![](media/image1.jpeg){width="2.7444444444444445in"
height="1.6736111111111112in"}

**School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS)**

**2006 and 2008**

**Request for IMT/OMB Clearance**

**November 2, 2005**

**Contents**

Section A. Justification. [1](#__RefHeading___Toc50888811)

A.1. Circumstances Making Collection of Information Necessary.
[1](#__RefHeading___Toc50888812)

A.2. Purposes and Uses of Information. [4](#__RefHeading___Toc50888813)

A.3. Appropriate Use of Information Technology.
[4](#__RefHeading___Toc50888814)

A.4. Efforts to Identify Duplication. [5](#__RefHeading___Toc50888815)

A.5. Methods Used to Minimize Burden on Small Entities.
[5](#__RefHeading___Toc50888816)

A.6. Frequency of Data Collection. [6](#__RefHeading___Toc50888817)

A.7. Special Circumstances of Data Collection.
[6](#__RefHeading___Toc50888818)

A.8. Consultants Outside the Agency. [7](#__RefHeading___Toc50888819)

A.9. Provision of Payments or Gifts to Respondents.
[7](#__RefHeading___Toc50888820)

A.10. Assurance of Confidentiality. [7](#__RefHeading___Toc50888821)

A.11. Sensitive Questions. [8](#__RefHeading___Toc50888822)

A.12. Estimates of Hour Burden for Information Collection.
[9](#__RefHeading___Toc50888823)

A.13. Estimates of Costs. [9](#__RefHeading___Toc50888824)

A.14. Estimates of Annual Government Cost.
[9](#__RefHeading___Toc50888825)

A.15. Reasons for Changes in Response Burden and Costs.
[9](#__RefHeading___Toc50888826)

A.16. Time Schedule. [10](#__RefHeading___Toc50888827)

A.17. Approval to not Display Expiration Date for OMB Approval
[13](#a.17.-approval-to-not-display-expiration-date-for-omb-approval)

A.18. Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act
Submissions
[13](#a.18.-exceptions-to-certification-for-paperwork-reduction-act-submissions)

Section B. Methodology. [14](#__RefHeading___Toc50888831)

B1. Sample Design and Estimation. [14](#__RefHeading___Toc50888832)

B2. Survey Procedures. [15](#__RefHeading___Toc50888833)

B3. Methods to Maximize Response Rates.
[18](#__RefHeading___Toc50888834)

B4. Tests of Procedures. [19](#__RefHeading___Toc50888835)

B5. Individuals Responsible for Study Design and Performance
[19](#__RefHeading___Toc50888836)

Appendix A NCES Affidavit of Non-Disclosure 21

Appendix B Description of Survey Items 23

Appendix C Detailed Sample Design 30

Appendix D Letter to Superintendent 72

Appendix E Letter to CCSO 74

Appendix F Advance Letter to Principals (not in special permission
districts) 76

Appendix G Advance Letter to Principals (in special permission
districts) 78

Appendix H Cover Letter to Principals 80

Appendix I Postcard for schools in special permission districts 82

Appendix J Reminder E-mail to Respondents 84

Appendix K Voice-mail Left by Interviewers 87

Appendix L SSOCS: 2006 Questionnaire 89

**List of tables**

**Table Page**

Table 1 Schedule of major project activities 10

Table C-1 Response rates speculated for SSOCS 2000 by type of locale,
enrollment\
size, and minority status 34

Table C-2 Distribution of Sample Schools by Response Status and
Corresponding

Response Rates, by Selected School Characteristics from SSOCS 2000 35

Table C-3 Number of regular schools in the 2003-2004 SASS frame by\
instructional level 37

Table C-4A Number of SSOCS eligible schools and enrollment in the
2003-2004\
SASS/CCD public school universe file, by instructional level and type\
of locale 39

Table C-4B Number of SSOCS eligible schools and enrollment in the
2003-2004\
SASS/CCD public school universe file, by instructional level and\
enrollment size 40

Table C-4C Number of SSOCS eligible schools and enrollment in the
2003-2004\
SASS/CCD public school universe file, by instructional level and
percent\
minority enrollment 41

Table C-5A Number of SSOCS eligible elementary schools in the 2003-2004\
SASS/CCD frame, by type of locale, enrollment size, and minority

status 42

Table C-5B Number of SSOCS eligible middle schools in the 2003-2004
SASS/CCD

frame, by type of locale, enrollment size, and minority status 43

Table C-5C Number of SSOCS eligible secondary schools in the 2003-2004\
SASS/CCD frame, by type of locale, enrollment size, and minority

status 44

Table C-5D Number of SSOCS eligible combined schools in the 2003-2004\
SASS/CCD frame, by type of locale, enrollment size, and minority

status 45

Table C-5E Number of SSOCS eligible elementary schools in the 2003-2004\
SASS/CCD frame, by type of locale, enrollment size, and region 46

Table C-5F Number of SSOCS eligible middle schools in the 2003-2004\
SASS/CCD frame, by type of locale, enrollment size, and region 47

Table C-5G Number of SSOCS eligible secondary schools in the 2003-2004\
SASS/CCD frame, by type of locale, enrollment size, and region 48

Table C-5H Number of SSOCS eligible combined schools in the 2003-2004\
SASS/CCD frame, by type of locale, enrollment size, and region 49

Table C-6 Standard Errors of the Estimates and Minimum Detectable
Difference\
Between SSOCS 2000 and SSOCS 2004 with 70% and 80% Power 50

Table C-7A Aggregate measure of size of SSOCS eligible elementary
schools\
in the 2003-2004 SASS/CCD frame, by type of locale,\
enrollment size, and minority status 54

Table C-7B Aggregate measure of size of SSOCS eligible middle schools in
the\
2003-2004 SASS/CCD frame, by type of locale, enrollment size,\
and minority status 55

Table C-7C Aggregate measure of size of SSOCS eligible secondary
schools\
in the 2003-2004 SASS/CCD frame, by type of locale, enrollment size,\
and minority status 56

Table C-7D Aggregate measure of size of SSOCS eligible combined schools\
in the 2003-2004 SASS/CCD frame, by type of locale, enrollment size,\
and minority status 57

Table C-7E Aggregate measure of size of SSOCS eligible elementary
schools\
in the 2003-2004 SASS/CCD frame, by type of locale, enrollment size,\
and region 58

Table C-7F Aggregate measure of size of SSOCS eligible middle schools\
in the 2003-2004 SASS/CCD frame, by type of locale, enrollment size,\
and region 59

Table C-7G Aggregate measure of size of SSOCS eligible secondary
schools\
in the 2003-2004 SASS/CCD frame, by type of locale, enrollment size,\
and region 60

Table C-7H Aggregate measure of size of SSOCS eligible combined schools\
in the 2003-2004 SASS/CCD frame, by type of locale, enrollment size,\
and region 61

Table C-8A Completion rates, completed cases and sample size for SSOCS
2000\
and those expected for SSOCS 2004, elementary schools by locale\
and school size. 63

Table C-8B Completion rates, completed cases and sample size for SSOCS
2000\
and those expected for SSOCS 2004, middle schools by locale and\
school size. 64

Table C-8C Completion rates, completed cases and sample size for SSOCS
2000\
and those expected for SSOCS 2004, secondary schools by locale and\
school size. 65

Table C-8D Completion rates, completed cases and sample size for SSOCS
2000\
and those expected for SSOCS 2004, combined schools by locale and\
school size. 66

Table C-9 Anticipated Sample Size by Locale for SSOCS 2004 67

Table C-10 Anticipated Sample Size by Enrollment Size for SSOCS 2004 67

Table C-11A Minimum Detectable Differences between School Levels for\
SSOCS 2004 68

Table C-11B Minimum Detectable Differences between Various Locales for\
SSOCS 2004 69

Table C-11C Minimum Detectable Differences between Schools with Various\
Student Enrollments for SSOCS 2004 70

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888811 .anchor}Section A. Justification.

This is a request for clearance to conduct the 2006 and 2008
implementations of the School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS). The
SSOCS survey was conducted in 2000 and 2004. Fours years separated the
first two collections of SSOCS to allow for sufficient time to study the
results of the first survey and to allow for re-design work, should that
be necessary. Plans now call for the SSOCS to be conducted on a biennial
basis.

The SSOCS survey is a survey of approximately 3,000 public schools on
the topic of school crime and violence. It is a mail survey with
telephone phone follow-up and is designed to produce nationally
representative data on public schools. Respondents are school
principals.

The survey is funded by the Department of Education's Office of Safe and
Drug-Free Schools. However, responsibility for the design and conduct of
the survey rests with the National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES). While two different contractors were used to design and conduct
the 2000 and 2004 collections, the 2006 collection will be done by the
Census Bureau through an interagency agreement with NCES. It is likely
that the Census Bureau will also do the 2008 collection.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888812 .anchor}A.1. Circumstances Making
Collection of Information Necessary.

SSOCS is the only recurring federal survey collecting detailed
information on crime and safety from the schools' perspective. As such,
it fills an important gap in data collected by NCES. It collects
information on:

-   Frequency and types of crimes at schools, including homicide, rape,
    sexual battery, physical attacks with or without weapons, threats of
    attack with or without weapons, robbery, theft, possession of
    weapons or drugs, and vandalism;

-   Frequency and types of disciplinary actions such as expulsions,
    transfers, and suspensions for selected offenses;

-   Perceptions of other disciplinary problems such as bullying, verbal
    abuse, and disorder in the classroom;

-   Description of school policies and programs concerning crime and
    safety;

-   Description of student, parent and teacher involvement in efforts
    intended to prevent or reduce school violence; and

-   School characteristics that have been associated with school crime.

The predecessor to SSOCS was a survey done through NCES' Fast Response
Survey System in 1996-97. Just when data from that survey were being
released in 1997-98, a number of tragic shootings occurred at schools
across the county. Those events took place at Pearl, MS, West Paducah,
KY, and Jonesboro, AR. When it came to light that neither the
Departments of Justice nor Education had a recurring survey by which to
measure the frequency of crime and violence at schools, the Department
of Education made a commitment to begin a regular survey. Thus, planning
for the SSOCS began.

The original SSOCS questionnaire (2000) was developed in consultation
with a Technical Review Panel consisting of some of the nation's top
experts on school crime and school programs relating to crime and
safety. Revisions for the 2004 questionnaire were based on data received
from the SSOCS 2000, a review of current literature in the field,
feedback from a Technical Review Panel and related government agencies,
as well as the results of extensive pre-testing conducted by Abt
Associates.

The questionnaire planned for use in 2006 and 2008 is essentially the
same as that used in 2004. As such, SSOCS 2006 will continue to provide
a valuable tool to policymakers and researchers who need to know what
the level of crime is and how it is changing, what disciplinary actions
schools are taking, and what policies and programs related to school
crime and violence schools have in place.

Legislative Authorization

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the Institute of
Education Sciences (IES), U.S. Department of Education, is conducting
this study, as authorized under Public Law 107-279, Title I, Part C,
Section 151(b) and 153(a) of the *Education Sciences Reform Act of
2002*, which states:

"The Statistics Center shall collect, report, analyze, and disseminate
statistical data related to education in the United States and in other
nations, including -

\(1\) collecting, acquiring, compiling (where appropriate, on a
State-by-State basis), and disseminating full and complete statistics
(disaggregated by the population characteristics described in paragraph
(3)) on the condition and progress of education, at the preschool,
elementary, secondary, postsecondary and adult levels in the United
States, including data on -

\(A\) State and local education reform activities;

\(B\) State and local early childhood school readiness activities;

\(C\) student achievement in, at a minimum, the core academic areas of
reading, mathematics, and science at all levels of education;

\(D\) secondary school completions, dropouts, and adult literacy and
reading skills;

\(E\) access to, and opportunity for, postsecondary education, including
data on financial aid to postsecondary students;

\(F\) teaching, including\-\--

\(i\) data on in-service professional development, including a
comparison of courses taken in the core academic areas of reading,
mathematics, and science with courses in noncore academic areas,
including technology courses; and

\(ii\) the percentage of teachers who are highly qualified (as such term
is defined in section 9101of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801)) in each State and, where feasible, in each
local educational agency and school;

\(G\) instruction, the conditions of the education workplace, and the
supply of, and demand for, teachers;

\(H\) the incidence, frequency, seriousness, and nature of violence
affecting students, school personnel, and other individuals
participating in school activities, as well as other indices of school
safety, including information regarding \-\--

\(i\) the relationship between victims and perpetrators;

\(ii\) the type of weapons used in incidents, as classified in the
Uniform Crime Reports of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

> \(I\) the financing and management of education, including data on
> revenues and expenditures;

\(J\) the social and economic status of children;

\(K\) the existence and use of educational technology and access to the
Internet by students and teachers in elementary and secondary schools;

(L) access to, and opportunity for, early childhood education;

\(M\) the availability of, and access to, before-school and after-school
programs (including such programs during school recesses);

\(N\) student participation in and completion of secondary and
postsecondary vocational and technical education programs by specific
program areas; and

\(O\) the existence and use of school libraries;

\(2\) conducting and publishing reports and analyses of the meaning and
significance of the statistics described in paragraph (1);

\(3\) collecting, analyzing, cross-tabulating, and reporting, to the
extent feasible, information by gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic
status, limited English proficiency, mobility, disability, urban, rural,
suburban districts, and other population characteristics when such
disaggregated information will facilitate educational and policy
decision making;

\(4\) assisting public and private educational agencies, organizations,
and institutions in improving and automating statistical and data
collection activities, which may include assisting State educational
agencies and local educational agencies with the disaggregation of data
and with the development of longitudinal student data systems;

\(5\) determining voluntary standards and guidelines to assist State
educational agencies in developing statewide longitudinal data systems
that link individual student data consistent with the requirements of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et
seq.), promote linkages across

States, and protect student privacy consistent with section 183, to
improve student academic achievement and close achievement gaps;

\(6\) acquiring and disseminating data on educational activities and
student achievement (such as the Third International Math and Science
Study) in the United States compared with foreign nations;

\(7\) conducting longitudinal studies, as well as regular and special
surveys and data collections, necessary to report on the condition and
progress of education;

\(8\) assisting the Director in the preparation of a biennial report, as
described in section 119; and

\(9\) determining, in consultation with the National Research Council of
the National Academies, methodology by which States may accurately
measure graduation rates (defined as the percentage of students who
graduate from secondary school with a regular diploma in the standard
number of years), school completion and dropout rates."

Congress reauthorized the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act
of 1994 in the year 2002 to support drug and violence prevention
programs, including an impact evaluation component and a provision for
NCES to collect data on the frequency, seriousness, and incidence of
violence in elementary and secondary schools.

SSOCS will address both of these actions of Congress by providing
statistics on the frequency of violence, the nature of the school
environment, and the characteristics of school violence prevention
programs.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888813 .anchor}A.2. Purposes and Uses of
Information.

SSOCS has been designed to meet the congressional mandate for NCES to
provide statistics on the frequency of violence, the nature of the
school environment, and the characteristics of school violence
prevention programs. Such national data are critical, given the tendency
to focus on anecdotal evidence of crimes without knowing the true
frequency of problems in the schools. Without accurate information,
policymakers may make misinformed decisions about school policy, and the
public might lose confidence in public schools.

Most items in the 2004 survey will be repeated in the SSOCS 2006 and
2008 surveys, allowing for comparisons between the two, and later three,
data points. The data will be used by NCES to prepare summary
descriptive reports of the findings, and will be made available as
restricted-use databases for use by researchers and policy makers on
school crime and safety.

Data from the previous earlier SSOCS surveys have been released in NCES'
annual *Indicators of School Crime and Safety*, and in *Violence in the
U.S. Public Schools: 1999-2000 School Survey on Crime and Safety*. The
report containing data from the SSOCS 2004 will be released in December
2005.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888814 .anchor}A.3. Appropriate Use of
Information Technology.

This survey will be conducted by mail with telephone follow-up. FAX and
email might also be used to deliver questionnaires if respondents so
request.

Schools will be asked to provide the email addresses of their
principals. Those email addresses will be sent reminder emails, as
appropriate, in the data collection period. When emails are sent,
addresses will be "masked" so that recipients do not have access to the
email addresses of other recipients.

An electronic database will be used to track all sampled cases in order
to determine where further follow-up is required.

Computer edits will be performed to verify the completeness of the
questionnaire and consistency of the data that are collected. For
example, computer edits include whether a subset of responses add to the
total, whether skip patterns have been followed correctly, whether
values fall outside of the range that is typically found for such
schools, and whether some responses might be logically inconsistent.

Because of its small sample size (\~3,700), SSOCS will not offer an
Internet option in 2006. The possibility of providing such an option in
later administrations will be kept open. The survey design team will
closely watch other NCES surveys that offer the option and evaluate the
pros and cons of such an option for SSOCS.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888815 .anchor}A.4. Efforts to Identify
Duplication.

The SSOCS was developed in consultation with the:

-   Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program (S&DFS);

-   Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP);

-   Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS);

-   Office of Special Education Services (OSEP);

-   National Institute of Justice (NIJ);

-   Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS); and

-   National experts on the topic of school crime.

When SSOCS was first developed, extant surveys that touch on the topic
of school crime and safety were examined to determine where duplication
might exist. While there are other federal surveys that collect
information from principals about school crime and safety, these surveys
(the National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools, 2000 and the
School Health Policies and Programs, 1999-2000) do not collect the same
information as SSOCS. SSOCS provides more extensive coverage of the
types of crime and discipline that occur in schools, as well as the
efforts that schools use to combat these problems.

Other surveys that collected similar information as SSOCS are not
administered repeatedly. For example, the Safe School Study of 1976, and
the 1991 and 1996-1997 FRSS Surveys, the predecessors to SSOCS:2000,
collected data from principals on school crime. These surveys, however,
were one-time surveys that will not be repeated.

Other federal surveys obtain information about school crime from
individuals other than principals. For example, the School Crime
Supplement to the National School Crime and Safety Survey, administered
in 1989, 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005, collected data on school
crime and safety from students ages 12 to 18. Students also serve as the
primary respondents in the Youth Risk Behavior Surveys and the
Monitoring the Future Surveys. These surveys do not provide data from
the same perspective as SSOCS.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888816 .anchor}A.5. Methods Used to Minimize
Burden on Small Entities.

The burden on small schools and districts is minimized during the SSOCS
data collection through the sample design. The design specifies the
selection of schools as a function of size, which is defined by the
number of students. Small schools and districts are sampled at lower
rates because they comprise a smaller proportion of the student
population per school.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888817 .anchor}A.6. Frequency of Data
Collection.

As indicated earlier, the SSOCS is planned as a biennial survey, and
this request is for clearance of SSOCS:2006 and SSOCS 2008. Separate
requests will be submitted for SSOCS collections in 2010 and beyond. If
these data were collected less frequently it would hamper the ability to
monitor trends and provide policy makers with timely data on school
crime.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888818 .anchor}A.7. Special Circumstances of
Data Collection.

The 2006 SSOCS questionnaire will be mailed to respondents on March 1,
2006, with instructions to return in on or before March 24, 2006.
Therefore, respondents are asked to complete the questionnaire less than
30 days after receiving it. The data collection period, however, will
remain open through June 2, 2006. Schools that do not respond by March
24, 2006, will be recontacted and encouraged to complete their
questionnaires.

The 2006 SSOCS replicates the data collection procedures utilized in the
2000 and 2004 SSOCS. The survey requires less than 30 days to complete
for a number of reasons. One reason for the shortened period for
principals to respond is the time of year the survey is administered.
The time period for the administration of the survey is designed to
correspond to the end of the school year, without overlapping with the
beginning of summer vacation. In order to achieve a high response rate,
it is necessary to reach the principals prior to the end of the school
year to guarantee that they can be reached for follow-up calls if
necessary. The timing of the survey administration also is designed to
avoid overburdening principals at the very end of the school year when
they have other administrative responsibilities.

Another reason for allocating less than 30 days for principals to
respond is length of the data collection period. The data collection
period is only a total of three months. The survey collects counts of
certain events, such as the number of crimes or disciplinary actions,
which occur during the school year. In order to collect information on
as much of the school year as possible, the data collection period was
kept short and as close to a full school year as possible. Because the
data collection period is only three months long, it is necessary to
allow enough time for nonresponse follow up. Most of the schools in the
earlier SSOCS collections required some form of nonresponse follow up,
and the expectation is that the 2006 survey will as well. It is
necessary to allow for enough time before the end of the school year to
conduct the nonresponse telephone calls and e-mails, so the initial time
period provided for principals to respond has to be relatively short.

There are no other special circumstances.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888819 .anchor}A.8. Consultants Outside the
Agency.

This survey was developed in consultation with a Technical Review Panel
(TRP) that was created to review crime-related surveys sponsored by the
National Center for Education Statistics. Panel members and their
affiliations are as follows:

-   Lynn Addington, Department of Justice, Law and Society

-   Bill Bond, National Association of Secondary School Principals

-   Margaret Evans, National Association of Elementary School Principals

-   Denise Gottfredson, Department of Criminology and Justice,
    University of Maryland

-   Gary Gottfredson, Gottfredson Associates, Inc.

-   Kristen Hayes, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools

-   William Lassiter, Center for Prevention of School Violence

-   Colin Loftin, School of Criminal Justice, State University of New
    York, Albany

-   Sister Dale McDonald, National Catholic Education Association

-   Shannon Means, Kentucky Center for School Safety

-   Michael Rand, Bureau of Justice Statistics

-   Bill Smith, Instructional Support Services, Sioux Falls School
    District

    []{#__RefHeading___Toc50888820 .anchor}A.9. Provision of Payments or
    Gifts to Respondents.

Not applicable.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888821 .anchor}A.10. Assurance of
Confidentiality.

A plan for assuring the confidentiality of individual data has been
developed by NCES and Abt Associates. Under this plan, the SSOCS:2004
will conform to federal regulations -- specifically, the *Privacy Act of
1974* (5 U.S.C. 552a), *Privacy Act Regulations* (34 CFR Part 5b), the
*Hawkins-Stafford Amendments of 1988* (P.L. 100-297), the *Computer
Security Act of 1987,* NCES *Restricted-Use Data Procedures Manual*, the
*Federal Statistical Confidentiality Order of 1997* (an OMB
directive)*,* the *U.S.A. Patriot Act of 2001* (P.L. 107-56)*,* the
*E-Government Act of 2002, Title V, Subtitle A, Confidential Information
Protection,* the *Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002* (P.L. 107-279)
and the NCES *Statistical Standards and Policies* handbook. From the
initial contact with the participants in this survey through all of the
follow-up efforts, careful attention will be paid to informing potential
survey respondents that NCES and Census will protect the confidentiality
of their personal data. Census will collect the data for NCES by the
authority of Public Law 107-279, Title I, Part C, Section 183 of the
*Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002* (20 USC 9573), which guarantees
the confidentiality of respondents. In addition, Census and NCES will
treat the data as confidential, based on the *Privacy Act of 1974* and
as amended under the *U.S.A. Patriot Act of 2001*.

All survey respondents will be informed that this is a voluntary survey
in a survey cover letter. The cover letter will also state that
individual school results will not be identified in any reports.

All information identifying the individual respondents will be kept
confidential, in compliance with the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert T.
Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1988
(P.L. 100-297), which states that:

> (4)(A) "Except as provided in this section, no person may --

(i) use any individually identifiable information furnished under the
    provisions of this section for any purpose other than statistical
    purposes for which it is supplied;

(ii) make any publication whereby the data furnished by any particular
     person under this section can be identified; or,

(iii) permit anyone other than the individuals authorized by the
      Commissioner to examine the individual reports . . ."

The Census Bureau will collect data under an interagency agreement with
NCES. Census will maintain the individually identifiable questionnaires
as confidential material.

All Census staff members working on the SSOCS project and having access
to the data (including monitoring of interviews) are required to sign
the NCES Affidavit of Nondisclosure (see Appendix A). Notarized
affidavits are kept on file at NCES.[^1]

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888822 .anchor}A.11. Sensitive Questions.

SSOCS 2006 is a voluntary survey, and no persons are required to respond
to the questionnaire. In addition, respondents may decline to answer any
questions in the survey. This voluntary aspect of the survey is clearly
stated in the introduction and is stressed in interviewer training.

The items in the SSOCS questionnaire collect information about schools
rather than about individual people (see Appendix B for a description
and justification of the items and Appendix L for the questionnaire). In
this sense, the data are not sensitive. Items about the frequency of
crime and disciplinary problems at the school could be viewed as
sensitive by some respondents because schools may not want to report
data associated with unusually high frequencies of problems.
Confidentiality of information however is stated in a cover letter to
participants as well as the fact that the responses are not in any way
tied to funding. In general though, the SSOCS questionnaire asks for
information that is in the public domain (e.g., schools communicate
their policies to their students and parents in a variety of ways), thus
the information is not viewed as sensitive in nature.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888823 .anchor}A.12. Estimates of Hour Burden
for Information Collection.

On average, respondents will need approximately 1.06 hours (63.5
minutes) to respond to the SSOCS survey. Thus, the overall burden for
the survey is computed to be:

2,550 respondents @ 1.06 hours/respondent = 2,703 hours

\[NOTE: This estimate of hours per interview was established during
cognitive testing for the SSOCS 2004. The 2006 questionnaire is almost
identical to the one used in 2004.\]

Assuming that the respondents, mostly principals, would earn \$35.00 per
hour, the cost to respondents for the overall burden would be:

2,703 hours @ \$35.00/hour = \$94,605.

There are no other costs to respondents.

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888824 .anchor}A.13. Estimates of Costs.

The SSOCS does not require any record keeping, so there are no
record-keeping costs associated with this collection.

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888825 .anchor}A.14. Estimates of Annual
Government Cost.

The Census Bureau is doing the SSOCS 2006 data collection and data file
development work for \$898,000 over two years, for an annualized average
cost of \$449,000. A task in NCES' Education Statistics Services
Institute (ESSI) contract with AIR also supports this survey at about
\$1,000,000 over two years, for an annualized average cost of \$500,000.
Thus, the 2006 SSOCS will cost the government \$1,898,000 over two
years, for a total annualized average cost of \$949,000.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888826 .anchor}

A.15. Reasons for Changes in Response Burden and Costs.

This is a survey that is being done on a biennial basis. Since the
questionnaire is essentially the same as that used in 2004, the
respondent burden estimate for the 2006 SSOCS is the same, both in hours
(2,703 hours) and costs (\$94,605).

The estimated "per cycle" cost of \$1,898,000 for the 2006 SSOCS is
higher than the estimated "per cycle" cost of \$1,400,000 for the 2004
SSOCS. However, the 2004 SSOCS, being done by Abt Associates, Inc, was
underestimated by about \$500,000, and the real "per cycle" cost of the
2004 SSOCS is closer to \$1,900,000. The cost estimate, then, for 2006
SSOCS is essentially the same as the real cost of the 2004 SSOCS.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888827 .anchor}A.16. Time Schedule.

NCES is committed to releasing the first publication from a collection
as soon as possible after the completion of the data collection. The
ultimate goal for all collections is to release a report within 12
months of coming out of the field. However, since this is the first
SSOCS collection by Census, the goal here is to release the report
within 16 months of completion of the data collection.

  --------------------------------------------------- -------------------
  Table 1: Schedule of major project activities       

  **Task**                                            **Date**

  OMB approval                                        03/01/06

  Data collection begins                              03/06/06

  Data collection ends                                06/02/06

  Restricted-use data file finalized                  02/02/07

  First report (E.D. Tab) through NCES review         04/02/07

  First report (E.D. Tab) released                    06/01/07

  Restricted-use data file released                   09/28/07

  Restricted-use data file user's manual released     09/28/07

  Public-use data file released                       09/28/07

  Public-use data file user's manual released         09/28/07

  Analysis report through NCES review                 10/15/07

  Analysis report released                            01/15/08
  --------------------------------------------------- -------------------

Analysis Tasks.

Plans for the analyses of the data will generally follow the research
questions presented below. Data will be analyzed in accordance with the
research questions. A goal of the data analysis will be to provide
answers to the questions using various analysis techniques. The analysis
tasks will include imputation of data and the creation of both composite
and descriptive variables for analysis.

Research Questions.

The SSOCS instrument is divided into eight main research objectives,
each with a series of items addressing a specific research question (see
research questions below). The analysis plans will generally follow the
research questions. (See Appendix B for a description and justification
of the items)

**Research question**

I.  What is the frequency and nature of crime at public schools?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  What is the number of incidents, by type of crime?

b.  What are the characteristics of those incidents?

    1.  How many incidents were reported to police?

    2.  How many incidents were hate-crimes?

    3.  How many were gang-related?

c.  How many schools report violent deaths?

d.  How many schools report school shootings?

e.  How many schools report disruptions for violent threats?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
II. What is the frequency and nature of discipline problems and\
    disorder at public schools?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  What types of discipline problems and disorder occur at\
    public schools?

b.  How serious are the problems?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
III. What disciplinary actions do public schools use?

     a.  What types of disciplinary actions were available\
         to principals?

     b.  How many disciplinary actions were taken, by type of\
         action and offense?

IV. What practices to prevent/reduce crime and violence\
    do public schools use?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  How do schools monitor student behavior?

b.  How do schools control student behavior?

c.  How do schools monitor and secure the physical grounds?

d.  How do schools limit access to the school?

e.  How do schools plan for crime and violence?

f.  How do schools involve law enforcement?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
V.  What formal programs designed to prevent/reduce crime\
    and violence do public schools use?

    a.  Which programs target students, teachers, parents,\
        and other community members?

    b.  What are the characteristics of the programs?

    c.  What training is provided to staff?

VI. What efforts used by public schools to prevent/reduce crime\
    and violence involve various stakeholders (i.e. law\
    enforcement, parents, juvenile justice agencies, mental\
    health agencies, social services, business community)?[^2]

> a\. In what activities are stakeholders involved?
>
> b\. How much are stakeholders involved?

VII. What problems do principals encounter in preventing/\
     reducing crime and violence in public schools?

VIII. What school characteristics might be related to the\
      research questions above?

> a\. What are the demographic characteristics of schools?
>
> b\. What are the characteristics of the student population?
>
> c\. What is the average student/teacher ratio or class size?

a.  What are the general measures of school climate,\
    such as truancy or student mobility?

Imputation.

Item non-response refers to missing data items in an otherwise completed
questionnaire. The items may be missing because the respondent was
careless, refused to provide an answer, or could not obtain the
requested information. Since extensive amounts of missing data can
seriously bias the sample-based estimates, procedures for imputing
missing values for key survey items will be developed as part of the
data preparation activities. The imputation will respect the skip
patterns of the interviews. Once the data are imputed, they will be
subjected to the same data editing procedures as used in the original
data collection. All imputed values will be flagged as such in the
public use and restricted-use data files, so analysts can either ignore
the imputations or do their own imputations depending on their specific
purposes. The imputation procedures will be done early in the post-data
collection period and will be available for even the earliest analyses.

Composite Variables.

We plan to create several composite and classification variables for
analytic purposes. There will be three types of derived variables:

-   **Counter Variables.** These provide a count of the number of times
    that a particular type of response was given. Examples of this type
    of derived variable might include the number of types of
    disciplinary problems that happen daily at the school, or the number
    of formal programs intended to prevent or reduce school violence.

-   **Composite Variables.** These derived variables are created from
    two or more questionnaire variables. Examples of composite variables
    include the total number of incidents in which police or other law
    enforcement were contacted, or perhaps a scale of different actions
    that schools take to prevent or reduce crime.

-   **Classification Variables.** These might be intended to simplify
    analysis and/or to protect confidentiality by replacing more
    detailed variables with variables that use more general groupings.
    Some examples might include geographic region, enrollment size, and
    proportion eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.

These variables will also be provided on the public use data files so
that researchers are better able to replicate and build on study
findings. The definitions and coding will be included in the SSOCS data
file user\'s manual.

## 

## A.17. Approval to not Display Expiration Date for OMB Approval

We are not seeking approval to not display the expiration date of OMB
approval.

## 

## A.18. Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions

Not applicable. There are no exceptions to the certification statement.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888831 .anchor}Section B. Methodology.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has entered into an
interagency agreement with the Census Bureau to do the 2006 collection
of the School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS). If that goes well, the
Census Bureau will also provide data collection services for the 2008
SSOCS. Westat, Inc., and Abt Associates, Inc., did the earlier
collections in 2000 and 2004, respectively. Since the questionnaire and
many of the procedures are well-defined, the major portion of the work
on this survey is data collection, and the Census Bureau is believed to
be able to achieve higher response rates than private contractors. The
following paragraphs are worded to reflect plans for 2006. The 2008
SSOCS will be done using the same methods and procedures.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888832 .anchor}B1. Sample Design and Estimation.

The potential respondent universe is all regular, public schools with
students in any of grades 1 through 12. This excludes schools run by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Department of Defense, and schools
specializing in special education, alternative education or juvenile
halls. The size of this population is estimated to be about 82,000
(based on information from the Department of Education\'s Common Core of
Data).

A stratified sample design will be used to select 3,743 public schools
for the School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), to be conducted in
2006. For sample allocation purposes, strata will be defined by
instructional level, type of locale, and enrollment size. Both minority
enrollment and region will be used as sorting variables in the sample
selection process to induce implicit stratification. Tables 5A through
5D in Appendix C provide the number of schools in the universe by
strata. Tables 8A through 8D include the expected sample size per
strata.

All of the variables used in the stratification have been shown to be
related to school crime, so these are meaningful strata for this survey.
SSOCS is intended to be conducted multiple times, and so the sample is
designed to enable the detection of relatively small changes over time,
as well as provide reasonably precise cross-sectional estimates for
selected subgroups of interest.

The weighted response rate in the 2004 SSOCS was 75 percent. The sample
design was built on these same expectations, so as to ensure that a
sufficient number of completed interviews will be obtained. Tables 8A
through 8D in Appendix C provide strata level assumptions for completion
rates.

Additional information about the sample design is provided in Appendix
C, including the construction of the sampling frame, stratification
(including the choice of stratification variables), and sample
allocation.

####  Calculation of Weights

Weights will be attached to each surveyed school so that the weighted
data will represent population levels. The final weight for completed
cases will be comprised of a sampling base weight and an adjustment for
nonresponse. The final, adjusted weight will be raked so that the sum of
the weights matches the number of schools derived from the latest CCD
public school universe file.

####  Methods for Variance Estimation

Standard errors of the estimates will be estimated using jackknife
repeated replication (JRR). Replicate codes that indicate the computing
strata and the half-sample to which each sample unit belongs will be
provided, as well as the replicate weights for all replicates that were
formed in order to calculate variances.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888833 .anchor}B2. Survey Procedures.

Overview

The methodology for the SSOCS 2004 entails a mail survey with intensive
phone follow-up. Census's strategy is to call respondents by phone
within one week of the expected arrival of the questionnaire. We will
then mail a second survey to all eligible non-responders and will
continue this intensive phone follow-up for the remainder of the field
period until completion of the interview via mail, fax or phone.

Steps in the Data Collection Process

The following is a description of the main tasks in the data collection
process for the SSOCS. These tasks include: drawing the sample;
identifying special permission districts; mailings to school principals,
district superintendents, and Chief State School Officers; phone
follow-up to non-responding schools, and refusal aversion and conversion
efforts (See Appendices D -- K for letters sent to Superintendents and
Principals, as well as postcards to schools in special permission
districts and reminder e-mails and voicemails to respondents)

Drawing the Sample

Census staff will draw the sample of schools in November, due to the
fact that we would like to identify the special permission school
districts early in the survey cycle. This ensures that these schools
have the necessary information to present to their approval board in the
fall of 2005.

Identifying Special Permission Districts and the Need for Research
Applications

NCES has a list of special permission districts that require research
applications. The districts that require special permission prior to
data collection will be contacted by NCES or contractor support staff to
obtain any materials necessary for district approval of SSOCS.

Advance Notification to Principals

Principals will be notified of the survey through an advance letter sent
a day or two before the questionnaire, following OMB clearance. The
letter will include the date of the first mailing as well as an 800
number that principals can call if they have questions. We are opting to
send an advance letter, as opposed to a postcard notification. A letter
can provide more information and generally looks more "official." The
toll-free line will be answered by Census program staff in Suitland, MD,
who have been explicitly trained on this study and how to respond to
this mailer. Staffing levels will ensure that at least one staff person
is available at all times during the promised hours of operation.

Mailing to District Superintendents and Chief State School Officers

In order to achieve the highest possible response rate, we will send the
study notification mailing to superintendents and Chief State School
Officers (CSSO) at the same time as the advance notification to
Principals. The purpose of this mailing is to provide districts with
information about the survey and to inform them about the questionnaires
being mailed to sampled schools in their district. It is not designed to
ask for permission, rather, this is designed as a vehicle to help
enhance participation. All materials sent to the CSSOs will be
personalized using contact information from the CSSO website. Copies of
the proposed letters to the superintendents/ CSSO's are included in the
Appendix D and E.

Mailing the Questionnaire to Principals

We will begin mailing questionnaires to school principals during in
early to mid March 2006 via Federal Express (FEDEX) for the first
mailing because the price is similar to USPS Priority Mail and FEDEX
guarantees delivery. This is the same week in which we will send the
informational mailing to superintendents and Chief State School
Officers. The mailing will include a postage-paid return envelope. The
content cover letter would differ in that it would be targeted to the
schools (rather than districts or CSSOs) and would include the toll-free
number at Census, along with the hours of operation, and the return
address. The principal will be asked to complete the questionnaire by
the end of March 2006, or have it completed by the person in the school
who is most knowledgeable about school crime and safety.

Protocol for Follow-up Calls

Approximately one week after the estimated delivery of the questionnaire
mailing to school principals, we will initiate phone calls to confirm
that they have received the mailing and to ask if they have any
questions. During this call we will also identify the person at the
school who is responsible for shepherding the survey through the data
collection process (we are calling this person the Responsible Person,
or RP, and it is understood that the principal may also be the RP) RP
and the RP's secretary/administrator (RP if applicable). The
secretary/administrator contact information can be used in future
mailings to schools in which we are not able to contact the RP or the
principal. While we would not ask the secretary to complete the survey,
it is also useful to develop a rapport with this person because it may
help in gaining access to the RP or the principal for the survey. The
contact information, specifically the e-mail addresses, will also be
used to send reminder messages to respondents, including the due date of
the survey and the importance of their response (see Appendix J for
e-mail messages). The first reminder e-mail will be sent from the NCES
Project Officer to all respondents. A second reminder e-mail will be
sent to non-responders. This e-mail will be from the Project Officer at
NCES. E-mails will be personalized and sent to individual respondents.
If requested, we will FEDEX another questionnaire to the school (and we
would call within 2 days to confirm receipt).

Second Mailing of Questionnaire

We will do a second mailing in late March or early April to
nonresponders using FEDEX.

Data Retrieval of Critical Items

In terms of collection of "critical items" interview labor can be
divided between follow-up to non-responders (with the remaining weeks
seeking critical item completes as an alternative to the full survey)
and follow-up on responders who have skipped items deemed to be critical
(retrievals on missing data). For nonresponders, after May 10, 2004 we
will offer "critical item" completes by fax or phone. The "critical
items" will be identified by NCES and would likely include the incidence
data as well as school attributes.

**Refusal Conversion for Schools that Will not Participate**

At any time during data collection, if a school expresses strong
concerns about confidentiality, these calls will be directed to the
Census Project Director (and possibly on to NCES) for formal assurance.
All mailed refusal conversion materials would include the project's
toll-free number as well as the number for the Project Director. The
Project Director's direct number would be included in the interviewer
FAQs, as well.

The conversion letters are viewed as a second conversion attempt, after
the interviewers have attempted conversion. Information learned during
the refusal conversion interviews would be used to inform the content of
the refusal conversion letters, if it is decided that these letters have
potential for increasing response rates.

We propose the 2006 SSOCS refusal conversion to start about 1 month
after the start of data collection and continue throughout the rest of
the field period. This lag between data collection start and refusal
conversion allows time for the development and design of the refusal
conversion training and protocol that will be based on lessons learned
during the first month of data collection. Throughout the field period,
we will ensure a "cooling off period" before a refusing school is called
(we propose a minimum cooling-off period of 2 weeks, 14 calendar days).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888834 .anchor}B3. Methods to Maximize Response
Rates.

NCES is committed to obtaining a high response rate in this survey. A
key to achieving that response rate is the tracking of the response
status of each sampled school, with telephone follow-up of those schools
that do not respond promptly. The survey responses will be monitored
through an automated receipt control system. In addition, several other
steps also will be taken to maximize the response rate. For example, the
package containing the questionnaire will include a specially designed
brochure describing the purpose of the study as well as highlights from
the 2000 SSOCS. The mailed questionnaire will be accompanied by a
postage-paid return reply envelope, and will provide a toll-free 800
number that people may call to resolve questions about the survey. It
also will provide a means for seeking help by email. If a questionnaire
is returned by the postal service, Census will seek to verify the
correct address and remail the questionnaire. Re-mails will be sent by
Federal Express in order to assure prompt receipt of the questionnaire,
and to give the survey greater importance in the eyes of the potential
respondents.

All questionnaires that are received will be reviewed for consistency
and completeness; if a questionnaire has too few items completed to be
counted as a response (or if it has missing or conflicting data on key
items), telephone interviewers will seek to obtain more complete
responses. Interviewers who have received training in telephone
interview techniques and specific training on the SSOCS survey will
conduct all of the telephone interviews. After data retrieval is
completed, a questionnaire must have at least 60 percent of all items
and at least 80 percent of all key items completed in order to be
considered valid for inclusion in the dataset. Responses of "don't know"
will not be considered as valid responses when counting the number of
items completed.

Endorsements

To further increase the perceived legitimacy of the survey and thus
improve the response rate, NCES will seek endorsements from several
organizations. The proposed endorsing organizations are as follows:

> 1\. American Association of School Administrators (AASA)
>
> 2\. National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP)
>
> 3\. National Middle School Association (NMSA)
>
> 4\. American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
>
> 5\. American School Counselors Association (ASCA)
>
> 6\. Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
>
> 7\. National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)
>
> 8\. National Education Association (NEA)
>
> 9\. Council of Great City Schools (CGCS)
>
> 10\. National Association of School Safety and Law Enforcement
> Officers
>
> 11\. National Resource Center for Safe Schools
>
> 12\. National PTA
>
> 13\. National Association of School Resource Officers
>
> 14\. National School Boards Association
>
> 15\. National Council of SEAs
>
> 16\. National School Safety Center
>
> 17\. National Association of State Boards of Education

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888835 .anchor}B4. Tests of Procedures.

Project staff completed several pre-test activities prior to the conduct
of the 2004 survey. No additional testing has been done since the 2004
collection. NCES is quite satisfied with the questionnaire and with the
procedures.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc50888836 .anchor}B5. Individuals Responsible for
Study Design and Performance

Several key staff are responsible for the study design and performance.
These individuals are as follows:

> Kathryn Chandler, Project Officer, National Center for Education
> Statistics (202.502.7486)
>
> Sarah Kaffenberger, Education Statistical Services Institute
>
> (202.303.6173)
>
> Paul Guerino, Education Statistical Services Institute
>
> (202.403.6525)
>
> Michael Hurwitz, Education Statistical Services Institute
>
> (202.403.6137)
>
> Steven Tourkin, Project Director and Education Surveys Branch Chief,
> Demographic Surveys Division, Census, (301.763.3791
>
> Randall Parmer, Demographic Surveys Methods Division, Census
> (301.763.3567)

Appendix A - NCES Affidavit of Non-Disclosure

(Job Title) (Date of Assignment to NCES Project)

(Organization, State or local agency or

instrumentality)

(Organization or agency Address) (NCES Data Base or File Containing

Individually Identifiable Information)

I,
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_,
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that when given access to the subject NCES
data base or file, I will not --

(i) use or reveal any individually identifiable information \[including
    "schools" in the School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS)\]
    furnished, acquired, retrieved or assembled by me or others, under
    the provisions of Sections 408 and 411 of the National Education
    Statistics Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 9001 et seq.) for any purpose
    other than statistical purposes specified in the NCES survey,
    project, or contract;

(ii) make any disclosure or publication whereby a sample unit or survey
     respondent (including "schools" in SSOCS) could be identified or
     the data furnished by or related to any particular person or SSOCS
     school under these sections could be identified; or

(iii) permit anyone other than the individuals authorized by the
      Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics to
      examine the individual reports.

(Signature)

\[The penalty for unlawful disclosure is a fine of no more than
\$250,000 (under 18. U.S.C. 3571) or imprisonment for not more than five
years (under 18 U.S.C. 3559), or both. The word "swear should be
stricken out when a person elects to affirm the affidavit rather than to
swear to it.\]

Appendix B -- Description and Justification of Survey Items

Item Description and Justification SSOCS 2005-06

There were few and only minor changes to the 2005--06 School Survey on
Crime and Safety (SSOCS) questionnaire from the 2003--04 (SSOCS:2004)
collection of SSOCS. Changes were made based on the results of the
SSOCS:2004 collection with the intent to clarify questions for future
respondents. With the exception of the questions discussed below, all
items are identical to the SSOC:2004 instrument.

In the "Parent and Community Involvement" section, two additional items
10b and 10c were added. Item 10 specifically asks about uniforms and
weapons worn or used by law enforcement. Item 10b asks if a law
enforcement officer was armed with a stun gun or taser gun, and item 10c
ask about the presence of officers equipped with chemical aerosol
sprays, for example Mace or pepper spray.

he SSOCS:2004 instrument asked about the number of teachers who attended
trainings on school crime and safety in the "Staff Training" section.
This item was dropped from the 2004 data file because responses to this
item often exceeded the number of teachers employed at the school. This
item has also been dropped for the 2006 collection of SSOCS.

In the "Number of Incidents" section, one question was added regarding
the number of unplanned fire alarms that occurred at school. Data from
this item helps provide a better picture of the number of unplanned
disruptions that occurred during the school year. As a result of adding
this item, item 20, which refers to unplanned disruptions, was reworded
to clarify the purpose of the item.

One question in the "Disciplinary Problems and Actions" was revised for
clarity. Item 24a and 24b asks about the number of students removed for
disciplinary reasons. Instructions that previously existed in the stem
of the question now appear in the sub-item to ensure that respondents
understand what incidents of removals or transfers to include in the
total count.

Presented below is a complete description of the sub-sections and the
corresponding items (see Appendix L for survey). The SSOCS:2006
questionnaire consists of the following sub-sections:

-   School practices and programs;

-   Parent and community involvement at school;

-   Staff training;

-   Limitations on crime prevention;

-   Frequency of crime and violence at school

-   Number of incidents;

-   Disciplinary problems and actions; and

-   School characteristics: 2005--06 school year.

    1.1 School Practices and Programs

This section collects data pertaining to the nature of current school
policies and programs relating to crime and discipline. These data are
important in helping schools know where they stand in relation to other
schools, and to help policymakers know which actions are already being
taken and which actions might be encouraged in the future. Potentially,
the data can also be used by researchers interested in evaluating the
success of school policies. That is, though this study is not designed
as an evaluation, the presence of school policies can be correlated with
the rates of crime provided elsewhere on the questionnaire, with
appropriate controls for school characteristics.

Question 1 asks about several kinds of school policies and practices:

Items 1a through 1c, 1e, and 1g ask about access to the school grounds.
The ability of students and outsiders to enter and leave the campus
throughout the school day affects the amount of control that
administrators have over the school environment, and the potential for
bringing weapons or drugs onto the campus.

Items 1d, 1f, 1h-1j, 1o-1q, and 1s ask about ways that students are
monitored to prevent crime. Such actions can directly affect crime
because students may be more reluctant to engage in inappropriate
activities for fear of being caught. The school climate also may be
affected because students may feel more secure knowing that violators of
school policies are likely to be caught.

Items 1m and 1n ask about dress code.

Item 1r provides information about the school environment (e.g., are
students and outsiders able to identify staff who might help with a
problem?) and about the school's ability to monitor the grounds and
identify outsiders.

Item 1t asks about the availability of telephones in most classrooms.
The availability of telephones affects teachers' ability to obtain help
without leaving the classroom, and affects the administration's ability
to communicate with teachers.

Item 1v provides information about schools' compliance with federal laws
on tobacco use. It also provides some information about the degree of
discipline enforced in the school environment.

Question 2 asks about the existence of written plans for dealing with
crises and if students have been drilled on these plans. When crises
occur, there may not be time or an appropriate environment for making
critical decisions, and key school leaders may not be available to
immediately provide guidance. Thus, having a written plan is considered
important in preparing schools to deal with crises effectively.

Question 3 is a general question designed to provide an initial measure
of the type of school programs. The presence of such programs is a sign
that schools are being proactive by seeking to prevent violence before
it occurs rather than reacting to it.

1.2 Parent and Community Involvement at School

This section asks about the involvement of parents and community groups
in the school. Parent and community involvement in schools can affect
the culture in the school. The presence of law enforcement officers or
security guards in schools may have an impact the level of crime in a
school.

Question 4 asks about formal policies implemented to involve parents in
school programs while question 5 asks about the percentage of parents
participating in specific events.

Question 6 asks if specific community agencies were involved in
promoting a safe school environment. This item shows the extent to which
the school involves outside groups.

Questions 7 through 11 ask about the use of paid law enforcement or
security services on the school grounds or at school events. The goal of
one federal initiative is to help fund the presence of such police, so
determining the frequency of using such personnel may help in guiding
federal policy. Besides directly affecting school crime, the use of paid
law enforcement personnel also affects the school environment. It may
help to prevent illegal actions, and reduce the amount of crime. It also
may affect the feeling of security or freedom on school grounds. Thus,
the times the law enforcement personnel are present, their visibility,
and their carrying of weapons are all important.

1.3 Staff Training

Questions 12 asks about trainings provided by schools or districts for
classroom teachers or aides. The trainings include classroom management,
school-wide discipline policies, safety procedures, recognizing
potentially violent students, recognizing signs of substance abuse, and
positive behavioral strategies. Schools now can obtain early warning
signs to identify such potentially violent students, and their use of
such profiles may affect both general levels of discipline and the
potential for crises (such as multiple shootings). The type of trainings
provided to teachers is important because teachers collectively spend
the most time with students and observe students closely.

1.4 Limitations on Crime prevention

Question 13 asks for principals' perceptions of the factors that limit
their efforts to reduce or prevent crime. Though principals are not
trained evaluators, they are the people who are most knowledgeable about
the situations at their individual schools, and they know whether their
own actions have been constrained by the factors listed.

1.5 Frequency of Crime and Violence at School

Questions 14 and 15 ask about violent deaths, specifically homicides,
and shootings. Violent deaths get substantial attention by the media but
are actually relatively rare, and there is evidence that (in general)
schools are much safer than students' neighboring communities. Although
this survey will not be used to provide estimates of the number of
violent deaths, it is necessary to include in the questionnaire. The
survey represents a comprehensive picture of the types of violence that
can occur in schools, and the omission of violent deaths and shootings
would be questioned by respondents who may have experienced such
violence.

1.6 Number of Incidents

This section asks about the frequency of various kinds of crime and
disruptions at school (other than violent deaths) (Items 16 - 19).
Question 16 asks about the number of incidents that occurred at school
and the number of crimes that were reported to the police. The data can
be used directly as an indicator of the degree of safety in U.S. public
schools, and indirectly to rank schools in terms of the number of
problems they face. Question 17 asks about the frequency of hate crimes
and gang-related crimes. Questions 18 and 19 are designed to gather data
on the number of unplanned disruptions that occur during the school
year.

1.7 Disciplinary Problems and Actions

There is evidence that schools' ability to control crime is affected by
their control of lesser violations. That is, lesser violations are an
indication of the state of discipline in the school, so that when these
violations are controlled, students do not progress to more serious
disciplinary problems. This section asks about the degree to which
schools face such disciplinary problems, and the way that they respond
to them. The data thus will be helpful in confirming or denying the
importance of schools' control of lesser violations, as well as
providing another measure of the disciplinary situation in U.S. schools.
The data may also be helpful in multivariate models of school crime by
providing a way of grouping schools that are similar in their general
disciplinary situation but different in their school policies or
programs.

Question 20 asks about the frequency of eight different kinds of
disciplinary problems, providing a general measure of the degree to
which there are disciplinary problems at each school.

Question 21 asks what kinds of disciplinary actions were available to
each school, and whether they were actually used. It is not intended to
be comprehensive, but rather focuses on some of the most important
strategies. The data will help policymakers to know what options and
what constraints principals face; for example, if an action is available
in principle but not in practice, then policymakers would need to act in
a different way than if the action is available but not used.

Questions 22 asks about the number of various types of offenses
committed by students, and the resulting disciplinary actions. Question
23 asks about how many students were removed or transferred from school
for disciplinary reasons. This provides valuable information about how
school policies are actually implemented (rather than simply what
policies are in place). For example, many schools claim to have zero
tolerance policies, but some schools have extremely strong policies
while other zero tolerance policies allow so many options that there is
little or no constraint on what disciplinary action is imposed. In
addition, this item provides information on how many different kinds of
actions are taken with regard to a particular offense, and how many
times no action is taken.

1.8 School Characteristics: School Year 2005--06

This section asks for a variety of types of information about the
characteristics of the schools responding to the survey. This
information is necessary in order to be able to understand the degree to
which different schools face different situations. For example, one
school might have highly effective programs and policies yet still have
high crime rates because of the large number of disadvantaged students
at the school; another school might appear to have effective policies
based on its crime rates but actually have higher crime rates than
similar schools.

Question 24 asks for the total enrollment.

Question 25 provides information on the percentage of students receiving
free or reduced-price lunches (25a, a measure of poverty), with limited
English proficiency (25b, a measure of the cultural environment), in
special education (25c, a measure of the academic environment), who are
male (25d; most crimes are committed by males, so the percentage who are
male can affect the overall crime rate).

Question 26 addresses various levels of academic proficiency and
interest (26a-26c), which are factors that have been associated with
crime rates.

Question 27 asks for the number of classroom changes made in a typical
day. This is important because it affects schools' ability to control
the student environment. When students are in hallways, there are more
opportunities for problems. Also, a school with fewer classroom changes
is likely to be more personal and to have closer relationships between
the students and teachers.

Question 28 asks for the total number of paid staff in two categories
(full-time and part-time). This can be used in combination with
enrollment data to compute the student/faculty ratio (which is part of
the academic environment). Counselors and special education teachers are
especially likely to deal with "problem" students, so counts of these
staff will help in knowing the resources that schools have for dealing
with such students.

Question 29 addresses the issue of crime levels in the neighborhoods
where the students live. In some schools, students could be transported
to the school from great distances. Their home communities may have
significantly different levels of crime than their school community.
Question 30 provides information on the crime level in the area the
school is located.

Question 31 asks for the school type. Schools that target particular
groups of students (such as magnet schools) have more control over who
is in the student body, and may have better motivated students (because
the students have chosen a particular program). Charter schools have
more freedom than regular schools in their school policies, may have
more control over who is admitted into the student body, and may have
better motivated students (because the students chose the school).

Question 32 asks for the school's average daily attendance. This is a
measure of truancy and thus a measure of the level of disciplinary
problems at the school. It also is a measure of the academic
environment.

Question 33 asks for the number of transfers. When students transfer
after the school year has started, schools have less control over
whether and how the students are acculturated to the school. These
students are likely to have less attachment to the school and to the
other students, thus increasing the risk of disciplinary problems.

Questions 34a through 34c will be used to examine whether schools that
respond to the survey before the school year is completed report fewer
crimes than schools reporting for the entire year.

[^1]: See Appendix A for an example of the Affidavits of Nondisclosure.

[^2]: ^^ These research questions are not addressed at all by the SSOCS
    2000 questionnaire.