Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005
November 2005

U.S. Department of Education
Institute of Education Sciences
NCES 2006-001

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
NCJ 210697

Jill F. DeVoe
Education Statistics Services Institute

Katharin Peter
MPR Associates, Inc.

Margaret Noonan
Education Statistics Services Institute

Thomas D. Snyder
National Center for Education Statistics

Katrina Baum
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Thomas D. Snyder
Project Officer National Center for Education Statistics


COPYRIGHT PAGE

U.S. Department of Education 
Margaret Spellings 
Secretary 

Institute of Education Sciences 
Grover J. Whitehurst 
Director 

National Center for Education Statistics 
Mark Schneider
Commissioner 

U.S. Department of Justice
Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General 

Office of Justice Programs
Regina B. Schofield
Assistant Attorney General

Bureau of Justice Statistics
Lawrence A. Greenfeld
Director


The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the 
primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and 
reporting data related to education in the United States and 
other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to 
collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete 
statistics on the condition of education in the United 
States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses 
of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist 
state and local education agencies in improving their 
statistical systems; and review and report on education 
activities in other countries.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is the primary 
federal entity for collecting, analyzing, publishing, and 
disseminating statistical information about crime, its 
perpetrators and victims, and the operation of the justice 
system at all levels of government. These data are critical 
to federal, state, and local policymakers in combating crime 
and ensuring that justice is both efficient and evenhanded.

November 2005

Suggested Citation
DeVoe, J.F., Peter, K., Noonan, M., Snyder, T.D., and Baum, 
K. (2005). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005 (NCES 
2006-001/NCJ 210697). U.S. Departments of Education and 
Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

This publication can be downloaded from the World Wide Web 
at http://nces.ed.gov or http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs. 
Single hard copies can be ordered through ED Pubs at 1-877-
4ED-PUBS (NCES 2006-001) (TTY/TDD 1-877-576-7734), and the 
Bureau of Justice Statistics Clearinghouse at 1-800-851-3420 
(NCJ 210697).

Contact at NCES:
Thomas D. Snyder
(202) 502-7452
E-mail: tom.snyder@ed.gov

Contact at BJS:
Katrina Baum
(202) 307-5889
E-mail: katrina.baum@usdoj.gov


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Our nation's schools should be a safe haven for teaching and 
learning and be free of crime and violence. Even though 
students are less likely to be victims of a violent crime at 
school than away from school (Indicators 1 and 2), any 
instance of crime or violence at school not only affects the 
individuals involved but also may disrupt the educational 
process and affect bystanders, the school itself, and the 
surrounding community (Henry 2000).

For parents, school staff, and policymakers to address 
school crime effectively, they must possess an accurate 
understanding of the extent and nature of the problem. 
However, it is difficult to gauge the scope of crime and 
violence in schools without collecting data, given the large 
amount of attention devoted to isolated incidents of extreme 
school violence. Ensuring safer schools requires 
establishing good indicators of the current state of school 
crime and safety across the nation and periodically 
monitoring and updating these indicators. This is the aim of 
Indicators of School Crime and Safety.
Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005 is the eighth in 
a series of annual reports produced by the National Center 
for Education Statistics (NCES) in the U.S. Department of 
Education and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in the 
U.S. Department of Justice that present the most recent data 
available on school crime and student safety. The indicators 
in this report are based on information drawn from a variety 
of independent data sources, including national surveys of 
students, teachers, and principals, and data collections 
from federal departments and agencies, including BJS, NCES, 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention. All the comparisons 
described in this report are statistically significant at 
the .05 level. More information about methodology and the 
datasets analyzed in this report may be found in appendix A.

KEY FINDINGS

In the 2002-03 school year, an estimated 54.2 million 
students in prekindergarten through grade 12 were enrolled 
in about 125,000 U.S. elementary or secondary schools (U.S. 
Department of Education 2004b). Preliminary data on fatal 
victimizations show youth ages 5-19 were victims of 22 
school-associated violent deaths from July 1, 2001, through 
June 30, 20023 (17 homicides and 5 suicides) (Indicator 1). 
In 2003, students ages 12-18 were victims of about 1.9 
million nonfatal crimes at school, including about 1.2 
million thefts and 740,000 violent crimes (simple assault 
and serious violent crime)-150,000 of which were serious 
violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery, and 
aggravated assault) (Indicator 2).1 These figures represent 
victimization rates of 45 thefts and 28 violent crimes, 
including 6 serious violent crimes, per 1,000 students at 
school in 2003.

1The total number of students ages 12-18 enrolled during the 
fall 2003 school year was 26.4 million.

Students were more likely to be victims of serious violence 
or a homicide away from school.2 In 2003, students ages 12-
18 reported being victims of serious violence at a rate of 
12 crimes per 1,000 students away from school and 6 crimes 
per 1,000 students at school. Similarly, in each school year 
from July 1, 1992, through June 30, 2002, youth ages 5-19 
were over 70 times more likely to be murdered away from 
school than at school.

For several measures, data show trends in student 
victimization decreasing over the last decade. The nonfatal 
victimization rate for students ages 12-18 at school 
generally declined between 1992 and 2003; this was true for 
the total crime rate and for thefts, violent crimes, and 
serious violent crimes (Indicator 2). However, when looking 
at the most recent years, no differences were detected 
between 2002 and 2003 in the rates of total victimization, 
violent victimization, or theft at school. For fatal 
victimization, between July 1, 1992, and June 30, 2003, the 
number of homicides of school-age youth at school declined 
as well (Indicator 1). Specifically, between the 1998-99 and 
1999-2000 school years, the number of homicides of school-
age youth at school declined from 33 to 14 homicides. Since 
then, there have been between 12 and 17 homicides in each 
school year through 2001-02.

Violent Deaths

 From July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002, there were 17 
homicides and 5 suicides of school-age youth (ages 5-19) at 
school (Indicator 1).3 Combined, this figure translates into 
less than 1 homicide or suicide of a school-age youth at 
school per million students enrolled during the 2001-02 
school year.

Nonfatal Student Victimization

 In 2003, students ages 12-18 were more likely to be 
victims of theft at school than away from school and were 
more likely to be victims of serious violence away from 
school than at school (Indicator 2). That year, 45 thefts 
per 1,000 students occurred at school and 28 thefts per 
1,000 students occurred away from school, while students 
reported being victims of serious violence at a rate of 12 
crimes per 1,000 students away from school and 6 crimes per 
1,000 students at school.

 In 2003, 5 percent of students ages 12-18 reported being 
victimized at school during the previous 6 months: 4 percent 
reported theft, and 1 percent reported violent victimization 
(Indicator 3). Less than 1 percent of students reported 
serious violent victimization.

 In 2003, male students in grades 9-12 were more likely 
than female students to report being threatened or injured 
with a weapon on school property in the past year (12 vs. 6 
percent) (Indicator 4).

2Data in this report are not adjusted by the number of hours 
that youth spend on school property and the number of hours 
they spend elsewhere.
3Due to missing data for the 2002-03 school year, the findings 
for this indicator reflect data through the 2001-02 school year.

Nonfatal Teacher Victimization 

 Annually, from 1999 through 2003, teachers were the 
victims of approximately 183,000 total nonfatal crimes at 
school, including 119,000 thefts and 65,000 violent crimes 
(Indicator 5). On average, these figures translate into an 
annual rate of 39 crimes per 1,000 teachers, including 25 
thefts and 14 violent crimes (including 2 serious violent 
crimes) per 1,000 teachers.

 Annually, from 1999 through 2003, senior high school 
teachers were more likely than elementary school teachers to 
be victims of violent crimes and thefts (22 vs. 9 violent 
crimes and 36 vs. 20 thefts per 1,000 teachers) (Indicator 
5).

 In 1999-2000, teachers in central city schools were more 
likely to have been threatened with injury or physically 
attacked during the previous 12 months than teachers in 
urban fringe or rural schools (Indicator 6). That is, 11 
percent of teachers in central city schools had been 
threatened with injury by students, compared with 8 percent 
each in urban fringe and rural schools. Five percent of 
teachers in central city schools had been attacked by 
students, while 3 percent each of teachers in urban fringe 
and rural schools had experienced such attacks.

School Environment

 In 1999-2000, 71 percent of public schools experienced one 
or more violent incidents and 36 percent of public schools 
reported violent incidents to the police (Indicator 7). 
Twenty percent of public schools experienced one or more 
serious violent incidents, and 15 percent reported serious 
violent incidents to the police.

 In 1999-2000, 19 percent of public schools reported weekly 
student acts of disrespect for teachers, 13 percent reported 
student verbal abuse of teachers, 3 percent reported student 
racial tensions, and 3 percent reported widespread disorder 
in classrooms (Indicator 8). Nineteen percent of public 
schools reported any undesirable gang activities, and 7 
percent reported any undesirable cult or extremist 
activities during the 1999-2000 school year.

 Middle schools were more likely than primary and secondary 
schools to report racial tensions, bullying, verbal abuse of 
teachers, and widespread disorder in classrooms in 1999-2000 
(Indicator 8). For example, 43 percent of middle schools 
reported daily or weekly student bullying, compared with 26 
percent of primary and 25 percent of secondary schools.

 In 2003, 21 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that 
street gangs were present at their school during the 
previous 6 months (Indicator 9). Students in urban schools 
were the most likely to report the presence of street gangs 
at their school (31 percent), followed by suburban students 
and then rural students, who were the least likely to report 
them (18 and 12 percent, respectively). 

 In 2003, 29 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported 
that someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal 
drug on school property in the 12 months before the survey 
(Indicator 10). 

 In 2003, 12 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that 
someone at school had used hate-related words against them 
(Indicator 11). Four percent of respondents reported that 
the hate-related words concerned their race, about 2 percent 
each reported that the words concerned their ethnicity or 
gender, and 1 percent each reported that the words were 
related to their religion, disability, or sexual 
orientation. 

 In 2003, 36 percent of students ages 12-18 reported they 
had seen hate-related graffiti at their school (for example, 
hate-related words or symbols written in classrooms, 
bathrooms, hallways, or on the outside of the school 
building) (Indicator 11).

 In 2003, 7 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that 
they had been bullied (for example, picked on or made to do 
things they did not want to do) at school during the 
previous 6 months (Indicator 12). Public school students 
were more likely to report being bullied than private school 
students (7 vs. 5 percent).

Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances
 In 2003, 33 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported 
having been in a fight anywhere, and 13 percent said they 
had been in a fight on school property during the preceding 
12 months (Indicator 13). Forty-one percent of males said 
they had been in a fight anywhere, compared with 25 percent 
of females, and 17 percent of males said they had been in a 
fight on school property, compared with 8 percent of 
females. 

 In 2003, 17 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported 
they had carried a weapon anywhere, and about 6 percent 
reported they had carried a weapon on school property 
(Indicator 14). Between 1993 and 2003, the percentage of 
students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere generally 
declined from 22 to 17 percent. Similarly, the percentage of 
students who carried a weapon at school also declined during 
this period-from 12 to 6 percent.

 In 2003, 45 percent of students in grades 9-12 consumed at 
least one drink of alcohol anywhere in the last 30 days, and 
5 percent consumed at least one drink on school property in 
the last 30 days (Indicator 15). In 2003, 22 percent of 
students in grades 9-12 reported using marijuana anywhere in 
the last 30 days, and 6 percent of students reported using 
marijuana on school property in the last 30 days (Indicator 
16).

Fear and Avoidance 

 In 1999 and 2001, students ages 12-18 were more likely to 
report they were afraid of being attacked at school or on 
the way to and from school than away from school; however, 
in 2003, no such difference was detected (Indicator 17). In 
2003, 6 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that they 
had been afraid of attack at school or on the way to and 
from school, and 5 percent reported that they had been 
afraid of attack away from school.

 In 2003, students ages 12-18 in urban schools were more 
likely than students in suburban and rural schools to fear 
being attacked both at school or on the way to and from 
school and away from school. Ten percent of students in 
urban schools feared being attacked at school, compared with 
5 percent each of their peers in suburban and rural schools 
(Indicator 17).

 In 2003, public school students ages 12-18 were more 
likely than private school students to fear an attack at 
school or on the way to and from school (6 vs. 3 percent), 
but no such difference was detected when they were asked 
whether they feared an attack away from school (5 percent 
each) (Indicator 17).

 The percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that 
they either skipped school activities or avoided specific 
places in school because they were fearful decreased from 7 
percent in 1999 to 5 percent in 2003 (Indicator 18). 

 In 2003, students ages 12-18 in urban areas were the most 
likely to avoid specific places in school because they were 
fearful: 6 percent of urban students reported that they had 
done so, compared with 4 percent of suburban and 3 percent 
of rural students (Indicator 18). 

Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures

 In 1999-2000, about 54 percent of public schools took at 
least one serious disciplinary action against a student, 
amounting to about 1,163,000 actions (Indicator 19). Of 
those serious disciplinary actions, 83 percent were 
suspensions for 5 days or more, 11 percent were removals 
with no services, and 7 percent were transfers to 
specialized schools.

 In 1999-2000, during school hours, 75 percent of schools 
controlled access to school buildings by locking or 
monitoring doors, and 34 percent of schools controlled 
access to school grounds with locked or monitored gates 
(Indicator 20).

 In 1999-2000, 14 percent of primary schools, 20 percent of 
middle schools, and 39 percent of secondary schools used one 
or more security cameras to monitor the school (Indicator 
20).

 The percentage of students ages 12-18 who observed the 
presence of some school security measures increased between 
1999 and 2003 (Indicator 21). The percentage of students who 
reported using visitor sign-in increased from 87 to 92 
percent during this period, and the percentage who reported 
the presence of locked entrance or exit doors during the 
school day increased from 38 to 53 percent. Over the same 
period, there was also an increase in both the percentage 
observing security guards and/or police officers and the 
percentage observing other school staff or adult supervision 
in the hallway (from 54 to 70 percent and from 85 to 91 
percent, respectively).


FOREWORD

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005 provides the 
most recent national indicators on school crime and safety. 
These indicators demonstrate that improvements have occurred 
in student safety. The violent crime victimization rate at 
school declined from 48 violent victimizations per 1,000 
students in 1992 to 28 such victimizations in 2003. Even so, 
violence, theft, bullying, drugs, and weapons are still 
widespread. In 2003, students ages 12-18 were victims of 
about 740,000 violent crimes and 1.2 million crimes of theft 
at school. Seven percent of students ages 12-18 reported 
that they had been bullied, 29 percent of students in grades 
9-12 reported that drugs were made available to them on 
school property, and 9 percent of students were threatened 
or injured with a weapon on school property.

Accurate information about the nature, extent, and scope of 
the problem being addressed is essential for developing 
effective programs and policies. The information in this 
report is intended to serve as a reference for policymakers 
and practitioners in the development of effective programs 
and policies aimed at violence and school crime prevention.

This is the eighth edition of Indicators of School Crime and 
Safety, a joint publication of the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics. 
This report provides detailed statistics to inform the 
nation on the current status of crime and safety in schools.

The 2005 edition of Indicators includes the most recent 
available data, compiled from a number of statistical data 
sources supported by the federal government. Such sources 
include results from a study of violent deaths in schools, 
sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education and the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the National 
Crime Victimization Survey and School Crime Supplement to 
the survey, sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics 
and the National Center for Education Statistics, 
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 the National Center for Education 
Statistics.

The entire report is available on the Internet. The Bureau 
of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education 
Statistics continue to work toward providing timely and 
complete data on the issues of school-related violence and 
safety.

Mark Schneider 
Commissioner 
National Center for Education Statistics 

Lawrence A. Greenfeld 
Director 
Bureau of Justice Statistics 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank the heads of the sponsoring 
agencies, Mark Schneider of the National Center for 
Education Statistics (NCES) and Lawrence Greenfeld of the 
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), for supporting this 
report. From BJS, we wish to thank Patsy Klaus and Erika 
Harrell of the Victimization Statistics Branch for their 
work in verifying data from the National Crime Victimization 
Survey.

From NCES, we wish to thank Kathryn Chandler, Val Plisko, 
Marilyn Seastrom, John Sietsema, and Bruce Taylor, who 
served as reviewers. They all provided input that 
substantially improved the publication. We particularly 
appreciated their willingness to review the report under 
very strict time constraints. Outside of NCES and BJS, Nancy 
Brener and Mark Anderson of the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention generously provided data and performed a 
review of data documentation. We also value the review of 
this report and the continued support provided by Bill 
Modzeleski of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Lisa 
Bridges of the Institute of Education Sciences provided 
helpful input on the final draft. Lynn Bauer assumed 
management of the final review process and production of 
this report.

Without the assistance of the following staff, this report 
could not have been produced: Andrea Livingston, Barbara 
Kridl, Natesh Daniel, Annabelle Yang, and Patti Gildersleeve 
from MPR Associates, and Michael Hurwitz, Ruth Atchison, 
Aparna Sundaram, Jed Tank, and Todd Thomas from the 
Education Statistics Services Institute. They provided 
invaluable technical, editorial, graphic, and production 
assistance.


CONTENTS

Executive Summary iii
Foreword ix
Acknowledgments x
List of Tables xii
List of Figures xviii
Introduction 1
Violent Deaths 5
1. Violent Deaths at School and Away From School 6
Nonfatal Student Victimization 9
2. Incidence of Victimization at School and Away From School 
10
3. Prevalence of Victimization at School 14
4. Threats and Injuries With Weapons on School Property 16
Nonfatal Teacher Victimization 19
5. Nonfatal Teacher Victimization at School 20
6. Teachers Threatened With Injury or Attacked by Students 
22
School Environment 25
7. Violent and Other Incidents at Public Schools and Those 
Reported to the Police 26
8. Discipline Problems Reported by Public Schools 30
9. Students' Reports of Gangs at School 32
10. Students' Reports of Drug Availability on School 
Property 34
11. Students' Reports of Being Called Hate-Related Words and 
Seeing Hate-Related
Graffiti 36
12. Bullying at School 38
Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances 41
13. Physical Fights on School Property and Anywhere 42
14. Students Carrying Weapons on School Property and 
Anywhere 44
15. Students' Use of Alcohol on School Property and Anywhere 
46
16. Students' Use of Marijuana on School Property and 
Anywhere 48
Fear and Avoidance 51
17. Students' Perceptions of Personal Safety at School and 
Away From School 52
18. Students' Reports of Avoiding School Activities or 
Specific Places in School 54
Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures 57
19. Serious Disciplinary Actions Taken by Public Schools 58
20. Safety and Security Measures Taken by Public Schools 60
21. Students' Reports of Safety and Security Measures 
Observed at School 62
References 65
Supplemental Tables 69
Standard Error Tables 109
Appendix A. Technical Notes 149
Appendix B. Glossary of Terms 177


LIST OF TABLES

Supplemental Tables

1.1. Number of school-associated violent deaths and number 
of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5-19, by location: 
1992-2002 70
2.1. Number of student-reported nonfatal crimes against 
students ages 12-18 and rate of crimes per 1,000 students, 
by location and year: 1992-2003 71
2.2. Number of student-reported nonfatal crimes against 
students ages 12-18 at school and rate of crimes per 1,000 
students, by selected student and school characteristics: 
2003 72
2.3. Number of student-reported nonfatal crimes against 
students ages 12-18 away from school and rate of crimes per 
1,000 students, by selected student and school 
characteristics: 2003 73
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: Selected years, 1995-2003 74
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: Selected years, 1993-2003 76
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 77
5.1. Average annual number of teacher-reported nonfatal 
crimes against teachers and average annual rate of crimes 
per 1,000 teachers at school, by type of crime and selected 
teacher and school characteristics: 1999-2003 78
6.1. Percentage and number of public and private school 
teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury 
by a student during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity 
and selected teacher and school characteristics: 
1993-94 and 1999-2000 79
6.2. Percentage and number of public and private school 
teachers who reported that they were physically attacked by 
a student during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and 
selected teacher and school characteristics: 1993-94 and 
1999-2000 80
7.1. Percentage of public schools experiencing and reporting 
incidents of crime, number of incidents, and the rate per 
1,000 students, by type of crime: 1999-2000 81
7.2. Percentage of public schools experiencing incidents of 
crime, number of incidents, and the rate of crimes per 1,000 
students, by selected school characteristics: 1999-2000 82
7.3. Percentage of public schools reporting incidents of 
crime to the police, number of incidents, and the rate of 
crimes per 1,000 students, by selected school 
characteristics: 1999-2000 84
8.1. Percentage of public schools that reported selected 
discipline problems by frequency, by school characteristics: 
1999-2000 86
9.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that 
street gangs were present at school during the previous 6 
months, by urbanicity and selected student and school 
characteristics: 2001 and 2003 88
10.1. 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: Selected years, 1993-2003 89
10.2. 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 90
11.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being 
targets of hate-related words and seeing hate-related 
graffiti at school during the previous 6 months, by selected 
student and school characteristics: 1999, 2001, and 2003 91
11.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being 
targets of hate-related words at school during the previous 
6 months, by selected student and school characteristics: 
2003 92
12.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being 
bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by selected 
student and school characteristics: 1999, 2001, and 2003 93
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: Selected years, 1993-2003 94
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 95
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: Selected years, 1993-2003 96
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 97
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: Selected years, 
1993-2003 98
15.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and 
state: 2003 99
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: Selected years, 
1993-2003 100
16.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and 
state: 2003 101
17.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being 
afraid of attack or threat of attack during the previous 6 
months, by location and selected student and school 
characteristics: Selected years, 1995-2003 102
18.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
avoiding school activities or avoiding one or more places in 
school during the previous 6 months: Selected years, 1995-
2003 103
18.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
avoiding one or more places in school during the previous 6 
months, by selected student and school characteristics: 
Selected years, 1995-2003 104
19.1. Percentage and number of public schools that took a 
serious disciplinary action, number of actions taken, and 
percentage distribution of actions according to type, by 
type of offense: 1999-2000 105
20.1. Percentage of public schools that used selected safety 
and security measures, by school characteristics: 1999-2000 
106
21.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
selected security measures at school: 1999, 2001, and 2003 
108

Standard Error Tables

S2.1. Standard errors for table 2.1: Number of student-
reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 and 
rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by location 
and year: 1992-2003 110
S2.2. Standard errors for table 2.2: Number of student-
reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 at 
school and rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected 
student and school characteristics: 2003 111
S2.3. Standard errors for table 2.3: Number of student-
reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 away 
from school and rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by 
selected student and school characteristics: 2003 112
S3.1. Standard errors for 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: Selected years, 
1995-2003 113
S4.1. Standard errors for 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: Selected 
years, 1993-2003 115
S4.2. Standard errors for 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 116
S5.1. Standard errors for table 5.1: Average annual number 
of teacher-reported nonfatal crimes against teachers and 
average annual rate of crimes per 1,000 teachers at school, 
by type of crime and selected teacher and school 
characteristics: 1999-2003 117
S6.1. Standard errors for table 6.1: Percentage and number 
of public and private school teachers who reported that they 
were threatened with injury by a student during the previous 
12 months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school 
characteristics: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 118
S6.2. Standard errors for table 6.2: Percentage and number 
of public and private school teachers who reported that they 
were physically attacked by a student during the previous 12 
months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school 
characteristics: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 119
S7.1. Standard errors for table 7.1: Percentage of public 
schools experiencing and reporting incidents of crime, 
number of incidents, and the rate per 1,000 students, by 
type of crime: 1999-2000 120
S7.2. Standard errors for table 7.2: Percentage of public 
schools experiencing incidents of crime, number of 
incidents, and the rate of crimes per 1,000 
students, by selected school characteristics: 1999-2000 121
S7.3. Standard errors for table 7.3: Percentage of public 
schools reporting incidents of crime to the police, number 
of incidents, and the rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by 
selected school characteristics: 1999-2000 123
S8.1. Standard errors for table 8.1: Percentage of public 
schools that reported selected discipline problems by 
frequency, by school characteristics: 1999-2000 125
S9.1. Standard errors for table 9.1: Percentage of students 
ages 12-18 who reported that street gangs were present at 
school during the previous 6 months, by urbanicity and 
selected student and school characteristics: 2001 and 2003 
127
S10.1. Standard errors for table 10.1: 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: Selected years, 1993-2003 128
S10.2. Standard errors for table 10.2: 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 129
S11.1. Standard errors for table 11.1: Percentage of 
students ages 12-18 who reported being targets of hate-
related words and seeing hate-related graffiti at school 
during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school 
characteristics: 1999, 2001, and 2003 130
S11.2. Standard errors for table 11.2: Percentage of 
students ages 12-18 who reported being targets of hate-
related words at school during the previous 6 months, by 
selected student and school characteristics: 2003 131
S12.1. Standard errors for table 12.1: Percentage of 
students ages 12-18 who reported being bullied at school 
during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school 
characteristics: 1999, 2001, and 2003 132
S13.1. Standard errors for 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: Selected 
years, 1993-2003 133
S13.2. Standard errors for 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 134
S14.1. Standard errors for 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: 
Selected years, 1993-2003 135
S14.2. Standard errors for 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 136
S15.1. Standard errors for 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: Selected years, 1993-2003 137
S15.2. Standard errors for table 15.2: Percentage of 
students in grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during 
the previous 30 days, by location and state: 2003 138
S16.1. Standard errors for 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: Selected years, 1993-2003 139
S16.2. Standard errors for table 16.2: Percentage of 
students in grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during 
the previous 30 days, by location and state: 2003 140
S17.1. Standard errors for table 17.1: Percentage of 
students ages 12-18 who reported being afraid of attack or 
threat of attack during the previous 6 
months, by location and selected student and school 
characteristics: Selected years, 1995-2003 141
S18.1. Standard errors for table 18.1: Percentage of 
students ages 12-18 who reported avoiding school activities 
or avoiding one or more places in school during the previous 
6 months: Selected years, 1995-2003 142
S18.2. Standard errors for table 18.2: Percentage of 
students ages 12-18 who reported avoiding one or more places 
in school during the previous 6 months, by selected student 
and school characteristics: Selected years, 1995-2003 143
S19.1. Standard errors for table 19.1: Percentage and number 
of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action, 
number of actions taken, and percentage distribution of 
actions according to type, by type of offense: 1999-2000 144
S20.1. Standard errors for table 20.1: Percentage of public 
schools that used selected safety and security measures, by 
school characteristics: 1999-2000 145
S21.1. Standard errors for table 21.1: Percentage of 
students ages 12-18 who reported selected security measures 
at school: 1999, 2001, and 2003 147


LIST OF FIGURES

A. Nationally representative sample surveys used in this 
report 3
1.1. Number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5-19, by 
location: 2001-02 7
1.2. Number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5-19 at 
school: 1992-2002 7
2.1. Rate of student-reported nonfatal crimes against 
students ages 12-18 per 1,000 students, by type of crime and 
location: 1992-2003 11
2.2. Rate of student-reported nonfatal crimes against 
students ages 12-18 at school per 1,000 students, by type of 
crime and selected student characteristics: 2003 12
2.3. Rate of student-reported nonfatal crimes against 
students ages 12-18 away from school per 1,000 students, by 
type of crime and selected student characteristics: 2003 13
3.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported criminal 
victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by 
type of victimization: Selected years, 1995-2003 15
3.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported criminal 
victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by 
type of victimization and grade: 2003 15
4.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property 
during the previous 12 months, by sex: Selected years, 1993-
2003 17
4.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property 
during the previous 12 months, by grade: 2003 17
5.1. Average annual rate of teacher-reported nonfatal crimes 
against teachers at school per 1,000 teachers, by type of 
crime and selected teacher and school characteristics: 1999-
2003 21
6.1. 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, by urbanicity: 1993-94 and 1999-2000 23
6.2. 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 school sector: 
1999-2000 23
7.1. Percentage of public schools that experienced various 
types of crime and percentage of public schools that 
reported various types of crime to the police and the rate 
per 1,000 students, by type of crime: 1999-2000 27
7.2. Percentage of public schools that experienced various 
types of crime and percentage of public schools that 
reported various types of crime to the police, by type of 
crime and school level: 1999-2000 28
7.3. Percentage of public schools that experienced various 
types of crime and percentage of public schools that 
reported various types of crime to the police, 
by type of crime and urbanicity: 1999-2000 29
8.1. Percentage of public schools that reported selected 
discipline problems, by school level: 1999-2000 31
9.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that 
street gangs were present at school during the previous 6 
months, by urbanicity and race/ethnicity: 2003 33
9.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that 
street gangs were present at school during the previous 6 
months, by school sector and urbanicity: 2003 33
10.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
drugs were made available to them on school property during 
the previous 12 months, by sex: Selected years, 1993-2003 35
10.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
drugs were made available to them on school property during 
the previous 12 months, by race/ethnicity: 2003 35
11.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being 
targets of hate-related words and seeing hate-related 
graffiti at school during the previous 6 months, by selected 
student and school characteristics: 2003 37
12.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being 
bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by sex: 
1999, 2001, and 2003 39
12.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being 
bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by grade and 
school sector: 2003 39
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: Selected years, 1993-2003 43
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: 2003 43
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: Selected years, 
1993-2003 45
14.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 
days, by location and race/ethnicity: 2003 45
15.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and 
sex: Selected years, 1993-2003 47
15.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location and 
grade: 2003 47
16.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and 
sex: Selected years, 1993-2003 49
16.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location and 
grade: 2003 49
17.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being 
afraid of attack or threat of attack during the previous 6 
months, by location: Selected years, 1995-2003 53
17.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being 
afraid of attack or threat of attack during the previous 6 
months, by location and race/ethnicity: 2003 53
18.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
avoiding school activities or avoiding one or more places in 
school during the previous 6 months: Select years, 1995-2003 
55
18.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
avoiding one or more places in school during the previous 6 
months, by selected student and school characteristics: 2003 
55
19.1. Percentage distribution of serious disciplinary 
actions taken by public schools, by type of action: 1999-
2000 59
19.2. Percentage of public schools that took a serious 
disciplinary action for selected offenses, by type of 
offense: 1999-2000 59
20.1. Percentage of public schools that used selected safety 
and security measures, by school level: 1999-2000 61
21.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
selected security measures at school: 1999, 2001, and 2003 
63

Appendixes

A.1. Descriptions of data sources and samples used in the 
report 163
A.2. Wording of survey questions used to construct 
indicators 164
A.3. Methods used to calculate standard errors of statistics 
for different surveys 174


INTRODUCTION

Our nation's schools should be a safe haven for teaching and 
learning free of crime and violence. Even though students 
are less likely to be victims of a violent crime at school 
than away from school (Indicators 1 and 2), any instance of 
crime or violence at school not only affects the individuals 
involved but also may disrupt the educational process and 
affect bystanders, the school itself, and the surrounding 
community (Henry 2000). For both students and teachers, 
victimization at school can have lasting effects. In 
addition to experiencing loneliness, depression, and 
adjustment difficulties (Crick and Bigbee 1998; Crick and 
Grotpeter 1996; Nansel et al. 2001; Prinstein, Boergers, and 
Vernberg 2001; Storch et al. 2003), victimized children are 
more prone to truancy (Ringwalt et al. 2003), poor academic 
performance (Wei and Williams 2004), and dropping out of 
school (Beauvais et al. 1996). For teachers, incidents of 
victimization may lead to professional disenchantment and 
even prompt them to leave the profession altogether (Karcher 
2002).


For parents, school staff, and policymakers to effectively 
address school crime, they need an accurate understanding of 
the extent and nature of the problem. However, it is 
difficult to gauge the scope of crime and violence in 
schools given the large amount of attention devoted to 
isolated incidents of extreme school violence. Measuring 
progress toward safer schools requires establishing good 
indicators of the current state of school crime and safety 
across the nation and periodically monitoring and updating 
these indicators. This is the aim of Indicators of School 
Crime and Safety. 

PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005 is the eighth in 
a series of reports produced by NCES and BJS since 1998 that 
present the most recent data available on school crime and 
student safety. The report is not intended to be an 
exhaustive compilation of school crime and safety 
information, nor does it attempt to explore reasons for 
crime and violence in schools. Rather, the report is 
designed to provide a "first look" at information from an 
array of data sources and to make data on national school 
crime and safety accessible to policymakers, educators, 
parents, and the general public.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005 has been 
reorganized from the 2004 report into sections that 
delineate specific concerns to readers, starting with a 
description of the most serious violent crimes. The sections 
cover Violent Deaths at School; Nonfatal Student 
Victimization; Nonfatal Teacher Victimization; School 
Environment; Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances; Fear 
and Avoidance; and Safety, Security, and Discipline 
Measures. Each section contains a set of indicators that, 
taken together, aim to describe a distinct aspect of school 
crime and safety. Where available, data on crimes that occur 
outside of school grounds are offered as a point of 
comparison.1 Supplemental tables for each indicator provide 
more detailed breakouts and standard errors for estimates. A 
glossary of terms and bibliography of works cited appear at 
the end of the report.

1Data in this report are not adjusted by the number of hours 
that youth spend on school property and the number of hours 
they spend elsewhere.

This report provides updated and revised data on fatal 
student victimization (Indicator 1), nonfatal student 
victimization (Indicator 2), nonfatal victimization of 
teachers (Indicator 5), public school reports of selected 
crimes (Indicator 7), and student avoidance behaviors 
(Indicator 18).2 New to this year's report are two 
indicators that look at practices that schools use to 
promote school safety and security (Indicators 20 and 21). 
This year's report also repeats information and provides 
revised data from the 2004 edition on the prevalence of 
victimization at school (Indicator 3), threats to and 
injuries of students and teachers (Indicators 4 and 6), 
discipline problems reported by public schools (Indicator 
8), student reports of gangs (Indicator 9), drugs (Indicator 
10), hate-related words and graffiti (Indicator 11), 
bullying (Indicator 12), student reports of fights 
(Indicator 13), weapon carrying (Indicator 14), illegal 
substances (Indicators 15 and 16), student reports of being 
afraid at school (Indicator 17), and serious disciplinary 
actions taken by public schools (Indicator 19).

Also new to this year's report are references to recent 
publications relevant to each indicator that the reader may 
want to consult for additional information or analyses. 
These references can be found in the "For More Information" 
sidebars at the bottom of each indicator. In response to 
requests for state-level information, tables showing 
available state-level estimates have been added for the 
indicators based on the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance 
System (YRBSS) data. (See figure A for a list of indicators 
based on the YRBSS.) 

DATA 

The indicators in this report are based on information drawn 
from a variety of independent data sources, including 
national surveys of students, teachers, and principals, and 
universe data collections from federal departments and 
agencies, including BJS, NCES, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, and the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention. Each data source has an independent sample 
design, data collection method, and questionnaire design or 
is the result of a universe data collection. 

The combination of multiple, independent sources of data 
provide a wide 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 
stratified random sample of principals about safety and 
security practices used in their schools during the 1999-
2000 school year. Indicator 21, however, uses data collected 
from 12- through 18-year-olds collected in a rotated panel 
design of households. These students were asked whether they 
observed select safety and security measures in their school 
in 2003, but they may not have known, in fact, if the 
security measure was present. In addition, different types 
of analysis approaches will show different perspectives on 
school crime. For example, both Indicators 2 and 3 report 
data on theft and violent crime at school based on the 
National Crime Victimization Survey and the School Crime 
Supplement to that survey, respectively. While Indicator 2 
examines the number of incidents of crime, Indicator 3 
examines the percentage or prevalence of students who 
reported victimization. Figure A provides a summary of some 
of the variations in the design and coverage of sample 
surveys used in this report.

2Indicators noted as "updated" in their sidebars have been 
updated to include the most recently available data. 
Indicators noted as "revised" in their sidebars have been 
revised to include revisions to data since the last 
publication or corrections to errors published in prior 
reports.

Several indicators in this report are based on self-reported 
survey data. Readers should note that limitations inherent 
to self-reported data may affect estimates (Cantor and Lynch 
2000). First, unless an interview is "bounded" or a 
reference period is established, estimates may include 
events that exceed the scope of the specified reference 
period. This may artificially increase reports because 
respondents may recall events outside of the given reference 
period. Second, many of the surveys rely on the respondent 
to "self-determine" a condition. This 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 offender. 
Third, victim surveys emphasize crime events as incidents 
that take place at one point in time. However, victims can 
often experience a state of victimization in which they are 
threatened or victimized regularly or repeatedly. Finally, 
respondents may recall an event inaccurately. For instance, 
people may forget the event entirely or recall the specifics 
of the episode incorrectly. These and other reasons may 
affect the precision of the estimates based on these 
surveys.

Data trends are discussed in this report when possible. 
Where trends are not discussed, either the data are not 
available in earlier surveys or the wording of the survey 
question changed from year to year, eliminating the ability 
to discuss any trend. Where data from samples are reported, 
as is the case with most of the indicators in this report, 
the standard error is calculated for each estimate provided 
in order to determine the "margin of error" for these 
estimates. The standard errors of the estimates for 
different subpopulations in an indicator can vary 
considerably and should be taken into account when making 
comparisons. Some estimates and standard errors have been 
revised from those provided in earlier editions of 
Indicators of School Crime and Safety and other previously 
published reports.

The comparisons in the text have been tested for statistical 
significance to ensure that the differences are larger than 
might be expected due to sampling variation. Unless 
otherwise noted, all statements cited in the report are 
statistically significant at the .05 level. Several test 
procedures were used, depending upon the type of data being 
analyzed and the nature of the statement being tested. The 
primary test procedure used in this report was the Student's 
t statistic, which tests the difference between two sample 
estimates. Linear trend tests were used when differences 
among percentages were examined relative to ordered 
categories of a variable, rather than the differences 
between two discrete categories. This test allows one to 
examine whether, for example, the percentage of students who 
reported using drugs increased (or decreased) over time or 
whether the percentage of students who reported being 
physically attacked in school increased (or decreased) with 
age. Finally, in this report, when differences among 
percentages were examined relative to a variable with 
ordered categories (such as grade), Analysis of Variance 
(ANOVA) was used to test for a linear relationship between 
the two variables.

Appendix A of this report contains descriptions of all the 
datasets used in this report as well as a discussion of how 
standard errors were calculated for each estimate.

Data are currently being collected for the 2005 National 
Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the School Crime 
Supplement (SCS) to that survey, and the 2005 Youth Risk 
Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). The NCVS and SCS will 
provide updated data on theft and violent crimes against 
students, bullying, teacher victimization, student fear at 
school, student avoidance behaviors, hate-related words and 
graffiti, and the presence of gangs. The YRBSS will provide 
updated data on students who were threatened or injured with 
a weapon, engaged in a physical fight, carried weapons, used 
alcohol or marijuana, and reported drug availability on 
school property. These findings will be reported in 
Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006.


VIOLENT DEATHS

VIOLENT DEATHS AT SCHOOL AND AWAY FROM SCHOOL
Indicator 1

Between the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 school years, the number 
of homicides of youth ages 5-19 decreased at school (from 33 
to 14 homicides). Since then, there have been between 12 and 
17 homicides in each school year through 2001-02.3

Violent deaths in schools are rare but tragic events with 
far-reaching effects on the school population and 
surrounding community (Small and Dressler-Tetrick 2001). 
From July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002, there were 38 
school-associated violent deaths in elementary and secondary 
schools in the United States (table 1.1). In this indicator, 
a school-associated violent death is 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. Deaths that occurred 
while the victim was on the way to or from regular sessions 
at school, or while the victim was attending or traveling to 
or from an official school-sponsored event, were also 
considered school-associated violent deaths. Victims of 
school-associated violent deaths include students, staff 
members, and others who were not students. Data were drawn 
from a number of datasets to enable comparisons of homicides 
and suicides at school and away from school. Data for 
school-associated violent deaths of youth ages 5-19 during 
the 1999-2000 through 2001-02 school years are preliminary.

From July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002, there were 17 
homicides and 5 suicides of school-age youth (ages 5-19) at 
school (table 1.1).4 Combined, this number translates into 
less than 1 homicide or suicide of a school-age youth at 
school per million students enrolled during the 2001-02 
school year.5 Away from school, there were 2,036 homicides 
of youth ages 5-19. The most recent data available for 
suicides of youth ages 5-19 away from school are from 
calendar year 2002. That year, 5 school-age youth committed 
suicide at school, and 1,772 school-age youth committed 
suicide away from school (figure 1.1).6

Over the 10-year time period from July 1, 1992, through June 
30, 2002, there were 462 school-associated violent deaths on 
campuses of U.S. elementary or secondary schools. Of these 
violent deaths, 261 were homicides and 55 were suicides of 
school-age youth. Between July 1, 1992, and June 30, 1999, 
no consistent pattern of increase or decrease was observed 
in the number of homicides at school (figure 1.2 and table 
1.1). During this period, between 28 and 34 homicides of 
school-age youth occurred at school in each school year. 
However, the number of homicides of school-age youth at 
school declined between the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 school 
years: from 33 to 14 homicides. Between the 1992 and 2002 
school years, between 1 and 8 school-age youth committed 
suicide at school with no consistent pattern of increase or 
decrease. In each school year, youth were over 70 times more 
likely to be murdered and 240 times more likely to commit 
suicide away from school than at school.

3Due to missing data for suicides for the 2002-03 school 
year, the findings for this indicator reflect data through 
the 2001-02 school year.
4Between July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2002, there were 38 
student, staff, and nonstudent school-associated violent 
deaths, including 27 homicides and 9 suicides. 
5The total projected number of students in prekindergarten 
through 12th grade enrolled during the fall 2003 school year 
was 54,158,000 (U.S. Department of Education 2004b). 
6Suicides at school are for the 2001-02 school year and 
suicides away from school are for the 2002 calendar year.

This indicator has been updated to include revisions to 
previously published data.

  

For more information:
Table 1.1
Anderson et al. 2001


NONFATAL STUDENT VICTIMIZATION

INCIDENCE OF VICTIMIZATION AT SCHOOL AND AWAY FROM SCHOOL
Indicator 2

In each survey year from 1992-2003, students reported lower 
rates of serious violent victimization (rape, sexual 
assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) at school than 
away from school.

Theft and violence at school and on the way to and from 
school can be an obstacle to student achievement by creating 
a disruptive and threatening environment at school and can 
lead to emotional stress and physical injury for students 
(Payne, Gottfredson, and Gottfredson 2003). In the 2003 
school year, an estimated 26.4 million students ages 12-18 
were enrolled in U.S. schools. Data from the National Crime 
Victimization Survey show that students ages 12-18 were 
victims of about 1.9 million nonfatal crimes at school, 
including about 1.2 million thefts and 740,000 violent 
crimes (simple assault and serious violent crime)-150,000 of 
which were serious violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, 
robbery, and aggravated assault; table 2.1).7 In the same 
year, students ages 12-18 were victims of about 1.6 million 
crimes while they were away from school, including about 
750,000 thefts and 850,000 violent crimes-320,000 of which 
were serious violent crimes. These figures represent 
victimization rates of 73 total crimes per 1,000 students at 
school, and 60 total crimes per 1,000 students away from 
school.

While, overall, students ages 12-18 were more likely to be 
victims of crime at school than away from school, this 
relationship varied by type of crime. In 2003, students were 
more likely to be victims of theft at school and of serious 
violence away from school.8 That year, 45 thefts per 1,000 
students occurred at school and 28 thefts per 1,000 students 
occurred away from school, while students reported being 
victims of serious violence at a rate of 12 crimes per 1,000 
students away from school and 6 crimes per 1,000 students at 
school. In the same year, no difference was detected in the 
rates of violent victimization at school and away from 
school.

The victimization rate for students ages 12-18 generally 
declined both at school and away from school between 1992 
and 2003; this was true for the total crime rate and for 
thefts, violent crimes, and serious violent crimes (figure 
2.1 and table 2.1). However, when looking at the most recent 
years, no differences were detected between 2002 and 2003 in 
the rates of total victimization, violent victimization, or 
theft at school or away from school.

In 2003, males were more likely than females to be the 
victims of violent and serious violent crimes at school and 
away from school (figures 2.2 and 2.3 and tables 2.2 and 
2.3). In the same year, younger students (ages 12-14) were 
more likely than older students (ages 15-18) to be victims 
of violent and serious violent crime at school, while older 
students were more likely to be victims away from school. 
The rates of violent and serious violent victimization at 
school were higher for urban students than for suburban and 
rural students, while away from school, rural students were 
more likely to report violent victimization than suburban 
students. No differences could be detected in the rate of 
theft at school by students' sex, age, or urbanicity in 
2003.

While it appears that victimization at school varied by 
students' race/ethnicity, few significant differences were 
found. Black and White students were more likely to be 
victims of theft than Hispanic students and students of 
other race/ethnicities, but no other differences were 
detected by race/ethnicity in the rates of theft, violent 
crime, and serious violent crime.

7"Students" refers to persons 12-18 years old who reported 
being in any elementary or secondary grade at the time of 
the survey. An unknown percentage of these persons may not 
have attended school during the survey reference period.
8These data do not take into account the number of hours 
that students spend at school and the number of hours they 
spend away from school.

This indicator has been updated to include 2003 data.

  

For more information:
Tables 2.1,2.2, & 2.3
Catalano 2004


PREVALENCE OF VICTIMIZATION AT SCHOOL
Indicator 3

In 2003, 5 percent of students ages 12-18 reported being 
victimized at school during the previous 6 months: 4 percent 
reported theft, and 1 percent reported violent 
victimization. Less than 1 percent of students reported 
serious violent victimization.

Theft is the most frequent type of nonfatal crime in the 
United States, though violent crime continues to be 
important in examining school safety (U.S. Department of 
Justice 2000). Data from the School Crime Supplement to the 
National Crime Victimization Survey show the percentage of 
students ages 12-18 who reported criminal victimization at 
school during the previous 6 months. In 2003, 5 percent of 
students ages 12-18 reported being victimized at school 
during the previous 6 months: 4 percent reported theft, and 
1 percent reported violent victimization (serious violent 
victimization plus simple assaults; table 3.1). Less than 1 
percent of students reported serious violent victimization 
(including rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated 
assault).

Overall, the percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
being victimized at school during the previous 6 months 
decreased between 1995 and 2003 (from 10 to 5 percent); 
however, no difference was detected between the percentage 
of students victimized in the most recent survey years, 2001 
and 2003 (figure 3.1 and table 3.1). This pattern was true 
for both the percentage of students who reported being 
victims of theft and those who were victims of violent 
crime.

In 2003, prevalence of victimization varied somewhat 
according to student characteristics. Male students were 
more likely than female students to report being victims of 
violent crime at school (2 vs. 1 percent), but no difference 
was detected in their likelihood of reporting theft (4 
percent for both). In the same year, 6th-graders were less 
likely than 7th-graders to be victims of theft, and 12th-
graders were less likely to report being victims of violent 
crime than students in the lower grades (6th through 9th 
grades; figure 3.2 and table 3.1). Hispanic students were 
less likely than White students to report being victims of 
theft (3 vs. 4 percent), and students in urban schools were 
more likely than their rural school counterparts to report 
being victims of violent crime (2 vs. 1 percent). 
Differences in the prevalence of victimization of students 
who attended public versus private schools were found for 
sector of school by serious violent victimization in 1995 
(0.7 vs. 0.1 percent) and sector by theft victimization in 
1995 and 2001 (7.3 vs. 5.2 percent; 4.4 vs. 2.5 percent, 
respectively). Nonetheless, few other differences were 
detected, and no more than 2 percent of students reported 
being victims of violent crime in 2003-regardless of their 
student characteristics. 

This indicator has been revised from the 2004 Indicators of 
School Crime and Safety report.

  

For more information:
Table 3.1
Addington et al. 2002


THREATS AND INJURIES WITH WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY
Indicator 4

In 2003, male students in grades 9-12 were more likely than 
female students to report being threatened or injured with a 
weapon on school property in the past year (12 vs. 6 
percent).

Every year, some students are threatened or injured with a 
weapon while they are on school property. The percentage of 
students victimized in this way provides an important 
measure of how safe our schools are and how their safety has 
changed over time. In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 
students in grades 9-12 were asked whether they had been 
threatened or injured with a weapon on school property 
during the 12 months preceding the survey. In 2003, 9 
percent of students reported being threatened or injured 
with a weapon, such as a gun, knife, or club, on school 
property (table 4.1). The percentage of students who were 
threatened or injured with a weapon has fluctuated between 
1993 and 2003, but without a clear trend. In all survey 
years from 1993 through 2003, 7-9 percent of students 
reported being threatened or injured in this way.

The likelihood of being threatened or injured with a weapon 
on school property varied by student characteristics. In 
each survey year, males were more likely than females to 
report being threatened or injured with a weapon on school 
property (figure 4.1 and table 4.1). In 2003, 12 percent of 
male students reported being threatened or injured in the 
past year, compared with 6 percent of female students. Among 
students in grades 9-12, those in lower grades were more 
likely to report being threatened or injured with a weapon 
on school property than those in higher grades in each 
survey year (figure 4.2 and table 4.1). In 2003, 12 percent 
of 9th-graders reported that they were threatened or injured 
with a weapon on school property, compared with 9 percent of 
10th-graders, 7 percent of 11th-graders, and 6 percent of 
12th-graders.

Students' likelihood of being threatened or injured with a 
weapon on school property was examined by race/ethnicity. In 
2003, American Indian students were more likely than Black, 
Hispanic, and White students to report being threatened or 
injured with a weapon on school property (22 percent vs. 11, 
9, and 8 percent, respectively). In addition, Black students 
were more likely than White students to report being 
threatened or injured in this way. Although it appears that 
urban students were more likely than suburban and rural 
students to report being threatened or injured on school 
property (11 percent vs. 9 and 8 percent, respectively), the 
difference was not statistically significant. Student 
reports of being threatened or injured with a weapon on 
school property varied among states for which data were 
available, ranging from 5 to 13 percent (table 4.2).

This indicator has been revised from the 2004 Indicators of 
School Crime and Safety report.

  

For more information:
Tables 4.1 & 4.2
Grunbaum et al. 2004


NONFATAL TEACHER VICTIMIZATION

NONFATAL TEACHER VICTIMIZATION AT SCHOOL
Indicator 5

Over the 5-year period from 1999 through 2003, teachers 
reported being victims of nonfatal crimes at a rate of 39 
crimes per 1,000 teachers annually, including 25 thefts and 
14 violent crimes. 

Much like their students, teachers can also be targets of 
violence and theft in schools. The personal toll violence 
may take on teachers can lead to safety concerns and may 
interfere with their ability to teach. Moreover, the 
cumulative effects of these concerns may ultimately cause a 
teacher to leave the profession (Scheckner et al. 2002; 
Ingersoll 2001). Looking at the number of crimes against 
teachers at school can demonstrate the extent of the 
problem. The National Crime Victimization Survey provides 
information about teacher victimization by collecting data 
on the occupations of its respondents. The survey reports 
offenses committed against teachers at school by both 
students and others.

Annually, from 1999 through 2003, teachers were the victims 
of approximately 183,000 total nonfatal crimes at school, 
including 119,000 thefts and 65,000 violent crimes (rape, 
sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple 
assault; table 5.1).9 Among the violent crimes committed 
against teachers during this 5-year period, there were about 
7,000 serious violent crimes annually, including rape, 
sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. On average, 
these figures translate into an annual rate of 39 crimes per 
1,000 teachers, including 25 thefts and 14 violent crimes 
(including 2 serious violent crimes), per 1,000 teachers.10

The average annual rate of violent victimization for 
teachers varied according to their sex, instructional 
level,11 and urbanicity (figure 5.1 and table 5.1). From 
1999 through 2003, male teachers were more likely than 
female teachers to be victims of violent crimes (22 vs. 11 
crimes per 1,000 teachers annually). Senior high school 
teachers were more likely than elementary school teachers to 
be victims of violent crimes (22 vs. 9 violent crimes per 
1,000 teachers annually). In addition, annually over the 5-
year period, urban teachers were more likely than rural and 
suburban teachers to be victims of violent crimes (20 vs. 9 
and 7 crimes per 1,000 teachers, respectively). No 
differences were detected in the likelihood of teachers 
being victimized by violent crime according to their 
race/ethnicity. 

Few differences were detected according to teacher 
characteristics in the rate of theft from 1999 through 2003, 
with the exceptions that White teachers were more likely 
than Black teachers to be victimized in this way (27 vs. 15 
thefts per 1,000 teachers annually) and senior high school 
teachers were more likely than elementary school teachers to 
be victimized (36 vs. 20 thefts per 1,000 teachers 
annually).

9The average annual total number of crimes is the sum of all 
teacher victimizations across the 5 years, divided by 5.
10The average annual rate is the sum of all teacher 
victimizations across the 5 years divided by the sum of all 
teachers over those years, multiplied by 1,000.
11Instructional level was identified by respondent teachers.

This indicator has been updated to include 2003 data.

  

For more information:
Table 5.1
Duhart 2001


TEACHERS THREATENED WITH INJURY OR ATTACKED BY STUDENTS
Indicator 6

In 1999-2000, teachers in central city schools were more 
likely than their peers in urban fringe or rural schools to 
report being threatened with injury or physically attacked.

Some offenses against teachers are committed by students. 
Data on the extent to which students make threats or 
physically attack elementary and secondary teachers can 
provide a snapshot of this problem. In the Schools and 
Staffing Survey, teachers were asked whether they had been 
threatened with injury or physically attacked by a student 
in the previous 12 months. The survey results indicate that 
a smaller percentage of elementary and secondary school 
teachers were threatened with injury by a student at their 
school in the 1999-2000 school year than in the 1993-94 
school year (9 vs. 12 percent; table 6.1). However, no 
difference was detected in the percentage of teachers 
physically attacked by a student between the 1999-2000 and 
1993-94 school years (4 percent in both years; table 6.2). 

In both survey years, teachers in central city schools were 
more likely to be threatened with injury or physically 
attacked than teachers in urban fringe or rural schools 
(figure 6.1 and tables 6.1 and 6.2). For example, in 1999-
2000, 11 percent of teachers in central city schools had 
been threatened with injury by students, compared with 8 
percent each in urban fringe and rural schools. Five percent 
of teachers in central city schools had been attacked by 
students, while 3 percent each of teachers in urban fringe 
and rural schools had experienced such attacks. 

In 1999-2000, few differences were detected in the 
likelihood of teachers being victims of attacks or threats 
by students according to teachers' race/ethnicity (tables 
6.1 and 6.2). One such difference was that Black teachers 
were more likely to be threatened than White teachers (12 
vs. 9 percent).
In 1999-2000, teachers' reports of being victimized or 
attacked by a student varied according to the level and 
sector of their school. Secondary school teachers were more 
likely than elementary school teachers to have been 
threatened with injury by a student (10 vs. 8 percent); 
however, secondary school teachers were less likely to have 
been physically attacked (2 vs. 6 percent). Public school 
teachers were more likely than private school teachers to be 
victimized by students in school (figure 6.2 and tables 6.1 
and 6.2): 10 percent of public school teachers had been 
threatened with injury, compared with 4 percent of private 
school teachers. Likewise, 4 percent of public school 
teachers and 2 percent of private school teachers had been 
physically attacked by students. Among teachers in central 
city schools, those at public schools were four times more 
likely to be threatened with injury than their colleagues at 
private schools (14 vs. 3 percent) and about three times 
more likely to be physically attacked (6 vs. 2 percent).

This indicator repeats information from the 2004 Indicators 
of School Crime and Safety report.

  

For more information:
Tables 6.1 & 6.2
Appendix Bfor definitions of school levels
Gruber et al. 2002

SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT

VIOLENT AND OTHER INCIDENTS AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THOSE 
REPORTED TO THE POLICE
Indicator 7

In 1999-2000, 71 percent of public schools experienced one 
or more violent incidents and 36 percent of public schools 
reported violent incidents to the police.

This indicator presents the percentage of schools that 
experienced one or more crimes, the total number of these 
crimes reported by schools, and the rate of crimes per 1,000 
students. These data are also presented for the crimes that 
were reported to the police. In the School Survey on Crime 
and Safety, public school principals were asked to provide 
the number of serious violent incidents (rape, sexual 
battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with a 
weapon, threat of physical attack with a weapon, and robbery 
with or without a weapon); violent incidents (serious 
violent incidents plus physical attack or fight without a 
weapon and threat of physical attack without a weapon); 
thefts valuing $10 or greater; and other incidents that 
occurred at their school, as well as the number of these 
incidents reported to the police. In 1999-2000, 86 percent 
of public schools responded that one or more incidents of 
crime had taken place (including violent, theft, and other 
crimes), amounting to an estimated 2.3 million crimes (table 
7.1). This figure translates into a rate of 48 crimes per 
1,000 students enrolled in 1999-2000. In the same year, 63 
percent of schools reported an incident of crime to the 
police amounting to about 660,000 crimes-or 14 crimes per 
1,000 students enrolled. 

In 1999-2000, 71 percent of public schools experienced one 
or more violent incidents, 20 percent experienced one or 
more serious violent incidents, 46 percent experienced one 
or more thefts, and 73 percent experienced another type of 
crime (figure 7.1 and table 7.1). When looking at reports to 
the police, 36 percent of public schools reported violent 
incidents, 15 percent reported serious violent incidents, 28 
percent reported thefts, and 52 percent reported other 
crimes.

The prevalence of violent incidents at school and those 
reported to the police varied by the level of the school 
(figure 7.2 and tables 7.2 and 7.3). Primary schools were 
the least likely to experience any violent incident: 61 
percent of primary schools experienced a violent incident, 
compared with 87 percent of middle schools and 92 percent of 
secondary schools. Similar relationships were observed for 
serious violent incidents and those violent and serious 
violent incidents that were reported to the authorities. 
However, when looking at the rate of violent crimes per 
1,000 students enrolled, secondary schools had lower rates 
than primary and middle schools. In 1999-2000, there were 22 
violent crimes per 1,000 students in secondary schools, 
compared with 31 and 46 violent crimes per 1,000 students 
enrolled in primary and middle schools, respectively. 
Nonetheless, regardless of school level, there were no more 
than two serious violent crimes per 1,000 students enrolled 
in 1999-2000. 

When examining violent incidents by the location of public 
schools, city schools were more likely than urban fringe 
schools to experience or report to the police at least one 
violent incident during the 1999-2000 school year (figure 
7.3 and tables 7.2 and 7.3). Seventy-seven percent of city 
schools had one or more violent incidents, and 44 percent 
reported one or more incidents to the police, compared with 
67 and 35 percent, respectively, of urban fringe schools. 
Rural schools were the least likely to experience serious 
violent incidents (12 percent of rural schools vs. 20-27 
percent of schools in other locations) and to report serious 
violent incidents to the police (9 percent vs. 14-21 
percent).

This indicator has been revised from the 2004 Indicators of 
School Crime and Safety report.

  

For more information:
Tables 7.1,7.2, & 7.3
Appendix B for definitions of school levels
Miller 2003 revised


DISCIPLINE PROBLEMS REPORTED BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Indicator 8

In 1999-2000, middle schools were more likely than primary 
and secondary schools to report racial tensions, bullying, 
verbal abuse of teachers, and widespread disorder in 
classrooms.

Discipline problems in a school may contribute to an overall 
environment in which violence and crime may occur. In the 
School Survey on Crime and Safety, school principals were 
asked how often certain disciplinary problems happen in 
their schools. This indicator examines racial tensions, 
bullying, student verbal abuse of teachers, widespread 
classroom disorder, and student acts of disrespect for 
teachers that happened daily or once a week. If gang or cult 
activities ever occurred in the school, they were included 
as problematic due to the severe nature of these 
occurrences.

In 1999-2000, more than one-quarter (29 percent) of public 
schools reported that student bullying took place on a daily 
or weekly basis (table 8.1). Among the other frequently 
occurring discipline problems in public schools, 19 percent 
reported student acts of disrespect for teachers, 13 percent 
reported student verbal abuse of teachers, 3 percent 
reported student racial tensions, and 3 percent reported 
widespread disorder in classrooms. Furthermore, 19 percent 
of public schools reported undesirable gang activities, and 
7 percent reported that undesirable cult or extremist 
activities occurred during the 1999-2000 school year.

Frequently occurring discipline problems reported by public 
schools varied by school characteristics. For example, 
middle schools were more likely than primary and secondary 
schools to report racial tensions, bullying, verbal abuse of 
teachers, and widespread disorder in classrooms (figure 8.1 
and table 8.1). Middle schools were also more likely than 
primary schools, but less likely than high schools, to 
report gang or extremist cult activity.

The prevalence of frequently occurring discipline problems 
was related to school size. As school enrollment increased, 
so did the likelihood of schools reporting each discipline 
problem at their school except widespread disorder in the 
classroom-which was reported by relatively few principals 
(less than 5 percent at all enrollment levels). Twenty-six 
percent of principals at schools with 1,000 or more students 
reported student verbal abuse of teachers, compared with 14 
percent of schools with 500-999 students, 10 percent of 
schools with 300-499 students, and 7 percent of schools with 
less than 300 students. 

Schools that reported one or more violent incidents were 
more likely to report each of the disciplinary problems 
discussed above than schools with no violent incidents. For 
example, 34 percent of schools with one or more violent 
incidents reported that bullying happened at least once a 
week, compared with 17 percent of schools with no violent 
incidents.

This indicator repeats information from the 2004 Indicators 
of School Crime and Safety report.

  

For more information:
Table 8.1
Appendix B for definitions of school levels
Miller 2003 revised


STUDENTS' REPORTS OF GANGS AT SCHOOL
Indicator 9

In 2003, students ages 12-18 in urban schools were the most 
likely to report the presence of street gangs at their 
school, followed by their counterparts in suburban and rural 
schools.

Street gangs are organized groups often involved in drugs, 
weapons trafficking, and violence. Such street gangs at 
school can be very 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 
street gangs were present at their school during the 
previous 6 months.

In 2003, 21 percent of students reported that there were 
gangs at their schools (table 9.1). Of all the students 
surveyed, students in urban schools were the most likely to 
report the presence of street gangs at their school (31 
percent), followed by suburban students and rural students, 
who were the least likely to do so (18 and 12 percent, 
respectively). Between 2001 and 2003, no difference was 
detected in the percentage of students who reported the 
presence of street gangs, regardless of school location.

Hispanic and Black students were more likely than White 
students to report the existence of street gangs in their 
schools in 2003 (37 and 29 percent, respectively, vs. 14 
percent; figure 9.1 and table 9.1). This pattern also held 
among students in urban schools and suburban schools. For 
rural students, although it appears that Black students (22 
percent) were more likely than White and Hispanic students 
(11 and 13 percent, respectively) to report the existence of 
street gangs, the difference was not statistically 
significant.

Students in public schools were more likely to report the 
presence of street gangs than students in private schools 
regardless of the school's location (figure 9.2 and table 
9.1). In 2003, 23 percent of students in public schools 
reported that there were street gangs in their schools, 
compared with 4 percent of students in private schools. 
Among public school students, students in urban schools were 
the most likely to report the presence of street gangs at 
their school, followed by suburban students and rural 
students (34, 20, and 13 percent, respectively). For private 
school students, no significant difference was detected 
according to urbanicity. 

This indicator repeats information from the 2004 Indicators 
of School Crime and Safety report.

  

For more information:
Table 9.1
Addington et al. 2002


STUDENTS' REPORTS OF DRUG AVAILABILITY ON SCHOOL PROPERTY
Indicator 10

In 2003, 29 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 12 months before the survey.

The availability of drugs on school property has a 
disruptive and corrupting influence on the school 
environment (Nolin et al. 1997). The Youth Risk Behavior 
Survey asked students in grades 9-12 whether someone had 
offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school 
property in the 12 months before the survey. In 2003, 29 
percent of students in grades 9-12 reported that drugs were 
made available to them on school property (table 10.1). The 
percentage of such students increased from 24 percent in 
1993 to 32 percent in 1995. In each survey year since 1995, 
between 29 and 32 percent of students reported drugs were 
offered, sold, or given to them on school property.

Males were more likely than females to report that drugs 
were offered, sold, or given to them on school property in 
each survey year (figure 10.1 and table 10.1). For example, 
in 2003, 32 percent of males reported the availability of 
drugs, while 25 percent of females did so. No differences 
were detected in the percentage of students who reported 
that drugs were made available to them according to grade 
level or urbanicity.

Students' racial/ethnic backgrounds were examined in 
relation to whether they reported having illegal drugs 
offered, sold, or given to them on school property (figure 
10.2 and table 10.1). In 2003, Hispanic students were more 
likely than Asian, Black, and White students to report that 
drugs were made available to them (37 percent vs. 23-28 
percent). While it appears that American Indian and Pacific 
Islander students were also more likely than Asian, Black, 
and White students to report drug availability at school, 
the differences were not statistically significant. Student 
reports of availability of drugs on school property varied 
among states for which data were available, ranging from 18 
to 33 percent (table 10.2).

This indicator has been revised from the 2004 Indicators of 
School Crime and Safety report.

  

For more information:
Tables 10.1 & 10.2
Grunbaum et al. 2004


STUDENTS' REPORTS OF BEING CALLED HATE-RELATED WORDS AND 
SEEING HATE-RELATED GRAFFITI
Indicator 11

In 2003, 12 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that 
someone at school had used hate-related words against them, 
and more than one-third (36 percent) of students ages 12-18 
had seen hate-related graffiti at school.

A student's exposure to hate-related words or symbols at 
school may increase that student's feeling of vulnerability. 
Discriminatory behavior in schools can create a hostile 
environment that is not conducive to learning (Cobia and 
Carney 2002). In the 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 during the 
previous 6 months. In the 2003 administration of the survey, 
they were then asked to specify the characteristic to which 
the hate-related word was directed.

In 2003, 12 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that 
someone at school had used hate-related words against them 
(table 11.1). Four percent of respondents reported that the 
hate-related words concerned their race, about 2 percent 
each reported that the words concerned their ethnicity or 
gender, and 1 percent each reported that the words were 
related to their religion, disability, or sexual orientation 
(table 11.2). In 1999, 2001, and 2003, 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 (table 11.1). In each survey year, 36 
percent of students saw hate-related graffiti at school.

Students' experiences of being called specific types of 
hate-related words in 2003 differed according to their sex 
and race/ethnicity (table 11.2). Not surprisingly, females 
were more likely to report gender-related hate words than 
males (4 vs. 1 percent), and White students were less likely 
to report race-related hate words than students of other 
race/ethnicities (2 percent of White students vs. 7 percent 
of Black students, 5 percent of Hispanic students, and 9 
percent of students in other racial/ethnic groups).

In 2003, differences were detected according to urbanicity 
and sector in students' reports of being called hate-related 
words or seeing hate-related graffiti (figure 11.1 and table 
11.1). Urban students were more likely than rural students 
to see graffiti and more likely than suburban students to be 
called a hate-related word, but no other differences were 
detected according to urbanicity. Public school students 
were more likely than their private school counterparts to 
report seeing graffiti, but no such difference was detected 
in the likelihood of being called a hate-related word.

This indicator repeats information from the 2004 Indicators 
of School Crime and Safety report.

  

For more information:
Tables 11.1 & 11.2
Addington et al. 2002


BULLYING AT SCHOOL
Indicator 12

In 2003, 7 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that they 
had been bullied at school during the last 6 months. The 
percentage of students who reported being bullied increased 
between 1999 and 2001, but no difference was detected 
between 2001 and 2003.

Bullying can contribute to an environment of fear and 
intimidation in schools (Carney, Hazler, and Higgins 2002; 
Ericson 2001). In the School Crime Supplement to the 
National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 
were asked if they had been bullied (for example, picked on 
or made to do things they did not want to do) at school 
during the previous 6 months. In recent years, fewer than 1 
in 10 students reported being bullied at school during the 
last 6 months. Although the percentage who had been bullied 
increased from 5 percent in 1999 to 8 percent in 2001, no 
difference was detected between 2001 and 2003 (figure 12.1 
and table 12.1). In 2003, 7 percent of students reported 
that they had been bullied at school. 

In 2003, White students were more likely than Hispanic 
students to report being bullied (8 vs. 6 percent; table 
12.1). No other differences were detected in the percentage 
of students who reported that they had been bullied 
according to students' race/ethnicity or sex.

Grade level was inversely related to students' likelihood of 
being bullied: as grade level increased, students' 
likelihood of being bullied decreased (figure 12.2 and table 
12.1). For example, in 2003, 14 percent of 6th-graders, 7 
percent of 9th-graders, and 2 percent of 12th-graders 
reported that they had been bullied at school. 

In 2003, public school students were more likely to report 
being bullied than private school students (7 vs. 5 
percent). In the same year, rural students were more likely 
than their urban and suburban counterparts to report being 
bullied (10 percent of rural students vs. 7 percent each of 
urban and suburban students). 

This indicator repeats information from the 2004 Indicators 
of School Crime and Safety report.

  

For more information:
Table 12.1
DeVoe and Kaffenberger 2005


FIGHTS, WEAPONS, AND ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES

PHYSICAL FIGHTS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE
Indicator 13

The percentage of 9th- to 12th-grade students who reported 
being in a physical fight on school property has declined-
from 16 percent in 1993 to 13 percent in 2003.

Schools where physical fights occur frequently may not be 
able to maintain a focused learning environment for 
students. Further, students who participate in fights on 
school property may have difficulty succeeding in their 
studies (Payne, Gottfredson, and Gottfredson 2003). In the 
Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9-12 were 
asked about their general involvement in physical fights 
during the preceding 12 months (referred to as "anywhere" in 
this report) and their involvement in physical fights on 
school property. In 2003, 33 percent of students in grades 
9-12 reported being in a fight anywhere, and 13 percent said 
they had been in a fight on school property (table 13.1). 
Between 1993 and 2003, the percentage of students who 
reported being in a fight anywhere declined-from 42 percent 
in 1993 to 33 percent in 2003. Similarly, the percentage of 
students who reported fighting on school property in these 
years declined-from 16 to 13 percent. 

In all survey years, males were more likely than females to 
have been in a fight anywhere and on school property (figure 
13.1 and table 13.1). In 2003, 41 percent of males said they 
had been in a fight anywhere, compared with 25 percent of 
females. In the same year, 17 percent of males said they had 
been in a fight on school property, compared with 8 percent 
of females. When looking at grade levels, students in lower 
grades reported being in fights more frequently than 
students in higher grades, both anywhere and on school 
property (figure 13.2 and table 13.1). For example, in 2003, 
18 percent of 9th-graders, 13 percent of 10th-graders, 10 
percent of 11th-graders, and 7 percent of 12th-graders 
reported being in a fight on school property.

In 2003, the percentage of students engaging in fights 
anywhere varied according to race/ethnicity. Specifically, 
Black and Hispanic students were more likely than White 
students, and American Indian students were more likely than 
Asian and White students to report being in a fight anywhere 
and on school property. In 2003, 24 percent of American 
Indian students, 17 percent each of Black and Hispanic 
students, 13 percent of Asian students, and 10 percent of 
White students reported being in a fight on school property.

Urban students were more likely than rural students to 
engage in fights both anywhere and on school property. In 
2003, 15 percent of urban students reported being in a fight 
on school property, compared with 10 percent of rural 
students. Student reports of being in a fight varied among 
states for which data were available, ranging from 26 to 35 
percent anywhere and from 9 to 15 percent on school property 
(table 13.2).

This indicator has been revised from the 2004 Indicators of 
School Crime and Safety report.

  

For more information:
Tables 13.1 & 13.2
Grunbaum et al. 2004


STUDENTS CARRYING WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE
Indicator 14

Between 1993 and 2003, the percentage of students in grades 
9-12 who reported carrying a weapon at school declined from 
12 to 6 percent.

The presence of weapons at school may interfere with 
teaching and learning by creating an intimidating and 
threatening atmosphere (Aspy et al. 2004). The percentage of 
students who report that they carry a gun or other weapon on 
school property is an indication of the extent of the 
problem. In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students were 
asked if they had carried a weapon such as a gun, knife, or 
club in the past 30 days (referred to as "anywhere" in this 
report) or had carried one of these weapons onto school 
property in the past 30 days. In 2003, 17 percent of 
students in grades 9-12 reported they had carried a weapon 
anywhere, and about 6 percent reported they had carried a 
weapon on school property (table 14.1). 

Between 1993 and 2003, the percentage of students who 
reported carrying a weapon anywhere generally declined from 
22 to 17 percent. Similarly, the percentage of students who 
carried a weapon at school also declined during this period-
from 12 to 6 percent. 

When looking at the characteristics of students who carried 
weapons, males were at least two times more likely than 
females to carry a weapon-either anywhere or on school 
property-in all survey years (figure 14.1 and table 14.1). 
For example, in 2003, some 9 percent of males carried a 
weapon on school property, compared with 3 percent of 
females, and 27 percent of males carried a weapon anywhere, 
compared with 7 percent of females. In 2003, there were few 
differences detected in the percentage of students carrying 
weapons anywhere and on school property according to 
students' race/ethnicity (figure 14.2 and table 14.1). 
American Indian students were more likely than White, 
Pacific Islander, and Hispanic students to carry a weapon on 
school property and more likely than Black, White, Hispanic, 
and Asian students to carry a weapon anywhere. However, no 
differences were detected among Black, White, Hispanic, 
Asian, and Pacific Islander students in the likelihood of 
carrying a weapon anywhere or on school property. 

In 2003, no relationship was detected by grade level or 
urbanicity for students who reported carrying a weapon at 
school or anywhere. Student reports of carrying a weapon 
varied among states for which data were available, ranging 
from 12 to 25 percent anywhere and from 3 to 10 percent on 
school property (table 14.2).

This indicator has been revised from the 2004 Indicators of 
School Crime and Safety report.

  

For more information:
Tables 14.1 & 14.2
Grunbaum et al. 2004


STUDENTS' USE OF ALCOHOL ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE
Indicator 15

In 2003, 45 percent of students in grades 9-12 had at least 
one drink of alcohol anywhere, and 5 percent had at least 
one drink on school property in the 30 days before being 
surveyed.

Students' illegal consumption of alcohol on school property 
may lead to additional crimes and misbehavior. It may also 
lead to a school environment that is harmful to students, 
teachers, and staff (Fagan and Wilkinson 1998). In the Youth 
Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9-12 were asked 
whether they had consumed alcohol at all in the past 30 days 
(referred to as "anywhere" in this report) and if they had 
consumed alcohol on school property. In 2003, 45 percent of 
students consumed at least one drink of alcohol anywhere, 
and 5 percent consumed at least one drink on school property 
(table 15.1). No consistent pattern was detected in the 
percentage of students who reported consuming alcohol on 
school property between 1993 and 2003: over these years, the 
percentage who reported consuming alcohol at school 
fluctuated between 5 and 6 percent. The percentage of 
students who reported using alcohol anywhere increased from 
48 to 52 percent between 1993 and 1995 and then declined to 
45 percent in 2003.

The likelihood of drinking alcohol varied by student 
characteristics including sex, grade level, and 
race/ethnicity. In 2003, males were more likely than females 
to use alcohol on school property (6 vs. 4 percent), a 
difference not found in the percentage who reported drinking 
anywhere (figure 15.1 and table 15.1). In 2003, students in 
higher grades were more likely to report drinking alcohol 
anywhere than students in lower grades (figure 15.2 and 
table 15.1). However, no relationship was found across grade 
levels for students' likelihood of drinking alcohol on 
school property.

In 2003, Black and Hispanic students were more likely to use 
alcohol on school property than White students (6 and 8 
percent, respectively, vs. 4 percent). In the same year, 
Asian and Black students were less likely to use alcohol 
anywhere than American Indian, White, or Hispanic students. 
Twenty-eight percent of Asian students and 37 percent of 
Black students reported using alcohol anywhere, compared 
with 46 to 52 percent of White, Hispanic, and American 
Indian students.

Alcohol use by students did not differ by where students 
lived. In 2003, no differences were detected in the 
percentage of students who consumed alcohol anywhere or on 
school property among urban, suburban, and rural students. 
Student reports of using alcohol varied among states for 
which data were available, ranging from 21 to 51 percent 
anywhere and from 3 to 7 percent on school property (table 
15.2).

This indicator has been revised from the 2004 Indicators of 
School Crime and Safety report.

  

For more information:
Tables 15.1 & 15.2
Grunbaum et al. 2004


STUDENTS' USE OF MARIJUANA ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE
Indicator 16

In 2003, 22 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported 
using marijuana anywhere, and 6 percent of students reported 
using marijuana on school property during the last 30 days.

The use of marijuana or other illicit drugs at school may 
contribute to a harmful environment for students, teachers, 
and administrators. The Youth Risk Behavior Survey asked 
students in grades 9-12 whether they had used marijuana at 
all in the past 30 days (referred to as "anywhere" in this 
report) and whether they had used marijuana on school 
property. In 2003, 22 percent of students in grades 9-12 
reported using marijuana anywhere during the last 30 days, 
and 6 percent reported using marijuana on school property 
(table 16.1). The percentage of students who reported using 
marijuana on school property increased from 6 percent in 
1993 to 9 percent in 1995, and then declined to 6 percent in 
2003. The percentage of students who reported using 
marijuana anywhere also increased between 1993 and 1995 
(from 18 to 25 percent), and in 1995, 1997, and 1999, 
roughly one-quarter of students reported using marijuana 
anywhere (between 25 and 27 percent). By 2003, however, the 
percentage of students who reported using marijuana anywhere 
had declined to 22 percent.

Both students' sex and grade level were associated with the 
use of marijuana among students in grades 9-12. Males were 
more likely than females to have used marijuana in every 
survey year, anywhere or on school property (figure 16.1 and 
table 16.1). For example, in 2003, 8 percent of males and 4 
percent of females reported using marijuana on school 
property. In that same year, students in lower grades were 
less likely than students in higher grades to report using 
marijuana anywhere (figure 16.2 and table 16.1). While it 
appears that 9th-grade students were slightly more likely to 
use marijuana on school property, the difference was not 
statistically significant, and no differences were detected 
in students' use of marijuana on school property by grade 
level. 

In 2003, Asian students were less likely than students of 
other race/ethnicities to report using marijuana anywhere 
(10 percent vs. 22-33 percent of students in other 
racial/ethnic groups). At school, Hispanic students were 
more likely to report using marijuana than Asian or White 
students (8 percent vs. 4 and 5 percent, respectively). 
However, few other differences were found in students' 
likelihood of using marijuana at school among racial/ethnic 
groups. Urban, rural, and suburban students did not differ 
in their use of marijuana anywhere in 2003, but at school, 
rural students (4 percent) were less likely to report using 
marijuana than their urban counterparts (7 percent). Student 
reports of using marijuana varied among states for which 
data were available, ranging from 11 to 31 percent anywhere 
and from 3 to 8 percent on school property (table 16.2).

This indicator has been revised from the 2004 Indicators of 
School Crime and Safety report.

  

For more information:
Tables 16.1 & 16.2
Grunbaum et al. 2004


FEAR AND AVOIDANCE

STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL SAFETY AT SCHOOL AND AWAY 
FROM SCHOOL
Indicator 17

In 2003, 6 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that they 
had been afraid of attack at school or on the way to and 
from school during the previous 6 months. Ten percent of 
urban students reported being fearful, compared to 5 percent 
each of suburban and rural students.

School violence can make students fearful and affect their 
readiness and ability to learn. Concerns about vulnerability 
to attacks are detrimental to a positive school environment 
(Schneckner et al. 2002). In the School Crime Supplement to 
the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 
were asked how often they had been afraid of attack "at 
school or on the way to and from school" and "away from 
school" during the previous 6 months.12

In 2003, 6 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that they 
had been afraid of attack at school or on the way to and 
from school, and 5 percent reported that they had been 
afraid of attack away from school. In 1999 and 2001, 
students were more likely to report they were afraid of 
being attacked at school or on the way to and from school 
than away from school; however, in 2003, no such difference 
was detected (figure 17.1 and table 17.1). The percentage of 
students who reported that they were afraid of being 
attacked at school or on the way to and from school 
decreased from 12 percent in 1995 to 6 percent in 2003; 
however, no difference was detected in the percentage of 
students who feared such an attack between the most recent 
survey years, 2001 and 2003.

In 2003, female students were more likely than male students 
to fear for their safety both at school and away from 
school. In the same year, Black and Hispanic students were 
more likely than White students to fear for their safety 
regardless of location (figure 17.2 and table 17.1). Eleven 
percent of Black students and 10 percent of Hispanic 
students reported that they were afraid of being attacked at 
school or on the way to and from school, compared with 4 
percent of White students. Away from school, 10 percent of 
Black students, 7 percent of Hispanic students, and 4 
percent of White students reported that they were afraid of 
an attack.

In 2003, grade level was inversely related to students' 
likelihood of fearing an attack at school or on the way to 
and from school: as grade level increased, their likelihood 
of fearing an attack decreased. In the same year, 10 percent 
of 6th-graders, 6 percent of 9th-graders, and 4 percent of 
12th-graders feared for their safety at school or on the way 
to and from school.

In addition, school location was related to students' fear 
of attack. In 2003, students in urban schools were more 
likely than students in suburban and rural schools to fear 
being attacked both at school or on the way to and from 
school and away from school. Ten percent of students in 
urban schools feared being attacked at school, compared with 
5 percent each of their peers in suburban and rural schools. 
In the same year, public school students were more likely 
than private school students to fear an attack at school (6 
vs. 3 percent), but no such difference was detected when 
they were asked whether they feared an attack away from 
school (5 percent each).

12In 1995 and 1999, students reported fear of "attack or 
harm" at school or on the way to and from school during the 
previous 6 months. In 2001 and 2003, students reported fear 
of "attack or threat of attack" at school or on the way to 
and from school during the previous 6 months. Includes 
students who reported that they sometimes or most of the 
time feared being victimized in this way.

This indicator repeats information from the 2004 Indicators 
of School Crime and Safety report.

  

For more information:
Table 17.1
Addington et al. 2002


STUDENTS' REPORTS OF AVOIDING SCHOOL ACTIVITIES OR SPECIFIC 
PLACES IN SCHOOL 
Indicator 18

The percentage of students who reported that they either 
skipped school activities or avoided specific places in 
school because they were fearful decreased from 7 percent in 
1999 to 5 percent in 2003.

School crime may lead students to perceive school as unsafe, 
and in trying to ensure their own safety, students may begin 
to skip school activities or avoid certain places within 
school (Schreck and Miller 2003). Changes in the percentage 
of students who avoid school activities and certain areas in 
school may be a good barometer of their perceptions 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 the school because they were fearful. In 
2003, 5 percent of students reported that they avoided 
school activities or one or more places in school in the 
previous 6 months because they were fearful: 2 percent of 
students avoided school activities (skipped extracurricular 
activities, skipped class, or stayed home from school), and 
4 percent of students avoided one or more places in school 
(the entrance to the school, any hallways or stairs in the 
school, any parts of the school cafeteria, any school 
restrooms, and other places inside the school building; 
table 18.1). 

The percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that they 
either avoided school activities or one or more places in 
school because they were fearful decreased from 7 percent in 
1999 to 5 percent in 2003 (table 18.1 and figure 18.1).

Students' reports of avoiding one or more places in school 
varied according to race/ethnicity. In 2003, 3 percent of 
White students reported avoiding certain areas, compared 
with 5 percent of Black students and 6 percent of Hispanic 
students (table 18.2). As in all previous survey years, in 
2003, no difference was detected in the extent to which 
students avoided places according to their sex. 

Generally, grade level was inversely associated with 
students' likelihood of avoiding places in school. In 2003, 
6 percent of 6th-graders avoided one or more places in 
school, compared with 1 percent of 12th-graders (figure 18.2 
and table 18.2). In the same year, students in urban areas 
were the most likely to avoid places in school: 6 percent of 
urban students reported that they had done so, compared with 
4 percent of suburban and 3 percent of rural students. In 
addition, public school students were more likely than 
private school students to avoid places in school (4 vs. 2 
percent).

This indicator has been revised from the 2004 Indicators of 
School Crime and Safety report.

  

For more information:
Tables 18.1 & 18.2
Addington et al. 2002 


DISCIPLINE, SAFETY, AND SECURITY MEASURES

SERIOUS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS TAKEN BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Indicator 19

About 54 percent of public schools took a serious 
disciplinary action against a student in the 1999-2000 
school year. Of those disciplinary actions, 83 percent were 
suspensions lasting 5 days or more, 11 percent were removals 
with no services (i.e., expulsions), and 7 percent were 
transfers to specialized schools.

Removal of a student by a school for behavior problems 
stemming from crime and violence has serious impact on 
student instruction. In the School Survey on Crime and 
Safety, public school principals were asked to report the 
number of disciplinary actions taken against students during 
the 1999-2000 school year for specific offenses unrelated to 
academic infractions.

About 54 percent of public schools took at least one serious 
disciplinary action against a student, including suspensions 
lasting 5 days or more, removals with no services (i.e., 
expulsions), and transfers to specialized schools, for any 
offense that occurred in the 1999-2000 school year (table 
19.1). Altogether, about 1,163,000 actions were taken. Of 
those serious disciplinary actions, 83 percent were 
suspensions for 5 days or more, 11 percent were removals 
with no services, and 7 percent were transfers to 
specialized schools (figure 19.1 and table 19.1).

Two percent of all public schools took one or more serious 
disciplinary actions in response to students' use of a 
firearm or explosive device, and 4 percent did so for the 
possession of such a device (figure 19.2 and table 19.1). 
Use of weapons other than firearms resulted in at least one 
serious disciplinary action in 5 percent of schools, while 
possession of weapons other than firearms led to a serious 
disciplinary action in 19 percent of schools.

Ten percent of all public schools took one or more serious 
disciplinary actions for the distribution of illegal drugs, 
and 20 percent for the possession or use of illegal drugs or 
alcohol. In 1999-2000, public schools took serious 
disciplinary actions for offenses such as fights (35 
percent), threats (22 percent), insubordination (18 
percent), and other nonacademic infractions (14 percent).

This indicator repeats information from the 2004 Indicators 
of School Crime and Safety report.

  

For more information:
Table 19.1
Miller 2003 revised


SAFETY AND SECURITY MEASURES TAKEN BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Indicator 20

In 1999-2000, 14 percent of primary schools, 20 percent of 
middle schools, and 39 percent of secondary schools used one 
or more security cameras to monitor the school.

Public schools employ a variety of practices and procedures 
intended to promote the safety of students and staff. While 
there has been little research on how these practices affect 
the rate of crime, these measures do show the array of 
practices that schools use and how frequently they use them. 
In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, public school 
principals were asked about the practices that their schools 
used during the 1999-2000 school year. Certain practices are 
intended to limit or control the access of people to school 
campuses, while others are intended to monitor or restrict 
their behavior once they are on campus using various 
technologies and tactics such as metal detectors, security 
cameras, and drug sweeps. 

In 1999-2000, during school hours, 75 percent of schools 
controlled access to school buildings by locking or 
monitoring doors, and 34 percent of schools controlled 
access to school grounds with locked or monitored gates 
(table 20.1). The vast majority of public schools required 
visitors to sign or check in when entering the school 
building (97 percent), while few schools required either 
students or visitors to pass through metal detectors 
regularly (1 percent each). 

Many security measures varied by school level, and not 
surprisingly, primary schools were generally less likely 
than middle schools and secondary schools to report using 
most security measures. While roughly one-quarter of schools 
required faculty or staff to wear picture IDs, 2 percent of 
primary schools, 6 percent of middle schools, and 13 percent 
of secondary schools required badges or picture IDs for 
students (figure 20.1 and table 20.1). Six percent of 
schools required clear book bags or banned book bags 
altogether, but this practice ranged from 2 percent of 
primary schools to 13 percent of middle schools and 12 
percent of secondary schools. Between 3 and 4 percent of 
primary schools reported performing one or more random metal 
detector checks on students, using one or more random dog 
sniffs to check for drugs, and performing one or more random 
sweeps for contraband not including dog sniffs. In 
comparison, 15 percent of secondary schools reported random 
metal detector checks, half reported random dog sniffs, and 
one-quarter reported random sweeps for contraband. In 1999-
2000, 14 percent of primary schools, 20 percent of middle 
schools, and 39 percent of secondary schools used one or 
more security cameras to monitor the school. 

These practices also varied by school size, location, and 
other school characteristics. For example, in 1999-2000, 
urban fringe schools were more likely than city, town, or 
rural schools to use one or more security cameras to monitor 
the school (25 percent vs. 14-20 percent), and city schools 
were more likely than urban fringe, town, or rural schools 
to perform one or more random metal detector checks on 
students (16 percent vs. 4-6 percent; table 20.1).

This is a new indicator.

  

For more information:
Table 20.1
Appendix B for definitions of school levels
U.S. Department of Education 2004a

STUDENTS' REPORTS OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MEASURES OBSERVED 
AT SCHOOL
Indicator 21

In 2003, nearly all students ages 12-18 observed the 
presence of one or more of the selected security measures at 
their school.

Schools use a variety of measures to promote the safety of 
students, ranging from codes of student conduct to metal 
detectors. However, research suggests that aggressive use of 
some security measures in schools can alienate students, 
increase distrust and misbehavior among students, and 
disrupt the school environment by interfering with learning 
(Beger 2003). The School Crime Supplement to the National 
Crime Victimization Survey asked students ages 12-18 whether 
they observed certain security measures at their schools. 
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 actual 
practice. (See Indicator 20 for use of measures as reported 
by schools.) In 2003, nearly all (99 percent) of students 
ages 12-18 observed one or more of the selected security 
measures at their school including metal detectors, locker 
checks, security cameras, security guards and/or police 
officers, adult supervision in hallways, a requirement that 
students wear badges or picture IDs, a code of student 
conduct, locked entrance or exit doors during the day, and a 
requirement that visitors sign in (figure 21.1 and table 
21.1).

In 2003, 95 percent of students reported that their school 
had a student code of conduct, making it the most often 
observed safety and security measure, and 92 percent 
reported a requirement that visitors sign in. While 7 in 10 
students observed security guards and/or police officers, 9 
in 10 students reported observing other school staff or 
adult supervision in the hallway. Roughly half of students 
each reported locker checks, locked entrance or exit doors 
during the day, and observing one or more security cameras 
to monitor the school (53, 53, and 48 percent, 
respectively). Twenty-three percent of students reported ID 
badges were required at school, and 1 in 10 students 
reported the use of metal detectors.

The percentage of students reporting the presence of many 
school security measures increased between 1999 and 2003 
(figure 21.1 and table 21.1). The percentage of students who 
reported their schools using visitor sign-in increased from 
87 to 92 percent during this period, and the percentage who 
reported the presence of locked entrance or exit doors 
during the school day increased from 38 to 53 percent. Over 
the same period, there was also an increase in both the 
percentage observing security guards and/or police officers 
and the percentage observing other school staff or adult 
supervision in the hallway (from 54 to 70 percent and from 
85 to 91 percent, respectively). The percentage of students 
who observed security cameras, a question that was only 
asked in the 2001 and 2003 surveys, increased as well-from 
39 to 48 percent. In all survey years reported, no 
differences could be detected in the percentage reporting 
metal detectors, locker checks, the requirement of ID 
badges, or a code of student conduct.

This is a new indicator.

  

For more information:
Table 21.1
Addington et al. 2002


REFERENCES

Addington, L.A., Ruddy, S.A., Miller, A.K., and DeVoe, J.F. 
(2002). Are America's Schools Safe? Students Speak Out: 1999 
School Crime Supplement (NCES 2002-331). U.S. Department of 
Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education 
Statistics.

Anderson, M., Kaufman, J., Simon, T., Barrios, L., Paulozzi, 
L., Ryan, G., Hammond, R., Modzeleski, W., Feucht, T., 
Potter, L., and the School-Associated Violent Deaths Study 
Group. (2001). School-Associated Violent Deaths in the 
United States, 1994-1999. Journal of the American Medical 
Association, 286: 2695-2702.

Aspy, C.B., Oman, R.F., Vesely, S.K., McLeroy, K., Rodine, 
S., and Marshall, L. (2004). Adolescent Violence: The 
Protective Effects of Youth Assets. Journal of Counseling 
and Development, 82: 269-277.

Beauvais, F., Chavez, E., Oetting, E., Deffenbacher, J., and 
Cornell, G. (1996). Drug Use, Violence, and Victimization 
Among White American, Mexican American, and American Indian 
Dropouts, Students With Academic Problems, and Students in 
Good Academic Standing. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 
43: 292-299.

Beger, R. (2003). The "Worst of Both Worlds": School 
Security and the Disappearing Fourth Amendment Rights of 
Students. Criminal Justice Review, 28: 336-354.

Brener, N.D., Kann, L., Kinchen, S.A., Grunbaum, J.A., 
Whalen, L., Eaton, D., Hawkins, J., and Ross, J.G. (2004). 
Methodology of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System. 
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2004, 53 (No. RR-12): 
1-13.

Brener, N.D., Kann, L., and McManus, T. (2003). A Comparison 
of Two Survey Questions on Race and Ethnicity Among High 
School Students. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67: 227-236.

Cantor, D., and Lynch, J.P. (2000). Self-Report Surveys as 
Measures of Crime and Criminal Victimization. In D. Duffee 
(Ed.), Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice (pp. 
85-138). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Carney, J.L., Hazler, R.J., and Higgins, J. (2002). 
Characteristics of School Bullies and Victims as Perceived 
by Public School Professionals. Journal of School Violence, 
1: 91-106.

Catalano, S.M. (2004). Criminal Victimization, 2003 (NCJ 
205455). U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: Bureau 
of Justice Statistics.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001). Temporal 
Variations in School-Associated Student Homicide and Suicide 
Events-United States, 1992-1999. Morbidity and Mortality 
Weekly Report, 50(31): 657-660.

Cobia, D.C., and Carney, J.S. (2002). Creating a Culture of 
Tolerance in Schools: Everyday Actions to Prevent Hate-
Motivated Violent Incidents. Journal of School Violence, 1: 
87-104.

Crick, N.R., and Bigbee, M.A. (1998). Relational and Overt 
Forms of Peer Victimization: A Multi-informant Approach. 
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66: 337-347.

Crick, N.R., and Grotpeter, J.K. (1996). Children's 
Treatment by Peers: Victims of Relational and Overt 
Aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8: 367-380.

DeVoe, J.F., and Kaffenberger, S. (2005). Student Reports of 
Bullying: Results From the 2001 School Crime Supplement to 
the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCES 2005-310). 
U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National 
Center for Education Statistics.

Duhart, D.T. (2001). Violence in the Workplace, 1993-1999 
(NCJ 190076). U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: 
Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Ericson, N. (2001). Addressing the Problem of Juvenile 
Bullying. OJJDP Fact Sheet #27. U.S. Department of Justice. 
Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Fagan, J., and Wilkinson, D.L. (1998). Social Contexts and 
Functions of Adolescent Violence. In D.S. Elliott, B. 
Hamburg, and K.R. Williams (Eds.), Violence in American 
Schools (pp. 55-93). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gruber, K.J., Wiley, S.D., Broughman, S.P., Strizek, G.A., 
and Burian-Fitzgerald, M. (2002). Schools and Staffing 
Survey, 1999-2000: An Overview of Public, Private, Public 
Charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs Elementary and 
Secondary Schools (NCES 2002-313). U.S. Department of 
Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education 
Statistics.

Grunbaum, J., Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Ross, J., Hawkins, J., 
Lowry, R., Harris, W.A., McManus, T., Chyen, D., and 
Collins, J. (2004). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance-United 
States, 2003. In Surveillance Summaries (MMWR (No. SS-2)). 
Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Henry, S. (2000). What Is School Violence? An Integrated 
Definition. Annals of the American Academy of Political and 
Social Science, 567: 16-29.
Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher Turnover and Teacher 
Shortages: An Organizational Analysis. American Educational 
Research Journal, 38(3): 499-534.

Kachur, S.P., Stennies, G.M., Powell, K.E., Modzeleski, W., 
Stephens, R., Murphy, R., Kresnow, M., Sleet, D., and Lowry, 
R. (1996). School-Associated Violent Deaths in the United 
States, 1992 to 1994. Journal of the American Medical 
Association, 275: 1729-1733.

Karcher, M. (2002). The Cycle of Violence and Disconnection 
Among Rural Middle School Students: Teacher Disconnection as 
a Consequence of Violence. Journal of School Violence, 1: 
35-51.

Kauffman, J., Modzeleski, W., Feucht, T., Simon, T.R., 
Anderson, M., Shaw, K., Arias, I., and Barrios, L. (2004). 
School-Associated Suicides-United States, 1994-1999. 
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 53(22): 476-478.

Laub, J.H., and Lauritsen, J.L. (1998). The Interdependence 
of School Violence With Neighborhood and Family Conditions. 
In D.S. Elliott, B. Hamburg, and K.R. Williams (Eds.), 
Violence in American Schools (pp. 127-155). New York: 
Cambridge University Press.

Miller, A. (2003 revised). Violence in U.S. Public Schools: 
2000 School Survey on Crime and Safety (NCES 2004-314). U.S. 
Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for 
Education Statistics.

Nansel, T., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R., Ruan, W., Simons-
Morton, B., and Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying Behaviors Among 
U.S. Youth: Prevalence and Association With Psychosocial 
Adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 
285: 2094-2100.

Nolin, M.J., Vaden-Kiernan, N., Feibus, M.L., and Chandler, 
K.A. (1997). Student Reports of Availability, Peer Approval, 
and Use of Alcohol, Marijuana, and Other Drugs at School: 
1993 (NCES 97-279). U.S. Department of Education. 
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Payne, A.A., Gottfredson, D.C., and Gottfredson, G.D. 
(2003). Schools as Communities: The Relationship Between 
Communal School Organization, Student Bonding, and School 
Disorder. Criminology, 41: 749-778.

Prinstein, M.J., Boergers, J., and Vernberg, E.M. (2001). 
Overt and Relational Aggression in Adolescents: Social-
Psychological Adjustment of Aggressors and Victims. Journal 
of Clinical Child Psychology, 30: 479-491.

Reza, A., Modzeleski, W., Feucht, T., Anderson, M., Simon, 
T.R., and Barrios, L. (2003). Source of Firearms Used by 
Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths-United States, 
1992-1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 52(9): 
169-172.

Ringwalt, C.L., Ennett, S., and Johnson, R. (2003). Factors 
Associated With Fidelity to Substance Use Prevention 
Curriculum Guides in the Nation's Middle Schools. Health 
Education & Behavior, 30: 375-391.

Scheckner, S., Rollins, S.A., Kaiser-Ulrey, C., and Wagner, 
R. (2002). School Violence in Children and Adolescents: A 
Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness. Journal of School Violence, 
1: 5-34.

Schreck, C.J., and Miller, J.M. (2003). Sources of Fear of 
Crime at School: What Is the Relative Contribution of 
Disorder, Individual Characteristics, and School Security? 
Journal of School Violence, 2(4): 57-79.
67   References

Small, M., and Dressler-Tetrick, K. (2001). School Violence: 
An Overview. Juvenile Justice VIII (I): 3-12. U.S. 
Department of Justice. Washington, DC: Office of Justice 
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention.

Storch, E.A., Nock, M.K., Masia-Warner, C., and Barlas, M.E. 
(2003). Peer Victimization and Social-Psychological 
Adjustment in Hispanic and African-American Children. 
Journal of Child & Family Studies, 12: 439-455. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 
Statistics. (2004a). Crime and Safety in America's Public 
Schools: Selected Findings From the School Survey on Crime 
and Safety (NCES 2004-370). Washington, DC: U.S. Government 
Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 
Statistics. (2004b). Digest of Education Statistics, 2003 
(NCES 2005-025). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 
Office.

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. 
(2000). Uniform Crime Report 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. 
Government Printing Office.

Wei, H., and Williams, J.H. (2004). Relationship Between 
Peer Victimization and School Adjustment in Sixth-Grade 
Students: Investigating Mediation Effects. Violence and 
Victims, 19: 557-571.


TECHNICAL NOTES

Appendix A

GENERAL INFORMATION
The indicators in this report are based on information drawn 
from a variety of independent data sources, including 
national surveys of students, teachers, and principals, and 
data collections from federal departments and agencies, 
including the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National 
Center for Education Statistics, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, and the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention. Each data source has an independent sample 
design, data collection method, and questionnaire design or 
is the result of a universe data collection. Universe data 
collections include a census of all known entities in a 
specific universe (e.g., all deaths occuring 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 
asked of different populations of students (e.g., students 
ages 12-18 or students in grades 9-12); in different years; 
about experiences that occurred within different periods of 
time (e.g., in the past 30 days or during the past 12 
months); or at different locations (e.g., in school or 
anywhere). 

The following is a description of data sources, accuracy of 
estimates, and statistical procedures used in this report. 

SOURCES OF DATA
This section briefly describes each of the data sets used in 
this report: the School-Associated Violent Deaths 
Surveillance Study, the Supplementary Homicide Reports, the 
Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System 
Fatal, the National Crime Victimization Survey, the School 
Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 
the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the Schools and Staffing 
Survey, and the School Survey on Crime and Safety. 
Directions for obtaining more information are provided at 
the end of each description. Figure A.1 presents some key 
information for each of the data sets used in the report, 
including the survey year(s), target population, response 
rate, and sample size. The wording of the interview 
questions used to construct the indicators are presented in 
figure A.2. (Figures appear at the end of appendix A.)

School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study (SAVD) 

The School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study 
(SAVD) is an epidemiological study developed by the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention in conjunction with the 
U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of 
Justice. SAVD seeks to describe the epidemiology of school-
associated violent deaths, identify common features of these 
deaths, estimate the rate of school-associated violent death 
in the United States, and identify potential risk factors 
for these deaths. The surveillance system includes 
descriptive data on all school-associated violent deaths in 
the United States, including all homicides, suicides, and 
unintentional firearm-related deaths where the fatal injury 
occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or 
secondary school, while the victim was on the way to or from 
regular sessions at such a school, or while attending or on 
the way to or from an official school-sponsored event. 
Victims of such events include nonstudents as well as 
students and staff members. SAVD includes descriptive 
information about the school, event, victim(s), and 
offender(s). The SAVD Surveillance System has collected data 
from July 1, 1992, through 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 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). If police officials are unwilling or unable to 
complete the interview, a copy of the full police report is 
obtained. The information obtained on schools includes 
school demographics, attendance/absentee rates, 
suspension/expulsions and mobility, school history of weapon 
carrying, 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 held, during 
break, etc.), motives for injury, method of injury, and 
school and community events happening around the time 
period. Information obtained on victim(s) and offender(s) 
includes demographics, circumstances of the event 
(date/time, alcohol or drug use, number of persons 
involved), types and origins of weapons, criminal history, 
psychological risk factors, school-related problems, 
extracurricular activities, and family history, including 
structure and stressors.

One hundred five school-associated violent deaths were 
identified from July 1, 1992-June 30, 1994 (see Kachur et 
al. 1996). A more recent report from this data collection 
identified 253 school-associated violent deaths between July 
1, 1994-June 30, 1999 (see 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 2001), the source of the firearms used in 
these events (Reza et al. 2003), and suicides that were 
associated with schools (Kauffman et al. 2004). The 
interviews conducted on cases between July 1, 1994 and June 
30, 1999 achieved a response rate of 97 percent for police 
officials and 78 percent for school officials. Data for 
subsequent study years are preliminary and subject to 
change. For additional information about SAVD, contact:

Mark Anderson
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) 488-4646
E-mail: mea6@cdc.gov

Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) 

The Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), which are a part 
of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, provide 
incident-level information on criminal homicides including 
situation (number of victims to number of offenders); the 
age, sex, and race of victims and offenders; types of 
weapons used; circumstances of the incident; and the 
relationship of the victim to the offender. The data are 
provided monthly to the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
(FBI) by local law enforcement agencies participating in the 
FBI's UCR program. The data include murders and non-
negligent manslaughters in the United States from January 
1976-December 2003; that is, negligent manslaughters and 
justifiable homicides have been eliminated from the data. 
Based on law enforcement agency reports, the FBI estimates 
that 561,412 murders were committed from 1976 to 2003. 
Agencies provided detailed information on 561,412 victims 
and 561,412 offenders. 

About 91 percent of homicides are included in the SHR. 
However, adjustments can be made to the weights to correct 
for missing reports. Estimates from the SHR used in this 
report were generated by the Bureau of Justice Statistics 
(BJS) using a weight developed by BJS that reconciles the 
counts of SHR homicide victims with those in the UCR for the 
1992 through 2003 data years. The weight is the same for all 
cases for a given year. The weight represents the ratio of 
the number of homicides reported in the UCR to the number 
reported in the SHR. For additional information about SHR, 
contact: 

Communications Unit
Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Module D3
1000 Custer Hollow Road
Clarksburg, WV 26306
Telephone: (304) 625-4995
E-mail: cjis_comm@leo.gov

Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System Fatal
(WISQARS(tm)Fatal)
 
WISQARS Fatal provides mortality data related to injury. The 
mortality data reported in WISQARS Fatal come from death 
certificate data reported to the National Center for Health 
Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention. Data include causes of death reported by 
attending physicians, medical examiners, and coroners. It 
also includes demographic information about decedents 
reported by funeral directors who obtain that information 
from family members and other informants. NCHS collects, 
compiles, verifies, and prepares these data for release to 
the public. The data provide information about what types of 
injuries are leading causes of deaths, how common they are, 
and who they affect. These data are intended for a broad 
audience-the public, the media, public health practitioners 
and researchers, and public health officials-to increase 
their knowledge of injury. 

WISQARS Fatal mortality reports provide tables of the total 
numbers of injury-related deaths and the death rates per 
100,000 U.S. population. The reports list deaths according 
to cause (mechanism) and intent (manner) of injury by state, 
race, Hispanic origin, sex, and age groupings. For more 
information on WISQARS Fatal, contact: 

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
Mailstop K59
4770 Buford Highway NE
Atlanta, GA 30341-3724
Telephone: (770) 488-1506
E-mail: ohcinfo@cdc.gov
Internet: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) 

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), administered 
for the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics by the U.S. Bureau 
of the Census, is the nation's primary source of information 
on crime and the victims of crime. Initiated in 1972 and 
redesigned in 1992, the NCVS collects detailed information 
annually on the frequency and nature of the crimes of rape, 
sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, 
theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft 
experienced by Americans and their households each year. The 
survey measures crimes reported to police as well. 

Readers should note that in 2003, in accordance with changes 
to the Office of Management and Budget's standards for the 
classification of federal data on race and ethnicity, the 
NCVS item on race/ethnicity was modified. A question on 
Hispanic origin is followed by a question on race. The new 
race question allows the respondent to choose more than one 
race and delineates Asian as a separate category from Native 
Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Analysis conducted by 
the Demographic Surveys Division at the U.S. Census Bureau 
shows that the new race question had very little impact on 
the aggregate racial distribution of the NCVS respondents 
with one exception. There was a 1.6 percentage point 
decrease in the percent of respondents who reported 
themselves as White. Due to changes in race/ethnicity 
categories, comparisons of race/ethnicity across years 
should be made with caution.

The NCVS sample consists of about 63,124 households selected 
using a stratified, multistage cluster design. In the first 
stage, the primary sampling units (PSUs), consisting of 
counties or groups of counties, were selected. In the second 
stage, smaller areas, called Enumeration Districts (EDs), 
were selected from each sampled PSU. Finally, from selected 
EDs, clusters of four households, called segments, were 
selected for interview. At each stage, the selection was 
done proportionate to population size in order to create a 
self-weighting sample. The final sample was augmented to 
account for housing units constructed after the decennial 
Census. Within each sampled household, U.S. Bureau of the 
Census personnel interviewed all household members ages 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 87,422 persons ages 12 and older are 
interviewed each 6 months. Households remain in the sample 
for 3 years and are interviewed seven times at 6-month 
intervals. The initial interview at each sample unit is used 
only to bound future interviews to establish a time frame to 
avoid duplication of crimes uncovered in these subsequent 
interviews. After their seventh interview, households are 
replaced by new sample households. The NCVS has consistently 
obtained a response rate of about 92 percent at the 
household level. The completion rates for persons within 
households were about 87 percent. Thus, final response rates 
were about 79 percent in 2003. Weights were developed to 
permit estimates for the total U.S. population 12 years and 
older. For more information about the NCVS, contact: 

Katrina Baum
Victimization Statistics Branch
Bureau of Justice Statistics
U.S. Department of Justice 
810 7th Street NW
Washington, DC 20531
Telephone: (202) 307-5889
E-mail: katrina.baum@usdoj.gov
Internet: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs

School Crime Supplement (SCS) 

Created as a supplement to the NCVS and codesigned by the 
National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of 
Justice Statistics, the School Crime Supplement (SCS) survey 
was conducted in 1989, 1995, 1999, 2001, and 2003 to collect 
additional information about school-related victimizations 
on a national level. This report includes data from the 
1995, 1999, 2001, and 2003 collections. The 1989 data are 
not included in this report as a result of methodological 
changes to the NCVS and SCS. The survey was designed to 
assist policymakers as well as academic researchers and 
practitioners at the federal, state, and local levels so 
that they can make informed decisions concerning crime in 
schools. The SCS asks students a number of key questions 
about their experiences with and perceptions of crime and 
violence that occurred inside their school, on school 
grounds, on a school bus, or on the way to or from school. 
Additional questions not included in the NCVS were also 
added to the SCS, such as those concerning preventive 
measures used by the school, students' participation in 
after-school activities, students' perceptions of school 
rules, the presence of weapons and street gangs in school, 
the presence of hate-related words and graffiti in school, 
student reports of bullying and reports of rejection at 
school, and the availability of drugs and alcohol in school, 
as well as attitudinal questions relating to fear of 
victimization and avoidance behavior at school. 

In all SCS survey years, the SCS was conducted for a 6-month 
period from January-June in all households selected for the 
NCVS (see discussion above for information about the NCVS 
sampling design and changes to the race/ethnicity item made 
in 2003). It should be noted that the initial NCVS interview 
is included in the SCS data collection. Within these 
households, the eligible respondents for the SCS were those 
household members who had attended school at any time during 
the 6 months preceding the interview, and were enrolled in 
grades 6-12 in a school that would help them advance toward 
eventually receiving a high school diploma. The age range of 
students covered in this report is 12-18 years of age. 
Eligible respondents were asked the supplemental questions 
in the SCS only after completing their entire NCVS 
interview. 

In 2001, the SCS survey instrument was modified from 
previous collections in three ways. First, in 1995 and 1999, 
"at school" was defined for respondents as in the school 
building, on the school grounds, or on a school bus. In 
2001, the definition for "at school" was changed to mean in 
the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or 
going to and from school. This change was made to the 2001 
questionnaire in order to be consistent with the definition 
of "at school" as it is constructed in the NCVS and was also 
used as the definition in 2003. Cognitive interviews 
conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census on the 1999 
School Crime Supplement suggested that modifications to the 
definition of "at school" would not have a substantial 
impact on the estimates. 

The prevalence of victimization for 1995, 1999, 2001, and 
2003 was calculated by using NCVS incident variables 
appended to the 1995, 1999, 2001, and 2003 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.

Second, the SCS questions pertaining to fear and avoidance 
changed between 1999 and 2001. In 1995 and 1999, students 
were asked if they avoided places or were fearful because 
they thought someone would "attack or harm" them. In 2001 
and 2003, students were asked if they avoided places or were 
fearful because they thought someone would "attack or 
threaten to attack them." These changes should be considered 
when making comparisons between the 1995 and 1999 data and 
the 2001 and 2003 data. 

Third, the SCS question pertaining to gangs changed in the 
2001 SCS. The introduction and definition of gangs as well 
as the placement of the item in the questionnaire changed in 
the 2001 SCS. Because of these changes, the reader should be 
cautioned not to compare results based on the 2001 and 2003 
SCS presented in this report with those estimates of gangs 
presented in previous reports.

Total victimization is a combination of violent 
victimization and theft. If the student reported an incident 
of either violent or theft victimization or both, he or she 
is counted as having experienced "total" victimization. 
Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, 
robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes include 
serious violent crimes and simple assault. 

A total of 9,728 students participated in the 1995 SCS, 
8,398 in 1999, 8,374 in 2001, and 7,152 in 2003. In the 2003 
SCS, the household completion rate was 92 percent. In the 
1995, 1999, and 2001 SCS, the household completion rates 
were 95 percent, 94 percent, and 93 percent, respectively; 
and the student completion rates were 78 percent, 78 
percent, and 77 percent, respectively. For the 2003 SCS, the 
student completion rate was 70 percent.

Thus, the overall unweighted SCS response rate (calculated 
by multiplying the household completion rate by the student 
completion rate) was 74 percent in 1995, 73 percent in 1999, 
72 percent in 2001, and 64 percent in 2003. 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, and 2003. For SCS data, a full nonresponse 
bias analysis has not been conducted. For more information 
about SCS, contact: 

Kathryn A. Chandler
National Center for Education Statistics
1990 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 502-7486
E-mail: kathryn.chandler@ed.gov
Internet: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crime

Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 
The National School-Based Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 
is one component of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance 
System (YRBSS), an epidemiological surveillance system 
developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
(CDC) to monitor the prevalence of youth behaviors that most 
influence health.1 The YRBS focuses on priority health-risk 
behaviors established during youth that result in the most 
significant mortality, morbidity, disability, and social 
problems during both youth and adulthood. This report uses 
1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 YRBS data. 

1For more information on the YRBSS methodology, see Brener 
et al. (2004).

The YRBS uses a three-stage cluster sampling design to 
produce a nationally representative sample of students in 
grades 9-12 in the United States. The target population 
consisted of all public and private school students in 
grades 9-12 in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 
The first-stage sampling frame included selecting primary 
sampling units (PSUs) from strata formed on the basis of 
urbanization and the relative percentage of Black and 
Hispanic students in the PSU. These PSUs are either large 
counties or groups of smaller, adjacent counties. At the 
second stage, schools were selected with probability 
proportional to school enrollment size. 

Schools with substantial numbers of Black and Hispanic 
students were sampled at relatively higher rates than all 
other schools. The final stage of sampling consisted of 
randomly selecting within each chosen school at each grade 
9-12 one or two intact classes of a required subject, such 
as English or social studies. All students in selected 
classes were eligible to participate. Approximately 16,300, 
10,900, 16,300, 15,300, 13,600, and 15,200 students 
participated in the 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 
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, and 67 percent for the 2003 survey. NCES 
standards call for response rates of 85 percent or better 
for cross-sectional surveys and bias analyses are called for 
by NCES when that percentage is not achieved. For YRBS data, 
a full nonresponse bias analysis has not been done because 
the data necessary to do the analysis are not available. The 
weights were developed to adjust for nonresponse and the 
oversampling of Black and Hispanic students in the sample. 
The final weights were constructed so that only weighted 
proportions of students (not weighted counts of students) in 
each grade matched national population projections. Where 
YRBS data are presented, accurate national population 
projections are provided from the Digest of Education 
Statistics. 

State level data were downloaded from 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 60 percent are 
weighted. The overall response rate reflects the school 
response rate multiplied by the student response rate. These 
three criteria are used to ensure that the data from those 
surveys can be considered representative of students in 
grades 9-12 in that jurisdiction. A weight is applied to 
each record to adjust for student nonresponse and the 
distribution of students by grade, sex, and race/ethnicity 
in each jurisdiction. Therefore, weighted estimates are 
representative of all students in grades 9-12 attending 
schools in each jurisdiction. Surveys that do not have an 
overall response rate of greater than or equal to 60 percent 
and do not have appropriate documentation are not weighted 
and are not included in this report. 

In 2003, a total of 32 states and 20 districts had weighted 
data. In sites with weighted data, the student sample sizes 
for the state and local YRBS ranged from 968 to 9,320. 
School response rates ranged from 67 to 100 percent, student 
response rates ranged from 60 to 94 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? 
1. White - not Hispanic
2. Black - not Hispanic
3. Hispanic or Latino
4. Asian or Pacific Islander 
5. American Indian or Alaskan Native 
6. Other

The version used in 1999, 2001, and 2003 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

This new version of the question used in 1999, 2001, and 
2003 results in the possibility of respondents marking more 
than one category. While more accurately reflecting 
respondents' racial and ethnic identity, the new item cannot 
be directly compared to responses to the old item. A recent 
study by Brener, Kann, and McManus (2003) found that 
allowing students to select more than one response to the 
race/ethnicity question on the YRBS had only a minimal 
effect on reported race/ethnicity among high school 
students. 

For additional information about the YRBS, contact:

Laura Kann 
Division of Adolescent and School Health 
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health 
Promotion 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
Mailstop K-33 
4770 Buford Highway NE 
Atlanta, GA 30341-3717 
Telephone: (770) 488-6181 
E-mail: lkk1@cdc.gov 
Internet: http://www.cdc.gov/yrbs 

Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)

This report draws upon data on teacher victimization from 
the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), which provides 
national- and state-level data on public schools and 
national- and affiliation-level data on private schools. The 
1993-94 and 1999-2000 SASS were collected by the U.S. Bureau 
of the Census and sponsored by the National Center for 
Education Statistics (NCES). SASS consists of four sets of 
linked surveys, including surveys of schools, the principals 
of each selected school, a subsample of teachers within each 
school, and public school districts.

The sampling frames for the 1993-94 and 1999-2000 SASS were 
created using the 1991-92 and 1997-98 NCES Common Core of 
Data (CCD) Public School Universe File, respectively. Data 
were collected by multistage sampling, which began with the 
selection of schools. This report uses 1993-94 and 1999-2000 
SASS data. Approximately 9,900 public schools and 3,300 
private schools were selected to participate in the 1993-94 
SASS and 9,900 public schools and 3,600 private schools were 
selected to participate in the 1999-2000 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 53,000 public school 
teachers and 10,400 private school teachers were sampled. In 
1999-2000, 56,400 public school teachers and 10,800 private 
school teachers were sampled. 

This report focuses on responses from teachers. The overall 
weighted response rates were 83 percent and 77 percent for 
public school teachers in 1993-94 and 1999-2000, 
respectively. For private school teachers, the overall 
weighted response rates were 73 percent and 67 percent in 
1993-94 and 1999-2000, respectively. Values were imputed for 
questionnaire items that should have been answered but were 
not. For additional information about SASS, contact: 

Kerry Gruber
National Center for Education Statistics
1990 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 502-7349
E-mail: kerry.gruber@ed.gov
Internet: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass

School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS)

The School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) was conducted 
by NCES in Spring/Summer of the 1999-2000 school year. SSOCS 
focuses on incidents of specific crimes/offenses and a 
variety of specific discipline issues in public schools. It 
also covers characteristics of school policies, school 
violence prevention programs and policies, and school 
characteristics that have been associated with school crime. 
The survey was conducted with a nationally representative 
sample of regular public elementary, middle, and high 
schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 
Special education, alternative and vocational schools, 
schools in the territories, and schools that taught only 
prekindergarten, kindergarten, or adult education were not 
included in the sample. 

The sampling frame for the SSOCS:2000 was constructed from 
the public school universe file created for the 2000 Schools 
and Staffing Survey from the 1997-98 NCES Common Core of 
Data (CCD) Public School Universe File. The sample was 
stratified by instructional level, type of locale, and 
enrollment size. Within the primary strata, schools were 
also sorted by geographic region and by percentage of 
minority enrollment. The sample sizes were then allocated to 
the primary strata in rough proportion to the aggregate 
square root of the size of enrollment of schools in the 
stratum. A total of 3,300 schools were selected for the 
study. Among those, 2,270 schools completed the survey. In 
March 2000, 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. The weighted overall response rate was 
70 percent, and item nonresponse rates ranged from 0-2.7 
percent on the public-use data file. For SSOCS data, a full 
nonresponse bias analysis was conducted and no bias on the 
basis of nonresponse was detected. The 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 
1999-2000 school year. For more information about the School 
Survey on Crime and Safety, contact: 

Kathryn A. Chandler
National Center for Education Statistics
1990 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 502-7486
E-mail: kathryn.chandler@ed.gov
Internet: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs

ACCURACY OF ESTIMATES 

The accuracy of any statistic is determined by the joint 
effects of nonsampling and sampling errors. Both types of 
error affect the estimates presented in this report. Several 
sources can contribute to nonsampling errors. For example, 
members of the population of interest are inadvertently 
excluded from the sampling frame; sampled members refuse to 
answer some of the survey questions (item nonresponse) or 
all of the survey questions (questionnaire nonresponse); 
mistakes are made during data editing, coding, or entry; the 
responses that respondents provide differ from the "true" 
responses; or measurement instruments such as tests or 
questionnaires fail to measure the characteristics they are 
intended to measure. Although nonsampling errors due to 
questionnaire and item nonresponse can be reduced somewhat 
by the adjustment of sample weights and imputation 
procedures, correcting nonsampling errors or gauging the 
effects of these errors is usually difficult. 

Sampling errors occur because observations are made on 
samples rather than on entire populations. Surveys of 
population universes are not subject to sampling errors. 
Estimates based on a sample will differ somewhat from those 
that would have been obtained by a complete census of the 
relevant population using the same survey instruments, 
instructions, and procedures. The standard error of a 
statistic is a measure of the variation due to sampling; it 
indicates the precision of the statistic obtained in a 
particular sample. In addition, the standard errors for two 
sample statistics can be used to estimate the precision of 
the difference between the two statistics and to help 
determine whether the difference based on the sample is 
large enough so that it represents the population 
difference.

Most of the data used in this report were obtained from 
complex sampling designs rather than a simple random design. 
The features of complex sampling require different 
techniques to calculate standard errors than are used for 
data collected using a simple random sampling. Therefore, 
calculation of standard errors requires procedures that are 
markedly different from the ones used when the data are from 
a simple random sample. The Taylor series approximation 
technique or the balanced repeated replication (BRR) method 
was used to estimate most of the statistics and their 
standard errors in this report. Figure A.3 lists the various 
methods used to compute standard errors for different data 
sets.

Standard error calculation for data from the National Crime 
Victimization Survey and the School Crime Supplement was 
based on the Taylor series approximation method using PSU 
and strata variables available from each data set.
For statistics based on all years of NCVS data, standard 
errors were derived from a formula developed by the U.S. 
Bureau of the Census, which consists of three generalized 
variance function (gvf) constant parameters that represent 
the curve fitted to the individual standard errors 
calculated using the Jackknife Repeated Replication 
technique. The formulas used to compute the adjusted 
standard errors associated with percentages or population 
counts can be found in figure A.3.

STATISTICAL PROCEDURES 

The comparisons in the text have been tested for statistical 
significance to ensure that the differences are larger than 
might be expected due to sampling variation. Unless 
otherwise noted, all statements cited in the report are 
statistically significant at the .05 level. Several test 
procedures were used, depending upon the type of data being 
analyzed and the nature of the statement being tested. The 
primary test procedure used in this report was the Student's 
t statistic, which tests the difference between two sample 
estimates, for example, between males and females. The 
formula used to compute the t statistic is as follows:

(1)

t = (E1-E2)/SQUARE ROOT(se1^2+se2^2)

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and 
se2 are their corresponding standard errors. Note that this 
formula is valid only for independent estimates. When the 
estimates are not independent (for example, when comparing a 
total percentage with that for a subgroup included in the 
total), a covariance term (i.e., 2*se1*se2) must be added to 
the denominator of the formula: 

(2)

t = (E1-E2)/SQUARE ROOT((se1^2+se2^2)+(2*se1*se2))

Once the t value was computed, it was compared with the 
published tables of values at certain critical levels, 
called alpha levels. For this report, an alpha value of .05 
was used, which has a t value of 1.96. If the t value was 
larger than 1.96, then the difference between the two 
estimates is statistically significant at the 95 percent 
level. 

A linear trend test was used when differences among 
percentages were examined relative to ordered categories of 
a variable, rather than the differences between two discrete 
categories. This test allows one to examine whether, for 
example, the percentage of students using drugs increased 
(or decreased) over time or whether the percentage of 
students who reported being physically attacked in school 
increased (or decreased) with their age. Based on a 
regression with, for example, student's age as the 
independent variable and whether a student was physically 
attacked as the dependent variable, the test involves 
computing the regression coefficient (b) and its 
corresponding standard error (se). The ratio of these two 
(b/se) is the test statistic t. If t is greater than 1.96, 
the critical value for one comparison at the .05 alpha 
level, the hypothesis that there is a linear relationship 
between student's age and being physically attacked is not 
rejected. 

When using data sets in which multiple years of data are 
available, a Bonferroni adjustment to the significance level 
was used when one year's estimate was compared to another. 
The Bonferroni adjustment to the significance level was used 
to ensure that the significance level for the tests as a 
series was at the .05 level. Generally, when multiple 
statistical comparisons are made, it becomes increasingly 
likely that an indication of a population difference is 
erroneous. Even when there is no difference in the 
population, at an alpha of .05, there is still a 5 percent 
chance of concluding that an observed t value representing 
one comparison in the sample is large enough to be 
statistically significant. As the number of years and thus 
the number of comparisons increase, so does the risk of 
making such an erroneous inference. The Bonferroni procedure 
corrects the significance (or alpha) level for the total 
number of comparisons made within a particular 
classification variable. For each classification variable, 
there are (K*(K-1)/2) possible comparisons (or nonredundant 
pairwise combinations), where K is the number of categories. 
The Bonferroni procedure divides the alpha level for a 
single t test by the number of possible pairwise comparisons 
in order to produce a new alpha level that is corrected for 
the fact that multiple contrasts are being made. As a 
result, the t value for a certain alpha level (e.g., .05) 
increases, which makes it more difficult to claim that the 
difference observed is statistically significant. 

While many descriptive comparisons in this report were 
tested using t statistic or the F statistic, some 
comparisons among categories of an ordered variable with 
three or more levels involved a test for a linear trend 
across all categories, rather than a series of tests between 
pairs of categories. In this report, when differences among 
percentages were examined relative to a variable with 
ordered categories, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to 
test for a linear relationship between the two variables. To 
do this, ANOVA models included orthogonal linear contrasts 
corresponding to successive levels of the independent 
variable. The squares of the Taylorized standard errors 
(that is, standard errors that were calculated by the Taylor 
series method), the variance between the means, and the 
unweighted sample sizes were used to partition 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. 


Figure A.1. Descriptions of data sources and samples used in 
the report

Figure A.2. Wording of survey questions used to construct 
indicators

Figure A.3. Methods used to calculate standard errors of 
statistics for different surveys


GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Appendix B

GENERAL TERMS

Cluster sampling Cluster sampling is a technique in which 
the sampling of respondents or subjects occurs within 
clusters or groups. For example, selecting students by 
sampling schools and the students that attend that school. 

Crime Any violation of a statute or regulation or any act 
that the government has determined is injurious to the 
public, including felonies and misdemeanors. Such violation 
may or may not involve violence, and it may affect 
individuals or property. 

Incident A specific criminal act or offense involving one or 
more victims and one or more offenders. 

Multistage sampling A survey sampling technique in which 
there is more than one wave of sampling. That is, one sample 
of units is drawn, and then another sample is drawn within 
that sample. For example, at the first stage, a number of 
Census blocks may be sampled out of all the Census blocks in 
the United States. At the second stage, households are 
sampled within the previously sampled Census blocks. 

Prevalence The percentage of the population directly 
affected by crime in a given period. This rate is based upon 
specific information elicited directly from the respondent 
regarding crimes committed against his or her person, 
against his or her property, or against an individual 
bearing a unique relationship to him or her. It is not based 
upon perceptions and beliefs about, or reactions to, 
criminal acts. 

School An education institution consisting of one or more of 
grades K through 12. 

School crime Any criminal activity that is committed on 
school property. 

School year The 12-month period of time denoting the 
beginning and ending dates for school accounting purposes, 
usually from July 1 through June 30. 

Stratification A survey sampling technique in which the 
target population is divided into mutually exclusive groups 
or strata based on some variable or variables (e.g., 
metropolitan area) and sampling of units occurs separately 
within each stratum. 

Unequal probabilities A survey sampling technique in which 
sampled units do not have the same probability of selection 
into the sample. For example, the investigator may over-
sample minority students in order to increase the sample 
sizes of minority students. Minority students would then be 
more likely than other students to be sampled. 

SPECIFIC TERMS USED IN VARIOUS SURVEYS 

School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study 

Homicide An act involving a killing of one person by another 
resulting from interpersonal violence.

School-associated violent death A homicide or suicide in 
which the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a 
functioning elementary or secondary school in the United 
States, while the victim was on the way to or from regular 
sessions at such a school, or while the victim was attending 
or traveling to or from an official school-sponsored event. 
Victims included nonstudents as well as students and staff 
members. 

Suicide An act of taking one's own life voluntarily and 
intentionally.

National Crime Victimization Survey 

Aggravated assault Attack or attempted attack with a weapon, 
regardless of whether or not an injury occurs, and attack 
without a weapon when serious injury results.

At school (students) Inside the school building, on school 
property (school parking area, play area, school bus, etc.), 
or on the way to or from school. 

At school (teachers) Inside the school building, on school 
property (school parking area, play area, school bus, etc.), 
at worksite, or while working. For thefts, "while working" 
was not considered, since thefts of teachers' property kept 
at school can occur when teachers are not present. 

Rape Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological 
coercion, as well as physical force. Forced sexual 
intercourse means vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by the 
offender(s). Includes attempts and verbal threats of rape. 
This category also includes incidents where the penetration 
is from a foreign object such as a bottle. 

Robbery Completed or attempted theft, directly from a 
person, of property or cash by force or threat of force, 
with or without a weapon, and with or without injury. 

Rural A place not located inside the Metropolitan 
Statistical Area (MSA). This category includes a variety of 
localities, ranging from sparsely populated rural areas to 
cities with populations of less than 50,000. 

Serious violent crime Rape, sexual assault, robbery, or 
aggravated assault. 

Sexual assault A wide range of victimizations, separate from 
rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or 
attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual 
contact between the victim and offender. Sexual assault may 
or may not involve force and includes such things as 
grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also includes verbal 
threats. 

Simple assault Attack without a weapon resulting either in 
no injury, minor injury, or an undetermined injury requiring 
less than 2 days of hospitalization. Also includes attempted 
assault without a weapon. 

Suburban A county or counties containing a central city, 
plus any contiguous counties that are linked socially and 
economically to the central city. On the data tables, 
suburban areas are categorized as those portions of 
metropolitan areas situated "outside central cities." 

Theft Completed or attempted theft of property or cash 
without personal contact. 

Urban The largest city (or grouping of cities) in an MSA. 

Victimization A crime as it affects one individual person or 
household. For personal crimes, the number of victimizations 
is equal to the number of victims involved. The number of 
victimizations may be greater than the number of incidents 
because more than one person may be victimized during an 
incident. 

Victimization rate A measure of the occurrence of 
victimizations among a specific population group. 

Violent crime Rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated 
assault, or simple assault. 

School Crime Supplement 

At school In the school building, on school property, on a 
school bus, or going to or from school.

Serious violent crime Rape, sexual assault, robbery, or 
aggravated assault. 

Total victimization Combination of violent victimization and 
theft. If a student reported an incident of either type, he 
or she is counted as having experienced any victimization. 
If the student reported having experienced both, he or she 
is counted once under "total victimization."

Violent crime Rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated 
assault, or simple assault. 

Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

Illegal drugs Examples of illegal drugs were marijuana, 
cocaine, inhalants, steroids, or prescription drugs without 
a doctor's permission, heroin, and methamphetamines.


On school property On school property is included in the 
question wording, but was not defined for respondents. 

Rural school is located outside a Metropolitan Statistical 
Area (MSA).

Suburban school is located inside a MSA, but outside the 
"central city."

Urban school is located inside a MSA and inside the "central 
city."

Weapon Examples of weapons appearing in the questionnaire 
include guns, knives, and clubs. 

Schools and Staffing Survey 

Central city A large central city (a central city of a 
Metropolitan Statistical Area [MSA] with population greater 
than or equal to 400,000, or a population density greater 
than or equal to 6,000 per square mile) or a mid-size 
central city (a central city of an MSA, but not designated 
as a large central city).

Elementary school A school in which the lowest grade is less 
than or equal to grade 6 and the highest grade is less than 
or equal to grade 8.

Elementary school teachers An elementary school teacher is 
one who, when asked for the grades taught, checked: (1) only 
"ungraded" and was designated as an elementary teacher on 
the list of teachers provided by the school; (2) 6th grade 
or lower, or "un graded," 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 school that has grade 6 or lower, or 
one that is "ungraded" with no grade higher than the 8th.
Rural or small town Rural area (a place with a population of 
less than 2,500 and defined as rural by the U.S. Bureau of 
the Census) or a small town (a place not within an 
Metropolitan Statistical Area, with a population of less 
than 25,000, but greater than or equal to 2,500, and defined 
as nonurban by the U.S. Bureau of the Census).

Secondary school A school in which the lowest grade is 
greater than or equal to grade 7 and the highest grade is 
less than or equal to grade 12.

Secondary school teachers A secondary school teacher is one 
who, when asked for the grades taught, checked: (1) 
"ungraded" and was designated as a secondary teacher on the 
list of teachers provided by the school; (2) 6th grade or 
lower and 7th grade or higher, and reported a primary 
assignment other than prekindergarten, kindergarten, or 
general elementary; (3) 9th grade or higher, or 9th grade or 
higher and "ungraded"; (4) 7th and 8th grades only, and 
reported a primary assignment other than prekindergarten, 
kindergarten, general elementary, or special education; (5) 
7th and 8th grades only, and reported a primary assignment 
of special education and was designated as a secondary 
teacher on the list of teachers provided by the school; or 
(6) 6th grade or lower and 7th grade or higher, or 7th and 
8th grades only, and was not categorized above as either 
elementary or secondary.

Urban fringe or large town Urban fringe of a large or mid-
size city (a place within an Metropolitan Statistical Area 
(MSA) of a mid-size central city and defined as urban by the 
U.S. Bureau of the Census) or a large town (a place not 
within an MSA, but with a population greater or equal to 
25,000 and defined as urban by the U.S. Bureau of the 
Census).

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 requested to 
report on activities that occurred during normal school 
hours or when school activities/events were in session. 

Combined schools Schools that include all combinations of 
grades, including K-12 schools, other than primary, middle, 
and secondary 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. 

Insubordination A deliberate and inexcusable defiance of or 
refusal to obey a school rule, authority, or a reasonable 
order. It includes but is not limited to direct defiance of 
school authority, failure to attend assigned detention or 
on-campus supervision, failure to respond to a call slip, 
and physical or verbal intimidation/abuse. 

Intimidation To frighten, compel, or deter by actual or 
implied threats. It includes bullying and sexual harassment. 

Middle school A school in which the lowest grade is not 
lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than 
grade 9.

Physical attack or fight An actual and intentional touching 
or striking of another person against his or her will, or 
the intentional causing of bodily harm to an individual.

Primary school A school in which the lowest grade is not 
higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than 
grade 8.

Rape Forced sexual intercourse (vaginal, anal, or oral 
penetration). Includes penetration from a foreign object.

Robbery The taking or attempting to take anything of value 
that is owned by another person or organization, under 
confrontational circumstances by force or threat of force or 
violence and/or by putting the victim in fear. A key 
difference between robbery and theft/larceny is that a 
threat or battery is involved in robbery. 

Secondary school A school in which the lowest grade is not 
lower than grade 9 and the highest grade is not higher than 
grade 12. 

Serious violent incidents Include rape, sexual battery other 
than rape, physical attacks or fights with a weapon, threats 
of physical attack with a weapon, and robbery with or 
without a weapon.

Sexual battery An incident that includes threatened rape, 
fondling, indecent liberties, child molestation, or sodomy. 
Principals were instructed that classification of these 
incidents should take into consideration the age and 
developmentally appropriate behavior of the offenders. 

Sexual harassment Unsolicited, offensive behavior that 
inappropriately asserts sexuality over another person. The 
behavior may be verbal or nonverbal. 

Specialized school A school that is specifically for 
students who were referred for disciplinary reasons. The 
school may also have students who were referred for other 
reasons. The school may be at the same location as the 
respondent's school. 

Theft/larceny Taking things over $10 without personal 
confrontation. Specifically, the unlawful taking of another 
person's property without personal confrontation, threat, 
violence, or bodily harm. Included are pocket picking, 
stealing purse or backpack (if left unattended or no force 
was used to take it from owner), theft from a building, 
theft from a motor vehicle or motor vehicle parts or 
accessories, theft of bicycles, theft from vending machines, 
and all other types of thefts. 

Urbanicity As collected by the Common Core of Data and 
appended to the SSOCS data file, city includes large cities 
and mid-size cities, urban fringe includes urban fringe of 
large and mid-sized cities, town includes large and small 
towns, and rural includes rural outside a MSA and inside a 
MSA.

Vandalism The willful damage or destruction of school 
property including bombing, arson, graffiti, and other acts 
that cause property damage. Includes damage caused by 
computer hacking. 

Violent incidents Include rape, sexual battery other than 
rape, physical attacks or fights with or without a weapon, 
threats of physical attack with or without a weapon, and 
robbery with or without a weapon. 

Weapon Any instrument or object used with the intent to 
threaten, injure, or kill. Includes look-alikes if they are 
used to threaten others.