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

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006


December 2006, NCJ 214262

--------------------------------------------------------
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/iscs06.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
-------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Department of Education 
NCES 2007-003 

U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Justice Programs 
NCJ 214262 

U.S. Department of Education 
NCES 2007-003 

U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Justice Programs
NCJ 214262 

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006 
December 2006 

Rachel Dinkes 
Education Statistics Services Institute-American Institutes
for Research 

Emily Forrest Cataldi 
MPR Associates, Inc. 

Grace Kena 
Education Statistics Services Institute-American Institutes
for Research 

Katrina Baum 
Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Thomas D. Snyder 
Project Officer 
National Center for Education Statistics 

U.S. Department of Education
Margaret Spellings
Secretary

U.S. Department of Justice 
Alberto Gonzales 
Attorney General 

Institute of Education Sciences 
Grover J. Whitehurst
Director

Office of Justice Programs 
Regina B. Schofield 
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. These data are critical
to federal, state, and local policymakers in combating crime
and ensuring that justice is both efficient and evenhanded. 

December 2006 

Suggested Citation 

Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E.F., Kena, G., and Baum, K. (2006).
Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006 (NCES
2007-003/NCJ 214262). U.S. Departments of Education and
Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

This publication can be downloaded from the World Wide Web at
http://nces.ed.gov or http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs. Single
hard copies can be ordered through ED Pubs at 1-877-4ED-PUBS
(NCES 2007-003) (TTY/TDD 1-877-576-7734), and the Bureau of
Justice Statistics Clearinghouse at 1-800- 851-3420 (NCJ
214262). 

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

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

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

For parents, school staff, and policymakers to address school
crime effectively, they must possess an accurate 
understanding of the extent and nature of the problem.
However, without collecting data, it is difficult to 
adequately gauge the scope of crime and violence in schools
given the large amount of attention devoted to isolated
incidents of extreme school violence. Ensuring safer schools
requires establishing good indicators of the current state 
of school crime and safety across the nation and periodically
monitoring and updating these indicators. This is the aim of
Indicators of School Crime and Safety. 

This report is the ninth 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 independent data
sources, including national surveys of students, teachers,
and principals, and data collections from federal departments
and agencies, including BJS, NCES, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. The most recent data collection for each
indicator varied by survey, from 2003-04 to 2005. 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 unit response rate for the School Crime Supplement
did not meet NCES statistical standards; therefore, interpret
the 2005 data from Indicators 3, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 20
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, disorder, weapons, student perceptions of school
safety, teacher injury, and 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. 

KEY FINDINGS 

In the 2004-05 school year, an estimated 54.9 million students 
were enrolled in prekindergarten through grade 12 (U.S. 
Department of Education forthcoming). Preliminary data
on fatal victimizations show youth ages 5-18 were victims 
of 28 school-associated violent deaths from July 1, 2004,
through June 30, 2005 (21 homicides and 7 suicides)
(Indicator 1). In 2004, students ages 12-18 were victims of
about 1.4 million nonfatal crimes at school, including about
863,000 thefts***Footnote 5: Theft includes purse snatching, 
pick pocketing, all burglaries, attempted forcible entry, 
and all attempted and completed thefts except motor vehicle 
thefts. Theft does not include robbery in which threat or use 
of force is involved.***  and 583,000 violent 
crimes***Footnote 6: Violent crimes include serious violent 
crimes and simple assault.*** (simple assault and serious 
violent crime)-107,000 of which were serious violent crimes 
(rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) 
(Indicator 2). These figures represent victimization rates 
of 33 thefts and 22 violent crimes, including 4 serious 
violent crimes, per 1,000 students at school in 2004. Some 
of these indicators document that student safety has improved. 
The victimization rate***Footnote 1: The victimization rate 
is based on the number of thefts, violent crimes, or serious 
crimes per 1,000 students.*** of students ages 12-18 at 
school***Footnote 2: See appendix B for a detailed definition 
of "at school."*** declined from 73 victimizations per 1,000 
students in 2003 to 55 victimizations in 2004.
***Footnote 3: Data in this report are not adjusted by the 
number of hours that youths spend on school property versus the 
number of hours they spend elsewhere.*** However, other aspects 
of crime have not improved. The number of homicides of school-
age youth ages 5-18 at school was higher in 2004-05 than in 
2000-01 (21 vs. 11 homicides), but remained below the number 
of homicides of school-age youth for most years in the 
1990's.***Footnote 4: Data from 1999-2005 are preliminary and 
subject to change.*** Violence, theft, drugs, and weapons 
continue to pose problems in schools. In 2005, 25 percent of 
students in grades 9-12 reported that drugs were made available 
to them on school property and 8 percent of students were 
threatened or injured with a weapon on school property in the 
previous 12 months. The following section presents key findings 
of the report. 

Violent Deaths 

*  From July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005, there were 21
homicides and 7 suicides of school-age youth (ages 5-18) at
school (Indicator 1). Combined, this number translates into
about 1 homicide or suicide of a school-age youth at school
per 2 million students enrolled during the 2004-05 school
year. 

Nonfatal Student Victimization 

*  In 2004, students ages 12-18 were victims of about 1.4
million nonfatal crimes at school, including about 863,000
thefts and 583,000 violent crimes-107,000 of which were
serious violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery, and
aggravated assault) (Indicator 2). 

*  In 2004, students ages 12-18 were more likely to be
victims of theft at school than away from school (Indicator
2). That year, 33 thefts per 1,000 students occurred at
school and 27 thefts occurred away from school (Indicator 2). 

*  Total crime and theft victimization rates for students
both at school and away from school were lower in 2004 than
2003 (Indicator 2). In 2003, there were 73 victimizations per
1,000 students at school, compared with 55 victimizations in
2004. Theft victimization at school declined from 45
victimizations per 1,000 students in 2003 to 33 victimizations 
of students in 2004. 

*  Away from school, total crime and violent crime
victimization rates for students also decreased between 2003
and 2004 (Indicator 2). In 2003, there were 60 victimizations
per 1,000 students away from school, compared with 48
victimizations in 2004. Violent victimization declined from
32 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2003 to 21
victimizations in 2004. 

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

*  Between 2003 and 2005, the percentage of students
reporting victimization declined (from 5 to 4 percent), as
did the percentage reporting theft (from 4 to 3 percent);
there were no measurable declines in the percentages
reporting violent and serious violent crime 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 with 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). 

Threats and Attacks on Teachers 

*  In 2003-04, teachers' reports of being threatened or
attacked by students during the previous 12 months varied
according to their school level (Indicator 5). Secondary
school teachers were more likely than elementary school
teachers to have been threatened with injury by a student (8
vs. 6 percent). However, elementary school teachers were more
likely than secondary teachers to report having been physically 
attacked (4 vs. 2 percent). 

*  Ten percent of teachers in central city schools reported in 
2003-04 that they were threatened with injury by students, 
compared with 6 percent of teachers in urban fringe schools and 
5 percent in rural schools (Indicator 5). Five percent of 
teachers in central city schools were attacked by students, 
compared with 3 percent of teachers in urban fringe and 2 
percent in rural schools. 

*  Public school teachers were more likely than private school 
teachers to have been threatened (7 vs. 2 percent) or 
physically attacked (4 vs. 2 percent) by students in school
(Indicator 5). Among teachers in central 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 

*  The percentage of public schools experiencing one or
more violent incidents increased between the 1999-2000 and
2003-04 school years, from 71 to 81 percent (Indicator 6).
Both primary schools and high schools had lower rates of
violent crimes per 1,000 students than middle schools. In
2003-04, there were 28 violent crimes per 1,000 students in
both primary schools and high schools, compared with 53
violent crimes in middle schools. 

*  In 2003-04, 2 percent of public schools reported daily
or weekly occurrences of racial tensions among students and
27 percent reported daily or weekly student bullying
(Indicator 7). With regard to other frequently occurring
discipline problems in public schools (those occurring at
least once a week), 11 percent of principals reported student
verbal abuse of teachers, 3 percent reported widespread
disorder in classrooms, and 19 percent reported student acts
of disrespect for teachers. About 17 percent of public
schools reported undesirable gang activities and 3 percent
reported undesirable cult or extremist activities. 

*  The prevalence of frequently occurring discipline
problems was related to school enrollment size in the 2003-04
school year (Indicator 7). In general, principals in large
schools were more likely to report discipline problems than
principals in small schools. Thirty-four percent of
principals at schools with 1,000 or more students reported
student acts of disrespect for teachers at least once per
week, compared with 21 percent of those at schools with
500-999 students, 17 percent of those at schools with 300-499
students, and 14 percent of those at schools with less than
300 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) had seen 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 last 6 months
(Indicator 11). Of these students, 58 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
injury***Footnote 7: 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.*** 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). 

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 12). In the same year, 43 percent of males
said they had been in a fight anywhere, compared with 28
percent of females, and 18 percent of males said they had
been in a fight on school property, compared with 9 percent
of females. 

*  Nineteen percent of students in grades 9-12 in 2005
reported they had carried a weapon anywhere, and about 6
percent reported they had carried a weapon on school property
during the previous 30 days (Indicator 13). Males were two
times more likely than females to carry a weapon-either
anywhere or on school property-in all survey years
(1993-2005). In 2005, for example, 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, 43 percent of students in grades 9-12 consumed
at least one drink of alcohol anywhere, and 4 percent
consumed at least one drink on school property during the
previous 30 days (Indicator 14). Hispanic students (8
percent) were more likely to use 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 15). 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 16). 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
difference was detected in the percentage of students who
feared 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 (Indicator 16). 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. 

*  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 17).
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. 

Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures 

*  About 46 percent of public schools took at least one
serious disciplinary action against students-including
suspensions lasting 5 days or more, removals with no services
(i.e., expulsions), and transfers to specialized schools-for
specific offenses during the 2003-04 school year (Indicator
18). Of those serious disciplinary actions, 74 percent were
suspensions for 5 days or more, 5 percent were removals with
no services, and 21 percent were transfers to specialized
schools. 

*  Four percent of all public schools took one or more
serious disciplinary actions in response to students' use or
possession of a firearm or explosive device in 2003-04
(Indicator 18). Students' use or possession of weapons other
than firearms resulted in at least one serious disciplinary
action in 17 percent of schools.  

*  In 2003-04, 83 percent of public schools controlled
access to school buildings by locking or monitoring doors
during school hours, and 36 percent controlled access to
school grounds with locked or monitored gates (Indicator 19).
Nearly all public schools required visitors to sign or check
in when entering the school building (98 percent), while few
schools required either students or visitors to pass through
metal detectors regularly (1 percent each). 

*  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 20). Metal detectors were the least observed
security measure, with 11 percent of students reporting their
use at their school. 

FOREWORD 

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006 provides the most
recent national indicators on school crime and safety. Some
of these indicators document that student safety has
improved. For example, the victimization rate of students
ages 12-18 at school declined from 73 victimizations per
1,000 students in 2003 to 55 per 1,000 students
victimizations in 2004. However, other aspects of crime have
not improved. For example, the number of homicides of
school-age youth ages 5-18 was higher in 2004-05 than 2000-01
(21 vs. 11 homicides), but the number remained below most
years during the 1990's. In 2004, students ages 12-18 were
victims of about 583,000 violent crimes and 863,000 crimes 
of theft at school. In 2005, 25 percent of students in grades
9-12 reported that drugs were made available to them on
school property and 8 percent of students were threatened or
injured with a weapon on school property in the previous 12
months. 

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 ninth 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 2006 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 Patsy Klaus and Erika
Harrell of the Victimization Statistics Unit for their work
in verifying data from the National Crime Victimization
Survey. Outside of NCES and BJS, Nancy Brener, Mark Anderson,
and Thomas Simon 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
Maria Worthen of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
Lisa Bridges of the Institute of Education Sciences provided
helpful input on the final draft. 

Without the assistance of the following staff, this report
could not have been produced: Andrea Livingston, Barbara
Kridl, Natesh Daniel, Patricia Gildersleeve, and Alicia
Broadway of MPR Associates and Wendy Lin-Kelly from BJS. 

Much of the work for this report was performed by staff at
the Education Statistics Services Institute (ESSI), which is
funded by NCES and composed of staff from the American
Institutes for Research (AIR) and a number of partner
organizations. The authors would like to acknowledge the
following individuals from ESSI for their assistance with
analysis, editorial comments, and guidance: Mary Ann Fox,
Paul Guerino, Lynn Bauer, Stacey Bielick, Kristin Flanagan,
and Sandy Eyster of AIR; and Kevin Bianco of Macro-Sys
Research and Technology. 

CONTENTS 

Executive Summary
Foreword
Acknowledgments
List of Tables
List of Figures

Introduction

Violent Deaths
Violent Deaths at School and Away From School

Nonfatal Student Victimization
Incidence of Victimization at School and Away From School

Prevalence of Victimization at School
Threats and Injuries With Weapons on School Property

Threats and Attacks on Teachers
Teachers Threatened With Injury or Attacked by Students

School Environment
Violent and Other Incidents at Public Schools and Those
Reported to the Police 
Discipline Problems Reported by Public Schools
Students' Reports of Gangs at School
Students' Reports of Drug Availability on School Property
Students' Reports of Being Called Hate-Related Words and
Seeing Hate-Related Graffiti
Bullying at School

Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances
Physical Fights on School Property and Anywhere
Students Carrying Weapons on School Property and Anywhere
Students' Use of Alcohol on School Property and Anywhere
Students' Use of Marijuana on School Property and
Anywhere

Fear and Avoidance
Students' Perceptions of Personal Safety at School and Away 
From School
Students' Reports of Avoiding School Activities or Specific 
Places in School

Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures
Serious Disciplinary Actions Taken by Public Schools 
Safety and Security Measures Taken by Public Schools
Students' Reports of Safety and Security Measures
Observed at School

References
Supplemental Tables
Standard Error Tables
Appendix A. Technical Notes
Appendix B. Glossary of Terms 

List of Tables

Supplemental Tables 
 
Number of school-associated violent deaths, homicides,
and suicides of youth ages 5-18, by location: 1992-2005   

Number of school-associated violent deaths of students,
staff, and nonstudents, by type: 1992-2005 

Number of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students 
ages 12-18 and rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by
location and year: 1992-2004   

Number of student-reported nonfatal crimes against
students ages 12-18 at school and rate of crimes per 1,000
students, by selected student characteristics: 2004   

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 characteristics: 2004  

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   

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   

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   

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:
1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04   

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:
1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04   

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   

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  

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: 1999-2000 and 2003-04    

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: 2003-04   

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: 2003-04 

Percentage of public schools that reported selected 
discipline problems that occurred at school, by frequency 
and school characteristics: 2003-04 

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 

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   

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  

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 

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 

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 

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   

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  

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 

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   

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 

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  

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 103  

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

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 

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

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   

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 

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  109  

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: 2003-04 

Percentage of public schools that used selected safety
and security measures, by school characteristics: 2003-04 

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

Standard Error Tables 

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: 1992-2004 


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 
characteristics: 2004 

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: 2004 

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 

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 

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 

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: 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 

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: 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04 

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  

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  

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: 1999-2000 and 2003-04 ... 

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: 2003-04  

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: 
2003-04 

Standard errors for the percentage of public schools
that reported selected discipline problems that occurred at
school, by frequency and school characteristics: 2003-04 

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  

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 

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  

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  

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  

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   

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   

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

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 

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  

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  

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 

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   

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 

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   

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  

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   

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   

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

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:
2003-04 155  

Standard errors for the percentage of public schools
that used selected safety and security measures, by school
characteristics: 2003-04 

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

LIST OF FIGURES

Nationally representative sample surveys used in this
report   

Number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5-18, by
location: 2003-04   

Number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5-18 at
school: 1992-2005   

Rate of student-reported nonfatal crimes against
students ages 12-18 per 1,000 students, by type of crime and
location: 1992-2004   

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: 2004   

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: 2004 

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 

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   

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   

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: 1993-94, 1999-2000, and 2003-04   

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

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: 2003-04   

Percentage of public schools experiencing and reporting
incidents of crime that occurred at school, by type of crime
and school level: 2003-04   

Percentage of public schools experiencing and reporting
incidents of crime that occurred at school, by type of crime
and urbanicity: 2003-04 

Percentage of public schools reporting selected
discipline problems that occurred at school, by school level:
2003-04  

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   

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 

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 

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   

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 

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

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

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 

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 

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   

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  

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

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

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

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

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   

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 

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   

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   

Percentage distribution of serious disciplinary actions 
taken by public schools for specific offenses, by type 
of action: 2003-04 

Percentage of public schools that took a serious
disciplinary action for specific offenses, by type of
offense: 2003-04   

Percentage of public schools that used selected safety
and security measures, by school level: 2003-04   

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

Appendixes 

Descriptions of data sources and samples used in the
report 

Wording of survey questions used to construct indicators 

Methods used to calculate standard errors of statistics
for different surveys 

INTRODUCTION 

Our nation's schools should be a safe haven for teaching and
learning free of crime and violence. Even though students are
less likely to be victims of a violent crime at 
school***Footnote 1: 1 See appendix B for a detailed definition 
of "at school."*** than away from school (Indicators 1 and 2), 
any instance of crime or violence at school not only affects 
the individuals involved but also may disrupt the educational 
process and affect bystanders, the school itself, and the 
surrounding community (Henry 2000). For both students and 
teachers, victimization at school can have lasting effects. 
In addition to experiencing loneliness, depression, and 
adjustment difficulties (Crick and Bigbee 1998; Crick and 
Grotpeter 1996; Nansel et al. 2001; Prinstein, Boergers, and 
Vernberg 2001; Storch et al. 2003), victimized children are 
more prone to truancy (Ringwalt, 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 periodically monitoring and updating
these indicators; this is the aim of Indicators of School
Crime and Safety. 

PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT 

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006 is the ninth 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: 2006 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 at School; Nonfatal
Student Victimization; Threats and Attacks on Teachers;
School Environment; Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances;
Fear and Avoidance; and Discipline, Safety, and Security
Measures. Each section contains a set of indicators that,
taken together, aim to describe a distinct aspect of school
crime and safety. Where available, data on crimes that occur
outside of school grounds are offered as a point of
comparison.***Footnote 2: 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.*** 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 updates for all indicators and
the expansion of two existing indicators, Indicator 5 on
threats to and injuries of teachers and Indicator 11 on
bullying. In response to requests for state-level
information, tables showing available state-level estimates
have been added to Indicator 5. These estimates have been
added for the past three survey years. Indicator 11 looks at
seven types of bullying, where reported incidents of bullying
took place in school, whether any injuries were sustained as
a result of being bullied, and the frequency of bullying
incidents among students who were bullied. 

The indicator related to nonfatal teacher victimization at
school has been discontinued. Because of sample cuts to the
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and declining
victimization rates, the survey's capacity to provide useful
estimates of teacher victimization has diminished, especially
for disaggregated subcategories of teacher characteristics.
The indicator has been determined to no longer be an adequate
measure of teacher victimization. 

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 19 and
20 report data on select security and safety measures used in
schools. Indicator 19 uses data collected from a stratified
random sample of principals about safety and security
practices used in their schools during the 2003-04 school
year. Indicator 20, however, uses data collected from 12-
through 18-year-olds in a rotated panel design 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 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. Some estimates and
standard errors have been revised from those provided in
earlier editions of Indicators of School Crime and Safety and
other previously published reports. 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 number of homicides of youth ages 5-18 at school was
higher in 2004-05 than 2000-01 (21 vs. 11 homicides), but
remained lower than most years during the 1990's. 

Violent deaths at schools are rare but tragic events with
far-reaching effects on the school population and surrounding
community (Small and Dressler-Tetrick 2001). From July 1,
2004, through June 30, 2005, there were 48 school-associated
violent deaths in elementary and secondary schools in the
United States. 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 include students, staff members, and others who are 
not students. Deaths that occurred while the victim was on 
the way to or from regular sessions at school, or while the 
victim was attending or traveling to or from an official 
school-sponsored event, were also considered school-associated 
violent deaths. To enable comparisons of homicides and 
suicides at school and away from school, data were drawn 
from a number of sources. Data for school-associated violent 
deaths from the 1999- 2000 through 2004-05 school years are 
preliminary. 

From July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005, there were 21
homicides and 7 suicides of school-age youth (ages 5-18) at
school.***Footnote 3: 3 Between July 1, 2004, and June 30, 
2005, there were 48 student, staff, and nonstudent school-
associated violent deaths, including 37 homicides, 9 suicides, 
and 2 legal interventions.*** Combined, this number translates 
into about 1 homicide or suicide of a school-age youth at 
school per 2 million students enrolled during the 2004-05 school
year.***Footnote 4: The total projected number of students 
enrolled in prekindergarten through 12th grade during the 
2004-05 school year was 54,593,000 (U.S. Department of 
Education 2006).***  The most recent data available for the 
total number of homicides of school-age youth are from the 
2003-04 school year, at which time there were 1,437 homicides. 
In the 2003 calendar year, there were 1,285 suicides of 
school-age youth.***Footnote 5: Data on suicides away from 
school are available only by calendar year, whereas data on 
suicides and homicides at school and homicides away from 
school are available by school year.*** In each school year, 
youth were over 50 times more likely to be murdered and almost 
150 times more likely to commit suicide when they were away 
from school than at school. 

Between July 1, 1992, and June 30, 1999, no consistent
pattern of increase or decrease was observed in the number 
of homicides at school. During this period, between 28 and 
34 homicides of school-age youth occurred at school in each 
school year. However, the number of homicides of school-age 
youth at school declined between the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 
school years from 33 to 13 homicides. Between the 2000-01 
and 2004-05 school years, the number of homicides of school-
age youth at school increased from 11 to 21. While the 
absolute number of homicides of school-age youth at school has 
varied, the percentage of youth homicides occurring at school 
remained at less than 2 percent of the total number of youth 
homicides over all survey years. Between the 1992-93 and 2004-
05 school years, from one to nine school-age youth committed 
suicide at school each year, with no consistent pattern of 
increase or decrease. 

------------------------------------
This indicator has been updated to include revisions to
previously published data and new data for 2002 onward. 
For more information: 
Tables 1.1 & 1.2 
Anderson et al. 2001 
-----------------------------------
NONFATAL STUDENT VICTIMIZATION

INDICATOR 2

INCIDENCE OF VICTIMIZATION AT SCHOOL AND AWAY FROM SCHOOL 

Between 1992 and 2004, the victimization rates for students
ages 12-18 generally declined both at school and away from
school. 

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 (Elliott, Hamburg, and Williams 1998).
Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that
students ages 12-18 were victims of about 1.4 million
nonfatal crimes (theft plus violent crime) while they were at
school and about 1.3 million crimes while they were away from
school in 2004.***Footnote 6: "Students" refers to persons 
ages 12-18 who reported being in any elementary or secondary 
grade 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.***  These figures represent victimization rates of 55 
crimes per 1,000 students at school, and 48 crimes per 1,000 
students away from school. 

Between 1992 and 2004, the victimization rates for students
ages 12-18 generally declined both at school and away from
school; this pattern held for the total crime rate as well as
for thefts,***Footnote 7: 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.*** violent crimes,***Footnote 8: Violent 
crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault.*** 
and serious violent crimes.***Footnote 9: Serious violent 
crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated 
assault.***  At school, total crime and theft victimization 
rates for students were lower in 2004 than in 2003. For 
example, the victimization rate of students ages 12-18 at 
school declined from 73 victimizations per 1,000 students in 
2003 to 55 such victimizations in 2004. Theft victimization 
at school declined from 45 victimizations per 1,000 students 
in 2003 to 33 such victimizations of students in 2004. Away 
from school, total crime and violent crime victimization
rates were lower in 2004 than in 2003. There were 48
victimizations per 1,000 students away from school in 2004,
compared with 60 victimizations in 2003. Violent victimization 
away from school declined from 32 victimizations per 1,000 
students in 2003 to 21 victimizations in 2004. 

Students ages 12-18 were more likely to be victims of theft
at school than away from school in most years between 1992
and 2004. In 2004, students were victims of 863,000 crimes of
theft at school and 706,000 crimes of theft away from school.
This translates into 33 thefts per 1,000 students at school,
compared with 27 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 2004, 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 2004. In 2004,
students ages 12-18 were victims of 4 serious violent crimes
per 1,000 students at school compared with 9 serious violent
crimes per 1,000 students away from school. 

In 2004, the victimization rates for students ages 12-18
varied according to certain student characteristics. Older
students (ages 15-18) were less likely than younger students
(ages 12-14) to be victims of crime at school, but the
reverse was true for the likelihood of crime away from school
(figures 2.2 and 2.3 and tables 2.2 and 2.3). Females had a
lower rate of violent victimization at school and a lower
rate of serious violent victimization away from school than
males, but no measurable gender differences were found in the
rates of theft at and away from school. 

--------------------------------
This indicator has been updated to include 2004 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 Supplement***Footnote 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.*** 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,***Footnote 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.*** 1 percent reported violent 
victimization,***Footnote 12: Violent crimes include serious 
violent crimes and simple assault.*** and less than half of 
a percent of students reported serious violent 
victimization.***Footnote 13: Serious violent crimes include 
rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.***   

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). 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
gender differences were detected 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. 

------------------------------
This indicator has been updated to include 2005 data.
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. 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. 
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. Eleven percent of 9th graders 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. 

-------------------------------
This indicator has been updated to include 2005 data.
For more information: 
Tables 4.1 & 4.2 
Eaton et al. 2006 
------------------------------

THREATS AND ATTACKS ON TEACHERS

INDICATOR 5

TEACHERS THREATENED WITH INJURY OR ATTACKED BY STUDENTS 

In 2003-04, teachers in central city schools were more likely
than their peers in urban fringe or rural schools to report
being threatened with injury or physically attacked. 

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 reported
they were threatened with injury by a student from their
school in 2003-04 (7 percent) than in 1993-94 and 1999-2000
(12 and 9 percent, respectively; figure 5.1 and table 5.1).

Teachers were also less likely in 2003-04 than in 1993-94 to
report having been physically attacked (3 vs. 4 percent;
figure 5.1 and table 5.2). Teachers in central city schools 
were consistently more likely to be threatened with injury or 
physically attacked than teachers in urban fringe or rural 
schools between 1993-94 and 2003-04. For example, in 2003-04, 
some 10 percent of teachers in central city schools were 
threatened with injury by students, compared with 6 percent 
of teachers in urban fringe schools and 5 percent of teachers 
in rural schools. Five percent of teachers in central city 
schools were attacked by students, compared with 3 percent of 
teachers in urban fringe and 2 percent of teachers in rural 
schools. 

In 2003-04, gender differences in the victimization of
teachers were apparent. Although a larger percentage of male 
than female teachers reported having been threatened with 
injury (9 vs. 6 percent), female teachers were more likely 
than their male counterparts to have been physically attacked 
(4 vs. 3 percent). 

In 2003-04, teachers' reports of being threatened or attacked
by students varied according to the level of their school.
Secondary school teachers were more likely than elementary
school teachers to have been threatened with injury by a
student (8 vs. 6 percent; table 5.1). However, elementary
school teachers were more likely than secondary school
teachers to report having been physically attacked (4 vs. 2
percent; table 5.2). 

Public school teachers were more likely than private school
teachers to have been threatened with injury (7 vs. 2
percent) or physically attacked (4 vs. 2 percent) by students
in school. Among teachers in central 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, and the percentage who were physically 
attacked ranged from 1 to 7 percent. 

--------------------------------------
This indicator has been updated to include 2003-04 data. 
For more information:
Tables 5.1, 5.2,
5.3, & 5.4

Appendix B
for definitions of 
school levels

Strizek et al.
2006
--------------------------------------

SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT

INDICATOR 6

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

The percentage of public schools experiencing one or more
violent incidents increased between the 1999-2000 and 2003-04
school years from 71 to 81 percent. 

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,***Footnote 14: Serious violent incidents include 
rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or 
fight with a weapon, threat of physical attack with a weapon, 
and robbery with or without a weapon.*** violent 
incidents,***Footnote 15: Violent incidents include serious 
violent incidents plus physical attacks or fights without a 
weapon and threats of physical attacks without a weapon.***
thefts valuing $10 or greater, and other incidents that 
occurred at their school, as well as the number of these 
incidents reported to the police. In 2003-04, some 88 percent 
of public schools responded that one or more incidents of 
these crimes had taken place (including violent, theft, and 
other crimes), amounting to an estimated 2.1 million crimes. 
This figure translates into a rate of 46 crimes per 1,000 
students enrolled in 2003-04. During the same year, 65 
percent of schools reported an incident of one of the 
specified crimes to the police amounting to about 764,400 
crimes-or 16 crimes per 1,000 students enrolled. 

The percentage of public schools experiencing one or more
violent incidents increased between 1999-2000 and 2003-04
from 71 to 81 percent. In 2003-04, 18 percent of schools
experienced one or more serious violent incidents, 46 percent
experienced one or more thefts, and 64 percent experienced
another type of crime. Forty-four percent of public schools 
reported at least one violent incident to police, 13 percent 
reported at least one serious violent incident to police, 
31 percent reported at least one theft to police, and 50 
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. Primary 
schools were the least likely to experience any violent 
incident: 74 percent of primary schools did so, compared with 
94 percent of middle schools and 96 percent of high schools. 
Similar relationships were observed for serious violent 
incidents and those violent and serious violent incidents that 
were reported to the authorities. However, when looking at 
the rate of violent crimes per 1,000 students, both primary 
schools and high schools had lower rates than middle schools. 
In 2003-04, there were 28 violent crimes per 1,000 students 
in both primary schools and high schools, compared with 53 such
violent crimes in middle schools. Regardless of school level,
there were no more than two serious violent crimes per 1,000
students enrolled in 2003-04. 

When examining violent incidents by the location of public
schools, city schools were more likely than urban fringe
schools to experience violent incidents). Eighty-eight percent 
of city schools had one or more violent incidents, compared 
with 80 percent of urban fringe schools. 

------------------------------
This indicator has been updated to include 2003-04 data. 
For more information:
Tables 6.1, 6.2, & 6.3

Appendix B for definitions of school levels and urbanicity

Miller 2003 revised
------------------------------

INDICATOR 7

DISCIPLINE PROBLEMS REPORTED BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

The prevalence of frequently occurring discipline problems
was related to school size in the 2003-04 school year. In
general, principals in large schools were more likely to
report discipline problems than principals in small schools. 

The existence of discipline problems in a school may
contribute to an environment that facilitates school violence
and crime (Miller 2003 revised). 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, verbal abuse of teachers,
widespread classroom disorder, and acts of disrespect for
teachers in public schools. It also looks at occurrences of
gang and cult activities, and due to the severe nature of
these incidents, presents all reports of gang and cult
activities during the 2003-04 school year. 

Two percent of public schools reported racial tensions among
students on a daily or weekly basis and 27 percent reported
that student bullying took place daily or weekly during the
2003-04 school year. With regard to other frequently occurring 
discipline problems in public schools (those occurring at 
least once a week), 11 percent of principals reported student 
verbal abuse of teachers, 3 percent reported widespread 
disorder in classrooms, and 19 percent reported student acts 
of disrespect for teachers. Some 17 percent of public schools 
reported undesirable gang activities and 3 percent reported 
undesirable cult or extremist activities. Public school 
reports of student racial tensions were lower in 2003-04 than 
in 1999-2000 (2 vs. 3 percent), as were any reports of cult or 
extremist group activities (3 vs. 7 percent; data not shown, 
see DeVoe et al. 2005). 

Discipline problems reported by public schools varied by
school characteristics. For example, middle schools were more
likely than primary schools to report various types of
discipline problems (figure 7.1 and table 7.1). Middle
schools were also more likely than high schools to report
daily or weekly incidences of student bullying (42 vs. 21
percent) and student acts of disrespect for teachers (32 vs.
26 percent). During the school year, high schools were more
likely than both middle and primary schools to report gang
activity (41 vs. 31 and 8 percent, respectively) and more
likely than middle schools to report extremist cult activity
(13 vs. 6 percent). 

The prevalence of frequently occurring discipline problems
was related to school enrollment size. In general, principals
in large schools were more likely to report discipline
problems than principals in small schools. Thirty-four
percent of principals at schools with 1,000 or more students
reported student acts of disrespect for teachers at least
once a week, compared with 21 percent of schools with 500-999
students, 17 percent of schools with 300-499 students, and 14
percent of schools with less than 300 students. 

Schools where 20 percent or fewer of the students were 
eligible for free or reduced-price lunch were less likely to
report student bullying, verbal abuse of teachers, widespread
disorder in the classroom, acts of disrespect for teachers,
and undesirable gang activities than schools where more
students were eligible. Schools where 50 percent or more of
the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch
were generally more likely to report discipline problems than
schools where fewer students qualified, except for student
racial tensions, bullying, and cult activities. 

------------------------------
This indicator has been updated with 2003-04 data. 
For more information:
Table 7.1

Appendix B for definitions of school levels

Miller 2003 revised
-----------------------------

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 Supplement***Footnote 16: 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.*** 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. 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. Similarly, the percentage of students at
urban schools who reported that gangs were present at school
also increased during this period from 31 to 36 percent. 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. 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. 

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

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. 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. 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. 

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

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 Supplement***Footnote 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.***   
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. 
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. 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. Some 38 
percent of students saw 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. 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). 

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

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 Supplement***Footnote 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.*** to the
National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12-18 were
asked if they had been bullied at school during the previous
6 months.***footnote 19: 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.*** 
  

In 2005, about 28 percent of students reported having been
bullied at school during the last 6 months. 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 . 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. 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. 

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. 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
injury***Footnote 20: 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.*** as a result. 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). 

-------------------------------------
This indicator has been updated with 2005 data. 
For more information: 
Tables 11.1, 
11.2, & 11.3 
DeVoe and Kaffenberger 2005 
------------------------------------

FIGHTS, WEAPONS, AND ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES

INDICATOR 12

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 

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

For more information: 
Tables 12.1 & 12.2 
Eaton et al. 2006 
-----------------------------------

INDICATOR 13

STUDENTS CARRYING WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE 

There was no measurable change in the percentage of students
who carried 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. 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. 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. 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. Asian students 
were less likely than students from all other racial/ethnic 
groups, except Pacific Islanders,***Footnote 21: No observed 
measurable differences may be due to large standard errors.*** 
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. 

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

For more information: 
Tables 13.1 & 13.2 
Eaton et al. 2006 
-----------------------------------

INDICATOR 14

STUDENTS' USE OF ALCOHOL ON SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ANYWHERE 

In 2005, some 43 percent of students in grades 9-12 had 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. 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
(table 14.1). 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. 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. 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. 

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

For more information: 
Tables 14.1 & 14.2 
Eaton et al. 2006 
-----------------------------

INDICATOR 15

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. 

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. 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. 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. 

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

For more information: 
Tables 15.1 & 15.2 
Eaton et al. 2006 
--------------------------------

FEAR AND AVOIDANCE

INDICATOR 16

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
Supplement***Footnote 22: 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.*** 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.***Footnote 23: For the 2001 survey, the wording was 
changed to "attack or threat of attack." Includes students who 
report ed that they sometimes or most of the time feared being
victimized in this way.***
 
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 16.1 and table
16.1). 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. 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. While it appears that the
public school students were generally more likely than their
counterparts in private schools to fear being attacked away
from school, these differences were not found to be
statistically significant. 

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

For more information: 
Table 16.1 
Addington et al. 2002 
-----------------------------------

INDICATOR 17

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 Supplement***Footnote 24: 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.*** 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.***Footnote 25: For the 2001 survey, the wording was 
changed from "attack or harm" to "attack or threat of attack." 
See appendix A for more information.*** 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: 2 percent of students 
avoided a school activity, and 4 percent avoided one or 
more places in school.***Footnote 26: 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.*** 

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. 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. 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. 

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). 

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

For more information: 
Tables 17.1 & 17.2 
Addington et al. 2002 
-----------------------------------

DISCIPLINE, SAFETY, AND SECURITY MEASURES

INDICATOR 18

SERIOUS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS TAKEN BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

About 46 percent of public schools (approximately 36,800
schools) took a serious disciplinary action against a student
for specific offenses during the 2003-04 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 21 percent were transfers to
specialized schools. 

Removing a student from school because of behavior problems
stemming from crime and violence has a serious impact on the
instruction of students. 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 during the 2003-04 school
year. 

About 46 percent of public schools took at least one serious
disciplinary action against a student-including suspensions
lasting 5 days or more, removals with no services (i.e.,
expulsions), and transfers to specialized schools-for
specific offenses during the 2003-04 school year. 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; and use or possession of a firearm 
or explosive device. Altogether, about 655,700 serious 
disciplinary actions were taken against students for these 
offenses in 2003-04. Of those actions, 74 percent were 
suspensions for 5 days or more, 5 percent were removals with 
no services, and 21 percent were transfers to specialized 
schools. 

Four percent of all public schools took one or more serious
disciplinary actions in response to students' use or
possession of a firearm or explosive device. Students' use 
or possession of weapons other than firearms resulted in at 
least one serious disciplinary action in 17 percent of schools. 
Thirty-two percent of public schools took at least one serious 
disciplinary action for a physical attack or fight, and 22 
percent responded to insubordination with a serious 
disciplinary action. Nine percent of all public schools took 
one or more serious disciplinary actions for students' 
distribution, possession, or use of alcohol, and 21 percent 
did so for the distribution, possession, or use of illegal 
drugs. 

-----------------------------
This indicator has been updated with 2003-04 data. 
For more information: 
Table 18.1 
Miller 2003 revised 
----------------------------

INDICATOR 19

SAFETY AND SECURITY MEASURES TAKEN BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

In the 2003-04 school year, 28 percent of primary schools, 42
percent of middle schools, and 60 percent of high schools
used one or more security cameras to monitor the school. 

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 during the 2003-04 school year.
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 2003-04 school year, some 83 percent of public schools
controlled access to school buildings by locking or
monitoring doors during school hours, and 36 percent
controlled access to school grounds with locked or monitored
gates. Nearly all public schools required visitors to sign or 
check in when entering the school building (98 percent), 
while few schools required either students or visitors to 
pass through metal detectors daily (1 percent each). 

The use of security measures varied by school level. Primary
schools were generally less likely than middle schools, and
middle schools generally less likely than high schools, to
report using most of these measures. About 48 percent of
public schools required faculty and staff to wear badges or
picture IDs, compared with 6 percent of schools that required
students to do so (3 percent of primary schools, 11 percent
of middle schools, and 16 percent of high schools; figure
19.1 and table 19.1). Six percent of public schools required
clear book bags or banned book bags altogether, but the use
of this specific practice also varied by school level, with 3
percent of primary schools, 13 percent of middle schools, and
9 percent of high schools using it. In the 2003-04 school
year, some 28 percent of primary schools, 42 percent of
middle schools, and 60 percent of secondary schools used one
or more security cameras to monitor the school. About 13
percent of high schools reported performing one or more
random metal detector checks on students, 59 percent reported
using one or more random dog sniffs to check for drugs, and
28 percent reported performing one or more random sweeps for
contraband, not including dog sniffs. In comparison, between
3 and 5 percent of primary schools reported using these
security measures. 

The use of these practices also varied by school size,
location, and other school characteristics. For example, in
2003-04, schools with enrollments of 1,000 students or more
were more likely than schools with smaller enrollments to use
random dog sniffs to check for drugs (40 vs. 16-21 percent),
random sweeps for contraband (24 vs. 8-14 percent), and
security cameras to monitor the school (55 vs. 26-37 percent;
table 19.1). 

----------------------------------
This indicator has been updated with 2003-04 data. 
For more 
information:

Table 19.1

Appendix B
for definitions of 
school levels and 
urbanicity

U.S. Department of Education 2004 
----------------------------------

INDICATOR 20

STUDENTS' REPORTS OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MEASURES OBSERVED AT
SCHOOL 

The percentage of students who observed 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. However, research suggests that aggressive use of
some security measures in schools can alienate students,
increase distrust and misbehavior among students, and disrupt
the school environment by interfering with learning (Beger
2003). In the School Crime Supplement***Footnote 27: 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.***
to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 
12-18 were asked whether their school used certain security 
measures.***Footnote 28: 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 19 for a summary 
of the use of various security measures as reported by 
schools.*** 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. 

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
20.1 and table 20.1). 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. 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. 

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

For more information: 
Table 20.1 
Addington et al. 2002 
------------------------------------

REFERENCES 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 2005310). U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics and Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

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

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. 

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. 

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

Nansel, T.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). U.S. Department of Education. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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). U.S. Department of Education. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

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

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. (2003). Digest of Education Statistics, 2002
(NCES 2003-060). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. (2006). Digest of Education Statistics, 2005
(NCES 2006-030). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. (forthcoming). Digest of Education Statistics,
2006 (NCES 2007-017). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office. 

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). 

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

SOURCES OF DATA 

This section briefly describes each of the datasets used in
this report: the School-Associated Violent Deaths
Surveillance Study, the Supplementary Homicide Reports, the
Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System Fatal,
the National Crime Victimization Survey, the School Crime
Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the
Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the Schools and Staffing Survey,
and the School Survey on Crime and Safety. Directions for
obtaining more information are provided at the end of each
description. 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
deaths 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. Data for
subsequent study years are preliminary and subject to change.
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 2004; that is,
negligent manslaughters and justifiable homicides have been
eliminated from the data. Based on law enforcement agency
reports, the FBI estimates that 561,412 murders were
committed from 1976 to 2004. Agencies provided detailed
information on 574,574 victims and 640,722 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 2004 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 percent of respondents who reported themselves as White.
Due to changes in race/ethnicity categories, comparisons of
race/ethnicity across years should be made with caution. 

The indicator from NCVS related to nonfatal teacher
victimization at school has been discontinued. Because of
sample cuts to the NCVS and declining victimization rates,
the survey's capacity to provide useful estimates of teacher
victimization has diminished, especially for disaggregated
subcategories of teacher characteristics. The indicator has
been determined to no longer be an adequate measure of
teacher victimization. 

The number of NCVS eligible households in 2004 was about
46,200. 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 74,300 persons age 12 and older are
interviewed every 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 86 percent. Thus, final response rates were about
78 percent in 2004. Weights were developed to permit
estimates for the total U.S. population 12 years and older. 
For more information about the NCVS, contact: 

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

School Crime Supplement (SCS) 

Created as a supplement to the NCVS and codesigned by the
National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the School Crime Supplement (SCS) survey
was conducted in 1989, 1995, 1999, 2001, 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
.les. The NCVS type of crime variable was used to classify
victimizations of students in the SCS as serious violent,
violent, or theft. The NCVS variables asking where the
incident happened and what the victim was doing when it
happened were used to ascertain whether the incident happened
at school. For prevalence of victimization, the NCVS
definition of "at school" includes in the school building, on
school property, or on the way to or from school. Only
incidents that occurred inside the United States are
included. 

In 2001, the SCS survey instrument was modified from previous
collections 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 onwards
(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 we do not know 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 we
cannot assess the extent of nonresponse bias, 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.***Footnote 1: For more information on the 
YRBSS methodology, see Brener et al. (2004).*** 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. 

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 definitions 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 winter and spring of the 2003-04 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.
Special education, alternative and vocational schools,
schools in the territories, and schools that taught only
prekindergarten, kindergarten, or adult education were not
included in the sample. 

The sampling frame for the 2004 SSOCS was constructed from
the public school universe .le created for the 2003-04
Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) from the 2001-02 NCES
Common Core of Data (CCD) Public 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 SASS, including those in the outlying U.S.
territories,***Footnote 2: "U.S. outlying areas" include the 
following: America Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.*** overseas 
Department of Defense schools, newly closed schools, home 
schools, and schools with high grades of kindergarten or 
lower. Additional schools were then excluded from the SASS 
frame to meet the sampling needs of SSOCS, including; local 
education agencies that appear to be schools, special education, 
vocational, or alternative schools, department of defense 
schools, Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, ungraded schools, 
and "intermediate units"***Footnote 3: These are generally 
schools specializing in special education, alternative 
education, or juvenile halls.** 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 3,743 
schools were selected for the study. In March 2004, 
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 2,772 schools completed the survey. The weighted 
overall response rate was 77.2 percent, and weighted item 
nonresponse rates ranged from 0-33.3 percent. A nonresponse 
bias analysis was conducted on the nine items with weighted 
item nonresponse rates above 15 percent, and minimal bias was
detected. 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 2003-04 school year. For information on the
1999-2000 iteration, see Indicators of School Crime and
Safety: 2005. For more information about the School Survey on
Crime and Safety, contact: 

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

ACCURACY OF ESTIMATES 

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

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

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

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

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

(2) t = (E1 - E2) / sq root(se1^2 + se2^2 + 2 * se1 * se2) 

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

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

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. 

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 

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

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

Elementary school teachers An elementary school teacher is
one who, when asked for the grades taught, checked: (1) only
"ungraded" and was designated as an elementary teacher on the
list of teachers provided by the school; (2) 6th grade or
lower or "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. 

Rural or small town Rural area (a place with a population of
less than 2,500 and defined as rural by the U.S. Census
Bureau) or a small town (a place not within an Metropolitan
Statistical Area, with a population of less than 25,000, but
greater than or equal to 2,500, and defined as nonurban by
the U.S. Census Bureau). 

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

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

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

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 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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Urbanicity As collected by the Common Core of Data and
appended to the SSOCS data .le, 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 a 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
12/01/06 ih