Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2007 

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2007 

December 2007, NCJ 219553 

--------------------------------------------------------
This file is text only without graphics and many of the 
tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in 
spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including
tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/iscs07.htm

This report is one in a series. More recent editions may
be available. To view a list of all in the series go to
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#indicators
-------------------------------------------------------

NCES 2008-021 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Rachel Dinkes 
Education Statistics Services Institute- American 
Institutes for Research 

Emily Forrest Cataldi 
MPR Associates, Inc. 

Wendy Lin-Kelly 
Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Thomas D. Snyder 
Project Officer 
National Center for Education Statistics 


Department of Education Margaret Spellings Secretary
Department of Justice Michael B. Mukasey
Attorney General 

Institute of Education Sciences Grover J. Whitehurst 
Director

Office of Justice Programs Cybele K. Daley Acting Assistant 
Attorney General 

National Center for Education Statistics Mark Schneider 
Commissioner

Bureau of Justice Statistics Jeffrey L. Sedgwick Director 

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

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

December 2007 

Suggested Citation 
Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E.F., and Lin-Kelly, W. (2007). 
Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2007 (NCES 2008-
021/NCJ 219553). National Center for Education 
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 
Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department 
of Justice. Washington, DC. 

This publication can be downloaded from the World Wide 
Web at http://nces.ed.gov or 
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs. Single hard copies can be 
ordered through ED Pubs at 1-877-4ED-PUBS (NCES 2008-021) 
(TTY/TDD 1-877-576-7734), and the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics Clearinghouse at 1-800-851-3420 (NCJ 219553). 

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

Contact at BJS 
Michael Rand
202-616-3494 micheal.rand@usdoj.gov 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Our nation's schools should be safe havens for teaching 
and learning, free of crime and violence. Any instance of 
crime or violence at school not only affects the 
individuals involved but also may disrupt the educational 
process and affect bystanders, the school itself, and the 
surrounding community (Henry 2000). 

Ensuring safer schools requires establishing good 
indicators of the current state of school crime and 
safety across the nation and regularly updating and 
monitoring these indicators. This is the aim of 
Indicators of School Crime and Safety. 

This report is the tenth in a series of annual 
publications produced jointly by the National Center for 
Education Statistics (NCES), Institute of Education 
Sciences (IES), in the U.S. Department of Education, and 
the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in the 

U.S. Department of Justice. This report presents the most 
recent data available on school crime and student safety. 
The indicators in this report are based on information 
drawn from a variety of data sources, including national 
surveys of students, teachers, and principals. Such 
sources include results from a study of violent deaths in 
schools, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education 
and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the 
National Crime Victimization Survey and School Crime 
Supplement to the survey, sponsored by the BJS and NCES, 
respectively; the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, sponsored 
by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and 
the Schools and Staffing Survey and School Survey on 
Crime and Safety, both sponsored by NCES. The most recent 
data collection for each indicator varied by survey, from 
2003-04 to 2005-06. Each data source has an independent 
sample design, data collection method, and questionnaire 
design or is the result of a universe data collection. 
All comparisons described in this report are 
statistically significant at the .05 level. In 2005, the 
final response rate for students age 12 to 18 for the 
School Crime Supplement (56 percent),1 fell below the 
NCES statistical standards; therefore, interpret the 2005 
data from Indicators 3, 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 21 with 
caution. Additional information about methodology and the 
datasets analyzed in this report may be found in appendix 
A. 

This report covers topics such as victimization, fights, 
bullying, classroom disorder, weapons, student 
perceptions of school safety, teacher injury, and 
availability and student use of drugs and alcohol. 
Indicators of crime and safety are compared across 
different population subgroups and over time. Data on 
crimes that occur outside of school grounds are offered 
as a point of comparison where available. 

1 Analysis of unit nonresponse found evidence that for 
some demographic groups, there may be a response bias in 
that the nonrespondents have different characteristics 
than those who responded. Weighting adjustments, which 
corrected for differential response rates, should have 
reduced the problem. Therefore, while the results are 
valid, in interpreting the data from Indicators 3, 8, 10, 
11, 17, 18, and 21, a reader should understand that these 
estimates may have larger and unmeasured sources of 
survey error than other estimates. 


KEY FINDINGS 
In the 2005-06 school year, an estimated 54.8 million 
students were enrolled in prekindergarten through grade 
12 (U.S. Department of Education 2007). Preliminary data 
show that among youth ages 5-18, there were 17 school-
associated violent deaths2 from July 1, 2005, through 
June 30, 2006 (14 homicides and 3 suicides) (Indicator 
1). In 2005, among students ages 12-18, there were about 
1.5 million victims of nonfatal crimes at school,3 
including 868,100 thefts4 and 628,200 violent crimes5 
(simple assault and serious violent crime6) (Indicator 
2). There is some evidence that student safety has 
improved. The victimization rate of students ages 12-18 
at school declined between 1992 and 2005 (Indicator 2). 
However, violence, theft, drugs, and weapons continue to 
pose problems in schools. During the 2005-06 school year, 
86 percent of public schools reported that at least one 
violent crime, theft, or other crime occurred at their 
school (Indicator 6). In 2005, 8 percent of students in 
grades 9-12 reported being threatened or injured with a 
weapon in the previous 12 months, and 25 percent reported 
that drugs were made available to them on school property 
(Indicators 4 and 9). In the same year, 28 percent of 
students ages 12-18 reported having been bullied at 
school during the previous 6 months (Indicator 11). The 
following section presents key findings from each section 
of the report. 

Violent Deaths 
 	From July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, there 
were 14 homicides and 3 suicides of school-age youth 
(ages 5-18) at school (Indicator 1), or about 1 homicide 
or suicide of a school-age youth at school per 3.2 
million students enrolled during the 2005-06 school year. 

Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization 
 	In 2005, students ages 12-18 were victims of about 
1.5 million nonfatal crimes at school, including thefts4 
and violent crimes5 (Indicator 2). 

 	Students ages 12-18 were generally more likely to 
be victims of theft4 at school than away from school 
(Indicator 2). In 2005, 33 thefts4 per 1,000 students 
occurred at school and 23 thefts4 per 1,000 students 
occurred away from school. 

 	In 2005, 4 percent of students ages 12-18 reported 
being victimized at school during the previous 6 months: 
3 percent reported theft,4 and 1 percent reported violent 
victimization5 (Indicator 3). Less than half of a percent 
of students reported serious violent victimization.6 

2 School-associated violent death is defined as "a 
homicide, suicide, legal intervention (involving a law 
enforcement officer), or unintentional firearm-related 
death in which the fatal injury occurred on the campus of 
a functioning elementary or secondary school in the 
United States." Victims of school-associated violent 
deaths included students, staff members, and others who 
are not students.
3 See appendix B for a detailed definition of "at 
school." 
4 Theft includes purse snatching, pick pocketing, and all 
attempted and completed thefts except motor vehicle 
thefts. Theft does not include robbery in which threat or 
use of force is involved.
5 Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and 
simple assault.
6 Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, 
robbery, and aggravated assault.

 	Between 2003 and 2005, the percentage of students 
ages 12-18 reporting victimization declined (from 5 to 4 
percent), as did the percentage reporting theft4 (from 4 
to 3 percent); there were no measurable changes in the 
percentages reporting violent5 and serious violent crime6 
during the same period (Indicator 3). 

 	In 2005, 10 percent of male students in grades 9-12 
reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on 
school property in the past year, compared to 6 percent 
of female students (Indicator 4). 

 	Hispanic students were more likely than White 
students to report being threatened or injured with a 
weapon on school property in 2005 (10 vs. 7 percent) 
(Indicator 4). However, no measurable differences were 
found in the percentages of Black and White students, or 
Black and Hispanic students who reported being threatened 
or injured in this way. 

 	In the 2003-04 school year, a greater percentage of 
teachers in city schools reported being threatened with 
injury or physically attacked in 2003-04 than teachers in 
suburban, town, or rural schools (Indicator 5). For 
example, in 2003-04, 10 percent of teachers in city 
schools were threatened with injury by students, compared 
to 6 percent of teachers in suburban schools, 5 percent 
of teachers in town schools, and 5 percent of teachers in 
rural schools. 

 	A greater percentage of secondary school teachers 
(8 percent) reported being threatened with injury by a 
student than elementary school teachers (6 percent) 
(Indicator 5). However, a greater percentage of 
elementary school teachers (4 percent) reported having 
been physically attacked than secondary school teachers 
(2 percent). 

 	A greater percentage of public than private school 
teachers reported being threatened with injury (7 vs. 2 
percent) or physically attacked (4 vs. 2 percent) by 
students in school (Indicator 5). Among teachers in city 
schools, those in public schools were at least five times 
more likely to be threatened with injury than their 
colleagues in private schools (12 vs. 2 percent) and at 
least four times more likely to be physically attacked (5 
vs. 1 percent). 

School Environment 
 	In 2005-06, 86 percent of public schools reported 
one or more serious violent incidents,7 violent 
incidents,8 thefts of items valued at $10 or greater, or 
other crimes had occurred at their school, amounting to 
an estimated 2.2 million crimes (Indicator 6). This 
figure translates into a rate of 46 crimes per 1,000 
students enrolled in 2005-06. 

 	The percentage of public schools experiencing 
incidents of crime was lower in 2005- 06 than in 2003-04 
(Indicator 6). However, the percentage of schools 
experiencing crimes in 2005-06 was not measurably 
different from the percentage of schools experiencing 
crimes in 1999-2000. 

7 Serious violent incidents include rape or attempted 
rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or 
fight with a weapon, threat of physical attack with a 
weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. Serious 
violent incidents are a subset of violent incidents. 
8 Violent incidents include serious violent incidents 
plus physical attacks or fights without a weapon and 
threats of physical attacks without a weapon. Serious 
violent incidents are a subset of violent incidents. 

 	In 2005-06, 24 percent of public schools reported 
that student bullying was a daily or weekly problem 
(Indicator 7). With regard to other discipline problems 
occurring at least once a week, 18 percent of public 
school principals reported student acts of disrespect for 
teachers, 9 percent reported student verbal abuse of 
teachers, 3 percent reported daily or weekly occurrences 
of racial/ethnic tensions among students, and 2 percent 
reported widespread disorder in classrooms. With regard 
to other discipline problems occurring at least once per 
school year, 17 percent of principals reported 
undesirable gang activities and 4 percent reported 
undesirable cult or extremist activities during 2005-06. 

 	In 2005-06, a higher percentage of middle schools 
than primary schools reported various types of discipline 
problems (Indicator 7). Also, a higher percentage of 
middle schools than high schools reported daily or weekly 
occurrences of student bullying and student sexual 
harassment of other students. 

 	In 2005, 24 percent of students ages 12-18 reported 
that there were gangs at their schools (Indicator 8). 
Students in urban schools (36 percent) were more likely 
to report the presence of gangs at their school than 
suburban students (21 percent) and rural students (16 
percent). 

 	The percentage of students reporting the presence 
of gangs increased from 21 to 24 percent between 2003 and 
2005 (Indicator 8). The percentage of students at urban 
schools reporting the presence of gangs at school 
increased from 31 to 36 percent during this period. 

 	In 2005, one-quarter of all students in grades 9-12 
reported that someone had offered, sold, or given them an 
illegal drug on school property in the past 12 months 
(Indicator 9). 

 	Eleven percent of students ages 12-18 reported that 
someone at school had used hate-related words against 
them, and more than one-third (38 percent) reported 
seeing hate-related graffiti at school in 2005 (Indicator 
10). 

 	In 2005, 28 percent of students ages 12-18 reported 
having been bullied at school during the previous 6 
months (Indicator 11). Of these students, 53 percent said 
that the bullying had happened once or twice during that 
period, 25 percent had experienced bullying once or twice 
a month, 11 percent reported having been bullied once or 
twice a week, and 8 percent said they had been bullied 
almost daily. 

 	Of those students who reported bullying incidents 
that involved being pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on 
(9 percent), 24 percent reported that they had sustained 
an injury9 during the previous 6 months as a result 
(Indicator 11). While no measurable differences were 
found by sex in students' likelihood of reporting a 
bullying incident in 2005, among students who reported 
being bullied, males were more likely than females to 
report being injured during such an incident (31 vs. 18 
percent). 

9 Injury includes bruises or swelling; cuts, scratches, 
or scrapes; black eye or bloody nose; teeth chipped or 
knocked out; broken bones or internal injuries; knocked 
unconscious; or other injuries. 

 	In 2003-04, 35 percent of teachers agreed or 
strongly agreed that student misbehavior interfered with 
their teaching and 31 percent reported that student 
tardiness and class cutting interfered with their 
teaching (Indicator 12). Seventy-two percent of teachers 
agreed or strongly agreed that other teachers at their 
school enforced the school rules, and 88 percent reported 
that the principal enforced the school rules in 2003-04. 

 	A higher percentage of elementary school teachers 
than secondary school teachers agreed that school rules 
were enforced by teachers in their school, even for 
students not in their class (Indicator 12). In 2003-04, 
79 percent of elementary teachers reported that school 
rules were enforced by other teachers, compared to 56 
percent of secondary teachers. 

Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances 

 	In 2005, 36 percent of students in grades 9-12 
reported they had been in a fight anywhere, and 14 
percent said they had been in a fight on school property 
during the previous 12 months (Indicator 13). In the same 
year, 43 percent of males said they had been in a fight 
anywhere, compared to 28 percent of females, and 18 
percent of males said they had been in a fight on school 
property, compared to 9 percent of females. 

 	Nineteen percent of students in grades 9-12 in 2005 
reported they had carried a weapon anywhere, and 6 
percent reported they had carried a weapon on school 
property during the previous 30 days (Indicator 14). 
Males were more than two times more likely than females 
to carry a weapon-either anywhere or on school property- 
in all survey years. In 2005, for example, 10 percent of 
males carried a weapon on school property, compared to 3 
percent of females, and 30 percent of males carried a 
weapon anywhere, compared to 7 percent of females. 

 	In 2005, 43 percent of students in grades 9-12 
reported having consumed at least one drink of alcohol 
anywhere, and 4 percent reported having consumed at least 
one drink on school property during the previous 30 days 
(Indicator 15). Hispanic students (8 percent) were more 
likely to report using alcohol on school property than 
White, Black, or Asian students (4, 3, and 1 percent, 
respectively). 

 	Twenty percent of students in grades 9-12 in 2005 
reported using marijuana anywhere during the past 30 
days, and 5 percent reported using marijuana on school 
property during this period (Indicator 16). At school, 
Hispanic students (8 percent) and American Indian 
students (9 percent) were more likely to report using 
marijuana than White or Black students (4 and 5 percent, 
respectively). 

Fear and Avoidance 

 	In 2005, approximately 6 percent of students ages 
12-18 reported that they were afraid of attack or harm at 
school, and 5 percent reported that they were afraid of 
attack or harm away from school (Indicator 17). The 
percentage of students who reported that they were afraid 
of being attacked at school (including on the way to and 
from school) decreased from 12 to 6 percent between 1995 
and 2005. 

 	Black and Hispanic students were more likely than 
White students to fear for their safety regardless of 
location in 2005 (Indicator 17). Nine percent of Black 
students and 10 percent of Hispanic students reported 
that they were afraid of being attacked at school 
(including on the way to and from school), compared to 4 
percent of White students. Away from school, 7 percent of 
Black students, 6 percent of Hispanic students, and 4 
percent of White students reported that they were afraid 
of an attack. 

 	In 2005, 6 percent of students ages 12-18 reported 
that they had avoided a school activity or one or more 
places in school in the previous 6 months because of fear 
of attack or harm: 2 percent of students avoided a school 
activity, and 4 percent avoided one or more places in 
school (Indicator 18). Consistent with most previous 
years, students in urban areas in 2005 were the most 
likely to avoid places in school: 6 percent of urban 
students reported that they had done so, compared to 4 
percent of suburban and rural students. 

Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures 

 	Forty-eight percent of public schools reported 
taking at least one serious disciplinary action against a 
student-including suspensions lasting 5 days or more, 
removals with no services (i.e., expulsions), and 
transfers to specialized schools-for specific offenses 
during the 2005-06 school year (Indicator 19). Of those 
serious disciplinary actions, 74 percent were suspensions 
for 5 days or more, 5 percent were expulsions, and 20 
percent were transfers to specialized schools. 

 	The largest percentage of schools that reported 
taking a disciplinary action in 2005-06 did so in 
response to a physical attack or fight: 32 percent of 
schools reported taking a serious disciplinary action for 
physical attacks or fights (Indicator 19). 

 	In the 2005-06 school year, 5 percent of public 
schools reported performing drug testing on athletes and 
3 percent reported doing so for students in other 
extracurricular activities (Indicator 20). A higher 
percentage of public high schools than middle or primary 
schools reported performing drug tests on students: 13 
percent of high schools reported performing drug tests on 
athletes, compared to 7 percent of middle schools and 1 
percent of primary schools. 

 	The vast majority of students ages 12-18 reported 
that their school had a student code of conduct (95 
percent) and a requirement that visitors sign in (93 
percent) in 2005 (Indicator 21). Metal detectors were the 
least commonly observed security measure, with 11 percent 
of students reporting their use at their school. 


FOREWORD 
Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2007 provides the 
most recent national indicators on school crime and 
safety. Some of these indicators document that student 
safety has improved. The victimization rate of students 
ages 12-18 at school declined between 1992 and 2005. 
However, reports of violence, theft, drugs, and weapons 
did not decline during this same period. During the 2005-
06 school year, 86 percent of public schools reported 
that at least one violent crime, theft, or other crime 
occurred at their school. In 2005, 8 percent of students 
in grades 9-12 reported being threatened or injured with 
a weapon in the previous 12 months, and 25 percent 
reported that drugs were made available to them on school 
property. 

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

This is the tenth edition of Indicators of School Crime 
and Safety, a joint publication of the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics (BJS) and the National Center for Education 
Statistics (NCES). This report provides detailed 
statistics to inform the nation about current aspects of 
crime and safety in schools. 

The 2007 edition of Indicators includes the most recent 
available data, compiled from a number of statistical 
data sources supported by the federal government. Such 
sources include results from a study of violent deaths in 
schools, sponsored by the 

U.S. Department of Education and the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention; the National Crime Victimization 
Survey and School Crime Supplement to the survey, 
sponsored by the BJS and NCES, respectively; the Youth 
Risk Behavior Survey, sponsored by the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention; and the Schools and 
Staffing Survey and School Survey on Crime and Safety, 
both sponsored by NCES. 

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

Mark Schneider Commissioner National Center for Education 
Statistics

Jeffrey L. Sedgwick Director Bureau of Justice Statistics


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
The authors are grateful to the heads of the sponsoring 
agencies, Mark Schneider of the National Center for 
Education Statistics (NCES) and Jeffrey L. Sedgwick of 
the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), for supporting 
this report. 

From NCES, we wish to thank Kathryn Chandler, Val Plisko, 
Marilyn Seastrom, and Bruce Taylor, who served as 
reviewers. They all provided input that substantially 
improved the publication. From BJS, we wish to thank 
Katrina Baum, Allen Beck, Doris James, and Michael Rand 
who served as reviewers and Patsy Klaus and Erika Harrell 
who verified data from the National Crime Victimization 
Survey. Outside of NCES and BJS, Nancy Brener, Mark 
Anderson, Jeffrey Hall, and Latasha Butler of the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention generously provided 
data and performed a review of data documentation. We 
also value the review of this report and the continued 
support provided by Bill Modzeleski and Deborah Rudy of 
the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.  

Several staff members at the Education Statistics 
Services Institute (ESSI) contributed to this report. 
ESSI is funded by NCES and composed of staff from the 
American Institutes for Research (AIR) and a number of 
partner organizations. Mary Ann Fox of ESSIAIR provided 
overall guidance, research support, and statistical 
analysis. Elizabeth Jacinto (ESSI-AIR), Qingshu Xie 
(ESSI-Macrosys), and Paul Guerino (ESSI-AIR) gave 
programming and data support. Lauren Drake (ESSI-
MacroSys), Jana Kemp (ESSI-Child Trends), and Kevin 
Bianco (ESSI-Macrosys) provided research and formatting 
support. Tom Nachazel (ESSI-AIR) copyedited updates to 
this year's report. Barbara Kridl, Natesh Daniel, Alicia 
Broadway, and Patricia Gildersleeve of MPR Associates 
worked on the cover design and report layout. 

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2007 has received 
extensive reviews by several people, both within and 
outside of the Department of Education. We would like to 
thank them for their time and expert advice: Kristin 
Flanagan and Sandy Eyster, both of ESSI-AIR; Alexandra 
Henning of ESSI-Quality Information Partners; Xiaolie 
Wang of ESSI-National Institute of Statistical Sciences; 
Shijie Chen of ESSI-Research Triangle Institute; Siri 
Warkentien of ESSI-Child Trends; and Kevin Bromer and 
Hannah Dodd of ESSI-AIR. 


CONTENTS  
Executive Summary  iii
Foreword  ix
Acknowledgments  x
List of Tables  xii
List of Figures  xx
Introduction  1

Violent Deaths  5
1. Violent Deaths at School and Away From School  6

Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization  9
2. Incidence of Victimization at School and Away From 
School  10
3. Prevalence of Victimization at School  14
4. Threats and Injuries With Weapons on School Property  
16
5. Teachers Threatened With Injury or Physically Attacked 
by Students  18

School Environment  21
6. Violent and Other Crime Incidents at Public Schools 
and Those Reported to the Police  22 
7. Discipline Problems Reported by Public Schools  26
8. Students' Reports of Gangs at School  28
9. Students' Reports of Drug Availability on School 
Property  30
10. Students' Reports of Being Called Hate-Related Words 
and Seeing Hate-Related Graffiti 32 
11. Bullying at School  34
12. Teachers' Reports of School Conditions  36

Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances  39
13. Physical Fights on School Property and Anywhere  40
14. Students Carrying Weapons on School Property and 
Anywhere  42
15. Students' Use of Alcohol on School Property and 
Anywhere 44
16. Students' Use of Marijuana on School Property and 
Anywhere  46

Fear and Avoidance  49
17. Students' Perceptions of Personal Safety at School 
and Away From School  50
18. Students' Reports of Avoiding School Activities or 
Specific Places in School  52

Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures  55
19. Serious Disciplinary Actions Taken by Public Schools  
56
20. Safety and Security Measures Taken by Public Schools  
58
21. Students' Reports of Safety and Security Measures 
Observed at School 60

References 63
Supplemental Tables 67
Standard Error Tables  117
Appendix A. Technical Notes 165
Appendix B. Glossary of Terms  195


Supplemental Tables 
1.1. Number of school-associated violent deaths, 
homicides, and suicides of youth ages 5-18, by location 
and year: 1992-2006  68 

1.2. Number of school-associated violent deaths of 
students, staff, and nonstudents, by type: 1992-2006  69 

2.1. Number of student-reported nonfatal crimes against 
students ages 12-18 and rate of crimes per 1,000 
students, by location and year: 1992-2005  70 

2.2. Number of student-reported nonfatal crimes against 
students ages 12-18 at school and rate of crimes per 
1,000 students, by selected student and school 
characteristics: 2005  71 

2.3. Number of student-reported nonfatal crimes against 
students ages 12-18 away from school and rate of crimes 
per 1,000 students, by selected student and school 
characteristics: 2005  72 

3.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 
months, by type of victimization and selected student and 
school characteristics: Various years, 1995-2005  73 

4.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
being threatened or injured with a weapon on school 
property during the previous 12 months, by selected 
student and school characteristics: Various years, 1993-
2005  75 

4.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
being threatened or injured with a weapon on school 
property during the previous 12 months, by state: 2003 
and 2005  76 

5.1. Percentage and number of public and private school 
teachers who reported that they were threatened with 
injury by a student from school during the previous 12 
months, by urbanicity and selected teacher and school 
characteristics: Various school years, 1993-94, 1999-
2000, and 2003-04  77 

5.2. Percentage and number of public and private school 
teachers who reported that they were physically attacked 
by a student from school during the previous 12 months, 
by urbanicity and selected teacher and school 
characteristics: Various school years, 1993-94, 1999-
2000, and 2003-04  78 

5.3. Percentage and number of public school teachers who 
reported that they were threatened with injury by a 
student from school during the previous 12 months, by 
state: 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04  79 

5.4. Percentage and number of public school teachers who 
reported that they were physically attacked by a student 
from school during the previous 12 months, by state: 
1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04  80 

6.1. Percentage of public schools experiencing and 
reporting incidents of crime that occurred at school, 
number of incidents, and the rate per 1,000 students, by 
type of crime: Various school years, 1999-2000, 2003-04, 
and 2005-06  81 

6.2. Percentage of public schools experiencing incidents 
of crime that occurred at school, number of incidents, 
and the rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected 
school characteristics: School year 2005-06  82 

6.3. Percentage of public schools reporting incidents of 
crime that occurred at school to the police, number of 
incidents, and the rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by 
selected school characteristics: School year 2005-06   84 

7.1. Percentage of public schools reporting selected 
discipline problems that occurred at school, by 
frequency: Various school years, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 
2005-06 86 

7.2. Percentage of public schools reporting selected 
discipline problems that occurred at school, by frequency 
and school characteristics: School year 2005-06 87 

8.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that 
gangs were present at school during the previous 6 
months, by urbanicity and selected student and school 
characteristics: 2001, 2003, and 2005  89 

9.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
that drugs were made available to them on school property 
during the previous 12 months, by selected student and 
school characteristics: Various years, 1993-2005  90 

9.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
that drugs were made available to them on school property 
during the previous 12 months, by state: 2003 and 2005 91 

10.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
being targets of hate-related words and seeing hate-
related graffiti at school during the previous 6 months, 
by selected student and school characteristics: Various 
years, 1999-2005  92 

10.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
being targets of hate-related words at school during the 
previous 6 months, by selected student and school 
characteristics: 2005  93 

11.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
selected bullying problems at school during the previous 
6 months, by selected student and school characteristics: 
2005  94

11.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
being bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by 
location of bullying, injury, and selected student and 
school characteristics: 2005  95 

11.3. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
selected bullying problems at school during the previous 
6 months and percentage distribution of the frequency of 
bullying reports, by selected student and school 
characteristics: 2005 96 

12.1. Percentage of public and private school teachers 
who agreed or strongly agreed that student misbehavior 
and student tardiness and class cutting interfered with 
their teaching, by selected teacher and school 
characteristics: Various school years, 1987-88 through 
2003-04  97 

12.2. Percentage of public and private school teachers 
who agreed or strongly agreed that school rules are 
enforced by other teachers and by the principal, by 
selected teacher and school characteristics: Various 
school years, 1987-88 through 2003-04 98 

13.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 
months, by location and selected student and school 
characteristics: Various years, 1993-2005  100 

13.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 
months, by location and state: 2003 and 2005  .... 101 

14.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 
days, by location and selected student and school 
characteristics: Various years, 1993-2005  102 

14.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 
days, by location and state: 2003 and 2005 103 

15.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location 
and selected student and school characteristics: Various 
years, 1993-2005 104 

15.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location 
and state: 2003 and 2005  105 

16.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location 
and selected student and school characteristics: Various 
years, 1993-2005  106

16.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location 
and state: 2003 and 2005  ........................... 107 

17.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
being afraid of attack or harm during the previous 6 
months, by location and selected student and school 
characteristics: Various years, 1995-2005  108 

18.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
avoiding school activities or one or more places in 
school during the previous 6 months because of fear of 
attack or harm: Various years, 1995-2005  109 

18.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
avoiding one or more places in school during the previous 
6 months because of fear of attack or harm, by selected 
student and school characteristics: Various years, 1995-
2005  110 

19.1. Number and percentage of public schools that took a 
serious disciplinary action, number of serious actions 
taken, and percentage distribution of serious actions, by 
type of action and type of offense: School year 2005-06  
111 

19.2. Percentage of public schools that took a serious 
disciplinary action and number of serious actions taken, 
by type of offense: Various school years, 1999-2000, 
2003-04, and 2005-06 112 

20.1. Percentage of public schools that used selected 
safety and security measures, by school characteristics: 
School year 2005-06  113 

20.2. Percentage of public schools that used safety and 
security measures: Various school years, 1999-2000, 2003-
04, and 2005-06  115 

21.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
selected security measures at school: Various years, 
1999-2005  116 


Standard Error Tables 

S2.1. 	Standard errors for the number of student-
reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 and 
rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by location and year: 
1992-2005  118

S2.2. 	Standard errors for the number of student-
reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 at 
school and rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected 
student and school characteristics: 2005  119

S2.3. 	Standard errors for the number of student-
reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 away 
from school and rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by 
selected student and school characteristics: 2005  120 

S3.1. 	Standard errors for the percentage of 
students ages 12-18 who reported criminal victimization 
at school during the previous 6 months, by type of 
victimization and selected student and school 
characteristics: Various years, 1995-2005 121 

S4.1. 	Standard errors for the percentage of 
students in grades 9-12 who reported being threatened or 
injured with a weapon on school property during the 
previous 12 months, by selected student and school 
characteristics: Various years, 1993-2005  123 

S4.2. 	Standard errors for the percentage of 
students in grades 9-12 who reported being threatened or 
injured with a weapon on school property during the 
previous 12 months, by state: 2003 and 2005  124 

S5.1. 	Standard errors for the percentage and number 
of public and private school teachers who reported that 
they were threatened with injury by a student from school 
during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and selected 
teacher and school characteristics: Various school years, 
1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 125 

S5.2. 	Standard errors for the percentage and number 
of public and private school teachers who reported that 
they were physically attacked by a student from school 
during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and selected 
teacher and school characteristics: Various school years, 
1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 126 

S5.3. 	Standard errors for the percentage and number 
of public school teachers who reported that they were 
threatened with injury by a student from school during 
the previous 12 months, by state: 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 
2003-04  127 

S5.4. 	Standard errors for the percentage and number 
of public school teachers who reported that they were 
physically attacked by a student from school during the 
previous 12 months, by state: 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 
2003-04  128 

S6.1. 	Standard errors for the percentage of public 
schools experiencing and reporting incidents of crime 
that occurred at school, number of incidents, and the 
rate per 1,000 students, by type of crime: Various school 
years, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2005-06 129 

S6.2. 	Standard errors for the percentage of public 
schools experiencing incidents of crime that occurred at 
school, number of incidents, and the rate of crimes per 
1,000 students, by selected school characteristics: 
School year 2005-06  130 

S6.3. Standard errors for the percentage of public 
schools reporting incidents of crime that occurred at 
school to the police, number of incidents, and the rate 
of crimes per 1,000 students, by selected school 
characteristics: School year 2005-06 132 

S7.1. Standard errors for the percentage of public 
schools reporting selected discipline problems that 
occurred at school, by frequency: Various school years, 
1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2005-06 134 

S7.2. Standard errors for the percentage of public 
schools reporting selected discipline problems that 
occurred at school, by frequency and school 
characteristics: School year 2005-06  135 

S8.1. Standard errors for the percentage of students ages 
12-18 who reported that gangs were present at school 
during the previous 6 months, by urbanicity and selected 
student and school characteristics: 2001, 2003, and 2005  
137 

S9.1. Standard errors for the percentage of students in 
grades 9-12 who reported that drugs were made available 
to them on school property during the previous 12 months, 
by selected student and school characteristics: Various 
years, 1993-2005  138 

S9.2. Standard errors for the percentage of students in 
grades 9-12 who reported that drugs were made available 
to them on school property during the previous 12 months, 
by state: 2003 and 2005  139 

S10.1. Standard errors for the percentage of students 
ages 12-18 who reported being targets of hate-related 
words and seeing hate-related graffiti at school during 
the previous 6 months, by selected student and school 
characteristics: Various years, 1999-2005  140 

S10.2. Standard errors for the percentage of students 
ages 12-18 who reported being targets of hate-related 
words at school during the previous 6 months, by selected 
student and school characteristics: 2005  141 

S11.1. Standard errors for the percentage of students 
ages 12-18 who reported selected bullying problems at 
school during the previous 6 months, by selected student 
and school characteristics: 2005  142 

S11.2. Standard errors for the percentage of students 
ages 12-18 who reported being bullied at school during 
the previous 6 months, by location of bullying, injury, 
and selected student and school characteristics: 2005  
143 

S11.3. Standard errors for the percentage of students 
ages 12-18 who reported selected bullying problems at 
school during the previous 6 months and percentage 
distribution of the frequency of bullying reports, by 
selected student and school characteristics: 2005 144 

S12.1. Standard errors for the percentage of public and 
private school teachers who agreed or strongly agreed 
that student misbehavior and student tardiness and class 
cutting interfered with their teaching, by selected 
teacher and school characteristics: Various school years, 
1987-88 through 2003-04  145 

S12.2. Standard errors for the percentage of public and 
private school teachers who agreed or strongly agreed 
that school rules are enforced by other teachers and by 
the principal, by selected teacher and school 
characteristics: Various school years, 1987-88 through 
2003-04  146 

S13.1. Standard errors for the percentage of students in 
grades 9-12 who reported having been in a physical fight 
during the previous 12 months, by location and selected 
student and school characteristics: Various years, 1993-
2005  147 

S13.2. Standard errors for the percentage of students in 
grades 9-12 who reported having been in a physical fight 
during the previous 12 months, by location and state: 
2003 and 2005 148 

S14.1. Standard errors for the percentage of students in 
grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day 
during the previous 30 days, by location and selected 
student and school characteristics: Various years, 1993-
2005  149 

S14.2. Standard errors for the percentage of students in 
grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day 
during the previous 30 days, by location and state: 2003 
and 2005 150 

S15.1. Standard errors for the percentage of students in 
grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the 
previous 30 days, by location and selected student and 
school characteristics: Various years, 1993-2005  151 

S15.2. Standard errors for the percentage of students in 
grades 9-12 who reported using alcohol during the 
previous 30 days, by location and state: 2003 and 2005 
152 

S16.1. Standard errors for the percentage of students in 
grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the 
previous 30 days, by location and selected student and 
school characteristics: Various years, 1993-2005  153 

S16.2. Standard errors for the percentage of students in 
grades 9-12 who reported using marijuana during the 
previous 30 days, by location and state: 2003 and 2005 
154 

S17.1. Standard errors for the percentage of students 
ages 12-18 who reported being afraid of attack or harm 
during the previous 6 months, by location and selected 
student and school characteristics: Various years, 1995-
2005  155 

S18.1. Standard errors for the percentage of students 
ages 12-18 who reported avoiding school activities or one 
or more places in school during the previous 6 months 
because of fear of attack or harm: Various years, 1995-
2005  156 

S18.2. Standard errors for the percentage of students 
ages 12-18 who reported avoiding one or more places in 
school during the previous 6 months because of fear of 
attack or harm, by selected student and school 
characteristics: Various years, 1995-2005 157 

S19.1. Standard errors for the number and percentage of 
public schools that took a serious disciplinary action, 
number of serious actions taken, and percentage 
distribution of serious actions, by type of action and 
type of offense: School year 2005-06 158 

S19.2. Standard errors for the percentage of public 
schools that took a serious disciplinary action and 
number of serious actions taken, by type of offense: 
Various years, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2005-06 159 

S20.1. Standard errors for the percentage of public 
schools that used selected safety and security measures, 
by school characteristics: School year 2005-06  160 

S20.2. Standard errors for the percentage of public 
schools that used safety and security measures: Various 
school years, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2005-06 162 

S21.1. Standard errors for the percentage of students 
ages 12-18 who reported selected security measures at 
school: Various years, 1999-2005  163 


List of Figures
A. Nationally representative sample surveys used in this 
report 3 

1.1. Number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5-18, 
by location: 2004-05 7 

1.2. Number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5-18 
at school: 1992-2006 7 

2.1. Rate of student-reported nonfatal crimes against 
students ages 12-18 per 1,000 students, by type of crime 
and location: 1992-2005 11 

2.2. Rate of student-reported nonfatal crimes against 
students ages 12-18 at school per 1,000 students, by type 
of crime and selected student characteristics: 2005 12 

2.3. Rate of student-reported nonfatal crimes against 
students ages 12-18 away from school per 1,000 students, 
by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 
2005 13 

3.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 
months, by type of victimization: Various years, 1995-
2005 15 

4.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
being threatened or injured with a weapon on school 
property during the previous 12 months, by sex: Various 
years, 1993-2005 17 

4.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
being threatened or injured with a weapon on school 
property during the previous 12 months, by grade: 2005 17 

5.1. Percentage of public and private school teachers who 
reported that they were threatened with injury or that 
they were physically attacked by a student from school 
during the previous 12 months: Various school years, 
1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04  19 

5.2. Percentage of public and private school teachers who 
reported that they were threatened with injury or that 
they were physically attacked by a student from school 
during the previous 12 months, by urbanicity and 
instructional level: School year 2003-04 19 

6.1. Percentage of public schools experiencing and 
reporting incidents of crime that occurred at school and 
the rate per 1,000 students, by type of crime: School 
year 2005-06 23 

6.2. Percentage of public schools experiencing and 
reporting incidents of crime that occurred at school, by 
type of crime and school level: School year 2005-06 24 

6.3. Percentage of public schools experiencing and 
reporting incidents of crime that occurred at school, by 
type of crime: Various school years, 1999-2000, 2003-04, 
and 2005-06  25 

7.1. Percentage of public schools reporting selected 
discipline problems that occurred at school, by school 
enrollment size: School year 2005-06 27 

8.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that 
gangs were present at school during the previous 6 
months, by urbanicity: Various years, 2001-2005 29 

8.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that 
gangs were present at school during the previous 6 
months, by urbanicity and race/ethnicity: 2005  29 

9.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
that drugs were made available to them on school property 
during the previous 12 months, by sex: Various years, 
1993-2005  31 

9.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
that drugs were made available to them on school property 
during the previous 12 months, by race/ ethnicity: 2005 
31 

10.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
being targets of hate-related words and seeing hate-
related graffiti at school during the previous 6 months, 
by selected student and school characteristics: 2005 33 

11.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
selected bullying problems at school during the previous 
6 months, by type of bullying: 2005 35 

11.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
being bullied at school during the previous 6 months, by 
location of bullying and injury: 2005 35 

12.1. Percentage of public and private school teachers 
who agreed or strongly agreed that school rules are 
enforced by other teachers and by the principal, by 
school level: School year 2003-04  37 

12.2. Percentage of public and private school teachers 
who agreed or strongly agreed that student misbehavior 
interfered with their teaching, by sector: Various school 
years, 1987-88 through 2003-04 37 

13.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 
months, by location and sex: Various years, 1993-2005 41 

13.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 
months, by location and grade: 2005 41 

14.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 
days, by location and sex: Various years, 1993-2005 43 

14.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 
days, by location and race/ethnicity: 2005  43 

15.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location 
and sex: Various years, 1993-2005 45 

15.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
using alcohol during the previous 30 days, by location 
and grade: 2005 45 

16.1. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location 
and sex: Various years, 1993-2005 47 

16.2. Percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported 
using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location 
and grade: 2005 47 

17.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
being afraid of attack or harm during the previous 6 
months, by location: Various years, 1995-2005  51 

17.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
being afraid of attack or harm during the previous 6 
months, by location and race/ethnicity: 2005 51 

18.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
avoiding school activities or one or more places in 
school during the previous 6 months because of fear of 
attack or harm: Various years, 1995-2005 53 

18.2. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
avoiding one or more places in school during the previous 
6 months because of fear of attack or harm, by selected 
student and school characteristics: 2005 53 

19.1. Percentage of public schools that took a serious 
disciplinary action for specific offenses, by type of 
offense: School year 2005-06 57 

19.2. Percentage of public schools that took a serious 
disciplinary action, by type of offense: Various school 
years, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2005-06 57 

20.1. Percentage of public schools that used selected 
safety and security measures: School year 2005-06 59 

20.2. Percentage of public schools that used selected 
safety and security measures: Various school years, 1999-
2000, 2003-04, and 2005-06 59 

21.1. Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported 
selected security measures at school: Various years, 
1999-2005 61 


Appendixes 

A.1. Descriptions of data sources and samples used in the 
report 181

A.2. Wording of survey questions used to construct 
indicators  183

A.3. Methods used to calculate standard errors of 
statistics for different surveys 192 


INTRODUCTION 
Our nation's schools should be a safe haven for teaching 
and learning free of crime and violence. Even though 
students are less likely to be victims of a violent crime 
at school1 than away from school (Indicators 1 and 2), 
any instance of crime or violence at school not only 
affects the individuals involved but also may disrupt the 
educational process and affect bystanders, the school 
itself, and the surrounding community (Henry 2000). For 
both students and teachers, victimization at school can 
have lasting effects. In addition to experiencing 
loneliness, depression, and adjustment difficulties 
(Crick and Bigbee 1998; Crick and Grotpeter 1996; Nansel 
et al. 2001; Prinstein, Boergers, and Vernberg 2001; 
Storch et al. 2003), victimized children are more prone 
to truancy (Ringwalt, Ennett, and Johnson 2003), poor 
academic performance (Wei and Williams 2004), dropping 
out of school (Beauvais et al. 1996), and violent 
behaviors (Nansel et al. 2003). For teachers, incidents 
of victimization may lead to professional disenchantment 
and even departure from the profession altogether 
(Karcher 2002). 

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


PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT 
Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2007 is the tenth 
in a series of reports produced by the National Center 
for Education Statistics (NCES) and the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics (BJS) since 1998 that present the most recent 
data available on school crime and student safety. The 
report is not intended to be an exhaustive compilation of 
school crime and safety information, nor does it attempt 
to explore reasons for crime and violence in schools. 
Rather, it is designed to provide a brief summary of 
information from an array of data sources and to make 
data on national school crime and safety accessible to 
policymakers, educators, parents, and the general public. 

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2007 is organized 
into sections that delineate specific concerns to 
readers, starting with a description of the most serious 
violent crimes. The sections cover Violent Deaths; 
Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization; School 
Environment; Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances; 
Fear and Avoidance; and Discipline, Safety, and Security 
Measures. Each section contains a set of indicators that, 
taken together, aim to describe a distinct aspect of 
school crime and safety. Where available, data on crimes 
that occur outside of school grounds are offered as a 
point of 

1 See appendix B for a detailed definition of "at 
school." 

comparison.2 Supplemental tables for each indicator 
provide more detailed breakouts and standard errors for 
estimates. A glossary of terms and references section 
appear at the end of the report. 

This year's report contains updated data on violent 
deaths (Indicator 1), nonfatal student victimization 
(Indicator 2), public school reports of selected crimes 
(Indicator 6), discipline problems (Indicator 7), serious 
disciplinary actions (Indicator 19), and safety and 
security measures (Indicator 20). A new classification 
scheme for school level has been applied to the most 
recent data available on teachers who were threatened 
with injury or physically attacked in Indicator 5. In 
addition, one new indicator appears in this year's 
report: Indicator 12 summarizes teachers' reports of the 
conditions at their schools, including student 
misbehavior, tardiness, and class cutting and school rule 
enforcement by other teachers and principals. 

Also found in this year's report are references to recent 
publications relevant to each indicator that the reader 
may want to consult for additional information or 
analyses. These references can be found in the "For more 
information" sidebars at the bottom of each indicator. 


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

The combination of multiple, independent sources of data 
provides a broad perspective on school crime and safety 
that could not be achieved through any single source of 
information. However, readers should be cautious when 
comparing data from different sources. While every effort 
has been made to keep key definitions consistent across 
indicators, differences in sampling procedures, 
populations, time periods, and question phrasing can all 
affect the comparability of results. For example, both 
Indicators 20 and 21 report data on select security and 
safety measures used in schools. Indicator 20 uses data 
collected from a sample of principals about safety and 
security practices used in their schools during the 2005-
06 school year. Indicator 21, however, uses data 
collected from 12- through 18-year-olds residing in a 
sample of households. These students were asked whether 
they observed selected safety and security measures in 
their school in 2005, but they may not have known if, in 
fact, the security measure was present. In addition, 
different indicators contain various approaches to the 
analysis of school crime data and, therefore, will show 
different perspectives on school crime. For example, both 
Indicators 2 and 3 report data on theft and violent crime 
at school 

2 Data in this report are not adjusted to reflect the 
number of hours that youths spend on school property 
versus the number of hours they spend elsewhere. 

based on the National Crime Victimization Survey and the 
School Crime Supplement to that survey, respectively. 
While Indicator 2 examines the number of incidents of 
crime, Indicator 3 examines the percentage or prevalence 
of students who reported victimization. Figure A provides 
a summary of some of the variations in the design and 
coverage of sample surveys used in this report. 

Several indicators in this report are based on self-
reported survey data. Readers should note that 
limitations inherent to self-reported data may affect 
estimates (Cantor and Lynch 2000). First, unless an 
interview is "bounded" or a reference period is 
established, estimates may include events that exceed the 
scope of the specified reference period. This factor may 
artificially increase reports because respondents may 
recall events outside of the given reference period. 
Second, many of the surveys rely on the respondent to 
"self-determine" a condition. This factor allows the 
respondent to define a situation based upon his or her 
own interpretation of whether the incident was a crime or 
not. On the other hand, the same situation may not 
necessarily be interpreted in the same way by a bystander 
or the perceived offender. Third, victim surveys tend to 
emphasize crime events as incidents that take place at 
one point in time. However, victims can often experience 
a state of victimization in which they are threatened or 
victimized regularly or repeatedly. Finally, respondents 
may recall 

an event inaccurately. For instance, people may forget 
the event entirely or recall the specifics of the episode 
incorrectly. These and other factors may affect the 
precision of the estimates based on these surveys. 

Data trends are discussed in this report when possible. 
Where trends are not discussed, either the data are not 
available in earlier surveys or the wording of the survey 
question changed from year to year, eliminating the 
ability to discuss any trend. Where data from samples are 
reported, as is the case with most of the indicators in 
this report, the standard error is calculated for each 
estimate provided in order to determine the "margin of 
error" for these estimates. The standard errors of the 
estimates for different subpopulations in an indicator 
can vary considerably and should be taken into account 
when making comparisons. Throughout this report, in cases 
where the standard error was at least 30 percent of the 
associated estimate, the estimates were noted with a "!" 
symbol (interpret data with caution). In cases where the 
standard error was greater than 50 percent of the 
associated estimate, the estimate was suppressed. See 
appendix A for more information. 

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

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


VIOLENT DEATHS


INDICATOR 1
VIOLENT DEATHS AT SCHOOL AND AWAY FROM SCHOOL 
The percentage of youth homicides occurring at school 
remained at less than 2 percent of the total number of 
youth homicides over all available survey years even 
though the absolute number of homicides of school-age 
youth at school varied to some degree across the years. 

Violent deaths at schools are rare but tragic events with 
far-reaching effects on the school population and 
surrounding community. From July 1, 2005, through June 
30, 2006, there were 35 school-associated violent deaths 
in elementary and secondary schools in the United States 
(tables 1.1 and 1.2).3 In this indicator, a school-
associated violent death is defined as "a homicide, 
suicide, legal intervention (involving a law enforcement 
officer), or unintentional firearm-related death in which 
the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning 
elementary or secondary school in the United States." 
Victims of school-associated violent deaths included 
students, staff members, and others who are not students. 
School-associated violent deaths include violent deaths 
that occurred while the victim was on the way to or from 
regular sessions at school, or while the victim was 
attending or traveling to or from an official school-
sponsored event. At school and away from school homicides 
and suicides data were drawn from a number of sources. 
Data for school-associated violent deaths for the 2005-06 
school year are preliminary. Data for total homicides and 
suicides are available for 2004-05.4 

The most recent data available for the total number of 
homicides of school-age youth are from the 2004-05 school 
year (figure 1.1 and table 1.1), during which there were 
1,534 homicides. In the 2004 calendar year, there were 
1,471 suicides of school-age youth. In each school year, 
youth were over 50 times more likely to be murdered and 
were over 150 times more likely to commit suicide when 
they were away from school than at school. From July 1, 
2005, through June 30, 2006, there were 14 homicides and 
3 suicides of school-age youth (ages 5-18) at school 
(figure 1.2 and table 1.1). Combined, this number 
translates into 1 homicide or suicide of a school-age 
youth at school per 3.2 million students enrolled during 
the 2005-06 school year.5 

Between July 1, 1992, and June 30, 1999, no consistent 
pattern of increase or decrease was observed in the 
number of homicides at school (figure 1.2 and table 1.1). 
During this period, between 28 and 34 homicides of 
school-age youth occurred at school in each school year. 
The number of homicides of school-age youth at school 
declined between the 1998-99 and 1999- 2000 school years 
from 33 to 13 homicides. The number of homicides of 
school-age youth at school increased from 11 to 21 
between the 2000-01 and 2004-05 school years, but dropped 
to 14 in 2005-06. The percentage of youth homicides 
occurring at school remained at less than 2 percent of 
the total number of youth homicides over all available 
survey years even though the absolute number of homicides 
of school-age youth at school varied to some degree 
across the years. Between the 1992-93 and 2004-05 school 
years, from one to eight school-age youth committed 
suicide at school each year, with no consistent pattern 
of increase or decrease. 

3 Between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, there were 35 
student, staff, and nonstudent school-associated violent 
deaths, including 26 homicides, 7 suicides, and 2 legal 
interventions (table 1.2).
4 Data on total suicides are available only by calendar 
year, whereas data on suicides and homicides at school 
and total homicides are available by school year. Data 
for total suicides (2005) and total homicides (2005-06) 
are not yet available.
5 The total projected number of students enrolled in 
prekindergarten through 12th grade during the 2005-06 
school year was 54,772,000 (U.S. Department of Education 
2007).

This indicator has been updated to include 2005-06 data. 

For more information: 

Tables 1.1 & 1.2 

Anderson et al. 2001 


NONFATAL STUDENT AND TEACHER VICTIMIZATION


INDICATOR 2
INCIDENCE OF VICTIMIZATION AT SCHOOL AND AWAY FROM SCHOOL 
At school, total crime and theft victimization rates for 
students were not measurably different between 2004 and 
2005. The victimization rate of students age 12 to 18 at 
school was 55 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2004 
and 57 victimizations in 2005. 

Theft and violence at school and while going to and from 
school can lead to a disruptive and threatening 
environment, physical injury, and emotional stress, and 
can be an obstacle to student achievement (Elliot, 
Hamburg, and Williams 1998). Data from the National Crime 
Victimization Survey show that students age 12 to 18 were 
victims of about 1.5 million nonfatal crimes (theft plus 
violent crime) while they were at school and about 

1.2 million nonfatal crimes while they were away from 
school in 2005 (table 2.1).6 These figures represent 
total crime victimization rates of 57 crimes per 1,000 
students at school, and 47 crimes per 1,000 students away 
from school (figure 2.1 and table 2.1). 

Between 1992 and 2005, the total crime victimization 
rates for students age 12 to 18 generally declined both 
at school and away from school; this pattern held for the 
total crime rate as well as for thefts,7 violent crimes,8 
and serious violent crimes9 (figure 2.1 and table 2.1). 
At school, total crime and theft victimization rates for 
students were not measurably different between 2004 and 
2005. The victimization rate of students age 12 to 18 at 
school was 55 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2004 
and 57 victimizations in 2005. There were an estimated 33 
theft victimizations per 1,000 students at school in both 
2004 and 2005. Away from school, total crime and violent 
crime victimization rates were also not measurably 
different between 2004 and 2005. There were 48 total 
crime victimizations per 1,000 students away from school 
in 2004 and 47 victimizations in 2005. There were 21 
violent victimizations per 1,000 students away from 
school in 2004 and 24 violent victimizations in 2005. 

Generally, more students age 12 to 18 were victims of 
theft at school than away from school between 1992 and 
2005. In 2005, students were victims of 868,000 crimes of 
theft at school and 610,000 crimes of theft away from 
school. This translates into 33 thefts per 1,000 students 
at school, compared to 23 thefts per 1,000 students away 
from school. From 1992 to 1997, the victimization rates 
for violent crime were generally lower at school than 
away from school; however, there were no measurable 
differences in these rates in the years between 1998 and 
2005, except in 2000, when victimization rates at school 
were lower. The rates for serious violent crime were 
lower at school than away from school in each survey year 
from 1992 to 2005. In 2005, students age 12 to 18 were 
victims of 5 serious violent crimes per 1,000 students at 
school, compared to 10 serious violent crimes per 1,000 
students away from school. 

The victimization rates for students age 12 to 18 varied 
according to certain student characteristics in 2005. A 
greater percentage of younger students (age 12 to 14) 
than older students (age 15 to 18) were victims of crime 
at school, but the reverse was true away from school 
(figures 2.2 and 2.3 and tables 2.2 and 2.3). Students 
residing in suburban areas had a lower rate of violent 
victimization at school and away from school than 
students in urban areas, while no measurable difference 
was found between the rates of violent victimization in 
suburban and rural areas. 

6 "Students" refers to youth ages 12-18 whose educational 
attainment did not exceed grade 12 at the time of the 
survey. An uncertain percentage of these persons may not 
have attended school during the survey reference period. 
These data do not take into account the number of hours 
that students spend at school or away from school.
7 Theft includes purse snatching, pick pocketing, and all 
attempted and completed thefts except motor vehicle 
thefts. Theft does not include robbery in which threat or 
use of force is involved.
8 Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and 
simple assault.
9 Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, 
robbery, and aggravated assault.

This indicator has been updated to include 2005 data.

For more information: 

Tables 2.1, 2.2, & 2.3 

Catalano 2006 


INDICATOR 3
PREVALENCE OF VICTIMIZATION AT SCHOOL 
In 2005, some 4 percent of students ages 12-18 reported 
being victimized at school during the previous 6 months. 
About 3 percent reported theft, 1 percent reported 
violent victimization, and less than half of a percent of 
students reported serious violent victimization. 

Theft is the most frequent type of nonfatal crime in the 
United States (U.S. Department of Justice 2006). Data 
from the School Crime Supplement10 to the National Crime 
Victimization Survey show the percentage of students ages 
12-18 who reported criminal victimization at school 
during the previous 6 months. In 2005, some 4 percent of 
students ages 12-18 reported being victimized at school 
during the previous 6 months. About 3 percent reported 
theft,11 1 percent reported violent victimization12 
(figure 3.1 and table 3.1), and less than half of a 
percent of students reported serious violent 
victimization.13 

Overall, the percentage of students ages 12-18 who were 
victimized at school during the previous 6 months 
decreased between 1995 and 2005 from 10 to 4 percent. For 
each type of victimization, the percentage of students 
reporting victimization decreased between 1995 and 2005 
(figure 3.1 and table 3.1). Between the most recent 
survey years (2003 and 2005), the percentage of students 
reporting victimization declined from 5 to 4 percent, and 
the percentage reporting theft declined from 4 to 3 
percent. There were no measurable changes in the 
percentages reporting violent and serious violent crime 
during this period. 

In 2005, the prevalence of victimization varied somewhat 
according to student characteristics. Male students were 
more likely than female students to report being victims 
of violent crime at school (2 vs. 1 percent), but no 
measurable differences were detected by sex in the 
likelihood of reporting theft (3 percent each). There 
were also no measurable differences in the percentages 
reporting victimization across grades. Further, in 2005, 
no measurable differences were detected in the 
percentages of White, Black, or Hispanic students who 
reported victimization, theft, or violent victimization. 
Students in urban schools were more likely to report 
victimization (5 percent) and theft (4 percent) than 
students in rural schools (3 and 2 percent, 
respectively). However, no other measurable differences 
were observed by urbanicity. 

10 In 2005, the unit response rate for this survey did 
not meet NCES statistical standards; therefore, interpret 
the data with caution. For more information, please see 
appendix A.
11 Theft includes purse snatching, pick pocketing, all 
burglaries, attempted forcible entry, and all attempted 
and completed thefts except motor vehicle thefts. Theft 
does not include robbery in which threat or use of force 
is involved.
12 Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and 
simple assault.
13 Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual assault, 
robbery, and aggravated assault. 

This indicator repeats information from the 2006 
Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. 

For more information: 

Table 3.1 

Addington et al. 2002 


INDICATOR 4
THREATS AND INJURIES WITH WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY 
The percentage of students who were threatened or injured 
with a weapon has fluctuated between 7-9 percent in all 
survey years from 1993 through 2005. 

Every year, some students are threatened or injured with 
a weapon while they are on school property. The 
percentage of students victimized in this way provides an 
important measure of how safe our schools are and how 
their safety has changed over time. In the Youth Risk 
Behavior Survey, students in grades 9-12 were asked 
whether they had been threatened or injured with a weapon 
on school property during the 12 months preceding the 
survey. In 2005, some 8 percent of students reported 
being threatened or injured with a weapon, such as a gun, 
knife, or club, on school property (table 4.1). The 
percentage of students who were threatened or injured 
with a weapon fluctuated between 1993 and 2005 without a 
clear trend. In all survey years from 1993 through 2005, 
between 7-9 percent of students reported being threatened 
or injured in this way. 

The likelihood of being threatened or injured with a 
weapon on school property varied by student 
characteristics. In each survey year, males were more 
likely than females to report being threatened or injured 
with a weapon on school property (figure 4.1 and table 
4.1). In 2005, some 10 percent of male students reported 
being threatened or injured in the past year, compared 
with 6 percent of female students. In each survey year, 
students in lower grades were generally more likely to 
report being threatened or injured with a weapon on 
school property than those in higher grades (figure 4.2 
and table 4.1). Eleven percent of 9thgraders reported 
that they were threatened or injured with a weapon on 
school property in 2005, compared with 9 percent of 10th-
graders and 6 percent of 11th- and 12th-graders. 

Students' likelihood of being threatened or injured with 
a weapon on school property varied by race/ethnicity in 
2005. Hispanic students were more likely than White 
students to report being threatened or injured with a 
weapon on school property (10 vs. 7 percent). However, no 
measurable differences were found in the percentages of 
Black and White students or Black and Hispanic students 
who reported being threatened or injured in this way. 

In 2005, student reports of being threatened or injured 
with a weapon on school property varied among states for 
which data were available. Among states, the percentage 
of students with such reports ranged from 5 to 12 percent 
(table 4.2). 

This indicator repeats information from the 2006 
Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. 

For more information: 

Tables 4.1 & 4.2 

Eaton et al. 2006 


INDICATOR 5
TEACHERS THREATENED WITH INJURY OR PHYSICALLY ATTACKED BY 
STUDENTS 
In the 2003-04 school year, a greater percentage of 
public teachers in city schools than their peers in 
suburban, town, or rural schools reported being 
threatened with injury or physically attacked. 

Students are not the only victims of intimidation or 
violence in schools. Teachers are also subject to threats 
and physical attacks, and students from their schools 
sometimes commit these offenses. In the Schools and 
Staffing Survey, teachers were asked whether they had 
been threatened with injury or physically attacked by a 
student from their school in the previous 12 months. A 
smaller percentage of teachers, 7 percent, were 
threatened with injury by a student from their school in 
the 2003-04 school year than in 1993-94 and 1999-2000 
school years, 12 and 9 percent respectively (figure 5.1 
and table 5.1). A smaller percentage of teachers reported 
being physically attacked in 2003-04, 3 percent, than in 
1993-94, 4 percent (table 5.2). 

A greater percentage of teachers in city schools reported 
being threatened with injury or physically attacked in 
2003-04 than teachers in suburban, town, or rural schools 
(figure 5.2 and tables 5.1 and 5.2). For example, in 
2003-04, 10 percent of teachers in city schools were 
threatened with injury by students, compared to 6 percent 
of teachers in suburban schools, 5 percent of teachers in 
town schools, and 5 percent of teachers in rural schools. 
Five percent of teachers in city schools were physically 
attacked by students, compared to 3 percent of teachers 
in suburban schools, 3 percent of teachers in town 
schools, and 2 percent of teachers in rural schools. A 
greater percentage of teachers in suburban schools 
reported being threatened with injury or physically 
attacked than teachers in rural schools. 

In the 2003-04 school year, teachers' reports of being 
threatened or physically attacked by students varied 
according to the level of their school. A greater 
percentage of secondary school teachers, 8 percent, 
reported being threatened with injury by a student than 
elementary school teachers, 6 percent (table 5.1). 
However, a greater percentage of elementary school 
teachers, 4 percent, reported having been physically 
attacked than secondary school teachers, 2 percent (table 
5.2). Generally, a greater percentage of elementary and 
secondary teachers in city schools reported being 
threatened with injury or physically attacked than 
elementary or secondary teachers in suburban, town, or 
rural schools (figure 5.2). For example, in the 2003-04 
school year, 12 percent of secondary teachers in city 
schools reported being threatened with injury compared to 
7 percent of secondary suburban school teachers, and 6 
percent of town and rural secondary school teachers. 

A greater percentage of public than private school 
teachers reported being threatened with injury (7 vs. 2 
percent) or physically attacked (4 vs. 2 percent) by 
students in school (tables 5.1 and 5.2). Among teachers 
in city schools, those in public schools were at least 
five times more likely to be threatened with injury than 
their colleagues in private schools (12 vs. 2 percent) 
and at least four times more likely to be physically 
attacked (5 vs. 1 percent). 

Public school teachers' reports of being threatened with 
injury or physically attacked varied among states. In 
2003-04, the percentage of public school teachers who 
reported being threatened in the previous 12 months 
ranged from 4 to 18 percent (table 5.3), and the 
percentage who were physically attacked ranged from 1 to 
7 percent (table 5.4). 

This indicator has been modified to include new 
urbanicity codes.

For more information:

Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, & 5.4

Appendix B for definitions of school levels and 
urbanicity codes

Strizek et al.2006


SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT


INDICATOR 6
VIOLENT AND OTHER CRIME INCIDENTS AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND 
THOSE REPORTED TO THE POLICE 
In 2005-06, 78 percent of schools experienced one or more 
violent incidents of crime, 17 percent experienced one or 
more serious violent incidents, 46 percent experienced 
one or more thefts, and 68 percent experienced another 
type of crime. 

This indicator presents the percentage of schools that 
experienced one or more specified crimes, the total 
number of these crimes reported by schools, and the rate 
of crimes per 1,000 students. These data are also 
presented for the crimes that were reported to the 
police. In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, public 
school principals were asked to provide the number of 
serious violent incidents,14 violent incidents,15 thefts 
of items valued at $10 or greater, and other incidents16 
that occurred at their school, as well as the number of 
these incidents reported to the police. During the 2005-
06 school year, 86 percent of public schools responded 
that one or more incidents of these crimes had taken 
place (including violent incidents, theft, and other 
crimes), amounting to an estimated 2.2 million crimes 
(figure 6.1 and table 6.1). This figure translates into a 
rate of 46 crimes per 1,000 students enrolled in 2005-06. 
During the same year, 61 percent of schools reported an 
incident of one of the specified crimes to the police, 
amounting to about 763,000 crimes-or 16 crimes per 1,000 
students enrolled. 

In 2005-06, 78 percent of schools experienced one or more 
violent incidents of crime, 17 percent experienced one or 
more serious violent incidents, 46 percent experienced 
one or more thefts, and 68 percent experienced another 
type of crime. Thirty-eight percent of public schools 
reported at least one violent incident to police, 13 
percent reported at least one serious violent incident to 
police, 28 percent reported at least one theft to police, 
and 51 percent reported one of the other specified crimes 
to police. 

The prevalence of violent incidents at public schools and 
those reported to the police varied by school level 
(figure 6.2 and tables 6.2 and 6.3). A smaller percentage 
of primary schools than middle or high schools 
experienced any violent incident: 67 percent of primary 
schools did so, compared to 94 percent of middle schools 
and 95 percent of high schools. Similar relationships 
were observed for serious violent incidents, theft, and 
other incidents. However, both primary schools and high 
schools had lower rates of violent crime per 1,000 
students than middle schools. In 2005-06, there were 25 
to 26 violent crimes per 1,000 students in primary 
schools and high schools, compared to 52 violent crimes 
in middle schools. Rates of serious violent crime ranged 
between 1 and 2 per 1,000 students for different school 
levels in 2005-06. 

The percentage of public schools experiencing incidents 
of crime was lower in 2005-06 than in 2003-04. In 2003-
04, 88 percent of schools experienced crimes, compared to 
86 percent of schools in 2005-06 (figure 6.3 and table 
6.1). The percentage of schools experiencing crimes in 
2005-06 was not measurably different from the percentage 
of schools experiencing crimes in 1999-2000. The 
percentage of public schools that reported crimes to the 
police followed a similar pattern. In 1999-2000, 62 
percent of schools reported crimes to the police, in 
2003-04, 65 percent of schools reported crimes to the 
police, and in 2005-06, 61 percent of schools did so. 

14 Serious violent incidents include rape or attempted 
rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or 
fight with a weapon, threat of physical attack with a 
weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. 
15 Violent incidents include serious violent incidents 
plus physical attacks or fights without a weapon and 
threats of physical attacks without a weapon. 
16 Other incidents include possession of a firearm or 
explosive device, possession of a knife or sharp object, 
distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs or 
alcohol, and vandalism. 

This indicator has been updated to include 2005-06 data. 

For more information:

Tables 6.1, 6.2, & 6.3

Appendix B for definitions of school levels and 
urbanicity

Nolle, Guerino, and Dinkes 2007


INDICATOR 7
DISCIPLINE PROBLEMS REPORTED BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
Between 1999-2000 and 2005-06, the percentage of 
principals reporting student bullying as a frequently 
occurring discipline problem declined from 29 to 24 
percent and student verbal abuse of teachers declined 
from 13 to 9 percent. 

The existence of discipline problems in a school may 
contribute to an environment that facilitates school 
violence and crime. In the School Survey on Crime and 
Safety, school principals were asked how often certain 
disciplinary problems happen in their schools. This 
indicator examines the daily or weekly occurrence of 
student racial tensions, bullying, sexual harassment of 
other students, verbal abuse of teachers, widespread 
classroom disorder, and acts of disrespect for teachers 
in public schools. It also looks at occurrences of 
undesirable gang and cult activities, and due to the 
severe nature of these incidents, presents all reports of 
gang and cult activities during the school year. 

Twenty-four percent of public schools reported that 
bullying occurred among students on a daily or weekly 
basis and 18 percent reported that student acts of 
disrespect for teachers took place on a daily or weekly 
basis during the 2005-06 school year (figure 7.1 and 
table 7.1). With regard to other frequently occurring 
discipline problems in public schools (those occurring at 
least once a week), 9 percent of principals reported 
student verbal abuse of teachers, 3 percent reported 
student sexual harassment of other students, 3 percent 
reported student racial/ethnic tensions, and 2 percent 
reported widespread disorder in classrooms. Seventeen 
percent of public schools reported that undesirable gang 
activities and 4 percent reported that undesirable cult 
or extremist activities had happened at all during 2005-
06. The percentage of principals reporting that student 
bullying and student verbal abuse of teachers occurred at 
least once a week declined between 1999-2000 and 2005-06 
(table 7.1). During this period, the percentage of 
principals reporting student bullying as a frequently 
occurring discipline problem declined from 29 to 24 
percent and student verbal abuse of teachers declined 
from 13 to 9 percent. 

Discipline problems reported by public schools varied by 
school characteristics in 2005-06. In general, the 
percentage of principals reporting discipline problems 
was higher in large schools than in small schools (figure 
7.1 and table 7.2). For example, 35 percent of principals 
at schools with 1,000 or more students reported that 
student acts of disrespect for teachers occurred at least 
once a week, whereas 12 percent at schools with less than 
300 students reported this discipline problem. Also, in 
2005-06, a higher percentage of middle schools than 
primary schools reported various types of discipline 
problems. Also, a higher percentage of middle schools 
than high schools reported daily or weekly occurrences of 
student bullying and student sexual harassment of other 
students. 

In 2005-06, the percentage of schools reporting the 
discipline problems of widespread disorder in the 
classroom, student acts of disrespect for teachers, 
student verbal abuse of teachers, and undesirable gang 
activities was generally smaller for schools where 20 
percent or fewer of the students were eligible for free 
or reduced-price lunch than for schools where more than 
50 percent of the students were eligible (table 7.2). For 
example, 14 percent of schools where more than 50 percent 
of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price 
lunch reported the daily or weekly occurrence of student 
verbal abuse of teachers compared to 3 percent of schools 
where 20 percent or fewer of the students were eligible. 
The percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-
price lunch programs is a proxy measure of school 
poverty. 

This indicator has been updated to include 2005-06 data. 

For more information:

Tables 7.1 & 7.2

Appendix B for definitions of school levels

Nolle, Guerino, and Dinkes 2007


INDICATOR 8
STUDENTS' REPORTS OF GANGS AT SCHOOL 
The percentage of students reporting the presence of 
gangs at school increased from 21 to 24 percent between 
2003 and 2005. 

Gangs are organized groups often involved in drugs, 
weapons trafficking, and violence. Such gangs at school 
can be disruptive to the school environment because their 
presence may incite fear among students and increase the 
level of school violence (Laub and Lauritsen 1998). In 
the School Crime Supplement17 to the National Crime 
Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 were asked if 
gangs were present at their school during the previous 6 
months. 

In 2005, some 24 percent of students reported that there 
were gangs at their schools (figure 8.1 and table 8.1). 
Students in urban schools were more likely to report the 
presence of gangs at their school than suburban students 
and rural students (36 vs. 21 and 16 percent, 
respectively). No measurable difference was found between 
suburban and rural students in their likelihood of 
reporting gang presence. 

The total percentage of students who reported the 
presence of gangs at school increased from 21 percent in 
2003 to 24 percent in 2005. The only statistically 
significant increase in the reported presence of gangs 
occurred in urban schools; the percentage of students who 
reported that gangs were present at school increased from 
31 to 36 percent during this period. No measurable change 
was found for the percentage of suburban or rural 
students reporting gang presence during this period. 

Hispanic and Black students were more likely than White 
students to report gangs in their schools in 2005 (38 and 
37 percent, respectively, vs. 17 percent; figure 8.2 and 
table 8.1). This pattern held among students in both 
urban and suburban schools. Between 2003 and 2005, 
reports of gangs increased among both Black students (29 
vs. 37 percent) and White students (14 vs. 17 percent). 
No measurable change was detected in the percentage of 
Hispanic students reporting the presence of gangs between 
2003 and 2005. 

Students in public schools were more likely to report the 
presence of gangs than were students in private schools 
regardless of the school's location (table 8.1). In 2005, 
some 25 percent of students in public schools reported 
that there were gangs in their schools, compared with 4 
percent of students in private schools. 

In 2005, there were no measurable differences between 
males and females in the extent to which they reported 
gang presence in their schools, with the exception of 
males at suburban schools, who were more likely to report 
gang presence than females (22 vs. 19 percent). Between 
2001 and 2005, the percentage of male students reporting 
the presence of gangs increased (from 21 to 25 percent), 
as did the percentage of suburban males reporting gang 
activity (from 19 to 22 percent). In the same time 
period, the percentage of urban females reporting gang 
activity also increased from 26 to 34 percent. 

17 In 2005, the unit response rate for this survey did 
not meet NCES statistical standards; therefore, interpret 
the data with caution. For more information, please see 
appendix A. 

This indicator repeats information from the 2006 

Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. 

For more information: 

Table 8.1 

Addington et al. 2002 


INDICATOR 9
STUDENTS' REPORTS OF DRUG AVAILABILITY ON SCHOOL PROPERTY 
In 2005, one-quarter of all students in grades 9-12 
reported that someone had offered, sold, or given them an 
illegal drug on school property in the past 12 months. 

The availability of drugs on school property has a 
disruptive and corrupting influence on the school 
environment (Nolin et al. 1997). In the Youth Risk 
Behavior Survey, students in grades 9-12 were asked 
whether someone had offered, sold, or given them an 
illegal drug on school property in the 12 months before 
the survey. In 2005, some 25 percent of students in 
grades 9-12 reported that drugs were made available to 
them on school property (table 9.1). There was no 
measurable change in the percentage of students who 
reported that drugs were offered, sold, or given to them 
at school between 2003 and 2005. 

Males were more likely than females to report that drugs 
were offered, sold, or given to them on school property 
in each survey year from 1993 to 2005 (figure 9.1 and 
table 9.1). For example, in 2005, some 29 percent of 
males reported that drugs were available, compared with 
22 percent of females. No measurable differences were 
detected in the percentage of students who reported that 
drugs were made available to them according to grade 
level in 2005. 

The percentages of students who reported having illegal 
drugs offered, sold, or given to them on school property 
differed across racial/ethnic groups (figure 9.2 and 
table 9.1). Specifically, in 2005, Hispanic students were 
more likely than Asian, Black, American Indian, and White 
students to report that drugs were made available to them 
(34 vs. 16-24 percent). Although it appears that Pacific 
Islander students were more likely than Hispanic students 
to report that drugs were made available to them, the 
difference was not found to be statistically significant. 

In 2005, student reports of the availability of drugs on 
school property varied among states for which data were 
available. Among states, the percentage of students who 
reported that drugs were available to them at school 
ranged from 16 to 39 percent (table 9.2). 

This indicator repeats information from the 2006 

Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. 

For more information: 

Tables 9.1 & 9.2 

Eaton et al. 2006 


INDICATOR 10
STUDENTS' REPORTS OF BEING CALLED HATE-RELATED WORDS AND 
SEEING HATE-RELATED GRAFFITI 
In 2005, some 11 percent of students ages 12-18 reported 
that someone at school had used hate-related words 
against them, and more than one-third (38 percent) had 
seen hate-related graffiti at school. 

In the 2005 School Crime Supplement18 to the National 
Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 were 
asked if someone at school had called them a derogatory 
word having to do with their race, ethnicity, religion, 
disability, gender, or sexual orientation and if they had 
seen hate-related graffiti during the previous 6 months. 
With regard to hate-related words, students were also 
asked to specify the characteristic to which the word was 
directed. 

In 2005, some 11 percent of students ages 12-18 reported 
that someone at school had used hate-related words 
against them (figure 10.1 and table 10.1). Five percent 
of students reported that the hate-related words 
concerned their race, 3 percent reported that the words 
were related to their ethnicity, about 2 percent each 
reported that the words concerned their religion or 
gender, and 1 percent each reported that the words were 
related to their disability or sexual orientation (table 
10.2). Students were also asked if they had seen hate-
related graffiti at their school-that is, hate-related 
words or symbols written in classrooms, bathrooms, 
hallways, or on the outside of the school building 
(figure 10.1 and table 10.1). Some 38 percent of students 
reported seeing hate-related graffiti at school. 

Students' experiences of being called specific types of 
hate-related words in 2005 differed according to their 
sex and race/ethnicity (table 10.2). Females were more 
likely to report gender-related hate words than were 
males (3 vs. 1 percent) while male students were more 
likely than female students to report hate words related 
to both race (5 vs. 4 percent) and ethnicity (3 vs. 2 
percent). White students were less likely to report race-
related hate words than were Black and Hispanic students 
as well as students whose racial/ethnic group was 
categorized as "Other" (3 percent of White students vs. 7 
percent of Black students, 6 percent of Hispanic 
students, and 9 percent of Other students). 

In 2005, measurable differences were found in students' 
reports of being called hate-related words and seeing 
hate-related graffiti according to the urbanicity and 
sector of their schools (figure 10.1 and table 10.1). 
Suburban students were less likely than both urban 
students (9 vs. 12 percent) and rural students (9 vs. 15 
percent) to report being called a hate-related word. 
Public school students were more likely than their 
private school counterparts to report being called a 
hate-related word (12 vs. 7 percent) and seeing hate-
related graffiti (39 vs. 18 percent). 

18 In 2005, the unit response rate for this survey did 
not meet NCES statistical standards; therefore, interpret 
the data with caution. For more information, please see 
appendix A. 

This indicator repeats information from the 2006 

Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. 

For more information: 

Tables 10.1 & 10.2 

Addington et al. 2002 


INDICATOR 11
BULLYING AT SCHOOL 
In 2005, about 28 percent of 12- to 18-year-old students 
reported having been bullied at school during the last 6 
months. 

Both bullying and being bullied at school are associated 
with key violence-related behaviors, including carrying 
weapons, fighting, and sustaining injuries from fighting 
(Nansel et al. 2003). In the 2005 School Crime 
Supplement19 to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 
students ages 12-18 were asked if they had been bullied 
at school during the previous 6 months.20 

In 2005, about 28 percent of students reported having 
been bullied at school during the last 6 months (figure 
11.1 and table 11.1). Nineteen percent of students said 
that they had experienced bullying that consisted of 
being made fun of; 15 percent reported being the subject 
of rumors; and 9 percent said that they were pushed, 
shoved, tripped, or spit on (figure 11.2 and table 11.1). 
Of those students who had been bullied, 79 percent said 
that they were bullied inside the school, and 28 percent 
said that they were bullied outside on school grounds 
(figure 11.2 and table 11.2). Of the students in 2005 who 
reported being bullied during the previous 6 months, 53 
percent said that they had been bullied once or twice 
during that period, 25 percent had experienced bullying 
once or twice a month, 11 percent reported being bullied 
once or twice a week, and 8 percent said that they had 
been bullied almost daily (table 11.3). 

White and Black students (30 and 29 percent) were more 
likely than Hispanic students to report being bullied in 
2005 (22 percent; table 11.1). White students were also 
more likely than students of Other racial/ethnic groups 
to report being bullied (30 vs. 25 percent), and to 
report that they were the subject of rumors than were 
Hispanic students and students of Other racial/ethnic 
groups (16 vs. 12 percent). 

In general, grade level was inversely related to 
students' likelihood of being bullied: as grade level 
increased, students' likelihood of being bullied 
decreased (table 11.1). In 2005, about 37 percent of 6th-
graders, 28 percent of 9th-graders, and 20 percent of 
12th-graders reported that they had been bullied at 
school. Students in public schools were more likely to 
report bullying incidents than were their private school 
counterparts (29 vs. 23 percent). 

Of those students who reported bullying incidents that 
involved being pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on (9 
percent), 24 percent reported that they had sustained an 
injury21 as a result (table 11.2). While no measurable 
differences were found by sex in students' likelihood of 
reporting a bullying incident in 2005, among students who 
reported being bullied, males were more likely than 
females to report being injured during such an incident 
(31 vs. 18 percent). 

19 In 2005, the unit response rate for this survey did 
not meet NCES statistical standards; therefore, interpret 
the data with caution. For more information, please see 
appendix A.
20 In 2005, the questionnaire wording for the School 
Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization 
Survey was modified with regard to bullying. In the 1999, 
2001, and 2003 surveys, students were simply asked 
whether they had been bullied in the previous 6 months, 
while the 2005 iteration posed a series of questions on 
bullying and provided respondents with more examples of 
bullying behavior. Bullying includes being made fun of; 
subject of rumors; threatened with harm; pushed, shoved, 
tripped, or spit on; pressured into doing things did not 
want to do; excluded; or property destroyed on purpose. 
21 Injury includes bruises or swelling; cuts, scratches, 
or scrapes; black eye or bloody nose; teeth chipped or 
knocked out; broken bones or internal injuries; knocked 
unconscious; or other injuries. 

This indicator repeats information from the 2006 

Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. 

For more information: 

Tables 11.1, 11.2, & 11.3 

DeVoe and Kaffenberger 2005 


INDICATOR 12
TEACHERS' REPORTS OF SCHOOL CONDITIONS 
The percentage of teachers who reported that student 
misbehavior, class cutting, and tardiness interfered with 
their teaching varied by teacher and school 
characteristics. A higher percentage of teachers in city 
schools than in suburban, rural, or town schools reported 
that misbehavior and student tardiness interfered with 
their teaching in 2003-04. 

Classroom disruptions are associated with lower student 
achievement for the offending student as well as for that 
student's classmates (Lannie and McCurdy 2007). In the 
Schools and Staffing Survey, public and private school 
teachers were asked if student misbehavior and student 
tardiness and class cutting interfered with their 
teaching. In 2003-04, 35 percent of teachers agreed or 
strongly agreed that student misbehavior interfered with 
their teaching, and 31 percent reported that student 
tardiness and class cutting interfered with their 
teaching (table 12.1). Teachers were also asked if school 
rules were enforced by other teachers at their school, 
even for students not in their classes, or by the 
principal. Seventy-two percent of teachers agreed or 
strongly agreed that other teachers at their school 
enforced the school rules and 88 percent reported that 
the principal enforced the school rules in 2003-04 
(figure 12.1 and table 12.2). 

The percentage of teachers who reported that student 
misbehavior, class cutting, and tardiness interfered with 
their teaching varied by teacher and school 
characteristics. In 2003-04, a higher percentage of 
teachers in city schools than in suburban, town, or rural 
schools reported that misbehavior and student tardiness 
interfered with their teaching (table 12.1). For example, 
42 percent of teachers in city schools reported that 
student misbehavior in their school interfered with their 
teaching, compared to 33 percent of suburban teachers, 34 
percent of town teachers, and 31 percent of rural 
teachers. Between 1987-88 and 2003-04, a larger 
percentage of public school teachers than private school 
teachers reported that student misbehavior and tardiness 
interfered with their teaching (figure 12.2 and table 
12.1). In 2003- 04, about 37 percent of public school 
teachers reported that student misbehavior interfered 
with their teaching, compared to 21 percent of private 
school teachers. In 2003-04, a higher percentage of 
secondary school teachers than elementary school teachers 
agreed that student misbehavior, student tardiness, and 
class cutting interfered with their teaching (table 
12.1). In 2003-04, for example, 40 percent of secondary 
school teachers reported that student misbehavior 
interfered with their teaching, compared to 34 percent of 
elementary teachers. 

The percentage of teachers who agreed that school rules 
were enforced by other teachers varied by teacher and 
school characteristics. In every survey year, a higher 
percentage of elementary school teachers than secondary 
school teachers agreed that school rules were enforced by 
teachers in their school, even for students not in their 
class (table 12.2 and figure 12.1). In 2003-04, for 
example, 79 percent of elementary teachers reported that 
school rules were enforced by other teachers compared to 
56 percent of secondary teachers. Generally, the 
percentage of teachers who agreed or strongly agreed that 
school rules were enforced by other teachers was greater 
in schools with smaller school enrollment (table 12.2). 
In 2003-04, about 84 percent of teachers in schools with 
fewer than 200 students agreed that school rules were 
enforced by other teachers, compared to 56 percent of 
teachers in schools with 1,000 or more students. 

This is a new indicator. 

For more information: 

Tables 12.1 & 12.2 

Appendix B for definitions of school levels and 
urbanicity codes 

Strizek et al. 2006 


FIGHTS, WEAPONS, AND ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES


INDICATOR 13
PHYSICAL FIGHTS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE 
The percentage of 9th- to 12th-grade students who 
reported being in a physical fight anywhere increased 
from 33 to 36 percent between 2003 and 2005. 

Schools where physical fights occur frequently may not be 
able to maintain a focused learning environment for 
students. Further, students who participate in fights on 
school property may have difficulty succeeding in their 
studies (Payne, Gottfredson, and Gottfredson 2003). In 
the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9-12 
were asked about their general involvement in physical 
fights during the preceding 12 months (referred to as 
"anywhere" in this report) and their involvement in 
physical fights on school property. Fights occurring 
anywhere are included as a point of comparison with 
fights occurring on school property. In 2005, some 36 
percent of students in grades 9-12 reported being in a 
fight anywhere, and 14 percent said they had been in a 
fight on school property (figure 13.1 and table 13.1). 
Between 2003 and 2005, the percentage of students who 
reported being in a fight anywhere increased from 33 to 
36 percent. However, there was no measurable change in 
the percentage of students who reported fighting on 
school property during the same period. 

In all survey years, males were more likely than females 
to have been in a fight anywhere and on school property 
(figure 13.1 and table 13.1). In 2005, 43 percent of 
males said they had been in a fight anywhere, compared 
with 28 percent of females. In the same year, 18 percent 
of males said they had been in a fight on school 
property, compared with 9 percent of females. Between 
2003 and 2005, the percentage of females who reported 
having been in a physical fight anywhere increased from 
25 to 28 percent. 

In 2005, students in lower grades were more likely to 
report being in fights than students in higher grades, 
both anywhere and on school property (figure 13.2 and 
table 13.1). In that year, 19 percent of 9th-graders, 14 
percent of 10th-graders, 10 percent of 11th-graders, and 
9 percent of 12th-graders reported being in a fight on 
school property. While it appears that students in most 
grades were more likely to report being in a physical 
fight in 2005 than in 2003, the only measurable increase 
found was for 9th-grade students anywhere: between 2003 
and 2005, the percentage of 9th-graders who reported 
having been in a fight anywhere increased from 39 to 43 
percent. 

In 2005, the percentage of students engaging in fights 
varied according to their race/ ethnicity. Specifically, 
Asian students were less likely than students from all 
other racial/ ethnic groups to report being in a fight 
anywhere or on school property. Six percent of Asian 
students reported being in a fight on school property, 
compared with 12 to 24 percent of students from other 
racial/ethnic groups. Between 2003 and 2005, the 
percentage of Hispanic students who reported having been 
in a fight anywhere increased from 36 to 41 percent. 
During the same period, the percentage of Asian students 
who reported having been in a fight on school property 
declined from 13 to 6 percent. 

In 2005, the percentage of students who reported being in 
a fight varied among states for which data were 
available. Among states, the percentages ranged from 24 
to 37 percent for being in a fight anywhere, and from 8 
to 16 percent for being in a fight on school property 
(table 13.2). 

This indicator repeats information from the 2006 

Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. 

For more information: 

Tables 13.1 & 13.2 

Eaton et al. 2006 


INDICATOR 14
STUDENTS CARRYING WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE 
There was no measurable change in the percentage of 
students who reported carrying a weapon at school between 
1999 and 2005: about 6 percent did so in both years. 

The presence of weapons at school may interfere with 
teaching and learning by creating an intimidating and 
threatening atmosphere (Aspy et al. 2004). In the Youth 
Risk Behavior Survey, students were asked if they had 
carried a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club in the 
past 30 days (referred to as "anywhere" in this report) 
or had carried one of these weapons on school property in 
the past 30 days. Weapon carrying anywhere is included as 
a point of comparison with weapon carrying on school 
property. In 2005, some 19 percent of students in grades 
9-12 reported they had carried a weapon anywhere, and 
about 6 percent reported they had carried a weapon on 
school property (figure 14.1 and table 14.1). 

The percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon 
anywhere declined from 22 to 18 percent between 1993 and 
1997. However, subsequently, there was no measurable 
change in the percentage of students who reported 
carrying a weapon anywhere. Similar to the pattern for 
carrying a weapon anywhere, between 1993 and 1999, the 
percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon at 
school declined from 12 to 7 percent. However, there was 
no measurable change in the percentage of students who 
carried a weapon at school between 1999 and 2005. 

When looking at the characteristics of students who 
reported carrying weapons, males were more than two times 
more likely than females to carry a weapon-either 
anywhere or on school property-in all survey years 
(figure 14.1 and table 14.1). In 2005, for example, some 
10 percent of males carried a weapon on school property, 
compared with 3 percent of females, and 30 percent of 
males carried a weapon anywhere, compared with 7 percent 
of females. 

In 2005, few differences were detected in the percentage 
of students who reported carrying weapons anywhere and on 
school property according to students' race/ethnicity 
(figure 14.2 and table 14.1). Asian students were less 
likely than students from all other racial/ ethnic 
groups, except Pacific Islanders,22 to report carrying a 
weapon anywhere, but no measurable differences were 
detected among Black, White, and Hispanic students. Asian 
students were also less likely than students from all 
other racial/ethnic groups, except for Blacks, to report 
carrying a weapon on school property, but no differences 
were detected among Black, White, and American Indian 
students. Hispanic students were more likely than Black 
students to report carrying a weapon during the previous 
30 days on school property in 2005 (8 vs. 5 percent). 
Between 2003 and 2005, the percentage of Hispanic 
students who reported doing so increased from 6 to 8 
percent. 

In 2005, the percentage of students who reported carrying 
a weapon varied among states for which data were 
available. Among states, the percentages ranged from 11 
to 28 percent for carrying a weapon anywhere, and from 4 
to 11 percent for carrying a weapon on school property 
(table 14.2). 

22 No observed measurable differences may be due to large 
standard errors. 

This indicator repeats information from the 2006 

Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. 

For more information: 

Tables 14.1 & 14.2 

Eaton et al. 2006 


INDICATOR 15
STUDENTS' USE OF ALCOHOL ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE 
In 2005, some 43 percent of students in grades 9-12 
reported having at least one drink of alcohol anywhere, 
and 4 percent had at least one drink on school property 
in the 30 days before being surveyed. 

Students' illegal consumption of alcohol on school 
property may lead to additional crimes and misbehavior. 
It may also foster a school environment that is harmful 
to students, teachers, and staff (Fagan and Wilkinson 
1998). In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in 
grades 9-12 were asked whether they had consumed alcohol 
at all in the past 30 days (referred to as "anywhere" in 
this report) and if they had consumed alcohol on school 
property. Alcohol consumption anywhere is included as a 
point of comparison with alcohol consumption on school 
property. In 2005, some 43 percent of students consumed 
at least one drink of alcohol anywhere, and 4 percent 
consumed at least one drink on school property (figure 
15.1 and table 15.1). The percentage of students who 
reported drinking alcohol anywhere increased from 48 to 
52 percent between 1993 and 1995 and then declined to 43 
percent in 2005. No consistent pattern was detected in 
the percentage of students who reported consuming alcohol 
on school property between 1993 and 2005: over these 
years, the percentage fluctuated from 4 to 6 percent. 

The likelihood of drinking alcohol varied by student 
characteristics including sex, grade level, and 
race/ethnicity. In 2005, males were more likely than 
females to report using alcohol on school property (5 vs. 
3 percent), a difference not found in the percentage who 
reported drinking anywhere (figure 15.1 and table 15.1). 
In 2005, students in higher grades were more likely to 
report drinking alcohol anywhere than were students in 
lower grades. For example, 51 percent of 12th-graders 
reported using alcohol, compared with 36 percent of 9th-
graders (figure 15.2 and table 15.1). However, no 
measurable difference was found across grade levels in 
students' likelihood of drinking alcohol on school 
property. 

In 2005, Asian and Black students were less likely to 
report using alcohol anywhere than were American Indian, 
White, or Hispanic students. Twenty-two percent of Asian 
students and 31 percent of Black students reported using 
alcohol anywhere, compared with 46 percent of White 
students, 47 percent of Hispanic students, and 57 percent 
of American Indian students. In the same year, Hispanic 
students (8 percent) were more likely to use alcohol on 
school property than were White, Black, or Asian students 
(4, 3, and 1 percent, respectively). 

In 2005, the percentage of students who reported drinking 
alcohol varied among states for which data were 
available. Among states, the percentages ranged from 16 
to 49 percent for drinking alcohol anywhere, and from 2 
to 9 percent for drinking alcohol on school property 
(table 15.2). 

This indicator repeats information from the 2006 

Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. 

For more information: 

Tables 15.1 & 15.2 

Eaton et al. 2006 


INDICATOR 16
STUDENTS' USE OF MARIJUANA ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND 
ANYWHERE 
In 2005, some 20 percent of students in grades 9-12 
reported using marijuana anywhere during the past 30 
days, and 5 percent reported using marijuana on school 
property. 

In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9-
12 were asked whether they had used marijuana at all 
during the past 30 days (referred to as "anywhere" in 
this report) and whether they had used marijuana on 
school property during this period. In 2005, some 20 
percent of students in grades 9-12 reported using 
marijuana anywhere during the past 30 days, and 5 percent 
reported using marijuana on school property (figure 16.1 
and table 16.1). 

The percentage of students who reported using marijuana 
anywhere increased between 1993 and 1995 (from 18 to 25 
percent), and in 1995, 1997, and 1999, roughly one-
quarter of students reported using marijuana anywhere 
(between 25 and 27 percent). By 2005, however, the 
percentage of students who reported using marijuana 
anywhere had declined to 20 percent. The percentage of 
students who reported using marijuana on school property 
increased from 6 to 9 percent between 1993 and 1995 and 
then declined to 5 percent in 2001. No measurable change 
was found in the percentage of students who reported 
using marijuana during the past 30 days on school 
property between 2001 and 2005. 

Both students' sex and grade level were associated with 
the use of marijuana among those in grades 9-12. Males 
were more likely than females to have reported using 
marijuana during the past 30 days in every survey year, 
both anywhere and on school property (figure 

16.1 and table 16.1). For example, in 2005, some 6 
percent of males and 3 percent of females reported using 
marijuana on school property. In that same year, 9th-
grade students were less likely than 11th- and 12th-grade 
students to report using marijuana anywhere (figure 16.2 
and table 16.1). While it appears that 9th-grade students 
were slightly more likely to report using marijuana on 
school property than were their peers in other grades, no 
measurable differences were detected in student reports 
of using marijuana on school property by grade level. 

In 2005, Asian students were less likely than students 
from other racial/ethnic groups, except Pacific Islander 
students, to report using marijuana anywhere (7 vs. 17-30 
percent of students in other racial/ethnic groups). 
American Indian students were more likely than students 
from other racial/ethnic groups, except Hispanic 
students, to report using marijuana anywhere (30 vs. 7-20 
percent of students in other racial/ethnic groups). At 
school, Hispanic students (8 percent) and American Indian 
students (9 percent) were more likely to report using 
marijuana than were White or Black students (4 and 5 
percent, respectively). 

In 2005, the percentage of students who reported using 
marijuana varied among states for which data were 
available. Among states, the percentages ranged from 8 to 
26 percent for using marijuana anywhere, and from 2 to 8 
percent for using it on school property (table 16.2). 

This indicator repeats information from the 2006 

Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. 

For more information: 

Tables 16.1 & 16.2 

Eaton et al. 2006 


FEAR AND AVOIDANCE


INDICATOR 17
STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL SAFETY AT SCHOOL AND 
AWAY FROM SCHOOL 
In 2005, as grade level increased, the percentage of 
students reporting fear of an attack at school or on the 
way to and from school decreased. 

School violence can make students fearful and affect 
their readiness and ability to learn, and concerns about 
vulnerability to attacks detract from a positive school 
environment (Scheckner et al. 2002). In the School Crime 
Supplement23 to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 
students ages 12-18 were asked how often they had been 
afraid of attack "at school or on the way to and from 
school" and "away from school" during the previous 6 
months.24 

In 2005, approximately 6 percent of students ages 12-18 
reported that they were afraid of attack or harm at 
school, and 5 percent reported that they were afraid of 
attack or harm away from school. There was no measurable 
change between 2003 and 2005 in the percentage of 
students reporting fear of attack or harm at or away from 
school (figure 17.1 and table 17.1). Consistent with 
findings from 1999 and 2001, students in 2005 were more 
likely to report being afraid of an attack at school than 
away from school. The percentage of students who reported 
that they were afraid of being attacked at school 
(including on the way to and from school) decreased from 
12 to 6 percent between 1995 and 2001; however, no 
measurable difference was detected between 2001 and 2005. 
Similarly, there was no change in the percentage of 
students who feared such an attack away from school 
between 1999 and 2005. 

Black and Hispanic students were more likely than White 
students to fear for their safety regardless of location 
in 2005 (figure 17.2 and table 17.1). Nine percent of 
Black students and 10 percent of Hispanic students 
reported that they were afraid of being attacked at 
school (including on the way to and from school), 
compared with 4 percent of White students. Away from 
school, 7 percent of Black students, 6 percent of 
Hispanic students, and 4 percent of White students 
reported that they were afraid of an attack. There was no 
measurable change between 2003 and 2005 in the percentage 
of students who feared for their safety in either 
location among White, Black, or Hispanic students. 

In 2005, as grade level increased, students' fear of an 
attack at school or on the way to and from school 
decreased. In the same year, 10 percent of 6th-graders, 6 
percent of 9th-graders, and 3 percent of 12th-graders 
feared for their safety at school or on the way to and 
from school. 

School location was also related to students' fear of 
attack. In 2005, students in urban schools were more 
likely than students in suburban and rural schools to 
fear being attacked at school or on the way to and from 
school. Ten percent of students in urban schools feared 
being attacked at school, compared with 5 percent each of 
their peers in suburban and rural schools. 

School sector was also related to students' fear of 
attack. In every survey year, students in public schools 
were more likely than students in private schools to fear 
being attacked at school. In 2005, about 6 percent of 
public school students feared being attacked at school, 
compared with 4 percent of private school students. 
Although it appears that the public school students were 
generally more likely than their counterparts in private 
schools to fear being attacked away from school in 2005, 
these differences were not found to be statistically 
significant. 

23 In 2005, the unit response rate for this survey did 
not meet NCES statistical standards; therefore, interpret 
the data with caution. For more information, please see 
appendix A.
24 For the 2001 survey, the wording was changed to 
"attack or threat of attack." Includes students who 
reported that they sometimes or most of the time feared 
being victimized in this way.

This indicator repeats information from the 2006 

Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. 

For more information: 

Table 17.1 

Addington et al. 2002 


INDICATOR 18
STUDENTS' REPORTS OF AVOIDING SCHOOL ACTIVITIES OR 
SPECIFIC PLACES IN SCHOOL 
In 2005, some 6 percent of students ages 12-18 reported 
that they avoided school activities or one or more places 
in school because they thought someone might attack or 
harm them. 

School crime may lead students to perceive school as 
unsafe, and in trying to ensure their own safety, 
students may begin to skip school activities or avoid 
certain places within school (Schreck and Miller 2003). 
The percentage of students who avoid school activities 
and certain areas in school is a measure of their 
perceptions of school safety. In the School Crime 
Supplement25 to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 
students ages 12-18 were asked whether they had avoided 
school activities or one or more places in school because 
they were fearful that someone might attack or harm 
them.26 In 2005, some 6 percent of students reported that 
they had avoided a school activity or one or more places 
in school in the previous 6 months because of fear of 
attack or harm. About 2 percent of students avoided a 
school activity, and 4 percent avoided one or more places 
in school27 (figure 18.1 and table 18.1). 

The percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported that 
they avoided school activities because they thought 
someone might attack or harm them there decreased from 3 
to 2 percent between 1999 and 2001 and remained at about 
2 percent through 2005 (figure 18.1 and table 18.1). 
Between 4 and 5 percent of students reported avoiding one 
or more places in school during the same period. 

Students' reports of avoiding one or more places in 
school varied according to their race/ ethnicity. In 
2005, Black and Hispanic students (7 and 6 percent, 
respectively) were more likely than White students or 
those from some Other racial/ethnic background (4 and 3 
percent, respectively) to report avoiding one or more 
places in school because they were afraid someone might 
attack or harm them (table 18.2). As in all previous 
survey years, no measurable difference was detected in 
the extent to which males and females avoided places in 
2005. 

Generally, grade level was inversely associated with 
students' likelihood of avoiding one or more places in 
school. Eight percent of 6th-graders avoided one or more 
places in school in 2005, compared with 1 percent of 
12th-graders (figure 18.2 and table 18.2). 

Consistent with most previous years, students in urban 
areas in 2005 were the most likely to avoid places in 
school: 6 percent of urban students reported that they 
had done so, compared with 4 percent of suburban and 
rural students. In addition, public school students were 
more likely than private school students to avoid places 
in school (5 vs. 1 percent). 

25 In 2005, the unit response rate for this survey did 
not meet NCES statistical standards; therefore, interpret 
the data with caution. For more information, please see 
appendix A.
26 For the 2001 survey, the wording was changed from 
"attack or harm" to "attack or threat of attack." See 
appendix A for more information.
27 Avoided a school activity includes avoiding 
extracurricular activities, skipping class, or staying 
home from school. Places include the entrance, any 
hallways or stairs, parts of the cafeteria, restrooms, 
and other places inside the school building. 

This indicator repeats information from the 2006 

Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. 

For more information: 

Tables 18.1 & 18.2 

Addington et al. 2002 


DISCIPLINE, SAFETY, AND SECURITY MEASURES


INDICATOR 19
SERIOUS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS TAKEN BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
Forty-eight percent of public schools (approximately 
39,600 schools) took a serious disciplinary action 
against a student for specific offenses during the 2005- 
06 school year. Of those disciplinary actions, 74 percent 
were suspensions lasting 5 days or more, 5 percent were 
removals with no services (i.e., expulsions), and 20 
percent were transfers to specialized schools. 

In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, public school 
officials were asked to report the number of disciplinary 
actions their schools took against students for specific 
offenses. 

Forty-eight percent of public schools (approximately 
39,600 schools) took at least one serious disciplinary 
action against a student-including suspensions lasting 5 
days or more, removals with no services (i.e., 
expulsions), and transfers to specialized schools-for 
specific offenses during the 2005-06 school year (figure 
19.1 and table 19.1). The offenses included physical 
attacks or fights; insubordination; distribution, 
possession, or use of alcohol; distribution, possession, 
or use of illegal drugs; use or possession of a weapon 
other than a firearm or explosive device; and use or 
possession of a firearm or explosive device. Of the 
830,700 serious disciplinary actions taken during the 
2005 -06 school year, 74 percent were suspensions for 5 
days or more, 5 percent were removals with no services, 
and 20 percent were transfers to specialized schools. 

The largest percentage of schools that reported taking a 
disciplinary action in 2005-06 did so in response to a 
physical attack or fight: 32 percent of schools took a 
serious disciplinary action for physical attacks or 
fights (figure 19.1 and table 19.1). Of the schools that 
reported taking a serious disciplinary action, 21 percent 
took action for insubordination and for distribution, 
possession, or use of illegal drugs; 19 percent took 
action as a result of use or possession of a weapon other 
than a firearm or explosive device; 10 percent did so for 
distribution, possession, or use of alcohol; and 5 
percent did so for use or possession of a firearm or 
explosive device. 

The percentage of schools that took a serious 
disciplinary action for use or possession of a weapon 
other than a firearm was higher in 2005-06, 19 percent, 
than in 2003-04, 17 percent (table 19.2). The percentage 
of schools that took a serious disciplinary action in 
response to the other offenses covered in the survey were 
not measurably different between 2003-04 and 2005-06. The 
percentage of public schools that took a serious 
disciplinary action was smaller in 2003-04, 46 percent, 
than in 1999-2000, 54 percent (figure 19.2 and table 
19.2). This pattern held for physical attacks or fights: 
in 1999-2000, 35 percent of public schools took a serious 
disciplinary action for a physical attack or fight, 
compared to 32 percent in 2003-04. 

This indicator has been updated to include 2005-06 data. 

For more information: 

Tables 19.1 & 19.2 

Nolle, Guerino, and Dinkes 2007 


INDICATOR 20
SAFETY AND SECURITY MEASURES TAKEN BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
Between the 1999-2000 and 2005-06 school years, the 
percentage of schools using one or more security cameras 
to monitor the school increased from 19 to 43 percent. 

Public schools use a variety of practices and procedures 
intended to promote the safety of students and staff. 
This indicator provides information on what types of 
safety and security measures schools use and how 
frequently they use them. In the School Survey on Crime 
and Safety, public school officials were asked about 
their school's use of such measures and procedures. 
Certain practices, such as locked or monitored doors or 
gates, are intended to limit or control access to school 
campuses, while others, such as metal detectors, security 
cameras, and drug sweeps, are intended to monitor or 
restrict students' and visitors' behavior on campus. 

In the 2005-06 school year, 85 percent of public schools 
controlled access to school buildings by locking or 
monitoring doors during school hours, and 41 percent 
controlled access to school grounds with locked or 
monitored gates (figure 20.1 and table 20.1). About 48 
percent of public schools required faculty and staff to 
wear badges or picture identification, and 43 percent 
used one or more security cameras to monitor the school. 
Five percent of public schools performed drug testing on 
athletes and 3 percent did so for students in other 
extracurricular activities. Students were required to 
wear uniforms in 14 percent of public schools in 2005-06. 

The use of security measures varied by school level. 
Although a lower percentage of primary schools than 
middle and high schools reported using many of these 
measures, a higher percentage of primary schools than 
middle and high schools controlled access to school 
buildings and grounds during school hours (table 20.1). 
In addition, a larger percentage of primary schools than 
high schools reported requiring students to wear 
uniforms: 16 percent of primary schools required uniforms 
in 2005-06, compared to 5 percent of high schools. A 
higher percentage of public high schools than primary or 
middle schools reported performing drug tests on student 
athletes and students in extracurricular activities, 
random dog sniffs to check for drugs, random sweeps for 
contraband, and using security cameras. Thirteen percent 
of high schools reported performing drug tests on 
athletes, compared to 7 percent of middle schools and 1 
percent of primary schools; and 61 percent of high 
schools performed random dog sniffs to check for drugs, 
compared to 41 percent and 4 percent of middle and 
primary schools, respectively. 

The percentage of schools using various security measures 
has changed over time. Between the 1999-2000 and 2005-06 
school years, the percentage of schools using one or more 
security cameras to monitor the school increased from 19 
to 43 percent (figure 20.2 and table 20.2). The 
percentage of public schools providing telephones in most 
classrooms also increased, from 45 percent in 1999-2000 
to 67 percent in 2005-06. 

This indicator has been updated to include 2005-06 data. 

For more information:

Tables 20.1 & 20.2

Appendix B for definitions of school levels and 
urbanicity

Nolle, Guerino, and Dinkes 2007


INDICATOR 21
STUDENTS' REPORTS OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MEASURES 
OBSERVED AT SCHOOL 
The percentage of students who reported observing the use 
of security cameras at their schools increased from 39 to 
58 percent between 2001 and 2005. 

Schools use a variety of measures to promote the safety 
of students, ranging from codes of student conduct to 
metal detectors. In the School Crime Supplement28 to the 
National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 
were asked whether their school used certain security 
measures.29 Security measures include metal detectors, 
locker checks, security cameras, security guards or 
police officers, adult supervision in hallways, badges or 
picture identification for students, a code of student 
conduct, locked entrance or exit doors during the day, 
and a requirement that visitors sign in. In 2005, nearly 
all (99 percent) students ages 12-18 observed the use of 
at least one of the selected security measures at their 
school (table 21.1). 

In 2005, the vast majority of students ages 12-18 
reported that their school had a student code of conduct 
(95 percent) and a requirement that visitors sign in (93 
percent; figure 21.1 and table 21.1). Ninety percent of 
students reported observing school staff or other adult 
supervision in the hallway, and 68 percent reported the 
presence of security guards and/or assigned police 
officers. Between 53 and 58 percent of students reported 
locker checks, locked entrance or exit doors during the 
day, and security cameras at their schools. One-quarter 
of students reported that badges or picture 
identification were required. Metal detectors were the 
least observed of the selected safety and security 
measures: 11 percent of students reported the use of 
metal detectors at their school. 

The percentage of students reporting the presence of many 
of the selected security measures increased between 2001 
and 2005 (figure 21.1 and table 21.1). For example, the 
percentage of students who observed the use of security 
cameras at their schools increased from 39 to 58 percent 
during this period, and the percentage who reported that 
students were required to wear badges or picture 
identification increased from 21 to 25 percent. Between 
1999 and 2005, there was also an increase in the 
percentage of students observing locked entrance or exit 
doors during the day (from 38 to 54 percent), the 
percentage reporting a visitor sign-in requirement (from 
87 to 93 percent), and the percentage reporting the 
presence of security guards and/or assigned police 
officers (from 54 to 68 percent). No differences were 
detected in the percentage of students reporting locker 
checks or a code of student conduct in their schools 
across all survey years. 

28 In 2005, the unit response rate for this survey did 
not meet NCES statistical standards; therefore, interpret 
the data with caution. For more information, please see 
appendix A.
29 Readers should note that this indicator relies on 
student reports of security measures and provides 
estimates based on students' awareness of the measure 
rather than on documented practice. See Indicator 20 for 
a summary of the use of various security measures as 
reported by schools.

This indicator repeats information from the 2006 

Indicators of School Crime and Safety report. 

For more information: 

Table 21.1 

Addington et al. 2002 


REFERENCES 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catalano, S.M. (2006). Criminal Victimization, 2005 (NCJ 
214644). U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: 
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

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

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

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

DeVoe, J.F., and Kaffenberger, S. (2005). Student Reports 
of Bullying: Results From the 2001 School Crime 
Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey 
(NCES 2005

310). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute 
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, and 
Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. 
Washington, DC. 

Eaton, D.K., Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Ross, J., Harris, 
W.A., Lowry, R., McManus, T., Chyen, D., Shanklin, S., 
Lim, C., Grunbaum, J.A., Wechsler, H. (2006). Youth Risk 
Behavior Surveillance-United States, 2005. In 
Surveillance Summaries (MMWR (No. SS-5)). Atlanta, GA: 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Elliott, D.S., Hamburg, B.A., and Williams, K.R. (1998). 
Violence in American Schools: An Overview. In D.S. 
Elliott, B.A. Hamburg, and K.R. Williams (Eds.), Violence 
in American Schools (pp. 3-18). New York: Cambridge 
University Press. 

Fagan, J., and Wilkinson, D.L. (1998). Social Contexts 
and Functions of Adolescent Violence. In D.S. Elliott, 
B.A. Hamburg, and K.R. Williams (Eds.), Violence in 
American Schools (pp. 55-93). New York: Cambridge 
University Press. 

Henry, S. (2000). What Is School Violence? An Integrated 
Definition. Annals of the American Academy of Political 
and Social Science, 567: 16-29. 

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

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

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

Lannie, A.L., and McCurdy, B.L. (2007). Preventing 
Disruptive Behavior in the Urban Classroom: Effects of 
the Good Behavior Game on Student and Teacher Behavior. 
Education and Treatment of Children, 30(1): 85-98. 

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

Nansel, T.R., Overpeck, M.D., Haynie, D.L., Ruan, W.J., 
and Scheidt, P.C. (2003). Relationships Between Bullying 
and Violence Among U.S. Youth. Archives of Pediatric and 
Adolescent Medicine, 157(4): 348-353. 

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

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

Nolle, K.L., Guerino, P., and Dinkes, R. (2007). Crime, 
Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools: 
Findings From the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 
2005-06 (NCES 2007-361). National Center for Education 
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 
Department of Education. Washington, DC. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strizek, G.A., Pittsonberger, J.L., Riordan, K.E., Lyter, 
D.M., and Orlofsky, G.F. (2006). Characteristics of 
Schools, Districts, Teachers, Principals, and School 
Libraries in the United States: 2003-04 Schools and 
Staffing Survey (NCES 2006-313 Revised). National Center 
for Education Statistics, Institute of Education 
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 
Education Statistics. (2003). Digest of Education 
Statistics, 2002 (NCES 2003-060). National Center for 
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, 
U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 
Education Statistics. (2006). Digest of Education 
Statistics, 2005 (NCES 2006-030). National Center for 
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, 
U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 
Education Statistics. (2007). Digest of Education 
Statistics, 2006 (NCES 2007-017). National Center for 
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, 
U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of 
Investigation. (2006). Crime in the United States 2005. 
Retrieved November 13, 2006, from 
http:/www/fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html. 

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


APPENDIX A


TECHNICAL NOTES

GENERAL INFORMATION
The indicators in this report are based on information 
drawn from a variety of independent data sources, 
including national surveys of students, teachers, and 
principals, and data collections from federal departments 
and agencies, including the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 
the National Center for Education Statistics, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, and the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention. Each data source has an 
independent sample design, data collection method, and 
questionnaire design or is the result of a universe data 
collection. Universe data collections include a census of 
all known entities in a specific universe (e.g., all 
deaths occurring on school property). Readers should be 
cautious when comparing data from different sources. 
Differences in sampling procedures, populations, time 
periods, and question phrasing can all affect the 
comparability of results. For example, some questions 
from different surveys may appear the same, but were 
asked of different populations of students (e.g., 
students ages 12-18 or students in grades 9-12); in 
different years; about experiences that occurred within 
different periods of time (e.g., in the past 30 days or 
during the past 12 months); or at different locations 
(e.g., in school or anywhere). 

All comparisons described in this report are 
statistically significant at the .05 level. Estimates 
displayed in the text, figures, and tables are rounded 
from original estimates, not from a series of roundings. 

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

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


School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study 
(SAVD) 

The School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study 
(SAVD) is an epidemiological study developed by the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in conjunction 
with the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. 
Department of Justice. SAVD seeks to describe the 
epidemiology of school-associated violent deaths, 
identify common features of these deaths, estimate the 
rate of school-associated violent death in the United 
States, and identify potential risk factors for these 
deaths. The surveillance system includes descriptive data 
on all school-associated violent deaths in the United 
States, including all homicides, suicides, and 
unintentional firearm-related deaths where the fatal 
injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary 
or secondary school, while the victim was on the way to 
or from regular sessions at such a school, or while 
attending or on the way to or from an official school-
sponsored event. Victims of such events include 
nonstudents as well as students and staff members. SAVD 
includes descriptive information about the school, event, 
victim(s), and offender(s). The SAVD Surveillance System 
has collected data from July 1, 1992, through the 
present. 

SAVD uses a four-step process to identify and collect 
data on school-associated violent deaths. Cases are 
initially identified through a search of the Lexis/Nexis 
newspaper and media database. Then police officials are 
contacted to confirm the details of the case and to 
determine if the event meets the case definition. Once a 
case is confirmed, a police official and a school 
official are interviewed regarding details about the 
school, event, victim(s), and offender(s). A copy of the 
full police report is also sought for each case. The 
information obtained on schools includes school 
demographics, attendance/ absentee rates, 
suspension/expulsions and mobility, school history of 
weapon-carrying incidents, security measures, violence 
prevention activities, school response to the event, and 
school policies about weapon carrying. Event information 
includes the location of injury, the context of injury 
(while classes were being held, during break, etc.), 
motives for injury, method of injury, and school and 
community events happening around the time period. 
Information obtained on victim(s) and offender(s) 
includes demographics, circumstances of the event 
(date/time, alcohol or drug use, number of persons 
involved), types and origins of weapons, criminal 
history, psychological risk factors, school-related 
problems, extracurricular activities, and family history, 
including structure and stressors. 

One hundred five school-associated violent deaths were 
identified from July 1, 1992- June 30, 1994 (Kachur et 
al. 1996). A more recent report from this data collection 
identified 253 school-associated violent deaths between 
July 1, 1994-June 30, 1999 (Anderson et al. 2001). Other 
publications from this study have described how the 
number of events changes during the school year (Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention 2001), the source of 
the firearms used in these events (Reza et al. 2003), and 
suicides that were associated with schools (Kauffman et 
al. 2004). The interviews conducted on cases between July 
1, 1994 and June 30, 1999 achieved a response rate of 97 
percent for police officials and 78 percent for school 
officials.  The SAVD data are considered preliminary 
until interviews with school and law enforcement 
officials have been completed. The details learned during 
the interviews can occasionally change the classification 
of a case. For additional information about SAVD, 
contact: 

Jeff Hall
Division of Violence Prevention 
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop K60 
4770 Buford Highway NE 
Atlanta, GA 30341 
Telephone: (770) 488-4648 
E-mail: jhall2@cdc.gov


Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) 

The Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), which are a 
part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, 
provide incident-level information on criminal homicides 
including situation (number of victims to number of 
offenders); the age, sex, and race of victims and 
offenders; types of weapons used; circumstances of the 
incident; and the relationship of the victim to the 
offender. The data are provided monthly to the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) by local law enforcement 
agencies participating in the FBI's UCR program. The data 
include murders and non-negligent manslaughters in the 
United States from January 1976-December 2005; that is, 
negligent manslaughters and justifiable homicides have 
been eliminated from the data. Based on law enforcement 
agency reports, the FBI estimates that 594,277 murders 
were committed from 1976 to 2005. Agencies provided 
detailed information on 538,210 victims and 597,359 
offenders. 

About 91 percent of homicides are included in the SHR. 
However, adjustments can be made to the weights to 
correct for missing reports. Estimates from the SHR used 
in this report were generated by the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics (BJS) using a weight developed by BJS that 
reconciles the counts of SHR homicide victims with those 
in the UCR for the 1992 through 2005 data years. The 
weight is the same for all cases for a given year. The 
weight represents the ratio of the number of homicides 
reported in the UCR to the number reported in the SHR. 
For additional information about SHR, contact: 

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


Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System 
Fatal (WISQARS(tm) Fatal) 

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

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

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


National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) 

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

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

The number of NCVS eligible households in 2005 was about 
42,500. They were selected using a stratified, multistage 
cluster design. In the first stage, the primary sampling 
units (PSUs), consisting of counties or groups of 
counties, were selected. In the second stage, smaller 
areas, called Enumeration Districts (EDs), were selected 
from each sampled PSU. Finally, from selected EDs, 
clusters of four households, 

called segments, were selected for interview. At each 
stage, the selection was done proportionate to population 
size in order to create a self-weighting sample. The 
final sample was augmented to account for housing units 
constructed after the decennial Census. Within each 
sampled household, U.S. Census Bureau personnel 
interviewed all household members age 12 and older to 
determine whether they had been victimized by the 
measured crimes during the 6 months preceding the 
interview. 

The first NCVS interview with a housing unit is conducted 
in person. Subsequent interviews are conducted by 
telephone, if possible. About 67,000 persons age 12 and 
older are interviewed each 6 months. Households remain in 
the sample for 3 years and are interviewed seven times at 
6-month intervals. The initial interview at each sample 
unit is used only to bound future interviews to establish 
a time frame to avoid duplication of crimes uncovered in 
these subsequent interviews. After their seventh 
interview, households are replaced by new sample 
households. The NCVS has consistently obtained a response 
rate of over 90 percent at the household level. The 
completion rates for persons within households were about 
84 percent. Thus, final response rates were about 77 
percent in 2005. Weights were developed to permit 
estimates for the total U.S. population 12 years and 
older. For more information about the NCVS, contact: 

Wendy Lin-Kelly 
Victimization Statistics Branch 
Bureau of Justice Statistics 
U.S. Department of Justice 
810 7th Street NW 
Washington, DC 20531 
Telephone: (202) 353-2034 
E-mail: Wendy.Lin-Kelly@usdoj.gov 
Internet: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs


School Crime Supplement (SCS) 

Created as a supplement to the NCVS and codesigned by the 
National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of 
Justice Statistics, the School Crime Supplement (SCS) 
survey was conducted in 1989, 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 
2005 to collect additional information about school-
related victimizations on a national level. This report 
includes data from the 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005 
collections. The 1989 data are not included in this 
report as a result of methodological changes to the NCVS 
and SCS. The survey was designed to assist policymakers 
as well as academic researchers and practitioners at the 
federal, state, and local levels so that they can make 
informed decisions concerning crime in schools. The SCS 
asks students a number of key questions about their 
experiences with and perceptions of crime and violence 
that occurred inside their school, on school grounds, on 
a school bus, or on the way to or from school. Additional 
questions not included in the NCVS were also added to the 
SCS, such as those concerning preventive measures used by 
the school, students' participation in after school 
activities, students' perceptions of school rules, the 
presence of weapons and gangs in school, the presence of 
hate-related words and graffiti in school, student 
reports of bullying and reports of rejection at school, 
and the availability of drugs and alcohol in school, as 
well as attitudinal questions relating to fear of 
victimization and avoidance behavior at school. 

In all SCS survey years, the SCS was conducted for a 6-
month period from January- June in all households 
selected for the NCVS (see discussion above for 
information about the NCVS sampling design and changes to 
the race/ethnicity item made for 2003 onward). It should 
be noted that the initial NCVS interview is included in 
the SCS data collection. Within these households, the 
eligible respondents for the SCS were those household 
members who had attended school at any time during the 6 
months preceding the interview, were enrolled in grades 
6-12, and were not home schooled. The age range of 
students covered in this report is 12-18 years of age. 
Eligible respondents were asked the supplemental 
questions in the SCS only after completing their entire 
NCVS interview. 

The prevalence of victimization for 1995, 1999, 2001, 
2003, and 2005 was calculated by using NCVS incident 
variables appended to the 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 
2005 SCS data files. The NCVS type of crime variable was 
used to classify victimizations of students in the SCS as 
serious violent, violent, or theft. The NCVS variables 
asking where the incident happened and what the victim 
was doing when it happened were used to ascertain whether 
the incident happened at school. For prevalence of 
victimization, the NCVS definition of "at school" 
includes in the school building, on school property, or 
on the way to or from school. Only incidents that 
occurred inside the United States are included. 

In 2001, the SCS survey instrument was modified from 
previous collections in three ways. First, in 1995 and 
1999, "at school" was defined for respondents as in the 
school building, on the school grounds, or on a school 
bus. In 2001, the definition for "at school" was changed 
to mean in the school building, on school property, on a 
school bus, or going to and from school. This change was 
made to the 2001 questionnaire in order to be consistent 
with the definition of "at school" as it is constructed 
in the NCVS and was also used as the definition in 2003 
and 2005. Cognitive interviews conducted by the U.S. 
Census Bureau on the 1999 SCS suggested that 
modifications to the definition of "at school" would not 
have a substantial impact on the estimates. 

Second, the SCS questions pertaining to fear and 
avoidance were changed for the 2001 SCS survey. In 1995, 
1999, 2003, and 2005, students were asked if they were 
fearful or avoidant because they thought someone would 
"attack or harm" them. In 2001, students were asked if 
they were fearful or avoidant because they thought 
someone would "attack or threaten to attack" them. In the 
1999 and 2001 SCS, students were asked to exclude times 
they were at school or going to or from school in the 
question about fear away from school. In 2003 and 2005, 
when asked about fear away from school, students were 
asked to exclude times they were at school; however, in 
these years the definition of "at school" included going 
to and from school. These changes should be considered 
when making comparisons across survey years. 

Third, the SCS question pertaining to gangs changed 
beginning with the 2001 SCS. The introduction and 
definition of gangs as well as the placement of the item 
in the questionnaire changed in the 2001 SCS. Because of 
these changes, the reader should be cautioned not to 
compare results from 2001 (presented in this report) with 
estimates of gang presence in 1995 and 1999 (presented in 
previous editions of this report). 

In 2005, the SCS instrument was modified again. In this 
year, the SCS question(s) pertaining to bullying changed. 
In 1999, 2001, and 2003, students were asked a single 
bullying question. The 2005 SCS included a series of 
questions about bullying. Because of substantive changes 
in questionnaire wording, comparisons between the 2005 
SCS bullying indicator and all other survey years should 
be made with caution. 

Total victimization is a combination of violent 
victimization and theft. If the student reported an 
incident of either violent or theft victimization or 
both, he or she is counted as having experienced "total" 
victimization. Serious violent crimes include rape, 
sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent 
crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault. 
Theft includes purse snatching, pick pocketing, all 
burglaries, attempted forcible entry, and all attempted 
and completed thefts except motor vehicle thefts. 

A total of 9,728 students participated in the 1995 SCS, 
8,398 in 1999, 8,374 in 2001, 7,152 in 2003, and 6,297 in 
2005. In the 2005 SCS, the household completion rate was 
91 percent. In the 1995, 1999, 2001 and 2003 SCS, the 
household completion rates were 95 percent, 94 percent, 
93 percent, and 92 percent, respectively; and the student 
completion rates were 78 percent, 78 percent, 77 percent, 
and 70 percent, respectively. For the 2005 SCS, the 
student completion rate was 62 percent. 

Thus, the overall unweighted SCS response rate 
(calculated by multiplying the household completion rate 
by the student completion rate) was 74 percent in 1995, 
73 percent in 1999, 72 percent in 2001, 64 percent in 
2003, and 56 percent in 2005. Response rates for most 
survey items were high-typically over 95 percent of all 
eligible respondents. The weights were developed to 
compensate for differential probabilities of selection 
and nonresponse. The weighted data permit inferences 
about the eligible student population who were enrolled 
in schools in 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005. 

Due to the low unit response rate in 2005, a unit 
nonresponse bias analysis was commissioned. There are two 
types of nonresponse: unit and item nonresponse. Unit 
response rates indicate how many sampled units have 
completed interviews. Because interviews with students 
could only be completed after households had responded to 
NCVS, the unit completion rate for SCS reflects both the 
household interview completion rate and the student 
interview completion rate. 

Nonresponse can greatly affect the strength and 
application of survey data by leading to an increase in 
variance as a result of a reduction in the actual size of 
the sample and can produce bias if the nonrespondents 
have characteristics of interest that are different from 
the respondents. Furthermore, imputation, a common 
recourse to nonresponse, can lead to the risk of 
underestimating the sampling error if imputed data are 
treated as though they were observed data. 

In order for response bias to occur, respondents must 
have different response rates and responses to particular 
survey variables. The magnitude of unit nonresponse bias 
is determined by the response rate and the differences 
between respondents and nonrespondents on key survey 
variables. Although the bias analysis cannot measure 
response bias since SCS is a sample survey and it is not 
known how the population would have responded, the SCS 
sampling frame has four key student or school 
characteristic variables for which data is known for 
respondents and nonrespondents: sex, race/ethnicity, 
household income, and urbanicity, all of which are 
associated with student victimization. To the extent that 
there are differential responses by respondents in these 
groups, nonresponse bias is a concern. 

The analysis of unit nonresponse bias found evidence of 
bias for the race, household income, and urbanicity 
variables. White (non-Hispanic) and Other (non-Hispanic) 
respondents had higher response rates than Black (non-
Hispanic) and Hispanic respondents. Respondents from 
households with an income of $35,000-49,999 and $50,000 
or more had higher response rates than those from 
households with incomes of less than $7,500, $7,500-
14,999, $15,000-24,999 and $25,000-34,999. Respondents 
who live in urban areas had lower response rates than 
those who live in rural or suburban areas. Although the 
extent of nonresponse bias cannot be determined, 
weighting adjustments, which corrected for differential 
response rates, should have reduced the problem. For more 
information about SCS, contact: 

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


Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 

The National School-Based Youth Risk Behavior Survey 
(YRBS) is one component of the Youth Risk Behavior 
Surveillance System (YRBSS), an epidemiological 
surveillance system developed by the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC) to monitor the prevalence of 
youth behaviors that most influence health.1 The YRBS 
focuses on priority health-risk behaviors established 
during youth that result in the most significant 
mortality, morbidity, disability, and social problems 
during both youth and adulthood. This report uses 1993, 
1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005 YRBS data. 

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

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

Schools with substantial numbers of Black and Hispanic 
students were sampled at relatively higher rates than all 
other schools. The final stage of sampling consisted of 
randomly selecting within each chosen school at each 
grade 9-12 one or two intact classes of a required 
subject, such as English or social studies. All students 
in selected classes were eligible to participate. 
Approximately 16,300, 10,900, 16,300, 15,300, 13,600, 
15,200, and 13,900 students participated in the 1993, 
1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005 surveys, 
respectively. 

The overall response rate was 70 percent for the 1993 
survey, 60 percent for the 1995 survey, 69 percent for 
the 1997 survey, 66 percent for the 1999 survey, 63 
percent for the 2001 survey, 67 percent for the 2003 
survey, and 67 percent for the 2005 survey. NCES 
standards call for response rates of 85 percent or better 
for cross-sectional surveys, and bias analyses are 
required by NCES when that percentage is not achieved. 
For YRBS data, a full nonresponse bias analysis has not 
been done because the data necessary to do the analysis 
are not available. The weights were developed to adjust 
for nonresponse and the oversampling of Black and 
Hispanic students in the sample. The final weights were 
constructed so that only weighted proportions of students 
(not weighted counts of students) in each grade matched 
national population projections. Where YRBS data are 
presented, accurate national population projections are 
provided from the Digest of Education Statistics, 2002 
and 2005 (U.S. Department of Education 2003, 2006). 

State level data were downloaded from the Youth Online: 
Comprehensive Results web page 
(http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/yrbss/). Each state and local 
school-based YRBS employs a two-stage, cluster sample 
design to produce representative samples of students in 
grades 9-12 in their jurisdiction. All except a few state 
and local samples include only public schools, and each 
local sample includes only schools in the funded school 
district (e.g., San Diego Unified School District) rather 
than in the entire city (e.g., greater San Diego area). 

In the first sampling stage in all except a few states 
and districts, schools are selected with probability 
proportional to school enrollment size. In the second 
sampling stage, intact classes of a required subject or 
intact classes during a required period (e.g., second 
period) are selected randomly. All students in sampled 
classes are eligible to participate. Certain states and 
districts modify these procedures to meet their 
individual needs. For example, in a given state or 
district, all schools, rather than a sample of schools, 
might be selected to participate. State and local surveys 
that have a scientifically selected sample, appropriate 
documentation, and an overall response rate greater than 
or equal to 60 percent are weighted. The overall response 
rate reflects the school response rate multiplied by the 
student response rate. These three criteria are used to 
ensure that the data from those surveys can be considered 
representative of students in grades 9-12 in that 
jurisdiction. A weight is applied to each record to 
adjust for student nonresponse and the distribution of 
students by grade, sex, and race/ethnicity in each 
jurisdiction. Therefore, weighted estimates are 
representative of all students in grades 9-12 attending 
schools in each jurisdiction. Surveys that do not have an 
overall response rate of greater than or equal to 60 
percent and do not have appropriate documentation are not 
weighted and are not included in this report. 

In 2005, a total of 40 states and 21 districts had 
weighted data. In sites with weighted data, the student 
sample sizes for the state and local YRBS ranged from 942 
to 9,708. School response rates ranged from 72 to 100 
percent, student response rates ranged from 61 to 93 
percent, and overall response rates ranged from 60 to 85 
percent. 

Readers should note that reports of these data published 
by the CDC do not include percentages where the 
denominator includes less than 100 unweighted cases. 
However, NCES publications do not include percentages 
where the denominator includes less than 30 unweighted 
cases. Therefore, estimates presented here may not appear 
in CDC publications of YRBS estimates and are considered 
unstable by CDC standards. 

In 1999, in accordance with changes to the Office of 
Management and Budget's standards for the classification 
of federal data on race and ethnicity, the YRBS item on 
race/ethnicity was modified. The version of the race and 
ethnicity question used in 1993, 1995, and 1997 was: 

How do you describe yourself? 
A. White-not Hispanic 
B. Black-not Hispanic 
C. Hispanic or Latino 
D. Asian or Pacific Islander 
E. American Indian or Alaskan Native 
F. Other 

The version used in 1999, 2001, 2003, and in the 2005 
state and local surveys was: 

How do you describe yourself? (Select one or more 
responses.) 
A. American Indian or Alaska Native 
B. Asian 
C. Black or African American 
D. Hispanic or Latino 
E. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 
F. White 

In the 2005 national survey, race/ethnicity was computed 
from two questions: 1) "Are you Hispanic or Latino?" 
(response options were "yes" and "no"), and 2) "What is 
your race?" (response options were "American Indian or 
Alaska Native," "Asian," "Black or African American," 
"Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander," or "White"). 
For the second question, students could select more than 
one response option. For this report, students were 
classified as "Hispanic" if they answered "yes" to the 
first question, regardless of how they answered the 
second question. Students who answered "no" to the first 
question and selected more than one race/ethnicity in the 
second category were classified as "More than one race." 
Students who answered "no" to the first question and 
selected only one race/ethnicity were classified as that 
race/ethnicity. Race/ethnicity was set to missing for 
students who did not answer the first question (176 
cases) or for students who answered "no" to the first 
question but did not answer the second question (48 
cases). 

The questions used in 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005 result 
in the possibility of respondents marking more than one 
category. While more accurately reflecting respondents' 
racial and ethnic identity, the new item cannot be 
directly compared to responses to the old item. Brener, 
Kann, and McManus (2003) found that allowing students to 
select more than one response to the race/ethnicity 
question on the YRBS had only a minimal effect on 
reported race/ethnicity among high school students. CDC 
is examining the effect of using a two-question format to 
assess race/ethnicity in the 2005 national YRBS. 

For additional information about the YRBS, contact: 

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


Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 

This report draws upon data on teacher victimization from 
the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), which provides 
national- and state-level data on public schools and 
national- and affiliation-level data on private schools. 
The 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 SASS were collected 
by the U.S. Census Bureau and sponsored by the National 
Center for Education Statistics (NCES). SASS consists of 
four sets of linked surveys, including surveys of 
schools, the principals of each selected school, a 
subsample of teachers within each school, and public 
school districts. In 1993-94, there were two sets of 
teacher surveys, public and private school teachers. In 
1999- 2000, there were four sets of teacher surveys, 
public, private, public charter, and Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA) school teachers. In 2003-04, there were 
three sets of teacher surveys, public (including public 
charter), private, and BIA. For this report, BIA and 
public charter schools are included with public schools. 

The public school sampling frames for the 1993-94, 1999-
2000, and 2003-04 SASS were created using the 1991-92, 
1997-98, and 2001-02 NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) 
Public School Universe Files, respectively. In SASS, a 
school was defined as an institution or part of an 
institution that provides classroom instruction to 
students; has one or more teachers to provide 
instruction; serves students in one or more of grades 1-
12 or the ungraded equivalent and is located in one or 
more buildings. It was possible for two or more schools 
to share the same building; in this case they were 
treated as different schools if they had different 
administrations (i.e., principals). Since CCD and SASS 
differ in scope and their definition of a school, some 
records were deleted, added, or modified in order to 
provide better coverage and a more efficient sample 
design for SASS. Data were collected by multistage 
sampling, which began with the selection of schools. 

This report uses 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 SASS 
data. Approximately 10,000 public schools and 3,300 
private schools were selected to participate in the 1993-
94 SASS, 11,100 public schools (9,900 public schools, 100 
BIA-funded schools, and 1,100 charter schools) and 3,600 
private schools were selected to participate in the 1999- 
2000 SASS, and 10,400 public schools (10,200 public 
schools and 200 BIA-funded schools) and 3,600 private 
schools were selected to participate in the 2003-04 SASS. 
Within each school, teachers selected were further 
stratified into one of five teacher types in the 
following hierarchy: (1) Asian or Pacific Islander; (2) 
American Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo; (3) teachers who teach 
classes designed for students with limited English 
proficiency; (4) teachers in their first, second, or 
third year of teaching; and (5) teachers not classified 
in any of the other groups. Within each teacher stratum, 
teachers were selected systematically with equal 
probability. In 1993-94, approximately 57,000 public 
school teachers and 11,500 private school teachers were 
sampled. In 1999- 2000, 56,300 public school teachers, 
500 BIA teachers, 4,400 public charter school teachers, 
and 10,800 private school teachers were sampled. In 2003-
04, 52,500 public school teachers, 700 BIA teachers, and 
10,000 private school teachers were sampled. 

This report focuses on responses from teachers. The 
overall weighted response rate for public school teachers 
in 1993-94 was 88 percent. In 1999-2000, the overall 
weighted response rates were 77 percent for public school 
teachers, and 86 and 72 percent for BIA and public 
charter school teachers, respectively (which are included 
with public school teachers for this report). In 2003-
2004, the overall weighted response rates were 76 percent 
for public school teachers and 86 percent for BIA-funded 
school teachers (who are included with public school 
teachers). For private school teachers, the overall 
weighted response rates were 80 percent, 67 percent, and 
70 percent in 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04, 
respectively. Values were imputed for questionnaire items 
that should have been answered but were not. For 
additional information about SASS, contact: 

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


School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) 

The School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) was 
conducted by NCES in the spring of the 2005-06 school 
year. SSOCS focuses on incidents of specific crimes and 
offenses and a variety of specific discipline issues in 
public schools. It also covers characteristics of school 
policies, school violence prevention programs and 
policies, and school characteristics that have been 
associated with school crime. The survey was conducted 
with a nationally representative sample of regular public 
primary, middle, high, and combined schools in the 50 
states and the District of Columbia. 

The sampling frame for the 2005-06 SSOCS was constructed 
from the 2003-04 NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) Public 
Elementary/Secondary School Universe File. The CCD is an 
annual national database of all public K-12 schools and 
school districts. Certain types of schools were excluded 
from the CCD Public School Universe File in order to meet 
the sampling needs of SSOCS, including those in the 
outlying U.S. areas2 and Puerto Rico; overseas Department 
of Defense schools; newly closed schools, home schools, 
and schools with high grades of kindergarten or lower; 
special education, vocational, or alternative schools; 
schools sponsored by the Bureau of Indian Affairs; 
ungraded schools; and "intermediate units"3 in California 
and Pennsylvania. The sample was stratified by 
instructional level, type of locale (e.g., city, urban 
fringe, etc.), and enrollment size. Within the primary 
strata, schools were also sorted by geographic region and 
by percentage of minority enrollment. The sample was then 
allocated to the primary strata in rough proportion to 
the square root of the total sum of individual 
enrollments of schools within the stratum. A total of 
3,565 schools were selected for the study. In March 2006, 
questionnaires were mailed to school principals, who were 
asked to complete the survey or to have it completed by 
the person most knowledgeable about discipline issues at 
the school. A total of 2,724 schools completed the 
survey. The weighted overall response rate was 80.6 
percent, and weighted item nonresponse rates ranged from 
0.0-27.7 percent. A nonresponse bias analysis was 
conducted on the 13 items with weighted item nonresponse 
rates above 15 percent, and the detected bias was not 
deemed problematic enough to suppress any items from the 
data file. Weights were developed to adjust for the 
variable probabilities of selection and differential 
nonresponse and can be used to produce national estimates 
for regular public schools in the 2005-06 school year. 
For information on the 1999-2000 and 2003-04 iterations, 
see Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006. For more 
information about the School Survey on Crime and Safety, 
contact: 

2 "U.S. outlying areas" include the following: America 
Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
3 These are generally schools specializing in special 
education, alternative education, or juvenile halls. 

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


ACCURACY OF ESTIMATES 

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

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

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

Standard error calculation for data from the National 
Crime Victimization Survey and the School Crime 
Supplement was based on the Taylor series approximation 
method 

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

The coefficient of variation (Cv) represents the ratio of 
the standard error to the mean. As an attribute of a 
distribution, the Cv is an important measure of the 
reliability and accuracy of an estimate. In this report, 
the Cv was calculated for all estimates, and in cases 
where the Cv was at least 30 percent the estimates were 
noted with a ! symbol (interpret data with caution). In 
cases where the Cv was greater than 50 percent, the 
estimate was determined not to meet reporting standards 
and was suppressed. 


STATISTICAL PROCEDURES 

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

t = (E1 - E2) / (se1^2 + se2^2)^1/2 

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

t = (E1 - E2) / [se1^2 + se2^2 - (2 * r * se1 * se2)]^1/2 

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

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

Some comparisons among categories of an ordered variable 
with three or more levels involved a test for a linear 
trend across all categories, rather than a series of 
tests between pairs of categories. In this report, when 
differences among percentages were examined relative to a 
variable with ordered categories, Analysis of Variance 
(ANOVA) was used to test for a linear relationship 
between the two variables. To do this, ANOVA models 
included orthogonal linear contrasts corresponding to 
successive levels of the independent variable. The 
squares of the Taylorized standard errors (that is, 
standard errors that were calculated by the Taylor series 
method), the variance between the means, and the 
unweighted sample sizes were used to partition the total 
sum of squares into within- and between-group sums of 
squares. These were used to create mean squares for the 
within- and between-group variance components and their 
corresponding F statistics, which were then compared with 
published values of F for a significance level of .05. 
significant values of both the overall F and the F 
associated with the linear contrast term were required as 
evidence of a linear relationship between the two 
variables. 


APPENDIX B


GLOSSARY OF TERMS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


SPECIFIC TERMS USED IN VARIOUS SURVEYS 


School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study 

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

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

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


National Crime Victimization Survey 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


School Crime Supplement 

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

Gang Street gangs, fighting gangs, crews, or something 
else. Gangs may use common names, signs, symbols, or 
colors. All gangs, whether or not they are involved in 
violent or illegal activity, are included. 

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

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

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

Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

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

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

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

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

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

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


Schools and Staffing Survey 

City A territory inside an urbanized area (defined as 
densely settled "cores" with populations of 50,000 or 
more of Census-defined blocks with adjacent densely 
settled surrounding areas) and inside a principal city 
(defined as a city that contains the primary population 
and economic center of a metropolitan statistical area, 
which, in turn, is defined as one or more contiguous 
counties that have a "core" area with a large population 
nucleus and adjacent communities that are highly 
integrated economically or socially with the core). 

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

Elementary school teachers An elementary school teacher 
is one who, when asked for the grades taught, checked: 
(1) only "ungraded" and was designated as an elementary 
teacher on the list of teachers provided by the school; 
(2) 6th grade or lower or "ungraded," and no grade higher 
than 6th; (3) 6th grade or lower and 7th grade or higher, 
and reported a primary assignment of prekindergarten, 
kindergarten, or general elementary; (4) 7th and 8th 
grades only, and reported a primary assignment of 
prekindergarten, kindergarten, or general elementary; (5) 
6th grade or lower and 7th grade or higher, and reported 
a primary assignment of special education and was 
designated as an elementary teacher on the list of 
teachers provided by the school; or 

(6) 7th and 8th grades only, and reported a primary 
assignment of special education and was designated as an 
elementary teacher on the list of teachers provided by 
the school. A teacher at a school that has grade 6 or 
lower or one that is "ungraded" with no grade higher than 
the 8th. 

Instructional level Instructional levels divide teachers 
into elementary or secondary based on a combination of 
the grades taught, main teaching assignment, and the 
structure of the teacher's class(es). Those with only 
ungraded classes are categorized as elementary level 
teachers if their main assignment is early 
childhood/prekindergarten or elementary, or they teach 
either special education in a self-contained classroom or 
an elementary enrichment class. All other teachers with 
ungraded classes are classifi ed as secondary level. 
Among teachers with regularly graded classes, in general, 
elementary level teachers teach any of grades 
prekindergarten through 5th; report an early 
childhood/prekindergarten, elementary, self-contained 
special education, or elementary enrichment main 
assignment; or are those whose preponderance of grades 
taught are kindergarten through 6th. In general, 
secondary level teachers instruct any of grades 7 through 
12 but usually no grade lower than 5th. They also teach 
more of grades 7 through 12 than lower level grades. 

Rural A territory outside any urbanized area (defined as 
densely settled "cores" with populations of 50,000 or 
more of Census-defined blocks with adjacent densely 
settled surrounding areas) or urban cluster (defined as 
densely settled "cores" with populations between 25,000 
and 50,000 of Census-defined blocks with adjacent densely 
settled surrounding areas). 

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

Secondary school teachers A secondary school teacher is 
one who, when asked for the grades taught, checked: (1) 
"ungraded" and was designated as a secondary teacher on 
the list of teachers provided by the school; (2) 6th 
grade or lower and 7th grade or higher, and reported a 
primary assignment other than prekindergarten, 
kindergarten, or general elementary; (3) 9th grade or 
higher, or 9th grade or higher and "ungraded"; (4) 7th 
and 8th grades only, and reported a primary assignment 
other than prekindergarten, kindergarten, general 
elementary, or special education; (5) 7th and 8th grades 
only, and reported a primary assignment of special 
education and was designated as a secondary 

teacher on the list of teachers provided by the school; 
or (6) 6th grade or lower and 7th grade or higher, or 7th 
and 8th grades only, and was not categorized above as 
either elementary or secondary. 

Suburban A territory outside a principal city (defined as 
a city that contains the primary population and economic 
center of a metropolitan statistical area, which, in 
turn, is defined as one or more contiguous counties that 
have a "core" area with a large population nucleus and 
adjacent communities that are highly integrated 
economically or socially with the core) and inside an 
urbanized area (defined as densely settled "cores" with 
populations of 50,000 or more of Census-defined blocks 
with adjacent densely settled surrounding areas). 

Town A territory inside an urban cluster (defined as 
densely settled "cores" with populations between 25,000 
and 50,000 of Census-defined blocks with adjacent densely 
settled surrounding areas). 


School Survey on Crime and Safety 

At school/at your school Includes activities that 
happened in school buildings, on school grounds, on 
school buses, and at places that held school-sponsored 
events or activities. Unless otherwise specified, 
respondents were instructed to report on activities that 
occurred during normal school hours or when school 
activities/events were in session. 

Combined schools Schools that include all combinations of 
grades, including K-12 schools, other than primary, 
middle, and high schools (see definitions for these 
school levels later in this section). 

Cult or extremist group A group that espouses radical 
beliefs and practices, which may include a religious 
component, that are widely seen as threatening the basic 
values and cultural norms of society at large. 

Firearm/explosive device Any weapon that is designed to 
(or may readily be converted to) expel a projectile by 
the action of an explosive. This includes guns, bombs, 
grenades, mines, rockets, missiles, pipe bombs, or 
similar devices designed to explode and capable of 
causing bodily harm or property damage. 

Gang An ongoing loosely organized association of three or 
more persons, whether formal or informal, that has a 
common name, signs, symbols, or colors, whose members 
engage, either individually or collectively, in violent 
or other forms of illegal behavior. 

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

Hate crime A criminal offense of threat against a person, 
property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in 
part, by the offender's bias against a race, color, 
national origin, ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, 
or sexual orientation. 

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

Intimidation To frighten, compel, or deter by actual or 
implied threats. It includes bullying and sexual 
harassment. (Intimidation was not defined in the front of 
the questionnaire in 2005-06.) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of File 12/2/07