Specialized school was defined for respondents as "a school that is specifically for students who were referred for disciplinary reasons, although the school may also have students who were referred for other reasons. The school may be at the same location as your school." 3 Other disciplinary actions include suspension for less than 5 days, detention, etc. 4 Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 12. Combined schools include all other combinations of grades, including K–12 schools. Note: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.

Table 7. Percentage distribution of public schools reporting selected percentages of students with a parent or guardian who attended an open house or back-to-school night or attended regularly scheduled parent-teacher conferences, by selected school characteristics: School year 2007–08


School does not offer

76–100 percent of students



Percent of students with a parent or guardian who attended regularly scheduled parent-teacher conferences 0–25 percent of students


76–1 00 percent of students



Percent of students with a parent or guardian who attended an open house or back-to-school night 0–25 percent of students


5.2

17.2

27.4

47.9

2.3

7.1

16.1

22.9

51.0

3.0

2.6 4.2 14.7 9.5!

10.8 21.3 34.3 25.3

24.1 36.4 29.2 28.2

61.9 37.0 17.4 23.6

‡ 1.0! 4.4 13.3

2.9 9.4 19.1 11.3

9.4 23.6 31.0 21.8

19.3 29.1 26.1 29.6

67.3 34.3 14.0 34.5

1.1! 3.7 9.8 ‡

5.8 5.3 3.8 8.1

16.1 15.8 15.6 28.8

22.7 22.5 31.1 38.2

49.4 54.5 49.0 23.5

6.0 2.0! ‡ 1.4

8.5 4.7 6.0 13.9

12.9 13.4 16.1 29.4

17.2 22.3 26.1 26.0

58.5 58.5 49.1 21.7

2.8! 1.1! 2.7 8.9

6.1 3.0 5.1 6.5

19.1 11.3 22.0 19.1

30.5 27.2 25.5 26.0

43.8 57.4 45.7 43.4

0.5! ‡ 1.7 5.1

6.1 4.4 7.4 10.2

16.9 12.7 17.9 17.7

23.0 22.3 25.7 22.1

51.6 56.4 47.3 47.1

2.4 4.2 1.8 2.9

Percent minority enrollment Less than 5 percent 5 to less than 20 percent 20 to less than 50 percent 50 percent or more

6.1 2.9 4.2 7.2

17.9 12.2 16.4 21.5

25.1 24.8 25.9 31.7

46.6 58.1 51.7 37.7

4.2! 2.0! 1.8! 1.9!

12.2 3.0 5.5 8.9

16.0 13.9 15.1 18.6

19.5 22.0 20.6 26.9

47.4 58.2 55.3 43.9





Percent of students with a parent or guardian who attended regularly scheduled parent-teacher conferences 0–25 percent of students


76–1 00 percent of students



Percent of students with a parent or guardian who attended an open house or back-to-school night 0–25 percent of students


4.9! 2.9 3.5 1.7

! Interpret data with caution. The standard error for this estimate is from 30 percent to 50 percent of the estimate’s value. ‡ Reporting standards not met. The standard error for this estimate is equal to 50 percent or more of the estimate's value. 1 Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 12. Combined schools include all other combinations of grades, including K–1 2 schools. Note: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.

Table 8. Percentage of public schools reporting the use of selected violence prevention program components, by selected school characteristics: School year 2007–08


Hotline or tipline for students to report problems

Programs to promote a sense of community or social integration among students

Student involvement in resolving student conduct problems2

Recreational, enrichment, or leisure Activities for students

Individual attention, mentoring, tutoring, or coaching of students by students or adults

Counseling, social work, psychological, or therapeutic activity for students

Behavioral or behavior Modification intervention for students


Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training for students1

Percentage of schools using selected violence prevention program components

87.8

90.4

92.5

90.3

83.5

52.8

79.7

25.7

91.8 89.5 73.4 80.6

92.6 92.5 84.6 79.8

91.8 96.2 91.1 91.7

91.2 92.2 90.2 78.9

82.5 89.2 81.4 81.2

51.3 60.8 54.2 42.3

81.1 82.0 77.5 67.9

19.2 33.8 41.8 26.1

86.3 90.2 88.8 81.7

83.9 91.8 93.8 89.5

83.7 94.6 95.6 94.9

84.3 90.2 93.2 93.4

81.2 81.8 85.6 85.9

45.8 50.8 54.9 65.6

73.1 80.7 81.9 83.4

20.0 21.3 25.6 49.4

93.9 89.0 84.9 83.0

95.1 93.4 88.9 84.6

94.8 94.1 92.2 89.2

92.7 93.4 89.7 85.7

87.6 85.5 80.0 80.0

62.1 57.7 46.9 43.2

87.1 84.7 77.2 70.3

28.9 25.4 26.5 23.0

Hotline or tipline for students to report problems

Programs to promote a sense of community or social integration among students

Student involvement in resolving student conduct problems2

Recreational, enrichment, or leisure Activities for students

Individual attention, mentoring, tutoring, or coaching of students by students or adults

Counseling, social work, psychological, or therapeutic activity for students

Behavioral or behavior Modification intervention for students


Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training for students1

Percentage of schools using selected violence prevention program components

Percent minority enrollment Less than 5 percent 81.6 84.5 88.7 89.0 80.2 42.1 72.5 22.2 5 to less than 20 percent 86.8 88.3 91.5 88.1 83.1 53.9 80.9 23.3 20 to less than 50 percent 87.6 92.6 93.8 90.8 81.4 51.1 81.2 29.6 50 percent or more 91.9 93.5 94.2 92.2 87.1 58.4 81.3 26.5 1 The example of prevention curriculum, instruction, or training provided to respondents was social skills training. 2 Examples of student involvement in resolving student conduct problems provided to respondents were conflict resolution, peer mediation, and student court. 3 Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 12. Combined schools include all other combinations of grades, including K–12 schools. Note: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.


Pandemic flu3

The U.S. national threat level is changed to Red (Severe Risk of Terrorist Attack) by the Department of Homeland Security3

Suicide threat or incident3

Chemical, biological, or radiological threats or incidents2

Bomb threats or incidents

Hostages

Natural disasters1

Shootings


Table 9. Percentage of public schools that had a written plan for a specific crisis situation, by selected school characteristics: School year 2007–08

83.0

95.8

71.3

93.8

71.5

74.1

40.0

36.1

79.9 88.3 90.6 80.1

96.3 96.1 94.3 94.6

69.8 76.3 76.0 62.7

93.4 96.7 96.0 86.3

71.5 73.2 73.0 65.8

69.7 80.8 84.2 72.8

41.2 39.4 40.5 31.8

34.7 39.7 38.3 34.3

75.7 81.1 87.0 90.3

93.6 96.3 96.9 95.6

61.5 70.6 76.5 76.7

88.3 93.7 96.9 95.6

61.2 72.6 76.1 75.4

68.2 73.0 76.1 82.8

35.8 36.8 44.2 43.6

34.0 36.0 37.2 37.0

83.0 84.9 85.3 80.3

95.1 96.3 96.8 95.7

69.4 74.7 73.9 68.7

94.9 96.9 94.4 89.8

73.9 76.0 70.3 66.1

75.5 76.3 73.3 71.3

49.3 43.4 30.6 33.6

32.1 36.8 38.7 37.5

80.6 87.8 84.5 79.4

95.0 96.9 96.1 95.3

75.5 71.9 73.1 67.6

94.4 93.9 95.9 91.9

68.2 74.6 74.3 68.8

75.7 80.0 70.4 71.5

36.4 36.2 40.1 44.7

Pandemic flu3

The U.S. national threat level is changed to Red (Severe Risk of Terrorist Attack) by the Department of Homeland Security3

Suicide threat or incident3



Hostages

Natural disasters1

Shootings

School characteristic 1


42.8 41.4 34.3 30.0

Examples of natural disasters provided to respondents were earthquakes or tornadoes. Examples of chemical, biological, or radiological threats or incidents provided to respondents were the release of mustard gas, anthrax, smallpox, or radioactive materials. 3 This item is new to the 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety. 4 Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 12. Combined schools include all other combinations of grades, including K–12 schools. Note: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008. 2




Hostages

Natural disasters1

Shootings


Table 10. Percentage of public schools that drilled students on a written plan for a specific crisis situation, by selected school characteristics: School year 2007–08

52.5

83.1

38.5

58.4

28.4

49.2 62.7 56.9 45.0

84.6 82.5 79.7 79.3

39.6 41.3 39.2 23.2

58.3 61.0 62.2 46.7

27.9 30.9 28.7 25.6

47.3 50.9 53.5 64.0

83.2 81.9 84.0 83.0

29.5 38.4 42.1 46.2

51.9 56.8 60.8 68.5

23.1 27.3 30.1 36.8

50.9 57.5 52.8 49.0

77.6 85.1 84.1 85.2

35.7 46.6 37.9 33.8

58.3 67.4 53.8 52.3

29.5 35.2 22.2 24.1

45.8 57.9 52.1 51.9

83.3 85.9 83.9 80.2

36.4 40.5 41.3 36.0

55.4 58.9 60.4 58.1



Hostages

Natural disasters1

Shootings

School characteristic 1


23.4 26.8 30.8 30.4

Examples of natural disasters provided to respondents were earthquakes or tornadoes. Examples of chemical, biological, or radiological threats or incidents provided to respondents were the release of mustard gas, anthrax, smallpox, or radioactive materials. 3 Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 12. Combined schools include all other combinations of grades, including K–12 schools. Note: Respondents were not asked if they drilled students on the following crisis situations: suicide threat or incident; the U.S. national threat level is changed to Red (Severe Risk of Terrorist Attack) by the Department of Homeland Security; and pandemic flu. Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008. 2

Table 11. Percentage of public schools reporting that their efforts to reduce or prevent crime at school were limited in a major way, a minor way, or not at all, by selected factors: School year 2007-08

Factor

1

Lack of or inadequate teacher training in classroom management Lack of or inadequate alternative placements or programs for disruptive students Likelihood of complaints from parents Lack of teacher support for school policies Lack of parental support for school policies Teachers’ fear of student retaliation Fear of litigation Inadequate funds Inconsistent application of school policies by faculty or staff Fear of district or state reprisal Federal, state, or district policies on disciplining special education students1 Federal policies on discipline and safety other than those for special education students1, 2 State or district policies on discipline and safety other than those for special education students1, 2

Efforts to reduce or prevent crime were limited in a major way 6.1 25.4 4.0 3.8 9.1 2.1 4.9 23.7 7.3 2.6 17.6 5.2

Efforts to reduce or prevent crime were limited in a minor way 36.6 38.5 30.8 21.1 39.1 18.9 31.7 39.6 39.2 16.4 42.2 30.7

Efforts to reduce or prevent crime were not limited at all 57.3 36.1 65.2 75.2 51.8 79.0 63.4 36.7 53.5 81.0 40.3 64.1

6.3

30.6

63.1

A special education student was defined for respondents as "a child with a disability, defined as mental retardation, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities, who needs special education and related services and receives these under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)." 2 The wording of this item was changed in 2008 to include the phrase "other than those for special education students." Therefore, caution should be exercised when making direct comparisons to prior School Survey on Crime and Safety collections. Note: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.

APPENDIX A: STANDARD ERROR TABLES Table A-1. Standard errors for the number and percentage of public schools reporting incidents of crime that occurred at school, the number of incidents, and the rate of incidents per 1,000 students, by incident type and selected school characteristics: School year 2007– 08

Number of schools

Percent of schools

Number of incidents


Number of schools

Percent of schools

Number of incidents


Number of schools

Percent of schools

Number of incidents



Other incidents

Number of incidents

Theft

Percent of schools

All public 410 schools Level Primary 330 Middle 90 High school 60 Combined 220 Enrollment size Less than 270 300 300–499 250 500–999 160 1,000 or 60 more Urbanicity City 210 Suburb 140 Town 160 Rural 260

Serious violent incidents

Number of schools



Violent incidents

960

1.09

62,080

1.28

880

1.06

6,560

0.14

1,100

1.29

9,510

0.20

950

1.13

11,160

0.23

870 170 130 310

1.64 0.88 1.07 4.50

52,120 16,130 10,860 18,120

2.29 1.60 0.82 6.84

840 200 180 310

1.69 1.32 1.53 4.70

5,160 2,910 1,440 500

0.22 0.30 0.12 0.17

920 240 190 340

1.85 1.59 1.51 5.24

4,870 5,650 4,280 2,530

0.21 0.58 0.34 0.95

880 210 160 280

1.79 1.36 1.20 4.82

7,020 5,930 6,580 2,500

0.31 0.61 0.50 0.78

690

3.53

20,330

4.97

430

2.21

2,840

0.71

530

2.66

4,680

1.15

560

2.85

5,280

1.30

630 510 110

2.75 1.69 1.08

31,790 42,000 15,410

3.14 2.15 1.10

450 440 200

1.89 1.44 2.03

1,550 4,130 2,220

0.16 0.21 0.16

600 640 180

2.49 2.09 1.78

3,380 5,950 4,220

0.33 0.29 0.32

750 520 130

3.14 1.68 1.24

4,830 7,390 7,840

0.48 0.37 0.57

440 530 380 550

2.01 2.17 2.79 2.13

34,340 25,360 16,270 34,490

2.43 1.47 2.65 3.09

460 310 300 410

2.15 1.29 2.51 1.59

5,270 3,430 1,370 1,230

0.38 0.21 0.23 0.11

460 470 390 750

2.08 1.94 3.25 2.89

5,020 4,560 2,800 5,910

0.37 0.27 0.45 0.55

560 530 440 590

2.55 2.16 3.77 2.51

8,520 7,490 3,470 5,330

0.59 0.45 0.55 0.50

Table A-1. (Continued) Rate per 1,000 students

370

2.52

1,030

0.19

520

3.26

2,540

0.45

630

3.08

3,020

0.50

2.51

17,210

1.50

310

1.38

970

0.08

500

2.28

4,040

0.32

710

3.23

4,000

0.34

2.40

37,590

2.87

370

1.77

1,710

0.13

590

2.84

4,270

0.31

630

2.65

5,720

0.38

2.21

38,320

2.12

560

1.88

6,010

0.34

740

2.18

7,090

0.40

700

2.31

10,350

0.59

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.

Number of incidents

2.02

Percent of schools

Number of schools


Number of incidents

12,100

Percent of schools

Number of schools


Number of incidents

Other incidents

3.34

Percent of schools

Number of schools


Theft

Number of incidents

Percent minority enrollment Less than 5 690 640 percent 5 to less 620 560 than 20 percent 20 to less 690 630 than 50 percent 50 percent 690 820 or more

Serious violent incidents

Percent of schools

Number of schools



Violent incidents

Percent of schools

Number of incidents


Number of schools

Percent of schools

Number of incidents


Number of schools

Percent of schools

Number of incidents


Robbery without a weapon

Number of schools


Robbery with a weapon

Number of incidents

Student threat of physical attack without a weapon

Percent of schools

†

All public schools Level Primary Middle High school Combined Enrollment size Less than 300 300–499 500–999 1,000 or more Urbanicity City Suburb Town Rural Percent minority enrollment Less than 5 percent 5 to less than 20 percent 20 to less than 50 percent 50 percent or more

Student threat of physical attack with a weapon

647

0.77

2,579

0.05

1,028

1.19

29,411

0.62

113

0.14

216

†

464

0.56

3,138

0.07

633 158 136 181

1.28 1.04 1.15 2.73

1,770 1,619 481 198

0.08 0.17 0.04 0.07

952 247 220 294

1.88 1.53 1.83 4.22

22,159 9,024 6,067 13,582

0.96 0.90 0.47 5.14

† 34 50 †

† 0.22 0.42 †

† 104 † †

† † † †

362 124 120 182

0.74 0.81 1.00 2.72

† 1,161 1,128 406

† 0.12 0.09 0.15

323 350 362 102

1.69 1.46 1.19 1.09

747 1,243 1,203 1,547

0.19 0.12 0.06 0.11

610 579 545 215

3.20 2.39 1.84 2.20

14,562 16,875 13,662 6,232

3.63 1.68 0.69 0.44

† † † 36

† † † 0.38

† † † 82

† † † †

289 207 221 166

1.50 0.85 0.73 1.73

† 536 713 1,416

† 0.05 0.04 0.10

396 279 253 333

1.85 1.15 2.16 1.29

1,117 1,717 1,229 764

0.08 0.10 0.21 0.07

585 567 406 580

2.69 2.35 3.26 2.24

14,841 11,683 9,703 15,274

1.07 0.69 1.59 1.35

87 71 † †

0.41 0.30 † †

149 88 † †

† † † †

258 203 195 203

1.21 0.85 1.65 0.78

3,105 894 431 608

0.22 0.05 0.07 0.05

329 250 243 451

2.33 1.17 1.19 1.54

785 801 1,224 2,045

0.14 0.07 0.10 0.11

530 445 628 775

3.24 2.26 2.75 2.29

6,447 8,324 14,408 20,362

1.14 0.72 1.08 1.16

† † 23 107

† † 0.11 0.38

† † † 160

† † † †

177 175 156 296

1.26 0.81 0.79 1.06

410 302 821 3,152

0.08 0.03 0.06 0.18

Number of schools


Table A-2. Standard errors for the number and percentage of public schools reporting student threats of physical attack and incidents of robbery that occurred at school, the number of incidents, and the rate of incidents per 1,000 students, by selected school characteristics: School year 2007–08

Not applicable. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.

Table A-3. Standard errors for the number and percentage of public schools reporting at least one incident of the distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs or alcohol at school, or of vandalism at school, the number of incidents reported, and the rate of incidents per 1,000 students, by selected school characteristics: School year 2007–08 School characteristic


Distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs Number Percent Number Rate per of of of 1,000 schools schools incidents students 600 0.68 4,130 0.08

Distribution, possession, or use of alcohol Number Percent Number Rate per of of of 1,000 schools schools incidents students 460 0.57 1,410 0.03

Number of schools 970

Vandalism Percent Number of of schools incidents 1.16 8,790


330 190 180 310

0.67 1.18 1.48 4.62

890 2,800 2,890 1,220

0.04 0.29 0.21 0.38

340 160 210 230

0.68 1.07 1.74 3.54

370 520 1,160 570

0.02 0.05 0.09 0.20

890 270 210 290

1.82 1.75 1.65 4.70

6,410 4,320 3,670 1,490

0.28 0.44 0.30 0.56

230 300 370 140

1.22 1.22 1.23 1.36

2,910 730 1,570 2,770

0.72 0.07 0.08 0.19

290 230 390 150

1.51 0.96 1.27 1.70

490 360 960 1,090

0.12 0.04 0.05 0.07

550 630 660 170

2.79 2.65 2.19 2.01

2,700 4,280 6,770 4,720

0.68 0.43 0.34 0.35

310 200 230 320

1.36 0.78 2.02 1.19

2,420 1,780 1,400 3,370

0.16 0.10 0.21 0.30

300 190 180 310

1.40 0.78 1.54 1.22

1,030 780 570 800

0.07 0.05 0.10 0.07

630 560 360 560

2.94 2.27 3.10 2.21

5,650 6,750 2,500 2,470

0.42 0.41 0.42 0.23

270 260 270 350

1.76 1.34 1.42 1.30

1,270 1,450 1,660 3,800

0.22 0.13 0.13 0.22

260 230 270 300

1.94 1.04 1.25 1.00

600 830 740 880

0.11 0.07 0.05 0.05

480 680 550 790

3.23 3.08 2.25 2.65

1,870 2,890 4,320 8,200

0.35 0.25 0.30 0.48


Table A-4. Standard errors for the number and percentage of public schools reporting incidents of hate crime, gang-related crime, and gang-related hate crime at school, the number of incidents reported, and the rate of incidents per 1,000 students, by selected school characteristics: School year 2007–08 School characteristic

†



Hate crime Percent Number of of schools incidents 0.34 1,452



Gang-related crime Percent Number of of schools incidents 0.47 4,447



Gang-related hate crime Percent Number Rate per of of 1,000 schools incidents students 0.17 692 0.01

259 115 131 †

0.53 0.74 1.11 †

583 1,145 463 †

0.03 0.12 0.04 †

298 162 143 †

0.61 1.05 1.18 †

2,279 2,542 2,224 †

0.10 0.26 0.18 †

† 65 57 †

† 0.42 0.48 †

† 562 367 †

† 0.06 0.03 †

162 167 170 133

0.85 0.69 0.56 1.43

275 654 1,166 472

0.07 0.07 0.06 0.03

176 140 228 144

0.92 0.58 0.76 1.55

949 657 3,063 2,597

0.24 0.07 0.15 0.19

† † 81 69

† † 0.27 0.74

† † 250 433

† † † 0.03

179 179 128 190

0.84 0.75 1.09 0.74

1,106 548 696 398

0.08 0.03 0.12 0.04

274 143 67 178

1.33 0.60 0.56 0.69

3,655 1,973 688 1,162

0.26 0.12 0.12 0.10

106 73 39 26

0.50 0.31 0.33 0.10

463 112 † †

0.03 † † †

171 113 157 189

1.26 0.54 0.77 0.68

239 509 662 1,096

0.05 0.04 0.05 0.06

39 112 151 326

0.28 0.54 0.77 1.22

49 423 851 4,257

† 0.04 0.07 0.24

† † 76 67

† † 0.38 0.25

† † 256 459

† † 0.02 0.03


Table A-5.—Standard errors for the percentage of public schools reporting selected types of disciplinary problems occurring at school daily or at least once a week, or at all, Table A-5.—by selected school characteristics: School year 2007–08


†

Student racial/ethnic tensions


Student bullying

Happens daily or at least once a week Student sexual Student Widespread harassment of verbal abuse disorder in other students of teachers classroom

Happens at all Gang activities Cult or extremist Group activities 0.88 0.36

0.49

1.11

0.39

0.48

0.45

Student acts of disrespect for teachers other than verbal abuse 0.71

0.72 0.75 0.69 2.02

1.69 1.39 1.45 3.91

0.52 0.76 0.78 †

0.73 1.01 1.20 1.40

0.59 0.90 0.76 †

1.19 1.11 1.27 1.53

1.17 1.43 1.52 3.46

0.29 0.63 0.81 2.65

1.18 0.54 0.87 0.72

2.62 2.12 1.96 2.19

1.12 0.72 0.58 0.80

1.38 0.78 0.86 1.76

1.09 0.82 0.78 1.17

1.72 1.47 1.19 1.74

1.78 1.63 1.30 2.01

0.66 0.48 0.49 1.36

1.35 0.57 0.91 0.86

2.12 2.27 3.26 1.77

0.97 0.54 0.96 0.72

1.53 0.86 0.89 0.72

1.24 0.80 0.82 0.60

2.30 1.04 1.56 0.98

2.18 1.42 1.86 1.10

0.64 0.54 1.05 0.52

0.51 0.61 0.63 1.25

2.70 2.28 1.98 2.34

0.99 0.61 0.48 0.95

1.30 0.54 0.95 1.36

0.88 0.57 0.71 1.14

1.58 0.80 1.62 1.56

0.97 1.02 1.70 1.93

† 0.59 0.55 0.60


Table A-6. Standard errors for the number and percentage of students in public schools involved in the use or possession of a weapon other than a firearm or explosive device at school receiving various disciplinary actions, by selected school characteristics: School year 2007–08


†

Disciplinary actions taken for students involved in the use or possession of a weapon other than a firearm or explosive device at school Removals without continuing Transfers to specialized schools Out-of-school suspensions lasting Other disciplinary actions services for at least the remainder 5 or more days, but less than the of the school year remainder of the school year Number of Percent of Number of Percent of Number of Percent of Number of Percent of students students students students students students students students 452 0.88 907 1.42 2,044 2.50 2,260 2.96


† 175 400 †

† 1.05 2.08 †

399 350 748 †

2.16 2.30 3.40 †

1,461 586 836 347

6.57 2.46 2.96 13.91

1,499 437 1,337 451

6.11 2.38 5.63 15.44

101 † 128 416

2.60 † 0.62 1.96

242 242 452 763

5.78 3.06 2.16 2.53

412 1,014 1,404 746

9.14 10.02 4.70 2.33

773 713 1,729 542

13.12 9.39 4.88 2.55

177 160 121 379

0.97 1.24 2.32 3.29

739 505 220 414

2.08 2.75 4.26 3.30

1,512 650 593 1,038

4.52 3.49 4.76 5.44

1,106 710 1,460 649

3.93 4.16 9.23 4.81

† 121 † 240

† 1.36 † 1.02

291 231 585 487

5.40 2.55 3.18 2.16

520 417 1,028 1,422

7.80 4.44 4.74 3.45

292 688 694 1,838

8.57 5.24 4.65 4.28


Table A-7.—Standard errors for the percentage distribution of public schools reporting selected percentages of students with a parent or guardian who attended an open house or back-to-school night or attended regularly scheduled parent-teacher conferences, by selected school characteristics: School year 2007–08



Percent of students with a parent or guardian who attended an open house or back-to-school night 0–25 26–50 51–75 76–100 percent percent percent percent School of students of students of students of students does not offer 0.54 0.96 1.22 1.39 0.41

Percent of students with a parent or guardian who attended regularly scheduled parent-teacher conferences 0–25 26–50 51–75 76–100 percent percent percent percent School of students of students of students of students does not offer 0.54 0.78 1.21 1.39 0.33

0.69 0.68 1.39 3.06

1.23 1.20 1.50 5.05

1.75 1.72 1.67 5.23

2.05 1.69 1.36 5.25

† 0.43 0.93 3.75

0.75 1.14 1.41 3.02

1.08 1.30 1.37 4.12

1.91 1.69 1.77 4.69

2.11 1.84 1.07 5.77

0.42 0.62 1.07 †

1.52 1.17 0.57 1.17

2.23 1.93 1.25 1.89

2.80 2.52 1.74 2.28

3.31 2.40 1.84 1.84

1.46 0.69 † 0.38

1.54 0.90 0.72 1.63

2.21 1.47 1.31 1.75

2.68 2.28 1.74 1.97

3.66 2.47 1.85 1.68

1.01 0.44 0.55 0.86

1.05 0.70 1.03 1.33

2.16 1.07 2.67 2.00

2.64 2.60 2.99 2.18

2.80 2.58 2.99 2.30

0.26 † 0.49 1.12

0.91 0.64 1.28 1.44

1.74 1.43 2.34 1.73

2.57 1.85 2.95 2.09

3.02 2.19 2.85 2.28

0.41 0.75 0.53 0.83

1.58 0.62 1.01 1.02

2.57 1.46 1.97 1.95

2.93 2.02 2.12 2.46

3.26 2.36 2.73 2.27

1.31 0.61 0.81 0.76

2.01 0.55 0.88 0.95

2.42 1.31 1.68 1.33

2.55 1.87 2.26 2.51

3.07 2.17 2.88 2.70

1.60 0.71 0.56 0.34

† Not applicable. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.

Table A-8. Standard errors for the percentage of public schools reporting the use of selected violence prevention program components, by selected school characteristics: School year 2007-08


0.86

Percentage of schools using selected violence prevention program components Counseling, Individual Recreational, Student Programs to social work, attention, enrichment, or involvement in promote a psychological, mentoring, leisure resolving sense of or therapeutic tutoring, or activities for student community or activity for coaching of students conduct social students students by problems integration students or among adults students 0.82 0.82 0.89 1.00 1.48 1.19

1.10 1.13 1.53 4.71

1.21 0.77 1.30 4.46

1.22 0.73 1.09 3.27

1.18 0.91 1.28 4.55

1.48 1.09 1.27 4.54

2.26 1.79 1.83 4.97

1.56 1.30 1.34 5.36

1.56 1.47 1.75 4.90

2.30 1.50 1.12 1.68

2.92 1.68 0.76 1.30

2.94 1.20 0.70 1.00

2.78 1.44 0.83 1.15

2.95 1.89 1.33 1.36

3.31 2.86 1.81 2.18

2.74 2.26 1.32 1.87

2.64 1.93 1.73 2.04

0.98 1.20 2.49 2.05

1.00 1.07 2.07 2.09

1.35 1.25 2.08 1.81

1.48 1.10 1.92 2.23

2.06 1.76 2.76 2.14

2.70 2.69 3.63 2.53

2.00 1.41 2.77 2.93

2.05 1.94 2.97 1.94

2.68 1.84

2.89 1.62

2.67 1.51

2.71 1.97

2.75 1.95

3.28 2.47

3.91 1.90

2.64 2.42

1.65

1.50

1.63

1.42

2.27

2.58

1.87

2.29

1.19

1.17

1.16

1.37

1.46

2.38

2.03

1.92

Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training for students


Behavioral or behavior modification intervention for students


Hotline or tipline for students to Report problems

1.10

Table A-9. Standard errors for the percentage of public schools that had a written plan for a specific crisis situation, by selected school characteristics: School year 2007–08 School characteristic


Shootings

Natural disasters

Hostages


1.31

0.48

1.26

0.65

Chemical, biological, or radiological threats or incidents 1.16

Suicide threat or incident

Pandemic flu

1.33

The U.S. national threat level is changed to Red (Severe Risk of Terrorist Attack) by the Department of Homeland Security 1.26

2.07 1.21 1.07 4.55

0.75 0.79 0.79 2.18

2.06 1.41 1.56 5.31

0.97 0.67 0.90 4.22

1.83 1.83 1.82 5.30

1.91 1.47 1.40 5.05

1.93 1.63 1.80 4.65

1.57 1.57 1.81 4.64

3.40 2.27 1.36 1.44

1.74 0.95 0.65 0.87

3.81 2.54 1.80 2.10

2.47 1.62 0.72 1.03

3.15 2.59 1.70 2.20

4.18 2.08 1.75 1.93

3.25 2.53 1.88 2.19

3.61 2.68 1.79 2.17

2.03 1.88 2.56 2.70

1.16 0.93 1.27 1.11

2.64 1.91 3.00 2.44

1.17 0.82 1.89 1.78

2.30 1.82 2.97 2.23

2.23 2.38 3.26 2.22

2.42 2.24 2.94 2.32

2.71 2.19 3.06 2.54

3.20 2.07 1.98 2.01

1.51 0.91 1.13 0.91

2.94 2.16 2.79 2.29

1.77 1.45 1.10 1.30

3.03 2.16 2.43 2.19

3.67 2.08 2.46 2.04

3.41 2.36 2.36 2.52

3.13 2.97 2.31 2.19


1.10

Table A-10. Standard errors for the percentage of public schools that drilled students on a written plan for a specific crisis situation, by selected school characteristics: School year 2007-08 School characteristic

Shootings

Natural disasters

Hostages 1.39

Bomb threats or incidents 1.23

Chemical, biological, or radiological threats or incidents 1.31


1.48

0.98

2.17 1.90 1.62 5.15

1.46 1.59 1.47 4.09

2.11 1.79 1.88 4.03

1.76 1.59 1.87 4.95

1.95 1.68 1.69 4.24

3.18 3.12 2.05 2.23

2.59 2.29 1.29 1.45

2.76 2.96 2.33 2.19

2.96 2.77 1.94 2.01

3.26 2.87 1.88 2.42

2.52 2.83 3.14 2.61

2.07 1.63 2.97 1.81

2.74 1.99 3.53 2.58

2.56 2.26 3.11 2.98

2.46 1.97 2.62 2.36

3.78 2.67 2.77 2.37

2.31 1.58 1.92 1.70

3.71 2.31 2.54 1.95

3.63 2.68 2.74 2.24

2.96 2.39 2.28 2.09


Table A-11. Standard errors for the percentage of public schools reporting that their efforts to reduce or prevent crime at school were limited in a major way, a minor way, or not at all, by selected factors: School year 2007–08 Factor

Lack of or inadequate teacher training in classroom management Lack of or inadequate alternative placements or programs for disruptive students Likelihood of complaints from parents Lack of teacher support for school policies Lack of parental support for school policies Teachers’ fear of student retaliation Fear of litigation Inadequate funds Inconsistent application of school policies by faculty or staff Fear of district or state reprisal Federal, state, or district policies on disciplining special education students Federal policies on discipline and safety other than those for special education students State or district policies on discipline and safety other than those for special education students

Efforts to reduce or prevent crime were limited in a major way 0.63 1.21 0.48 0.53 0.73 0.36 0.52 1.09 0.66 0.41 1.11 0.64 0.72

Efforts to reduce or prevent crime were limited in a minor way 1.21 1.39 1.10 1.17 1.15 0.98 1.23 1.33 1.44 0.96 1.30 1.40 1.36

Efforts to reduce or prevent crime were not limited at all 1.36 1.50 1.12 1.26 1.30 1.01 1.23 1.31 1.52 1.04 1.33 1.30 1.28

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008

Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools...

67

APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY AND TECHNICAL NOTES 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.

Sample Design 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. The CCD is an annual survey system of all public K–1 2 schools and school districts. Certain types of schools were excluded from the CCD file in order to meet the sampling needs of SASS: those in U.S. outlying areas3 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.4 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. The objectives of the SSOCS sampling design were twofold: to obtain overall crosssectional and subgroup estimates of important indicators of school crime and safety and to yield precise estimates of change in these indicators between 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2005–06, and 2007–08. To attain these objectives, a stratified sample of 3,484 regular public schools was drawn for SSOCS:2008 using the same general sampling design as in the previous survey administrations for stratification variables, number of strata, method of sample allocation, and sorting of variables before selection.5 As in the 2005–06 SSOCS, there was no attempt to minimize overlap between the SSOCS:2008 sample and samples for other NCES surveys.

68


The initial goal of SSOCS:2008 was to collect data from at least 2,550 schools, taking nonresponse into account. One possible method of allocating schools to the different sampling strata would have been to allocate them proportionally to the U.S. public school population. However, while the majority of U.S. public schools are primary schools, the majority of school violence is reported in middle and high schools. Proportional allocation would, therefore, have yielded an inefficient sample design because the sample composition would have included more primary schools (where crime is an infrequent event) than middle or high schools (where crime is a relatively more frequent event). As a result, a larger proportion of the target sample of 2,550 schools was allocated to middle and high schools. The target sample was allocated to the four instructional levels as follows: 640 primary schools, 895 middle schools, 915 high schools, and 100 combined schools. Schools in the 1999–2000 SSOCS (SSOCS:2000), SSOCS:2004, and SSOCS:2006 were allocated to instructional levels in a similar manner. The same variables and categories used to create strata in SSOCS:2000, SSOCS:2004, and SSOCS:2006 were used to create strata in SSOCS:2008. The population of schools was stratified (grouped) into four instructional levels,6 four types of locale settings,7,8 and four enrollment size categories.9 These variables were chosen because they have been shown to be associated with school crime (Miller 2004). The sample of schools in each instructional level was allocated to each of the 16 cells formed by the cross-classification of the four categories of enrollment size and four types of locale. In order to obtain a reasonable sample size of lower enrollment schools while giving a higher probability of selection to higher enrollment schools, the sample was allocated to each subgroup in proportion to the sum of the square roots of the total student enrollment in each school in that stratum. The effective sample size within each stratum was then inflated to account for nonresponse. Once the final sample sizes were determined for each of the 64 strata, the subgroups were sorted by region10 and percent minority enrollment, and an initial sample of 3,484 schools was selected. Sorting by these variables before selection has the same effect as stratification with proportional allocation of schools to the strata. For more information on the sample design, see chapter 2 of the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2007–08 Data File User’s Manual (Ruddy et al. forthcoming).

Data Collection SSOCS:2008 was conducted as a mail survey with telephone follow-up. Four months before the onset of data collection, NCES began working with the school districts of sampled schools that required prior approval to participate in the survey. On February 19, 2008, school administrators of sampled schools were sent advance letters that included the date of the first questionnaire mailing and a toll-free number to call with any questions. Upon distribution of the advance letters, letters were mailed to chief state school officers and superintendents to inform them that schools within their states and districts, respectively, had been selected for SSOCS:2008. The letters included information about the survey and were accompanied by a promotional SSOCS pen, an informational copy of the questionnaire, and the SSOCS brochure. The letters were not designed to request permission from these officials to participate in the survey, but rather as a vehicle to enhance participation.


69

On February 25–26, 2008, questionnaires were sent via FedEx directly to the principals of the sampled schools, with a cover letter describing the importance of the survey, a promotional SSOCS pen, and a CD-ROM of the Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2008. See appendix D for a copy of the questionnaire. During the two weeks following the first questionnaire mailing, a screener telephone operation was conducted to verify that each sampled school had received the questionnaire and was, in fact, eligible to participate. Two weeks after the screener ended, a reminder telephone operation began, which was conducted in two 1-week phases. The primary objective of the reminder operation was to follow up with the principal or school contact to determine the status of the questionnaire; however, during the second week, the interviewer could complete the SSOCS interview over the phone at the respondent’s request. Returned questionnaires were examined for quality and completeness using both manual and computerized edits. If a questionnaire did not meet predetermined levels of completeness, the respondent was contacted again to resolve issues related to the missing data, irrespective of whether the items missing data were considered ―critical.‖11 The criteria used to determine completeness are detailed in section 3.1 of the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 200 7–08 Data File User’s Manual (Ruddy et al. forthcoming). Data collection ended on June 18, 2008. If a satisfactory resolution could not be reached, imputation was used to resolve data quality issues for questionnaires in which at least 60 percent of all items,12 80 percent of critical items, 60 percent of item 16, and 60 percent of item 22 had been completed. Questionnaires that did not meet the imputation criteria were considered incomplete and are excluded from the analyses in this chapter.

Weighting Sample weights allow inferences to be made about the population from which the sample units were drawn. Because of the complex nature of the SSOCS:2008 sample design, weights are necessary to obtain population-based estimates, to minimize bias arising from differences between responding and nonresponding schools, and to calibrate the data to known population characteristics in a way that reduces sampling error. The procedures used to create the SSOCS sampling weights are described below. An initial (base) weight was first determined within each stratum by calculating the ratio of the number of schools available in the sampling frame to the number of schools selected. In order to reduce the potential of bias from nonresponse, weighting classes were determined by using a statistical algorithm similar to CHAID (chi-square automatic interaction detector) to partition the sample so that schools within a weighting class were homogenous with respect to the probability of responding. The predictor variables for the analysis were school instructional level, locale, region, enrollment size, percent minority enrollment, student-toteacher ratio, percentage of students eligible for free or reduced- price lunch, and number of full-time-equivalent teachers. When the number of responding schools in a class was small, that weighting class was combined with another class to avoid the possibility of large weights. After combining the necessary classes, the base weights were adjusted to produce nonresponse adjusted weights so that the weighted distribution of the responding schools resembled the initial distribution of the total sample.

70


The nonresponse-adjusted weights were then calibrated to agree with known population counts obtained from the sampling frame to reduce bias in the estimates due to undercoverage. The calibration process, a form of poststratification, separates the sample into a number of classes (poststrata) defined by a cross-classification of variables. The known population counts may be available for the individual cells of the cross- classification or only for certain margins of it. In the latter situation, the calibration proceeds iteratively, one margin at a time, and is often called ―raking.‖ Poststratification works well when the noncovered population is similar to the covered population in each poststratum. Thus, to be effective, the variables that define the poststrata must be correlated with the outcome of interest (school crime, in this chapter). They must also be well measured in the survey, and the control totals must be available for the population as a whole. As in SSOCS:2006, these requirements were satisfied in SSOCS:2008 by the two margins set up for the raking ratio adjustment of the weights: (1) instructional level and school enrollment size; and (2) instructional level and locale. All three variables— instructional level, school enrollment size, and locale—have been shown to be correlated with school crime (Miller 2004).

Imputation Procedures Files containing missing data can be problematic because, depending on how the missing data are treated, analysis of incomplete datasets may cause different users to arrive at different conclusions. Another problem with missing data is that certain groups of respondents may be more likely than others to leave some survey items unanswered, creating bias in the survey estimates. Completed SSOCS:2008 surveys contained some level of item nonresponse after the conclusion of the data collection phase, and imputation procedures were used to create values for all questionnaire items with missing information. The imputation methods utilized in SSOCS:2008 were tailored to the nature of the survey item. Four methods were used: aggregate proportions, best match, logical, and clerical. These methods are described in detail in section 4.4 of the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2007–08 Data File User’s Manual (Ruddy et al. forthcoming).

Unit Response Rates A unit response rate is, at its most basic level, the ratio of surveys completed by eligible respondents to the total count of eligible respondents. In some surveys, this calculation can be rather complicated because it is difficult to distinguish between eligible and ineligible units. For school surveys, however, the Department of Education updates its list of known schools on a fairly regular basis, so estimating eligibility among nonrespondents is relatively straightforward. Unit response rates can be unweighted or weighted and are traditionally reported because they reflect the potential effects of nonsampling error and indicate whether portions of the population are underrepresented due to nonresponse. In order to calculate any of these measures, it is first necessary to know the disposition (outcome) of each sampled case. Table B-1 shows the dispositions of the 3,484 cases initially selected for participation in


71

SSOCS:2008, as well as the unweighted and weighted unit response rates by selected school characteristics.13 The overall weighted14 unit response rate was 77 percent. Table B1. Unweighted and weighted unit response rates, by selected school characteristics: School year 2007–08 School characteristic

1

Initial sample

Total 3,484 Level Primary 833 Middle 1,214 High school 1,295 Combined 142 Enrollment size Less than 300 371 300–499 630 500–999 1,318 1,000 or more 1,165 Urbanicity City 1,046 Suburb 1,151 Town 469 Rural 818 Percent minority enrollment Less than 5 427 percent 5 to less than 20 892 percent 20 to less than 50 895 percent 50 percent or more 1,270 Region Northeast 597 Midwest 832 South 1,274 West 781

Completed survey1

Nonrespondents2

Ineligible3

2,560

872

618 897 936 109

52

Unweighted response rate (percent)4 74.6

Weighted response rate (percent)5 77.2

200 297 347 28

15 20 12 5

75.6 75.1 73.0 79.6

77.0 77.0 76.2 80.8

285 486 992 797

60 131 315 366

26 13 11 2

82.6 78.8 75.9 68.5

83.3 76.7 76.2 68.6

679 814 390 677

335 329 70 138

32 8 9 3

67.0 71.2 84.8 83.1

69.4 73.1 84.6 83.9

353

70

4

83.5

84.3

707

181

4

79.6

80.8

656

231

8

74.0

76.7

844

390

36

68.4

71.4

399 648 950 563

189 168 304 211

9 16 20 7

67.9 79.4 75.8 72.7

69.5 80.8 79.7 74.6

In SSOCS:2008, A minimum of 60 percent of the 241 subitems eligible for recontact (i.e., all subitems in the questionnaire except for the seven introductory items) were required to have been answered for a survey to be considered complete, including a minimum of 80 percent of the 103 critical subitems. 2 Nonrespondents include 94 schools whose districts denied permission to NCES and those eligible schools that either did not respond or responded but did not answer the minimum number of items required for the survey to be considered complete. 3 Ineligible schools include those that had closed, merged with another school at a new location, or changed from a regular public school to an alternative school. 4 The unweighted response rate is calculated as the following ratio: completed cases / (total sample known ineligibles). 5 The weighted response rate is calculated by applying the base sampling rates to the following ratio: completed cases / (total sample - known ineligibles). Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS:2008).

72


Analysis of Unit Nonresponse Bias The existence of nonresponding schools has the potential to introduce bias into survey estimates, depending on the magnitude of the nonresponse and whether differences exist between responding and nonresponding schools in characteristics related to the estimates of interest. A unit-level nonresponse bias analysis was conducted to evaluate the extent of this bias in SSOCS:2008. Responding and nonresponding schools were compared across the characteristics available for both groups: instructional level, enrollment size, type of locale, percent minority enrollment, region, number of full-time-equivalent teachers, student-toteacher ratio, and percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. This analysis indicated that there were no measurable differences between the responding schools and the full sample of schools, leading to the conclusion that nonresponse bias is not an issue. For more information on the analysis of unit nonresponse, please see section 3.6 of the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2007–08 Data File User’s Manual (Ruddy et al. forthcoming).

Item Response Rates Just as principals sometimes chose not to respond to the SSOCS:2008 survey request, those that did respond occasionally chose not to answer all of the survey items. Unweighted item response rates are calculated by dividing the number of sampled schools responding to an item by the number of schools asked to respond to the item. Weighted15 item-level response rates in SSOCS:2008 were generally high, ranging from 72 to 100 percent. Of the 241 subitems in the SSOCS questionnaire (i.e., all subitems except for the seven introductory items), most (199) had response rates greater than 95 percent, 29 had response rates between 85 and 95 percent, and 13 had response rates less than 85 percent. The 13 subitems with response rates less than 85 percent are listed below:             

C0234–Number of part-time security guards C0236–Number of full-time school resource officers C0238–Number of part-time school resource officers C0240–Number of full-time sworn law enforcement officers C0242–Number of part-time sworn law enforcement officers C0326–Number of physical attacks or fights with a weapon C0330–Number of physical attacks or fights without a weapon C0408–Out-of-school suspension or removal for less than the remainder of the school year with no curriculum/services provided was used this school year C0542–Number of paid part-time special education teachers C0546–Number of paid part-time special education aides C0550–Number of paid part-time regular classroom teachers C0554–Number of paid part-time regular classroom aides/paraprofessionals C0558–Number of paid part-time counselors


73

Analysis of Item Nonresponse Bias For all items with response rates below 85 percent, an item-level bias analysis was performed to determine the extent to which schools that did not answer the item differed from schools that did answer the item. This analysis was done because differences between the schools that did and did not respond to an item can lead to bias in estimates. The magnitude of item nonresponse bias is determined by factors including the level of item response, the differences between item respondents and item nonrespondents on a survey item, and the distribution of item responses across categories of auxiliary variables. Because the values of the survey items are not known for item nonrespondents, the distributions of eight sampling frame variables16 were compared between the nonrespondents and respondents for the 13 subitems with response rates of less than 85 percent. In addition, item medians were examined to determine if variation exists in responses between the categories of the eight sampling frame variables. The susceptibility to bias was also considered within each item by examining the effects of extreme outliers on the estimates. Among the items examined, 12 (C0234, C0236, C0238, C0240, C0242, C0326, C0408, C0542, C0546, C0550, C0554, C0558) were identified as having negligible nonresponse bias. The other item (C0330, total number of physical attacks or fights without a weapon) had statistically significant differences in its distributions across most of the key variables examined, and had statistically significant differences in its distributions of responses across categories of the eight sampling frame variables. The distributions between respondents and the sample for survey items associated with item C0330 were then examined. Based on these analyses, it was determined that the increased potential for bias in this item was not enough to warrant its exclusion from the data file. More detailed information on the analysis of item nonresponse, including the specific comparisons that were significant in the tests outlined above, is available in the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 200 7–08 Data File User’s Manual (Ruddy et al. forthcoming).

Sampling Variability Estimates derived from a probability sample are subject to sampling error because only a small fraction of the target population is surveyed. In surveys with complex sampling designs, such as SSOCS:2008, estimates of standard errors that assume simple random sampling typically underestimate the variability in the point estimates. The standard errors in this chapter were produced using the jackknife replication method. The standard errors for a range of survey estimates can be computed by using a statistical package such as SAS, Stata, or SUDAAN. For guidance on how to produce survey estimates and their related standard errors using SSOCS data, please see sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2007–08 Data File User’s Manual (Ruddy et al. forthcoming).

74


Statistical Tests The tests of significance used in this analysis are based on Student’s t statistic at the .05 level. Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not included. The t statistic between estimates from various subgroups presented in the tables can be computed by using the following formula:

where x1 and x2 are the estimates to be compared (e.g., the means of sample members in two groups) and SE1 and SE2 are their corresponding standard errors. Due to the large sample size, many differences (no matter how substantively minor) are statistically significant; thus, only differences of 5 percentage points or more between groups are mentioned in the findings. Certain characteristics discussed in this chapter may be related to one another, but this analysis does not control for such possible relationships. Therefore, no causal inferences should be made when reading these results.

REFERENCES Miller, A. K. (2004). Violence in U.S. Public Schools: 2000 School Survey on Crime and Safety (NCES 2004-314 REVISED). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Ruddy, S., Bauer, L., Swaim, N. L., Thomas, T. L. & Parmer, R. J. (forthcoming). School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2007–08 Data File User’s Manual (NCES 2009-311). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

APPENDIX C: DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES Several variables from the 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS:2008) were used to produce the tables in this chapter. Listed first are the school characteristic, or row, variables that appear in all tables in this chapter (except table 11). These variables have been ordered as they appear in the tables. Listed after the school characteristics are the column variables for each table.

School Characteristic (Row) Variables School Level (FR_LVEL): This variable was created using the 2005–06 Common Core of Data (CCD) Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe data file. Schools are classified as primary schools, middle schools, high schools, or combined schools, based on the low grade and high grade. ―Primary schools‖ are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. ―Middle schools‖ are


75

defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. ―High schools‖ are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 12. ―Combined schools‖ include all other combinations of grades not included in the three former categories, including K–12 schools. Enrollment Size (FR_SIZE): The enrollment classification categories were created using the school enrollment data in the 2005–06 CCD Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe data file. The enrollment size categories are (1) less than 300 students, (2) 300– 499 students, (3) 500–999 students, and (4) 1,000 or more students. Urbanicity (FR_URBAN):17 This collapsed variable was constructed from a variable in the 2005–06 CCD Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe data file that is composed of 12 categories. In order for the sample size to be large enough in each cell, and to be consistent with prior reports, the 12 categories were collapsed into a four-level urbanicity variable with the values ―city,‖ ―suburb,‖ ―town,‖ and ―rural,‖ according to the following criteria: City: 1118 = Large: Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with a population of 250,000 or more. 12 = Midsize: Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with a population less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to 100,000. 13 = Small: Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with a population less than 100,000. Suburb: 21 = Large: Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with a population of 250,000 or more. 22 = Midsize: Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with a population less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to 100,000. 23 = Small: Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with a population less than 100,000. Town: 31 = Fringe: Territory inside an urban cluster that is less than or equal to 10 miles from an urbanized area. 32 = Distant: Territory inside an urban cluster that is more than 10 miles and less than or equal to 35 miles from an urbanized area. 33 = Remote: Territory inside an urban cluster that is more than 35 miles from an urbanized area. Rural: 41 = Fringe: 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.

76

United States Department of Education 42 = Distant: 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 or equal to 10 miles from an urban cluster. 43 = Remote: Census-defined rural territory that is more than 25 miles from an urbanized area and is also more than 10 miles from an urban cluster.

Percent Minority Enrollment (FR_CATMN): The percent minority enrollment classification categories were created using the school enrollment data in the 2005–06 CCD Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe data file. The percent minority enrollment size categories are (1) less than 5 percent, (2) 5 to less than 20 percent, (3) 20 to less than 50 percent, and (4) 50 percent or more. Region (CENRGN): As defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. This variable was created during sampling from the 2005–06 CCD Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe data file variable FIPS (Federal Information Processing Standard): 1 = Northeast, 2 = Midwest, 3 = South, and 4 = West. For a list of states in each region category, please see section 5.7 of the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2007–08 Data File User’s Manual (Ruddy et al. forthcoming).

Column Variables Table 1 Violent incidents recorded (C0310, C0314, C0318, C0322, C0326, C0330, C0334, C0338): This information is taken directly from questions 16a_1–eii_1 in the SSOCS 2008 questionnaire. A total count of violent incidents recorded was obtained by adding the number of recorded rapes (C0310), sexual batteries other than rape (C0314), robberies with a weapon (C03 18), robberies without a weapon (C0322), physical attacks or fights with a weapon (C0326), physical attacks or fights without a weapon (C0330), threats of physical attack with a weapon (C0334), and threats of physical attack without a weapon (C0338) at each school. Serious violent incidents recorded (C031 0, C0314, C0318, C0322, C0326, C0334): This information is taken directly from questions 16a_1–di_1, and 16ei_1 in the SSOCS 2008 questionnaire. A total count of serious violent incidents recorded was obtained by adding the number of recorded rapes (C0310), sexual batteries other than rape (C0314), robberies with a weapon (C03 18), robberies without a weapon (C0322), physical attacks or fights with a weapon (C0326), and threats of physical attack with a weapon (C0334) at each school. Thefts recorded (C0342): This information is taken directly from item 1 6f1 in the SSOCS:2008 questionnaire. Theft/larceny (taking things worth over $10 without personal confrontation) was defined for respondents as ―the unlawful taking of another person’s property without personal confrontation, threat, violence, or bodily harm. This includes pocket picking, stealing a 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 [of] motor vehicle parts or accessories, theft of a bicycle, theft from a vending machine, and all other types of thefts.‖


77

Other incidents recorded (C0346, C0350, C0354, C0358, C0362): A total count of other incidents recorded was obtained by adding the number of incidents of possession of a firearm or explosive device (C0346); possession of a knife or sharp object (C0350); distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs (C0354); distribution, possession, or use of alcohol (C0358); and vandalism (C0362).

Table 2 Threats of physical attack with a weapon recorded (C0334): This information is taken directly from item 16ei_1 in the SSOCS:2008 questionnaire. ―Physical attack or fight‖ was defined for respondents as ―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.‖ ―Weapon‖ was defined for respondents as ―any instrument or object used with the intent to threaten, injure, or kill. This includes look-alikes if they are used to threaten others.‖ Threats of physical attack without a weapon recorded (C0338): This information is taken directly from item 16eii_1 in the SSOCS:2008 questionnaire. ―Physical attack or fight‖ was defined for respondents as ―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.‖ ―Weapon‖ was defined for respondents as ―any instrument or object used with the intent to threaten, injure, or kill. This includes look-alikes if they are used to threaten others.‖ Robberies with a weapon recorded (C0318): This information is taken directly from item 16ci_1 in the SSOCS:2008 questionnaire. ―Robbery‖ was defined for respondents as ―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 robbery involves a threat or battery.‖ ―Weapon‖ was defined for respondents as ―any instrument or object used with the intent to threaten, injure, or kill. This includes look-alikes if they are used to threaten others.‖ Robberies without a weapon recorded (C0322): This information is taken directly from item 16cii_1 in the SSOCS:2008 questionnaire. ―Robbery‖ was defined for respondents as ―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 robbery involves a threat or battery.‖ ―Weapon‖ was defined for respondents as ―any instrument or object used with the intent to threaten, injure, or kill. This includes look-alikes if they are used to threaten others.‖

Table 3 Incidents of distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs recorded (C0354): The count of incidents of distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs recorded is taken directly from item 16i1 in the SSOCS:2008 questionnaire.

78


Incidents of distribution, possession, or use of alcohol recorded (C0358): The count of incidents of distribution, possession, or use of alcohol recorded is taken directly from item 16j1 in the SSOCS:2008 questionnaire. Incidents of vandalism recorded (C0362): The count of incidents of vandalism recorded is taken directly from item 16k1 in the SSOCS:2008 questionnaire. ―Vandalism‖ was defined for respondents as ―the willful damage or destruction of school property including bombing, arson, graffiti, and other acts that cause property damage. This includes damage caused by computer hacking.‖

Table 4 Hate crime (C0366): This information is taken directly from item 17a in the SSOCS:2008 questionnaire. A ―hate crime‖ was defined for respondents as ―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.‖ Gang-related crime (C0368): This information is taken directly from item 17b in the SSOCS:2008 questionnaire. A ―gang‖ was defined for respondents as ―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.‖ Gang-related hate crime (C0369): This information is taken directly from item 17c in the SSOCS:2008 questionnaire. A ―hate crime‖ was defined for respondents as ―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.‖ A ―gang‖ was defined for respondents as ―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.‖

Table 5 Disciplinary problems (C03 74, C03 76, C03 78, C0380, C0382, C0384, C0386, C0388): This information is taken directly from items 20a–h in the SSOCS:2008 questionnaire. Disciplinary problems include student racial/ethnic tensions, student bullying, student sexual harassment of other students, student verbal abuse of teachers, widespread disorder in classrooms, student acts of disrespect for teachers other than verbal abuse, gang activities, and cult or extremist group activities. Table 6 Disciplinary actions (C0460, C0462, C0464, C0466, C0470, C0472, C0474, C0476, C0480, C0482, C0484, C0486, C0490, C0492, C0494, C0496, C0500, C0502, C0504, C0506, C0510, C0512, C0514, C0516): This information is taken directly from items 22a2–5, 22b2–5, 22c2–5, 22d2–5, 22e2–5, and 22f2–5 in the SSOCS:2008 questionnaire. Disciplinary


79

actions include removals with no continuing services for at least the remainder of the school year; transfers to specialized schools; out-of-school suspensions lasting 5 or more days, but less than the remainder of the school year; and ―other‖ disciplinary actions (suspension for less than 5 days, detention, etc.).

Table 7 Parental involvement in school events (C0196, C0198): This information is taken directly from items 5a–b in the SSOCS:2008 questionnaire. Respondents were asked to estimate the percentage of students with at least one parent or guardian who attended an open house or back-to-school night (C0196) or regularly scheduled parent-teacher conferences (C01 98). A value of ―1‖ for each of these items indicates that 0–25 percent of students had a parent or guardian who participated in the specified event. A value of ―2‖ indicates that 26–50 percent of students had a parent or guardian who participated in the specified event. A value of ―3‖ indicates that 51–75 percent of students had a parent or guardian who participated in the specified event. A value of ―4‖ indicates that 76–100 percent of students had a parent or guardian who participated in the specified event. A value of ―5‖ indicates that the school does not offer the specified event. Table 8 Use of violence prevention program components (C01 74, C01 76, C01 78, C0180, C0182, C0184, C0186, C0188): This information is taken directly from items 3a–h in the SSOCS:2008 questionnaire. Violence prevention program components include prevention curriculum, instruction, or training for students (C0 174); behavioral or behavior modification intervention for students (C0 176); counseling, social work, psychological, or therapeutic activity for students (C0 178); individual attention/mentoring/tutoring/coaching of students by students or adults (C0 180); recreational, enrichment, or leisure activities for students (C01 82); student involvement in resolving student conduct problems (C01 84); programs to promote a sense of community/social integration among students (C01 86); and a hotline/tipline for students to report problems (C01 88). Respondents were asked whether their schools had any of the aforementioned formal programs intended to prevent or reduce violence. A ―yes‖ response to each of these items was coded with a value of ―1,‖ and a ―no‖ response was coded with a value of ―2.‖ Table 9 Schools with a written plan for responding to a specific crisis situation (C0154, C0158, C0162, C0166, C0170, C0169, C0171, C0173): This information is taken directly from items 2a_1–h_1 in the SSOCS:2008 questionnaire. Respondents were asked if their school had a written plan for the following: shootings (C0154); natural disasters (C0158); hostages (C0162); bomb threats or incidents (C0166); chemical, biological, or radiological threats or incidents (C0 170); suicide threats or incidents (C0 169); the U.S. national threat level is changed to Red by the Department of Homeland Security (C0171); and pandemic flu (C0 173). A ―yes‖ response to each of these items was coded with a value of ―1,‖ and a ―no‖ response was coded with a value of ―2.‖

80


Table 10 Schools that drilled students on a written plan for responding to a specific crisis situation (C0156, C0160, C0164, C0168, C0172): This information is taken directly from items 2a_2– e_2 in the SSOCS:2008 questionnaire. If respondents indicated that their school had a written plan for a specific crisis, they were subsequently asked to indicate whether the students at their school were drilled on the plan during school year 2007–08. Respondents were asked if their students had been drilled on the following: shootings (C0156), natural disasters (C0160), hostages (C0164), bomb threats or incidents (C0168), and chemical, biological, or radiological threats or incidents (C0 172). A ―yes‖ response to each of these items was coded with a value of ―1,‖ and a ―no‖ response was coded with a value of ―2.‖ Table 11 Limitations on crime prevention (C0280, C0282, C0284, C0286, C0288, C0290, C0292, C0294, C0296, C0298, C0300, C0302, C0304): This information is taken directly from items 13a–m in the SSOCS:2008 questionnaire. Respondents were asked to what extent the following factors limited their school’s efforts to reduce or prevent crime: lack of or inadequate teacher training in classroom management (C0280); lack of or inadequate alternative placements/programs for disruptive students (C0282); likelihood of complaints from parents (C0284); lack of teacher support for school policies (C0286); lack of parental support for school policies (C0288); teachers’ fear of student retaliation (C0290); fear of litigation (C0292); inadequate funds (C0294); inconsistent application of school policies by faculty or staff (C0296); fear of district or state reprisal (C0298); federal, state, or district policies on disciplining special education students (C0300); other federal policies on discipline and safety (C0302); and other state or district policies on discipline and safety (C0304). A value of ―1‖ for any of these items indicates that the factor limits crime prevention in a ―major way‖ at the respondent’s school, a value of ―2‖ indicates that the factor limits crime prevention in a ―minor way,‖ and a value of ―3‖ indicates that the factor does not limit crime prevention.


APPENDIX D: 2007–08 SCHOOL SURVEY ON CRIME AND SAFETY QUESTIONNAIRE

81

82



83

84



85

86



87

88



89

90



91

92



93

94



95

96



97

98



99

Endnotes 1

The School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) includes public charter schools, but excludes special education schools, vocational schools, alternative schools (e.g., adult continuing education schools and remedial

100


schools), newly closed schools, home schools, ungraded schools, schools with a high grade of kindergarten or lower, overseas Department of Defense schools, schools sponsored by the Bureau of Indian Education, schools in the U.S. outlying areas and Puerto Rico, and other nonregular schools. 2 Violent incidents include rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with or without a weapon, threat of physical attack with or without a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. 1 The U.S. outlying areas include the following: America Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 2 ―Nonregular‖ schools include cases of schools-within-schools, which were found in Minnesota and Georgia. 3 Adopting the same basic design for all survey administrations increases the precision of the estimates of change. 4 The four instructional levels are primary, middle, high, and combined. 5 The four types of locales are city, suburb, town, and rural. 6 Starting with the 2007–08 SSOCS, a 12-cateogry urban-centric CCD locale variable was collapsed into the following 4 categories: city, suburb, town, and rural. Prior SSOCS collections used an 8-cateogry CCD variable, which was collapsed into the following 4 categories: city, urban fringe, town, and rural. 7 The four categories of enrollment size are less than 300 students, 300–499 students, 500–999 students, and 1,000 students or more. 8 The four regions are the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. 9 The critical items in SSOCS:2008 included all subitems associated with items 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, and 33. 10 All subitems on the questionnaire except for the seven introductory items. 11 While it is reasonable to assume that the ineligible rate among nonrespondents is not zero, a zero ineligibility rate was assumed when calculating the unweighted and weighted response rates. This is the most conservative approach. 12 The weighted response rate is calculated by applying the base sampling rates to the following ratio: completed cases / (total sample - known ineligibles). 13 Base weights were used to calculate item response rates. 14 The eight 2005–06 CCD frame variables used in this analysis are instructional level, school enrollment size, locale, percent minority enrollment, region, number of full-time-equivalent teachers, student-to-teacher ratio, and percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. 15 The 12-category urbanicity variable used for SSOCS:2008 is new to the 2005–06 CCD Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe data file. In previous SSOCS administrations, an eight-category CCD variable was used to create the urbanicity variable. Caution should be exercised when making direct comparisons to prior SSOCS collections. 16 The number at the beginning of each urbanicity category represents the 2-digit urban-centric code given as the value assigned to the category in the CCD data file.



Chapter 4

INDICATORS OF SCHOOL CRIME AND SAFETY: 2009



United States Department of Education EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Our nation’s schools should be safe havens for teaching and learning, free of crime and violence. Any instance of crime or violence at school not only affects the individuals involved, but also may disrupt the educational process and affect bystanders, the school itself, and the surrounding community (Henry 2000). Ensuring safer schools requires establishing good indicators of the current state of school crime and safety across the nation and regularly updating and monitoring these indicators. This is the aim of Indicators of School Crime and Safety. 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 2006 to 2007–08. 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 chapter are statistically significant at the .05 level. Additional information about methodology and the datasets analyzed in this chapter may be found in appendix A. This chapter 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.



This is an edited, reformatted and augmented version of a U. S. Department of Education publication dated December 2006.

102


KEY FINDINGS In the 20 07–08 school year, an estimated 55.7 million students were enrolled in prekindergarten through grade 12 (Snyder, Dillow, and Hoffman 2009). Preliminary data show that among youth ages 5–18, there were 43 school-associated violent deaths1 from July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008 (Indicator 1). In 2007, among students ages 12–18, there were about 1.5 million victims of nonfatal crimes at school,2 including 826,800 thefts3 and 684,100 violent crimes4 (simple assault and serious violent crime5) (Indicator 2). During the 2007–08 school year, 85 percent of public schools recorded that at least one violent crime, theft, or other crime occurred at their school (Indicator 6). The following section presents key findings from each section of the report.

Violent Deaths 

From July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008, there were 21 homicides and 5 suicides of school-age youth (ages 5–18) at school (Indicator 1), or about 1 homicide or suicide of a school-age youth at school per 2.1 million students enrolled during the 2007–08 school year.

Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization 











In 2007, students ages 12–18 were victims of about 1.5 million nonfatal crimes (theft3 plus violent crime4) while they were at school,6 compared to about 1.1 million nonfatal crimes while they were away from school (Indicator 2). In 2007, the rates for theft3 and violent crime4 were higher at school than away from school. In that year, students were victims of 31 thefts per 1,000 students at school, compared to 21 thefts per 1,000 students away from school. At school there were 26 violent crimes per 1,000 students, compared to 20 violent crimes per 1,000 students away from school (Indicator 2). Although there was an overall decline in the victimization rates for students ages 12– 18 at school between 1992 and 2007, there was no measurable difference in the rate of crime at school between 2004 and 2007. Between 1992 and 2007 the rate of crime for students away from school declined (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 In 2007, 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). Higher percentages of Black students (10 percent) and Hispanic students (9 percent) reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property than White

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2009





103

students (7 percent) and American Indian/Alaska Native students (6 percent) (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,3 and 67 percent recorded one or more other incidents.7 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).

104

United States Department of Education 









In 2007, 22 percent of all students in grades 9–12 reported that someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property in the past 12 months (Indicator 9). Ten percent of students ages 12–18 reported that someone at school had used haterelated 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 of students said they were tried to make 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 vs. 33 percent) and student tardiness and class cutting (45 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 vs. 79 percent) and by the principal in their school (86 vs. 89 percent).

Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances 



In 2007, 36 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported they had been in a fight anywhere, and 12 percent said they had been in a fight on school property during the preceding 12 months (Indicator 13). In the same year, 44 percent of males said they had been in a fight anywhere, compared to 27 percent of females, and 16 percent of males said they had been in a fight on school property, compared to 9 percent of females. Eighteen percent of students in grades 9–12 in 2007 reported they had carried a weapon8 anywhere, and 6 percent reported they had carried a weapon on school property during the previous 30 days (Indicator 14). There were at least three times as many males as females who reported carrying a weapon—either anywhere or on school property—in all survey years. In 2007, for example, 9 percent of males carried a weapon on school property, compared to 3 percent of females, and 29 percent of males carried a weapon anywhere, compared to 7 percent of females.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2009 



105

In 2007, 45 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported having consumed at least one drink of alcohol anywhere, and 4 percent reported having consumed at least one drink on school property during the previous 30 days (Indicator 15). Twenty percent of students in grades 9–12 in 2007 reported using marijuana anywhere during the past 30 days, and 4 percent reported using marijuana on school property during this period (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 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) (Indicator 20).

106

United States Department of Education 





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 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 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.

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 Chapter Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2009 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,


107

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.9 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.

Data The indicators in this chapter are based on information drawn from a variety of independent data Sources, including national surveys of students, teachers, and principals and universe data collections from federal departments and agencies, including BJS, NCES, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Each data Source has an independent sample design, data collection method, and questionnaire design, or is the result of a universe data collection. The combination of multiple, independent Sources of data provides a broad perspective on school crime and safety that could not be achieved through any single Source of information. However, readers should be cautious when comparing data from different Sources. While every effort has been made to keep key definitions consistent across indicators, differences in sampling procedures, populations, time periods, and question phrasing can all affect the comparability of results. For example, both Indicators 20 and 21 report data on select security and safety measures used in schools. Indicator 20 uses data collected from a survey of public school principals about safety and security practices used in their schools during the 20 07-08 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 chapter. Several indicators in this chapter 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

108


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 chapter 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 is no longer presenting trend information. Where data from samples are reported, as is the case with most of the indicators in this chapter, the standard error is calculated for each estimate provided in order to determine the ―margin of error‖ for these estimates. The standard errors of the estimates for different subpopulations in an indicator can vary considerably and should be taken into account when making comparisons. Throughout this chapter, in cases where the standard error was at least 30 percent of the associated estimate, the estimates were noted with a ―!‖ symbol (interpret data with caution). In cases where the standard error was greater than 50 percent of the associated estimate, the estimate was suppressed. See appendix A for more information. The comparisons in the text have been tested for statistical significance to ensure that the differences are larger than might be expected due to sampling variation. Unless otherwise noted, all statements cited in the report are statistically significant at the .05 level. Several test procedures were used, depending upon the type of data being analyzed and the nature of the statement being tested. The primary test procedure used in this chapter 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 chapter contains descriptions of all the datasets used in this chapter and a discussion of how standard errors were calculated for each estimate.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2009 Survey National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) The School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study (SAVD) School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey School Survey onCrime and Safety(SSOCS) Schools and StaffingSurvey (SASS) Supplementary Homicide Reports(SHR) Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting SystemFatal Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System(YRBSS)

Sample

Year of survey

Reference time period Incidents occurring during the calendar year1

109 Indicators

Individuals age 12 or older living in households and group quarters Universe

1992–2007 Annually 1992 through 2008 continuous

July 1 through June 30

1

Students ages 12–18 enrolled in public and private schools during the school year2

1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007

Incidents during the school year2

3, 8, 10, 11, 17, and 18

Public primary, middle, and high schools3 Public and private school K–12 teachers

1999–2000, 2003– 04, 2005–06, and 2007–08 1993–94,1999– 2000, 2003–04, and 2007–08 1992 through 2007 continuous 1992 through 2006 Continuous

1999–2000, 2003–04, 2005–06, and 2007– 08 school years Incidents during the previous 12 months July 1 through June 30 Calendar year

1

1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007

Incidents during the previous 12 months

4, 9, and 13

Incidents during the previous 30 days

14, 15, and 16

Universe Universe Students enrolled in grades 9–12 in public and private schools at the time of the survey

1

Not specified

2

21 6, 7, 19, and 20 5, 12

1

Respondents in the NCVS are interviewed every 6 months and asked about incidents that occurred in the past 6 months. 2 In 2007, the reference period was the school year. In all other survey years, the reference period was the previous 6 months. Cognitive testing showed that estimates from 2007 are comparable to previous years. For more information, please see appendix A. 3 Either school principals or the person most knowledgeable about discipline issues at school completed the SSOCS questionnaire. Figure A. Nationally representative sample and universe surveys used in this chapter.

VIOLENT DEATHS Indicator 1. Violent Deaths at School and Away From School The percentage of youth homicides occurring at school remained at less than 2 percent of the total number of youth homicides over all available survey years even though the absolute number of homicides of school- age youth at school varied across the years. Violent deaths at schools are rare but tragic events with far-reaching effects on the school population and surrounding community. From July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008, there were 43 school- associated violent deaths in elementary and secondary schools in the United States (figure 1.1 and tables 1.1 and 1.2). In this indicator, a school-associated violent death is

110


defined as ―a homicide, suicide, legal intervention (involving a law enforcement officer), or unintentional firearm-related death in which the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school in the United States.‖ Victims of schoolassociated violent deaths include students, staff members, and others who are not students. 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 43 student, staff, and nonstudent schoolassociated violent deaths occurring between July 1, 2007, and June 30, 2008, 36 were homicides, 6 were suicides, and 1 was a legal intervention (table 1.2). Data for schoolassociated violent deaths for the 2007–08 school year are preliminary.10 Table 1.1. Number of School-Associated Violent Deaths, Homicides, and Suicides of Youth Ages 5–18, by Location and Year: 1992–2008

Year 1992–93 1993–94 1994–95 1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08

Total student, staff, and nonstudent schoolassociated violent deaths1 57 48 48 53 48 57 47 385 335 385 355 455 515 435 585 435

Homicides of youth ages 5–18 Homicides at school2 34 29 28 32 28 34 33 145 145 165 185 235 225 205 305 215

Total homicides3 2,689 2,879 2,654 2,512 2,189 2,056 1,762 1,537 1,466 1,468 1,515 1,437 1,535 1,646 1,748 —

Suicides of youth ages 5–18 Suicides at Total school2 suicides4 6 1,680 7 1,723 7 1,767 6 1,725 1 1,633 6 1,626 4 1,597 85 1,415 55 1,493 65 1,400 95 1,331 45 1,285 75 1,471 35 1,408 5 8 1,296 55 —

— Not available. 1 A school-associated violent death is defined as ―a homicide, suicide, legal intervention (involving a law enforcement officer), or unintentional firearm-related death in which the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school in the United States‖ while the victim was on the way to or from regular sessions at school or while the victim was attending or traveling to or from an official school-sponsored event. Victims include students, staff members, and others who are not students, from July 1, 1992, through June 20, 2008. 2 Youth ages 5–18 from July 1, 1992, through June 30, 2008. 3 Youth ages 5–18 from July 1, 1992, through June 30, 2007. 4 Youth ages 5–18 in the calendar year from 1992 to 2006. 5 Data from School Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study (SAVD) from 1999–2000 onward are considered preliminary. For more information on this survey, please see appendix A. Source: Data on homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18 at school and total school-associated violent deaths are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1992–2008 SchoolAssociated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study (SAVD), partially funded by the U.S. Department


111

of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, previously unpublished tabulation (July 2009); data on total suicides of youth ages 5–18 are from the CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System Fatal (WISQARSTM Fatal), 1999–2006, retrieved July 2009 from http://www.cdc.gov/i njury/wisqars/index.html; and data on total homicides of youth ages 5–18 for the 1992–93 through 2006–07 school years are from the Supplementary Homicide Reports (SH R) collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and tabulated by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, preliminary data (May 2009).

At-school and away-from-school homicide and suicide data were drawn from a number of Sources. The most recent data available for total suicides of youth ages 5–18 are for the 2006 calendar year; the most recent data available for total homicides of youth ages 5–18 are for the 2006–07 school year.11 During 2006–07, there were 1,748 homicides of youth ages 5– 18 (figure 1.2 and table 1.1). During the 2006 calendar year, there were 1,296 suicides of youth ages 5–18. From July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008, there were 21 homicides and 5 suicides of school-age youth (ages 5–18) at school (figure 1.1 and table 1.1). In each year during the period 1992–93 to 2006–07, 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 2007–08 school year, there was approximately one homicide or suicide of a school-age youth at school per 2.1 million students enrolled.12 Table 1.2. Number of School-Associated Violent Deaths of Students, Staff, and Nonstudents, by Type 1992–2008 Year

1

1992–93 1993–94 1994–95 1995–96 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–20001 2000–011 2001–021 2002–031 2003–041 2004–051 2005–061 2006–071 2007–081

Total 57 48 48 53 48 57 47 38 33 38 35 45 51 43 58 43

Homicides 47 38 39 46 45 47 38 26 26 27 25 38 40 36 43 36

Suicides 10 10 8 6 2 9 6 11 6 9 10 6 9 6 12 6

Legal interventions 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 1

Unintentional firearmrelated deaths 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

Data from School Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study (SAVD) from 1999–2000 onward are considered preliminary. For more information on this survey, please see appendix A. Note: A school-associated violent death is defined as ―a homicide, suicide, legal intervention (involving a law enforcement officer), or unintentional firearm-related death in which the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school in the United States‖ while the

112

United States Department of Education victim was on the way to or from regular sessions at school or while the victim was attending or traveling to or from an official school-sponsored event. Victims include students, staff members, and others who are not students. Estimates were revised and may differ from previously published data. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1992–2008 School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study (SAVD), partially funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, previously unpublished tabulation (July 2009).

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 2007–08 school years, from 1 to 9 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.

1

Data from School Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study (SAVD) from 1999–2000 onward are considered preliminary. For more information on this survey, please see appendix A. 2 A school-associated violent death is defined as a ―homicide, suicide, legal intervention (involving a law enforcement officer), or unintentional firearm-related death in which the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school in the United States,‖ while the victim was on the way to or from regular sessions at school or while the victim was attending or traveling to or from an official school-sponsored event. Victims include students, staff members, and others who are not students, from July 1, 1992, through June 30, 2008. Note: ―At school‖ includes on school property, on the way to or from regular sessions at school, and while attending or traveling to or from a school- sponsored event. Estimates were revised and may differ from previously published data. Source: Data on homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18 at school are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1992–2008 School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study (SAVD), partially funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, previously unpublished tabulation (July 2009). Figure 1.1. Number of student, staff, and nonstudent school-associated violent deaths, and number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18 at school: 1992–2008.


113

NONFATAL STUDENT AND TEACHER VICTIMIZATION Indicator 2. Incidence of Victimization at School and Away From School For the first time since 1992, in 2007 the rate for violent crime at school was higher than the rate experienced away from school. The 2007 victimization rates for serious violent crime at school and the rates away from school were not measurably different. Theft and violence at school and en route to and from school can affect the overall health and well-being of adolescents, interfere with educational goals, and stall normal healthy development (Fredland 2008). Such victimization can also lead to higher than average rates of teacher turnover, student dropouts and transfers, and early retirement for principals and teachers (Crews, Crews, and Turner 2008).

1

Youth ages 5–18 from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. Data from School Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study (SAVD) are considered preliminary. For more information on this survey, please see appendix A. 3 Youth ages 5–18 in the 2006 calendar year. 4 This number approximates the number of suicides away from school. Use caution when interpreting this number due to timeline differences. Note: ―At school‖ includes on school property, on the way to or from regular sessions at school, and while attending or traveling to or from a school- sponsored event. Due to missing data for total suicides and homicides for the 2007–08 school year, this figure contains data for the 2006–07 school year. Estimates were revised and may differ from previously published data. Source: Data on total homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18 at school and total school-associated violent deaths are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2006–07 SchoolAssociated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study (SAVD), partially funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, previously unpublished tabulation (July 2009); data on total suicides of youth ages 5–18 are from the CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System Fatal (WISQARSTM Fatal), 1999–2006, retrieved July 2009 from http://www.cdc.gov/injury/ wisqars/index.html; and data on total homicides of youth ages 5–18 for the 2006–07 school year are from the Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and tabulated by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, preliminary data (May 2009). 2

Figure 1.2. Number of school-associated violent deaths, homicides, and suicides of youth ages 5–18, by location: 2006–07.

114


Table 2.1. Number of Student-Reported Nonfatal Crimes Against Students Ages 12–18 and Rate of Crimes Per 1,000 Students, by Location, Type of Crime and Year: 1992– 2007 Number of crimes Year

1

Total

At school 1992 3,409,200 1993 3,795,200 1994 3,795,500 1995 3,467,900 1996 3,163,000 1997 2,721,200 1998 2,715,600 1999 2,489,700 2000 1,946,400 2001 2,001,300 2002 1,753,600 2003 1,930,100 2004 1,445,800 2005 1,487,900 2007 1,510,900 Away from school 1992 3,286,800 1993 3,419,700 1994 3,258,100 1995 3,058,300 1996 3,050,600 1997 3,107,300 1998 2,534,500 1999 2,106,600 2000 2,011,800 2001 1,670,500 2002 1,510,400 2003 1,592,600 2004 1,262,200 2005 1,228,400 2007 1,074,000

Serious Violent1

Rate of crimes per 1,000 students Serious Total Theft Violent violent1

Theft

Violent

2,260,500 2,357,000 2,371,500 2,177,900 2,028,700 1,666,000 1,562,300 1,605,500 1,246,600 1,237,600 1,095,000 1,191,400 863,000 858,400 826,800

1,148,600 1,438,200 1,424,000 1,290,000 1,134,400 1,055,200 1,153,200 884,100 699,800 763,700 658,600 738,700 582,800 629,500 684,100

245,400 306,700 322,400 222,500 225,400 201,800 252,700 185,600 128,400 160,900 88,100 154,200 107,400 137,300 118,300

144 155 150 135 121 102 101 92 72 73 64 73 55 56 57

95 96 94 85 78 63 58 59 46 45 40 45 33 32 31

48 59 56 50 43 40 43 33 26 28 24 28 22 24 26

10 12 13 9 9 8 9 7 5 6 3 6 4 5 4

1,607,600 1,691,800 1,521,700 1,561,800 1,622,900 1,551,600 1,236,400 1,048,200 1,091,000 912,900 790,100 746,200 706,400 603,400 556,200

1,679,200 1,728,000 1,736,400 1,496,500 1,427,700 1,555,800 1,298,100 1,058,300 920,800 757,500 720,300 846,400 555,800 625,000 517,800

750,200 849,500 832,700 599,000 670,600 635,900 550,200 476,400 373,100 290,300 309,200 325,000 228,600 267,600 163,500

138 139 129 119 117 117 95 78 74 61 55 60 48 46 41

68 69 60 61 62 58 46 39 40 33 29 28 27 23 21

71 70 69 58 55 59 48 39 34 28 26 32 21 24 20

32 35 33 23 26 24 21 18 14 11 11 12 9 10 6

Serious violent crimes are also included in violent crimes.

Note: 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 are comparable to earlier years. For more information, please see appendix A. Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault. Theft includes purse snatching, pick pocketing, all burglaries, attempted forcible entry, and all attempted and completed thefts except motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery in which threat or use of force is involved. Total crimes include violent crimes and theft. ―At school‖ includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. 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. detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates of number of crimes are rounded to the nearest 100. Estimates were revised and may differ from previously published data. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 1992–2005 and 2007.


115

Table 2.2. Number of Student-Reported Nonfatal Crimes Against Students Ages 12–18 and Rate of Crimes Per 1,000 Students at School, by Type of Crime and Selected Student and School Characteristics: 2007

Violent

Serious violent1

Total

Theft

1,510,900

826,800

684,100

118,300

57

31

26

4

798,000 712,900

402,700 424,100

395,300 288,800

94,500 23,800!

58 56

30 33

29 22

7 2!

819,300 691,600

387,500 439,300

431,800 252,300

64,800 53,500

67 49

32 31

35 18

5 4

969,300 159,300 269,500 112,800

523,600 102,100 135,500 65,500

445,700 57,200 133,900 47,300

55,000 ‡ 38,300! ‡

62 42 52 62

33 27 26 36

28 15 26 26

4 ‡ 7! ‡

99,600 159,900 313,800 285,100 372,800

32,900! 83,000 116,300 156,300 269,300

66,700 77,000 197,600 128,800 103,600

‡ 23,300! 34,100! 16,200! ‡

65 60 75 74 52

21! 31 28 41 37

43 29 47 33 14

‡ 9! 8! 4! ‡

Violent

Theft

At school Total Sex male Female Age 12–14 15–18 Race/ethnicity2 White Black Hispanic Other Household income Less than $15,000 $1 5,000–29,999 $30,000–49,999 $50,000–74,999 $75,000 or more

Total

Student or school characteristic

Serious violent1

Rate of crimes per 1,000 students

Number of crimes

! Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases. ‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 Serious violent crimes are also included in violent crimes. 2 Other includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, and American Indians (including Alaska Natives). Respondents who identified themselves as being of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of their race. Note: Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault. Theft includes purse snatching, pick pocketing, all burglaries, attempted forcible entry, and all attempted and completed thefts except motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery in which threat or use of force is involved. Total crimes include violent crimes and theft. ―At school‖ includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding and missing data on student characteristics. Estimates of number of crimes are rounded to the nearest 100. due to changes in survey methodology in 2006 that mainly affected rural areas, national-level estimates were not comparable to estimates based on NCVS data from previous years. For more information, please see appendix A. 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. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2007.

116


Table 2.3. Number of Student-Reported Nonfatal Crimes Against Students Ages 12–18 and Rate of Crimes Per 1,000 Students Away from School, by Type of Crime and Selected Student and School Characteristics: 2007

Serious iolent1

Total

Theft

Violent

1,074,000

556,200

517,800

163,500

41

21

20

6

649,300 424,700

325,200 231,000

324,100 193,700

121,800 41,800!

48 33

24 18

24 15

9 3!

390,700 683,300

227,500 328,700

163,200 354,600

56,900 106,600

32 48

19 23

13 25

5 7

641,800 125,200 198,900 108,100

313,800 56,100 128,700 57,500

328,000 69,000 70,100 50,600

125,500 ‡ 27,100! #

41 33 39 60

20 15 25 32

21 18 14 28

8 ‡ 5! #

125,100 169,200 181,700 119,100 243,900

66,100 76,700 100,600 59,200 144,600

59,000 92,500 81,000 59,900 99,300

‡ ‡ 21,200! ‡ 44,800

82 64 43 31 34

43 29 24 15 20

38 35 19 16 14

‡ ‡ 5! ‡ 6

Theft

Violent

Away from school Total Sex male Female Age 12–14 15–18 Race/ethnicity2 White Black Hispanic Other Household income Less than $15,000 $1 5,000–29,999 $30,000–49,999 $50,000–74,999 $75,000 or more

Total


Serious iolent1

Rate of crimes per 1,000 students

Number of crimes

# Rounds to zero. ! Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases. ‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 Serious violent crimes are also included in violent crimes. 2 Other includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, and American Indians (including Alaska Natives). Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Note: Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault. Theft includes purse snatching, pick pocketing, all burglaries, attempted forcible entry, and all attempted and completed thefts except motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery in which threat or use of force is involved. Total crimes include violent crimes and theft. 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. detail may not sum to totals because of rounding and missing data on student characteristics. Estimates of number of crimes are rounded to the nearest 100. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2007.

In 2007, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey13 showed that students ages 12–18 were victims of about 1.5 million nonfatal crimes (theft14 and violent crime15) while they were at school,16 compared to about 1.1 million nonfatal crimes while they were away


117

from school (table 2.1).17 These figures represent total crime victimization rates of 57 crimes per 1,000 students at school and 41 crimes per 1,000 students away from school. Although there was an overall decline in the victimization rates for students ages 12–18 at school between 1992 and 2007, there was no measurable difference in the rate of crime at school between 2004 and 2007. This pattern describes the total crime rate as well as its three components: thefts, violent crimes, and serious violent crimes (figure 2.1). Between 1992 and 2007 the rates of total crime, thefts, violent crimes, and serious violent crimes for students away from school declined.

1

Serious violent crimes are also included in violent crimes. Note: 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 are comparable to earlier years. For more information, please see appendix A. Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault. Theft includes purse snatching, pick pocketing, all burglaries, attempted forcible entry, and all attempted and completed thefts except motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery in which threat or use of force is involved.Total crimes include violent crimes and theft. ―At school‖ includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. 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. Estimates were revised and may differ from previously published data. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 1992–2007. Figure 2.1. Rate of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12–18 per 1,000 students, by type of crime and location: 1992–2007

118


The 2007 survey estimates may indicate some trend changes. For the first time, rates of violent crime victimization at school were higher than rates of violent crime victimization away from school. In 2007, there were 26 violent crimes per 1,000 students at school, compared to 20 violent crimes per 1,000 students away from school.

1

Serious violent crimes are also included in violent crimes. Note: Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault. Theft includes purse snatching, pick pocketing, all burglaries, attempted forcible entry, and all attempted and completed thefts except motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery in which threat or use of force is involved. Total crimes include violent crimes and theft. ―At school‖ includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. 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. detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2007. Figure 2.2. Rate of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12–18 at and away from school per 1,000 students, by age and type of crime: 2007.

In each survey year between 1992 and 2005,18 the rate of serious violent crime—rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault—per 1,000 students was lower at school than away from school. In 2007, however, there was no measurable difference between the rate of


119

serious violent crimes19 per 1,000 students at school and the rate per 1,000 students away from school. In that year, students ages 12–18 were victims of 4 serious violent crimes per 1,000 students at school and 6 serious violent crimes per 1,000 students away from school. Not all of the trends showed change. A greater percentage of students report experiencing theft at school than the other measured crimes. In 2007 the rate of thefts per 1,000 students was higher at school than away from school, which has generally held true for each survey year since 1992 (except 1997, 2000, and 2004) (figure 2.1). In 2007 there were 31 thefts per 1,000 students at school and 21 thefts per 1,000 students away from school.

1

Serious violent crimes are also included in violent crimes. Note: 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. Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault. Total crimes include violent crimes and theft. ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and, from 2001 onward, going to and from school. 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. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, various years, 1995–2007. Figure 3.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization: Various years, 1995–2007.

In 2007, the victimization rates for students ages 12–18 varied according to student characteristics. The rate of violent crimes at school per 1,000 students was lower for older students (ages 15–18) than for younger students (ages 12–14), but the reverse was true for the

120


rate of violent crimes away from school (figure 2.2 and tables 2.2 and 2.3). Females had lower rates than males for violent crime and total crime victimization occurring away from school, and they had lower rates of serious violent victimization than males both at school and away from school.

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. Table 3.1. Percentage of Students Ages 12–18 Who Reported Criminal Victimization at School During the Previous 6 Months, by Type of Victimization and Selected Student and School Characteristics: Various Years, 1995–2007

Serious iolent1

Total

Theft

Violent

Serious iolent1

Total

Theft

Violent

Serious iolent1

2001

Violent

Total 9.5 Sex male 10.0 Female 9.0 Race/ethnicity2 White 9.8 Black 10.2 Hispanic 7.6 Asian — Other 8.8 Grade 6th 9.6 7th 11.2 8th 10.5 9th 11.9 10th 9.1 11th 7.3 12th 6.1 Urbanicity Urban 9.3 Suburban 10.3 Rural 8.3 Sector Public 9.8 Private 6.6 See notes at end of table.

1999

Theft

Total

1995 Student or school characteristic

7.1

3.0

0.7

7.6

5.7

2.3

0.5

5.5

4.2

1.8

0.4

7.1 7.1

3.5 2.4

0.9 0.4

7.8 7.3

5.7 5.7

2.5 2.0

0.6 0.5

6.1 4.9

4.5 3.8

2.1 1.5

0.5 0.4!

7.4 7.1 5.8 — 6.5 5.4 8.1 7.9 9.1 7.7 5.5 4.6

3.0 3.4 2.7 — 2.5! 5.1 3.8 3.1 3.4 2.1 1.9 1.9

0.6 1.0! 0.9! — ‡ 1.5 0.9 0.8! 0.7! 0.4! 0.4! ‡

7.5 9.9 5.7 — 6.4 8.0 8.2 7.6 8.9 8.0 7.2 4.8

5.8 7.4 3.9 — 4.4 5.2 6.0 5.9 6.5 6.5 5.5 4.0

2.1 3.5 1.9 — 2.2! 3.8 2.6 2.4 3.2 1.7 1.8! 0.8!

0.4 1.2 0.6! — # 1.3! 0.9! 0.5! 0.6! ‡ ‡ ‡

5.8 6.1 4.6 — 3.1 5.9 5.8 4.3 7.9 6.5 4.8 2.9

4.2 5.0 3.7 — 2.9 4.0 3.4 3.3 6.2 5.7 3.8 2.3

2.0 1.3! 1.5 — ‡ 2.6 2.6 1.3 2.4 1.2 1.6 0.9!

0.4 0.5! 0.8! — # ‡ 0.6! 0.3! 0.8! 0.4! ‡ ‡

6.6 7.6 6.8

3.3 3.5 1.8

1.3 0.6 0.3!

8.4 7.6 6.4

6.9 5.4 5.0

2.3 2.4 1.9

0.7 0.5 0.4!

5.9 5.7 4.7

4.5 4.3 3.4

1.7 1.7 2.0!

0.5 0.4 0.5!

7.3 5.2

3.1 1.7

0.7 ‡

7.9 4.5

5.9 4.3

2.5 ‡

0.6 #

5.7 3.4

4.4 2.5

1.9 1.0!

0.5 #


Violent

Serious iolent1

Total

Theft

Violent

Serious iolent1

Total

Theft

Violent

Serious iolent1

2001

Theft

Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity2 White Black Hispanic Asian Other Grade 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Urbanicity Urban Suburban Rural Sector Public Private

1999

Total


121

5.1

4.0

1.3

0.2

4.3

3.1

1.2

0.3

4.3

3.0

1.6

0.4

5.4 4.8

4.0 4.1

1.8 0.9

0.3! ‡

4.6 3.9

3.1 3.2

1.6 0.8

0.3! 0.3

4.5 4.0

3.0 3.0

1.7 1.4

0.5! 0.2!

5.4 5.3 3.9 — 5.0

4.3 4.0 3.0 — 4.4

1.4 1.6 1.1 — ‡

0.2! ‡ 0.4! — ‡

4.7 3.8 3.9 1.5! 4.3!

3.4 2.7 3.1 ‡ ‡

1.3 1.3! 0.9 ‡ ‡

0.3! ‡ 0.4! ‡ ‡

4.3 4.3 3.6 3.6! 8.1

3.1 3.0 2.2 3.2! 4.5!

1.5 1.6! 1.4 ‡ 4.5!

0.2! ‡ 0.8! ‡ ‡

3.8 6.3 5.2 6.3 4.8 5.1 3.6

2.2 4.8 4.1 5.3 3.7 4.1 3.1

1.9 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.0! 0.5!

# ‡ 0.3! 0.6! # ‡ #

4.6 5.4 3.6 4.7 4.3 3.6 3.8

2.8 2.9 2.4 3.7 3.8 2.8 3.5

1.9 2.6 1.4 1.0 0.5! 0.7! :1:

‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

4.1 4.7 4.4 5.3 4.4 4.0 2.7

2.7 2.7 2.5 4.6 3.6 2.6 1.9

1.5! 2.4 2.1 1.2! 1.2! 1.5! 0.8!

‡ 0.4! ‡ ‡ ‡ 0.6! ‡

6.1 4.8 4.7

4.5 3.8 3.9

1.8 1.2 0.9!

0.4! 0.1! ‡

5.3 4.2 2.8

3.6 3.2 2.2!

1.8 1.1 0.6!

0.4! 0.3! ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

5.2 4.9

4.0 4.0

1.4 0.9!

0.2 #

4.4 2.7

3.3 1.3!

1.2 1.4!

0.3 ‡

4.6 1.1!

3.2 1.1!

1.7 ‡

0.4 ‡

— Not available. # Rounds to zero. ! Interpret data with caution. ‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 Serious violent crimes are also included in violent crimes. 2 Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Other includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian (prior to 2005), Pacific Islander, and, from 2003 onward, more than one race. due to changes in racial/ethnic categories, comparisons of race/ethnicity across years should be made with caution. Note: 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. Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault. Total crimes include violent crimes and theft. ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and, from 2001 onward, going to and from school. due to a redesign of the methods used to measure urbanicity, estimates for 2007 locales are not shown. For more information, please see appendix A. 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. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, various years, 1995–2007.

122


Theft is the most frequent type of nonfatal victimization in the United States (U.S. Department of Justice 2007). Data from the School Crime Supplement20 show the percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported criminal victimization at school21 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,22 2 percent reported violent victimization23 (figure 3.1 and table 3.1), and less than half of a percent reported serious violent victimization.24 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.

Indicator 4. Threats and Injuries with Weapons on School Property The percentage of students who were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property has fluctuated between 7 and 9 percent in all survey years from 1993 through 2007. Every year, some students are threatened or injured with a weapon while they are on school property.25 The percentage of students victimized in this way provides an important measure of how safe our schools are, and how school safety has changed over time. In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9–12 were asked whether they had been threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the 12 months preceding the survey. In 2007, 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). From 1993 through 2007, the percentage of students who were threatened or injured with a weapon fluctuated between 7 and 9 percent. 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 (figure 4.1 and table 4.1). In 2007, the percentage of male students who reported being


123

threatened or injured in the past year was nearly twice as high as the percentage of female students (10 vs. 5 percent). Generally, the percentages of 9th- and 10th-graders who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property were higher than the percentages of 11th- and 12th-graders (figure 4.2 and table 4.1). Table 4.1. Percentage of Students In Grades 9–12 Who Reported Being Threatened or Injured with a Weapon on School Property During the Previous 12 Months, by Selected Student and School Characteristics: Various Years, 1993–2007 Student or school characteristic Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity1 White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian/ Alaska Native Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian More than one race Grade 9th 10th 11th 12th Urbanicity Urban Suburban Rural

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

7.3

8.4

7.4

7.7

8.9

9.2

7.9

7.8

9.2 5.4

10.9 5.8

10.2 4.0

9.5 5.8

11.5 6.5

11.6 6.5

9.7 6.1

10.2 5.4

6.3 11.2 8.6

7.0 11.0 12.4

6.2 9.9 9.0

(2)

(2)

(2)

6.6 7.6 9.8 7.7

8.5 9.3 8.9 11.3

7.8 10.9 9.4 11.5

7.2 8.1 9.8 4.6

6.9 9.7 8.7 7.6!

11.7

11.4!

12.5!

13.2!

15.2!

22.1

9.8

5.9

(2)

(2)

(2)

15.6

24.8

16.3

14.5!

8.1 !

(2)

(2)

(2)

9.3

10.3

18.7

10.7

13.3

9.4 7.3 7.3 5.5

9.6 9.6 7.7 6.7

10.1 7.9 5.9 5.8

10.5 8.2 6.1 5.1

12.7 9.1 6.9 5.3

12.1 9.2 7.3 6.3

10.5 8.8 5.5 5.8

9.2 8.4 6.8 6.3

— — —

— — —

8.7 7.0 5.6!

8.0 7.4 8.3

9.2 9.0 8.1

10.6 8.8 8.2

— — —

— — —

— Not available. ! Interpret data with caution. 1 Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 2 The response categories for race/ethnicity changed in 1999 making comparisons of some categories with earlier years problematic. In 1993, 1995, and 1997, Asian students and Pacific Islander students were not categorized separately and students were not given the option of choosing more than one race. Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. Source: Centers for disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), various years, 1993–2007.

124


Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. Source: Centers for disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), various years, 1993–2007 Figure 4.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous 12 months, by sex: Various years, 1993–2007.

Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. Source: Centers for disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 2007. Figure 4.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous 12 months, by grade: 2007

For example, in 2007, 9 percent of 9th-graders and 8 percent of 10th-graders reported that they were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property, compared with 7 percent of 11th-graders and 6 percent of 12th-graders. The percentage of students who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property varied by race/ethnicity in 2007. Higher percentages of students of more than one race (13 percent), Black students (10 percent), and Hispanic students (9 percent) reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property than White students (7 percent). Higher percentages of all of these groups, except for White students, also reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property than did American Indian/Alaska Native students (6 percent). However, no other measurable differences were found by race/ ethnicity in the percentages of students who reported being threatened or injured in this way.


125

In 2007, student reports of being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property varied among the 39 states and the District of Columbia for which data were available. Among these states and the District of Columbia, the percentage of students who reported being threatened or injured on school property ranged from 5 percent in Massachusetts and North Dakota to 11 percent in Arizona, the District of Columbia, and Utah (table 4.2). Table 4.2. Percentage of Students in Grades 9–12 Who Reported Being Threatened or Injured with a Weapon on School Property During the Previous 12 Months, by State: 2003, 2005, and 2007 State United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska

2003 9.2 7.2 8.1 9.7 — — — — 7.7 12.7 8.4 8.2 — 9.4 — 6.7 — — 5.2 — 8.5 — 6.3 9.7 — 6.6 7.5 7.1 8.8

2005 7.9 10.6 — 10.7 9.6 — 7.6 9.1 6.2 12.1 7.9 8.3 6.8 8.3 — 8.8 7.8 7.4 8.0 — 7.1 11.7 5.4 8.6 — — 9.1 8.0 9.7

2007 7.8 — 7.7 11.2 9.1 — — 7.7 5.6 11.3 8.6 8.1 6.4 10.2 7.8 9.6 7.1 8.6 8.3 — 6.8 9.6 5.3 8.1 — 8.3 9.3 7.0 —

126

United States Department of Education Table 4.2. (Continued) State 2003 2005 Nevada 6.0 8.1 New Hampshire 7.5 8.6 New Jersey — 8.0 New Mexico — 10.4 New York 7.2 7.2 North Carolina 7.2 7.9 North Dakota 5.9 6.6 Ohio 7.7 8.2 Oklahoma 7.4 6.0 Oregon — — Pennsylvania — — Rhode Island 8.2 8.7 South Carolina — 10.1 South Dakota 6.5 8.1 Tennessee 8.4 7.4 Texas — 9.3 Utah 7.3 9.8 Vermont 7.3 6.3 Virginia — — Washington — — West Virginia 8.5 8.0 Wisconsin 5.5 7.6 Wyoming 9.7 7.8

2007 7.8 7.3 — 10.1 7.3 6.6 5.2 8.3 7.0 — — 8.3 9.8 5.9 7.3 8.7 11.4 6.2 — — 9.7 5.6 8.3

— Not available. Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. The estimate for the United States is drawn from a nationally representative sample of schools and is not the aggregate of participating states. Each state estimate is based on a sample that is representative of that state. Estimates were revised and may differ from previously published data. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), previously unpublished tabulation, 2003, 2005, and 2007.

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.

Table 5.1. Percentage and Number of Public and Private School Teachers Who Reported that They Were Threatened with Injury by a Student from School during the Previous 12 Months, by Urbanicity and Selected Teacher and School Characteristics: Various School Years, 1993–94 Through 2007–08 1993–94 Percent Number Total Total 11.7 342,100

Teacher or school characteristic Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity1 White Black Hispanic Other Instructional level2 Elementary Secondary Sector Public3 Private Teacher or school characteristic Total Sex male

1999–2000 Percent Number Total Total 8.8 305,200

2003–04 Percent Total 6.8

Number Total 253,100

14.7 10.6

115,900 226,200

11.0 8.1

95,200 210,000

8.5 6.3

78,500 174,500

11.5 12.0 13.2 13.5

295,100 23,800 15,900 7,300

8.6 11.6 9.1 8.4

252,600 28,300 17,200 7,100

6.4 11.8 5.6 8.7

199,000 32,500 12,500 9,100

8.7 15.0

134,500 207,500

8.0 9.9

148,300 157,000

5.8 8.0

113,700 139,400

12.8 4.2

326,300 15,700

9.6 3.9 2007–08

287,700 17,500

7.5 2.3

242,500 10,600

Total 7.5

City 10.3

Percent Suburban 6.4

Town 7.5

Rural 5.7

Total 289,600

City 110,800

Percent Suburban 88,500

Town 37,600

Rural 52,800

9.3

13.1

8.2

8.0

7.0

88,500

35,900

26,900

9,700

16,000

Table 5.1. (Continued) Teacher or school characteristic Female Race/ethnicity1 White Black Hispanic Other Instructional level2 Elementary Secondary Sector Public3 Private

2007–08 Total 6.9

City 9.3

Percent Suburban 5.9

Town 7.3

Rural 5.3

Total 201,100

City 74,900

Percent Suburban 61,600

Town 27,900

Rural 36,700

7.2 11.0 6.7 7.6

10.3 13.5 8.3 7.6

6.2 10.7 4.7 8.8

7.6 6.2 7.3! 6.2!

5.7 6.6 5.4! 5.5

234,500 28,500 18,000 8,600

81,000 16,000 10,500 3,300!

72,100 8,700 4,100 3,600

33,900 1,200 1,700! 700!

47,400 2,600! 1,700! 1,000

6.6 8.4

9.2! 11.4

5.4 7.5

7.5 7.4

4.8 6.7

129,400 160,200

49,800 61,000

37,400 51,000

19,600 17,900

22,600 30,200

8.1 2.6

12.1 2.3

7.0 2.7

7.8 3.6!

5.9 3.2

276,700 12,800

106,200 4,600

83,700 4,800

36,300 1,300 !

50,600 2,200

! Interpret data with caution. 1 Other includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, and, in 2003–04 and 2007–08, two or more races. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 2 Instructional level divides teachers into elementary or secondary based on a combination of the grades taught, main teaching assignment, and the structure of the teachers’ class(es). Please see the glossary for a more detailed definition. 3 The public sector includes public, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Education school teachers. Note: Teachers who taught only prekindergarten students are excluded. detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates of number of reports are rounded to the nearest 100. Figures were revised and may differ from previously published data. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), ―Public School Teacher Data File,‖ and ―Private School Teacher Data File,‖ 1993–94, 1999–2000, 2003–04, and 2007–08; ―Charter School Teacher Data File,‖ 1999–2000; and ―Bureau of Indian Education Teacher Data File,‖ 1999–2000, 2003–04, and 2007–08.

Table 5.2. Percentage and number of public and private school teachers who reported that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school characteristics: Various school years, 1993–94 through 2007–08 1993–94

Teacher or school characteristic

Percent Total

Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity1 White Black Hispanic Other Instructional level2 Elementary Secondary Sector Public3 Private Teacher or school characteristic Total Sex male

Total 4.0

Total 4.9

Percent Total 3.9

3.7

5.5

3.9



4.1

Number Total 120,000

3.9 4.2

30,800 89,200

3.6 4.0

30,600 104,100

2.6 3.7

23,600 104,000

4.0 3.9 5.1 5.1

103,400 7,700 6,200 2,800

3.8 4.8 4.6 3.2

111,600 11,600 8,800 2,700

3.2 5.5 3.1 4.8

100,500 15,100 7,000 5,000

4.9 3.2

76,200 43,800

5.5 2.1

102,100 32,600

4.5 2.3

88,100 39,500

4.4 2.3

111,300 8,700 2007–08

4.2 2.1

125,100 9,600

3.7 1.6

120,000 7,500

Total 4.0

Total 3.0

Total 154,400

2.8 !

1.7

34,900

Total 52,800

Percent Total 53,400

Total 20,000

Total 28,100

14,900

12,600

3,400 !

3,900

Teacher or school characteristic Female Race/ethnicity1 White Black Hispanic Other Instructional level2 Elementary Secondary Sector Public3 Private

Table 5.2. (Continued) 2007–08 Total 4.1

Total 4.7

Percent Total 3.9

Total 4.4

Total 3.5

Total 119,500

Total 37,900

Percent Total 40,800

Total 16,600

Total 24,200

4.0 4.8 3.0 2.6 !

5.2 5.5 3.5 ! 1.5 !

3.8 5.7 ! 2.6 ! ‡

4.1 ‡ ‡ ‡

3.2 ‡ 1.0 ! 2.4 !

131,000 12,300 8,100 3,000 !

41,200 6,600 4,500 ! 700 !

44,900 4,600 ! 2,200 ! ‡

18,400 ‡ ‡ ‡

26,600 ‡ 300 ! 400 !

5.7 2.2

7.1 2.7

5.4 2.3

6.2 1.6

4.4 1.6

113,100 41,300

38,500 14,400

37,700 15,700

16,200 3,900

20,700 7,400

4.3 1.9

5.7 1.4

4.1 2.5

4.1 2.3 !

3.2 1.7 !

145,100 9,300

50,000 2,900

48,900 4,500

19,200 800 !

27,000 1,100 !

! Interpret data with caution. ‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 Other includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, and, in 2003–04 and 2007–08, two or more races. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 2 Instructional level divides teachers into elementary or secondary based on a combination of the grades taught, main teaching assignment, and the structure of the teachers’ class(es). Please see the glossary for a more detailed definition. 3 The public sector includes public, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Education school teachers. Note: Teachers who taught only prekindergarten students are excluded. detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates of number of reports are rounded to the nearest 100. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), ―Public School Teacher Data File,‖ and ―Private School Teacher Data File,‖ 1993–94, 1999–2000, 2003–04, and 2007–08; ―Charter School Teacher Data File,‖ 1999–2000; and ―Bureau of Indian Education Teacher Data File,‖ 1999–2000, 2003–04, and 2007–08.


131

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 20 07–08 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).

132


Note: Teachers who taught only prekindergarten students are excluded. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), ―Public School Teacher Data File,‖ and ―Private School Teacher Data File,‖ 1993–94, 1999–2000, 2003–04, and 2007–08; ―Charter School Teacher Data File,‖ 1999–2000; and ―Bureau of Indian Education Teacher Data File,‖ 1999–2000, 2003–04, and 2007–08. Figure 5.1. Percentage of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury or that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months: Various school years, 1993–94 through 2007–08.

Table 5.3. Percentage and Number of Public School Teachers Who Reported That They Were Threatened with Injury by a Student from School During the Previous 12 Months, by State: 1993–94 Through 2007–08

State United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky

199394 12.8 13.3 13.7 13.0 13.8 7.4 13.1 11.9 18.7 24.4 20.1 14.0 9.9 9.8 10.8 13.8 9.4 10.8 14.0

Percent 19992003 2000 -04 9.6 7.5 8.8 6.1 10.9 8.9 9.5 6.9 10.1 4.8 5.8 6.1 6.6 3.8 9.1 6.9 11.4 7.7 22.3 18.0 12.2 9.5 9.4 7.9 8.2 7.6 10.7 6.0 12.6

11.2 6.4 9.1 5.4 8.0 7.2 4.9 3.7 7.9

2007 -08 8.1 6.8 7.8 6.6 5.7 8.6 6.9 7.2 11.7 16.9

199394 326,300 6,000 1,100 4,900 4,200 15,400 4,700 4,200 1,300 1,200

11.4 5.8 7.6 5.9 8.2 10.2 6.6 5.7 9.9

21,400 10,500 1,100 1,200 12,100 8,000 3,400 3,400 5,800

Number 199920032000 04 287,700 242,500 4,400 3,100 900 800 4,700 3,900 3,100 1,800 16,200 17,200 2,800 1,900 3,800 3,100 900 600 1,300 900 15,800 8,400 1,100 1,100 11,200 4,600 4,100 2,000 5,400

17,600 6,500 1,200 800 11,000 4,500 1,900 1,400 3,800

200708 276,700 3,600 600 4,400 2,000 26,500 3,400 3,600 1,000 700 20,200 7,000 1,000! 1,000 11,800 7,000 2,600 2,100 4,300


State Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

199394 17.0 9.0 19.9 10.8 10.8 9.6 13.4 12.6 7.7 10.4 13.2 11.1 7.9 12.8 16.2 17.1 5.5 15.2 11.0 11.5 11.0 13.4 15.3 6.5 12.5 12.7 11.2 12.4 14.9 12.8 11.4 13.8 9.0

Percent 19992003 2000 -04 13.4 9.9 11.7 5.2 10.7 13.5 11.3 6.4 8.0 9.3 9.5 8.2 11.1 5.5 11.3 8.3 8.4 6.1 9.9 7.5 11.6 7.3 8.8 5.8 7.5 4.3 10.2 7.8 11.5 10.5 12.8 8.7 5.7 5.6 9.6 6.2 8.5 6.1 6.9 5.5 9.5 9.5 10.2 4.6! 11.5 8.6 7.9 5.3 13.3 6.6 8.9 7.7 8.1 5.2 9.9 4.9 12.1 6.5 10.0 6.8 10.0 7.2 10.1 4.7 6.7 3.8!

2007 -08 10.4 9.5 12.7 9.7 6.0 7.3 10.7 8.7 6.4 7.2 9.3 6.5 4.7 12.8 10.5 9.6 3.2 8.7 7.4 6.3 4.6 8.7 8.5 7.7 7.7 7.6 5.7 7.6 8.2 7.0 8.0 9.0 5.4

199394 8,300 1,400 8,700 6,300 8,900 4,200 4,000 7,800 1,000 2,100 1,700 1,400 6,600 2,500 28,900 12,400 500 16,900 4,600 2,900 12,600 1,200 6,000 700 5,900 28,300 2,200 900 9,700 6,200 2,400 8,600 700

Number 199920032000 04 6,800 5,100 2,000 1,000 5,800 8,000 8,900 5,400 8,000 9,200 5,500 5,000 3,700 1,900 7,200 6,200 1,000 800 2,300 1,900 2,000 1,500 1,300 1,000 7,400 4,900 2,200 1,700 23,900 24,400 11,000 8,300 500 600 11,800 8,300 3,900 2,800 2,000 1,600 12,000 11,900 1,200 600 5,000 4,000 900 600 7,700 4,200 23,800 22,200 1,900 1,200 900 500 9,800 6,000 5,500 4,300 2,300 1,600 6,800 3,500 500 300!

133

200708 5,000 1,700 7,600 7,800 5,900 4,700 3,800 6,400 800 1,700 2,200 1,100 5,800 3,000 24,000 9,200 300 11,700 3,400 2,000 6,300 1,100 4,200 900! 5,100 25,700 1,600 800 7,600 4,100 1,800 6,200 400

! Interpret data with caution. Note: Teachers who taught only prekindergarten students are excluded. Private school teachers are excluded because the data are not state representative. The public sector includes public, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Education school teachers. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates of number of reports are rounded to the nearest 100. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), ―Public School Teacher Data File,‖ 1993–94, 1999–2000, 2003–04, and 2007–08; ―Charter School Teacher Data File,‖ 1999–2000; and ―Bureau of Indian Education Teacher Data File,‖ 1999–2000, 2003–04, and 2007–08.

134


Table 5.4. Percentage and Number of Public School Teachers who Reported That They Were Physically Attacked by a Student from School during the Previous 12 Months, by State: 1993–94 Through 2007–08

State United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina

1993 –94 4.4 3.2 6.6 3.6 3.0 2.9 4.9 3.5 7.1 8.4 4.9 3.4 2.9 4.2 4.4 3.0 4.3 3.8 3.8 6.6 2.4 8.6 4.7 6.5 4.5 4.1 3.2 2.7 3.6 4.5 3.0 2.4 4.4 6.7 6.0

Percent 1999– 2003 2000 –04 4.2 3.7 3.8 2.7 5.2 6.0 4.5 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.0 3.1 1.5! 4.1 2.8 5.3 3.1! 9.1 5.2 6.7 6.5 3.6 4.6 3.2 5.4 4.4 2.5! 2.7 2.3! 3.0 4.1! 3.9 2.4 2.9 3.3 4.5 2.7 5.0 2.7 6.3 3.3! 4.6 6.5 4.3 3.9 3.8 4.9 4.5 3.6 3.7 0.9! 5.6 5.5 2.7 1.9 3.8 4.1 8.1 3.7! 4.2 2.8! 3.4 2.0! 6.7 5.8 5.2 6.6 5.5 4.4

2007 –08 4.3 3.2 ! 6.7 5.0 3.9 3.6 4.7 3.3 ! 5.4 7.1 4.0 4.0 4.1! 2.9 ! 3.9 4.7 3.1 5.0 5.8 4.0 ! 5.2 8.4 4.1 3.5 ! 6.6 2.9 5.3 4.0 4.2 3.3 ! 2.2 ! 1.8! 4.3 ! 6.4 5.9!

1993– 94 111,300 1,400 500 1,300 900 6,000 1,800 1,200 500 400 5,200 2,500 300 500 4,900 1,700 1,500 1,200 1,600 3,200 400 3,800 2,800 5,300 2,000 1,200 2,000 300 700 600 400 2,000 800 12,000 4,300

Number 1999– 2003– 2000 04 125,100 120,000 1,900 1,400 400 500 2,200 1,500 800 1,000 6,900 5,800 1,300 700 ! 1,700 1,200 400 200 ! 500 300 8,600 10,200 3,100 4,700 400 700 600 400 ! 3,700 3,200 ! 1,800 2,600 ! 1,500 900 1,000 1,200 1,900 1,300 ! 2,600 1,400 1,100 600 ! 2,500 3,900 3,400 3,200 3,800 4,900 2,600 2,200 1,200 300 ! 3,600 4,100 300 200 900 1,100 1,400 700 ! 600 500 ! 3,300 2,200 ! 1,500 1,300 10,900 15,300 4,800 4,200

2007– 08 145,100 1,700! 500 3,300 1,400 11,000 2,300 1,700 400! 300 7,100 4,900 500! 500! 5,700 3,200 1,200! 1,900 2,600 1,900! 900 5,000 3,300 3,400! 4,200 1,000 3,800 500 1,000 800! 400! 2,300! 1,000! 14,600 5,700


State North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

1993 –94 2.9 3.6 3.8 3.4 3.6 4.2 3.8 2.6 3.5 4.0 7.0 8.6 6.9 4.7 3.0 4.0 2.7

Percent 1999– 2003 2000 –04 2.1 2.3 2.9 2.5! 4.4 3.0 3.1 1.4! 4.5 4.9 4.8 2.4! 5.3 3.2 4.0 2.8 2.6 3.5 4.8 3.9 2.6 4.1 5.3 1.8! 4.9 2.7! 5.1 4.2 3.4 3.2 4.4 2.3 2.5 2.6!

2007 –08 1.7! 2.2 ! 3.1 3.9 ! 3.8 ‡ 2.9! 4.5 3.9 4.2 3.8 ! 4.2 6.0 4.1 3.9 6.6 3.0

1993– 94 200 4,000 1,600 900 4,100 400 1,500 300 1,700 9,000 1,400 600 4,500 2,300 600 2,500 200

Number 1999– 2003– 2000 04 200 200 3,500 3,400 ! 2,000 1,400 900 400 ! 5,700 6,200 600 300 ! 2,300 1,500 500 300 1,500 2,200 12,800 11,200 600 1,000 500 200 ! 3,900 2,500 ! 2,800 2,600 800 700 3,000 1,700 200 200 !

135

2007– 08 200! 2,900! 1,400 1,200! 5,200 ‡ 1,400! 500 2,600 14,100 1,000! 400! 5,600 2,400! 900 4,600 200!

Interpret data with caution. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Note: Teachers who taught only prekindergarten students are excluded. Private school teachers are excluded because the data are not state representative. The public sector includes public, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Education school teachers. Details may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates of number of reports are rounded to the nearest 100. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), ―Public School Teacher Data File,‖ 1993–94, 1999–2000, 2003–04, and 2007–08; ―Charter School Teacher Data File,‖ 1999–2000; and ―Bureau of Indian Education Teacher Data File,‖ 1999–2000, 2003–04, and 2007–08.

SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT 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,26 serious violent incidents,27 thefts of items valued at $10 or greater without personal confrontation, and other incidents28 that occurred at their school;29 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

136


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.

Note: Teachers who taught only prekindergarten students are excluded. Instructional level divides teachers into elementary or secondary based on a combination of the grades taught, main teaching assignment, and the structure of the teachers’ class(es). Please see the glossary for a more detailed definition. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), ―Public School Teacher Data File,‖ ―Private School Teacher Data File,‖ and ―Bureau of Indian Education Teacher Data File,‖ 2007–08. Figure 5.2. Percentage of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury or that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and instructional level: School year 2007–08.


137

1

Violent incidents include serious violent incidents; physical attack or fight without a weapon; and threat of physical attack without a weapon. 2 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. 3 Theft/larceny includes taking things worth over $10 without personal confrontation. Please see appendix B for a more detailed definition. 4 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. Note: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. ―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 schoolsponsored 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. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008. Figure 6.1. Percentage of public schools recording and reporting incidents of crime, and the rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by type of crime: School year 2007–08.

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

138


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 percent each). Table 6.1. Percentage of Public Schools Experiencing and Reporting Incidents of Crime, Number of Incidents, and the Rate of Crimes Per 1,000 Students, by Type of Crime: Various School Years, 1999–2000 Through 2007–08

Percent of schools

Percent of schools

Number of incidents


Recorded incidents 2005– 2007–08 06

Percent of schools

Total Violent incidents Physical attack or fight without a weapon Threat of physical attack without a weapon Serious violent incidents Rape or attempted rape Sexual battery other than rape Physical attack or fight with a weapon Threat of physical attack with a weapon Robbery with a weapon Robbery without a weapon Theft1 Other incidents Possession of a firearm/explosive device Possession of a knife or sharp object2 distribution of illegal drugs Possession or use of alcohol or illegal drugs distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs distribution, possession, or use of alcohol Sexual harassment Vandalism Total Violent incidents Physical attack or fight without a weapon

2003 –04

Percent of schools

Type of crime

1999– 2000

86.4 71.4 63.7 52.2

88.5 81.4 76.7 53.0

85.7 77.7 74.3 52.2

85.5 75.5 72.7 47.8

2,040,800 1,332,400 812,200 461,900

42.7 27.9 17.0 9.7

19.7 0.7 2.5 5.2 11.1

18.3 0.8 3.0 4.0 8.6

17.1 0.3 2.8 3.0 8.8

17.2 0.8 2.5 3.0 9.3

58,300 800 3,800 14,000 20,300

1.2 # 0.1 0.3 0.4

0.5! 5.3 45.6 72.7 5.5 42.6 12.3 26.6

0.6 6.3 46.0 64.0 6.1 — 12.9 29.3

0.4 6.4 46.0 68.2 7.2 42.8 — —

0.4! 5.2 47.3 67.4 4.7 40.6 — —

700! 18,700 268,900 439,500 5,300 77,000 — —

# 0.4 5.6 9.2 0.1 1.6 — —

—

—

25.9

23.2

107,300

2.2

— 36.3 51.4 62.5 36.0 25.8

— — 51.4 65.2 43.6 35.6

16.2 — 50.5 60.9 37.7 29.2

14.9 — 49.3 62.0 37.8 28.2

37,800 — 212,100 704,200 302,600 171,000

0.8 — 4.4 14.7 6.3 3.6


Percent of schools

Number of incidents

18.9

21.0

19.7

19.5

102,100

2.1

14.8 0.6 2.3 3.9 8.5

13.3 0.8 2.6 2.8 6.0

12.6 0.3 2.6 2.2 5.9

12.6 0.8 2.1 2.1 5.7

29,400 800 2,700 5,400 9,100

0.6 # 0.1 0.1 0.2

0.3! 3.4 28.5 52.0 4.5 23.0 11.4 22.2

0.6 4.2 30.5 50.0 4.9 — 12.4 26.0

0.4 4.9 27.9 50.6 5.5 25.0 — —

0.4! 4.1 31.0 48.7 3.6 23.3 — —

600! 10,700 133,800 267,800 3,900 43,200 — —

# 0.2 2.8 5.6 0.1 0.9 — —

—

—

22.8

20.7

94,300

2.0

— 14.7 32.7

— — 34.3

11.6 — 31.9

10.6 — 30.8

26,900 — 99,500

0.6 — 2.1


Percent of schools

Recorded incidents 2005– 2007–08 06

Percent of schools

Threat of physical attack without a weapon Serious violent incidents Rape or attempted rape Sexual battery other than rape Physical attack or fight with a weapon Threat of physical attack with a weapon Robbery with a weapon Robbery without a weapon Theft1 Other incidents Possession of a firearm/explosive device Possession of a knife or sharp object2 distribution of illegal drugs Possession or use of alcohol or illegal drugs distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs distribution, possession, or use of alcohol Sexual harassment Vandalism

2003 –04

Percent of schools

Type of crime

1999– 2000

139

— Not available. # Rounds to zero. ! Interpret data with caution. 1 Theft/larceny includes taking things worth over $10 without personal confrontation. Please see appendix B for a more detailed definition. Note: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. ―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 schoolsponsored 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. detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates of number of incidents are rounded to the nearest 100. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2005–06, and 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2008.

140


Table 6.2. Percentage of Public Schools Experiencing Incidents of Crime, Number of Incidents, and the Rate of Crimes Per 1,000 Students, by Type of Crime and Selected School Characteristics: School Year 2007–08



Violent incidents1 Percent of schools 75.5

Number of incidents


Serious violent incidents2 Rate per Percent Number of 1,000 of schools incidents students 17.2 58,300 1.2

Total 83,000 1,332,400 School level5 Primary 49,200 65.1 588,700 25.6 13.0 24,000 1.0 middle 15,300 94.3 400,900 41.3 22.0 18,600 1.9 High school 11,900 94.0 277,200 22.3 28.9 14,100 1.1 Combined 6,600 75.5 65,700 24.7 16.4 1,700 0.6 Enrollment size Less than 300 19,200 60.6 137,700 34.4 12.3 7,300! 1.8! 300–499 24,300 69.1 242,600 24.3 11.4 7,800 0.8 500–999 30,200 83.4 601,700 30.0 19.8 24,400 1.2 1,000 or more 9,300 97.0 350,400 25.5 34.0 18,800 1.4 Urbanicity City 21,300 82.1 494,800 35.8 20.2 26,800 1.9 Suburb 23,900 73.7 380,600 22.8 17.4 15,500 0.9 Town 11,800 80.0 158,700 26.4 17.6 7,200 1.2 Rural 26,000 69.5 298,300 26.4 14.4 8,800 0.8 Percent combined enrollment of Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian/Alaska Native students Less than 5 percent 13,700 66.7 116,500 21.7 15.0 4,600 0.8 5 percent to less 21,400 72.7 226,100 18.8 13.7 7,400 0.6 than 20 percent 20 percent to less 20,300 77.3 349,600 27.1 15.2 10,500 0.8 than 50 percent 50 percent or more 27,600 80.5 640,300 36.6 22.5 35,800 2.0 Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 0–25 21,900 67.7 222,100 15.2 15.1 7,500 0.5 26–50 25,800 75.6 372,200 25.3 15.4 14,000 1.0 51–75 18,800 77.4 342,300 35.6 17.6 12,700 1.3 76–100 16,500 83.4 395,800 45.0 22.4 24,200 2.8 Student/teacher ratio6 Less than 12 42,200 71.8 563,400 29.1 15.3 25,100 1.3 12–16 28,500 78.0 494,600 26.2 18.0 20,700 1.1 more than 16 12,300 82.0 274,400 28.6 21.9 12,500 1.3 Theft3 Other incidents4 School Rate per Percent Rate per Percent of Number of Number of characteristic 1,000 of 1,000 schools incidents incidents students schools students Total 47.3 268,900 5.6 67.4 439,500 9.2 School level5 Primary 30.6 48,300 2.1 55.1 112,200 4.9 middle 69.5 80,500 8.3 84.0 119,700 12.3 High school 83.7 122,600 9.9 93.5 183,700 14.8 Combined 54.7 17,500 6.6 72.9 23,800 9.0 Enrollment size Less than 300 33.3 21,400 5.4 47.6 36,200 9.1 300–499 35.6 31,800 3.2 62.1 64,600 6.5


Theft3 School characteristic

Percent of schools

Number of incidents

141

Other incidents4 Rate per 1,000 students 5.1 8.3

Percent of schools 75.5 95.5

Number of incidents

Rate per 1,000 students 7.7 13.4

500–999 54.0 101,700 155,000 1,000 or more 84.9 114,000 183,600 Urbanicity City 54.5 85,100 6.2 77.5 160,000 11.6 Suburb 40.3 84,100 5.0 66.7 138,100 8.3 Town 49.1 32,100 5.3 66.4 49,300 8.2 Rural 47.1 67,700 6.0 60.2 92,100 8.2 Percent combined enrollment of Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian/Alaska Native students Less than 5 percent 46.1 31,700 5.9 60.6 39,600 7.4 5 percent to less 43.0 66,400 5.5 62.0 87,400 7.3 than 20 percent 20 percent to less 45.8 67,600 5.2 70.0 108,600 8.4 than 50 percent 50 percent or more 52.4 103,300 5.9 72.9 203,900 11.7 Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 0–25 46.2 82,500 5.6 66.1 108,000 7.4 26–50 45.4 83,200 5.6 64.2 127,200 8.6 51–75 46.2 52,700 5.5 69.7 101,000 10.5 76–100 53.0 50,500 5.7 71.3 103,300 11.7 Student/teacher ratio6 Less than 12 41.5 105,700 5.5 61.4 166,300 8.6 12–16 51.3 103,500 5.5 71.8 166,800 8.8 more than 16 57.9 59,700 6.2 77.3 106,300 11.1

! Interpret data with caution. 1 Violent incidents include serious violent incidents; physical attack or fight without a weapon; and threat of physical attack without a weapon. 2 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. 3 Theft/larceny includes taking things worth over $10 without personal confrontation. Please see appendix B for a more detailed definition. 4 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. 5 Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9. Combined schools include all other combinations of grades, including K–1 2 schools. 6 Student/teacher ratio was calculated by dividing the total number of students enrolled in the school by the total number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers and aides. The total number of FTE teachers and aides is a combination of full-time and part-time teachers and aides, including special education teachers and aides, with an adjustment for part-time status. Note: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. ―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. detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates of number of incidents and schools are rounded to the nearest 100. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.

142


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).

Total 83,000 37.8 302,600 6.3 12.6 29,400 5 School level Primary 49,200 20.0 49,700 2.2 7.1 5,400 middle 15,300 64.4 107,300 11.1 17.9 10,900 High school 11,900 74.5 131,400 10.6 26.4 11,500 Combined 6,600 42.9 14,100 5.3 15.7 1,600 ! Enrollment size Less than 300 19,200 23.2 18,000 4.5 7.3 2,200 300–499 24,300 27.4 34,100 3.4 8.1 3,300 500–999 30,200 43.1 110,100 5.5 13.8 10,200 1,000 or more 9,300 78.4 140,300 10.2 31.1 13,700 Urbanicity City 21,300 45.1 123,800 9.0 16.2 13,300 Suburb 23,900 34.4 82,800 5.0 12.2 7,500 Town 11,800 40.8 38,800 6.5 11.7 3,700 Rural 26,000 33.7 57,200 5.1 10.3 4,900 Percent combined enrollment of Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian/Alaska Native students Less than 5 percent 13,700 32.1 21,000 3.9 10.7 2,800 5 percent to less than 21,400 35.2 55,200 4.6 9.8 4,400 20 percent 20 percent to less than 20,300 37.2 81,300 6.3 11.5 5,500 50 percent 50 percent or more 27,600 43.2 145,100 8.3 16.4 16,600 Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 0–25 21,900 34.0 61,600 4.2 11.1 5,100 26–50 25,800 35.3 93,800 6.4 11.6 7,800


Number of incidents

Serious violent incidents2 Percent of schools


Number of incidents

Violent incidents1 Percent of schools



Table 6.3. Percentage of Public Schools Reporting Incidents of Crime to the Police, Number of Incidents, and the Rate of Crimes Per 1,000 Students, by Type of Crime and Selected School Characteristics: School Year 2007–08

0.6 0.2 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.4

0.5 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.5



42,200 28,500 12,300

34.3 40.5 43.8

119,000 113,600 69,900 Theft3

6.2 6.0 7.3

11.3 10,700 0.6 13.2 12,500 0.7 15.4 6,200 0.6 4 Other incidents

Percent of schools

Number of incidents

Total 31.0 133,800 2.8 48.7 267,800 School level5 Primary 16.4 18,200 0.8 33.7 45,800 middle 46.8 32,000 3.3 68.6 70,500 High school 65.4 74,500 6.0 85.3 139,000 Combined 40.1 9,200 3.5 48.2 12,500 Enrollment size Less than 300 20.1 7,400 1.8 29.4 17,500 300–499 19.2 11,600 1.2 39.8 28,900 500–999 35.9 46,900 2.3 56.2 86,500 1,000 or more 68.2 67,900 4.9 87.7 134,900 Urbanicity City 38.0 42,600 3.1 60.0 96,800 Suburb 26.5 44,200 2.6 49.2 84,600 Town 30.6 17,500 2.9 46.2 29,900 Rural 29.5 29,500 2.6 40.2 56,500 Percent combined enrollment of Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian/Alaska Native students Less than 5 percent 26.4 13,800 2.6 36.8 21,000 5 percent to less than 20 percent 31.1 38,300 3.2 44.9 58,700 20 percent to less than 50 29.9 33,700 2.6 49.8 65,000 percent 50 percent or more 33.9 48,000 2.7 56.7 123,100 Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 0–25 30.8 43,300 3.0 48.7 71,300

0.7 1.1


Number of incidents


7,000 9,500


Rate per 1,000 students 7.7 8.3

Number of incidents

Number of incidents 74,300 72,900

Percent of schools





18,800 16,500


51–75 76–100 Student/teacher ratio6 Less than 12 12–16 more than 16

Violent incidents1

143

5.6 2.0 7.3 11.2 4.7 4.4 2.9 4.3 9.8 7.0 5.1 5.0 5.0

3.9 4.9 5.0 7.0 4.9

United States Department of Education Table 6.3. (Continued) Theft3

Percent of schools

30.1 27.9 36.0

43,900 25,500 21,100

3.0 2.6 2.4

47.4 43.3 56.8

84,500 50,700 61,400

5.7 5.3 7.0

27.9 33.9 34.8

51,500 53,800 28,500

2.7 2.9 3.0

42.7 52.9 59.4

94,300 106,200 67,300

4.9 5.6 7.0



! Interpret data with caution.

Number of incidents

26–50 51–75 76–100 Student/teacher ratio6 Less than 12 12–16 more than 16

Percent of schools


Other incidents4 Number of incidents

144

1

Violent incidents include serious violent incidents; physical attack or fight without a weapon; and threat of physical attack without a weapon. 2 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. 3 Theft/larceny includes taking things worth over $10 without personal confrontation. Please see appendix B for a more detailed definition. 4 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. 5 Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9. Combined schools include all other combinations of grades, including K–1 2 schools. 6 Student/teacher ratio was calculated by dividing the total number of students enrolled in the school by the total number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers and aides. The total number of FTE teachers and aides is a combination of the full-time and part-time teachers and aides, including special education teachers and aides, with an adjustment for part-time status. Note: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. ―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 schoolsponsored 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. detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates of number of incidents and schools are rounded to the nearest 100. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.

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.


145

Table 6.4. Percentage of Public Schools Recording and Reporting to the Police Violent Incidents of Crime, by the Number of Incidents and Selected School Characteristics: School Year 2007–08 School characteristic

None 24.5

Number of violent incidents recorded 1–2 3–5 6–9 10–14 15–19 10.8 13.0 11.0 10.8 6.2

20 or more Total 23.5 School level1 Primary 34.9 11.5 13.1 9.1 9.6 4.9 16.9 middle 5.7 7.0 11.4 14.7 11.9 9.4 39.9 High school 6.0 8.2 12.7 13.2 12.5 9.5 37.9 Combined 24.5 19.4 17.0 12.4 14.3 3.3 ! 9.2 Enrollment size Less than 300 39.4 16.4 11.9 11.0 8.6 4.3! 8.5 300–499 30.9 12.0 16.7 9.7 11.6 5.0 14.0 500–999 16.6 8.7 13.5 13.3 11.1 7.4 29.5 1,000 or more 3.0 ! 3.2 4.3 6.9 12.5 10.0 60.1 Urbanicity City 17.9 8.2 9.2 11.1 11.5 6.4 35.8 Suburb 26.3 9.5 16.5 8.2 10.4 4.6 24.4 Town 20.0 13.6 12.0 11.3 13.3 9.3 20.5 Rural 30.5 12.9 13.5 13.3 9.5 6.3 14.1 Percent combined enrollment of Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian/Alaska Native students Less than 5 percent 33.3 12.0 12.3 12.0 11.2 9.9 9.3 5 percent to less than 20 percent 27.3 14.9 15.6 11.1 9.8 6.1 15.2 20 percent to less than 50 22.7 9.3 12.5 12.1 11.7 5.1 26.6 percent 50 percent or more 19.5 8.2 11.9 9.6 10.8 5.4 34.7 Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 0–25 32.3 11.2 14.3 12.4 8.0 6.5 15.3 26–50 24.4 11.7 14.2 11.4 12.6 6.3 19.3 51–75 22.6 9.2 11.5 11.9 13.1 5.8 26.0 76–100 16.6 10.8 11.3 7.4 9.4 6.3 38.1 Student/teacher ratio2 Less than 12 28.2 12.8 13.5 9.4 11.5 6.4 18.3 12–16 22.0 8.5 13.6 13.3 10.1 5.9 26.6 more than 16 18.0 9.7 10.2 10.9 10.1 6.7 34.5 Total 62.2 14.0 8.2 4.9 4.0 1.8 4.9 School level1 Primary 80.0 11.3 3.6 2.1 2.0 ‡ ‡ middle 35.6 19.8 14.9 9.4 7.1 3.3 9.9 High school 25.5 13.2 16.5 11.5 9.5 5.7 18.1 Combined 57.1 21.7 12.7! 3.2! ‡ ‡ 2.2! Enrollment size Less than 300 76.8 14.4 4.7 0.9! ‡ ‡ ‡ 300–499 72.6 13.2 6.9 3.7 1.8! ‡ 1.1 ! 500–999 56.9 15.6 9.7 6.4 5.4 1.8 4.1

146

United States Department of Education Table 6.4. (Continued) School characteristic

None 21.6

Number of violent incidents recorded 1–2 3–5 6–9 10–14 15–19 9.5 14.4 11.2 9.8 6.9

20 or more 1,000 or more 26.5 Urbanicity City 54.9 15.0 8.9 4.8 5.2 2.3 9.0 Suburb 65.6 13.0 7.1 4.4 3.1 1.9 4.8 Town 59.2 13.2 11.0 6.7 4.6 ‡ 3.5 Rural 66.3 14.4 7.6 4.5 3.5 1.4 2.3 Percent combined enrollment of Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian/ Alaska Native students Less than 5 percent 67.9 16.3 8.8 3.5 1.8 0.6! 1.2! 5 percent to less than 20 percent 64.8 13.6 8.3 5.6 3.1 1.7 3.0 20 percent to less than 50 62.8 11.6 7.4 6.3 3.2 2.7 5.9 percent 50 percent or more 56.8 14.8 8.6 4.0 6.3 1.9 7.5 Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 0–25 66.0 12.4 8.2 4.7 3.2 1.8 3.8 26–50 64.7 11.5 9.4 5.3 2.4 1.8 4.9 51–75 62.3 13.3 5.6 5.6 6.2 1.8! 5.1 76–100 52.9 20.6 9.7 3.7 4.9 2.0! 6.3 Student/teacher ratio2 Less than 12 65.7 13.0 7.6 4.5 4.0 1.7 3.4 12–16 59.5 15.0 9.2 5.5 3.6 1.6 5.7 more than 16 56.2 14.9 8.1 4.7 4.7 3.1 8.3

! Interpret data with caution. ‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9. Combined schools include all other combinations of grades, including K–1 2 schools. 2 Student/teacher ratio was calculated by dividing the total number of students enrolled in the school by the total number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers and aides. The total number of FTE teachers and aides is a combination of the full-time and part-time teachers and aides, including special education teachers and aides, with an adjustment for part-time status. Note: Violent incidents include rape or attempted rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with or without a weapon, threat of physical attack with or without a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. ―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. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.


147

# Rounds to zero. 1 Violent incidents include serious violent incidents; physical attack or fight without a weapon; and threat of physical attack without a weapon. 2 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. Note: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. ―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 schoolsponsored 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. detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008. Figure 6.2. Percentage of public schools recording and reporting violent and serious violent incidents of crime, by the number of incidents: School year 2007–08.

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

148


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).

1

Total incidents include violent incidents; thefts; and other incidents such as 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. 2 Violent incidents include serious violent incidents; physical attack or fight without a weapon; and threat of physical attack without a weapon. 3 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. 4 Theft/larceny includes taking things worth over $10 without personal confrontation. Please see appendix B for a more detailed definition. Note: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. ―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 schoolsponsored 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. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2005–06, and 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2008. Figure 6.3. Percentage of public schools recording and reporting to the police incidents of crime, by type of crime: Various school years, 1999–2000 through 2007–08.


149

Table 6.5. Percentage of Public Schools Recording and Reporting to the Police Serious Violent Incidents of Crime, by the Number of Incidents and Selected School Characteristics: School Year 2007–08 School characteristic

Number of serious violent incidents recorded None 1 2 3–5 6–9 10 or more 82.8 7.9 3.3 3.3 1.1 1.5

Total School level1 Primary 87.0 5.7 2.7 2.9 ‡ 1.0 ! middle 78.0 9.7 3.8 4.1 1.6 2.8 High school 71.1 12.1 5.7 5.9 2.7 2.4 Combined 83.6 13.2! ‡ ‡ # ‡ Enrollment size Less than 300 87.7 6.9 2.7! ‡ ‡ ‡ 300–499 88.6 5.0 2.5! 2.5! ‡ ‡ 500–999 80.2 9.4 3.6 3.9 1.3! 1.6 1,000 or more 66.0 13.2 5.8 7.0 3.2 4.8 Urbanicity City 79.8 7.1 3.2 4.5 2.6! 2.9 Suburb 82.6 9.0 2.9 3.3 1.2! 1.1! Town 82.4 7.1 4.6 4.0! ‡ ‡ Rural 85.6 8.0 3.3 2.1 0.3! 0.6! Percent combined enrollment of Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian/ Alaska Native students Less than 5 percent 85.0 8.5 4.5! 1.7! # ‡ 5 percent to less than 20 percent 86.3 7.3 3.0 2.2! 0.5! 0.6! 20 percent to less than 50 percent 84.8 7.6 2.5! 2.6 1.3! 1.2! 50 percent or more 77.5 8.4 3.6 5.5 2.1! 2.8 Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 0–25 84.9 8.1 3.8 2.3 0.5! 0.4! 26–50 84.6 7.6 3.6 2.4 0.8! 1.1 51–75 82.4 7.0 2.5! 4.7 1.9! 1.4! 76–100 77.6 9.4 3.1! 4.7 1.7! 3.5 Student/teacher ratio2 Less than 12 84.7 7.2 3.4 2.5 0.9! 1.3 12–16 82.0 8.7 3.4 3.7 1.0! 1.2 more than 16 78.1 8.6 2.9! 5.6 2.3! 2.5! Total 87.4 7.4 2.1 2.1 0.5 0.6 1 School level Primary 92.9 5.3 0.9! 1.0! # # middle 82.1 7.7 3.7 4.0 1.1! 1.4 High school 73.6 12.3 5.4 4.9 1.8 2.0 Combined 84.3 13.3! ‡ ‡ # ‡ Enrollment size Less than 300 92.7 6.4 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 300–499 91.9 4.9 1.8! 1.2! ‡ #

150

United States Department of Education Table 6.5. (Continued) School characteristic

Number of serious violent incidents recorded None 1 2 3–5 6–9 10 or more 86.2 8.3 2.6 2.2 0.4! 0.4! 68.9 12.5 5.4 7.5 2.2 3.5

500–999 1,000 or more Urbanicity City 83.8 7.1 3.0 3.9 0.7! 1.4 Suburb 87.8 7.6 2.1 1.6 0.5! 0.4 Town 88.3 6.5 3.0! ‡ ‡ ‡ Rural 89.7 7.8 1.0 1.2! ‡ ‡ Percent combined enrollment of Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian/ Alaska Native students Less than 5 percent 89.3 8.7 1.0! 0.6! # ‡ 5 percent to less than 20 percent 90.2 5.6 2.3 1.3 0.4! ‡ 20 percent to less than 50 percent 88.5 7.3 1.7 1.9 ‡ 0.4! 50 percent or more 83.6 8.1 2.9 3.5 0.8 1.1 Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 0–25 88.9 6.6 2.6 1.4 0.3 0.3! 26–50 88.4 6.6 2.6 1.7 0.2 0.4 51–75 86.2 8.7 1.1 2.6! 0.8! 0.5! 76–100 85.4 7.9 1.9! 2.9! 0.7! 1.2 2 Student/teacher ratio Less than 12 88.7 6.8 2.1 1.7 0.3! 0.3 12–16 86.8 7.9 2.2 2.0 0.4! 0.6 more than 16 84.6 7.9 2.1! 3.3 0.9! 1.2 # Rounds to zero. ! Interpret data with caution. ‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9. Combined schools include all other combinations of grades, including K–1 2 schools. 2 Student/teacher ratio was calculated by dividing the total number of students enrolled in the school by the total number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers and aides. The total number of FTE teachers and aides is a combination of the full-time and part-time teachers and aides, including special education teachers and aides, with an adjustment for part-time status. Note: Serious violent incidents include rape or attempted rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with a weapon, threat of physical attack with a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. Serious violent incidents are also included in violent incidents. Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. ―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. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.


151

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. Table 7.1. Percentage of Public Schools Reporting Selected Discipline Problems that Occurred at School, by Frequency and School Characteristics: School Year 2007–08

Total 3.7 25.3 3.0 6.0 10.5 4.0 19.8 School level3 Primary 2.6 20.5 1.3! 3.7 7.7 3.1 10.0 middle 5.6 43.5 6.5 9.8 17.7 6.6 35.4 High school 5.3 21.7 5.7 12.1 16.9 4.8 43.1 Combined 4.3! 24.9 ‡ 2.9! 3.8! ‡ 14.3 Enrollment size Less than 300 3.2! 18.7 2.7! 4.5! 5.6! 3.2! 9.8 300–499 1.4! 20.8 1.8! 3.1 8.4 2.6! 12.8 500–999 5.3 30.6 3.4 6.4 11.9 5.1 21.8 1,000 or more 5.5 33.2 5.7 15.3 22.0 6.1 52.4 Urbanicity City 5.4 27.5 4.0 11.5 18.2 7.7 33.9 Urban fringe 2.9 24.6 2.9 5.0 9.3 3.3 18.8 Town 2.8 ! 30.3 3.1 ! 4.5 10.6 2.9 16.8 Rural 3.4 21.7 2.4 ! 3.0 5.4 2.2 10.6 Percent combined enrollment of Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian/Alaska Native students Less than 5 percent 1.2 ! 25.6 2.7 ! 2.8 ! 5.6 2.0 ! 3.9 5 percent to less than 20 percent 2.7 24.9 2.5 2.6 5.6 2.1 9.9 20 percent to less than 50 percent 3.0 22.1 2.2 5.5 11.5 2.3 ! 21.3 50 percent or more 6.2 27.6 4.2 10.5 16.1 7.8 34.2 Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 0–25 1.6 22.6 2.2 2.7 5.5 1.4 ! 10.4

Cult or extremist group activities

Wide- spread disorder in classrooms

Student acts of disrespect for teachers other than verbal abuse


Student sexual harassment of other students

Student bullying

Student racial/ ethnic tensions


Gang activities

Happens at all2

Happens at least once a week1

2.6 0.6! 3.1 8.0 6.4! 1.3! 1.0 ! 2.6 9.4 3.3 2.6 2.5 ! 2.0

‡ 1.7 ! 2.7 3.6 1.5

152

United States Department of Education Table 7.1. (Continued)

Cult or extremist group activities

Happens at all2 Gang activities

Student acts of disrespect for teachers other than verbal abuse Wide- spread disorder in classrooms


Student sexual harassment of other students

Student bullying


Student racial/ ethnic tensions

Happens at least once a week1

26–50 3.5 23.5 3.2 3.6 8.7 2.5 18.2 3.0 51–75 3.5 26.6 2.9 7.0 11.4 3.9 19.7 3.4 76–1 00 7.0 30.1 4.0 ! 12.8 19.2 10.0 34.9 2.4 ! Student/teacher ratio4 Less than 12 3.1 22.7 2.3 5.9 9.7 4.1 15.2 1.9 12–16 3.0 27.3 3.5 5.5 10.4 3.4 21.9 2.7 more than 16 7.4 ! 29.3 4.4 ! 7.5 13.5 5.3 30.7 4.5 Prevalence of violent incidents5 No violent incidents ‡ 10.0 ‡ ‡ 2.1 ! 1.4 ! 2.7 ! ‡ Any violent incidents 4.7 30.2 3.8 7.7 13.3 4.9 25.4 3.3 ! Interpret data with caution. ‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 Includes schools that reported the activity happens either at least once a week or daily. 2 Includes schools that reported the activity has happened at all at their school during the school year. 3 Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9. Combined schools include all other combinations of grades, including K–1 2 schools. 4 Student/teacher ratio was calculated by dividing the total number of students enrolled in the school by the total number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers and aides. The total number of FTE teachers and aides is a combination of the full-time and part-time teachers and aides, including special education teachers and aides, with an adjustment for part-time status. 5 Violent incidents include rape or attempted rape,, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with or without a weapon, threat of physical attack or fight with or without a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. Note: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. ―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 schoolsponsored events or activities. Respondents were instructed to respond only for those times that were during normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.

In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, public school principals were asked how often certain disciplinary problems happen in their schools.30 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


153

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. Table 7.2. Percentage of Public Schools Reporting Selected Discipline Problems that Occurred at School, by Frequency: Various School Years, 1999–2000 Through 2007–08 Frequency and discipline problem 1999–2000 2003–04 2005–06 2007–08 Happens at least once a week1 Student racial/ethnic tensions2 3.4 2.1 2.8 3.7 Student bullying 29.3 26.8 24.5 25.3 Student sexual harassment of other students — 4.0 3.5 3.0 Student verbal abuse of teachers 12.5 10.7 9.5 6.0 Widespread disorder in the classrooms 19.4 19.5 18.3 10.5 Student acts of disrespect for teachers other 3.1 2.8 2.3 4.0 than verbal abuse3 Happens at all4 Undesirable gang activities 18.7 16.7 16.9 19.8 Undesirable extremist or cult group activities 6.7 3.4 3.7 2.6 — Not available. 1 Includes schools that reported the activity happens either at least once a week or daily. 2 Prior to the 2007–08 survey administration, the questionnaire wording was ―student racial tensions.‖ 3 Prior to the 2007–08 survey administration, the questionnaire did not specify ―other than verbal abuse.‖ Caution should be used making direct comparisons with earlier survey years. 4 Includes schools that reported the activity has happened at all at their school during the school year. In the 1999–2000 survey administration, the questionnaire specified ―undesirable‖ gang activities and ―undesirable‖ cult or extremist group activities. Note: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. ―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 schoolsponsored events or activities. Respondents were instructed to respond for only those times that were during normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session, unless the survey specified otherwise. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2005–06, and 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2008.

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

154


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 reducedprice 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 20 07–08, 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 less 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 20 05–06 (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).

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.31


155

! Interpret data with caution. ‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 Includes schools that reported the activity happens either at least once a week or daily. 2 Includes schools that reported the activity has happened at all at their school during the school year. Note: Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9. Combined schools include all other combinations of grades, including K–1 2 schools. Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. ―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 respond only for those times that were during normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session, unless the survey specified otherwise. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008. Figure 7.1. Percentage of public schools reporting selected discipline problems that occurred at school, by school level: School year 2007–08.

156


Table 8.1. Percentage of Students Ages 12–18 Who Reported That Gangs Were Present at School, by Urbanicity and Selected Student and School Characteristics: Various years, 2001–07

Suburban

Rural

Total

Urban

18.3

13.3

20.9

30.9

18.4

12.3

21.4 18.8

31.9 25.9

18.9 17.5

14.0 12.5

22.3 19.5

32.1 29.7

20.5 16.3

12.2 12.4

15.5 28.6 32.0 — 21.4

20.5 32.4 40.3 — 27.0

15.4 25.4 27.1 — 20.0

12.1 22.5 16.8 ! — ‡

14.2 29.5 37.2 — 22.0

19.8 32.8 42.6 — 30.6

13.8 28.3 34.6 — 18.2

10.7 21.8 ! 12.7 ! — ‡

11.2 15.7 17.3 24.3 23.6 24.2 21.1

14.9 23.7 24.0 35.3 33.1 34.2 34.1

9.0 13.7 16.6 20.8 22.3 22.7 18.6

11.0 8.9 10.1 18.9 14.4 15.8 11.5 !

10.9 16.3 17.9 26.1 26.3 23.4 22.2

21.6 25.5 25.2 38.2 35.3 34.6 34.8

7.5 13.2 16.2 24.3 24.1 20.4 19.3

‡ 9.4 10.9 13.8 18.0 15.0 13.3

21.6 4.9

31.9 5.0

19.5 4.3 ! 2005

13.7 ‡

22.5 3.9

33.7 6.0

19.9 2.4 !

12.8 ‡

Rural

Urban 28.9

36.2

20.8

16.4

23.2

‡

‡

‡

25.3 22.9

37.4 35.0

22.4 19.1

16.1 16.7

25.1 21.3

‡ ‡

‡ ‡

‡ ‡

16.8 37.6 38.9 20.2

23.7 41.8 48.9 25.0

16.0 36.2 32.1 18.1

14.1 24.4 26.2 19.0 !

16.0 37.6 36.1 17.4

‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

Rural

Total

24.2

Urban

Rural

Suburban

20071

Suburban

Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity2 White Black Hispanic Asian

20.1

Urban


Total

Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity2 White Black Hispanic Asian Other Grade 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Sector Public Private

Total


2003 Suburban

2001


Rural

Urban

Total

Rural

Suburban

Urban

Total

Suburban

20071


157

Other 27.7 33.9 29.0 ‡ 26.4 ‡ ‡ ‡ Grade 6th 12.1 19.9 8.9 8.3 ! 15.3 ‡ ‡ ‡ 7th 17.3 24.2 14.9 15.2 17.4 ‡ ‡ ‡ 8th 19.1 30.5 14.6 14.7 20.6 ‡ ‡ ‡ 9th 28.3 40.3 24.8 21.0 28.0 ‡ ‡ ‡ 10th 32.6 50.6 27.9 22.0 28.1 ‡ ‡ ‡ 11th 28.0 44.3 25.5 13.3 ! 25.9 ‡ ‡ ‡ 12th 27.9 39.5 25.1 15.8 ! 24.4 ‡ ‡ ‡ Sector Public 25.8 39.1 22.3 17.2 24.9 ‡ ‡ ‡ Private 4.2 7.7 3.0 ! ‡ 5.2 ‡ ‡ ‡ — Not available. ! Interpret data with caution. ‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 In 2007, the reference period was the school year, whereas in prior survey years the reference period was the previous 6 months. Cognitive testing showed that estimates from 2007 are comparable to previous years. 2 Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Other includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian (prior to 2005), Pacific Islander, and, from 2003 onward, more than one race. due to changes in racial/ethnic categories, comparisons of race/ethnicity across years should be made with caution. Note: Data for 2005 have been revised from previously published figures. All gangs, whether or not they are involved in violent or illegal activity, are included. ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Due to a redesign of the methods used to measure urbanicity, estimates for 2007 locales are not shown. For more information, please see appendix A. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, various years, 2001–2007.

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

158


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).

Indicator 9. Students’ Reports of Drug Availability on School Property A smaller percentage of students reported that drugs were offered, sold, or given to them at school in 2007 (22 percent) than in 2005 (25 percent). The availability of drugs on school property has a disruptive and corrupting influence on the school environment (Nolin et al. 1997). In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9–12 were asked whether someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property in the 12 months before the survey.32 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 25 percent in 2005 and 22 percent in 2007) (table 9.1 and figure 9.1). The percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported that drugs were made available to them on school property was lower in 2007 than it was in 2005 (22 vs. 25 percent).

Note: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. All gangs, whether or not they are involved in violent or illegal activity, are included. ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007. Figure 8.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported that gangs were present at school during the school year, by school sector and race/ethnicity: 2007.


159

1

In 2007, the reference period was the school year, whereas in prior survey years the reference period was the previous 6 months. Cognitive testing showed that estimates from 2007 are comparable to previous years. Note: All gangs, whether or not they are involved in violent or illegal activity, are included. ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, various years, 2001–2007. Figure 8.2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported that gangs were present at school, by sex: Various years, 2001–07

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 2007 (figure 9.1 and table 9.1). For example, in 2007, 26 percent of males reported that drugs were available, compared with 19 percent of females. Some differences in the percentages of students reporting that drugs were offered, sold, or given to them on school property also appeared by grade. In 2007, the percentage of 10th-grade students (25 percent) who reported that drugs were made available to them was higher than the percentage for either 9th- or 12th-grade students (21 and 20 percent, respectively), but not measurably different from that of 11th-grade students. The percentages of students who reported having illegal drugs offered, sold, or given to them on school property differed across racial/ethnic groups (figure 9.2 and table 9.1). Specifically, in 2007, higher percentages of Hispanic and Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian students than Black, White, and Asian students reported that drugs were made available to them (29 and 38 percent vs. 19–21 percent). Although it appears that a higher percentage of Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian students than Hispanic students reported that drugs were made available to them, the difference was not found to be statistically significant. In 2007, student reports of the availability of drugs on school property varied among the 39 states and the District of Columbia for which data were available. Among these states and the District of Columbia, the percentage of students reporting that drugs were offered, sold, or given to them on school property ranged from 10 percent in Iowa to 37 percent in Arizona (table 9.2).

160


Table 9.1. Percentage of Students in Grades 9–12 Who Reported that Drugs Were Made Available to Them on School Property During the Previous 12 Months, by Selected Student and School Characteristics: Various Years, 1993–2007 Student or school characteristic Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity1 White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian/ Alaska Native Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian more than one race Grade 9th 10th 11th 12th Urbanicity Urban Suburban Rural

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

24.0

32.1

31.7

30.2

28.5

28.7

25.4

22.3

28.5 19.1

38.8 24.8

37.4 24.7

34.7 25.7

34.6 22.7

31.9 25.0

28.8 21.8

25.7 18.7

24.1 17.5 34.1

31.7 28.5 40.7

31.0 25.4 41.1

20.9

22.8

30.1

28.8 25.3 36.9 25.7 30.6

28.3 21.9 34.2 25.7 34.5

27.5 23.1 36.5 22.5 31.3

23.6 23.9 33.5 15.9 24.4

20.8 19.2 29.1 21.0 25.1

(2)

(2)

(2)

46.9

50.2

34.7

41.3

38.5

(2)

(2)

(2)

36.0

34.5

36.6

31.6

24.6

21.8 23.7 27.5 23.0

31.1 35.0 32.8 29.1

31.4 33.4 33.2 29.0

27.6 32.1 31.1 30.5

29.0 29.0 28.7 26.9

29.5 29.2 29.9 24.9

24.0 27.5 24.9 24.9

21.2 25.3 22.8 19.6

— — —

— — —

31.2 34.2 22.7

30.3 29.7 32.1

32.0 26.6 28.2

31.1 28.4 26.2

— — —

— — —

(2)

(2)

(2)

— Not available. 1 Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 2 The response categories for race/ethnicity changed in 1999 making comparisons of some categories with earlier years problematic. In 1993, 1995, and 1997, Asian students and Pacific Islander students were not categorized separately and students were not given the option of choosing more than one race. Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. Source: Centers for disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), various years, 1993–2007.


161

Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. Source: Centers for disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), various years, 1993–2007. Figure 9.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported that drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by sex: Various years, 1993–2007.

Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Source: Centers for disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 2007. Figure 9.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported that drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by race/ethnicity: 2007.

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.

162


Table 9.2. Percentage of Students in Grades 9–12 Who Reported That Drugs Were Made Available to Them on School Property During the Previous 12 Months, by State: 2003, 2005, and 2007 State United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania

2003 28.7 26.0 28.4 28.6 — — — — 27.9 30.2 25.7 33.3 — 19.6 — 28.3 — — 30.4 — 32.6 — 31.9 31.3 — 22.3 21.6 26.9 23.3 34.5 28.2 — — 23.0 31.9 21.3 31.1 22.2 — —

2005 25.4 26.2 — 38.7 29.2 — 21.2 31.5 26.1 20.3 23.2 30.7 32.7 24.8 — 28.9 15.5 16.7 19.8 — 33.5 28.9 29.9 28.8 — — 18.2 25.3 22.0 32.6 26.9 32.6 33.5 23.7 27.4 19.6 30.9 18.4 — —

2007 22.3 — 25.1 37.1 28.1 — — 30.5 22.9 25.7 19.0 32.0 36.2 25.1 21.2 20.5 10.1 15.0 27.0 — 29.1 27.4 27.3 29.1 — 15.6 17.8 24.9 — 28.8 22.5 — 31.3 26.6 28.5 18.7 26.7 19.1 — —


State Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2003 26.0 — 22.1 24.3 — 24.7 29.4 — — 26.5 26.3 18.1

2005 24.1 29.1 20.9 26.6 30.7 20.6 23.1 — — 24.8 21.7 22.7

163

2007 25.3 26.6 21.1 21.6 26.5 23.2 22.0 — — 28.6 22.7 24.7

— Not available. Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. The estimate for the United States is drawn from a nationally representative sample of schools and is not the aggregate of participating states. Each state estimate is based on a sample that is representative of that state. Estimates were revised and may differ from previously published data. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), previously unpublished tabulation, 2003, 2005, and 2007.

Table 10.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being targets of hate-related words and seeing hate-related graffiti at school, by selected student and school characteristics: Various years, 1999–2007

2005

1999

2001

2003

2005

20071

20071

2003

Hate-related graffiti

2001

Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity2 White Black Hispanic Asian Other Grade 6th 7th 8th

Hate-related words

—

12.3

11.7

11.2

9.7

36.3

35.5

36.3

38.4

34.9

— —

12.8 11.7

12.0 11.3

11.7 10.7

9.9 9.6

33.8 38.9

34.9 36.1

35.0 37.6

37.7 39.1

34.4 35.4

— — — — —

12.1 13.9 11.0 — 13.6

10.9 14.2 11.4 — 14.1

10.3 15.1 10.5 10.9 14.2

8.9 11.4 10.6 11.1 10.6

36.4 37.6 35.6 — 32.2

36.2 33.6 35.1 — 32.1

35.2 38.1 40.3 — 31.4

38.5 38.0 38.0 34.5 46.9

35.5 33.7 34.8 28.2 38.7

— — —

12.1 14.1 13.0

11.9 12.5 12.8

11.1 13.1 11.2

12.1 10.7 11.0

30.3 34.9 35.6

34.9 34.9 36.7

35.7 37.2 34.2

34.0 37.0 35.7

35.5 32.3 33.5

1999


164

2003

2005

20071

1999

2001

2003

2005

20071

Hate-related graffiti

2001

9th 10th 11th 12th Urbanicity Urban Suburban Rural Sector Public Private

Table 10.1. (Continued) Hate-related words

— — — —

12.1 13.1 12.7 7.9

13.5 11.6 8.3 10.8

12.8 10.9 9.0 9.7

10.9 9.0 8.6 6.0

39.2 38.9 37.0 35.6

35.7 36.2 36.1 33.0

37.0 40.7 36.6 32.2

41.6 40.7 40.2 37.8

34.5 36.4 35.3 37.7

— — —

11.9 12.4 12.4

13.2 10.7 12.2

12.2 9.4 15.5

‡ ‡ ‡

37.0 37.3 32.7

35.7 36.0 33.8

38.6 35.9 33.9

40.9 38.0 35.8

‡ ‡ ‡

— —

12.7 8.2

11.9 9.7

11.6 6.8

10.1 6.1

38.0 20.7

37.3 16.8

37.9 19.5

40.0 18.6

36.4 18.5

1999



— Not available. ‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 In 2007, the reference period was the school year, whereas in prior survey years the reference period was the previous 6 months. Cognitive testing showed that estimates from 2007 are comparable to previous years. 2 Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Other includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian (prior to 2005), Pacific Islander, and, from 2003 onward, more than one race. due to changes in racial/ethnic categories, comparisons of race/ethnicity across years should be made with caution. Note: Data for 2005 have been revised from previously published figures. ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and, from 2001 onward, going to and from school. Hate-related refers to derogatory terms used by others in reference to students’ personal characteristics. due to a redesign of the methods used to measure urbanicity, estimates for 2007 locales are not shown. For more information, please see appendix A. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, various years, 1999–2007.

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.33 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.34 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 haterelated word than 6th-graders (12 percent); 7th-graders, 8th-graders, and 9th-graders (11


165

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, 10 percent of public school students reported being called a hate-related word and 36 percent reported seeing hate-related graffiti compared to 6 percent of private school students who reported being called a hate-related word and 19 percent who reported seeing hate-related graffiti. A higher percentage of White students and students of other races/ethnicities 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.

1

Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Other includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, and more than one race. Note: ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and going to and from school. ―Hate-related‖ refers to derogatory terms used by others in reference to students’ personal characteristics. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007. Figure 10.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being targets of hate-related words and seeing hate-related graffiti at school during the school year, by selected student and school characteristics: 2007

166


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 haterelated 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 haterelated 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).

1

In the School Crime Supplement (SCS) questionnaire, students were asked if they had been the target of hate-related words at school. Students who indicated that they had been called a hate-related word were asked to choose the specific characteristics that the hate-related word targeted. Students were allowed to choose more than one characteristic. If a student chose more than one characteristic, he or she is counted once under the ―total‖ category. Therefore, the total percentage of students who reported being called a hate-related word is less than the sum of the students’ individual characteristics. Note: ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and going to and from school. Hate-related refers to derogatory terms used by others in reference to students’ personal characteristics. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007. Figure 10.2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being targets of hate-related words at school during the school year, by type of hate-related word: 2007.


167

Table 10.2. Percentage of Students Ages 12–18 Who Reported Being Targets of HateRelated Words at School During the School Year, by Selected Student and School Characteristics: 2007 Student or school characteristic Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity2 White Black Hispanic Asian Other Grade 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Urbanicity Urban Suburban Rural Sector Public Private

Total1

Race

Hate-related words related to student’s characteristics Sexual Ethnicity Religion disability Gender orientation 2.9 1.6 1.0 2.0 1.0

9.7

4.6

9.9 9.6

5.3 3.9

3.6 2.3

1.5 1.7

1.1 1.0

1.0 3.1

1.0 1.0

8.9 11.4 10.6 11.1 10.6

2.8 7.1 6.2 11.1 8.5

1.8 2.3 6.7 6.9 ‡

1.8 1.2 ! 1.1 ! ‡ ‡

1.3 0.9 ! 0.5 ! ‡ ‡

2.1 2.9 1.3 ‡ ‡

1.2 1.1 ! 0.6 ! ‡ ‡

12.1 10.7 11.0 10.9 9.0 8.6 6.0

4.1 5.7 4.6 5.3 4.2 4.6 3.0

3.5 1.9 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.4 2.2

2.0 ! 2.1 2.3 ! 1.9 1.3 1.1 ! ‡

1.8 ! 1.4 1.0 ! 1.3 1.0 ! 0.6 ! ‡

2.1 ! 2.9 1.8 2.8 2.4 1.2 ! 1.0 !

‡ 1.1 ! 1.2 ! 0.9 ! 1.0 ! 1.6 ! 0.7 !

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

10.1 6.1

4.8 2.7

3.1 1.8

1.6 1.1 !

1.1 ‡

2.2 ‡

1.1 ‡

! Interpret data with caution. ‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 In the School Crime Supplement (SCS) questionnaire, students were asked if they had been the target of hate-related words at school. Students who indicated that they had been called a hate-related word were asked to choose the specific characteristics that the hate-related word targeted. Students were allowed to choose more than one characteristic. If a student chose more than one characteristic, he or she is counted once under the ―total‖ category. Therefore, the total percentage of students who reported being called a hate-related word is less than the sum of the students’ individual characteristics. 2 Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Other includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian (prior to 2005), Pacific Islander, and, from 2003 onward, more than one race. due to changes in racial/ethnic categories, comparisons of race/ethnicity across years should be made with caution. Note: ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Hate-related refers to derogatory terms used by others in reference to students’ personal characteristics. due to a redesign of the methods used to measure urbanicity, estimates for 2007 locales are not shown. For more information, please see appendix A. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007.

168


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).

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.35 In 2007, about 32 percent of students reported having been bullied at school during the school year (figure 11.1 and table 1 1.1).36 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). Nine percent of all students reported that they had suffered injuries as a result of being pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on. 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).


169

Table 11.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school and cyber-bullied anywhere during the school year, by selected bullying problems and selected student and school characteristics: 2007.

Student or school characteristic Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity3

made fun of, called names, or insulted

Threat- ened with harm

Pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit

Tried to make do things did not want to do

Excluded from activites on purpose

32.2

31.7

21.0

18.1

5.8

11.0

4.1

5.2

4.2

30.6 33.7

30.3 33.2

20.3 21.7

13.5 22.8

6.0 5.6

12.2 9.7

4.8 3.4

4.6 5.8

4.0 4.4

34.6 30.9 27.6 18.1 34.6

34.1 30.4 27.3 18.1 34.1

23.5 19.5 16.1 10.6 20.1

20.3 15.7 14.4 8.2 20.8

6.3 5.8 4.9 ‡ 7.7

11.5 11.3 9.9 3.8 ! 14.4

4.8 3.2 3.0 ‡ 3.1 !

6.1 3.7 4.0 ‡ 7.7

4.2 5.6 3.6 1.8 ! 3.4 !

42.9 35.7 37.3 30.8 28.4 29.3 23.5

42.7 35.6 36.9 30.6 27.7 28.5 23.0

31.2 27.6 25.1 20.3 17.7 15.3 12.1

21.3 20.2 19.7 18.1 15.0 18.7 14.1

7.0 7.4 6.9 4.6 5.8 4.9 4.3

17.6 15.8 14.2 11.4 8.6 6.5 4.1

5.4 4.1 3.6 5.1 4.6 4.2 2.1

7.4 7.7 5.4 4.5 4.6 3.9 3.5

5.2 6.0 4.6 3.5 3.4 4.4 2.4

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

32.4 29.4

32.0 29.1

21.1 20.1

Total cyberbullying1 3.7 2.0 5.3

Property destroyed on purpose

Total bullying at school

Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity3 White Black Hispanic Asian Other Grade 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Urbanicity Urban Suburban Rural Sector Public Private

Total


Subject of rumors

Bullied at school

18.3 6.2 11.4 4.2 5.2 16.0 1.3 ! 6.5 3.6 5.9 Cyber-bullied anywhere Hurtful information Unwanted contact on Internet on Internet2 1.6 0.9 2.3

4.1 5.0

2.1 1.3 2.9

170

United States Department of Education Table 11.1. (Continued)

Cyber-bullied anywhere Student or school Total cyberHurtful information Unwanted contact characteristic bullying1 on Internet on Internet2 White 4.2 1.9 2.4 Black 3.2 1.4 ! 1.5 ! Hispanic 2.9 0.9 ! 2.0 Asian ‡ ‡ ‡ Other 2.4 ! ‡ ‡ Grade 6th 3.1 1.1 ! 1.2 ! 7th 3.4 1.1 ! 2.3 8th 3.3 1.6 ! 2.1 9th 2.5 0.9 ! 1.6 10th 4.6 1.9 2.5 11th 5.1 2.5 2.6 12th 3.5 1.9 2.0 ! Urbanicity Urban ‡ ‡ ‡ Suburban ‡ ‡ ‡ Rural ‡ ‡ ‡ Sector Public 3.9 1.7 2.2 Private 1.0 ! ‡ 1.0 ! ! Interpret data with caution. ‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 Cyber-bullied includes students who responded that another student ―made unwanted contact, for example, threatened or insulted [the respondent] via text (SMS) messaging.‖ This category did not meet reporting standards to be reported separately. 2 This was defined as another student making ―unwanted contact, for example, threatened or insulted [the respondent] via instant messaging.‖ 3 Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Other includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, and more than one race. Note: ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Bullying types do not sum to total because students could have experienced more than one type of bullying. due to a redesign of the methods used to measure urbanicity, estimates for 2007 locales are not shown. For more information, please see appendix A. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007.

In 2007, about 4 percent of students reported having been cyber-bullied37 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).


171

1

Cyber-bullied 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 text (SmS) messaging. The latter category did not meet statistical standards to be reported separately. Note: ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007. Figure 11.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school and being cyberbullied anywhere during the school year, by sex: 2007.

1

This was defined as another student making ―unwanted contact, for example, threatened or insulted [the respondent] via instant messaging.‖ Note: ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007. Figure 11.2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported selected bullying problems at school and cyber-bullying problems anywhere during the school year: 2007.

172


Table 11.2. Percentage of Students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school during the school year, by location of bullying, injury, and selected student and school characteristics: 2007 Student or school characteristic Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity2 White Black Hispanic Asian Other Grade 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Urbanicity Urban Suburban Rural Sector Public Private

Total

Location of bullying Outside on school Somewhere grounds School bus else 22.7 8.0 3.9

Students who were injured1 8.8

32.2

Inside school 78.9

30.6 33.7

77.5 80.2

25.1 20.4

8.3 7.7

2.6 5.0

10.1 7.6

34.6 30.9 27.6 18.1 34.6

79.5 82.2 74.8 79.7 70.0

22.7 19.1 22.7 20.6 ! 39.4

8.8 8.2 4.5 ‡ ‡

3.8 2.4 ! 6.2 ‡ ‡

9.2 9.7 7.8 3.3 ! 11.6

42.9 35.7 37.3 30.8 28.4 29.3 23.5

68.2 80.8 79.5 83.2 77.6 81.6 79.4

28.4 23.5 20.5 18.9 22.6 20.1 28.1

14.5 9.8 9.6 5.5 7.2 4.1 ! 3.5 !

1.8 ! 2.8 ! 4.1 3.5 ! 6.9 4.7 3.4 !

14.4 12.3 11.6 8.5 7.1 5.5 3.8

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

32.4 29.4

78.9 79.0

22.8 21.4

8.5 ‡

4.0 ‡

9.1 5.9

! Interpret data with caution. ‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 Injury includes bruises or swelling; cuts, scratches, or scrapes; black eye or bloody nose; teeth chipped or knocked out; broken bones or internal injuries; knocked unconscious; or other injuries. Only students who reported that their bullying incident constituted being pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on were asked if they suffered injuries as a result of the incident. 2 Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Other includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, and more than one race. Note: ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. For more information, please see appendix A. Location totals may sum to more than 100 because students could have been bullied in more than one location. due to a redesign of the methods used to measure urbanicity, estimates for 2007 locales are not shown. For more information, please see appendix A. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007.


173

Table 11.3. Percentage Distribution of Students Ages 12–18 Who Reported Being Bullied at School and Cyber-Bullied Anywhere by the Frequency of Bullying at School During the School Year and Percentage of Students Who Notified an Adult, by Selected Student and School Characteristics 2007

Student or school characteristic Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity2 White Black Hispanic Asian Other Grade 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Urbanicity Urban Suburban Rural Sector Public Private Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity2 White Black Hispanic Asian Other

Bullying at school Distribution of the frequency of bullying reports Once or Once or twice in Once or twice Almost twice a the school year a week everyday month 62.6 20.7 10.1 6.6

Adult notified1 36.1

59.7 65.4

22.2 19.2

10.7 9.5

7.3 5.9

34.6 37.5

61.3 67.0 64.1 60.2 63.4

21.7 16.8 20.5 22.9 17.7

10.1 10.3 10.2 11.9 ! 7.4 !

6.9 6.0 ! 5.2 ! 11.5 !

33.3 44.3 39.5 26.2 44.0

67.7 54.1 62.1 57.1 63.9 65.4 75.4

14.3 24.3 19.2 26.6 21.0 23.2 11.8

11.5 11.7 13.1 10.3 8.2 6.1 7.9 !

6.6 9.9 5.6 6.0 6.9 5.3 4.9 !

52.9 46.3 36.7 27.2 28.4 30.2 27.0

‡

‡

‡

‡

‡

‡

‡ ‡

‡ ‡

‡ ‡

‡ ‡

‡ ‡

62.4 64.6 72.7

20.4 24.1 20.7

10.2 9.0 5.1

7.0 ‡ ‡

36.5 30.8 30.0

70.1 73.7

22.9 19.9

‡ 6.4 !

‡ ‡

22.4 33.1

71.1 85.1 78.9 ‡ ‡

20.7 ‡ 14.9 ! ‡! ‡!

6.1 ! ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

24.8 35.9 51.8 ‡ ‡

174

Student or school characteristic Grade 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Urbanicity Urban Suburban Rural Sector Public Private

United States Department of Education Table 11.3. (Continued) Bullying at school Distribution of the frequency of bullying reports Once or Once or twice in Once or twice Almost twice a the school year a week everyday month

Adult notified1

73.4 74.4 59.3 77.7 75.8 63.1 94.3

‡ 19.8 ! 23.9 ! ‡ 22.3 32.2 ‡

‡ ‡ 16.8 ! ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

42.4 47.2 28.2 21.7 ! 27.6 24.8 24.2 !

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

19.0 36.1 28.9

72.5 ‡

20.8 ‡

5.2 ‡

‡ ‡

30.1 ‡

! Interpret data with caution. ‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 Teacher or other adult at school notified. 2 Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Other includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, and, from 2003 onward, more than one race. due to changes in racial/ethnic categories, comparisons of race/ethnicity across years should be made with caution. Note: ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Due to a redesign of the methods used to measure urbanicity, estimates for 2007 locales are not shown. For more information, please see appendix A. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007.

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 cyberbullied 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).


175

1

Injury includes bruises or swelling; cuts, scratches, or scrapes; black eye or bloody nose; teeth chipped or knocked out; broken bones or internal injuries; knocked unconscious; or other injuries. Only students who reported that their bullying incident constituted being pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on were asked if they suffered injuries as a result of the incident. Note: ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007. Figure 11.3. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school during the school year, by location of bullying, injury, and sex: 2007.

‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 Teacher or other adult at school notified. Note: ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007. Figure 11.4. Percentage distribution of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school and being cyber-bullied anywhere by the frequency of bullying at school during the school year and percentage of students who notified an adult: 2007

176


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). Table 12.1. Percentage of Public and Private School Teachers Who Agreed or Strongly Agreed that Student Misbehavior and Student Tardiness and Class Cutting Interfered with Their Teaching, by Selected Teacher and School Characteristics: Various School Years, 1987–88 Through 2007–08

1999– 2000

2003–04

2007–08

1987–88

1990–91

1993–94

1999– 2000

2003–04

2007–08

Total 40.2 33.8 Years of teaching experience 3 or fewer 42.2 35.6 4 to 9 40.1 33.6 10 to 19 39.5 33.0 20 or more 40.7 34.2 School level1 Elementary 39.2 34.1 Secondary 43.2 34.9 Sector Public2 42.4 35.7 Private 24.2 20.0

1993–94

1990–91

1987–88


Interfered with teaching Student misbehavior Student tardiness and class cutting

41.4

38.6

35.2

34.2

32.7

—

25.5

29.4

31.4

31.5

45.0 42.0 40.7 40.2

41.5 40.5 36.4 37.6

39.5 36.3 34.1 32.9

37.4 35.3 33.7 31.6

34.7 31.4 31.7 34.4

— — — —

27.9 25.6 24.3 25.6

32.4 30.1 26.7 29.3

34.2 32.1 30.7 29.7

34.3 32.7 30.9 29.2

40.9 43.7

39.1 39.5

33.9 40.1

32.6 38.8

22.6 49.9

— —

17.2 43.0

24.2 41.5

26.5 43.8

25.6 45.5

44.2 22.4

40.8 24.1

37.3 20.8

36.1 20.6

34.7 17.2

— —

27.9 8.7

31.5 15.0

33.4 16.9

33.5 17.8


177

1993–94

1999– 2000

2003–04

2007–08

1987–88

1990–91

1993–94

1999– 2000

2003–04

2007–08

School enrollment Fewer than 31.9 200 200–499 36.7 500–749 41.2 750–999 44.6 1,000 or 47.0 more Urbanicity3 City — Suburban — Town — Rural —

1990–91


1987–88

Interfered with teaching Student misbehavior Student misbehavior

25.0

31.2

32.6

29.7

30.0

24.6

—

14.8

21.8

25.0

26.2

30.6 34.9 39.3 38.9

36.9 42.0 47.5 48.0

36.4 40.0 39.8 41.9

30.9 34.0 37.2 43.7

33.0 34.5 32.5 38.0

24.0 29.0 35.6 54.2

— — — —

17.0 21.2 30.2 46.8

25.1 27.2 27.7 41.7

26.3 28.1 31.1 44.9

27.4 28.5 29.7 43.0

— — — —

— — — —

— — — —

41.9 32.7 33.5 31.2

40.0 31.6 34.3 31.1

— — — —

— — — —

— — — —

— — — —

36.9 28.8 30.6 28.4

38.5 28.7 32.4 27.1

— Not available. 1 Elementary schools are defined as schools 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. Secondary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is greater than or equal to grade 7. Combined schools are included in totals, but are not shown separately. 2 The public sector includes public, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Education school teachers. 3 Substantial improvements in geocoding technology and changes in the Office of Management and Budget’s definition of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas allow for more precision in describing an area. Comparisons with earlier years are not possible. Note: Teachers who taught only prekindergarten students are excluded. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), ―Public School Teacher Data File,‖ and ―Private School Teacher Data File,‖ 1993–94, 1999–2000, 2003–04, and 2007–08; ―Charter School Teacher Data File,‖ 1999–2000; and ―Bureau of Indian Education Teacher Data File,‖ 1999–2000, 2003–04, and 2007–08.

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

178


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. Table 12.2. Percentage of Public and Private School Teachers Who Agreed or Strongly Agreed That School Rules are Enforced by Other Teachers and by the Principal, by Selected Teacher and School Characteristics: Various School Years, 1987–88 Through 2003–04 School rules enforced 1999–2000

2003–04

2007–08

1987–88

1990–91

1993–94

1999–2000

2003–04

2007–08

Total 65.1 73.4 Years of teaching experience 3 or fewer 68.5 76.0 4 to 9 65.2 72.7 10 to 19 64.2 72.9 20 or more 64.9 73.5 School level3 Elementary 74.2 80.5 Secondary 49.9 60.2 Sector Public4 63.7 71.9 Private 75.3 84.2 School enrollment Fewer than 76.0 83.7 200 200–499 72.6 79.4 500–749 66.6 75.8 750–999 59.7 68.4

By the principal2

1993–94

1990–91


1987–88

By other teachers1

63.7

64.4

72.3

71.7

83.7

87.4

81.8

83.0

87.8

88.5

68.7 62.9 63.0 63.1

69.3 61.6 64.5 63.6

76.4 70.6 71.3 72.5

73.5 69.3 71.0 73.8

84.9 84.0 83.9 82.8

88.0 87.4 87.5 86.9

85.1 80.6 82.4 80.6

84.5 82.7 83.0 82.4

88.6 86.8 87.8 88.3

89.9 88.2 87.2 89.4

72.1 47.0

72.2 47.2

79.5 55.7

79.3 56.1

85.1 81.5

88.0 85.8

82.7 79.0

84.2 80.0

88.2 86.2

89.5 86.3

61.7 77.5

62.6 75.9

71.1 80.9

70.6 80.0

83.1 88.6

86.7 91.9

80.8 88.3

82.2 88.3

87.2 92.2

88.0 92.2

76.4

75.4

83.9

80.9

86.5

89.3

85.2

87.1

90.9

90.9

71.1 66.7 58.6

71.6 67.7 63.0

78.8 75.8 69.4

78.5 74.0 71.6

84.5 84.4 83.0

88.1 88.5 85.7

83.5 82.2 79.6

84.2 83.5 82.5

89.2 87.7 85.9

89.4 88.5 88.4


179

School rules enforced

1993–94

1999–2000

2003–04

2007–08

1987–88

1990–91

1993–94

1999–2000

2003–04

2007–08

1,000 or more Urbanicity5 City Suburban Town Rural

1990–91


By other teachers1

1987–88

By other teachers1

48.1

57.5

45.8

47.3

56.3

57.2

80.7

84.9

78.0

79.4

85.8

86.5

— — — —

— — — —

— — — —

— — — —

69.8 72.9 73.4 74.1

69.1 72.5 72.7 73.2

— — — —

— — — —

— — — —

— — — —

85.6 89.0 88.6 88.5

86.3 89.4 89.2 89.5

— Not available. 1 Respondents were asked whether ―rules for student behavior are consistently enforced by teachers in this school, even for students not in their classes.‖ 2 Respondents were asked whether their ―principal enforces school rules for student conduct and backs me up when I need it.‖ 3 Elementary schools are defined as schools 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. Secondary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is greater than or equal to grade 7. Combined schools are included in totals, but are not shown separately. 4 The public sector includes public, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Education school teachers. 5 Substantial improvements in geocoding technology and changes in the Office of Management and Budget’s definition of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas allow for more precision in describing an area. Comparisons with earlier years are not possible. Note: Teachers who taught only prekindergarten students are excluded. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), ―Public School Teacher Data File,‖ and ―Private School Teacher Data File,‖ 1993–94, 1999–2000, 2003–04, and 2007–08; ―Charter School Teacher Data File,‖ 1999–2000; and ―Bureau of Indian Education Teacher Data File,‖ 1999–2000, 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.

180


Note: Teachers who taught only prekindergarten students are excluded. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), ―Public School Teacher Data File,‖ ―Private School Teacher Data File,‖ and ―Bureau of Indian Education Teacher Data File,‖ 2007–08. Figure 12.1. Percentage of public and private school teachers who agreed or strongly agreed that student misbehavior and student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching, by urbanicity: School year 2007–08

1

Respondents were asked whether ―rules for student behavior are consistently enforced by teachers in this school, even for students not in their classes.‖ 2 Respondents were asked whether their ―principal enforces school rules for student conduct and backs me up when I need it.‖ Note: Teachers who taught only prekindergarten students are excluded. Elementary schools are defined as schools 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. Secondary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is greater than or equal to grade 7. Combined schools are included in totals, but are not shown separately. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), ―Public School Teacher Data File,‖ ―Private School Teacher Data File,‖ and ―Bureau of Indian Education Teacher Data File,‖ 2007–08. Figure 12.2. Percentage of public and private school teachers who agreed or strongly agreed that school rules are enforced by other teachers and by the principal, by school level: School year 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


181

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). Table 12.3. 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, by State: School Year 2007–08

State United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada

Interfered with teaching Student Student tardiness misbehavior and class cutting 36.1 33.5 35.0 32.4 40.2 49.6 40.6 41.1 32.4 35.8 35.8 39.0 30.9 39.2 34.5 29.0 45.5 32.5 58.7 47.4 35.7 35.2 35.2 27.1 46.7 49.0 35.0 33.6 35.3 31.2 42.3 35.6 38.1 32.7 34.9 33.5 39.1 32.9 38.2 28.1 30.0 34.0 44.3 33.4 34.1 29.9 36.4 32.3 39.2 34.6 41.8 36.0 35.2 28.1 32.2 36.4 32.5 32.3 36.9 38.9

School rules enforced By other By the teachers1 principal2 70.6 88.0 74.7 88.4 71.6 88.7 68.4 88.3 73.7 90.4 69.1 86.7 75.9 88.9 67.3 86.3 64.1 87.4 66.3 73.6 67.0 89.5 78.3 90.8 60.6 82.6 71.8 90.0 68.0 87.1 72.8 86.5 69.6 87.1 69.5 88.5 71.8 87.7 70.9 91.4 67.4 86.3 75.3 86.4 71.2 88.5 71.3 88.5 71.6 89.5 71.5 87.0 74.7 90.9 75.0 89.8 76.1 87.5 69.0 87.0

182


State

1

New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Table 12.3. (Continued) Interfered with teaching Student Student tardiness misbehavior and class cutting 32.4 30.9 33.4 25.0 44.8 50.5 36.9 37.4 34.2 37.6 30.1 26.0 36.8 30.0 35.1 38.3 30.8 35.9 28.6 24.8 37.9 38.6 38.8 35.3 37.1 36.6 38.3 32.9 37.1 31.5 37.5 40.4 33.2 26.0 35.4 34.6 32.7 32.9 36.2 38.7 38.2 30.2 34.7 40.9

School rules enforced By other By the teachers1 principal2 65.3 83.8 71.5 89.9 61.5 83.4 67.4 85.2 69.2 86.6 73.9 89.4 69.1 88.7 75.1 88.3 76.6 88.6 71.5 89.1 68.9 81.7 73.9 91.4 68.6 84.7 72.2 89.4 70.3 88.7 78.0 90.9 67.1 87.6 69.2 84.2 73.3 91.1 70.5 89.6 65.5 86.2 72.2 86.8

Respondents were asked whether ―rules for student behavior are consistently enforced by teachers in this school, even for students not in their classes.‖ 2 Respondents were asked whether their ―principal enforces school rules for student conduct and backs me up when I need it.‖ Note: Teachers who taught only prekindergarten students are excluded. The public sector includes public, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Education school teachers. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), ―Public School Teacher Data File,‖ 2007–08; and ―Bureau of Indian Education Teacher Data File,‖ 2007–08.

FIGHTS, WEAPONS, AND ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES Indicator 13. Physical Fights on School Property and Anywhere The percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported being in a physical fight on school property decreased from 16 percent in 1993 to 12 percent in 2007.

Table 13.1. Percentage of Students in Grades 9–12 Who Reported Having been in a Physical Fight During the Previous 12 Months, by Location and Selected Student and School Characteristics: Various Years, 1993–2007 Student or school characteristic Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity1 White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian/Alaska Native Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian more than one race Grade 9th 10th 11th 12th Urbanicity Urban Suburban Rural

Anywhere 1999 2001 35.7 33.2

1993 41.8

1995 38.7

1997 36.6

51.2 31.7

46.1 30.6

45.5 26.0

44.0 27.3

40.3 49.5 43.2

36.0 41.6 47.9

33.7 43.0 40.7

On school property 1999 2001 2003 14.2 12.5 12.8

2003 33.0

2005 35.9

2007 35.5

1993 16.2

1995 15.5

1997 14.8

43.1 23.9

40.5 25.1

43.4 28.1

44.4 26.5

23.5 8.6

21.0 9.5

20.0 8. 6

18.5 9.8

18.0 7.2

33.1 41.4 39.9 22.7 48.7 50.7 40.2

32.2 36.5 35.8 22.3 49.2 51.7 39.6

30.5 39.7 36.1 25.9 46.6 30.0 38.2

33.1 43.1 41.0 21.6 44.2 34.4 46.9

31.7 44.7 40.4 24.3 36.0 42.6 47.8

15.0 22.0 17.9

12.9 20.3 21.1

13.3 20.7 19.0

12.3 18.7 15.7 10.4 16.2 ! 25.3 16.9

(2)

(2)

(2)

49.8

47.2

4.75

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

50.4 42.2 40.5 34.8

47.3 40.4 36.9 31.0

44.8 40.2 34.2 28.8

41.1 37.7 31.3 30.4

39.5 34.7 29.1 26.5

38.6 33.5 30.9 26.5

43.5 36.6 31.6 29.1

— — —

— — —

38.2 36.7 32.9

37.0 35.0 36.6

36.8 31.3 33.8

35.5 33.1 29.7

— — —

2005 13.6

2007 12.4

17.1 8.0

18.2 8.8

16.3 8.5

11.2 16.8 14.1 10.8 18.2 29.1 14.7

10.0 17.1 16.7 13.1 24.2 22.2 20.2

11.6 16.9 18.3 5.9 22.0 24.5 15.8

10.2 17.6 15.5 8.5 15.0 9.6 ! 19.6

(2)

(2)

(2)

18.6

31.4

18.9

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

40.9 36.2 34.8 28.0

23.1 17.2 13.8 11.4

21.6 16.5 13.6 10.6

21.3 17.0 12.5 9. 5

18.6 17.2 10.8 8.1

17.3 13.5 9.4 7.5

18.0 12.8 10.4 7.3

18.9 14.4 10.4 8.5

17.0 11.7 11.0 8.6

— — —

— — —

— — —

15.8 14.2 14.7

14.4 13.7 16.3

14.8 11.0 13.8

14.8 12.8 10.0

— — —

— — —

— Not available. ! Interpret data with caution. 1 Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 2 The response categories for race/ethnicity changed in 1999 making comparisons of some categories with earlier years problematic. In 1993, 1995, and 1997, Asian students and Pacific Islander students were not categorized separately and students were not given the option of choosing more than one race. Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. The term ―anywhere‖ is not used in the YRBS questionnaire; students are simply asked how many times in the last 12 months they have been in a physical fight. Source: Centers for disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), various years, 1993–2007.

184


Schools where physical fights occur frequently may not be able to maintain a focused learning environment for students. Also, students who participate in fights on school property may have difficulty succeeding in their studies (Payne, Gottfredson, and Gottfredson 2003). In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9–12 were asked about their general involvement in physical fights (referred to as ―anywhere‖ in this indicator) during the preceding 12 months, as well as about their involvement in physical fights on school property.38 Fights occurring anywhere are included as a point of comparison with fights occurring on school property. In 2007, 36 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported having been in a fight anywhere, and 12 percent said they had been in a fight on school property (figure 13.1 and table 13.1). The percentage of students who reported having been in a fight anywhere decreased from 1993 to 2003 (from 42 to 33 percent). From 2003 to 2005, this percentage rose to 36 percent, but no measurable change was seen between 2005 and 2007. The percentage of students who reported having been in a fight on school property declined from 16 percent in 1993 to 12 percent in 2007. In all survey years, a higher percentage of males than females reported having been in a fight both anywhere and on school property (figure 13.1 and table 13.1). In 2007, 44 percent of males said they had been in a fight anywhere, compared with 27 percent of females. In the same year, 16 percent of males said they had been in a fight on school property, compared with 9 percent of females. From 1993 through 2003, the percentage of both males and females who reported they had been in a fight anywhere decreased. The percentage of males reporting they had been in a fight on school property decreased from 1993 to 2007 (24 vs. 16 percent); however, there was no measurable change in the percentage of females who reported fighting on school property (9 percent).

Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. The term ―anywhere‖ is not used in the YRBS questionnaire; students are simply asked how many times in the last 12 months they had been in a physical fight. Source: Centers for disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), various years, 1993–2007. Figure 13.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by location and sex: Various years, 1993–2007.


185

Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. The term ―anywhere‖ is not used in the YRBS questionnaire; students are simply asked how many times in the last 12 months they had been in a physical fight. Source: Centers for disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 2007. Figure 13.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by location and grade: 2007.

Generally, a higher percentage of students in 9th grade reported having been in fights than students in 11th and 12th grades, both anywhere and on school property (figure 13.2 and table 13.1). For example, in 2007, 41 percent of 9th-graders compared with 35 percent of 11th-graders, and 28 percent of 12th- graders reported having been in a fight anywhere. Similarly, 17 percent of 9th-graders compared with 11 percent of 11th-graders, and 9 percent of 12th-graders reported being in a fight on school property in 2007. The percentage of students engaging in fights varied according to their race/ethnicity in 2007. A smaller percentage of Asian students than students from all other racial/ethnic groups reported having been in a fight anywhere. Twenty-four percent of Asian students reported being in a fight, compared with 32 to 48 percent of students from other racial/ethnic groups. In addition, a higher percentage of Black students and students of more than one race reported having been in a fight anywhere than their White, Hispanic, or American Indian/Alaska Native peers. A lower percentage of Asian and White students reported having been in a fight on school property in 2007 than Black students, Hispanic students, American Indian/Alaska Native students, or students of more than one race (8 and 10 percent vs. 15 to 20 percent). In 2007, the percentage of students who reported having been in a fight anywhere (38 states and the District of Columbia) and on school property (39 states and the District of Columbia) varied among the states and the District of Columbia for which data were available. Among these states and the District of Columbia, the percentage of students reporting being in a fight anywhere ranged from 24 percent in Iowa to 43 percent in the District of Columbia, while the percentage of students reporting being in a fight on school property ranged from 7 percent in Hawaii to 20 percent in the District of Columbia (table 13.2).

186


Table 13.2. Percentage of Students in Grades 9–12 Who Reported Having Been in a Physical Fight During the Previous 12 Months, by Location and State: 2003, 2005, and 2007 State United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma

Anywhere 2003 2005 2007 33.0 35.9 35.5 30.0 31.7 — 27.1 — 29.2 32.4 32.4 31.3 — 32.1 32.8 — — — — 32.2 — — 32.7 31.4 34.9 30.3 33.0 38.0 36.3 43.0 32.1 30.0 32.3 31.4 33.8 34.0 — 27.0 28.6 28.3 32.3 30.0 — — 33.9 30.6 29.3 29.5 — 28.3 24.0 — 27.9 30.3 26.4 29.6 27.0 — — — 26.5 28.2 26.5 — 36.6 35.7 30.7 28.6 27.5 30.8 30.1 30.7 — — — 30.6 — 30.6 28.2 29.8 30.9 28.6 30.5 32.8 29.6 28.5 — 35.0 34.5 31.6 30.5 26.4 27.0 — 30.7 — — 36.7 37.1 32.1 32.1 31.7 30.9 29.9 30.1 27.2 — — 31.5 30.2 30.4 28.4 31.1 29.2

On school property 2003 2005 2007 12.8 13.6 12.4 12.9 14.6 — 8.6 — 10.4 11.4 11.7 11.3 — 13.9 13.0 — — — — 12.1 — — 10.5 10.5 11.4 9.8 10.5 15.2 16.4 19.8 13.3 11.5 12.5 11.1 12.1 13.1 — 10.0 7.0 11.7 12.1 12.3 — — 11.3 10.9 11.2 11.5 — 11.3 9.1 — 10.1 10.6 10.1 12.7 10.6 — — — 9.1 10.0 10.1 — 14.9 12.4 10.2 10.2 9.1 12.2 11.4 11.4 — — — 10.2 — 11.9 9.8 10.2 10.7 10.3 10.9 12.0 10.6 9.3 — 12.6 14.2 11.3 11.6 10.7 11.3 — 10.1 — — 15.6 16.9 14.6 12.5 12.2 10.7 11.6 10.4 8.6 10.7 9.6 11.3 10.2 9.4 11.4 12.1 10.6


State Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Anywhere 2003 2005 2007 — — — — — — 27.6 28.4 26.3 — 31.3 29.1 27.0 26.5 29.8 28.3 30.9 31.8 — 34.2 34.9 28.7 25.9 30.1 26.9 24.3 26.0 — — — — — — 26.5 29.1 29.9 31.4 32.6 31.2 31.2 30.4 27.9

187

On school property 2003 2005 2007 — — — — — — 11.4 11.2 9.6 — 12.7 10.8 9.0 8.4 9.3 12.2 10.9 12.4 — 14.5 13.9 11.9 10.4 11.6 12.2 12.2 11.5 — — — — — — 10.3 12.1 12.9 11.6 12.2 11.4 12.7 12.2 11.6

— Not available. Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. The term ―anywhere‖ is not used in the YRBS questionnaire; students are simply asked how many times in the last 12 months they had been in a physical fight. The estimate for the United States is drawn from a nationally representative sample of schools and is not the aggregate of participating states. Each state estimate is based on a sample that is representative of that state. Estimates were revised and may differ from previously published data. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), previously unpublished tabulation, 2003, 2005, and 2007.

INDICATOR 14. STUDENTS CARRYING WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE In 2007, 18 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported they had carried a weapon anywhere in the past 30 days, while 6 percent reported they had carried a weapon on school property. 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 (referred to as ―anywhere‖ in this indicator) in the past 30 days as well as if they had carried one of these weapons on school property.39 Weapon carrying anywhere is included as a point of comparison with weapon carrying on school property. In 2007, 18 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported they had carried a weapon anywhere, and 6 percent reported they had carried a weapon on school property (figure 14.1 and table 14.1).

188


The percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere declined from 22 to 17 percent between 1993 and 2003. Subsequently, however, from 2003 to 2007 there was no measurable change in the percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere. Between 1993 and 2007, the percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon on school property declined from 12 to 6 percent; generally, however, the decline was gradual as no differences were detected survey year to survey year. In every survey year, generally, there were at least three times as many males as females who reported carrying a weapon—either anywhere or on school property (figure 14.1 and table 14.1). In 2007, for example, 9 percent of males carried a weapon on school property, compared to 3 percent of females, and 29 percent of males carried a weapon anywhere, compared to 7 percent of females. In 2007, few differences were detected based on students’ race/ethnicity in the percentage of students who reported carrying weapons anywhere and on school property. A smaller percentage of Asian students (8 percent) than students from other racial/ ethnic groups reported carrying a weapon anywhere, but no measurable differences were detected among Black students (17 percent), White students (18 percent), and Hispanic students (19 percent). A larger percentage of Hispanic students (7 percent) than White students (5 percent) and Asian students (4 percent) reported carrying a weapon during the previous 30 days on school property in 2007, but no other differences were detected by race/ethnicity. In 2007, 20 percent of 9th-graders reported carrying a weapon anywhere compared to 15 percent of 12th-graders (figure 14.2 and table 14.1). However, no differences were detected in the percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon on school property by grade level.

Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. The term ―anywhere‖ is not used in the YRBS questionnaire; students are simply asked how many days they carried a weapon during the past 30 days. Source: Centers for disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), various years, 1993–2007. Figure 14.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and sex: Various years, 1993–2007.

Table 14.1. Percentage of Students in Grades 9–12 Who Reported Carrying a Weapon at Least 1 day During the Previous 30 Days, by Location and Selected Student and School Characteristics: Various Years, 1993–2007 Student or school characteristic Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity1 White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian/Alaska Native Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian more than one race Grade 9th 10th 11th 12th Urbanicity Urban Suburban Rural

1993 22.1

1995 20.0

1997 18.3

Anywhere 1999 2001 17.3 17.4

34.3 9.2

31.1 8.3

27.7 7. 0

28.6 6.0

20.6 28.5 24.4

18.9 21.8 24.7

17.0 21.7 23.3


2003 17.1

2005 18.5

2007 18.0

1993 11.8

1995 9.8

1997 8.5

29.3 6.2

26.9 6.7

29.8 7.1

28.5 7.5

17.9 5.1

14.3 4.9

12.5 3.7

11.0 2.8

10.2 2.9

16.4 17.2 18.7 13.0 21.8 25.3 22.2

17.9 15.2 16.5 10.6 31.2 17.4 25.2

16.7 17.3 16.5 11.6 29.3 16.3 ! 29.8

18.7 16.4 19.0 7.0 25.6 20.0 ! 26.7

18.2 17.2 18.5 7.8 20.6 25.5 19.0

10.9 15.0 13.3

9.0 10.3 14.1

7.8 9.2 10.4

6.4 5.0 7.9 6.5 11.6 ! 9.3 11.4

(2)

(2)

(2)

34.2

32.0

26.2

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

25.5 21.4 21.5 19.9

22.6 21.1 20.3 16.1

22.6 17.4 18.2 15.4

17.6 18.7 16.1 15.9

19.8 16.7 16.8 15.1

18.0 15.9 18.2 15.5

19.9 19.4 17.1 16.9

— — —

— — —

18.7 16.8 22.3

15.8 17.0 22.3

15.3 17.4 23.0

17.0 16.5 18.9

— — —

2005 6.5

2007 5.9

8.9 3.1

10.2 2.6

9.0 2.7

6.1 6.3 6.4 7.2 16.4 10.0 ! 13.2

5.5 6.9 6.0 6.6 ! 12.9 4.9 ! 13.3 !

6.1 5.1 8.2 2.8 ! 7.2 15.4 ! 11.9

5.3 6.0 7.3 4.1 7.7 9.5 ! 5.0

(2)

(2)

(2)

17.6 !

13.0 !

15.9

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

20.1 18.8 16.7 15.5

12.6 11.5 11.9 10.8

10.7 10.4 10.2 7.6

10.2 7.7 9.4 7.0

7.2 6.6 7.0 6.2

6.7 6.7 6.1 6.1

5.3 6.0 6.6 6.4

6.4 6.9 5.9 6.7

6.0 5.8 5.5 6.0

— — —

— — —

— — —

7.0 8.7 11.2

7.2 6.2 9.6

6.0 6.3 8.3

5.6 6.4 6.3

— — —

— — —

— Not available. ! Interpret data with caution. 1 Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 2 The response categories for race/ethnicity changed in 1999 making comparisons of some categories with earlier years problematic. In 1993, 1995, and 1997, Asian students and Pacific Islander students were not categorized separately and students were not given the option of choosing more than one race. Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. The term ―anywhere‖ is not used in the YRBS questionnaire; students are simply asked how many days they carried a weapon during the past 30 days. Source: Centers for disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), various years, 1993–2007.

190


Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. The term ―anywhere‖ is not used in the YRBS questionnaire; students are simply asked how many days they carried a weapon during the past 30 days. Source: Centers for disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 2007. Figure 14.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and grade: 2007.

Table 14.2. Percentage of Students in Grades 9–12 Who Reported Carrying a Weapon at Least 1 Day During the Previous 30 Days, by Location and State: 2003, 2005, and 2007 State United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky

Anywhere 2003 2005 2007 17.1 18.5 18.0 19.9 21.0 — 18.4 — 24.4 18.4 20.6 20.5 — 25.9 20.7 — — — — 17.0 — — 16.3 17.2 16.0 16.6 17.1 25.0 17.2 21.3 17.2 15.2 18.0 18.7 22.1 19.5 — 13.3 14.8 — 23.9 23.6 — — 14.3 17.8 19.2 20.9 — 15.7 12.8 — 16.2 18.4 18.5 23.1 24.4

On school property 2003 2005 2007 6.1 6.5 5.9 7.3 8.4 — 7.1 — 8.4 5.8 7.4 7.0 — 10.5 6.8 — — — — 5.4 — — 6.4 5.5 5.0 5.7 5.4 10.6 6.7 7.4 5.3 4.7 5.6 5.0 7.5 5.3 — 4.9 3.7 7.7 — 8.9 — — 3.7 6.2 5.8 6.9 — 4.3 4.4 — 4.9 5.7 7.4 6.8 8.0


State Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Table 14.2. (Continued) Anywhere On school property 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 — — — — — — 16.5 18.3 15.0 6.6 5.9 4.9 — 19.1 19.3 — 6.9 5.9 13.5 15.2 14.9 5.0 5.8 5.0 15.2 15.8 17.9 5.1 4.7 5.0 — — — — — — 20.0 — 17.3 5.2 — 4.8 16.8 19.4 18.6 5.5 7.3 4.6 19.4 21.4 22.1 7.2 10.2 9.7 16.0 17.9 — 5.0 4.8 — 14.9 18.4 14.5 6.3 6.8 4.7 15.1 16.2 18.1 5.8 6.5 5.8 — 10.5 — — 3.1 — — 24.5 27.5 — 8.0 9.3 13.5 14.3 14.2 5.2 5.2 4.7 19.2 21.5 21.2 6.3 6.4 6.8 — — — 5.7 6.0 5.0 12.5 15.2 16.6 3.6 4.4 4.1 21.8 18.9 22.3 8.0 7.0 9.0 — — — — — — — — — — — — 12.3 12.4 12.0 5.9 4.9 4.9 — 20.5 19.8 — 6.7 4.8 — — — 7.1 8.3 6.3 21.3 24.1 22.6 5.4 8.1 5.6 — 19.3 18.8 — 7.9 6.8 15.3 17.7 17.1 5.6 7.0 7.5 — — — 8.3 9.1 9.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — 20.7 22.3 21.3 6.6 8.5 6.9 13.2 15.8 12.7 3.2 3.9 3.6 24.6 28.0 26.8 10.1 10.0 11.4

191

- Not available. Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. The term ―anywhere‖ is not used in the YRBS questionnaire; students are simply asked how many days they carried a weapon during the past 30 days. The estimate for the United States is drawn from a nationally representative sample of schools and is not the aggregate of participating states. Each state estimate is based on a sample that is representative of that state. Estimates were revised and may differ from previously published data. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), previously unpublished tabulation, 2003, 2005, and 2007.

192


In 2007, the percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere (36 states and the District of Columbia) and on school property (39 states and the District of Columbia) varied among the states and the District of Columbia for which data were available. Among these states and the District of Columbia, the percentage of students reporting carrying a weapon anywhere ranged from 13 percent in Iowa to 27 percent in New Mexico, while the percentage of students reporting carrying a weapon on school property ranged from 4 percent in Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin to 11 percent in Wyoming (table 14.2). This indicator repeats information from the 2008 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. For more information: Tables 14.1 and 14.2 and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2008b), (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5704.pdf).

INDICATOR 15. STUDENTS’ USE OF ALCOHOL ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE In 2007, 45 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. Students’ illegal consumption of alcohol on school property may lead to additional crimes and misbehavior (Kodjo, Auinger, and Ryan 2003). It may also foster a school environment that is harmful to students, teachers, and other staff (Fagan and Wilkinson 1998). In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9–12 were asked whether they had consumed alcohol at all (referred to as ―anywhere‖ in this indicator) in the past 30 days and if they had consumed alcohol on school property.40 Alcohol consumption anywhere is included as a point of comparison with alcohol consumption on school property. In 2007, 45 percent of students consumed at least one drink of alcohol anywhere, and 4 percent consumed at least one drink on school property (figure 15.1 and table 15.1). The percentage of students who reported drinking alcohol anywhere was higher in 1995 (52 percent) than in 1993 (48 percent), and declined from 1995 to 2007 to 45 percent. Generally, the percentage of students who reported consuming alcohol on school property declined from 6 percent in 1995 to 4 percent in 2007. The percentage of students who reported drinking alcohol anywhere or on school property varied by student characteristics such as sex, grade level, and race/ethnicity. In every survey year, a greater percentage of males than females reported using alcohol on school property. For example, in 2007, 5 percent of males compared to 4 percent of females reported using alcohol on school property. However, since 2003, there has been no measurable difference in the percentage of males and females who reported using alcohol anywhere. In 2007, 45 percent of both males and females reported using alcohol anywhere.

Table 15.1. Percentage of Students in Grades 9–12 Who Reported Using Alcohol During the Previous 30 Days, by Location and Selected Student and School Characteristics: Various Years, 1993–2007 Student or school characteristic Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity1 White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian/Alaska Native Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian more than one race Grade 9th 10th 11th 12th Urbanicity Urban Suburban Rural

1993 48.0

1995 51.6

1997 50.8

Anywhere 1999 2001 50.0 47.1

2003 44.9

2005 43.3

2007 44.7

1993 5.2

1995 6.3

1997 5.6

50.1 45.9

53.2 49.9

53.3 47.8

52.3 47.7

49.2 45.0

43.8 45.8

43.8 42.8

44.7 44.6

6.2 4.2

7.2 5.3

7.2 3.6

6.1 3.6

6.1 3.8

49.9 42.5 50.8

54.1 42.0 54.7

54.0 36.9 53.9

52.5 39.9 52.8 25.7 49.4 60.8 51.1

50.4 32.7 49.2 28.4 51.4 52.3 45.4

47.1 37.4 45.6 27.5 51.9 40.0 47.1

46.4 31.2 46.8 21.5 57.4 38.7 39.0

47.3 34.5 47.6 25.4 34.5 48.8 46.2

4.6 6.9 6.8

5.6 7.6 9.6

4.8 5.6 8.2

4.8 4.3 7.0 2.0 ‡ 6.7 5.2

(2)

(2)

(2)

45.3

51.4

57.6

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

40.5 44.0 49.7 56.4

45.6 49.5 53.7 56.5

44.2 47.2 53.2 57.3

40.6 49.7 50.9 61.7

41.1 45.2 49.3 55.2

36.2 43.5 47.0 55.9

36.2 42.0 46.0 50.8

— — —

— — —

48.9 50.5 55.4

46.5 51.4 52.2

45.2 47.6 50.2

41.5 46.5 45.3

— — —


2005 4.3

2007 4.1

6.0 4.2

5.3 3.3

4.6 3.6

4.2 5.3 7.0 6.8 8.2 12.4 7.0 !

3.9 5.8 7.6 5.6 7.1 ! 8.5 ! 13.3

3.8 3.2 7.7 1.3 ! 6.2 ! ‡ 3.5

3.2 3.4 7.5 4.4 5.0 ! 8.6 5.4

(2)

(2)

(2)

6.7 !

8.1 !

8.6 !

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

35.7 41.8 49.0 54.9

5.2 4.7 5.2 5.5

7.5 5.9 5.7 6.2

5.9 4.6 6.0 5.9

4.4 5.0 4.7 5.0

5.3 5.1 4.7 4.3

5.1 5.6 5.0 4.5

3.7 4.5 4.0 4.8

3.4 4.1 4.2 4.8

— — —

— — —

— — —

6.4 5.2 5.3

5.0 4.6 5.6

5.4 4.9 4.0

6.1 4.8 4.7

— — —

— — —

— Not available. ! Interpret data with caution., ‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity., 2 The response categories for race/ethnicity changed in 1999 making comparisons of some categories with earlier years problematic. In 1993, 1995, and 1997, Asian students and Pacific Islander students were not categorized separately and students were not given the option of choosing more than one race. Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. The term ―anywhere‖ is not used in the YRBS questionnaire; students are simply asked how many days did they have at least one drink of alcohol during the past 30 days. Source: Centers for disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), various years, 1993–2007.

194


A larger percentage of students in higher grades than in lower grades reported drinking alcohol anywhere in 2007. For example, 55 percent of 12th-graders reported using alcohol, compared to 36 percent of 9th-graders, 42 percent of 10th-graders, and 49 percent of 11thgraders (figure 15.2 and table 15.1). A higher percentage of 12th-graders (5 percent) than 9thgraders (3 percent) reported drinking on school property; however, no measurable differences were found among other grade levels. In 2007, a larger percentage of White and Hispanic students reported drinking alcohol anywhere than their Black, Asian, or American Indian/Alaska Native peers, and a smaller percentage of Asian students reported drinking alcohol anywhere than students from other race/ethnicities. Forty-seven percent of White students and 48 percent of Hispanic students reported drinking alcohol anywhere compared to 35 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students, 34 percent of Black students, and 25 percent of Asian students. A greater percentage of Hispanic students (7 percent) reported using alcohol on school property in 2007 than White students (3 percent), Black students (3 percent), Asian students (4 percent), or American Indian/Alaska Native students (5 percent). Table 15.2. Percentage of Students in Grades 9–12 Who Reported Using Alcohol During the Previous 30 Days, by Location and State: 2003, 2005, and 2007 State United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts

Anywhere 2003 2005 2007 44.9 43.3 44.7 40.2 39.4 — 38.7 — 39.7 51.8 47.1 45.6 — 43.1 42.2 — — — — 47.4 — — 45.3 46.0 45.4 43.1 45.2 33.8 23.1 32.6 42.7 39.7 42.3 37.7 39.9 37.7 — 34.8 29.1 34.8 39.8 42.5 — — 43.7 44.9 41.4 43.9 — 43.8 41.0 — 43.9 42.4 45.1 37.4 40.6 — — — 42.2 43.0 39.3 — 39.8 42.9 45.7 47.8 46.2

On school property 2003 2005 2007 5.2 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.5 — 4.9 — 4.1 7.1 7.5 6.0 — 5.2 5.1 — — — — 5.9 — — 6.6 5.6 4.8 5.5 4.5 4.9 4.6 6.1 5.1 4.5 5.3 3.7 4.3 4.4 — 8.8 6.0 3.8 4.3 6.2 — — 5.5 3.9 3.4 4.1 — 4.6 3.4 — 5.1 4.8 4.8 3.5 4.7 — — — 3.7 3.9 5.6 — 3.2 6.2 5.3 4.2 4.7


State Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Anywhere 2003 2005 2007 44.0 38.1 42.8 — — — 41.8 — 40.6 49.2 40.8 44.4 49.5 48.6 46.5 46.5 42.9 — 43.4 41.4 37.0 47.1 44.0 44.8 — 46.5 — — 42.3 43.2 44.2 43.4 43.7 39.4 42.3 37.7 54.2 49.0 46.1 42.2 42.4 45.7 47.8 40.5 43.1 — — — — — — 44.5 42.7 42.9 — 43.2 36.8 50.2 46.6 44.5 41.1 41.8 36.7 — 47.3 48.3 21.3 15.8 17.0 43.5 41.8 42.6 — — — — — — 44.4 41.5 43.5 47.3 49.2 48.9 49.0 45.4 42.4

195

On school property 2003 2005 2007 4.6 3.6 3.6 — — — 4.9 — 5.1 2.6 3.3 3.4 6.7 6.4 5.7 4.6 3.6 — 7.4 6.8 4.4 4.0 — 5.1 — 3.7 — — 7.6 8.7 5.2 4.1 5.1 3.6 5.4 4.7 5.1 3.6 4.4 3.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.8 5.0 — — — — — — 4.6 5.3 4.8 — 6.0 4.7 5.4 4.0 3.6 4.2 3.7 4.1 — 5.7 4.9 3.8 2.1 4.7 ! 5.3 4.8 4.6 — — — — — — 4.1 6.4 5.5 — — — 6.2 6.2 6.9

- Not available. ! Interpret data with caution. Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. The term ―anywhere‖ is not used in the YRBS questionnaire; students are simply asked how many days did they have at least one drink of alcohol during the past 30 days. The estimate for the United States is drawn from a nationally representative sample of schools and is not the aggregate of participating states. Each state estimate is based on a sample that is representative of that state. Estimates were revised and may differ from previously published data. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), previously unpublished tabulation, 2003, 2005, and 2007.

In 2007, the percentage of students who reported drinking alcohol anywhere (39 states and the District of Columbia) and on school property (38 states and the District of Columbia)

196


varied among the states and the District of Columbia for which data were available. Among these states and the District of Columbia, the percentage of students who reported drinking alcohol anywhere ranged from 17 percent in Utah to 49 percent in Wisconsin, while the percentage of students who reported drinking on school property ranged from 3 percent in Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio to 9 percent in New Mexico (table 15.2).

Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. The term ―anywhere‖ is not used in the YRBS questionnaire; students are simply asked how many times during the past 30 days they used alcohol. Source: Centers for disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), various years, 1993–2007. Figure 15.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and sex: Various years, 1993–2007.

Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. The term ―anywhere‖ is not used in the YRBS questionnaire; students are simply asked how many times during the past 30 days they used alcohol. Source: Centers for disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 2007. Figure 15.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and grade: 2007

Table 16.1. Percentage of Students in Grades 9–12 Who Reported Using Marijuana During the Previous 30 Days, by Location and Selected Student and School Characteristics: Various Years, 1993–2007 Student or school characteristic Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity1 White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian/Alaska Native Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian more than one race Grade 9th 10th 11th 12th Urbanicity Urban Suburban Rural

1993 17.7

1995 25.3

1997 26.2

Anywhere 1999 2001 26.7 23.9

2003 22.4

2005 20.2

2007 19.7

1993 5.6

1995 8.8

1997 7.0


20.6 14.6

28.4 22.0

30.2 21.4

30.8 22.6

27.9 20.0

25.1 19.3

22.1 18.2

22.4 17.0

7.8 3.3

11.9 5.5

9.0 4.6

10.1 4.4

8.0 2.9

17.3 18.6 19.4 (2) 17.4

24.5 28.6 27.8 (2) 28.0

25.0 28.2 28.6 (2) 44.2 (2)

(2)

(2)

20.3 20.4 23.0 6.7 30.3 12.4 ! 16.9

19.9 21.5 18.5 9.4 27.4 28.7 20.5

5.8 9.1 10.4

(2)

21.7 23.9 23.8 9.5 32.8 28.1 28.3

7.1 12.3 12.9

(2)

24.4 21.8 24.6 10.9 36.4 21.9 31.8

5.0 7.3 7.5

(2)

26.4 26.4 28.2 13.5 36.2 33.8 29.1

6.5 7.2 10.7 4.3 ‡ 11.0 7.8

13.2 16.5 18.4 22.0

20.9 25.5 27.6 26.2

23.6 25.0 29.3 26.6

21.7 27.8 26.7 31.5

19.4 24.8 25.8 26.9

18.5 22.0 24.1 25.8

17.4 20.2 21.0 22.8

— — —

— — —

26.8 27.0 21.9

27.5 26.1 28.0

25.6 22.5 26.2

23.4 22.8 19.9

— — —

2005 4.5

2007 4.5

7.6 3.7

6.0 3.0

5.9 3.0

4.8 6.1 7.4 4.7 ! 21.5 ! 6.4 ! 5.2

4.5 6.6 8.2 4.3 ! 11.4 ! 9.1 ! 11.4 !

3.8 4.9 7.7 ‡ 9.2 ‡ 3.6

4.0 5.0 5.4 2.7 ! 8.2 13.4 ! 3.6 !

(2)

(2)

(2)

‡

10.1 !

16.2 !

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

14.7 19.3 21.4 25.1

4.4 6.5 6.5 5.1

8.7 9.8 8.6 8.0

8.1 6.4 7.9 5.7

6.6 7.6 7.0 7.3

5.5 5.8 5.1 4.9

6.6 5.2 5.6 5.0

5.0 4.6 4.1 4.1

4.0 4.8 4.1 5.1

— — —

— — —

— — —

8.0 7.0 4.9 !

8.5 6.4 8.1

6.8 4.7 5.3

6.8 6.0 3.9

— — —

— — —

— Not available. ! Interpret data with caution., ‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity., 2 The response categories for race/ethnicity changed in 1999 making comparisons of some categories with earlier years problematic. In 1993, 1995, and 1997, Asian students and Pacific Islander students were not categorized separately and students were not given the option of choosing more than one race. Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. The term ―anywhere‖ is not used in the YRBS questionnaire; students are simply asked how many times during the past 30 days they used marijuana. Source: Centers for disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), various years, 1993–2007.

198


Indicator 16. Students’ Use of Marijuana on School Property and Anywhere In 2007, 20 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported using marijuana anywhere in the past 30 days, while 4 percent reported using marijuana on school property. In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9–12 were asked whether they had used marijuana at all (referred to as ―anywhere‖ in this indicator) in the past 30 days as well as whether they had used marijuana on school property.41 In 2007, 20 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported using marijuana anywhere in the past 30 days, while 4 percent reported using marijuana on school property (figure 16.1 and table 16.1). The percentage of students who reported using marijuana anywhere was higher in 1995 (25 percent) than in 1993 (18 percent). During the second half of the 1990s, there was no measurable change in the percentage of students who reported using marijuana anywhere (it ranged from 25 to 27 percent). Between 1999 and 2007, the percentage of students who reported using marijuana anywhere had declined to 20 percent. However, there was no measurable change in the percentage of students who reported using marijuana anywhere between 2005 and 2007. With regard to marijuana use on school property, the percentage of students who reported using marijuana was higher in 1995 (9 percent) than the percentage who reported doing so in 1993 (6 percent). Between 1995 and 2007, the percentage of students who reported using marijuana on school property declined from 9 to 4 percent. The percentage of students who reported using marijuana on school property in 2007 was not measurably different from the percentage of students who reported doing so in 1993. Marijuana use anywhere and on school property varied by students’ sex and grade level. In every survey year, a greater percentage of males than females reported using marijuana in the past 30 days, both anywhere and on school property. For example, in 2007, 22 percent of males reported using marijuana anywhere in the past 30 days compared to 17 percent of females, and 6 percent of males reported using marijuana on school property compared to 3 percent of females. In 2007, a smaller percentage of 9th-grade students than students in higher grades reported using marijuana anywhere. In 2007, 15 percent of 9th- grade students reported using marijuana anywhere compared to 19 percent of 10th-graders, 21 percent of 11th-graders, and 25 percent of 12th-graders (figure 16.2 and table 16.1). There were no measurable differences in student reports of marijuana use on school property by grade level in 2007. In 2007, a smaller percentage of Asian students (9 percent) than students from other racial/ethnic groups (ranging from 18 to 29 percent) reported using marijuana anywhere. A larger percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native students (27 percent) than White students (20 percent), Hispanic students (18 percent), and Asian students (9 percent) also reported using marijuana anywhere. At school, there were generally few differences in the percentage of students who reported using marijuana by race/ ethnicity in 2007.


199

Table 16.2. Percentage of Students in Grades 9–12 Who Reported Using Marijuana During the Previous 30 Days, by Location and State: 2003, 2005, and 2007 State United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island

2003 22.4 17.7 23.9 25.6 — — — — 27.3 23.5 21.4 19.5 — 14.7 — 22.1 — — 21.1 — 26.4 — 27.7 24.0 — 20.6 21.8 23.1 18.3 22.3 30.6 — — 20.7 24.3 20.6 21.4 22.0 — — 27.6

Anywhere 2005 2007 20.2 19.7 18.5 — — 20.5 20.0 22.0 18.9 16.4 — — 22.7 — 23.1 23.2 22.8 25.1 14.5 20.8 16.8 18.9 18.9 19.6 17.2 15.7 17.1 17.9 — 20.3 18.9 18.9 15.6 11.5 15.6 15.3 15.8 16.4 — — 22.2 22.0 18.5 19.4 26.2 24.6 18.8 18.0 — — — 16.7 18.1 19.0 22.3 21.0 17.5 — 17.3 15.5 25.9 22.9 19.9 — 26.2 25.0 18.3 18.6 21.4 19.1 15.5 14.8 20.9 17.7 18.7 15.9 — — — — 25.0 23.2

On school property 2003 2005 2007 5.8 4.5 4.5 2.6 3.5 — 6.5 — 5.9 6.5 5.1 6.1 — 4.1 2.8 — — — — 6.0 — — 5.1 5.9 6.0 5.6 5.4 7.5 4.8 5.8 4.9 4.0 4.7 3.2 3.3 3.6 — 7.2 5.7 2.7 3.9 4.7 — — 4.2 3.8 3.4 4.1 — 2.7 2.5 — 3.2 3.8 4.3 3.2 3.9 — — — 6.3 4.6 5.2 — 3.7 4.7 6.3 5.3 4.8 7.0 3.7 4.0 — — — 4.4 — 2.7 3.0 4.0 3.6 6.4 6.1 5.0 3.9 3.1 — 5.3 5.7 3.6 6.6 — 4.7 — 3.4 — — 8.4 7.9 4.5 3.6 4.1 3.5 4.1 4.3 6.3 4.0 2.7 4.2 4.3 3.7 4.3 3.0 2.6 — — — — — — 7.4 7.2 6.5

200


State South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Table 16.2. (Continued) Anywhere On school property 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 — 19.0 18.6 — 4.6 3.3 21.5 16.8 17.7 4.5 ! 2.9 5.0 ! 23.6 19.5 19.4 4.1 3.5 4.1 — 21.7 19.3 — 3.8 3.6 11.4 7.6 8.7 3.7 1.7 3.8 ! 28.2 25.3 24.1 8.0 7.0 6.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — 23.1 19.6 23.5 4.5 4.9 5.8 21.8 15.9 20.3 — — — 20.4 17.8 14.4 5.1 4.0 4.7

- Not available. ! Interpret data with caution. Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. The term ―anywhere‖ is not used in the YRBS questionnaire; students are simply asked how many times during the past 30 days they used marijuana. The estimate for the United States is drawn from a nationally representative sample of schools and is not the aggregate of participating states. Each state estimate is based on a sample that is representative of that state. Estimates were revised and may differ from previously published data. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), previously unpublished tabulation, 2003, 2005, and 2007.

Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. The term ―anywhere‖ is not used in the YRBS questionnaire; students are simply asked how many times during the past 30 days they used marijuana. Source: Centers for disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), various years, 1993–2007. Figure 16.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and sex: Various years, 1993–2007


201

Note: ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. The term ―anywhere‖ is not used in the YRBS questionnaire; students are simply asked how many times during the past 30 days they used marijuana. Source: Centers for disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 2007. Figure 16.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and grade: 2007.

In 2007, the percentage of students who reported using marijuana anywhere (39 states and the District of Columbia) and on school property (38 states and the District of Columbia) varied among the states and the District of Columbia for which data were available. Among these states and the District of Columbia, the percentage of students who reported using marijuana anywhere ranged from 9 percent in Utah to 25 percent in Delaware, Massachusetts, and New Mexico, while the percentage of students who reported using marijuana on school property ranged from 2 percent in Iowa to 8 percent in New Mexico (table 16.2).

FEAR AND AVOIDANCE 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 often42 they had been afraid of attack or harm ―at school or on the way to and from school‖ and ―away from school.‖43 In 2007, a greater percentage of students ages 12–18 reported that they were afraid of attack or harm at school

202


(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 6th- graders (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.

! Interpret data with caution. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Note: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Other includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, and more than one race. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007. Figure 17.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being afraid of attack or harm during the school year, by location and race/ethnicity: 2007

Table 17.1. Percentage of Students Ages 12–18 Who Reported Being Afraid of Attack or Harm, by Location and Selected Student and School Characteristics: Various Years, 1995–2007 Student or school characteristic Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity2 White Black Hispanic Asian Other Grade 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Urbanicity Urban Suburban Rural

At school 2001 2003 6.4 6.1

Away from school 2001 2003 2005 4.6 5.4 5.2

2005 6.4

20071 5.3

1995 —

1999 5.7

5.3 6.9

6.1 6.7

4.6 6.0

— —

4.1 7.4

3.7 5.6

4.0 6.8

4.6 5.8

2.4 4.5

4.9 8.9 10.6 — 6.4

4.1 10.7 9.5 — 5.0

4.6 9.2 10.3 6.2 ! 5.7

4.2 8.6 7.1 2.3 ! 3.3 !

— — — — —

4.3 8.7 8.9 — 5.4

3.7 6.3 6.5 — 6.6

3.8 10.0 7.4 — 3.9

4.2 7.3 6.2 7.4 3.1 !

2.5 4.9 5.9 ‡ ‡

10.9 9.5 8.1 7.1 7.1 4.8 4.8

10.6 9.2 7.6 5.5 5.0 4.8 2.9

10.0 8.2 6.3 6.3 4.4 4.7 3.7

9.5 9.1 7.1 5.9 5.5 4.6 3.3

9.9 6.7 4.6 5.5 5.2 3.1 3.1

— — — — — — —

7.8 6.1 5.5 4.6 4.8 5.9 6.1

6.3 5.5 4.4 4.5 4.2 4.7 3.3

6.8 6.7 5.3 4.3 5.3 4.7 4.9

5.6 7.5 5.0 3.8 4.7 4.2 5.4

5.9 3.0 3.6 4.0 3.0 2.3 3.2

11.6 6.2 4.8

9.7 4.8 6.0

9.5 4.8 4.7

10.5 4.7 5.1

‡ ‡ ‡

— — —

9.1 5.0 3.0

7.4 3.8 3.0

8.1 4.4 4.0

6.7 4.6 4.7

‡ ‡ ‡

1995 11.8

1999 7.3

10.8 12.8

6.5 8.2

6.4 6.4

8.1 20.3 20.9 — 13.5

5.0 13.5 11.7 — 6.7

14.3 15.3 13.0 11.6 11.0 8.9 7.8 18.4 9.8 8.6

20071 3.5

Student or school characteristic Sector Public Private

1995

1999

12.2 7.3

7.7 3.6

Table 17.1. (Continued) At school 2001 2003 2005 20071 1995 6.6 4.6

6.4 3.0

6.6 3.8

5.5 2.5 !

— —

1999 5.8 5.0

Away from school 2001 2003 2005 4.6 5.1

5.4 4.7

5.2 4.9

20071 3.6 2.1 !

— Not available. ! Interpret data with caution. ‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 In 2007, the reference period was the school year, whereas in prior survey years the reference period was the previous 6 months. Cognitive testing showed that estimates from 2007 are comparable to previous years. 2 Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Other includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian (prior to 2005), Pacific Islander, and, from 2003 onward, more than one race. due to changes in racial/ethnic categories, comparisons of race/ethnicity across years should be made with caution. Note: Data for 2005 have been revised from previously published figures. ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and, from 2001 onward, going to and from school. For the 2001 survey, the wording was changed from ―attack or harm‖ to ―attack or threat of attack.‖ 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. Fear of attack away from school was not collected in 1995. Due to a redesign of the methods used to measure urbanicity, estimates for 2007 locales are not shown. For more information, please see appendix A. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, various years, 1995–2007.


205

1

In 2007, the reference period was the school year, whereas in prior survey years the reference period was the previous 6 months. Cognitive testing showed that estimates from 2007 are comparable to previous years. Note: Fear of attack away from school was not collected in 1995. For more information, please see appendix A. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, various years, 1995–2007. Figure 17.2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being afraid of attack or harm, by location and school sector: Various years, 1995–2007

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 was lower in 2007 (5 percent) than in 2005 (6 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).

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.44 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

206


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 school45 (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 of students who reported avoiding an activity or place because of fear of attack or harm 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. Table 18.1. Percentage of Students Ages 12–18 Who Reported Avoiding School Activities or One or More Places in School Because of Fear of Attack or Harm: Various Years, 1995–2007 Activity or place avoided Total Avoided school activities Any activities2 Any class Stayed home from school Avoided one or more places in school Entrance to the school Hallways or stairs in school Parts of the school cafeteria Any school restrooms Other places inside the school building

1995 — — 1.7 — — 8.7 2.1 4.2 2.5 4.4 2.5

1999 6.9 3.2 0.8 0.6 2.3 4.6 1.1 2.1 1.3 2.1 1.4

2001 6.1 2.3 1.1 0.6 1.1 4.7 1.2 2.1 1.4 2.2 1.4

2003 5.0 1.9 1.0 0.6 0.8 4.0 1.2 1.7 1.2 2.0 1.2

2005 5.5 2.1 1.0 0.7 0.7 4.5 1.0 2.1 1.8 2.1 1.4

20071 7.2 2.6 1.8 0.7 0.8 5.8 1.5 2.6 1.9 2.6 1.5

— Not available. 1 In 2007, the reference period was the school year, whereas in prior survey years the reference period was the previous 6 months. Cognitive testing showed that estimates from 2007 are comparable to previous years. 2 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. Note: Data for 2005 have been revised from previously published figures. For the 2001 survey, the wording was changed from ―attack or harm‖ to ―attack or threat of attack.‖ For more information, please see appendix A. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, various years, 1995–2007.


207

Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007. Figure 18.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported avoiding school activities or one or more places in school because of fear of attack or harm during the school year: 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.

208


! Interpret data with caution. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007. Figure 18.2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported avoiding one or more places in school because of fear of attack or harm during the school year, by grade level and school sector: 2007

Table 18.2. Percentage of Students Ages 12–18 Who Reported Avoiding One or More Places in School Because of Fear of Attack or Harm, by Selected Student and School Characteristics: Various Years, 1995–2007 Student or school characteristic Total Sex male Female Race/ethnicity2 White Black Hispanic Asian Other

1995 8.7

1999 4.6

2001 4.7

2003 4.0

2005 4.5

20071 5.8

8.8 8.5

4.6 4.6

4.7 4.6

3.9 4.1

4.9 4.1

6.1 5.5

7.1 12.1 12.9 — 11.1

3.8 6.7 6.2 — 5.4

3.9 6.6 5.5 — 6.2

3.0 5.1 6.3 — 4.4

3.6 7.2 6.0 2.5 4.3 !

5.3 8.3 6.8 ‡ 3.5 !


Student or school characteristic Grade 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Urbanicity Urban Suburban Rural Sector Public Private

209

1995

1999

2001

2003

2005

20071

11.6 11.8 8.8 9.5 7.8 6.9 4.1

5.9 6.1 5.5 5.3 4.7 2.5 2.4

6.8 6.2 5.2 5.0 4.2 2.8 3.0

5.6 5.7 4.7 5.1 3.1 2.5 1.2 !

7.9 5.8 4.5 5.2 4.2 3.3 1.3 !

7.8 7.5 5.9 6.7 5.5 4.2 3.2

11.7

5.8

6.0

5.7

6.3

7.9

4.7

4.3

3.5

3.8

7.0

3.0

3.9

2.8

4.2

‡ ‡ ‡

9.3 2.2

5.0 1.6

4.9 2.0 !

4.2 1.5 !

4.8 1.4 !

6.2 1.4 !

— Not available. ! Interpret data with caution. ‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 In 2007, the reference period was the school year, whereas in prior survey years the reference period was the previous 6 months. Cognitive testing showed that estimates from 2007 are comparable to previous years. 2 Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Other includes American Indian, Alaska Native, (Asian prior to 2005), Pacific Islander, and, from 2003 onward, more than one race. due to changes in racial/ethnic categories, comparisons of race/ethnicity across years should be made with caution. Note: Data for 2005 have been revised from previously published figures. Places include the entrance, any hallways or stairs, parts of the cafeteria, restrooms, and other places inside the school building. For the 2001 survey, the wording was changed from ―attack or harm‖ to ―attack or threat of attack.‖ Due to a redesign of the methods used to measure urbanicity, estimates for 2007 locales are not shown. For more information, please see appendix A. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, various years, 1995–2007.

DISCIPLINE, SAFETY, AND SECURITY MEASURES 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.

210


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. Table 19.1. Number and Percentage of Public Schools That Took a Serious Disciplinary Action, Number of Serious Actions Taken, and Percentage Distribution of Serious Actions, by Type of Action and Type of Offense: School Year 2007–08

Transfers to specialized schools

46.4 31.5 21.4 9.8

767,900 271,800 327,100 28,400

76.0 78.7 82.2 73.9

5.4 4.4 ‡ 4.5

18.7 16.9 13.1 21.6

16,000

19.3

98,700

55.4

9.1

35.5

2,300

2.8

5,200

52.9

18.3

28.8

12,700

15.3

36,800

60.3

7.8

31.9

Number of serious disciplinary action

38,500 26,100 17,800 8,100

Percent of schools

Removals with no services for emainder of school year

Total Physical attacks or fights Insubordination distribution, possession, or use of alcohol distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs Use or possession of a weapon other than a firearm or explosive device Use or posse-ssion of a firearm or explosive device

Number of schools

Type of offense

Percentage distribution of serious disciplinary actions Out-of-school suspensions lasting 5 days or more

chools using any serious disciplinary action

‡ Reporting standards not met. Note: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Serious disciplinary actions include removals with no continuing services for at least the remainder of the school year, transfers to specialized schools for disciplinary reasons, and out-of-school suspensions lasting 5 or more days, but less than the remainder of the school year. Respondents were instructed to respond only for those times that were during normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session, unless the survey specified otherwise. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates of number of actions and schools are rounded to the nearest 100. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.

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,


211

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 20 03–04 (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.

212


Table 19.2. Percentage of Public Schools that Took a Serious Disciplinary Action and Number of Serious Actions Taken, by Type of Offense: Various School Years, 1999– 2000 Through 2007–08

Type of offense

2003– 04

2005– 06

2007– 08

1999– 2000

2003– 04

2005– 06

2007– 08

Number of serious disciplinary actions

1999– 2000

Percent of schools

Total Physical attacks or fights Insubordination Dstribution, posseson, or use of alcohol Dstribution, possesson, or use of illegal drugs Use or possession of a firearm or explosive device Use or possession of a weapon other than a firearm or explosive device1

54.0 35.4

45.7 32.0

48.0 31.5

46.4 31.5

1,162,600 332,500

655,700 273,500

830,700 323,900

767,900 271,800

18.3 —

21.6 9.2

21.2 10.2

21.4 9.8

253,500 —

220,400 25,500

309,000 30,100

327,100 28,400

—

21.2

20.8

19.3

—

91,100

106,800

98,700

—

3.9

4.5

2.8

—

9,900 !

14,300

5,200

—

16.8

19.3

15.3

—

35,400

46,600

36,800

— Not available. ! Interpret data with caution. 1 The questionnaire wording prior to 2005–06 was ―use or possession of a weapon other than a firearm.‖ Note: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Serious disciplinary actions include removals with no continuing services for at least the remainder of the school year, transfers to specialized schools for disciplinary reasons, and out-of-school suspensions lasting 5 or more days, but less than the remainder of the school year. Respondents were instructed to respond only for those times that were during normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session, unless the survey specified otherwise. detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates of number of actions are rounded to the nearest 100. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2005–06, and 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2008.

Between the two most recent survey years (20 05–06 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 20 07–08 (3 percent) than in 20 05–06 (5 percent).


213

Note: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Serious disciplinary actions include removals with no continuing services for at least the remainder of the school year, transfers to specialized schools for disciplinary reasons, and outof-school suspensions lasting 5 or more days, but less than the remainder of the school year. Respondents were instructed to respond only for offenses that occurred during normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session, unless the survey specified otherwise. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.

Figure 19.1. Percentage of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action, by type of offense: School year 2007–08.

‡ Reporting standards not met. Note: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Serious disciplinary actions include removals with no continuing services for at least the remainder of the school year, transfers to specialized schools for disciplinary reasons, and outof-school suspensions lasting 5 or more days, but less than the remainder of the school year. Respondents were instructed to respond only for offenses that occurred during normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session, unless the survey specified otherwise. Details may not sum to totals because of rounding. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.

Figure 19.2. Percentage distribution of serious actions taken by public schools, by type of action and type of offense: School year 2007–08.

214


1

data not available prior to 2003–04. Note: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Serious disciplinary actions include removals with no continuing services for at least the remainder of the school year, transfers to specialized schools for disciplinary reasons, and out-of-school suspensions lasting 5 or more days, but less than the remainder of the school year. Respondents were instructed to respond only for offenses that occurred during normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session, unless the survey specified otherwise. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2005–06, and 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2008. Figure 19.3. Percentage of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action, by type of offense: Various school years, 1999–2000 through 2007–08

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.


215

Table 20.1. Percentage of Public Schools That Used Safety and Security Measures: Various School Years, 1999–2000 Through 2007–08 School safety and security measure

1999– 2000

2003– 04

2005– 06

2007– 08

Controlled access during school hours Buildings (e.g., locked or monitored doors) 74.6 83.0 84.9 89.5 Grounds (e.g., locked or monitored gates) 33.7 36.2 41.1 42.6 Closed the campus for most students during lunch 64.6 66.0 66.1 65.0 Drug testing and tobacco use Any students 4.1 5.3 — — Athletes — 4.2 5.0 6.4 Students in extracurricular activities other than athletics — 2.6 3.4 4.5 Any other students — — 3.0 3.0 Prohibited all tobacco use on school grounds 90.1 88.8 90.3 91.4 Required to wear badges or picture IDs Students 3.9 6.4 6.1 7.6 Faculty and staff metal detector checks on students 25.4 48.0 47.8 58.3 Random checks1 7.2 5.6 4.9 5.3 Required to pass through daily 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.3 Sweeps and technology Random dog sniffs to check for drugs1 20.6 21.3 23.0 21.5 Random sweeps for contraband1,2 11.8 12.8 13.1 11.4 Provided telephones in most classrooms 44.6 60.8 66.8 71.6 Electronic notification system for school-wide emergency — — — 43.2 Structured, anonymous threat reporting system — — — 31.2 1 Used security cameras to monitor the school 19.4 36.0 42.8 55.0 Provided two-way radios — 71.2 70.8 73.1 Visitor requirements Sign in or check in 96.6 98.3 97.6 98.7 Pass through metal detectors 0.9 0.9 1.0 — Dress code Required students to wear uniforms 11.8 13.8 13.8 17.5 Enforced a strict dress code 47.4 55.1 55.3 54.8 School supplies and equipment Required clear book bags or banned book bags on school 5.9 6.2 6.4 6.0 grounds Provided school lockers to students 46.5 49.5 50.6 48.9 — Not available. 1 One or more check, sweep, or camera. 2 For example, drugs or weapons. does not include dog sniffs. Note: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Respondents were instructed to respond only for those times that were during normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session, unless the survey specified otherwise. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2005–06, and 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2008.

216


Total 89.5 42.6 6.4 4.5 7.6 3 School level Primary 92.1 45.1 1.8 1.5 ! 3.1 middle 90.9 41.9 8.2 6.3 13.6 High school 84.7 40.7 16.3 10.1 18.5 Combined 76.3 29.0 18.9 12.3 8.2 ! Enrollment size Less than 300 85.5 33.1 6.4 5.1 3.4 300–499 91.4 40.5 3.4 2.5 ! 4.2 500–999 91.5 47.4 7.1 5.0 8.3 1,000 or more 86.6 52.1 12.1 6.6 23.5 Urbanicity City 91.9 54.3 1.8 1.7 ! 12.8 Suburb 93.8 47.4 3.9 1.8 7.3 Town 88.6 38.1 13.0 9.1 7.8 Rural 84.1 30.7 9.5 7.2 3.7 Percent combined enrollment of Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian/Alaska Native students Less than 5 percent 86.0 23.4 10.8 6.7 3.7 5 percent to less than 90.9 34.7 5.7 4.1 4.9 20 percent 20 percent to less than 89.3 43.1 8.1 5.6 7.2 50 percent 50 percent or more 90.4 57.9 3.7 2.8 12.0 Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 0–25 91.1 39.8 5.0 2.7 5.8 26–50 89.7 37.5 8.3 5.8 7.9 51–75 85.2 39.7 7.6 5.3 7.2 76–100 92.2 57.6 4.2 3.9 ! 10.3 Student/teacher ratio4 Less than 12 88.2 39.0 5.6 4.3 6.8 12–16 92.6 41.2 7.8 5.4 8.8 more than 16 87.1 58.4 5.9 2.9 ! 8.0

Faculty and staff

Required to wear badges or pictures IDs

Students

Students in extracurricu- ar activities (excluding athletes)

drug testing

Athletes

Grounds (e.g., locked or monitored gates)

Controlled access during school hours Buildings (e.g., locked or monitored doors)


Table 20.2. Percentage of Public Schools That Used Selected Safety and Security Measures, by School Characteristics: School Year 2007–08

58.3 61.5 61.2 56.6 31.3 39.6 57.1 68.0 69.1 59.6 71.8 62.8 42.9

45.4 64.4 63.5 56.3 65.5 57.5 55.8 53.1 56.7 62.0 55.4

Used security cameras to monitor school1

Structured, anonymous threat reporting system

Electronic notification system for school-wide emergency

Random sweeps for contraband1,2

Total 5.3 1.3 21.5 11.4 43.2 31.2 55.0 School level3 ‡ ‡ Primary 2.2 3.2 43.4 26.0 45.9 middle 9.1 2.2 39.8 18.6 49.4 39.4 66.0 High school 11.1 4.2 58.4 26.5 43.8 40.5 76.6 Combined 8.9 ! ‡ 45.3 27.9 25.5 34.8 59.2 Enrollment size Less than 300 2.8 ! 0.7 ! 15.8 12.3 31.3 24.1 45.7 300–499 5.1 1.7 ! 15.0 7.7 40.8 23.9 51.8 500–999 4.6 0.9 ! 22.1 10.1 48.7 35.4 57.8 1,000 or more 13.6 3.3 48.9 23.0 55.8 51.5 74.0 Urbanicity City 11.6 4.1 11.7 12.3 43.1 37.2 53.3 Suburb 2.5 0.3 ! 16.2 7.9 55.7 30.1 57.5 Town 3.8 ! ‡ 32.3 10.3 34.5 32.7 60.2 Rural 3.4 0.4 ! 29.6 14.2 35.6 26.7 51.8 Percent combined enrollment of Black, His- panic, Asian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian/Alaska Native students Less than 5 1.1 ! ‡ 28.5 9.2 34.7 29.6 57.9 percent 5 percent to less 1.1 ! ‡ 23.2 9.0 42.7 30.5 59.0 than 20 percent 20 percent to 3.4 0.4 ! 23.4 11.4 51.1 31.9 53.1 less than 50 percent 50 percent or 12.1 3.6 15.5 14.3 41.8 32.1 52.0 more Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 1.1 ‡ 21.0 7.0 56.1 29.5 54.1 0–25 2.9 ‡ 27.2 10.7 35.9 33.1 56.9 26–50 51–75 6.8 2.3 21.8 13.0 43.7 30.2 52.4 76–100 13.0 3.5 13.3 16.4 36.7 31.7 56.3 Student/teacher ratio4 Less than 12 5.0 0.8 22.3 11.9 43.1 27.6 54.8 12–16 5.5 1.9 21.1 10.3 42.3 33.0 57.4 more than 16 5.9 1.7 ! 20.0 12.0 45.5 39.7 50.4

Required students to wear uniforms

217

Sweeps and technology Random dog sniffs to check for drugs1

Required to pass through daily

Metal detector checks on students Random checks1



17.5 20.2 17.1 8.9 13.9 15.7 16.0 20.0 17.0 38.6 15.8 7.6 6.3

‡ 3.9 8.3 42.8

4.2 7.1 18.0 51.0 16.6 18.6 18.2

218


! Interpret data with caution. ‡ Reporting standards not met. 1 One or more check, sweep, or camera. 2 For example, drugs or weapons. does not include dog sniffs. 3 Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9. Combined schools include all other combinations of grades, including K–12 schools. 4 Student/teacher ratio was calculated by dividing the total number of students enrolled in the school by the total number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers and aides. The total number of FTE teachers and aides is a combination of the full-time and part-time teachers and aides, including special education teachers and aides, with an adjustment for part-time status. Note: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Respondents were instructed to respond only for those times that were during normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session, unless the survey specified otherwise. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008.

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;46 requiring students to wear badges or picture ID’s; daily metal detector checks on students;47 random dog sniffs to check for drugs;46 random sweeps for contraband;46,48 and security cameras to monitor school46 (table 20.2). For example, 19 percent of high schools, 14 percent of middle schools, and 3 percent of 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.


219

1

Excludes athletes. One or more check, sweep, or camera. 3 For example, drugs or weapons. does not include dog sniffs. Note: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Respondents were instructed to respond only for those times that were during normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session, unless the survey specified otherwise. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2008. 2

Figure 20.1. Percentage of public schools that used selected safety and security measures: School year 2007–08.

220


1

For example, locked or monitored doors. One or more cameras. Note: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Source: U.S. department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2005–06, and 2007–08 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2008. 2

Figure 20.2. Percentage of public schools that used selected safety and security measures: Various school years, 1999–2000 through 2007–08

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).

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 Supplement49 to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12–18 were asked whether their school used certain security measures.50 Security measures include metal detectors, locker checks, security cameras, security guards or police officers, adult supervision in hallways, badges or


221

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).

1

data for 1999 are not available. Note: ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and, from 2001 onward, going to and from school. In 2005 and 2007, the unit response rate for this survey did not meet NCES statistical standards. For more information, please see appendix A. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, various years, 1999–2007. Figure 21.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported selected security measures at school: Various years, 1999–2007.

222


Table 21.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported selected security measures at school: Various years, 1999–2007 Security measure Total Metal detectors Locker checks One or more security cameras to monitor the school Security guards and/or assigned police officers Other school staff or other adult supervision in the hallway A requirement that students wear badges or picture identification A code of student conduct Locked entrance or exit doors during the day A requirement that visitors sign in

1999 — 9.0 53.3 — 54.1

2001 99.4 8.7 53.5 38.5 63.6

2003 99.3 10.1 53.0 47.9 69.6

2005 99.6 10.7 53.2 57.9 68.3

2007 99.8 10.1 53.6 66.0 68.8

85.4

88.3

90.6

90.1

90.0

—

21.2

22.5

24.9

24.3

— 38.1 87.1

95.1 48.8 90.2

95.3 52.8 91.7

95.5 54.3 93.0

95.9 60.9 94.3

— Not available. Note: Data for 2005 have been revised from previously published figures. ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and, from 2001 onward, going to and from school. For more information, please see appendix A. Source: U.S. department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, various years, 1999–2007.

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


223

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.

APPENDIX A. TECHNICAL NOTES General Information The indicators in this chapter 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 chapter are statistically significant at the .05 level. The primary test procedure used in this chapter 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 chapter.

Sources of Data This section briefly describes each of the datasets used in this chapter: the SchoolAssociated 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

224


U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice. SAVD seeks to describe the epidemiology of school-associated violent deaths, identify common features of these deaths, estimate the rate of school-associated violent death in the United States, and identify potential risk factors for these deaths. The surveillance system includes descriptive data on all school-associated violent deaths in the United States, including all homicides, suicides, and unintentional firearm-related deaths where the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school, while the victim was on the way to or from regular sessions at such a school, or while attending or on the way to or from an official school-sponsored event. Victims of such events include nonstudents as well as students and staff members. SAVD includes descriptive information about the school, event, victim(s), and offender(s). The SAVD Surveillance System has collected data from July 1, 1992, through the present. SAVD uses a four-step process to identify and collect data on school-associated violent deaths. Cases are initially identified through a search of the Lexis/ Nexis newspaper and media database. Then police officials are contacted to confirm the details of the case and to determine if the event meets the case definition. Once a case is confirmed, a police official and a school official are interviewed regarding details about the school, event, victim(s), and offender(s). A copy of the full police report is also sought for each case. The information obtained on schools includes school demographics, attendance/absentee rates, suspension/expulsions and mobility, school history of weapon-carrying incidents, security measures, violence prevention activities, school response to the event, and school policies about weapon carrying. Event information includes the location of injury, the context of injury (while classes were being held, during break, etc.), motives for injury, method of injury, and school and community events happening around the time period. Information obtained on victim(s) and offender(s) includes demographics, circumstances of the event (date/time, alcohol or drug use, number of persons involved), types and origins of weapons, criminal history, psychological risk factors, school-related problems, extracurricular activities, and family history, including structure and stressors. One hundred 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 changes during the school year (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2001), the Source of the firearms used in these events (Reza et al. 2003), and suicides that were associated with schools (Kauffman et al. 2004). The interviews conducted on cases between July 1, 1994, and June 30, 1999, achieved a response rate of 97 percent for police officials and 78 percent for school officials. For several reasons, all data for years from 1999 to the present are flagged as preliminary. 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 non-media Sources of information) will be discovered. Also, other cases may occasionally be identified while the police and school interviews are being conducted to verify known cases. For additional information about SAVD, contact:


225

Jeff Hall Division of Violence Prevention National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Mailstop K60 4770 Buford Highway NE Atlanta, GA 30341 Telephone: (770) 488-4648 E-mail: [email protected]

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 2005; that is, negligent manslaughters and justifiable homicides have been eliminated from the data. Based on law enforcement agency reports, the FBI estimates that 594,277 murders (including non-negligent manslaughters) were committed from 1976 to 2005. Agencies provided detailed information on 538,210 victims and 597,359 offenders. About 91 percent of homicides are included in the SHR. However, adjustments can be made to the weights to correct for missing reports. Estimates from the SHR used in this chapter 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 [email protected]

Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System Fatal (WISQARSTM 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

226


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: [email protected] 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 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


227

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://www.ojp. usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv06.pdf and the technical notes at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ cv06tn.pdf. For more information on 2007 data see http://www.ojb.usdoj.gov/bjs/publ/pdf/cv07tn.pdf. The number of NC VS eligible households in sample in 2007 was about 45,900. 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 74,000 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 2007 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: Katrina Baum Victimization Statistics Branch Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Justice 8107th Street NW Washington, DC 20531 Telephone: (202) 307-5889 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs

School Crime Supplement (SCS) Created as a supplement to the NCVS and codesigned by the National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Justice Statistics, the School Crime Supplement (SCS) survey was conducted in 1989, 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007 to collect additional information about school-related victimizations on a national level. This chapter includes data from the 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007 collections. The 1989 data are not included in this chapter as a result of methodological changes to the NCVS and SCS. The survey was

228


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 chapter 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 files. The NCVS type of crime variable was used to classify victimizations of students in the SCS as serious violent, violent, or theft. The NCVS variables asking where the incident happened and what the victim was doing when it happened were used to ascertain whether the incident happened at school. For prevalence of victimization, the NCVS definition of ―at school‖ includes in the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Only incidents that occurred inside the United States are included. In 2001, the SCS survey instrument was modified from previous collections. 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.


229

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:

230

United States Department of Education Kathryn A. Chandler National Center for Education Statistics 1990 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 502-7486 E-mail: [email protected] 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.51 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 chapter uses 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007 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 highBlack 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, and 14,000 students participated in the 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007 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, and 68 percent for the 2007 survey. NCES standards call for response rates of 85 percent or better for crosssectional 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


231

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 (http:// apps.nccd.cdc.gov/yrbss/). Each state and local school-based YRBS employs a two-stage, cluster sample design to produce representative samples of students in grades 9–12 in their jurisdiction. All except a few state and local samples include only public schools, and each local sample includes only schools in the funded school district (e.g., San Diego Unified School District) rather than in the entire city (e.g., greater San Diego area). In the first sampling stage in all except a few states and districts, schools are selected with probability proportional to school enrollment size. In the second sampling stage, intact classes of a required subject or intact classes during a required period (e.g., second period) are selected randomly. All students in sampled classes are eligible to participate. Certain states and districts modify these procedures to meet their individual needs. For example, in a given state or district, all schools, rather than a sample of schools, might be selected to participate. State and local surveys that have a scientifically selected sample, appropriate documentation, and an overall response rate greater than or equal to 60 percent are weighted. The overall response rate reflects the school response rate multiplied by the student response rate. These three criteria are used to ensure that the data from those surveys can be considered representative of students in grades 9–12 in that jurisdiction. A weight is applied to each record to adjust for student nonresponse and the distribution of students by grade, sex, and race/ethnicity in each jurisdiction. Therefore, weighted estimates are representative of all students in grades 9–12 attending schools in each jurisdiction. Surveys that do not have an overall response rate of greater than or equal to 60 percent and do not have appropriate documentation are not weighted and are not included in this chapter. In 2007, a total of 39 states and 22 districts had weighted data. In sites with weighted data, the student sample sizes for the state and local YRBS ranged from 1,100 to 13,400. School response rates ranged from 69 to 100 percent, student response rates ranged from 60 to 92 percent, and overall response rates ranged from 60 to 90 percent. Readers should note that reports of these data published by the CDC do not include percentages where the denominator includes less than 100 unweighted cases. However, NCES publications do not include percentages where the denominator includes less than 30 unweighted cases. Therefore, estimates presented here may not appear in CDC publications of YRBS estimates and are considered unstable by CDC standards. In 1999, in accordance with changes to the Office of Management and Budget’s standards for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicity, the YRBS item on race/ethnicity was modified. The version of the race and ethnicity question used in 1993, 1995, and 1997 was: How do you describe yourself? A. B. C. D. E.

White—not Hispanic Black—not Hispanic Hispanic or Latino Asian or Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaskan Native

232

United States Department of Education F. Other The version used in 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and in the 2007 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 all 2007 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 chapter, 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: [email protected] Internet: http://www.cdc.gov/yrbs


233

Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) This chapter draws upon data on teacher victimization from the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), which provides national- and state-level data on public schools and nationaland 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 chapter, 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 chapter 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.

234


In 2007–08, 47,440 public school teachers, 750 BIE teachers, and 8,180 private school teachers were sampled. This chapter 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 chapter). 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 20 07–08. 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: [email protected] 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 20 05–06 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 areas52 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


235

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.53 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: [email protected] 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 chapter. 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

236


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 chapter 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 chapter. 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 chapter, 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 chapter 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) 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


237

subgroup included in the total), a covariance term (i.e., 2 * r * se1 * se2) must be subtracted from the denominator of the formula:

(2) where r is the correlation coefficient. Once the t value was computed, it was compared with the published tables of values at certain critical levels, called alpha levels. For this chapter, 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 chapter, 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.

238


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.


239

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. Rural A place not located inside the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). This category includes a variety of localities, ranging from sparsely populated rural areas to cities with populations of less than 50,000. Serious violent crime Rape, sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault. Sexual assault A wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between the victim and offender. Sexual assault may or may not involve force and includes such things as grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also includes verbal threats.

240


Simple assault Attack without a weapon resulting either in no injury, minor injury, or an undetermined injury requiring less than 2 days of hospitalization. Also includes attempted assault without a weapon. Suburban A county or counties containing a central city, plus any contiguous counties that are linked socially and economically to the central city. On the data tables, suburban areas are categorized as those portions of metropolitan areas situated ―outside central cities.‖ Theft Completed or attempted theft of property or cash without personal contact. Urban The largest city (or grouping of cities) in an MSA. Victimization A crime as it affects one individual person or household. For personal crimes, the number of victimizations is equal to the number of victims involved. The number of victimizations may be greater than the number of incidents because more than one person may be victimized during an incident. Victimization rate A measure of the occurrence of victimizations among a specific population group. Violent crime Rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, or simple assault.

School Crime Supplement At school In the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to or from school. Gang Street gangs, fighting gangs, crews, or something else. Gangs may use common names, signs, symbols, or colors. All gangs, whether or not they are involved in violent or illegal activity, are included. Serious violent crime Rape, sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault. Total victimization Combination of violent victimization and theft. If a student reported an incident of either type, he or she is counted as having experienced any victimization. If the student reported having experienced both, he or she is counted once under ―total victimization.‖ Violent crime Rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, or simple assault.

Youth Risk Behavior Survey Illegal drugs Examples of illegal drugs were marijuana, cocaine, inhalants, steroids, or prescription drugs without a doctor’s permission, heroin, and methamphetamines.


241

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-

242


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 file, 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).


243

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.

244


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 file, 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 pocket picking, stealing purse or backpack (if left unattended or no force was used to take it from owner), theft from a building, theft from a motor vehicle or motor vehicle parts or accessories, theft of bicycles, theft from vending machines, and all other types of thefts. 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


245

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.

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. & 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. & Marshall, L. (2004). Adolescent Violence: The Protective Effects of Youth Assets. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 269-277. Bauer, L., Guerino, P., Nolle, K. L. & Tang, S. (2008). Student Victimization in U.S. Schools: Results From the 2005 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCES 2009-306). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Beauvais, F., Chavez, E., Oetting, E., Deffenbacher, J. & 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, 292-29 9. Brener, N. D., Kann, L., Kinchen, S. A., Grunbaum, J. A., Whalen, L., Eaton, D., Hawkins, J. & Ross, J. G. (2004). Methodology of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2004, 53 (No. RR-12), 1-13. Brener, N. D., Kann, L. & McManus, T. (2003). A Comparison of Two Survey Questions on Race and Ethnicity Among High School Students. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 227236. Cantor, D. & 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 (85138). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

246


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001). Temporal Variations in SchoolAssociated 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. (2008a). 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. (2008b). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance— United States, 2007. Surveillance Summaries. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2008, 57(No. SS-4). 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 200708 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. & 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. & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and Overt Forms of Peer Victimization: A Multi- informant Approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 337-347. Crick, N. R. & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Children’s Treatment by Peers: Victims of Relational and Overt Aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 367-380. DeVoe, J. F. & 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. & Pittman, V. (2007). High School Student Responses to Different Question Formats Assessing Race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 488-494. Elliott, D. S., Hamburg, B. A. & Williams, K. R. (1998). Violence in American Schools: An Overview. In D. S., Elliott, B. A. Hamburg, & K. R. Williams, (Eds.), Violence in American Schools (3-18). New York: Cambridge University Press. Fagan, J. & Wilkinson, D. L. (1998). Social Contexts and Functions of Adolescent Violence. In D.S. Elliott, B.A. Hamburg, and K.R. Williams (Eds.), Violence in American Schools (55-93). New York: Cambridge University Press. 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. & Lowry, R. (1996). School-Associated Violent Deaths in the


247

United States, 1992 to 1994. Journal of the American Medical Association, 275, 17291733. 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., & Barrios, L. (2004). School-Associated Suicides—United States, 1994-1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 53(22), 476-478. Kodjo, C. M., Auinger, P. & 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. & 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. & Lauritsen, J. L. (1998). The Interdependence of School Violence With Neighborhood and Family Conditions. In D. S., Elliott, B. A. Hamburg, & K. R. Williams, (Eds.), Violence in American Schools (pp. 127-155). New York: Cambridge University Press. MacMillan, R. & 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. & 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. & 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. & 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 2009326). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Nolin, M. J., Vaden-Kiernan, N., Feibus, M. L. & Chandler, K. A. (1997). Student Reports of Availability, Peer Approval, and Use of Alcohol, Marijuana, and Other Drugs at School: 1993 (NCES 97-279). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Nolle, K. L., Guerino, P. & Dinkes, R. (2007). Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools: Findings From the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2005-06 (NCES 2007-361). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Payne, A. A., Gottfredson, D. C. & 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. & 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.

248


Reza, A., Modzeleski, W., Feucht, T., Anderson, M., Simon, T. R. & 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. & 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. & Wagner, R. (2002). School Violence in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness. Journal of School Violence, 1, 5-34. Schreck, C. J. & Miller, J. M. (2003). Sources of Fear of Crime at School: What Is the Relative Contribution of Disorder, Individual Characteristics, and School Security? Journal of School Violence, 2(4), 57-79. Small, M. & Dressler-Tetrick, K. (2001). School Violence: An Overview. Juvenile Justice VIII (I), 3–12. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Smith, D. L. & 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., Dillow, S. A. & Hoffman, C. M. (2009). Digest of Education Statistics 2008 (NCES 2009-020). 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. & Barlas, M. E. (2003). Peer Victimization and Social-Psychological Adjustment in Hispanic and African-American Children. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 12, 439-455. Strizek, G. A., Pittsonberger, J. L., Riordan, K. E., Lyter, D. M. & Orlofsky, G. F. (2006). Characteristics of Schools, Districts, Teachers, Principals, and School Libraries in the United States: 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2006-313 Revised). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of 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. & Williams, J. H. (2004). Relationship Between Peer Victimization and School Adjustment in Sixth-Grade Students: Investigating Mediation Effects. Violence and Victims, 19, 557-571.

End Notes 1

School-associated violent death is defined as ―a homicide, suicide, legal intervention (involving a law enforcement officer), or unintentional firearm-related death in which the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school in the United States.‖ Victims of school- associated violent deaths included students, staff members, and others who are not students. 2 See appendix B for a detailed definition of ―at school.‖

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2009 3

249

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 ―At school‖ includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. 7 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. 8 Such as a gun, knife, or club. 9 Data in this chapter are not adjusted to reflect the number of hours that youths spend on school property versus the number of hours they spend elsewhere. 10 Data from School Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study (SAVD) from 1999–2000 onward are considered preliminary. For more information on this survey, please see appendix A. 11 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 2007 and total homicides 2007–08 are not yet available. 12 The total number of students enrolled in prekindergarten through 12th grade during the 2007–08 school year was 55,579,330 (Snyder, Dillow, and Hoffman 2009). 13 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. 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 crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault. 16 ―At school‖ includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. 17 ―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. 18 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 are comparable to earlier years. For more information, please see appendix A. 19 Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. 20 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. 21 ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and, from 2001 onward, going to and from school. 22 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. 23 Violent victimization includes serious violent crimes and simple assault. 24 Serious violent victimization includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. 25 ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. 26 Violent incidents include serious violent incidents; physical attack or fight without a weapon; and threat of physical attack without a weapon. 27 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. 28 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. 29 ―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. 30 ―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. 31 ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. 32 ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents.

250 33


―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and, from 2001 onward, going to and from school. 34 ―Hate-related‖ refers to derogatory terms used by others in reference to students’ personal characteristics. 35 ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. 36 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; and having property destroyed on purpose. 37 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 text (SMS) messaging. The latter category did not meet statistical standards to be reported separately. 38 ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. 39 ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. 40 ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. 41 ―On school property‖ was not defined for survey respondents. 42 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. 43 ―At school‖ includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus. 44 For the 2001 survey, the wording was changed from ―attack or harm‖ to ―attack or threat of attack.‖ See appendix A for more information. 45 ―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. 46 Students in extracurricular activities other than athletics. 47 One or more check, sweep, or camera. 48 For example, drugs or weapons. Does not include dog sniffs. 49 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. 50 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. 51 For more information on the YRBSS methodology, see Brener et al. (2004). 52 ―U.S. outlying areas‖ include the following: America Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 53 ―Nonregular‖ schools includes cases of schools-withinschools, which were found in Minnesota and Georgia.

INDEX A academic performance, 106 adjustment, 70, 106, 141, 144, 146, 150, 152, 218, 235 administrators, 11, 67, 68, 234 adolescents, 113 adulthood, 230 age, 5, 21, 102, 108, 109, 111, 112, 118, 225, 226, 227, 228, 237, 244 Alaska Natives, 115, 116 alcohol, vii, ix, 1, 6, 8, 10, 11, 17, 20, 26, 35, 38, 39, 58, 77, 78, 101, 105, 137, 138, 139, 141, 144, 148, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 210, 211, 212, 224, 228, 249 alcohol abuse, vii, 1, 6, 10 alcohol consumption, 192 alcohol problems, 10 algorithm, 69 ANOVA, 108, 237 anthrax, 51, 53 arson, 27, 28, 39, 78, 245 assault, 16, 25, 27, 28, 102, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 226, 239, 240, 249 assessment, 4, 10, 18, 19 assignment, 128, 130, 136, 241, 242 athletes, 106, 216, 218, 219, 220 attacks, ix, 31, 72, 73, 76, 105, 131, 201, 210, 211, 212, 239, 244, 245 Attorney General, 8, 12 authority, 6, 9, 19, 243 availability, ix, 101, 158, 159, 228 avoidance, 228 avoidance behavior, 228 awareness, 12, 13, 250

B background, 4, 19

behavior, 26, 41, 43, 48, 49, 63, 78, 79, 179, 180, 182, 214, 243, 244 behavior modification, 63, 79 beliefs, 43, 238, 243 bias, 32, 41, 69, 70, 72, 73, 78, 229, 230, 235, 243 Black students, 102, 103, 124, 157, 168, 185, 188, 194, 202 bullying, ix, 11, 13, 42, 43, 60, 78, 101, 103, 104, 108, 151, 152, 153, 154, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 228, 243, 250

C category a, 239 category d, 170, 171, 250 causal inference, 74 cell, 75 Census, 67, 75, 76, 226, 227, 228, 233, 234, 236, 238, 241, 242, 244 certificate, 225 child abuse, 4, 19 childhood, 8, 20, 241 children, 3, 6, 106 City, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 71, 75, 127, 128, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 149, 150, 151, 177, 179, 216, 217, 241, 242 classes, 69, 70, 176, 179, 180, 182, 224, 230, 231, 233, 241 classification, 68, 70, 75, 76, 224, 226, 231, 244 classroom, 6, 22, 42, 43, 54, 60, 66, 72, 80, 103, 153, 154, 233, 241 classroom management, 6, 54, 66, 80 classroom teacher, 72 classroom teachers, 72 classrooms, 78, 105, 153, 164, 215, 220, 230 closure, 13 cluster sampling, 230

252

Index

coefficient of variation, 236 coercion, 239 collaboration, 13, 28 college students, 26 community, vii, ix, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 17, 19, 20, 25, 26, 48, 49, 63, 79, 101, 106, 109, 224 community service, 4 compilation, 27 complex interactions, 32 compliance, 10, 23, 25 components, 48, 49, 63, 79, 117, 237 concentration, vii, 1, 2 conflict resolution, 49 confrontation, 35, 76, 135, 137, 139, 141, 144, 148, 244 confusion, 12 Congress, iv, vii, viii, 1, 2, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 28 consensus, 10 consumption, 192 control, 6, 29, 70, 74, 214 counseling, 4, 11, 19, 22, 79 criminal activity, 24, 238 criminal acts, 238 crisis management, 3, 14, 18, 27 critical value, 237 cultural norms, 43, 243 curricula, 5, 21 curriculum, 6, 48, 49, 63, 72, 79

D data collection, ix, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 20, 68, 70, 101, 107, 154, 223, 224, 228 death, 109, 110, 111, 112, 224, 225, 226, 239, 248 death rate, 226 deaths, ix, 16, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 223, 224, 226, 248, 249 decisions, 228 definition, 10, 128, 130, 136, 137, 139, 141, 144, 148, 177, 179, 224, 228, 233, 248 demographics, 224 Department of Defense, 67, 100, 234 Department of Health and Human Services, viii, 2, 8, 12, 20 Department of Homeland Security, 13, 33, 50, 51, 53, 64, 79 Department of Justice, viii, ix, 2, 8, 12, 20, 25, 28, 122, 224, 227, 246, 248 dependent variable, 237 destruction, 25, 39, 78, 245 detention, 3, 45, 79, 243 deviation, 67, 235 directors, 226

disability, 28, 41, 54, 78, 164, 166, 167, 230, 243 disadvantaged students, viii, 15, 16, 17, 23 discipline, 54, 66, 80, 103, 109, 153, 154, 155, 235 disclosure, 25, 28 disorder, 42, 43, 60, 78, 103, 151, 152, 153, 154 disposition, 25, 70 distribution, 32, 35, 38, 46, 58, 62, 68, 69, 73, 77, 78, 137, 138, 139, 141, 144, 148, 175, 210, 211, 212, 213, 226, 231, 236, 249 District of Columbia, vii, 1, 2, 125, 131, 132, 134, 159, 162, 181, 185, 186, 190, 192, 194, 195, 199, 201, 230 domestic violence, 4, 19 doors, 214, 215, 216, 220, 221, 222 draft, 12 drug abuse, vii, viii, 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 26 drug use, 5, 9, 14, 17, 21, 224 drugs, vii, ix, 1, 2, 17, 25, 32, 35, 38, 39, 58, 77, 101, 108, 137, 138, 139, 141, 144, 148, 154, 158, 159, 161, 210, 211, 212, 215, 218, 219, 228, 237, 240, 249, 250

E early retirement, 113 educational attainment, 249 educational process, vii, ix, 101, 106 educational services, 14, 22, 27 elementary school, 103, 104, 131, 177, 179, 241 elementary teachers, 179 emergency planning, 9, 13, 26 emergency preparedness, 12, 26 emergency response, 7, 20 employees, 4, 19, 24, 25 enrollment, 14, 22, 27, 34, 36, 38, 41, 44, 47, 49, 51, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 100, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 149, 150, 151, 177, 178, 216, 230 environment, 3, 18, 154, 158, 192, 201 epidemiology, 224 ethnic groups, 159, 185, 188, 198 ethnicity, 28, 41, 78, 116, 121, 123, 124, 128, 130, 157, 158, 160, 161, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 172, 174, 183, 185, 188, 189, 192, 193, 197, 198, 202, 204, 209, 226, 228, 229, 231, 232, 243, 246 expulsion, 3, 5, 14, 18, 27

F failure, 6, 25, 243

Index family, 224, 226 family history, 224 family members, 226 fear, 37, 54, 66, 77, 80, 105, 154, 202, 206, 207, 208, 228, 244 federal funds, viii, 16 females, 104, 122, 159, 184, 188, 192, 198, 202, 207 firearms, 224 first responders, 13 funding, viii, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 31 funds, vii, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 33, 54, 66, 80

G gangs, 103, 154, 157, 158, 159, 228, 240 gender, 28, 41, 78, 164, 166, 168, 243 Georgia, 100, 125, 132, 134, 162, 181, 186, 190, 194, 199, 250 goals, 6, 18, 113 government, iv, vii, viii, 1, 2, 15, 16, 17, 23, 25, 238 GPRA, 5, 6 graffiti, 39, 78, 104, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 228, 245 grants, vii, 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 19, 21, 22, 26, 28 group activities, 42, 43, 78, 151, 152, 153, 154 group variance, 237 grouping, 240 groups, viii, 16, 23, 32, 70, 72, 74, 124, 154, 185, 227, 229, 230, 233, 238 guardian, 33, 46, 47, 62, 79 guidance, 13, 31, 73 guidelines, 10, 11

H hacking, 39, 78, 245 harassment, 13, 43, 138, 139, 244 harm, 35, 37, 45, 76, 77, 104, 105, 168, 169, 201, 202, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 243, 244, 250 hate, 26, 27, 28, 40, 41, 59, 78, 104, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 228 hate crime, 26, 27, 28, 40, 41, 59, 78 Hawaii, 125, 132, 134, 162, 181, 185, 186, 190, 192, 194, 199 health, 5, 7, 13, 20, 21, 54, 113, 226, 230 health services, 13 hearing impairment, 54

253 high school, 32, 33, 67, 68, 74, 107, 109, 137, 154, 218, 232, 234, 243 higher education, viii, 15, 16, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29 homeland security, 7, 20 homicide, 102, 110, 111, 112, 225, 239, 248 hospitalization, 240 House, 12, 14 household income, 229 households, 107, 109, 226, 227, 228, 229, 238 housing, 24, 227

I identification, 4, 10, 13, 19, 22, 221, 222, 223, 224 illegal drug use, 4, 5, 18, 19, 20 implementation, 7, 10, 12, 13, 20, 21, 27 incentives, 10 incidence, 5, 20, 21 income, 23, 115, 116, 229 independent variable, 237 Indians, 115, 116 indicators, vii, ix, 6, 10, 11, 67, 101, 106, 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 223, 249 individual character, 166, 167 individual characteristics, 166, 167 inferences, 69, 229 injuries, 168, 172, 175, 226 injury, iv, ix, 101, 103, 110, 111, 112, 113, 126, 131, 132, 136, 172, 175, 224, 225, 226, 239, 240, 248 institutions, viii, 15, 16, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29 instruction, 22, 48, 49, 63, 79, 233 instruments, 235, 236 intervention, 4, 6, 11, 19, 48, 49, 63, 79, 110, 111, 112, 248 interview, 69, 107, 227, 228, 229 intimidation, 131, 243 Iraq, 27

J jurisdiction, 231 juvenile justice, 8, 20

K kindergarten, 67, 100, 234, 241, 242

L language, 25, 54 language impairment, 54

254

Index

law enforcement, 7, 8, 20, 24, 25, 72, 110, 111, 112, 224, 225, 248 LEA, vii, 1, 3, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21, 23, 27 learning, vii, ix, 4, 17, 18, 54, 101, 106, 184, 187 learning disabilities, 54 learning environment, 17, 18, 184 legislation, 12, 13, 14, 17 leisure, 48, 49, 63, 79 likelihood, 80, 122 litigation, 54, 66, 80 loans, 23, 28 local government, viii, 7, 9, 11, 15, 16, 20 loneliness, 106 Louisiana, 125, 133, 134, 162, 181, 186, 191, 194, 199

M males, 104, 120, 122, 159, 184, 188, 192, 198, 202, 207 manslaughter, 27, 28 marijuana, 6, 105, 197, 198, 200, 201, 240 measurement, 235 measures, 5, 6, 10, 13, 18, 21, 26, 70, 105, 107, 214, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 224, 226, 228, 250 media, 224, 226, 233 mediation, 4, 19, 49 mental health, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, 19, 20, 22 mental illness, 12 mental retardation, 54 mentoring, 4, 6, 19, 20, 48, 49, 63, 79 mentoring program, 6, 20 Mexico, 126, 133, 134, 162, 182, 186, 191, 192, 195, 196, 199, 201 minority, 33, 34, 36, 38, 41, 42, 44, 47, 49, 51, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 71, 72, 76, 100 mobility, 224 model, 7, 13 models, 6, 237 Montana, 125, 133, 134, 162, 181, 186, 191, 195, 199 mortality, 225, 226, 230 murder, 16, 27, 28

N nation, vii, ix, 101, 106, 226 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), viii, ix, 27, 31, 67, 233, 234 national origin, 41, 78, 243 natural disasters, 51, 53, 79, 80

NCES, ix, 5, 27, 28, 32, 67, 68, 71, 74, 101, 107, 221, 230, 231, 233, 234, 245, 246, 247, 248, 250 NCVS, 109, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 226, 227, 228, 229, 236, 249 No Child Left Behind, vii, viii, 1, 2, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 26, 27 nucleus, 241, 242

O objectives, 67 obligation, 7, 20 observations, 235 offenders, 225, 238, 244 Office of Management and Budget, 14, 177, 179, 226, 231, 239 Oklahoma, 126, 133, 135, 162, 182, 186, 191, 195, 199 order, 14, 24, 28, 67, 68, 69, 70, 75, 108, 227, 228, 229, 233, 234, 238, 243 orientation, 167 outliers, 73

P Pacific Islanders, 115, 116 parameters, 236 parental support, 54, 66, 80 parents, 4, 19, 21, 54, 66, 80, 106 partition, 69, 237 partnership, 22, 28 peers, 105, 185, 194, 202 perceptions, ix, 101, 228, 238 permit, 227, 229 planning, 5 police, 24, 25, 103, 135, 136, 138, 142, 147, 148, 220, 222, 223, 224, 226 population, vii, ix, 1, 2, 17, 22, 32, 68, 69, 70, 75, 101, 109, 226, 227, 229, 231, 235, 238, 240, 241, 242, 244 population group, 240 population size, 227 poverty, 12, 17, 154 predictor variables, 69 prejudice, 4, 19 President Clinton, 27 prevention, vii, viii, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 48, 49, 63, 67, 79, 80, 224, 234 primary school, 32, 33, 67, 68, 74, 137, 153, 218, 234 private schools, 109, 122, 158, 202, 233 probability, 68, 69, 73, 230, 231, 233, 238

Index profit, 6, 23, 29 program, viii, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 48, 49, 63, 79, 225, 226 public health, 226 public safety, 7, 12, 20 public sector, 128, 130, 133, 135, 177, 179, 182 Puerto Rico, vii, 1, 2, 67, 100, 234

R race, 28, 41, 78, 115, 121, 123, 124, 157, 158, 160, 161, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 172, 174, 183, 185, 188, 189, 192, 193, 194, 197, 198, 202, 204, 209, 225, 226, 228, 229, 231, 232, 243 racism, 11 range, 22, 32, 73, 107, 142, 144, 228, 239 rape, 16, 35, 76, 100, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 137, 138, 139, 141, 144, 146, 147, 148, 150, 152, 226, 239, 244, 245, 249 region, 69, 72, 76, 100 regulatory requirements, 25, 28 rehabilitation, 4, 19 rejection, 228 relationship, 24, 67, 108, 225, 234, 237, 238 reliability, 236 religion, 28, 41, 78, 164, 166, 243 replication, 22, 73, 236 Requirements, v, 5, 11, 15, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28 resolution, 4, 19, 69 resources, 3, 12, 14, 27, 28 restructuring, 8, 9 retaliation, 54, 66, 80 risk, 4, 5, 6, 11, 19, 21, 26, 28, 33, 224, 229, 230 robberies, ix, 31, 76 rural areas, 33, 115, 239, 244

S Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, v, vii, viii, 1, 2, 15, 17 Samoa, 2, 100, 250 sample design, ix, 68, 69, 101, 107, 114, 117, 223, 226, 231, 233, 249 sample survey, 107, 229 sampling, 32, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 76, 100, 107, 108, 223, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238 sampling error, 69, 73, 229, 235 school activities, 137, 139, 141, 144, 146, 147, 148, 150, 152, 153, 155, 205, 206, 207, 210, 212, 213, 214, 215, 218, 219, 228, 242, 249, 250

255 school authority, 243 school culture, 9 school enrollment, vii, 1, 3, 28, 70, 75, 76, 100, 230, 231 SEA, 3, 5, 18, 21 search, 224 secondary schools, viii, 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 26, 109 secondary students, 16 secondary teachers, 131, 179 security, viii, 3, 7, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 72, 105, 106, 107, 214, 215, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 250 service provider, 4, 19 sex, 16, 25, 28, 122, 124, 159, 161, 165, 168, 171, 175, 184, 188, 192, 196, 198, 200, 225, 226, 229, 231 sex offenders, 25 sexual contact, 239 sexual harassment, 42, 43, 60, 78, 103, 151, 152, 153, 243 sexual orientation, 28, 41, 78, 164, 166, 243 sexuality, 43, 244 sharing, 12 significance level, 237 signs, 11, 18, 41, 43, 78, 240, 243 simple random sampling, 73, 236 simulation, 7, 20 SMS, 170, 250 social integration, 48, 49, 63, 79 social problems, 230 social skills, 49 social skills training, 49 South Dakota, 126, 133, 135, 163, 182, 187, 191, 195, 200 special education, 33, 54, 66, 67, 72, 80, 99, 141, 144, 146, 150, 152, 218, 235, 241, 242 speech, 54 standard error, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 73, 74, 107, 108, 236, 237 standards, 10, 13, 22, 37, 41, 43, 45, 47, 115, 116, 121, 130, 135, 146, 150, 152, 155, 157, 164, 167, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 193, 197, 202, 204, 209, 210, 213, 218, 221, 226, 230, 231, 236, 250 statistics, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 236, 237, 239 steroids, 240 strategies, 13, 26, 27, 230 stratification, 67, 68 student achievement, 176 student enrollment, 17, 23, 68 subgroups, ix, 68, 74, 101 substance abuse, vii, 1, 6, 11, 19

256

Index

suicide, 4, 19, 53, 79, 102, 110, 111, 112, 239, 248 supervision, 220, 222, 243 support services, viii, 16, 23 surveillance, 224, 230 susceptibility, 73 suspensions, 5, 21, 44, 45, 61, 79, 105, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214 swelling, 172, 175 symbols, 41, 43, 78, 164, 240, 243

T target population, 73, 230, 238 targets, 6, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168 teacher support, 54, 66, 80 teacher training, 54, 66, 80 teachers, vii, ix, 6, 7, 11, 20, 33, 42, 43, 60, 69, 72, 78, 80, 100, 103, 104, 106, 107, 109, 113, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 141, 144, 146, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 192, 218, 223, 233, 234, 241, 242 teaching, vii, ix, 101, 104, 106, 128, 130, 136, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 187, 233, 241 teaching experience, 176, 178 technical assistance, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 20, 27 territory, 75, 76, 241, 242, 244 test procedure, 108, 223, 236 test statistic, 237 theft, 28, 35, 37, 76, 77, 102, 103, 107, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 136, 226, 228, 239, 240, 244 threat, 12, 25, 32, 35, 36, 37, 41, 50, 51, 53, 57, 64, 76, 77, 78, 79, 100, 106, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 137, 141, 144, 146, 147, 148, 150, 152, 204, 206, 209, 214, 215, 217, 239, 243, 244, 249, 250 threats, 36, 50, 51, 52, 53, 57, 64, 65, 76, 79, 80, 131, 239, 243, 244, 245 time periods, 107, 222, 223 Title I, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 Title II, 14, 24 Title IV, vii, viii, 1, 2, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 Title V, 9, 14, 22, 27 tobacco, 17, 214, 215

training, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 48, 49, 63, 79 traumatic brain injury, 54 traumatic events, 3, 18 tutoring, 48, 49, 63, 79

U uniform, 10, 11, 13, 28 United States, viii, 15, 16, 24, 28, 69, 109, 110, 111, 112, 122, 125, 126, 132, 134, 162, 163, 181, 186, 187, 190, 191, 194, 195, 199, 200, 224, 225, 228, 230, 238, 239, 245, 246, 247, 248 universe, ix, 67, 101, 107, 109, 223, 234 updating, vii, ix, 101, 106 urban areas, 229 urbanicity, 75, 100, 121, 129, 136, 157, 164, 167, 170, 172, 174, 180, 204, 209, 229 urbanization, 230

V vandalism, 35, 38, 58, 77, 78, 137, 141, 144, 148, 249 variability, 73 variables, 32, 67, 68, 70, 73, 74, 100, 108, 228, 229, 236, 237, 238 variance, 108, 229, 236, 237 victimization, ix, 4, 19, 101, 102, 106, 107, 108, 113, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 227, 228, 229, 233, 240, 249 victims, 7, 11, 16, 20, 102, 108, 116, 119, 131, 225, 226, 238, 240 violence, vii, viii, ix, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28, 31, 33, 35, 37, 48, 49, 63, 68, 76, 77, 79, 101, 106, 113, 131, 136, 154, 168, 201, 224, 228, 238, 239, 244 violent crime, 11, 22, 67, 102, 106, 107, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 136, 137, 142, 234, 239, 240, 249 vulnerability, 201

W weapons, ix, 3, 18, 28, 101, 154, 168, 187, 188, 215, 218, 219, 224, 225, 228, 241, 250 wear, 105, 215, 216, 217, 218, 220, 222, 223 witnesses, 7, 10, 20

A Look at School Crime Safety (Safety and Risk in Society)

Consumer Product Safety Issues (Safety and Risk in Society)

Safety and Risk in Primary School Physical Education

Event Risk Management and Safety

Safety, Risk and Adventure in Outdoor Activities

Fire Safety at Sea

Safety At Work

Safety at work

Safety

Risk Analysis in Building Fire Safety Engineering

Safety and Risk Modeling and Its Applications

Infrastructure and Safety in a Collaborative World: Road Traffic Safety

Handbook of crime prevention and community safety

Human Safety and Risk Management, Second Edition

The Risk Management of Safety and Dependability

Risk and Safety Analysis of Nuclear Systems

Principles of Risk Management and Patient Safety

The Risk Management of Safety and Dependability

Safety at Work, Seventh Edition

Maritime Transportation: Safety Management and Risk Analysis

Workplace Safety: For Occupational Health and Safety (Safety at Work Series)

Health & Safety at Work

Safety at Work, Sixth Edition

Safety at Work Seventh Edition

Health and Safety at Work: Key Terms

Crime, Disorder and Community Safety: A New Agenda?

Critical Infrastructures at Risk : Securing the European Electric Power System (Topics in Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality) (Topics in Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality)

A Place Of Safety

A Place of Safety

A Place of Safety

a Place Of Safety

A Look at School Crime Safety (Safety and Risk in Society)

Consumer Product Safety Issues (Safety and Risk in Society)

Safety and Risk in Primary School Physical Education

Event Risk Management and Safety

Safety, Risk and Adventure in Outdoor Activities

Fire Safety at Sea

Safety At Work

Safety at work

Safety

Risk Analysis in Building Fire Safety Engineering

Safety and Risk Modeling and Its Applications

Infrastructure and Safety in a Collaborative World: Road Traffic Safety

Handbook of crime prevention and community safety

Human Safety and Risk Management, Second Edition

The Risk Management of Safety and Dependability

Risk and Safety Analysis of Nuclear Systems

Principles of Risk Management and Patient Safety

The Risk Management of Safety and Dependability

Safety at Work, Seventh Edition

Maritime Transportation: Safety Management and Risk Analysis

Workplace Safety: For Occupational Health and Safety (Safety at Work Series)

Health & Safety at Work

Safety at Work, Sixth Edition

Safety at Work Seventh Edition

Health and Safety at Work: Key Terms

Crime, Disorder and Community Safety: A New Agenda?

Critical Infrastructures at Risk : Securing the European Electric Power System (Topics in Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality) (Topics in Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality)

A Place Of Safety

A Place of Safety

A Place of Safety

a Place Of Safety

Recommend Documents