Student Victimization in U.S. Schools

Results From the 2009 School Crime Supplement 

to the National Crime Victimization Survey

NCES 2012-314 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Student Victimization in U.S. Schools

Results From the 2009 School Crime Supplement to the 

National Crime Victimization Survey

NOVEMBER 2011

Jill Fleury DeVoe

Lynn Bauer

Education Statistics Services Institute

American Institutes for Research

Monica R. Hill

Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics 

NCES 2012-314

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ii

U.S. Department of Education

Arne Duncan

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences

John Q. Easton

Director

National Center for Education Statistics

Jack Buckley

Commissioner

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 foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high-priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete, and accurate indicators 

of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high-quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, 

the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public. Unless specifically noted, all information 

contained herein is in the public domain.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety of audiences. You, as 

our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions 

about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to

National Center for Education Statistics

Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

1990 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006-5651

November 2011

The NCES Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov.

The NCES Publications and Products address is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Statistics under Contract No. ED-05-CO-0044 with the American 

Institutes for Research, Education Statistics Services Institute. Mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations does 

not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Suggested Citation

DeVoe, J.F., and Bauer, L. (2011). Student Victimization in U.S. Schools: Results From the 2009 School Crime Supplement to the National 

Crime Victimization Survey (NCES 2012-314). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

For ordering information on this report, write to

ED Pubs

U.S. Department of Education

P.O. Box 22207

Alexandria, VA 22304

or call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.gov.

Content Contact

Monica R. Hill

(202) 502-7379

monica.hill@ed.gov
iii

Highlights 

This report provides estimates of student criminal victimization as defined by the 2009 School 

Crime Supplement (SCS) to the 2009 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).1

 The NCVS 

is the nation’s primary source of information on criminal victimization and the victims of crime 

in the United States. The SCS is a supplement to the NCVS that was created to collect nationallevel information about students ages 12 through 18 and school characteristics related to school 

crime. The first three administrations of the SCS were conducted in 1989, 1995, and 1999; since 

1999, it has been conducted biennially. The survey is designed to assist policymakers, as well as 

researchers and practitioners at the federal, state, and local levels, in making informed decisions 

concerning crime in schools. Criminal victimizations in this report are categorized as “serious 

violent,” “violent,” or “theft.” Serious violent victimization includes rape, sexual assault, 

robbery, and aggravated assault and is a subset of violent victimization.2

 Violent victimization 

includes all serious violent victimizations and simple assault. Theft includes attempted and 

completed purse snatching, completed pick-pocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, 

excluding motor vehicle theft. Theft does not include robbery, in which the threat or use of force 

is involved. Victims of “any” crime reported at least one of the victimizations above. Nonvictims 

of any crime reported none of the victimizations above. All findings reported are statistically 

significant at the .05 level. The test procedure used in this report is Student’s t statistic, which 

tests the difference between two sample estimates. Adjustments for multiple comparisons 

were not included. Readers should be aware of the limitations of the survey design and the 

analytical approach used here with regard to causality. Conclusions about causality between 

school or student characteristics and victimization cannot be made due to the cross-sectional, 

nonexperimental design of the SCS. 

Major findings from the 2009 NCVS and SCS include the following: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

In school year 2008–09, about 3.9 percent of students ages 12 through 18 were the 

victims of any crime at school (table 1). About 2.8 percent reported being victims of theft, 

1.4 percent reported a violent victimization, and 0.3 percent reported a serious violent 

victimization.3

A larger percentage of males were victims of any crime at school (4.6 percent) than were 

females (3.2 percent) (table 2). 

A higher percentage of students in grade 9 reported theft victimization (4.9 percent) 

than did students in grades 7 or 8 (2.1 percent and 2.0 percent, respectively) (table 

2). In addition, higher percentages of students in grades 9, 10, and 11 reported theft 

victimization (4.9 percent, 3.5 percent, and 3.3 percent, respectively) than did students in 

grades 6 or 12 (1.3 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively).

Some 39.8 percent of student victims of any crime reported the presence of gangs at 

school, compared to 19.6 percent of student nonvictims (figure 1 and table 3). 

1

 The SCS data are available for download from the Student Surveys link at the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

Crime and Safety Surveys portal, located at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crime. 2

 Estimates for serious violent victimization are only provided in detail in table 1. Because the percentage of students who 

experienced this type of criminal victimization was not large enough to present meaningful cross-tabulations, tables 2 through 7 

include estimates for serious violent victimization in the estimates for violent victimization.

3

 Student reports of “theft” and “violent” victimization may not sum to “any” victimization because respondents can report more 

than one type of victimization.
iv

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

About 33.9 percent of students who reported violent crime victimization reported having 

been in a physical fight at school, compared to 5.3 percent of students who were not 

victims of any crime (figure 1 and table 3). 

About 53.2 percent of student victims of theft and 54.2 percent of student victims of 

violent crime said drugs were available at their school, compared to 29.9 percent of 

students who were not victims of any crime (figure 1 and table 3). 

Higher percentages of students who reported any criminal victimization at school 

reported they were also the targets of traditional (63.5 percent) and electronic4

(19.8 percent) bullying than were student nonvictims (26.6 percent and 5.5 percent, 

respectively) (figure 2 and table 4).

Higher percentages of student victims of any crime and theft reported security cameras at 

their school than did student nonvictims (78.5 percent and 80.9 percent vs. 69.7 percent, 

respectively) (figure 3 and table 5).

When asked about safety measures at their school, a higher percentage of students who 

were victims of theft reported that their schools used security guards or assigned police 

officers than did student nonvictims of any crime (81.9 percent vs. 67.7 percent) (figure 4 

and table 6). 

The percentage of student victims of violent crimes who reported being afraid of attack 

or harm at school (22.7 percent) was higher than that of student nonvictims of any crime 

(3.9 percent) (figure 5 and table 7). 

4

 Electronic bullying is victimization by a peer that occurred anywhere via electronic means, including the Internet, e-mail, instant 

messaging, text messaging, online gaming, or online communities. 
v

Acknowledgments

The School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) 

would not be possible without the continued support for data collection given by the U.S. 

Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Healthy Students, under the sponsorship of Bill 

Modzeleski. 

The authors would also like to thank all of the respondents to the NCVS/SCS surveys. This 

report would not be possible without their participation. 
This page is intentionally left blank.
vii

Contents

Page

Highlights ...................................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................v

List of Tables................................................................................................................................ viii

List of Figures..................................................................................................................................x

Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1

Victimization at School....................................................................................................................4

Characteristics of Student Victims of Crime at School....................................................................6

Victimization and School Conditions ..............................................................................................7

Victimization and Bullying at School............................................................................................10

Victimization and Security Measures at School ............................................................................12

Victimization, Fear, and Avoidance Behaviors at School..............................................................15

References .....................................................................................................................................17

Appendix A: Technical Notes..................................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B: Standard Error Tables.............................................................................................B-1

Appendix C: Selected Items From the 2009 National Crime Victimization 

Survey Basic Screen Questionnaire (NCVS-1) .................................................................C-1

Appendix D: Selected Items From the 2009 National Crime Victimization 

Survey Crime Incident Report (NCVS-2)......................................................................... D-1

Appendix E: 2009 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey Instrument.......................................................................................E-1
viii

List of Tables

Table Page

1. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal victimization 

at school and those who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 

6 months, by type of victimization: School year 2008–09.....................................................5

2. Number and percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal 

victimization at school and those who reported criminal victimization at school, 

by type of victimization and selected student and school characteristics: School year 

2008–09..................................................................................................................................7

3. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal victimization at 

school and those who reported criminal victimization at school, by student reports of 

school conditions and type of victimization: School year 2008–09.......................................9

4. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal victimization 

at school and those who reported criminal victimization at school, by student reports 

of being bullied by traditional means at school or by electronic means anywhere 

and type of victimization: School year 2008–09..................................................................11

5. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal victimization 

at school and those who reported criminal victimization at school, by student 

reports of the use of selected security measures to secure school buildings and 

type of victimization: School year 2008–09.........................................................................13

6. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal victimization 

at school and those who reported criminal victimization at school, by student 

reports of the use of security measures requiring the enforcement of administrative 

procedures and type of victimization: School year 2008–09 ...............................................14

7. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal victimization 

at school and those who reported criminal victimization at school, by student

reports of personal avoidance behavior and type of victimization: School year 

2008–09................................................................................................................................16

A-1. Detail of items included in the NCVS/SCS item nonresponse bias analysis, 

by variable source code: School year 2008–09................................................................. A-7

A-2. Difference in distributions of survey variables between respondents to household 

income (SC214) and all respondents, using final weight.................................................. A-8

A-3. Generalized variance function constant parameters for the School Crime 

Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey: School year 

2008–09............................................................................................................................. A-9
ix

Table Page 

B-1. Standard errors for Table 1: Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who 

reported no criminal victimization at school and those who reported criminal 

victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization: 

School year 2008–09..........................................................................................................B-2

B-2. Standard errors for Table 2: Number and percentage of students ages 12 through 

18 who reported no criminal victimization at school and those who reported 

criminal victimization at school, by type of victimization and selected student 

and school characteristics: School year 2008–09...............................................................B-3

B-3. Standard errors for Table 3: Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who 

reported no criminal victimization at school and those who reported criminal 

victimization at school, by student reports of school conditions and type of 

victimization: School year 2008–09...................................................................................B-4

B-4. Standard errors for Table 4: Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who 

reported no criminal victimization at school and those who reported criminal 

victimization at school, by student reports of being bullied by traditional means 

at school or by electronic means anywhere and type of victimization: School 

year 2008–09 ......................................................................................................................B-5

B-5. Standard errors for Table 5: Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who 

reported no criminal victimization at school and those who reported criminal 

victimization at school, by student reports of the use of selected security 

measures to secure school buildings and type of victimization: School year 

2008–09..............................................................................................................................B-6

B-6. Standard errors for Table 6: Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who 

reported no criminal victimization at school and those who reported criminal 

victimization at school, by student reports of the use of security measures 

requiring the enforcement of administrative procedures and type of victimization: 

School year 2008–09..........................................................................................................B-7

B-7. Standard errors for Table 7: Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who 

reported no criminal victimization at school and those who reported criminal 

victimization at school, by student reports of personal avoidance behavior 

and type of victimization: School year 2008–09................................................................B-8
x

List of Figures

Table Page

1. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported unfavorable school 

conditions, by reports of criminal victimization at school: School year 2008–09.................9

2. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported being bullied by 

traditional means at school or by electronic means anywhere, by reports of 

criminal victimization at school: School year 2008–09 .......................................................11

3. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported the use of selected 

security measures to secure school buildings, by reports of criminal victimization 

at school: School year 2008–09 ...........................................................................................12

4. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported the use of security 

measures requiring the enforcement of administrative procedures at school, 

by reports of criminal victimization at school: School year 2008–09..................................14

5. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported personal avoidance 

behavior at school, by reports of criminal victimization at school: 

School year 2008–09............................................................................................................15
1

Introduction 

Student victimization in schools is a major concern of educators, policymakers, administrators, 

parents, and students. Understanding the scope of the criminal victimization of students, as well 

as the factors associated with it, is an essential step in developing solutions to address the issues 

of school crime and violence.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) collects data on student criminal 

victimization through its sponsorship of the School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National 

Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), administered by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau 

of Justice Statistics (BJS). The SCS survey is designed to assist policymakers, researchers, and 

practitioners in making informed decisions concerning crime in schools. The purpose of this 

report is to provide data on student criminal victimization and the characteristics of crime victims 

and nonvictims from the 2009 SCS data collection. 

Data Source

This report uses data from the 2009 NCVS Basic Screen Questionnaire (NCVS-1), NCVS Crime 

Incident Report (NCVS-2), and SCS.1

 The NCVS is the nation’s primary source of information 

on criminal victimization and the victims of crime. The NCVS-2 collects data on criminal 

victimizations that occur at school and in locations other than at school. The SCS collects 

additional national-level information about the school and student characteristics that may be 

related to school crime by asking students questions about their experiences with and perceptions 

of crime and violence occurring inside their school, on school grounds, on the school bus, and 

going to or from school. The SCS contains questions not included in the NCVS, such as student 

reports of traditional bullying at school and cyber-bullying anywhere; the presence of weapons, 

gangs, hate-related words, and graffiti in school, as well as the availability of drugs and alcohol 

in school; and students’ attitudes relating to fear of victimization and avoidance behavior at 

school.

Created as a supplement to the NCVS and codesigned by NCES and BJS, the SCS has been 

conducted in 1989, 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011. 

Each month, the U.S. Census Bureau selects households for the NCVS using a rotating panel 

design (see appendix A for additional information on sample design and data collection). 

Households within the United States are selected into the sample using a stratified, multistage 

cluster design, and all age-eligible individuals in the households become part of the panel. Once 

in the panel, respondents are administered the NCVS every 6 months over 3 years to determine 

whether they have been victimized during the 6 months preceding the interview.

2

 The SCS 

questionnaire is completed after the NCVS by persons in the sample household ages 12 through 

18 who are currently enrolled in a primary or secondary education program leading to a high 

1

 The SCS data are available for download from the Student Surveys link at the NCES Crime and Safety Surveys portal, located 

at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crime. 2 The NCVS collects data on criminal victimization during the 6 months preceding the interview whereas, since 2007, the SCS 

has asked students about school characteristics “during this school year.” This change in the SCS was made largely based on 

feedback obtained from students ages 12 through 18 who reviewed the items during cognitive laboratory evaluations conducted 

by the Census Bureau. These respondents revealed they were not being strict in their interpretation of the 6-month reference 

period and were responding based on their experiences during the entire school year.
2

school diploma or who were enrolled sometime during the school year of the interview, and did 

not exclusively receive their education through homeschooling during the school year.

3

 

Of the 8,986 NCVS household members who were between ages 12 and 18 and eligible for the 

2009 SCS, a total of 5,023 students completed the NCVS and SCS surveys, of whom 4,326 met 

the requirements for inclusion in this analysis. Specifically, this report includes only students 

ages 12 through 18 who were enrolled in 6th through 12th grade at any time during the 2008–09 

school year and who did not receive all or part of their education through homeschooling. The 

household completion rate was 92 percent and the student completion rate was 56 percent. The 

overall unweighted SCS unit response rate (calculated by multiplying the household completion 

rate by the student completion rate) was 51 percent. 

NCES requires that any stage of data collection within a survey that has a unit base-weighted 

response rate of less than 85 percent be evaluated for the potential magnitude of unit nonresponse 

bias before the data or any analysis using the data may be released (U.S. Department of 

Education 2003). Due to the low SCS unit response rate, a unit nonresponse bias analysis was 

performed. Differences were found between the distributions of respondents and nonrespondents 

across race/ethnicity categories. White students and students of all other races had higher 

response rates than did Black and Hispanic respondents. The variable was retained for analysis 

and reporting because student race/ethnicity is a key population characteristic for consideration 

by readers, although readers should use caution when interpreting the results derived from this 

variable. 

The mean item weighted response rate for the 2009 NCVS/SCS was greater than 97 percent 

and, therefore, there is little potential for item nonresponse bias for most items in the survey. 

Household income was the only analysis variable in this report that had a response rate of less 

than 85 percent (80 percent). When compared across other key population characteristics, it 

was found that respondents to the household income item differed across race/ethnicity. White 

students had higher rates of response for the income item than Black and Hispanic students 

and students of other race/ethnicities; however, when the distributions of respondents to the 

household income item were compared to the distribution of all those eligible to respond to the 

household income item, no measurable differences were found. Nonetheless, readers should use 

caution when interpreting the results derived from this variable. Refer to appendix A for more 

information on the respondent criteria for inclusion in the report analysis and the bias analyses 

that were performed. 

NCVS and SCS data are also presented by Robers et al. in the 2010 edition of Indicators of 

School Crime and Safety, a report produced annually by NCES and BJS. That report compiles 

data from multiple sources, including national surveys of students, teachers, and principals, 

as well as universe data collections from federal departments and agencies, including BJS, 

NCES, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Indicators provides a first look at the SCS data and makes trend comparisons of SCS findings. 

3

 Persons who have dropped out of school, have been expelled or suspended from school, or are temporarily absent from school 

for any other reason, such as illness or vacation, can complete the SCS as long as they have attended school at any time during 

the school year of the interview. Students who receive all of their education through homeschooling are not included past the 

screening questions and those who receive part of their education through homeschooling are not included in this report, since 

many of the questions in the SCS are not relevant to their situation. 
3

This report supplements Indicators by detailing characteristics of school crime, victims of crime, 

and the relationship between criminal victimization and bullying. 

Definitions

In this report, the definition of criminal victimization4

 is derived from the NCVS “type of crime” 

variable. Criminal victimizations are categorized as “serious violent,” “violent,” or “theft.” 

Serious violent victimization includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault and 

is a subset of violent crimes. Violent victimization includes all serious violent crimes and simple 

assault. Theft includes attempted and completed purse snatching, completed pickpocketing, 

and all attempted and completed thefts, excluding motor vehicle theft. Theft does not include 

robbery, in which the threat or use of force is involved. Victims of “any” crime reported at least 

one of the victimizations above. Nonvictims of any crime reported none of the victimizations 

above. 

Readers should note that the NCVS counts each incident of crime against an individual as a 

criminal victimization. However, the estimates in this report are based on the prevalence, or 

percentage, of students who experience victimizations. For example, if a respondent reports two 

unique victimizations, such as an assault and a theft, during the previous 6 months, this student 

would be counted once in the overall prevalence (any) estimate, because any victimization 

constitutes at least one violent victimization or theft. For many of the findings discussed in 

this report, the baseline comparison is that of victims of specific crimes to that of nonvictims. 

Measuring student victimization in this way provides the percentages of students who are 

directly affected by victimization, rather than the number of victimizations that occur at school. 

Estimates for serious violent victimization are only provided in detail in table 1. Because the 

percentage of students who experienced this type of victimization was not large enough to 

present meaningful cross-tabulations, tables 2 through 7 include estimates for serious violent 

victimization in the estimates for violent victimization.

For the purposes of this report, victimization at school refers to incidents that occurred inside the 

school building, on school property, on the school bus, or on the way to or from school. Some 

characteristics (such as school sector, security measures, and grade level) are drawn from student 

responses to the 2009 SCS, while others (such as sex, race/ethnicity, and household income) are 

drawn from NCVS-1 variables appended to the SCS data file. Estimates of victimizations that 

occurred inside the school building, on school property, on the school bus, or on the way to or 

from school are obtained from the NCVS-2. See appendixes C and D for selected questions from 

the NCVS-1 and NCVS-2 instruments and appendix E for the SCS instrument. 

Study Considerations

Readers should note that limitations inherent to victimization surveys such as the SCS and 

NCVS could have some effect on the estimates of victimization reported here (see Cantor 

and Lynch 2000). First, 15 percent of SCS interviews were new to the NCVS panel in 2009. 

Because there is no prior interview for new respondents to use as a point of reference when 

reporting victimization, their reports may include victimizations that occurred before the 

desired reference period. To the extent that these earlier victimizations are included, rates are 

overreported. Second, respondent recall of a victimization event may be inaccurate. People may 

4

 For ease of presentation, the terms criminal victimization and victimization are used interchangeably throughout this report.
4

forget the event entirely or recall the characteristics of the event inaccurately. This could lead to 

misclassification of victimizations. 

Additional caution should be considered when examining the other variables used in this report. 

Because all variables of interest in the SCS and NCVS are self-reported, information about 

the respondent and his or her school may be inaccurate due to errors in recall, falsification, or 

exaggeration. Finally, readers should be aware of the limitations of the survey design and the 

analytical approach used here with regard to causality. Conclusions about causality between 

school or student characteristics and victimization cannot be made due to the cross-sectional, 

nonexperimental design of the SCS. Furthermore, certain characteristics discussed in this report 

(e.g., gang presence, security guards, and hallway monitors) may be related to one another, but 

this analysis does not control for such possible relationships. Therefore, no causal inferences 

should be made between the variables of interest and victimization when reading these results.

Understanding Statistical Significance

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. All statements cited in 

the report are statistically significant at the .05 level. The test procedure used in this report is 

Student’s t statistic, which tests the difference between two sample estimates (see appendix A-10 

for a fuller discussion). Multiple comparison adjustments have not been made in the analyses 

presented in this report, which may cause an increase in the number of significant findings that 

are reported. For example, when using a .05 alpha level, 5 percent of findings would be expected 

to be statistically significant by chance. The standard error is calculated for each estimate 

provided in order to determine the margin of error for the estimates. The standard errors of the 

estimates for different subpopulations can vary considerably and should be taken into account 

when making comparisons. It should also be acknowledged that apparently large differences 

between estimates may not have measurable differences, which may be due to large standard 

errors.

How This Report Is Organized

The results of this report are presented in six sections. The first two sections discuss the 

prevalence and type of student criminal victimization at school and selected characteristics of 

victims, including their demographic characteristics and school sector. The third section explores 

crime victim and nonvictim reports of school conditions, such as the presence of gangs and 

weapons and the availability of drugs. The fourth section examines criminal victimization and 

student reports of bullying and cyber-bullying at school. The fifth section examines criminal 

victimization and student reports of security measures taken at school to secure school buildings 

and the use of designated personnel and the enforcement of administrative procedures at school 

to ensure student safety. The sixth section examines fear and avoidance behaviors of crime 

victims and nonvictims, such as skipping class or avoiding specific places at school. 

Victimization at School

In their analysis of data from the 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005 administrations of the SCS, 

Robers et al. (2010) found a decrease in the percentage of students ages 12 through 18 reporting 
5

criminal victimization at school in the 6 months prior to the survey. While 9.5 percent of students 

reported being victims of any crime at school in 1995, about 4.3 percent reported being victims 

of any crime at school in 2005. In 1995, about 7.1 percent of students reported being victims 

of theft, compared to 3.1 percent in 2005. Three percent of students reported being victims of 

violent crime in 1995, compared to 1.2 percent in 2005. In both 1995 and 2005, less than 1 

percent of students reported a serious violent victimization. However, between 2005 and 2007, 

there were no measurable changes in the percentage of students reporting any type of criminal 

victimization.This report supplements the findings of Robers et al. (2010) by providing the most 

recent data from the 2009 SCS and detailing the relationship between reports of school crime and 

characteristics of students and schools. 

In school year 2008–09, about 3.9 percent of students were victims of any crime at school, 2.8 

percent were victims of theft, 1.4 percent were victims of a violent crime, and 0.3 percent were 

victims of a serious violent crime (table 1).5,6 Furthermore, 1.1 percent of students reported 

being victims of a simple assault at school (classified as a violent crime, but not a serious violent 

crime). Subsequent sections of this report elaborate on the relationships among characteristics 

of student victims and nonvictims of violent crime and theft at school as well as student victim 

status and student reports of school conditions, security measures at school, and fear and 

avoidance behaviors. 

5

 Student reports of “theft” and “violent” victimization may not sum to “any” victimization because respondents can report more 

than one victimization.

6

 Estimates for serious violent victimization are only provided in detail in table 1. Because the percentage of students who 

experienced this type of victimization was not large enough to present meaningful cross-tabulations, tables 2 through 7 include 

estimates for serious violent victimization in the estimates for violent victimization.

Table 1. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal victimization at school and those who 

reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization: School year 

2008–09

Type of victimization Percent of students

None 96.1

Any 3.9

Theft 2.8

Personal larceny #

Other theft 2.8

Violent 1.4

Simple assault 1.1

Serious violent 0.3

Rape and sexual assault #

Robbery 0.2!

Aggravated assault 0.1!

# Rounds to zero.

! Interpret data with caution. The standard error for this estimate is from 30 percent to 50 percent of the estimate’s value. 

NOTE: “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed 

thefts, excluding motor vehicle theft. Theft does not include robbery, in which the threat or use of force is involved. “Violent” 

includes serious violent crimes and simple assault. “Serious violent” includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated 

assault. “Any” includes violent crimes and theft. “At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, and on the way 

to or from school. Student reports of “theft” and “violent” victimization may not sum to “any” victimization because respondents 

can report more than one victimization. Population size for students ages 12 through 18 is 25,383,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2009.
6

Characteristics of Student Victims of Crime at School

Victimization at school may be associated with student characteristics (including sex, race/ 

ethnicity, grade level, and household income) or school characteristics (for example, whether 

a school is public or private). The relationships between these characteristics and student 

victimization are examined below.

Sex

In school year 2008–09, a larger percentage of male students than female students were the 

victim of any crime at school (4.6 percent vs. 3.2 percent) (table 2). A higher percentage of 

males than females reported being the victim of theft (3.4 percent vs. 2.1 percent), but there was 

no measurable difference between the percentages of male and female students who reported 

being the victim of violent crime (1.6 percent and 1.1 percent, respectively).A higher percentage 

of both male and female students reported a theft victimization than a violent victimization: 

3.4 percent of males reported a theft victimization versus 1.6 percent who reported a violent 

victimization, and 2.1 percent of females reported a theft victimization versus 1.1 percent who 

reported a violent victimization. 

Race/Ethnicity7

No measurable differences were found among the percentages of White, Black, Hispanic 

students, and students of all other races who reported being the victims of any crime, theft, 

or violent crime at school in school year 2008–09 (table 2). Among both White and Hispanic 

students, a higher percentage of students were victims of theft than of violent crime (2.9 percent 

vs. 1.2 percent for White students; and 3.0 percent vs. 1.3 percent for Hispanic students).

Grade Level

In school year 2008–09, a higher percentage of students in grade 9 reported theft victimization 

(4.9 percent) than did students in grades 7 or 8 (2.1 percent and 2.0 percent, respectively) (table 

2). In addition, higher percentages of students in grades 9, 10, and 11 reported theft victimization 

(4.9 percent, 3.5 percent, and 3.3 percent, respectively) than did students in grades 6 or 12 (1.3 

percent and 1.5 percent, respectively). No measurable differences were found between the 

percentages of students in grades 6–11 who were victims of violent crime.

Household Income8

No measurable differences were found among household income levels and the percentages of 

students who reported being victims of any crime, theft, or violent crime at school in school year 

2008–09 (table 2).

7

 Respondents who identified themselves as being of Hispanic or Latino origin were classified as “Hispanic or Latino,” regardless 

of their race. “Black, not Hispanic or Latino” includes African Americans. “All other races, not Hispanic or Latino” includes 

American Indians or Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, and respondents of two or more races 

(1 percent of all respondents). For ease of presentation here and for the remainder of the report, White, not Hispanic or Latino 

students are referred to as White students; Black, not Hispanic or Latino students are referred to as Black students; and Hispanic 

or Latino students are referred to as Hispanic students. 

8

 The household income categories presented in this report are a recoding of the 14 categories offered in the NCVS-1 Basic 

Screen Questionnaire. Adjacent categories were collapsed to be consistent with other NCES products produced from this dataset 

(see the table library at the NCES Crime and Safety Surveys portal at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crime). Readers should use 

caution when interpreting the results of analysis from these collapsed categories. As with all categorical data, these results may 

differ from those produced using different category breakdowns. 
7

Table 2. Number and percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal victimization at school and those 

who reported criminal victimization at school, by type of victimization and selected student and school characteristics: 

School year 2008–09

Victimization

Student and school 

characteristic

Total number of

students

Type of victimization

None Any Theft Violent

Total 25,383,000 96.1 3.9 2.8 1.4

Sex

Male 12,884,000 95.4 4.6 3.4 1.6

Female 12,499,000 96.8 3.2 2.1 1.1

Race/ethnicity

White, not Hispanic or Latino 15,166,000 96.1 3.9 2.9 1.2

Black, not Hispanic or Latino 3,847,000 95.6 4.4 2.5 2.3

Hispanic or Latino 4,747,000 96.1 3.9 3.0 1.3! 

All other races,

not Hispanic or Latino1 1,622,000 97.9 2.1! ‡ ‡

Grade

6th 2,330,000 96.3 3.7 1.3! 2.6!

7th 3,801,000 96.2 3.4 2.1 1.2!

8th 3,906,000 96.2 3.8 2.0 2.0

9th 3,832,000 94.7 5.3 4.9 0.9!

10th 4,006,000 95.8 4.2 3.5 1.0!

11th 3,673,000 95.3 4.7 3.3 1.5!

12th 3,834,000 98.0 2.0 1.5 ‡

Household income

Less than $7,500 634,000 94.1 5.9! 4.2! ‡

$7,500–14,999 885,000 95.5 4.5! ‡ ‡

$15,000–24,999 1,901,000 97.5 2.5! ‡ 1.5!

$25,000–34,999 2,175,000 97.4 2.6! 2.6! ‡

$35,000–49,999 2,969,000 95.5 4.5 3.6 1.2!

$50,000 or more 11,666,000 96.0 4.0 2.9 1.1

Student-reported school type

Public 23,267,000 95.9 4.1 2.9 1.4

Private 2,085,000 98.2 1.8! ‡ ‡

! Interpret data with caution. The standard error for this estimate is from 30 percent to 50 percent of the estimate’s value. 

‡ Reporting standards not met. The standard error for this estimate is equal to 50 percent or more of the estimate’s value.

1

 Respondents who identified themselves as being of Hispanic or Latino origin were classified as “Hispanic or Latino,” regardless 

of their race. “Black, not Hispanic or Latino” includes African Americans. “All other races, not Hispanic or Latino” includes American 

Indians or Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, and respondents of two or more races (1 percent of 

all respondents). 

NOTE: “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed 

thefts, excluding motor vehicle theft. Theft does not include robbery, in which the threat or use of force is involved. “Violent” includes 

rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. “Any” includes violent crimes and theft. “At school” includes 

inside the school building, on school property, on the school bus, and on the way to or from school. Student reports of “theft” and 

“violent” victimization may not sum to “any” victimization because respondents can report more than one type of victimization. Detail 

does not sum to total number of students because of rounding, missing data (“household income”), or because response category 

“don’t know” is not shown (“student-reported school sector”). Population size for students ages 12 through 18 is 25,383,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2009.

School Sector (Public/Private)

The percentage of public school students who reported being victims of any crime (4.1 percent) 

was higher than that of private school students (1.8 percent)in school year 2008–09 (table 2).

Victimization and School Conditions

In assessing the prevalence of school crime, it is also important to consider how certain 

conditions at school may be associated with student criminal victimization. The 2009 SCS 
8

asked respondents about gangs, guns, fights, drugs,9 alcohol, and hate-related graffiti at school. 

Specifically, students were asked whether there were gangs at school, whether they had seen 

another student with a gun at school, whether they had engaged in a physical fight at school, 

whether drugs or alcohol were available at school, and whether they had seen any hate-related 

graffiti at school. 

The findings show that there were measurable differences between victims and nonvictims of 

crime at school among various unfavorable school conditions in school year 2008–09. Student 

victims of crime reported higher percentages of unfavorable school conditions than did student 

nonvictims in almost all cases.

Specifically, a higher percentage of student victims of any crime reported the presence of gangs 

at school than did student nonvictims (39.8 percent vs. 19.6 percent) (figure 1 and table 3).

Furthermore, higher percentages of student victims of theft (40.2 percent) and violence (43.2 

percent) reported the presence of gangs at school than did student nonvictims (19.6 percent). 

Higher percentages of student victims of any crime (16.9 percent) and violent crime (33.9 

percent) reported having engaged in a physical fight at school than did student nonvictims (5.3 

percent).The availability of drugs at school was reported by 51.5 percent of student victims 

of any crime, 53.2 percent of victims of theft, and 54.2 percent of victims of violent crime, 

compared to 29.9 percent of student nonvictims.Reported alcohol availability at school was 

higher among student victims of any crime (28.9 percent), theft (29.9 percent), and violent crime 

(34.6 percent) than among student nonvictims (15.8 percent).Higher percentages of student 

victims of any crime (49.3 percent), theft (47.4 percent), and violent crime (58.1 percent) also 

reported having seen hate-related graffiti at school than did student nonvictims (28.4 percent). 

9

 Students were asked whether marijuana, crack, other forms of cocaine, uppers, downers, LSD, PCP, heroin, prescription drugs, 

or other drugs were available at school.
9

Figure 1. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported unfavorable school conditions, by 

reports of criminal victimization at school: School year 2008–09

! Interpret data with caution. The standard error for this estimate is from 30 percent to 50 percent of the estimate’s value.

1 Includes students who reported being involved in one or more physical fights at school.

2 Includes students who reported that marijuana, crack, other forms of cocaine, uppers, downers, LSD, PCP, heroin, prescription drugs, or other drugs 

were available at school.

NOTE: “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, excluding motor 

vehicle theft. Theft does not include robbery, in which the threat or use of force is involved. “Violent” includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated 

assault, and simple assault. “Any” includes violent crimes and theft. “At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, on the school 

bus, and on the way to or from school. Student reports of "theft" and "violent" victimization may not sum to "any" victimization because respondents can 

report more than one victimization. Population size for students ages 12 through 18 is 25,383,000. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey 

(NCVS), 2009.

Unfavorable school conditions

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Saw student 

with a gun

Gangs present 

at school

Engaged in a 

physical fight1

Drugs at school2 Alcohol at school Saw hate-related 

graffiti

20

40 40 43

1 3! 5

17

12

34 30

51 53 54

16

29 30

35

28

49 47

58

Type of victimization None Any Theft Violent

Table 3. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal victimization at school and those who 

reported criminal victimization at school, by student reports of school conditions and type of victimization: 

School year 2008–09 

Type of Gangs present Saw student Engaged in Drugs at Alcohol Saw hatevictimization at school with a gun physical fight1 school2 at school related graffiti

xxTotal 20.4 1.3 5.8 30.7 16.3 29.2

None 19.6 1.2 5.3 29.9 15.8 28.4

Victimization

xxAny 39.8 3.2! 16.9 51.5 28.9 49.3

xx Theft 40.2 ‡ 12.0 53.2 29.9 47.4

xx Violent 43.2 ‡ 33.9 54.2 34.6 58.1

! Interpret data with caution. The standard error for this estimate is from 30 percent to 50 percent of the estimate’s value.

‡ Reporting standards not met. The standard error for this estimate is equal to 50 percent or more of the estimate’s value

1

 Includes students who reported being involved in one or more physical fights at school. 2

 Includes students who reported that marijuana, crack, other forms of cocaine, uppers, downers, LSD, PCP, heroin, 

prescription drugs, or other drugs were available at school.

NOTE: “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and 

completed thefts, excluding motor vehicle theft. Theft does not include robbery, in which the threat or use of force is 

involved. “Violent” includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. “Any” includes violent 

crimes and theft. “At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, on the school bus, and on the way to 

or from school. Population size for students ages 12 through 18 is 25,383,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National 

Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2009.
10

Victimization and Bullying at School

Student bullying and cyber-bullying are areas of concern for school authorities, as bullying10

behavior may be associated with more significant events of criminal victimization and offending 

behavior (Nansel et al. 2001). The 2009 SCS asked students whether they were bullied by 

traditional means at school11 or by electronic means anywhere12 (cyber-bullied) in the 2008–09 

school year. 

The findings show that in school year 2008–09, a higher percentage of students who reported 

being the victim of any crime at school also reported being bullied by traditional means at school 

than did student nonvictims (63.5 percent vs. 26.6 percent) (figure 2 and table 4). Furthermore, 

52.3 percent of student victims of theft and 92.5 percent of victims of violence also reported 

traditional bullying at school, compared to 26.6 percent of student nonvictims.

About 19.8 percent of students who reported being the victim of any crime also reported being 

bullied by electronic means anywhere, compared to 5.5 percent of student nonvictims (figure 

2 and table 4). Similarly, 16.8 percent of student victims of theft and 28.1 percent of victims of 

violence reported bullying by electronic means anywhere, compared to 5.5 percent of student 

nonvictims.

10 Readers may suspect that students who report bullying in the form of more overt physical attacks may be reporting many of 

the same instances in their reports of criminal victimization; meaning that any relationship between the percentages of bullied 

students who are also victims of crime may be an artifact of double counting the bullying event as a criminal victimization. 

However, these two concepts are addressed quite differently during data collection for the NCVS and SCS. For example, in the 

NCVS, detailed information from a screener questionnaire and incident report are used to determine whether a crime has been 

committed and the type of crime. In the SCS, students self-determine bullying based on reports of several types of behavior. 

Although it is possible that students include victimizations that they reported previously in the NCVS screener and incident 

reports when responding to the SCS bullying items, it is not possible to make this distinction given the SCS questionnaire 

wording. As a result, they are reported as distinct events in this report.

11 Traditional bullying includes bullying by a peer that occurred at school. Students were asked whether another student had made 

fun of them, called them names, or insulted them; spread rumors about them; threatened them with harm; pushed or shoved them; 

forced them to do something they did not want to do; excluded them from activities; or destroyed their property. Students who 

indicated they were bullied in one or more of these ways were considered “bullied by traditional means at school.”

12 Electronic bullying includes bullying by a peer that occurred anywhere via electronic means, including the Internet, e-mail, 

instant messaging, text messaging, online gaming, and online communities. Students who indicated they were bullied in one or 

more of these ways were considered “bullied by electronic means anywhere.”
11

Figure 2. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported being bullied by traditional means at school or by 

electronic means anywhere, by reports of criminal victimization at school: School year 2008–09

NOTE: “Traditional bullying” is victimization by a peer that occurred at school. Students were asked whether another student had made fun of them, 

called them names, or insulted them; spread rumors about them; threatened them with harm; pushed or shoved them; forced them to do something 

they did not want to do; excluded them from activities; or destroyed their property. “Electronic bullying” is victimization by a peer that occurred

anywhere via electronic means, including the Internet, e-mail, instant messaging, online gaming, text messaging, and online communities. “Theft” 

includes attempted and completed purse snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, excluding motor vehicle theft.

Theft does not include robbery, in which the threat or use of force is involved. “Violent” includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault,

and simple assault. “Any” includes violent crimes and theft. “At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, on the school bus, 

and on the way to or from school. Population size for students ages 12 through 18 is 25,383,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey

(NCVS), 2009.

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Bullied by traditional 

means at school

Bullied by electronic 

means anywhere

Type of victimization None Any Theft Violent

27

64

52

92

20

5

17

28

Table 4. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal victimization at school and those who reported 

criminal victimization at school, by student reports of being bullied by traditional means at school or by electronic 

means anywhere and type of victimization: School year 2008–09

Type of 

victimization

Bullied by traditional 

means at school

Bullied by electronic 

means anywhere

Total 28.0 6.0

None 26.6 5.5

Victimization

Any 63.5 19.8

Theft 52.3 16.8

Violent 92.5 28.1

NOTE:“Traditional bullying” is victimization by a peer that occurred at school. Students were asked whether another student had 

made fun of them, called them names, or insulted them; spread rumors about them; threatened them with harm; pushed, shoved, 

tripped, or spit on them; forced them to do something they did not want to do; excluded them from activities; or destroyed their 

property. “Electronic bullying” is victimization by a peer that occurred anywhere via electronic means, including the Internet, e-mail, 

instant messaging, text messaging, online gaming, and online communities. “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse 

snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, excluding motor vehicle theft. Theft does not include 

robbery, in which the threat or use of force is involved. “Violent” includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and 

simple assault. “Any” includes violent crimes and theft. “At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, on the 

school bus, and on the way to or from school. Population size for students ages 12 through 18 is 25,383,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2009.
12

Victimization and Security Measures at School

School authorities are faced with the important task of deciding which security measures to 

implement, including hiring law enforcement officers, using metal detectors or security cameras, 

locking entrances and exits during the school day, and using staff supervision in hallways. An 

analysis of the 2008 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), a principal-based survey 

of U.S. public schools, grades K–12, found that 55 percent of schools used security cameras to 

monitor the school, 90 percent of schools controlled access to buildings during school hours, and 

5 percent of schools used random metal detector checks on students (Robers et al. 2010). 

The 2009 SCS asked students whether their schools used certain security measures. Among 

all students, 70.0 percent reported the use of security cameras, 64.3 percent reported the use 

of locked entrance or exit doors during the day, 53.8 percent reported the use of locker checks, 

and 10.6 percent reported the use of metal detectors in school year 2008–09 (table 5). Higher 

percentages of student victims of any crime and theft reported security cameras at their school 

than did student nonvictims (78.5 percent and 80.9 percent vs. 69.7 percent, respectively) (figure 

3 and table 5). Among the remaining security measures, an analysis of the data found there were 

no measurable differences between the percentages of victims of any crime, theft, or violent 

crime and student nonvictims. 

! Interpret data with caution. The standard error for this estimate is from 30 percent to 50 percent of the estimate’s value.

NOTE: “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, excluding motor 

vehicle theft. Theft does not include robbery, in which the threat or use of force is involved. “Violent” includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated 

assault, and simple assault. “Any” includes violent crimes and theft. ”At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, on the school 

bus, and on the way to or from school. Population size for students ages 12 through 18 is 25,383,000. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey 

(NCVS), 2009.

Figure 3. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported the use of selected security measures to secure 

school buildings, by reports of criminal victimization at school: School year 2008–09

Security measures

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Locker checks Metal detectors Security cameras Locked entrance or exit 

doors during 

the day

Type of victimization None Any Theft Violent

54 54 54 54

12 13 10!

70

79 81 77

64 65

72

55

11
13

Students were also asked about the use of designated personnel and enforcement of 

administrative procedures to ensure student safety at their school. The data show that 68.1 

percent of students reported security guards or assigned police officers, 90.6 percent reported 

staff supervision in the hallways, 23.4 percent reported a requirement that students wear picture 

identification, 95.6 percent reported a student code of conduct, and 94.3 percent reported a 

requirement that visitors sign in (table 6). No measurable differences were found among these 

types of security measures with the following exceptions: a higher percentage of student victims 

of any crime (78.0 percent) and theft (81.9 percent) reported the use of security guards or 

assigned police officers than did student nonvictims (67.7 percent) (figure 4 and table 6). 

Table 5. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal victimization at school and those who reported 

criminal victimization at school, by student reports of the use of selected security measures to secure school buildings 

and type of victimization: School year 2008–09

Type of 

victimization Locker checks Metal detectors Security cameras

Locked entrance or 

exit doors during the day

Total 53.8 10.6 70.0 64.3

None 53.7 10.5 69.7 64.3

Victimization

Any 54.4 11.7 78.5 65.0

Theft 54.2 13.5 80.9 71.8

Violent 54.2 9.8! 77.3 55.0

! Interpret data with caution. The standard error for this estimate is from 30 percent to 50 percent of the estimate’s value.

NOTE: “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed 

thefts, excluding motor vehicle theft. Theft does not include robbery, in which the threat or use of force is involved. “Violent” includes 

rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. “Any” includes violent crimes and theft. “At school” includes 

inside the school building, on school property, on the school bus, and on the way to or from school. Population size for students 

ages 12 through 18 is 25,383,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2009.
14

Figure 4. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported the use of security measures requiring the 

enforcement of administrative procedures at school, by reports of criminal victimization at school: 

School year 2008–09

NOTE: “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, excluding motor 

vehicle theft. Theft does not include robbery, in which the threat or use of force is involved. “Violent” includes rape, sexual assault, robbery,

aggravated assault, and simple assault. “Any” includes violent crimes and theft. “At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, 

on the school bus, and on the way to or from school. Population size for students ages 12 through 18 is 25,383,000. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey 

(NCVS), 2009.

Security measures

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Staff supervision in 

hallways

Students required to wear 

badges or picture 

identification

Security guards or 

assigned police 

officers

Student code of 

conduct

Visitors required to 

sign in

Type of victimization None Any Theft Violent

68

78 82

72

91 92 94

89

24 21 18

28

96 98 98 98 94 96 96 97

Table 6. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal victimization at school and those who reported 

criminal victimization at school, by student reports of the use of security measures requiring the enforcement of 

administrative procedures and type of victimization: School year 2008–09

Type of 

victimization

Security guards 

or assigned 

police officers

Staff supervision in 

hallways

Students required to 

wear badges or picture 

identification

Student code 

of conduct

Visitors required 

to sign in

Total 68.1 90.6 23.4 95.6 94.3

None 67.7 90.5 23.5 95.5 94.2

Victimization

Any 78.0 91.9 20.6 97.6 96.2

Theft 81.9 94.2 18.1 97.5 96.3

Violent 72.0 88.5 27.7 98.2 96.6

NOTE: “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed 

thefts, excluding motor vehicle theft. Theft does not include robbery, in which the threat or use of force is involved. “Violent” 

includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. “Any” includes violent crimes and theft. “At school” 

includes inside the school building, on school property, on the school bus, and on the way to or from school. Population size for 

students ages 12 through 18 is 25,383,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2009.
15

Victimization, Fear, and Avoidance Behaviors at School

In the 2009 SCS, students were asked how often they had been afraid of an attack or harm at 

school during the school year. Students were also asked whether they skipped school or class, 

avoided school activities, or avoided specific places inside the school building— including the 

entrance into the school, hallways or stairs, parts of the cafeteria, restrooms, and other places 

inside the school building—because they thought someone might attack or harm them. 

The findings for fear and avoidance behaviors were mixed. Although higher percentages 

of student victims of any crime (12.5 percent) and of violent crime (22.7 percent) reported 

being afraid of attack or harm than student nonvictims (3.9 percent) (figure 5 and table 7),

no measurable differences were found between the percentages of victims of any crime and 

nonvictims who reported skipping school or class. However, higher percentages of student 

victims of any crime and violent crime reported avoiding specific places in school than did 

student nonvictims (10.5 percent and 16.8 percent vs. 3.7 percent, respectively). 

Figure 5. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported personal avoidance behavior at school, by reports 

of criminal victimization at school: School year 2008–09

! Interpret data with caution. The standard error for this estimate is from 30 percent to 50 percent of the estimate’s value.

1 Includes fear of attack or harm at school and on the way to or from school. Includes respondents who “sometimes” or “most of the time” were fearful 

at school.

2 Includes the entrance into the school, hallways or stairs, parts of the cafeteria, restrooms, and other places inside the school building.

NOTE: “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, excluding motor 

vehicle theft. Theft does not include robbery, in which the threat or use of force is involved. “Violent” includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated 

assault, and simple assault. “Any” includes violent crimes and theft. ”At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, on the school 

bus, and on the way to or from school. Population size for students ages 12 through 18 is 25,383,000. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization 

Survey (NCVS), 2009.

1 3! 4!

Avoidance behaviors

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Feared attack or Skipped school Skipped class

harm1

Avoided a specific 

place at school2

4

13 9!

23

1 3! 4

11 8

17!

Avoided school

activities

Type of victimization None Any Theft Violent
16

Table 7. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal victimization at school and those who reported 

criminal victimization at school, by student reports of personal avoidance behavior and type of victimization: School 

year 2008–09

Type of 

victimization

Feared attack or 

harm1

Skipped 

school

Skipped 

class

Avoided school 

activities

Avoided a 

specific place at 

school2

Total 4.2 0.6 0.6 1.3 3.9

None 3.9 0.5 0.5 1.3 3.7

Victimization

Any 12.5 2.9! 3.0! ‡ 10.5

Theft 9.1! ‡ 3.6! ‡ 8.4

Violent 22.7 ‡ ‡ ‡ 16.8! 

! Interpret data with caution. The standard error for this estimate is from 30 percent to 50 percent of the estimate’s value.

‡ Reporting standards not met. The standard error for this estimate is equal to 50 percent or more of the estimate’s value.

1

 Includes fear of attack at school and on the way to or from school. Includes respondents who “sometimes” or “most of the time” 

were fearful at school.

2

 Includes the entrance into the school, hallways or stairs, parts of the cafeteria, restrooms, and other places inside the school 

building.

NOTE: “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed 

thefts, excluding motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery, in which the threat or use of force is involved. “Violent” 

includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. “Any” includes violent crimes and theft. “At school” 

includes inside the school building, on school property, on the school bus, and on the way to or fromschool. Population size for 

students ages 12 through 18 is 25,383,000.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2009.
17

References 

Addington, L. (2005). Disentangling the Effects of Bounding and Mobility on Reports of 

Criminal Victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21(3): 321–343.

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. 

Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Gaskell, G.D., Wright, D.B., and O’Muircheartaigh, C.A. (2000). Telescoping of Landmark 

Events: Implications for Survey Research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64: 77–89.

Gottfredson, M.R., and Hindelang, M.J. (1981). Sociological Aspects of Criminal Victimization. 

Annual Review of Sociology, 7: 107–128.

Hemenway, D., Azrael, D., and Miller, M. (2000). Gun Use in the United States: Results From 

Two National Surveys. Injury Prevention, 6(4): 263–267.

Nansel, T., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R.S., Ruan, J., Simons-Morton, B., and Scheidt, P. (2001). 

Bullying Behaviors Among U.S. Youth. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285: 

2094–2100.

Robers, S., Zhang, J., and Truman, J. (2010). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2010 

(NCES 2011-002/NCJ 230812). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department 

of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department 

of Justice. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). NCES Statistical 

Standards (NCES 2003-601). Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (n.d.) National Crime Victimization 

Survey: School Crime Supplement, 2009. Retrieved February 3, 2011, from http://www.

icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/28201.

Wolter, K.M. (1985). Introduction to Variance Estimation. New York: Springer-Verlag.
This page is intentionally left blank.
A-1

Appendix A: Technical Notes
A-2

Sponsorship and Purpose of the Survey 

The School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) was 

jointly designed by the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) and the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). More information 

about this survey can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crime. The data used to produce 

this report are available for download from the Student Surveys link at the NCES Crime and 

Safety Surveys portal, located at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crime.

Created as a supplement to the NCVS, the SCS has been conducted in 1989, 1995, 1999, 2001, 

2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011 to collect national-level information about student and school 

characteristics related to school crime. The survey is designed to assist policymakers, as well as 

academic researchers and practitioners at the federal, state, and local levels, in making informed 

decisions concerning crime in schools. The SCS asks students a number of questions about their 

experiences with and perceptions of crime and violence occurring inside their school, on school 

grounds, on the school bus, and from 2001 onward, going to or from school. The SCS contains 

questions not included in the NCVS, 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 traditional bullying at school and cyber-bullying anywhere, the 

availability of drugs and alcohol in school, and students’ attitudes relating to fear of victimization 

and avoidance behavior at school. 

Sample Design and Data Collection

Each month, the U.S. Census Bureau selects respondents for the NCVS using a rotating panel 

design. Households are selected into the sample using a stratified, multistage cluster design. In 

the first stage, the primary sampling units (PSUs), consisting of counties or groups of counties, 

are selected, and smaller areas, called Enumeration Districts (ED), are selected within each 

sampled PSU. Within each ED, clusters of four households, called segments, are selected. Across 

all EDs, sampled households are then divided into discrete groups (rotations), and all age-eligible 

individuals in the households become part of the panel. 

Once in the panel, respondents are administered the NCVS every 6 months (for a total of seven 

interviews over a 3-year period) to determine whether they have been victimized during the 

6 months preceding the interview. The SCS questionnaire is administered after the NCVS to 

eligible persons ages 12 through 18 in the sample. The first interview is considered the incoming 

rotation, while the second through the seventh interviews are considered continuing rotations. 

The first NCVS/SCS interview is administered face-to-face using computer-assisted personal 

interviewing (CAPI); the remaining interviews are administered by telephone using CAPI unless 

circumstances call for an in-person interview. After the seventh interview, the household leaves 

the panel and a new household is rotated into the sample. This type of rotation scheme is used 

to reduce the respondent burden that might result if households were to remain in the sample 

permanently. It should be noted that the data from the NCVS/SCS interviews obtained in the 

incoming rotation are included in the SCS data file. The implications of examining data from 

unbounded and bounded interviews are discussed in the Survey Limitations section below. 
A-3

The SCS is administered to all eligible NCVS respondents ages 12 through 18 within NCVS 

households between January and June of the year of data collection. In 2009, there were 

approximately 61,000 households in the NCVS sample, and 8,986 NCVS household members 

were between ages 12 and 18. In order to complete the SCS, respondents must have completed 

the NCVS and meet certain criteria specified in a set of screening questions in the SCS 

questionnaire. These criteria require students to be in grades 6–12, to be currently enrolled in a 

primary or secondary education program leading to a high school diploma or enrolled sometime 

during the school year of the interview, and not to have been exclusively homeschooled during 

the school year.1

 In 2009, some 5,023 respondents completed the 2009 SCS and 4,326 met the 

criteria for inclusion in this analysis. These criteria are detailed in the glossary of variables, 

found later in this appendix. 

The prevalence of victimization in the 2009 SCS was calculated by using NCVS incident 

variables appended to the SCS data file. The NCVS “type of crime” (TOC) variable was used 

to classify victimizations of students in the SCS as serious violent, violent, or theft. NCVS-2 

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. 

Classification of Crimes

The NCVS TOC variable appended to the SCS data file is used to classify victimizations of 

students in the SCS as any victimization, serious violent victimization, violent victimization, or 

theft. If a student reports an incident of either violent victimization or theft, or both, he or she 

is counted as having experienced any victimization. Serious violent crimes include rape, sexual 

assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple 

assault. Theft includes attempted and completed purse snatching, completed pickpocketing, 

and all attempted and completed thefts, excluding motor vehicle theft. Theft does not include 

robbery, in which the threat or use of force is involved. The NCVS TOC captures each crime 

within a victimization and classifies the victimization according to the most serious crime. 

The estimates in this report are based on the prevalence, or percentage, of students who 

experience victimizations. Respondents could report multiple victimizations and, in 2009, 

reported that as many as five victimizations occurred during the reporting period, allowing 

for the possibility of multiple incidents per person and multiple crimes per incident. However, 

when examining prevalence, each student is counted only once as having experienced any of the 

various types of criminal victimizations at school (e.g., theft, violent, or serious violent crime2

), 

regardless of how many times they occurred. Measuring student victimization in this way 

provides the percentages of students who are directly affected by victimization, rather than the 

number of victimizations that occur.

1

 Persons who have dropped out of school, have been expelled or suspended from school, or are temporarily absent from school 

for any other reason, such as illness or vacation, can complete the SCS as long as they have attended school at any time during 

the school year of the interview. Students who receive all of their education through homeschooling are not included past the 

screening questions, and those who receive part of their education through homeschooling are not included in this report. 

2

 Estimates of serious violent victimization are not provided in more detail than the total presented in table 1 because the 

percentage of students who experienced this type of victimization was not large enough to present meaningful cross-tabulations.
A-4

Survey Limitations

In addition to concerns about measurement error resulting from nonresponse, other limitations 

are worth noting. The first consideration is sampling error. Because the sample of students 

selected for each administration of the SCS is just one of many possible samples that could have 

been selected, it is possible that estimates from a given SCS student sample may differ from 

estimates that would have been produced from other student samples. 

The effects of unbounded and bounded interviews should also be considered when using the 

NCVS/SCS (Cantor and Lynch 2000). Bounding is an interview technique where the interviewer 

reviews with the respondent a summary of their responses to previous interviews. The intent of 

this technique is to limit the extent to which the respondent reports events that occurred prior 

to the requested timeframe, also called forward telescoping. Beginning in 2006, the BJS began 

including the unbounded interviews (those for which a summary of previous interviews was 

not provided) in their estimates of criminal victimization using the larger NCVS. This may 

result in reporting events outside of the 6-month reference period used for determining criminal 

victimization. However, literature concerning such forward telescoping has found varying 

estimates of inflation rates caused by the inclusion of unbounded interviews, with some studies 

reporting increases as high as 40–50 percent (Hemenway et al. 2000) and others reporting an 

increase of 10 percent or less (Gaskell et al. 2000). On a crime-specific basis, Gottfredson and 

Hindelang (1981) found that unbounded interviews typically yielded reports of victimization that 

were 20 percent greater than those from bounded interviews. According to Addington (2005), 

however, the effects of bounding may not be a concern when reporting victimization using a 

6-month window; although, the possibility should be acknowledged. In the current analysis, 

15 percent of SCS respondents were new to the NCVS panel. Because first-time interviews 

are unbounded, there is a chance that criminal victimizations preceding the desired 6-month 

reference period may be included. To the extent that they are, victimization reports may be 

inflated. 

Unit and Item Response Rates 

A unit response rate is, at its most basic level, the ratio of surveys completed by eligible 

respondents to the total count of eligible respondents. Unit response rates can be unweighted or 

weighted and are traditionally reported because they reflect the potential effects of nonsampling 

error and indicate whether portions of the population are underrepresented due to nonresponse. 

In some surveys, this calculation can be rather complicated because it is difficult to distinguish 

between eligible and ineligible units. 

Of the 8,986 NCVS household members ages 12 through 18 eligible for the 2009 SCS, 2,898 

were NCVS noninterviews and 1,065 were SCS noninterviews, for a total of 5,023 SCS student 

participants. Because SCS interviews with students could only be completed after households 

had responded to the NCVS, the unit response rate for the SCS reflects both the household 

interview response rate and the student interview response rate. The unweighted household 

response rate was 92 percent, and the unweighted student response rate was 56 percent. The 

overall unweighted SCS unit response rate (calculated by multiplying the household response 

rate by the student response rate) was 51 percent. Because the NCVS is designed to be a selfweighting sample, the weighted response rates are the same as the unweighted response rates.
A-5

The rate at which respondents provide a valid response to a given item in the survey instrument 

is referred to as the item response rate. Item response rates for most items used in this report 

were more than 97 percent for all eligible respondents. For most questions in the SCS, “don’t 

know” and refusal responses were not offered explicitly but were considered valid if given by 

the respondent. In this report, “don’t know” was included in the analysis when it appeared as 

a response option in the questionnaire. No imputation procedure was used to correct for item 

nonresponse.

Unit Nonresponse Bias Analysis

NCES requires that any stage of data collection within a survey that has a unit base-weighted 

response rate of less than 85 percent be evaluated for the potential magnitude of unit nonresponse 

bias before the data or any analysis using the data may be released (U.S. Department of 

Education 2003). Nonresponding students have the potential to introduce bias into survey 

estimates, depending on the magnitude of the nonresponse and whether differences exist between 

responding and nonresponding students in characteristics related to the estimates of interest.

Nonresponse can affect the strength and application of survey data both by leading to an increase 

in variance as a result of a reduction in the actual size of the sample and by introducing bias in 

outcomes of interest. Both low response rates and/or large differences between respondents and 

nonrespondents on key survey variables can lead to unit nonresponse bias, as the magnitude of 

unit nonresponse bias is determined by multiplying these two factors. Thus, low response rates 

may not lead to bias if respondents and nonrespondents do not differ on the outcome of interest. 

Alternatively, high response rates may not indicate low unit response bias if there are large 

differences between respondents and nonrespondents on the outcome of interest. 

Due to the low weighted unit response rate (51 percent) in 2009, a unit nonresponse bias analysis 

was performed to determine the extent to which there might be bias in the estimates produced 

using SCS data. To the extent that respondents and nonrespondents differ from one another on 

key characteristic variables, bias is a possible concern. Respondents and nonrespondents were 

compared across four key student characteristic variables (sex, race/ethnicity, household income, 

and urbanicity) for which data are known for both in order to determine if the distributions of 

respondents and nonrespondents differ across these variables. 

The analysis of unit nonresponse bias found evidence of potential bias for the race/ethnicity 

variable. White students and students of all other races had higher response rates than did 

Black and Hispanic respondents. However, when the distribution of this item from responding 

students was compared to the eligible NCVS sample, no measurable differences were found. 

This suggests that differential response rates in the race/ethnicity variable occurred mainly at the 

NCVS level, rather than at the SCS level. 

Weighting adjustments were computed for the NCVS and SCS to account for nonresponse 

(see the Weighting section for additional information). The total population eligible for SCS or 

population control total of 29,611,1213

 was obtained from Census data for 2009 and was used 

to adjust the weights. Before adjustments for nonresponse, the ratio of the SCS respondent 

population (12,096,868), calculated using base weights, to the estimate of the population control 

3

 This reflects the weighted population total prior to the implementation of any filters for analysis.
A-6

(29,611,121), was .409. This means that only about 41 percent of the population was represented 

in the final NCVS person weight before adjustment for SCS nonresponse. Once the weights 

were adjusted for nonresponse using the population control total, the ratio of the adjusted SCS 

respondent population to the total population eligible for the SCS survey was 1.0. Weighted 

estimates of respondents were used to calculate the estimates of the percentage of the represented 

population, also referred to as the measure of bias. 

Item Nonresponse Bias Analysis 

As in most surveys, not all participants respond to every question in the survey for which they 

are eligible to respond, which can lead to item nonresponse bias. There are numerous reasons 

for item nonresponse. Some respondents may not know the answer to an item or may not want 

to respond for other reasons, or the interview may have been interrupted and not completed. 

Item nonresponse can also occur when inconsistencies are discovered after the interview and 

responses must be set to missing.

Unweighted item response rates are calculated by dividing the number of interviewed 

respondents who responded to an item by the number of respondents who are eligible to answer 

the item. The mean item weighted4

 response rate for the 2009 NCVS/SCS was greater than 

97 percent and, therefore, there is little potential for item nonresponse bias for most items in 

the survey. For the items with weighted response rates lower than 85 percent, however, the 

potential for nonresponse bias exists.5The five items with response rates less than 85 percent 

are listed in table A-1. Of these five variables, the NCVS household income item (SC214) is 

the only item that is used as an analytic variable in this report. Therefore, only the results of the 

item nonresponse bias analysis for this variable are discussed. Household income (SC214) was 

not asked of the students; it was provided by an adult member of the household in the NCVS 

interview.

4

 The SCS person weight (SCSWGT) was used to calculate item response rates.

5

 Because the mean item response rate for survey items was above 97 percent, even if the item nonrespondents differ considerably 

from the respondents, the item nonresponse bias will be negligible for most items. For items that had a small number of 

respondents, other sources of error, such as sampling error, and disclosure risk, could have a much larger effect on estimates than 

item nonresponse bias. 
A-7

Table A-1. Detail of items included in the NCVS/SCS item nonresponse bias analysis, by variable source code: School year 

2008–09

Variable source 

code Variable description Data source Eligible respondents

Weighted item 

response rate1

(percent)

Unweighted item 

response rate 

(percent)

SC115 How many days did you skip 

at least one class?

SCS 313 72.8 73.5

SC214 Household income NCVS-1 4,331 79.6 80.0

SC086 Have you seen another 

student with a gun at school?

SCS 251 79.8 80.9

SC165 How often were you 

cyber-bullied?

SCS 316 82.3 83.5

SC166 Was a teacher or adult 

notified about this 

cyber-bullying?

SCS 316 82.3 83.5

1

 The SCS final person weight (SCSWGT) was used to calculate item response rates.

NOTE: Only items that had 30 or more respondents or items that were applicable to 100 or more respondents and had item 

response rates of 30 percent or more were included in the item nonresponse bias analysis.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2009.

Bias can be measured by imposing extreme assumptions on the item nonrespondents. That is, 

in order to assess possible nonresponse bias in the SCS data, missing values were replaced with 

extreme low values and the estimates were recalculated to determine whether the estimates were 

susceptible to bias. The same procedure was repeated by replacing missing values with high 

values. For polytomous items, such as household income, a low imputed value was created by 

resetting missing values to the lowest value in the original distribution, and a high imputed value 

was created by resetting missing values to the highest value in the original distribution. The 

estimates produced with the low values and high values were compared to the original estimates 

produced with the missing values. If measurable differences exist between the original and 

imputed samples, there is potential for bias in the particular item. 

When the average value of the original distribution of household income item respondents 

was compared to the average low and high imputed value item distributions, evidence of 

potential bias warranted further examination of the “income” variable. Item respondents were 

then compared with item nonrespondents by sex, race/ethnicity, and urbanicity. A measurable 

difference was found for race/ethnicity. White students had higher rates of response for the 

income item than Black and Hispanic students and students of other race/ethnicities. This 

difference between respondents and nonrespondents could lead to bias in household income 

estimates. Item respondents were then compared to those eligible to respond (item respondent 

and nonrespondents) to the item by sex, race/ethnicity, and urbanicity in order to assess the 

impact on the full distribution of eligibles (table A-2). When the distributions of respondents to 

the household income item were compared to the distribution of all those eligible to respond to 

the household income item, no measurable differences were found. Nonetheless, readers should 

use caution when interpreting the results derived from the “income” variable.
A-8

Table A-2. Difference in distributions of survey variables between respondents to household income (SC214) and all 

respondents, using final weight

Survey variable

Item respondents 

(n = 3,466)

All eligible to respond 

(n = 4,331)

Difference 

(percent)

Likelihood 

Percent ratio p value

Standard 

error Percent

Standard 

error

Sex 

xxMale 51.3 0.87 50.7 0.78 0.6

xxFemale 48.7 0.87 49.3 0.78 -0.6 0.23 0.633363

Race/Ethnicity

xxWhite, non-Hispanic 61.6 0.81 59.7 0.72 1.9

xxBlack, non-Hispanic 14.2 0.65 15.1 0.59 -1.0

xxHispanic 18.1 0.63 18.7 0.56 -0.6

xxOther, non-Hispanic 6.0 0.42 6.4 0.39 -0.3 0.90 0.442786

Urbanicity

xxUrban 26.3 0.73 27.5 0.65 -1.2

xxSuburban 58.2 0.78 56.4 0.69 1.8

xxRural 15.6 0.48 16.1 0.40 -0.6 1.17 0.310507

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2009.

Weighting

The purpose of the SCS is to be able to make inferences about criminal victimization in the 12- 

to 18-year-old student population in the United States. Before such inferences can be drawn, 

it is important to adjust, or weight, the sample of students to ensure it is similar to the entire 

population in this age group. The weights used in this report are a combination of householdlevel and person-level adjustment factors. In the NCVS, adjustments were made to account for 

both household- and person-level noninterviews. Additional factors were then applied to reduce 

the variance of the estimate by correcting for the differences between the sample distributions of 

age, race/ethnicity, and sex and the known population distributions of these characteristics. The 

resulting weights were assigned to all interviewed households and persons in the file. 

A special weighting adjustment was performed on the SCS data. Noninterview adjustment 

factors were computed to adjust the weighting for SCS noninterviews. The result is an SCS 

person-level weight. This weight was derived using the final NCVS person weight with a withinSCS noninterview adjustment factor applied. This weight can be used for producing estimates 

from the NCVS variables (excluding counts of crimes, for which the NCVS incident weight 

should be used) or the SCS variables. Readers should note that through 2005, there was one 

SCS weight provided in the data file used for producing NCVS estimates for the continuing 

rotations only. A second SCS weight was provided that used the final NCVS person weight that 

was calculated for all interviewed persons in continuing and incoming households and applying 

a within-SCS noninterview adjustment factor. Due to the inclusion of the incoming interviews 

in the 2009 NCVS data, the same single weight now applies to all rotations. This weight 

(SCSWGT) was used to derive the estimates in this report. 
A-9

Standard Errors

The sample of students selected for each administration of the SCS is just one of many possible 

samples that could have been selected, so it is possible that estimates from a given SCS student 

sample may differ from estimates that would have been produced from other student samples. 

This type of variability is called sampling error because it arises from using a sample of students 

rather than all students. The standard error is a measure of the variability of a parameter estimate. 

It indicates how much variation there is in the population of possible estimates of a parameter 

for a given sample size. The probability that the sample estimate would differ from the complete 

census count by less than one standard error above or below the count is about 0.68. The 

probability that the difference would be less than 1.65 standard errors is about 0.90, and the 

probability that the difference would be less than 1.96 standard errors is about 0.95. Standard 

errors for the estimates discussed in this report are presented in appendix B.

The standard error is calculated for each estimate provided in order to determine the margin 

of error for the estimates. The standard errors of the estimates for different subpopulations can 

vary considerably and should be taken into account when making comparisons. It should also 

be acknowledged that apparently large differences between estimates may not have measurable 

differences, which may be due to large standard errors. 

Standard errors are typically developed assuming the sample is drawn with equal probability, 

called a simple random sample. Since the SCS sample is not a simple random sample, calculation 

of the standard errors requires procedures that are markedly different from those used when the 

data are from a simple random sample. To estimate the statistics and standard errors, this report 

utilized the Taylor series approximation method using primary sampling unit (PSU) and strata 

variables available in the data file.6

Another way that standard errors can be calculated is by using generalized variance function 

(gvf) constant parameters. The gvf represents the curve fitted to the individual standard errors 

calculated using the Jackknife Repeated Replication technique. The three constant parameters (a, 

b, and c) derived from the curve-fitting process are provided in table A-3 below for those who 

prefer to use this method of calculating standard errors:7

Table A-3. Generalized variance function constant parameters for the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey: School year 2008–09

Generalized variance function constant parameters

School year a b c

2008–09 -0.00043149 3,465 4.490

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (n.d.) National Crime Victimization Survey: 

School Crime Supplement, 2009. 

6

 Further information about the Taylor series approximation method can be found in Wolter (1985). 

7 More information on the gvf constant parameters developed for the NCVS and SCS can be found at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/

icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/28201. 
A-10

To calculate the standard errors associated with percentages, the following formula is used:

standard error of p = 

bp p (1.0 ) cp p p ( )

y y

� �

+

where p is the percentage of interest expressed as a proportion; y is the size of the population 

to which the percentage applies; and a, b, and c are the gvf parameters described in table A-3. 

Once the standard error of the proportion is estimated, it needs to be multiplied by 100 to make it 

applicable to the percentage.

To calculate the adjusted standard errors associated with counts, the following formula is used:

standard error of x =

2 3/2 ax bx cx + +

where x is the estimated number of students who experienced a given event (e.g., violent 

victimization) and a, b, and c are the gvf parameters described in table A-3.

The U.S. Census Bureau has developed a set of programs to calculate NCVS generalized 

variance formulas, known as SIGMA programs. To facilitate the use of these formulas, 

spreadsheet versions of these SIGMA programs that allow users to enter gvf constants and values 

in appropriate cells are available on the BJS website (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). Spreadsheet 

macros then calculate the appropriate variances and standard errors and perform tests for any 

differences requested.

Statistical Tests

Comparisons that have been drawn in the text of this report have been tested for statistical 

significance to ensure the differences are larger than those that might be expected due to 

sampling variation. All statements cited in the report are statistically significant at the .05 level. 

The statistical comparisons in this report are based on Student’s t statistic. Whether the statistical 

test is considered significant or not is determined by calculating a t value for the difference 

between a pair of means or proportions and comparing this value to published tables of values, 

called critical values. The alpha level is an a priori statement of the probability that a difference 

exists in fact rather than by chance. Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not included.

The t statistic between estimates from various subgroups presented in the tables can be computed 

using the following formula:

x x

t 1 2 � = SE2 2

1 2 + SE

where x1 and x2 are the estimates to be compared (e.g., the means of sample members in two 

groups) and SE1 and SE2 are their corresponding standard errors.

Glossary of Variables Used

Each variable used in the analyses for this report is described below, along with the source code 

for the particular variable. The data file contains all variables collected in the SCS as well as 

selected variables collected in the NCVS Basic Screen Questionnaire (NCVS-1) that have been 

appended to the SCS. The data are available for download from the Inter-University Consortium 
A-11

for Political and Social Research via the Student Surveys link at NCES’s Crime and Safety 

Surveys portal located at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crime/surveys.asp. 

Prior to analysis, the 2009 SCS data file was filtered to include only students who were ages 12 

through 18 (using SC003 [RESPONDENT AGE]), were enrolled in grades 6 through 12 (using 

SC008 [GRADE LEVEL IN SCHOOL]), were enrolled in school in the current school year 

(using SC006 [ATTEND SCHOOL THIS SCHOOL YEAR]), and were not homeschooled during 

this time (using SC092 [HOME-SCHOOLED]). Students who did not fulfill one or more of these 

requirements for age (0 cases), grade (249 cases), enrollment (245 cases), and home schooling 

(203 cases) were deleted from the analysis. The final unweighted sample size was 4,326. 

Victimization refers to criminal incidents that occurred inside the school building, on school 

property, on the school bus, or on the way to or from school.

Variables Taken From the NCVS Basic Screen Questionnaire (NCVS-1) 

Household income (SC214): Household income refers to income as reported by the head of 

household and was collapsed into the following categories: (1) less than $7,500, (2) $7,500–

14,999, (3) $15,000–24,999, (4) $25,000–34,999, (5) $35,000–49,999, and (6) $50,000 or more. 

See question 12a in the selected items from the NCVS-1 questionnaire in appendix C.

Race/ethnicity, Hispanic origin: SC412R asked respondents their race and SC413 asked 

respondents whether they are of Hispanic or Latino origin. Respondents who identified 

themselves as being of Hispanic or Latino origin were classified as Hispanic or Latino, regardless 

of their race. Students who indicate they are not of Hispanic or Latino origin are classified 

according to the race they identify (e.g., White, not Hispanic or Latino; Black, not Hispanic 

or Latino). “Black, not Hispanic or Latino” includes African Americans. Students were given 

the option of identifying themselves as being of two or more races. Students who were not 

of Hispanic origin and identified themselves as being of two or more races (1 percent of all 

respondents) were included in the “all other races, not Hispanic or Latino” category.”All other 

races, not Hispanic or Latino” includes American Indians or Alaska Natives, Asians, Native 

Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, and respondents of two or more races. See questions 27 

and 28 in the selected items from the NCVS-1 questionnaire in appendix C.

Sex (SC407A): SC407A asked respondents whether they are male or female. See question 23 in 

the selected items from the NCVS-1 questionnaire in appendix C.

Type of victimization (TOCNEW_1 through TOCNEW_5): Each SCS respondent could have 

reported as many as five incidents of victimization in the NCVS-1 in 2009. For each incident of 

victimization reported, an NCVS Crime Incident Report (NCVS-2) was completed. Data from 

incident reports, along with a “type of crime” (TOC) code derived from NCVS-2 responses, were 

appended to the SCS data file for each respondent who reported at least one victimization in the 

6 months prior to the survey. These five TOC codes were used to construct the “any,” “serious 

violent,” “violent,” and “theft” crime categories used in this report. Each of these categories 

represents a measure of the prevalence of such victimization.

Serious violent crimes include completed and attempted rapes, all sexual attacks, all completed 

and attempted robberies, all aggravated assaults, all verbal threats and threats with weapons, 
A-12

sexual assault without injury, and unwanted sexual contact without force. Violent crimes include 

the serious violent crimes listed above, simple assault with injury, assault without a weapon 

and without injury, and verbal threat of assault. Theft includes attempted and completed purse 

snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, excluding motor 

vehicle theft. Theft does not include robbery, in which the threat or use of force is involved. Any 

crimes include one or more reports of any of the crimes listed above. Each of these variables 

measures the prevalence of victimization. See questions 36a through 45d in the selected items 

from the NCVS-1 questionnaire in appendix C for the variables used to construct TOC codes.

Variables Taken From the NCVS Crime Incident Report (NCVS-2)

Location where incident occurred (SC616): This question asks students where the incident 

occurred: specifically, whether it occurred inside the school building or on school property 

(school parking area, play area, school bus, etc.). See question 10a in the selected items from the 

NCVS-2 questionnaire in appendix D.

Activity at time of incident (SC832): Students were asked what they were doing at the time of 

the incident: specifically, whether they were on their way to or from school. See question 135a in 

the selected items from the NCVS-2 questionnaire in appendix D.

Variables Taken From the SCS

Alcohol at school (SC040): Students were asked whether it was possible to obtain alcohol at 

school. See question 17a (item a) in the SCS questionnaire in appendix E. 

Avoided school activities (SC076): Students were asked whether they avoided any activities at 

school because they thought someone might attack or harm them. See question 23b in the SCS 

questionnaire in appendix E.

Avoided a specific place at school: Students were asked whether they stayed away from any 

places because they thought someone might attack or harm them. Reports of avoiding certain 

areas in schools included the entrance into the school (SC069), any hallways or stairs (SC070), 

parts of the school cafeteria (SC071), any school restrooms (SC072), and other places inside 

the school building (SC073). This is a created variable where students who answered “yes” to 

avoiding one or more of these places were included in the “avoided a specific place at school” 

category. See question 23a (items b–f) in the SCS questionnaire in appendix E.

Bullied by traditional means at school: Students were asked whether any student had bullied 

them during the school year. Specifically, students were asked whether another student had made 

fun of them, called them names, or insulted them (SC134); spread rumors about them (SC135); 

threatened them with harm (SC136); pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on them (SC137); forced 

them to do something they did not want to do (SC138); excluded them from activities on purpose 

(SC139); or destroyed their property on purpose (SC140). This is a created variable where 

students who answered “yes” to being bullied in one or more of these ways were included in 

the “bullied by traditional means at school” category. See question 19a (items a–g) in the SCS 

questionnaire in appendix E.

Bullied by electronic means anywhere: Students were asked whether another student did any of 

the following behaviors anywhere that made them feel bad or were hurtful. Specifically, students 
A-13

were asked about bullying by a peer that occurred anywhere via electronic means, including the 

Internet (SC161), e-mail (SC170), instant messaging (SC162), text messaging (SC163), online 

gaming (SC171), and online communities (SC172). This is a created variable where students 

who answered “yes” to one or more of these ways were included in the “bullied by electronic 

means anywhere” category. See question 20a (items a–f) in the SCS questionnaire in appendix E.

Drugs at school: Students were asked about drug availability at their school. Drugs referenced 

are marijuana (SC041), crack (SC042), cocaine (SC043), uppers (SC097), downers (SC098), 

LSD (SC045), PCP (SC046), heroin (SC047), prescription drugs illegally obtained without a 

prescription (SC159), and other illegal drugs (SC048). See question 17a (items b–k) in the SCS 

questionnaire in appendix E. 

Engaged in a physical fight (SC103): Students were asked whether they had been involved 

in one or more physical fights at school during the school year. See question 18a in the SCS 

questionnaire in appendix E.

Feared attack or harm: This series of questions asked students how often they were afraid 

someone would attack or harm them at school or on school property (SC079); on a school bus 

or on the way to or from school (SC080); and away from school (SC081). This is a created 

variable where students who responded they were “sometimes” or “most of the time” fearful 

were included in the “feared attack or harm” category. See questions 24, 25, and 26 in the SCS 

questionnaire in appendix E.

Gangs present at school (SC058): Students were asked whether there were gangs present at 

their school. See question 30 in the SCS questionnaire in appendix E. 

Grade (SC008): Students were asked what grade they were in at school. Response options 

included “fifth or under,” “sixth,” “seventh,” “eighth,” “ninth,” “tenth,” “eleventh,” and “twelfth” 

grades, “other,” and “college/GED/postgraduate/other noneligible.” Only respondents in grades 

6 through 12 were included in the analysis. See question 2b in the SCS questionnaire in appendix 

E.

Locked entrance or exit doors during day (SC031): Students were asked whether school 

entrance or exit doors were locked during the day to ensure student safety. See question 14a, item 

d in the SCS questionnaire in appendix E. 

Locker checks (SC033): Students were asked whether student locker checks were performed to 

ensure student safety. See question 14a, item f in the SCS questionnaire in appendix E. 

Metal detectors (SC030): Students were asked whether there were metal detectors present at 

school to ensure student safety. See question 14a, item c in the SCS questionnaire in appendix E.

Security guards or assigned police officers (SC028): Students were asked whether there were 

security guards or assigned police officers present at school to ensure student safety. See question 

14a, item a in the SCS questionnaire in appendix E.
A-14

Saw student with a gun (SC086): Students were asked whether they had actually seen another 

student with a gun at school. See question 28b in the SCS questionnaire in appendix E. 

Security cameras (SC095): Students were asked whether there were one or more security 

cameras to monitor the school as a measure to ensure student safety. See question 14a, item h in 

the SCS questionnaire in appendix E. 

Skipped class (SC077): Students were asked whether they avoided any classes because they 

thought someone might attack or harm them. See question 23c in the SCS questionnaire in 

appendix E.

Skipped school (SC078): Students were asked whether they stayed home from school because 

they thought someone might attack or harm them in the school building, on school property, on a 

school bus, or going to or from school. See question 23d in the SCS questionnaire in appendix E.

Staff supervision in hallways (SC029): Students were asked whether there was hallway 

supervision by school staff or other adults at school to ensure student safety. See question 14a, 

item b in the SCS questionnaire in appendix E.

Student code of conduct (SC096): Students were asked whether there is a set of written rules or 

guidelines that the school provides as a code of conduct for students. See question 14a, item i in 

the SCS questionnaire in appendix E.

Student reported school sector (SC016): Students were asked whether they attend a public or a 

private school. See question 7a in the SCS questionnaire in appendix E.

Students required to wear badges or picture identification (SC094): Students were asked 

whether they were required to wear badges or picture identification at school as a measure to 

ensure student safety. See question 14a, item g in the SCS questionnaire in appendix E.

Visitors required to sign in (SC032): Students were whether their school required that visitors 

sign in as a measure to ensure student safety. See question 14a, item e in the SCS questionnaire 

in appendix E.

For further information. NCES has collected and published data on school crime and safety in 

a number of publications. Readers who are interested in further information or who would like 

to download available data files, including the SCS data file used in this report, should contact 

Monica Hill at monica.hill@ed.gov or visit the Crime and Safety Surveys website at http://nces.

ed.gov/programs/crime. 

Saw hate-related graffiti (SC066): Students were asked whether they had seen hate-related 

words or symbols written in school classrooms, in school bathrooms, in school hallways, or on 

the outside of their school building. See question 22 in the SCS questionnaire in appendix E. 
B-1

Appendix B: Standard Error Tables
B-2

Table B-1. Standard errors for Table 1: Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal victimization at 

school and those who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization: 

School year 2008–09

Type of victimization Percent of students

None 0.28

Any 0.28

xxTheft 0.23

xx Personal larceny †

xxxxxOther theft 0.23

xxViolent 0.17

xxxxxSimple assault 0.15

xxxxxSerious violent 0.09

xxxxxxxRape and sexual assault †

xxxxxxxRobbery 0.06

xxxxxxxAggravated assault 0.06

† Not applicable.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2009.
B-3

Table B-2. Standard errors for Table 2: Number and percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal 

victimization at school and those who reported criminal victimization at school, by type of victimization and selected 

student and school characteristics: School year 2008–09 

Victimization

Student and school characteristic Total number of students

Type of victimization

None Any Theft Violent

xxTotal 694,900 0.28 0.28 0.23 0.17

Sex

xxMale 386,700 0.40 0.40 0.36 0.25

xxFemale 415,500 0.35 0.35 0.28 0.21

Race/ethnicity

xxWhite, not Hispanic or Latino 525,500 0.37 0.37 0.31 0.31

xxBlack, not Hispanic or Latino 252,100 0.74 0.74 0.61 0.62

xxHispanic or Latino 278,900 0.75 0.75 0.63 0.40

xxAll other races,

xxxxxnot Hispanic or Latino1 148,800 1.06 1.06 † †

Grade

xx6th 142,500 0.91 0.91 0.52 0.83

xx7th 185,800 0.70 0.70 0.57 0.42

xx8th 166,800 0.78 0.78 0.55 0.60

xx9th 171,600 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.37

xx10th 169,900 0.79 0.79 0.72 0.37

xx11th 169,800 0.88 0.88 0.74 0.51

xx12th 165,800 0.52 0.52 0.44 †

Household income

xxLess than $7,500 84,200 2.28 2.28 2.03 †

xx$7,500–14,999 95,300 1.73 1.73 † †

xx$15,000–24,999 146,000 0.87 0.87 † 0.68

xx$25,000–34,999 142,500 0.85 0.85 0.85 †

xx$35,000–49,999 176,500 0.95 0.95 0.87 0.49

xx$50,000 or more 408,100 0.44 0.44 0.38 0.22

Student-reported school type

xxPublic 664,700 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.19

xxPrivate 116,800 0.76 0.76 † †

† Not applicable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2009.
B-4

Table B-3. Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal victimization at school and those who reported 

criminal victimization at school, by student reports of school conditions and type of victimization: School year 

2008–09

Type of victimization

Gangs present 

at school

Saw student 

with a gun

Engaged in 

physical fight

Drugs at 

school

Alcohol at 

school

Saw haterelated graffiti

xxTotal 0.85 0.19 0.53 0.95 0.69 0.96

None 0.87 0.20 0.50 0.97 0.70 0.97

Victimization

xxAny 3.97 1.43 3.07 3.77 3.47 4.00

xxxxxTheft 4.87 † 3.40 4.57 4.08 4.82

xxxxxViolent 6.57 † 5.93 6.27 6.67 6.28

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2009.
B-5

Table B-4. Standard errors for Table 4: Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal victimization at 

school and those who reported criminal victimization at school, by student reports of being bullied by traditional 

means at school or by electronic means anywhere and type of victimization: School year 2008–09

Type of 

victimization

Bullied by traditional 

means at school

Bullied by electronic 

means anywhere

xxTotal 0.83 0.42

None 4.01 0.39

Victimization

xxAny 0.83 3.37

xxxxxTheft 4.62 3.60

xxxxxViolent 3.73 6.52

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2009.
B-6

Table B-5. Standard errors for Table 5: Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal victimization at 

school and those who reported criminal victimization at school, by student reports of the use of selected security 

measures to secure school buildings and type of victimization: School year 2008–09 

Type of victimization Locker checks Metal detectors Security cameras

Locked entrance or 

exit doors during the day

xxTotal 1.17 0.76 1.05 1.27

None 1.19 0.77 1.08 1.30

Victimization

xxAny 3.63 2.55 3.04 4.21

xxxxxTheft 4.28 3.30 3.66 4.74

xxxxxViolent 5.97 3.75 5.35 6.92

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2009.
B-7

Table B-6. Standard errors for Table 6: Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal victimization at 

school and those who reported criminal victimization at school, by student reports of the use of security measures 

requiring the enforcement of administrative procedures and type of victimization: School year 2008–09

Type of 

victimization

Security guards 

or assigned 

police officers

Staff supervision 

in hallways

Students required 

to wear badges or 

picture identification

Student code of 

conduct

Visitors required 

to sign in

xxTotal 1.05 0.46 1.14 0.39 0.52

None 1.08 0.47 1.15 0.40 0.52

Victimization

xxAny 3.07 2.04 3.32 1.19 1.41

xxxxxTheft 3.44 2.56 4.16 1.44 1.65

xxxxxViolent 5.32 4.22 5.54 1.74 2.32

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2009. 
B-8

Table B-7. Standard errors for Table 7: Percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported no criminal victimization at 

school and those who reported criminal victimization at school, by student reports of personal avoidance behavior 

and type of victimization: School year 2008–09

Type of victimization

Feared attack or 

harm

Skipped 

school

Skipped 

class

Avoided 

school 

activities

Avoided a 

specific place 

at school

xxTotal 0.33 0.14 0.13 0.20 0.32

None 0.32 0.14 0.12 0.20 0.32

Victimization

xxAny 2.73 1.27 1.36 † 2.44

xxxxxTheft 2.87 † 1.77 † 2.44

xxxxxViolent 5.82 † † † 5.65

† Not applicable.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2009. 
C-1

Appendix C: Selected Items From the 2009 National Crime 

Victimization Survey Basic Screen Questionnaire (NCVS-1)
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
D-1

Appendix D: Selected Items From the 2009 National Crime 

Victimization Survey Crime Incident Report (NCVS-2)
D-2

OMB No. 1121-0111: Approval Expires 7/31/2009

Notes

FORM

(03-22-2005)

NCVS-2

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economics and Statistics Administration

ACTING AS COLLECTING AGENT FOR THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

CRIME INCIDENT REPORT

NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY

N

C

V

S

2

I

N

C

I

D

E

N

T

R

E

P

O

R

T

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Control number

PSU Segment/Suffix

Sample 

designation/Sux

Serial/

Sux HH No.

 Spino 

Indicator

10a. 

Did this incident happen ...

Read each category until respondent says 

"yes", then enter appropriate precode.

In your home or lodging? - SKIP to 10b

Near your home? - SKIP to 10c

At, in or near a friend's/relative's/neighbor's 

home? - Skip to 10d

At a commercial place? - SKIP to 10e

In a parking lot or garage? - SKIP to 10f 

At school? - SKIP to 10g

In open areas, on the street, or 

on public transportation? - SKIP to - 10h

Some where else? - SKIP to 10i

1

2

3

4

6

5

7

8

616

832

135a. 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Working or on duty - SKIP to 138a 

On the way to or from work - SKIP to 142b

On the way to or from school 

On the way to or from other place 

Shopping, errands

Attending school

Leisure activity away from home 

Sleeping

Other activities at home

Other - Specify - ASK 135b

11 Don't know

Ask or verify:

What were you doing when this incident 

(happened/started)? SKIP 

to 

136

- SKIP to 136

DOINGATINCIDENTTIME

LOCATION_GENERAL

NOTICE - We are conducting this survey under the authority of Title 13, United States Code, Section 8. Section 9 of this law requires us to keep all information 

about you and your household strictly confidential. We may use this information only for statistical purposes. Also, Title 42, Section 3732, United States Code, 

authorizes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice, to collect information using this survey. Title 42, Sections 3789g and 3735, United States Code, 

also requires us to keep all information about you and your household strictly confidential. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are 

required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB number.
E-1

Appendix E: 2009 School Crime Supplement to the National 

Crime Victimization Survey Instrument 
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-7
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-11
E-12