September 2007

School violence can lead to a disruptive and threatening 

environment, physical injury, and emotional stress, all 

of which can be obstacles to student achievement (Elliott, 

Hamburg, and Williams 1998). Educators have responded 

to the perceived threat of school violence by implementing 

programs designed to prevent, deter, and respond to the 

potential for violence in schools (Peterson, Larson, and Skiba 

2001). In addition, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 

(P.L. 107-110) emphasizes the importance of safe learning 

environments by requiring schools to have a safety plan in 

place and to fund programs and practices intended to prevent 

and reduce violence in schools.1 

The needs and capabilities of schools may differ; thus, schools 

implement a variety of practices intended to prevent and reduce 

violence (Peterson, Larson, and Skiba 2001). However, little is 

known about the prevalence of school practices and the extent 

to which they vary according to school characteristics. This 

Issue Brief (1) examines principals’ reports of the prevalence 

of formal practices in public schools designed to prevent or 

reduce school violence and (2) describes the distribution of 

these practices by selected school characteristics.

This analysis is based on school-level data reported by 

principals participating in the school year 2003–04 School 

Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), administered by the U.S. 

Department of Education’s National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES).2 The estimates presented here complement 

those in the NCES report Indicators of School Crime and 

Safety: 2006 (Dinkes et al. 2006), which reported on the 

safety and security measures taken by schools in school year 

2003–04. In addition to including updated estimates, this 

analysis reports on additional safety and security practices, 

such as the use of security officers at public schools, and a 

variety of other approaches intended to prevent and reduce 

school violence.

There are many approaches designed to prevent and 

reduce violence in schools. However, this study examines 

(1) efforts to involve parents in preventing and reducing 

violence (2) safety and security procedures and (3) allowable 

disciplinary policies.3 In addition to reporting the data 

by standard school characteristics, the study presents 

results by principals’ self-reports of community crime.4

Public School Practices for Violence Prevention 

and Reduction: 2003–04

U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2007–010

Issue

Brief

Prevalence of Violence Prevention and Reduction 

Practices

Among efforts to involve parents, 59 percent of schools 

formally obtained parental input on policies related to school 

crime and 50 percent provided parental training to deal 

with students’ problem behaviors. In addition, 21 percent 

of schools involved parents at school to maintain discipline 

(table 1).5

For each of the following safety and security procedures 

examined, less than half of the schools used any one of the six 

procedures. Forty-five percent of schools had security officers 

or police present on a regular basis, 36 percent used one or 

more security cameras to monitor the school, 21 percent used 

dogs to conduct random drug checks, 14 percent required 

students to wear uniforms, 13 percent conducted random 

sweeps for contraband, and 6 percent performed random 

metal detector tests on students.

In terms of the three disciplinary policies examined, 68 

percent of schools allowed out-of-school suspension with no 

curriculum or services provided, 67 percent allowed transfer 

to a specialized school for disciplinary reasons, and 51 percent 

allowed removal from school for at least the remainder of the 

year with no services.

Differences by School Characteristics

School level. Primary schools were more likely than high 

schools to provide training for parents to deal with students’ 

problem behaviors (55 vs. 38 percent) or involve parents 

at school to maintain school discipline (24 vs. 17 percent) 

(table 1). 

Four of the six safety and security measures were more 

common in high schools than in middle and primary 

schools. For example, a greater percentage of high schools 

than middle and primary schools used one or more security 

cameras to monitor the school (60 percent vs. 42 and 28 

percent, respectively). In addition, a greater percentage of 

high schools than middle and primary schools had security 

officers or police present on a regular basis (72 percent vs. 64 

and 34 percent, respectively). 
2 NCES 2007-010 Issue Brief September 2007

Differences were also found in allowable disciplinary policies 

by school level. For example, 85 percent of high schools 

allowed out-of-school suspensions, compared with 77 

percent of middle schools and 60 percent of primary schools. 

Furthermore, a greater percentage of high schools than 

middle and primary schools allowed removal of a student 

from school for at least the remainder of the year (70 percent 

vs. 59 and 42 percent, respectively). 

Urbanicity. A smaller percentage of rural schools than city 

schools provided training to help parents deal with students’ 

problem behaviors (43 vs. 60 percent) or involve parents 

at school to maintain school discipline (17 vs. 31 percent). 

Schools in cities and urban fringe areas were more likely than 

rural schools to require students to wear uniforms (29 and 

12 percent, respectively, vs. 5 percent). A greater percentage 

of city schools than rural schools performed random metal 

detector checks (12 vs. 3 percent) or had security officers or 

police present on a regular basis (51 vs. 38 percent). However, 

rural and town schools were more likely than city and urban 

fringe schools to use dogs to conduct random drug checks 

(31 and 32 percent vs. 11 and 16 percent, respectively). 

Level of crime. Sixty-one percent of schools with students from 

high-crime areas had security officers or police present on a 

regular basis, compared to 39 percent of schools with students 

from low-crime areas. Schools with students from high-crime 

areas reported higher levels of all selected safety and security 

measures than schools with students from low-crime areas, with 

the exception of using dogs to conduct random drug checks. 

Table 1. Percentage of public schools that reported using parental involvement, safety and security procedures, and disciplinary policies 

by school characteristics: 2003–04

School characteristic

School efforts to 

involve parents

Safety and security 

procedures

Allowable disciplinary 

policies

Formally 

obtain 

parental 

input on 

policies 

related 

to school 

crime

Provide 

training 

to help 

parents 

deal with 

students’ 

problem 

behaviors

Involve 

parents at 

school to 

maintain 

school 

discipline

Perform 

one or 

more 

random 

metal 

detector 

checks 

on students

Use one 

or more 

random 

dog 

sniffs to 

check 

for drugs

Perform 

one or 

more 

random 

sweeps for 

contraband, not 

including 

dog sniffs1

Use one 

or more 

security 

cameras 

to monitor the 

school

Require 

students 

to wear 

uniforms

Security 

officers 

or police 

present 

on a 

regular 

basis

Out–of–

school 

suspension 

with no 

curriculum 

or services 

provided

Transfer 

to a specialized 

school 

for disciplinary 

reasons2

Removal 

for 

at least 

the 

remainder 

of the 

year with 

no services

Total 59 50 21 6 21 13 36 14 45 68 67 51

Level3

Primary 58 55 24 3 5 5 28 16 34 60 59 42

Middle 60 49 19 10 40 24 42 14 64 77 80 59

High school 59 38 17 13 59 28 60 4 72 85 82 70

Urbanicity

City 61 60 31 12 11 14 33 29 51 65 67 47

Urban fringe4 63 52 20 3 16 9 41 12 46 66 67 46

Town 52 41 13 6 32 18 39 8 44 69 66 58

Rural 55 43 17 3 31 14 31 5 38 71 67 59

Crime level where 

students live5

High 67 57 31 19 10 19 54 37 61 72 66 44

Moderate 59 54 26 9 20 16 36 28 53 71 69 54

Low 57 48 17 3 23 10 33 6 39 67 66 52

Mixed 63 54 25 7 21 15 40 14 50 66 70 50

Minority enrollment6

Less than 5 percent 47 40 13 1 28 11 36 1 39 74 69 62

5 to 20 percent 57 49 16 2 24 10 37 4 41 66 66 53

20 to 50 percent 62 51 22 5 22 14 35 10 44 67 68 50

50 percent or more 67 57 30 12 13 15 34 35 52 65 65 42

50 percent or more 

Black 69 56 35 21 12 22 46 45 55 69 68 45

50 percent or more 

Hispanic 63 64 32 5 12 10 22 39 51 59 63 36

1

Drugs and weapons were provided as examples of contraband in the survey question.

2

A specialized school was defined for respondents as “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 your school.”

3

Primary schools include those schools whose lowest grade is not higher than 3 and whose highest grade is not higher than 8. Middle schools include those whose lowest grade is not 

lower than 4 and whose highest grade is not higher than 9. High schools include schools whose lowest grade is not lower than 9 and whose highest grade is not higher than 12. All other 

schools with other combinations of grades have been omitted from this analysis.

4

Urban fringe includes schools in the urban fringe of a large or midsize city, defined as any incorporated place, Census-designated place, or nonplace territory within a Consolidated 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) or Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of a large or midsize city and defined as urban by the U.S. Census Bureau.

5

Based on principals’ responses to the question, “How would you describe the crime level in the area(s) in which your students live?” Principals could respond with “high level of crime,” 

“moderate level of crime,” “low level of crime,” or “students come from areas with very different levels of crime.”

6

Schools in Tennessee did not provide estimates of students’ race and are not included in these estimates.

NOTE: Either school principals or the person most knowledgeable about discipline issues at school completed the SSOCS questionnaire. Standard errors are available at http://nces.

ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007010.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2004.
NCES 2007-010 Issue Brief September 2007 3

The Issue Brief series presents information on education topics of current interest. All estimates shown are based on samples and are subject 

to sampling variability. All differences discussed are statistically significant at the .05 level as measured by two-tailed Student’s t tests 

(independent t tests for cross-sectional analyses); this means a difference is discussed only if the probability that it is due to chance (i.e., 

sampling variability) is less than 1 in 20. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. In the design, conduct, and data processing 

of National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) surveys, efforts are made to minimize the effects of nonsampling error, such as item 

nonresponse, measurement error, data processing error, or other systematic error. For more information on the School Survey on Crime and 

Safety, visit http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/.

This Issue Brief was authored by Susan Jekielek (Child Trends), Brett Brown (Child Trends), Pilar Marin (Child Trends), and Laura Lippman (Child 

Trends) of the Education Statistics Services Institutue (ESSI). It was desktopped by Michael Stock (MacroSys Research and Technology) and 

edited by Martin Hahn (American Institutues for Research) of ESSI. For further information, contact Edith McArthur, NCES, at 202-502-7393 

or edith.mcarthur@ed.gov. To order additional copies of this Issue Brief or other NCES publications, call 1-877-4ED-PUBS or visit http://www.

edpubs.org. NCES publications are also available on the Internet at http://nces.ed.gov. 

Level of minority enrollment. Schools with 50 percent or 

more minority enrollment were more likely to involve 

parents at school to maintain school discipline than were 

schools with lower percentages of minority enrollment (30 

vs. 13, 16, and 22 percent)6. Furthermore, 67 percent of 

schools with 50 percent or more minority enrollment made 

efforts to formally obtain parental input on policies related 

to school crime, compared to 57 percent of schools with 5 

to 20 percent minority enrollment and 47 percent of schools 

with less than 5 percent minority enrollment. About one-third 

of schools (35 percent) with 50 percent or more minority 

enrollment required students to wear uniforms, compared 

to 10 percent or less of schools with smaller percentages of 

minority enrollment. Fifty-two percent of schools with 50 

percent or more minority enrollment had security officers or 

police present on a regular basis, compared to 39 percent of 

schools with less than 5 percent minority enrollment. 

Summary

This Issue Brief found that schools implemented a variety of 

school violence prevention and reduction practices and that 

some practices were more commonly used than others. In 

addition, practices differed by school level and other selected 

school characteristics. For example, high schools were more 

likely than primary schools to implement safety and security 

procedures, while primary schools were more likely than high 

schools to promote training for parents to deal with students’ 

problem behavior. Also, schools in rural areas showed 

different patterns of practices than those in urban areas, 

with rural schools more likely to use dogs for random drug 

checks and less likely to use other practices—such as student 

uniforms, involving parents at school to maintain discipline, 

and random metal detector checks. 

References

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.

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.

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. 3–28). New York: 

Cambridge University Press.

Peterson, R.L., Larson, J., and Skiba, R. (2001). School 

Violence Prevention: Current Status and Policy 

Recommendations. Law and Policy 23(3): 246–270.

Endnotes

1 Under P.L. 107-110, Title IV, Part A—Safe and Drug-Free 

Schools and Communities, federal legislation also requires 

states to report on school safety to the public on a school-byschool basis and provide a mechanism for students to leave 

chronically dangerous schools. 

2

 The sample included 2,772 public elementary and secondary 

schools. The analysis was weighted using the “finalwgt” 

variable.

3

 It should be noted that schools could only provide responses 

on selected practices included as items in the questionnaire. 

Schools may have practices intended to reduce and prevent 

violence in their schools that were not included in the 

survey.

4

 The data in this analysis are based on self-reported survey data. 

It should be noted that limitations inherent to self-reported 

data may affect estimates (Cantor and Lynch 2000).

5

 These measures reflect principals’ reports of the presence of 

a violence prevention policy or activity at a school, but do not 

capture the nature and intensity of such efforts.

6

 The categories for percentage of minority enrollment are 50 

percent or more, 20 to 50 percent, 5 to 20 percent, and less 

than 5 percent.
Public School Practices for Violence Prevention and 

Reduction: 2003–04

U.S. Department of Education

ED Pubs

8242-B Sandy Court

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

NCES 2007–010

The Issue Brief series presents information on education topics of current interest.

Issue

Brief