School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS)

2016 and 2018

OMB #1850-0761 v.7

Supporting Statement Part C

Item Justification

National Center for Education Statistics

Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

March 13, 2015

revised April 22, 2015
Contents

Section C. Item Justification ......................................................................................................................1

C1. Item Description and Justification: 2015–16 SSOCS........................................................................1

1.1 SCHOOL PRACTICES AND PROGRAMS ..................................................................................... 1

1.2 PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AT SCHOOL.......................................................... 2

1.3 SCHOOL SECURITY STAFF ...................................................................................................... 2

1.4 SCHOOL MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES..................................................................................... 2

1.5 STAFF TRAINING .................................................................................................................... 2

1.6 LIMITATIONS ON CRIME PREVENTION .................................................................................... 3

1.7 FREQUENCY OF CRIME AND VIOLENCE AT SCHOOL ............................................................... 3

1.8 NUMBER OF INCIDENTS .......................................................................................................... 3

1.9 DISCIPLINARY PROBLEMS AND ACTIONS ............................................................................... 3

1.10 SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS: 2015–16 SCHOOL YEAR.......................................................... 4

C2. Changes to the Questionnaire and Rationale: 2015–16 SSOCS ......................................................5

2.1 CHANGES TO DEFINITIONS................................................................................................... 5

2.2 EDITORIAL CHANGES ............................................................................................................. 6

2.3 ITEM DELETIONS AND RATIONALE.......................................................................................... 6

2.4 CONTENT MODIFICATIONS, ITEM ADDITIONS, AND RATIONALE .............................................. 7

C3. Cognitive Testing Findings and Final Recommendations..............................................................10
1

Section C. Item Justification

C1. Item Description and Justification: 2015–16 SSOCS

At multiple points in the history of the School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), the survey items have 

been examined for the quality of both their content and data, and, when necessary, the questionnaire has been 

adjusted. In order to maintain consistent benchmarks over time, few changes have been made to the 

questionnaire over the most recent survey iterations. For SSOCS:2016, some items were revised, based on the 

results of the SSOCS:2010 collection, to clarify their meaning. Additionally, a few items were removed (based 

on historically low response rates) and several items were added (to reflect emerging issues). Information on 

specific editorial changes, content modifications, additions, and deletions is included in the following section.

Presented below is a complete description of the sections and the corresponding items in the SSOCS:2016 

questionnaire (see Appendix B for the questionnaire). The SSOCS:2018 questionnaire and procedures are 

expected to be the same as in SSOCS:2016. The SSOCS:2016 questionnaire consists of the following sections:

 School practices and programs;

 Parent and community involvement at school;

 School security staff;

 School mental health services;

 Staff training;

 Limitations on crime prevention;

 Frequency of crime and violence at school;

 Number of incidents;

 Disciplinary problems and actions; and

 School characteristics: 2015–16 school year.

1.1 School Practices and Programs

This section collects data pertaining to the nature of current school policies and programs relating to crime and 

discipline. These data are important in helping schools know where they stand in relation to other schools and in

helping policymakers know what actions are already being taken in schools and what actions schools might be 

encouraged to take in the future. These data can also benefit researchers interested in evaluating the success of 

school policies. Although SSOCS is not designed as an evaluation, the presence of school policies can be 

correlated with the rates of crime provided elsewhere in the questionnaire, with appropriate controls for school 

characteristics.

Question 1 specifically asks about the various school policies and practices that are in place, including those 

that restrict access to school grounds, monitor student behavior to prevent crime, impact the school’s ability to 

recognize an outsider, and enable communication in the event of a school-wide emergency. These policies and 

practices are important because they influence the control that administrators have over the school environment 

as well as the potential for students to bring weapons or drugs onto school grounds. Such actions can directly 

affect crime because students may be more reluctant to engage in inappropriate activities for fear of being 

caught. The school climate may also be affected because students may feel more secure knowing that violators 

of school policies are likely to be caught.

Question 2 asks about the existence of written plans for dealing with various crisis scenarios, and Question 3 

asks whether schools drill students on the use of specific emergency procedures. When emergencies occur, 

there may not be time or an appropriate environment for making critical decisions, and key school leaders may

not be available to immediately provide guidance. Thus, having a written plan for crises and drilling students on 

emergency procedures are important in preparing schools to deal with crises effectively.

Question 4 is a general question designed to provide an initial measure of the type of preventative programs that 

schools have in place. The presence of such programs is a sign that schools are being proactive by seeking to 

prevent violence before it occurs rather than reacting to it.
2

Questions 5 and 6 ask whether schools have threat assessment teams, and, if so, how often the threat assessment 

team meets. Threat assessment teams are an emerging practice in schools to identify and interrupt students who 

may be on a path to violent behavior.

Question 7 asks about the presence of recognized student groups that promote inclusiveness and acceptance in 

schools. The presence of these groups is important in creating a positive environment where students are 

respectful of different backgrounds and may reduce conflict and violence.

1.2 Parent and Community Involvement at School

This section asks about the involvement of parents and community groups in the school. Parent and community

involvement in schools can affect the school culture and may impact the level of crime in a school.

Questions 8 and 9 ask about formal policies implemented to involve parents in school programs and the 

percentage of parents participating in specific events.

Question 10 asks if specific community agencies are involved in promoting a safe school environment to 

determine the extent to which the school involves outside groups.

1.3 School Security Staff

Questions 11 through 18 ask about the use and activities of sworn law enforcement on the school grounds or at 

school events, and Question 19 asks about the presence of additional security personnel. In addition to directly

affecting school crime, the use of security staff can also affect the school environment. Security staff may help 

prevent illegal actions, reduce the amount of crime, and contribute to feelings of security or freedom on school 

grounds. Thus, the times that law enforcement personnel are present, their visibility, their roles and 

responsibilities, and their carrying of weapons are all important.

1.4 School Mental Health Services

Question 20 asks whether diagnostic assessments and treatment for mental health disorders were available to 

students under the official responsibilities of a licensed mental health professional and funded by the school or 

district. Assessing the presence of mental health services in schools can demonstrate how well equipped schools 

are to deal with students with mental disorders, which may influence the frequency and severity of delinquency

and behavioral problems within the school.

Question 21 asks for principals’ perceptions of the factors that limit their schools’ efforts to provide mental 

health services to students. The question asks about limiting factors, such as inadequate access to licensed 

mental health professionals, inadequate funding, lack of parental and community support, and the legal 

responsibilities of the school. Schools that face issues relating to inadequate resources or support may have 

limited effectiveness in providing mental health services to students. Schools’ financial obligation to pay for 

mental health services may also make them reluctant to identify students who require these services.

1.5 Staff Training

Question 22 asks about training provided by schools or districts for classroom teachers or aides, including

classroom management; school-wide policies and practices related to violence; bullying and cyberbullying; 

alcohol and/or drug use; and safety procedures. Other types of training include recognizing potentially violent 

students; recognizing signs of substance abuse; intervention and referral strategies for student displaying signs 

of mental health disorders; recognizing physical, social, and verbal bullying; positive behavioral intervention 

strategies, and crisis prevention and intervention.

Schools can now obtain early warning signs to identify such potentially violent students, and their use of such 

profiles may affect both general levels of discipline and the potential for crises (such as multiple shootings). The 

type of training provided to teachers is important because teachers collectively spend the most time with 

students and observe them closely. Moreover, there is evidence in recent research that a substantial discrepancy

exists in the percentage of schools that have these types of policies and the percentage of teachers that are 

trained in them. Collecting these data on teacher training will inform efforts to combat violence and discipline 

problems in schools.
3

1.6 Limitations on Crime Prevention

This section asks for principals’ perceptions of the factors that limit their schools’ efforts to reduce or prevent 

crime. Question 23 asks about limiting factors, such as lack of training for teachers, lack of support from 

parents or teachers, inadequate funding, and federal, state, or district policies on disciplining students. Although 

principals are not trained evaluators, they are the people who are the most knowledgeable about the situations at 

their schools and whether their own actions have been constrained by the factors listed.

Schools that face issues relating to inadequate resources or support may have limited effectiveness in 

responding to disciplinary issues and reducing or preventing crime. Identifying principals’ perceptions of the 

factors that limit their ability to prevent crime in school can inform efforts to minimize obstructions to schools’ 

crime prevention measures.

1.7 Frequency of Crime and Violence at School

This section asks about violent deaths, specifically homicides and shootings at school (Questions 24 and 25). 

Violent deaths get substantial attention by the media but are actually relatively rare, and there is evidence that,

in general, schools are much safer than students’ neighboring communities. Based on analyses of such previous 

SSOCS data, these crimes are such rare events that the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is

unable to report estimates per its statistical standards. Nonetheless, it is important to include these items in the 

questionnaire as they are significant incidents of crime that, at the very least, independent researchers can 

evaluate. Furthermore, the survey represents a comprehensive picture of the types of violence that can occur in 

schools, and the omission of violent deaths and shootings would be questioned by respondents who may have 

experienced such violence.

1.8 Number of Incidents

The questions in this section ask about the frequency of various kinds of crime and disruptions at school (other 

than violent deaths). Question 26 specifically asks principals to provide counts of the number of incidents that 

occurred at school and the number of crimes that were reported to the police or other law enforcement. Question 

26 will assist in identifying which crimes in schools are being underreported to the police and will provide 

justification for further investigation as to why this is the case. Question 27 asks about the number of arrests that 

occurred at school, and Questions 28 and 29 ask about the frequency of hate crimes and the biases that may

have motivated these hate crimes. Questions 30 and 31 are designed to gather data on the number of unplanned 

disruptions that occurred during the school year. The data gained from this section can be used directly as an 

indicator of the degree of safety in U.S. public schools and indirectly to rank schools in terms of the number of 

problems they face.

1.9 Disciplinary Problems and Actions

There is evidence that schools’ ability to control crime is affected by their control of lesser violations, since 

lesser violations are an indication of the state of discipline in the school. When lesser violations are controlled, 

students do not progress to more serious disciplinary problems. This section asks about the degree to which 

schools face such disciplinary problems and how schools respond to them. The data gathered in this section will 

be helpful in confirming or denying the importance of schools’ control of lesser violations and provide another 

measure of the disciplinary situation in U.S. schools. The data may also be helpful in multivariate models of 

school crime by providing a way of grouping schools that are similar in their general disciplinary situation but 

different in their school policies or programs.

Question 32 asks principals to report, to the best of their knowledge, how often certain disciplinary problems 

occur at school. Problems of interest include student racial/ethnic tensions, bullying, sexual harassment, 

harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, widespread disorder in classrooms, student disrespect 

of teachers, and gang activities. This question provides a general measure of the degree to which there are 

disciplinary problems at each school.
4

Question 33 asks about the frequency of three aspects of cyberbullying, providing a general measure of the 

degree to which cyberbullying is an issue for students and how often staff resources are used to deal with 

cyberbullying.

Question 34 asks what kinds of disciplinary actions were available to each school and whether they were 

actually used. The item is not intended to be comprehensive; instead, it focuses on some of the most important 

strategies. The data will help policymakers to know what options and what constraints principals face; for 

example, if an action is allowed in principle but not used in practice, then policymakers would need to act in a 

different way than if the action is not allowed.

Question 35 asks about the number of various types of offenses committed by students, and the resulting 

disciplinary actions taken by schools. Question 36 asks how many students were removed or transferred from 

school for disciplinary reasons. These items provide valuable information about how school policies are 

actually implemented (rather than simply what policies are in place), with a particular emphasis on how many

different kinds of actions are taken with regard to a particular offense as well as how many times no actions are 

taken. For example, many schools claim to have zero-tolerance policies, but some schools have extremely

strong policies, while other schools’ zero-tolerance policies allow so many options that there is little or no 

constraint on what disciplinary action is imposed.

1.10 School Characteristics: 2015–16 School Year

This section asks for a variety of information about the characteristics of the schools responding to the survey. 

The information provided in this section is necessary in order to be able to understand the degree to which 

different schools face different situations. For example, one school might have highly effective programs and 

policies, yet still have high crime rates because of the large number of disadvantaged students at the school; 

another school might appear to have effective policies based on its crime rates but actually have higher crime 

rates than similar schools.

Question 37 asks for the school’s total enrollment.

Question 38 requests information on the school’s student population, including the percentage of students 

receiving free or reduced-price lunches (a measure of poverty), with limited English proficiency (a measure of 

the cultural environment), in special education (a measure of the academic environment), and who are male 

(most crimes are committed by males, so the percentage who are male can affect the overall crime rate).

Question 39 addresses various levels of academic proficiency and interest, which are factors that have been 

associated with crime rates.

Question 40 asks for the number of classroom changes made in a typical day. This is important because it 

affects schools’ ability to control the student environment. When students are in hallways, there are more 

opportunities for problems. Also, a school with fewer classroom changes is likely to be more personal and to 

have closer relationships between the students and teachers.

Questions 41 and 42 specifically ask about the crime levels in the neighborhoods where students live and in the 

area where the school is located. This is an important distinction, since some students may travel a great 

distance to their school, and their home community may have a significantly different level of crime than their 

school community.

Question 43 asks for the school type. Schools that target particular groups of students (such as magnet schools) 

have more control over who is in the student body and may have better motivated students (because the students 

have chosen a particular program). Charter schools have more freedom than regular schools in their school 

policies, may have more control over who is admitted into the student body, and may have better motivated 

students (because the students chose the school).

Question 44 asks for the school’s average daily attendance. This is a measure of truancy and thus a measure of 

the level of disciplinary problems at the school. It also is a measure of the academic environment.
5

Question 45 asks for the number of transfers. When students transfer after the school year has started, schools 

have less control over whether and how the students are acculturated to the school. These students are likely to 

have less attachment to the school and to the other students, thus increasing the risk of disciplinary problems.

Questions 46 requests the start and end date of the school’s school year as well as the date that the principal 

completed the questionnaire. This question could be used to examine whether schools that respond to the survey

before the school year is completed report fewer crimes than schools reporting for the entire year.

C2. Changes to the Questionnaire and Rationale: 2015–16 SSOCS

The following details the editorial changes, deletions, and additions made since the 2011–12 SSOCS 

instrument. The result is the proposed instrument for the 2015–16 SSOCS, which is located in Appendix B. For 

additional information on the rationales for item revisions, please see the findings from cognitive testing, which 

is located in Part C3. 

2.1 Changes to Definitions

Several definitions have been added to the questionnaire to clarify the terms used in new survey items for 

SSOCS:2016. Additionally, three definitions have been added to clarify terms already contained in the 

questionnaire, and one definition has been removed as the corresponding survey item has been dropped for 

SSOCS:2016.

Active shooter – A formal definition has been provided to clarify the phrase “active shooter,” using the same 

language as the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) definition that is used in the Department of 

Education’s emergency recommendations.

Bullying – A formal definition for bullying has been added to the survey using language from the Centers for 

Disease Control (CDC) as the agency recently revised the definition.

Cult or extremist group – This definition has been removed from the questionnaire in accordance with the 

deletion of item 20, subitem i, in the 2011–12 questionnaire.

Cyberbullying – The definition for cyberbullying has been removed from the stem of item 30 and relocated to 

the definition section as additional questions now require this definition.

Diagnostic assessment – A formal definition for diagnostic assessment has been added to the survey in 

accordance with the addition of a new section on school mental health services.

Evacuation – A formal definition for evacuation has been added to the survey to clarify the emergency

procedures discussed in item 3.

Lockdown – A formal definition for lockdown has been added to the survey to clarify the emergency

procedures discussed in item 3.

Mental health disorder – A formal definition for mental health disorder has been added to the survey in 

accordance with the addition of a new section on school mental health services.

Mental health professional – A formal definition for mental health professionals has been added to the survey

from the School Health Policies and Practices Survey (SHPPS), which is administered by the CDC.

Rape – The definition of rape has been modified per suggestions from our federal partners to note that rape 

includes sodomy and to instruct respondents to report attempted rapes with rapes in the questionnaire.

Restorative circle – A formal definition has been provided to clarify the processes and participants involved in 

a restorative circle.

Sexual assault – Per suggestions made from our federal partners, an editorial change was made to revise the 

definition of “sexual battery” to an updated definition of “sexual assault.” This definition mirrors the Office of 

Civil Rights’ definition in its key elements.
6

Shelter-in-place – A formal definition for shelter-in-place has been added to the survey to clarify the 

emergency procedures discussed in item 3.

Threat assessment team – A formal definition for threat assessment team has been added to the survey in 

accordance with the addition of two new survey items that ask about formal groups of persons who meet to 

identify students who might be a potential risk for violent behavior.

Treatment – A formal definition for treatment has been added to the survey in accordance with the addition of 

a new section on school mental health services.

2.2 Editorial Changes

Throughout the questionnaire, the school year has been updated to reflect the most recent 2015–16 school year.

Item 1, subitem a. “Require visitors to sign or check in” has been changed to “Require visitors to sign or check 

in and wear badges.” This revision was based on this variable having shown little variance and having limited 

analytic use, as policies now generally require all schools to sign in visitors.

Item 1, subitem d. The phrase “pass through” has been removed from this item. This revision was based on this 

variable having shown little variance and having limited analytic use. The “pass through” language assumed 

checks using only stationary metal detectors and may not have captured schools that use handheld metal 

detectors on a daily basis.

Item 1, subitem x. This item has been modified to replace outdated examples of social media networking sites. 

As Myspace is no longer widely used, the examples have been updated to instead include Instagram and 

YouTube.

Item 2. The stem of this item has been rephrased to “Does your school have a written plan that describes 

procedures to be performed in the following scenarios?” This item is being retained to maintain trend from 

previous SSOCS surveys, but modified to incorporate the inclusion of item 3. As such, this question no longer 

asks about drilling students on written plans, as the drilling of students on emergency procedures is now 

captured in item 3.

Item 2, subitem a. Based on a recommendation from our federal partners, this item has been changed from 

“shootings” to “active shooter” as the term “active shooter” is now the language widely used by the 

government, law enforcement, media, and schools.

Item 4, subitem a. “Conflict resolution,” “anti-bullying,” and “dating violence prevention” have been added as 

examples to this item in a parenthetical notation.

Item 4, subitem b. This item has been modified to include a parenthetical notation that specifies that behavioral 

or behavior modification intervention for students can include positive reinforcement. The additional phrase 

will place an emphasis on schools rewarding good behavior as a positive intervention strategy to reduce bad 

behavior.

Item 26, subitem b. Per a suggestion made from our federal partners, an editorial change was made to revise 

“sexual battery” to “sexual assault.”

Item 33. As a new item about cyberbullying has been added to an earlier part of the questionnaire, the 

definition for cyberbullying has been removed from the stem of this item and relocated to the definition section 

of the questionnaire.

2.3 Item deletions and rationale

2011–12 Questionnaire, Item 1, subitem k. This item was deleted. This variable was shown to have little 

variance and seems of little analytic use.

2011–12 Questionnaire , Item 2, subitem g. This item was deleted as the DHS no longer uses a color-coded 

terrorism alert system, and our federal partners indicated that schools no longer widely use these plans.
7

2011–12 Questionnaire , Item 20, subitem i. This item was deleted. This variable was shown to have little 

variance and is an issue of declining relevancy in schools.

2.4 Content modifications, item additions, and rationale

Item 1, subitem f. This item was added as an indicator of whether teachers and staff members have the ability

to stop visitors from physically entering a classroom. In January 2012, the DHS recommended that all 

classrooms have doors that can be locked from either side to prevent entry from the corridor side.

1 According to 

DHS reports, interior locks on classroom doors saved lives during the 1999 attack at Columbine High School in 

Colorado, but such locks were not available in classrooms in Norris Hall during the 2007 Virginia Tech campus 

shooting.

Item 1, subitem p. This addition was based on a review of literature that suggests that staff accessibility to 

panic buttons or silent alarms can reduce the response time of emergency personnel to arrive on site and can

help to minimize damage.2

Item 2, subitem h. This item was added to determine the percentage of schools that have written plans for 

reuniting students with their families in the aftermath of a crisis. In the chaos of an emergency, it may be 

difficult for schools to coordinate the reunification of students with their families; this item will help to identify 

schools that have taken precautionary measures to address the aftermath of an emergency.

Item 3. This item was added to look at whether schools drill students on particular emergency procedures. 

While SSOCS already collects information on written plans for various crisis scenarios, there were no items that 

collected information on what procedures schools implemented based on the type of emergency. This addition 

was based on the literature and state-level legislation, both of which emphasize the need for schools to drill 

students on different types of procedures, depending on the emergency, such as by making provisions both for 

the evacuation and lockdown of classrooms and the school building.

3

Item 4, subitem g. This item has been added to separately identify what percentage of schools have students 

involved in peer mediation as a form of addressing student conflict.

Item 4, subitem h. This item has been added to separately identify what percentage of schools have a 

formalized process to address student conduct problems or minor offenses.

Item 4, subitem i. This item has been added to collect information on student involvement in restorative justice 

circles. Restorative circles are a more formalized process and generally involve an adult facilitator (unlike 

student court), and their purpose is to restore relationships rather than adjudicate an incident.

Item 4, subitem j. This item has been added to identify the percentage of schools that have social emotional 

learning (SEL) training for students. The presence of SEL training in schools is important to measure as the

literature indicates its use can boost academic performance by increasing student interest in learning; improve 

student behavior by preventing a variety of problems such as truancy, alcohol and drug use, bullying, and 

violence; and improve school climate overall.4 Additionally, “social skills training” has been moved from 

subitem a to subitem j as this example better aligns with SEL.

 

1 Dejka, J. (2013, February 26). After Sandy Hook, Metro-Area Schools Look at Safer Classroom Door Locks. Omaha News. 

Retrieved from http://www.omaha.com/news/after-sandy-hook-metro-area-schools-look-at-safer-classroom/article_6e7ffe69-

9a71-52ac-9385-04ca976ff0e4.html.

2

Schneider, T. (2002). Ensuring Quality School Facilities and Security Technology. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational 

Laboratory. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/book4.pdf.

3 Graham, J., Shirm, S., Liggin, R., Aitken, M., and Dick, R. (January 2006). “Mass-Casualty Events at Schools: A National 

Preparedness Survey,” Pediatrics, 117(1): e8–e15. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/117/1/e8.full.html.

4 Civic Enterprises, Bridgeland, J., Bruce, M., and Hariharan, A. (2013). The Missing Piece: A National Teacher Survey on How 

Social and Emotional Learning Can Empower Children and Transform Schools. Chicago: Collaborative for Academic, Social, 

and Emotional Learning. 
8

Item 5. This item has been added to assess the percentage of schools that have threat assessment teams to 

identify and evaluate at-risk students. Threat assessment teams have been recommended by the U.S. Secret 

Service, FBI, and Department of Education as a means to “interrupt” students who may be on the path to violent 

behavior.5

Item 6. Asked as a follow-up to item 5, this item has been added to obtain a measure of how frequently a 

school’s threat assessment team meets, as more active threat assessment teams may be better equipped to 

prevent or address school violence.

Item 7. As the Department of Education and outside organizations are interested in collecting information on 

the presence of Gay-Straight Alliances and other inclusion groups in schools, this item was added to look at 

specific groups present in schools that promote inclusiveness. These groups can help create a positive 

environment where students are respectful of different backgrounds and may help to reduce conflict and 

violence.

Item 11. This item has been modified to no longer collect data on security guards and security personnel; the 

revised item asks only about the presence of sworn law enforcement officers. Information on security personnel 

is now collected separately in item 19 as the roles and responsibilities of security personnel can vary widely

across schools and are often not comparable to those of sworn law enforcement.

Item 12. This item has been modified to no longer collect data on security guards and security personnel; the 

revised item asks only about the presence of sworn law enforcement officers.

Item 13. This item has been modified to no longer collect data on security guards and security personnel; the 

revised item asks only about the presence of sworn law enforcement officers.

Item 13, sub-item d. At the request of federal partners in the Office of Safe and Healthy Students, this item has 

been added to collect data on whether sworn law enforcement officers routinely wear a body camera to record 

their interactions on the job.

Item 14. This item has been modified to no longer collect data on security guards and security personnel; the 

revised item asks only about the presence of sworn law enforcement officers.

Item 14, subitem a. Feedback from our federal partners indicated that this item would identify schools that 

have sworn law enforcement officers present on campus who participate in motor vehicle traffic control—either 

as their only responsibility or in addition to other activities identified in item 14.

Item 14, subitem i. Feedback from our TRP members stated that law enforcement involvement within schools 

may help schools keep better records and report discipline problems more accurately.

Item 14, subitem j. Feedback from our TRP members indicated that law enforcement expertise may help 

schools categorize and, therefore, report, incidents more accurately.

Item 15. This item has been added based on feedback from our federal partners who emphasized that it is

important to know whether a sworn law enforcement officer is actually in the school building 5 days per week 

for the entire school day. It is possible that a school may report that they have a full-time sworn law 

enforcement officer assigned to their school, but the officer may spend a limited amount of time actually in the 

school building due to court appearances, sick leave, etc.

Item 16. Feedback provided by both our federal partners and TRP members suggested that there is a strong 

interest in whether schools have formal policies or written agreements with law enforcement that define the role 

of sworn law enforcement officers in the school.

Item 17. Asked as a follow-up to item 16, this item asks schools to report on what specific activities are defined

by the school’s formal policies or written agreements with sworn law enforcement officers.

 

5 Miller, A. (February 2014). Threat Assessment in Action. Monitor on Psychology, 45(2): 37. Retrieved from 

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/02/cover-threat.aspx.
9

Item 18. This item has been modified to no longer collect data on security guards and security personnel and to 

only request counts of School Resource Officers and other sworn law enforcement officers. Information on 

security personnel is now collected separately in item 19, as the roles and responsibilities of security personnel 

can vary widely across schools and are often not comparable to those of sworn law enforcement.

Item 19. This item has been added to collect separate counts of security guards and personnel that schools have 

other than sworn law enforcement officers.

Item 20. This item asks schools to report on the types of mental health services provided to students (i.e., 

diagnostic assessments and treatment) as well as the location and provider of these services. Adequate

assessment and treatment of mental health issues in students may help to prevent future violent acts, and 

research supports that school mental health programs can have an impact on reducing behavioral problems.6

The information gained from this item will address issues of access for students and coordination problems that 

schools may need to resolve in order to provide these services to students.

Item 21. As noted by a mental health expert, some schools may hesitate to recommend students who they

suspect as having a mental health disorder for fear that the school may become liable to pay for these services. 

Upon further discussion with the TRP and our federal partners, this question has been expanded to include 

several factors that may limit a school’s efforts to provide students with mental health services.

Item 22, subitem c. This item has been added to separately identify staff training related to cyberbullying.

Item 22, subitem d. This item has been added to separately identify staff training related to bullying (excluding 

cyberbullying).

Item 22, subitem h. This item has been added to gather information on training in the intervention and referral 

of students for mental health disorders. Proposed by our federal partners and supported by our TRP members, 

this item aims to measure whether teachers/aides have been trained in what steps to take once they have

recognized the signs of a mental health disorder in students.

Item 27. Proposed by our federal partners and supported by our TRP members, this item will measure how 

many arrests of both students and non-students occurred on school grounds. This information could indicate 

whether or not crimes that have been reported to police result in an arrest on school grounds.

Item 28. Proposed by our federal partners and supported by our TRP members, this item has been modified to 

ask only about the number of hate crimes at school while removing “gang-related” crimes and “gang-related 

hate crimes,” which generally have had low counts and little variance in previous SSOCS administrations.

Item 29. Asked as a follow-up to item 28, this item asks schools to report on the types of biases that may have 

motivated the hate crimes reported in the previous item.

 

6 Hussey, D.L., and Guo, S. (2003). Measuring Behavior Change in Young Children Receiving Intensive School-Based Mental Health 

Services, Journal of Community Psychology, 31(6): 629–639. doi: 10.1002/jcop.10074. Retrieved from 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcop.10074/pdf.
10

C3. Cognitive Testing Findings and Final Recommendations 

Introduction and Background

The School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), a nationally representative survey of elementary and 

secondary public schools, is one of the nation’s primary sources of school-level data on crime and safety. 

Managed by the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES), SSOCS has been administered five times—covering the 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2005–06, 

2007–08, and 2009–10 school years. SSOCS is unique in that it is the only recurring federal survey collecting 

detailed information on the incidence, frequency, seriousness, and nature of violence affecting students and 

school personnel, as well as other indices of school safety from the schools’ perspective. As such, SSOCS fills 

an important gap in data collected by NCES and other agencies. 

An updated SSOCS questionnaire, including two new items7on school-wide discipline policies and 

staff training related to bullying, received OMB approval for a spring 2012 administration, but due to 

funding issues the collection was never fielded. With new funding available through the National 

Institute of Justice (NIJ), SSOCS will be conducted again in the spring of the 2015–16 school year. To 

the greatest extent possible, NCES would like to retain items contained in earlier collections to 

preserve trend lines. That said, some items have been modified to stay relevant, and new items have 

been added to address new and emerging issues and interests. 

NCES and its contractor, the American Institutes for Research (AIR), held a series of meetings in the 

late summer and fall of 2014 to discuss the proposed content of the 2015–16 SSOCS questionnaire. 

NCES and AIR met twice with federal partners from NIJ and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 

who identified two priority areas recommended for SSOCS item development: (1) the expansion of a 

current section on school security staff and (2) a new section on mental health services in schools. 

NCES and AIR held two additional meetings with a Technical Review Panel (TRP) consisting of some 

of the nation’s top experts in school crime and safety. Several panel members provided insight from 

the perspective of researchers who use the SSOCS data. The TRP also included a school mental 

health expert who provided information specifically about mental health services in schools. Over the 

course of the four meetings, modifications to historic SSOCS items were proposed, several new items 

were recommended for addition, and three items were removed from the questionnaire. Following 

these meetings, NCES and AIR agreed upon a proposed list of new and modified items.

As part of the SSOCS 2015–16 item development process, the new and modified survey items agreed upon by

NCES and AIR were tested on target participants through cognitive interviews in late 2014 and early 2015 to 

uncover comprehension issues and to measure overall understanding of the survey content. This document 

outlines the cognitive interview process, including the recruitment and data collection for these interviews, and 

provides findings from the cognitive interviews and recommendations for revisions that have been incorporated 

into the final items for the 2016 questionnaire. 

Cognitive Interviews

In a cognitive interview, an interviewer uses a structured protocol in a one-on-one interview, drawing on 

methods from cognitive science. In particular, the cognitive interviews for SSOCS investigated the cognitive 

processes that principals use to answer survey questions. These interviews were intended to identify problems 

of ambiguity or misunderstanding in question wording, with the goal of ensuring that all items included in the 

 

7 Items 22d and 22i on the final 2016 SSOCS questionnaire had received approval for the spring 2012 administration but were never fielded. For the 2016 

administration, item 22d was slightly modified to make room for a similar item (22c) on cyberbullying. Items 22c and 22d underwent cognitive testing 

and correspond to items 14a and 14b in the cognitive testing questionnaire; the findings from the cognitive testing of these items can be found on 

pages 38–39 of this report.
11

final survey would be easily understood, with interpretations consistently aligned with the concepts being 

measured. 

Cognitive interviewing methods consisted of two key components: think-aloud interviewing and verbal probing 

techniques (these two methods are also known as concurrent and retrospective recall probing, respectively). 

With think-aloud interviewing, participants are explicitly instructed to think aloud (i.e., describe what they are 

thinking) as they work through items. With verbal probing techniques, the interviewer asks probing questions, 

as necessary, to clarify points that are not evident from the “think-aloud” process or to explore additional issues 

that have been identified a priori as being of particular interest. Cognitive interview studies produce qualitative 

data in the form of verbalizations made by participants during the think-aloud phase and in response to the 

interviewer probes. Both the think-aloud approach and probing techniques were applied to all participants 

during the SSOCS cognitive interviews. 

SSOCS is a paper-based survey; for the cognitive testing, participants were provided with a copy of the survey. 

Participants were asked to complete items in sets (broken out by the topical sections of the survey). They were 

asked to read the questions out loud and use the think-aloud process to describe how they understood the 

question and chose their response. Following the think-aloud portion for each section, the interviewer followed 

up with a set of pre-established probing questions, as necessary, to gather additional feedback and clarification.8

Survey Items for Testing

Based on a review of previous cognitive interviews conducted for SSOCS, the number of survey items to be 

tested, and consultations with staff experienced with cognitive interviewing, NCES and AIR concluded that the 

ideal length of the cognitive interview should not exceed 90 minutes. This would minimize the burden on the 

participating principals while ensuring the quality of the feedback. Because approximately 40 items (including 

sub-items) required cognitive testing, and given the degree of item modification anticipated, as well as the 

length of sections, it was decided that the cognitive interviews would focus on the School Security Staff and 

School Mental Health Services sections. 

New items from these two sections (called “core items”) were tested across all participants, while additional 

new and modified items from other sections, such as School Practices and Programs, Staff Training, and 

Number of Incidents, were each tested across half of the participants. Two versions of the questionnaire—

Version A and Version B—were created for use in the cognitive testing. Specific items that were tested in each 

version can be found in table C3.1 below. The core items (tested in both versions) are highlighted, while those 

tested with a partial sample of principals are not highlighted. 

After cognitive interviews had been conducted with nine participants, NCES and AIR reviewed the initial 

findings and found that a number of the participants had issues with the terms, phrasing, and structure of two

items in the mental health section and found them difficult to answer. Because of this, revisions were made to 

these items, and they were tested in a second wave of interviews with eight participants. These two items are 

noted with an asterisk in table C3.1. Although multiple versions of the questionnaire were used during the 

actual cognitive interviews, they have been combined into one questionnaire for ease of presentation in this 

report. The complete version of the questionnaire that contains all of the items that underwent cognitive testing, 

as well as the survey instructions and definitions, can be found in attachment 1 of this report.

 

8 Due to the nature of the paper-based administration of SSOCS, principals would have time to check records and consult with other school staff before 

answering items during the operational survey; however, the structure of the cognitive testing did not allow for this consultation.
12

Table C3.1 Split of items for SSOCS cognitive interview instruments, by version

Version A Version B

Item number Item topical area Item number Item topical area

Item 1 School practices and 

programs

Item 4 Formal programs to reduce 

violence

Item 2

Emergency plan items

Item 2

Emergency plan items

Item 3 Item 3

Item 6

School security items

Item 6

School security items

Item 7 Item 7

Item 8 Item 8

Item 9 Item 9

Item 10 Item 10

Item 11 Item 11

Item 12 Item 12

Item 13 Item 13

Item 18*

Mental health items

Item 18*

Mental health items

Item 19* Item 19*

Item 20 Item 20

Item 21 Item 21

Item 22 Item 22

Item 5 Student groups to 

promote acceptance

Item 15 Stalking incidents

Item 14 Staff training Item 16 Hate-crime incidents

Item 17 Hate-crime biases

18 items 19 items

*Based on a discussion between NCES and AIR on January 20, 2015, after nine cognitive interviews had been conducted, it was agreed that these items 

would be revised for the remaining eight interviews. A number of principals had issues with the terms, phrasing, and structure of these items and found 

them difficult to answer, so revisions were implemented and tested in a second wave of interviews with eight participants.

Data Collection Process

NCES contracted with the American Institutes for Research (AIR) to conduct the SSOCS cognitive laboratory

testing. Seventeen principals were recruited from across the nation to participate in the testing. The interviews 

took place between December 15, 2014, and February 5, 2015, and principals were asked to report items for the 

school year to date. 

Recruitment

AIR used multiple outreach methods and resources to recruit participants, including contacts with schools and 

community organizations, newspaper/internet ads, social media, and direct e-mail and phone outreach to 

eligible schools. Eligible schools included regular public schools, charter schools, and schools that have partial 

or total magnet programs with students in any of grades prekindergarten through 12. E-mails and phone calls 

were used to contact potential participants and schedule interviews. Interested participants were screened to 

ensure they were eligible for participation in the interviews. Participants were asked whether they preferred inperson interviews or interviews conducted remotely through video conference or teleconference. In-person 

interviews were conducted in the Washington, DC, metro area to maximize scheduling and interviewing 

efficiency. All participants authorized their consent at the time of the interview, and as a thank-you for their 

time and participation, received a $25 gift card for remote interviews or a $40 gift card for in-person interviews. 

AIR recruited a total of 17 participants, one from each of 17 schools. Table C3.2 below shows the distribution 
13

of these participants across questionnaire versions, waves, and interview modes. Note that the school names 

have been removed and replaced with “School A, B, C, etc.” to ensure participant confidentiality.

Table C3.2 Distribution of cognitive interview participants, by school and interview characteristics

School

Participant

Distribution

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q 17

Questionnaire

Version A x x x x x x x x x 9

 Wave 1 x x x x x 5

 Wave 2 x x x x 4

Version B x x x x x x x x 8

 Wave 1 x x x x 4

 Wave 2 x x x x 4

Mode of interview

In-person x x x 3

Remote 

teleconference x x x x x x x x x x x 11

Remote video 

conference x x x 3

The participants represented schools with a range of characteristics (by grade level, urbanicity, enrollment size, 

and percent White enrollment). The participants included elementary, middle, and high school principals. Table 

C3.3 below shows descriptive statistics of the participants’ schools. While the sample included a variety of 

characteristics, the results of these interviews do not explicitly measure differences by these characteristics. 

Additional details on recruitment can be found in attachment 2 of this report.

Table C3.3 Distribution of cognitive interview participants, by school and school characteristics

School

Participant

Distribution

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q 17

Level

Primary x x x x x 5

Middle x x x 3

High school x x x x x x x x 8

Combined x 1

Enrollment

Less than 300 x x 2

300–499 x x 2

500–999 x x x x x x x x x 9

1,000 or more x x x x 4

Urbanicity

City x x x x x x x x x 9

Suburb x x x x 4

Town x x x 3

Rural x 1

Percent White enrollment

More than 95 

percent x x 2

More than 80 to 95 

percent x x 2

More than 50 to 80 

percent x x x x x 5

50 percent or less x x x x x x x x 8
14

Cognitive Testing Findings and Recommendations

The following section summarizes the findings from these interviews by providing a synopsis of principal 

feedback for each tested item; the initial recommendation by AIR; and subsequent discussions between NCES, 

AIR, and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census)9detailing the final recommendation for each item. Note that the 

item numbering in this report does not directly relate to the item numbering in the final 2016 SSOCS 

questionnaire, but instead corresponds with the numbering in the cognitive testing questionnaire found in 

attachment 1 of this report. Note that the multiple versions used in testing have been combined into a single 

questionnaire for ease of presentation in this report.

Note that definitions for many terms were provided to respondents at the front of the questionnaire. These 

defined terms are set in bold type and marked with an asterisk (*) throughout this report; a complete list of the 

definitions provided can be found on page 2 of the cognitive testing questionnaire, attached to this report. 

Although definitions were provided, interviewers generally probed respondents to define terms in their own 

words as they worked through questions in order to identify whether the definitions provided were accurate and 

comprehensive.

Section: School Practices and Programs

School Practices, General Findings (Item 1)

Cognitive Testing Findings: Note that additional sub-items are included in this item beyond those tested. 

Only sub-items in this question which were revised or new were included in the cognitive testing.

Nine principals received this item. Only one principal showed minor confusion in answering item 1a. 

Please see the sub-item findings and recommendations below.

Item 1, Sub-item Findings

a. Require visitors to sign or check in and wear badges

Cognitive Testing Findings: This sub-item underwent minor revisions from SSOCS:2010 to specify that 

visitors are required to wear badges.

One principal expressed confusion in answering the question because at the principal’s school, they do 

require visitors to sign in, but they do not always require visitors to wear badges.

 

9 NCES has entered into an interagency agreement with the Census Bureau to conduct the 2016 collection of SSOCS.
15

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change. 

b. Require metal detector checks on students every day

Cognitive Testing Findings: This sub-item underwent minor revisions from SSOCS:2010 to remove 

language specifying that students had to “pass through” metal detectors every day.

No principals had difficulty answering this question. 

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change. 

c. Equip classrooms with locks so that doors can be locked from the inside

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new sub-item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

No principals had difficulty answering this question.

Initial Recommendation: No change. 

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change. 

d. Have “panic buttons” or silent alarms that directly connect to law enforcement in the event of an incident

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new sub-item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

No principals had difficulty answering this question; however, one principal noted that the question is plural 

(“panic buttons”) and that their school has only one button. 

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: Further discussion suggested that many schools may have only a single panic button or 

silent alarm. NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that the item should be rewritten so as to 

not exclude schools that may only have one button.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise item.

 FINAL ITEM: Have “panic button(s)” or silent alarm(s) that directly connect to law 

enforcement in the event of an incident.
16

Emergency Plans, General Findings (Items 2 and 3)

Cognitive Testing Findings: Items 2 and 3 are a major revision of a SSOCS:2010 item; the previous item 

asked schools about both emergency plans and drills related to crises. For SSOCS:2016, item 2 asks about 

plans and drills based on procedures while item 3 asks about what crises are addressed in emergency plans.

All 17 principals received items 2 and 3. Seven principals indicated that item 2 (emergency plans by type of 

procedure) more accurately describes their school’s experience, while two principals indicated that item 3 

(emergency plans by type of crisis scenario) more accurately describes their school’s experience.

Furthermore, six principals indicated that drills are typically designated by the type of procedures performed; 

five principals indicated that drills are typically designated by the type of crises they are intended to address; 

and six principals indicated that drills are typically designated by both the type of procedures performed and 

by the type of crises they are intended to address.

Initial Recommendation: No change; both items should be retained in the questionnaire since 

principals identified that both are relevant to emergency planning and drills in schools.

Discussion: As principals were able to distinguish between the type of procedure and crisis 

scenarios, NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that both items 2 and 3 should be included in 

the final 2016 SSOCS questionnaire. However, it was agreed that the order of these questions should 

be reversed in the final questionnaire so that the item on emergency plans by crisis scenarios precedes 

the item on emergency plan by type of procedure. 

The item on emergency plans by crisis scenarios should be revised to ask only if schools have a written 

plan that addresses each scenario, while the item on emergency plans by type of procedure should be 

revised to ask only if schools have drilled on the listed procedures. These modifications should allow 

this question series to flow more smoothly and should allow the stem of the item on crisis scenarios 

to more closely resemble the item used in prior SSOCS administrations.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise; move item 3 to precede item 2. 

The order of items 2 and 3, as tested in the cognitive questionnaire, will be switched in the final 

questionnaire. Tested item 3 will be renumbered as final item 2 and will appear prior to tested item 2, 

which will be renumbered as final item 3.

FINAL ITEM 2: Does your school have a written plan that describes procedures to be 

performed in the following scenarios?

FINAL ITEM 3: During the 2015–16 school year, has your school drilled students on the 

use of the following emergency procedures?

 Please respond to each of these according to the definitions provided on pages 2 and 

3.10

Please see findings and recommendations specific to tested items 2 and 3 below.

 

10 Refers to the page numbering of the final 2016 SSOCS questionnaire.
17

Item 2, Sub-item Findings

a. Evacuation*

Cognitive Testing Findings: No principals had difficulty answering this question.

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change.

b. Lockdown*

Cognitive Testing Findings: One principal had difficulty answering this question, and two principals 

mentioned that there are two types of lockdown: (1) “soft/modified,” where there is no access into the 

building except for those with clearance; and (2) “hard/full,” where a threat is potentially inside the building 

and everyone locks themselves into classrooms and offices.

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: Since the feedback from principals on this item was minor and they indicated they did 

not have difficulty in answering it, NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was 

necessary.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change.

c. Shelter-in-place*

Cognitive Testing Findings: Seven principals had trouble understanding the meaning of “shelter-in-place” 

in this question. Five principals identified these plans/drills as primarily having to do with natural disasters, 

which is outside the scope of the definition that was provided. Two principals indicated that the difference 

between “shelter-in-place” and “lockdown” was whether the threat is inside (lockdown) or outside (shelterin-place) the building.

Initial Recommendation: Since principals were unable to correctly identify these plans/drills and 

instead identified them as primarily having to do with natural disasters, it was recommended that the 

item either be removed or revised to “Shelter-in-place (hazardous materials).”

Discussion: Further discussion suggested incorporating the definition of “shelter-in-place” into the 
18

question itself; however, it would appear to take up too much space with the additional amount of 

text. NCES, AIR, and Census instead agreed to add a note after the question referring the principal 

to the definitions on pages 2 and 3 of the final 2016 SSOCS questionnaire.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Add a note to the question.

FINAL ITEM: During the 2015-16 school year, has your school drilled students on the use 

of the following emergency procedures?

• Please respond to each of these according to the definitions provided on pages 2 and 3.

11

d. Reunification plan*

Cognitive Testing Findings: Seven principals had trouble understanding the term “reunification plan.” 

Many principals identified these plans/drills as primarily having to do with bringing students and staff back 

together during or after a drill, such as meeting at an alternative site. Furthermore, two principals were 

unfamiliar with the term “reunification plan.”

Initial Recommendation: Due to the difficulty expressed by principals with this term, it was 

recommended that the item be revised to “Family reunification plan” to emphasize students being 

reunited with their family.

Discussion: Further discussion suggested that “reunification plan” should be removed from this 

question and instead be revised as “Post-crisis reunification of students with their families” as a new 

sub-item in the item on emergency plans by crisis scenario (see Item 3 below). This change was also 

recommended because schools may have reunification plans but typically do not perform drills of 

these plans. NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement regarding this change. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise and relocate item.

This item was removed to be addressed in the next item (tested item 3 below) as a new sub-item: 

“Post-crisis reunification of students with their families.” The order of items 2 and 3, as tested in the 

cognitive questionnaire, will be switched in the final version. Tested item 3 will be renumbered as

final item 2 and will appear prior to tested item 2, which will be renumbered as final item 3. This subitem will appear as part of final item 2.

FINAL ITEM: Post crisis reunification of students with their families.

 

11 Refers to the page numbering of the final 2016 SSOCS questionnaire.
19

Item 3, Sub-item Findings

a. Active shooter*

Note that active shooter is only one of several sub-items included in this item. Only sub-items in this 

question which were revised or new were included in the cognitive testing findings. Sub-item a underwent 

minor revisions from SSOCS:2010 to update the language to that currently used predominantly in schools 

(the previous sub-item language was “shootings”).

Cognitive Testing Findings: One principal had trouble understanding the term “active shooter” in this 

question, noting that “active shooter” was not a term that his school used; however, the principal’s school

did have a drill that essentially amounted to the same thing (i.e., a person in the building with intent to do 

harm to others).

Initial Recommendation: Since the feedback from principals on this item was minor and they 

indicated they did not have difficulty in answering it, no change was recommended.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change.

Violence Prevention Programs, General Findings (Item 4)

Cognitive Testing Findings: Note that additional sub-items are included in this item beyond those tested. 

Only sub-items in this question which were revised or new were included in the cognitive testing. 

Nine principals received this question. Two principals had trouble understanding the question. One principal 

said that she wasn’t sure if the question was referring to programs that are school-wide or available on an 

individual basis, and the other principal thought this question was asking what specific programs the school 

offered for different items (e.g., “What does my school offer for anti-bullying?”).

Please see the sub-item findings and recommendations below.
20

Item 4, Sub-item Findings

a. Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training for students (e.g., conflict resolution, anti-bullying*, dating 

violence prevention)

Cognitive Testing Findings: This sub-item underwent minor revisions from SSOCS:2010 to add 

additional examples.

One principal initially hesitated over the word “violence.” The principal noted that the examples in the 

question were helpful and helped to clarify the item.

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change. 

b. Behavioral or behavior modification intervention for students (including the use of positive reinforcements)

Cognitive Testing Findings: This sub-item underwent minor revisions from SSOCS:2010 to add an

example.

One principal interpreted “positive reinforcement” to mean physical incentives (i.e., objects/something that 

someone can put their hands on) rather than comments or verbal feedback.

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change. 

c. Student involvement in peer mediation

Cognitive Testing Findings: Sub-items c, d, and e are new items proposed to replace a prior sub-item that 

encompassed all these programs.

No principals had difficulty understanding the question.

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change. 

d. Student court to address student conduct problems or minor offenses

Cognitive Testing Findings: Sub-items c, d, and e are new items proposed to replace a prior sub-item that 

encompassed all these programs.

One principal had trouble understanding the term “student court.” The principal indicated that this term 

sounded like “public shaming.”

Initial Recommendation: Since the feedback from principals on this item was minor and they 

indicated they did not have difficulty in answering it, no change was recommended.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item. 
21

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change. 

e. Student involvement in restorative circles* (e.g., “peace circles,” “talking circles,” “conflict circles”)

Cognitive Testing Findings: Sub-items c, d, and e are new items proposed to replace a prior sub-item that 

encompassed all these programs.

Three principals had trouble understanding the term “restorative circle” in the context of the question. 

However, with the exception of a single principal who did not reference the definition, all principals were 

able to deduce the meaning of the term from the context and the examples. 

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change. 

f. Social emotional learning (SEL) training for students (e.g., social skills, anger management, mindfulness)

Cognitive Testing Findings: One principal had trouble with the term “training” in the context of the 

question. 

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change. 

Student Groups to Promote Acceptance, General Findings (Item 5)

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

Nine principals received this question. Only one principal had trouble understanding a term in sub-item a. 

Please see the sub-item findings and recommendations below.

Item 5, Sub-item Findings

a. Acceptance of LGBTQ students (e.g., Gay-Straight Alliance)

Cognitive Testing Findings: One principal had trouble understanding the meaning of “Acceptance of 

LGBTQ students.” The principal did not know what LGBTQ was, but assumed that it had something to do 

with sexual preference.
22

Initial Recommendation: The term LGBTQ should be spelled out in this item.

Discussion: Further discussion led to the agreement that, as the first instance in which the term 

LGBTQ is used in the questionnaire, it should be spelled out in this item and abbreviated in 

following items throughout the questionnaire.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise item to spell out the acronym.

Spell out LGBTQ in this item and revise references to LGBTQ that come later in the survey to be 

abbreviated.

FINAL ITEM: Acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (i.e., 

LGBTQ) students (e.g., Gay-Straight Alliance)

b. Acceptance of students with disabilities (e.g., Best Buddies)

Cognitive Testing Findings: No principals had trouble with this item.

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change. 

c. Acceptance of cultural diversity

Cognitive Testing Findings: One principal had trouble finding a response that matched their school’s 

experience since the principal’s school has several events, seminars, and an international day to help children 

understand cultural diversity, but the school does not have a student group.

Initial Recommendation: For clarification of the type of groups in this category, an example 

should be added to the sub-item.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that an example should be added to the 

item for clarification. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise item.

FINAL ITEM: Acceptance of cultural diversity (e.g., Cultural Awareness Club).

Section: School Security Staff

School Security Staff, General Findings (Items 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10)

Cognitive Testing Findings: All 17 principals received the first question in this section (item 6). In 

accordance with the skip logic that begins in this question, 12 principals received additional questions in this 

section (items 7, 8, 9, and 10).

Three principals had trouble understanding the meaning of “School Resource Officer” in this section, while 

one principal had trouble understanding the meaning of “sworn law enforcement officer.” Two principals 

thought that a School Resource Officer (SRO) was not distinguishable from a sworn law enforcement 

officer.
23

Initial Recommendation: No change. The terms “School Resource Officer” and “sworn law 

enforcement officer” have been used successfully in prior administrations of SSOCS, and detailed 

definitions are provided in the questionnaire. 

Discussion: Further discussion led to the agreement that it is not necessary for schools to report on 

the responsibilities and activities of School Resource Officers and sworn law enforcement officers 

separately. Analysis of prior SSOCS data indicates that schools tend to use one type of security 

personnel (SRO or other sworn law enforcement officer) rather than both; therefore, attempting to 

gather separate information on each type of officer may be confusing and burdensome for the 

majority of schools. Schools report on the number of full-time and part-time SROs and other sworn 

law enforcement officers separately in a SSOCS item that did not undergo cognitive testing. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise items in this section. 

Revise the stem and sub-items of questions 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 so that they do not request information 

on School Resource Officers and other sworn law enforcement officers separately. Furthermore, the 

definition of a School Resource Officer should be removed from the stem of this item. The 

definition should be moved into item 1812 of the final questionnaire (an item that requests full-time 

and part-time counts of SROs and other sworn law enforcement officers). This is consistent with the 

placement of this definition in prior SSOCS administrations, where it appears in the first item in the 

questionnaire where respondents are requested to delineate SROs from other law enforcement 

officers for reporting purposes.

Please see findings and recommendations specific to items 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 below.

Item 6, Findings

Cognitive Testing Findings: This item underwent minor revisions from SSOCS:2010 to remove 

references to security guards or security personnel other than SROs or other sworn law enforcement 

officers.

All 17 principals received this question. Three principals missed the skip pattern that begins in this question.

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census agreed that no change was necessary to this item based on the 

results of the cognitive testing; however, in accordance with the decision to revise this section to not 

report on School Resource Officers and sworn law enforcement separately, the stem of this item 

should be modified slightly to correctly introduce the skip logic that begins in this item. 

 

12 This item number is a reference to the numbering in the final 2016 SSOCS questionnaire; this item did not undergo cognitive testing and therefore is 

not included in this report.
24

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise item.

FINAL ITEM: During the 2015–16 school year, did you have any sworn law enforcement 

officers (including School Resource Officers) present at your school* at least once a week?

 Do not include security guards or other security personnel who are not sworn law 

enforcement in your response to this item; information on additional security staff is 

gathered in item 19.13

Item 7, Findings

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

Twelve principals received this question. Several principals had trouble understanding it. Two principals

initially selected “Yes” to the question, but when probed further, both changed their answer to “No.” 

Additionally, principals had different interpretations of the term “all school hours”:

• Two principals interpreted this phrase to mean contract hours for their teachers.

• Two principals interpreted this phrase to mean “from the time in the morning that doors are unlocked 

until the time in the evening that they are closed.”

• Four principals indicated that “all school hours” can vary depending on if there are after-school or offcampus events. (Alternatively, one principal said that this would exclude extracurricular events.)

• Three principals interpreted this phrase to mean “the general time that school is open” or “the hours 

that class is in session.”

Initial Recommendation: Suggest revising this item to ask about the presence of officers “from the 

beginning of the school day until students are dismissed.”

Discussion: During further discussion, it was suggested that this item use the phrase “all 

instructional hours” to better align with the language commonly used at the school level and in other 

surveys to indicate the time in which students are present for the school day. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise item.

In accordance with the revision made to this entire section, the stem of this item should be revised to 

ask jointly about coverage of sworn law enforcement officers (including School Resource Officers) 

and to replace “all school hours” with “all instructional hours.”

 

13 This item number is a reference to the numbering in the final 2016 SSOCS questionnaire; this item reference also corresponds with item 12 in this 

report.
25

FINAL ITEM: During the 2015–16 school year, did your school have a sworn law 

enforcement officer (including School Resource Officers) present for all instructional hours 

every day that school was in session?

 Include officers who are used as temporary coverage while regularly assigned officers 

are performing duties external to the school (such as attending court) or during these 

officers’ personal leave time. 

 Check “No” if your school does not have officer coverage while regularly assigned 

officers are performing duties external to the school (such as attending court) or 

during these officers’ personal leave time.

 Do not include security guards or other security personnel who are not sworn law 

enforcement in your response to this item; information on additional security staff is 

gathered in item 19.

14

Item 8, Findings

Cognitive Testing Findings: This item underwent minor revisions from SSOCS:2010 to remove 

references to security guards or security personnel other than SROs or other sworn law enforcement 

officers. Note that additional sub-items are included in this item beyond those tested. Only sub-items in this 

question which were revised or new were included in the cognitive testing. 

Twelve principals received this question. Three principals did not respond in the “Other sworn law 

enforcement” column for this question. One of these principals thought that a principal should never 

respond in both columns since the columns presented an “either/or” situation (i.e., that a school would 

respond for only SROs or sworn law enforcement officers).

Initial Recommendation: Remove the second column that asks principals to provide information 

for “other sworn law enforcement officers” as several principals were confused by the two columns,

and some principals did not record answers under the second column or selected “No.”

Discussion: Further discussion led to the agreement that it is not necessary for schools to respond 

separately for School Resource Officers and other sworn law enforcement officers in this item (see 

the School Security Staff, General Findings section above).

 

14 This item number is a reference to the numbering in the final 2016 SSOCS questionnaire; this item reference also corresponds with item 12 in this 

report.
26

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise and relocate item.

Revise item to remove the second column and modify the stem to ask jointly about the activities of 

School Resource Officers and other sworn law enforcement officers. Additionally, to be consistent 

with the ordering used in prior SSOCS administrations, this item should be moved to precede the 

item on sworn law enforcement coverage during all instructional hours (tested item 7 above) in the 

final questionnaire. 

FINAL ITEM: Did these sworn law enforcement officers (including School Resource 

Officers) participate in the following activities at your school*?

 Do not include security guards or other security personnel who are not sworn law 

enforcement in your response to this item; information on additional security staff is 

gathered in item 19.

15

 Check “Yes” or “No” on each line.

Please see the sub-item findings and recommendations below.

Item 8, Sub-item Findings

a. Motor vehicle traffic control

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new sub-item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

No principals had difficulty answering this item.

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change. 

b. Recording or reporting discipline problems

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new sub-item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

Two principals had trouble answering the item because they could not find a response that matched their 

school’s experience. Both principals indicated that they were unsure how to answer the item because law 

enforcement is not involved in minor issues, but can become involved if an issue rises to a higher level. 

Overall, four principals thought that this item was difficult to answer. 

Initial Recommendation: In order to clarify the item, it was recommended that the item be revised 

to read “Recording or reporting discipline problems to school authorities.”

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that the item should be revised as 

suggested

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise item.

FINAL ITEM: Recording or reporting discipline problems to school authorities.

 

15 This item number is a reference to the numbering in the final 2016 SSOCS questionnaire; this item reference also corresponds with item 12 in this 

report.
27

c. Providing information to school authorities about the legal definitions of behavior for recording or reporting purposes

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new sub-item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

Two principals had trouble understanding the question; one of these principals suggested that it would be 

nice to include an example. One principal had trouble finding a response that matched their school’s 

experience. This principal indicated that she first thought about the question in terms of school policies, on 

which the SRO does not provide information. She noted that the school may ask for clarification on 

definitions for terms necessary for the officer to write a ticket, but this would not be for the school’s 

reporting purposes, only to assist in the SRO’s legal purposes of writing the ticket. Overall, five principals 

thought that this item was difficult to answer.

Initial Recommendation: To clarify this item we suggest adding an example, such as “(e.g.,

defining assault for school authorities).”

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that this item needed to be revised for 

clarity.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise item. 

FINAL ITEM: Providing information to school authorities about the legal definitions of 

behavior for recording or reporting purposes (e.g., defining assault for school authorities).

Formal Policies/Written Documents for Sworn Law Enforcement Officers, 

General Findings (Items 9 and 10)

Cognitive Testing Findings: Twelve principals received item 9, and, based on their response to this item, 

eight principals received the follow-up item (item 10). Note that one principal missed the skip logic that 

began in this question and responded to the follow-up item. 

Item 9, Findings

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

Twelve principals received this question. Two principals had difficulty finding a response option that 

matched their school’s experience; specifically, one principal noted that she believes that such a document 

exists but said that principals would not need to see it. Additionally, two principals indicated that while their 

school did not have formal policies or documents, school staff had met with the SROs to define roles and 

expectations.

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item 

based on the results of the cognitive testing; however, in accordance with the decision to revise this 

section to not report on SROs and sworn law enforcement separately, the stem of this item should 
28

be modified slightly. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise item. 

FINAL ITEM: During the 2015–16 school year, did your school or school district have any 

formalized policies or written documents (e.g., Memorandum of Use, Memorandum of 

Agreement) that outlined the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of sworn law 

enforcement officers (including School Resource Officers) at school?

Item 10, Findings

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

Based on their responses to item 9, eight principals received this item. One principal indicated that it was 

difficult to answer item 10 since the sub-items are so specific, and the principal was not sure if his school’s 

policies mentioned these specific things (this prompted the principal to select “Don’t know” for some 

items). One principal had trouble finding a response that matched their school’s experience, as the school 

does have policies on these items but the Memorandum of Agreement does not address them.

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item 

based on the results of the cognitive testing; however, in accordance with the decision to revise this 

section to not report on SROs and sworn law enforcement separately, the stem of this item should 

be modified slightly. Additionally, it was agreed that “written documents or policies” would be 

changed to “formalized policies or written documents” to be consistent with the language in the 

previous item. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise item. 

FINAL ITEM: Did these formalized policies or written documents include language 

defining the role of sworn law enforcement officers (including School Resource Officers) at 

school in the following areas?

Please see the sub-item findings and recommendations below.
29

Item 10, Sub-item Findings

a. Student discipline

Cognitive Testing Findings: No principals had difficulty answering the question.

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change. 

b. Use of physical restraints (e.g. handcuffs, Tasers, Mace, pepper spray, or other physical or chemical restraints)

Cognitive Testing Findings: One principal indicated that this question was difficult to answer because the 

school very rarely uses restraints, and the principal was not sure if the school had a written policy.

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change. 

c. Use of firearms*

Cognitive Testing Findings: One principal had trouble understanding the question; the principal was not 

sure if this item meant policies on the SRO using firearms or if it referred to what the SRO should do if 

people had firearms in the building.

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change. 

d. Making arrests on school grounds

Cognitive Testing Findings: One principal had difficulty answering the question because the principal was 

sure that there was documentation about this, but said that [making arrests] is the police’s prerogative and 

that there is no procedure.

Initial Recommendation: No change necessary to this item; however, it may be helpful to 

principals to include a definition for “arrests” based on issues identified with the item on arrests. 

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item. 

This is consistent with the use of the term “arrest” in other federal surveys, such as the Civil Rights 

Data Collection (CRDC), which do not provide a definition for the term “arrest.”

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change. 

e. Reporting of criminal offenses to a law enforcement agency

Cognitive Testing Findings: No principals had difficulty answering the question.

Initial Recommendation: No change.
30

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change. 

Item 11, Findings

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

All 17 principals received this item. Several principals had trouble with it. One principal indicated that the 

placement of this question within a list of questions about SROs and sworn law enforcement officers made

the principal wonder if this question is meant to focus on whether probation or parole officers are involved 

with student discipline.

Additionally, eight principals noted that probation officers are attached to individual students at the school and not 

assigned to the school itself. Several principals noted that parole or probation officers did come to their school, 

but less frequently than once a week, based on the requirements of students in the school needing these 

officers.

Initial Recommendation: One option would be to revise the time frame in the question to “at least 

once per month” or “at least every other month.” Another option would be to revise the question to 

a “Yes/No” format asking if schools had probation/parole officers assigned to students in their 

school (or alternatively ask for a count of probation/parole officers). 

Discussion: Further discussion suggested that the findings indicated a need to better understand the 

relationship between the parole/probation officers and schools as well as how accurately principals 

are able to gauge when students have a parole officer and when that officer is present on campus.

The findings indicate that we do not know enough to gather reliable data on the presence and 

frequency of parole/probation officers at this time.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Further development needed.

Remove item from the 2015–16 questionnaire and continue development on it, specifically to clarify 

how schools work with parole/probation officers, for possible inclusion in SSOCS:2018.
31

Item 12, Findings

Cognitive Testing Findings: This item is a minor revision to a SSOCS:2010 item; the previous item asked 

for counts of security guards or security personnel in the same question as counts of SROs and other sworn 

law enforcement officers. For SSOCS:2016 these will appear as two separate questions.

All 17 principals received this item. One principal had trouble understanding it. The principal considered a 

juvenile court officer as another type of security staff or personnel and counted this officer in this item. This 

principal was also unsure if the staff member should be counted as “full-time” or “part-time” since nobody 

replaced the staff member when he was not in the building.

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that item should not be changed in order to 

retain the trend from previous SSOCS administrations. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change. 

Item 13, Findings

Cognitive Testing Findings: This was a new item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

All 17 principals received this item. Three principals had trouble understanding this question overall. One 

principal indicated that the question was confusing because it does not clarify between “being charged for 

something” and “actually being arrested,” while another principal was confused by the phrase “regardless of 

whether a student or non-student was arrested.” 

Furthermore, several principals had trouble understanding the meaning of “arrest” in this question: 

• One principal defined an arrest as “being read your Miranda rights and being handcuffed” and 

indicated that being taken to the police station is not enough to constitute an arrest.

• Six principals said that an arrest involves “being taken away by the police” or “being taken into 

custody.” 

• Three principals defined an arrest as involving being handcuffed.

• Two principals defined an arrest as involving being charged with something and taken away. 

• One principal defined an arrest as “to take control of one’s body and person and have them under your 

authority or control.”

• One principal defined an arrest as “being taken to juvenile detention.”

Six principals indicated that they knew their answer (number of arrests) from memory, while two principals 

did not know the number of arrests but indicated that they would be able to look this information up if they 

were actually taking the survey.

Initial Recommendation: As there was a wide variety in the way principals interpreted the term 
32

“arrest” in this item, it was recommended that a definition of arrest (that specifies being detained by 

the police) be included in the final 2016 SSOCS questionnaire.

Discussion: While further discussion questioned whether schools would be able to accurately 

respond to this item given their varying definitions of arrest, it was decided to retain the item as 

written for comparability to other federal surveys (e.g., the CRDC). Other federal surveys do not 

provide a definition for the term “arrest,” so it was recommended that the SSOCS item not include a 

definition since there is not a commonly used definition and this is consistent with other surveys. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change, but relocate item. 

Move this item to the “Number of Incidents” section of the questionnaire as this item more directly 

relates to the other items in this section as opposed to school security staff. 

Section: Staff Training

Staff Training, General Findings (Item 14)

Cognitive Testing Findings: Note that additional sub-items are included in this item beyond those tested. 

Only sub-items in this question which were revised or new were included in the cognitive testing. 

Nine principals received this question, and two principals had difficulty with a term in sub-item a. 

Please see the sub-item findings and recommendations below.

Item 14, Sub-item Findings

a. Training in school-wide discipline policies and practices related to bullying*

Cognitive Testing Findings: This sub-item underwent minor revisions from SSOCS:2010 to add a 

definition for bullying.

Two principals had trouble with the term “bullying” in the context of this question. One principal indicated 

that he strongly dislikes the word “bullying” because it is so misconstrued by parents, while another principal 

seemed to define bullying as harassment.

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: Further discussion led to the agreement that this item should be placed after the item 

related to cyberbullying to ensure that principals do not include cyberbullying in their interpretation 

of bullying. For clarification, “other than cyberbullying” should be added to the end of the sub-item.
33

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise and relocate item.

FINAL ITEM: Training in school-wide discipline policies and practices related to bullying* 

other than cyberbullying*

b. Training in school-wide discipline policies and practices specifically related to cyberbullying*

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new sub-item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

No principals had difficulty answering the question.

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: Relating to the previous item, further discussion led to the agreement that this item 

should be placed before the item related to bullying to ensure that principals do not include 

cyberbullying in their interpretation of bullying. Due to the change in order and the clarification 

added to the bullying sub-item, it was agreed that “specifically” could be removed from the sub-item 

text.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise and relocate item. 

FINAL ITEM: Training in school-wide discipline policies and practices related to 

cyberbullying*

c. Training in intervention and referral strategies for students displaying signs of mental health issues (e.g. depression, mood

disorders, ADHD)

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new sub-item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

Two principals had difficulty answering this question, and one principal had trouble understanding the term 

“mental health issues” in the context of this question. The principal pointed out that there was a discrepancy 

between this item using “mental health issues” and other items that used the term “mental health disorders.” 

The principal was confused as to whether these terms were supposed to be the same thing or if there was a 

differentiation.

Initial Recommendation: Revise item to replace “mental health issues” with “mental health 

disorders.”

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that consistent terminology should be used 

throughout the survey, and that the item should be revised accordingly. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise item.

FINAL ITEM: Training in intervention and referral strategies for students displaying signs 

of mental health disorders* (e.g., depression, mood disorders, ADHD)
34

Section: Number of Incidents

Number of Incidents, General Findings (Item 15)

Cognitive Testing Findings: Seven principals received this question.

Note that stalking is only one of several sub-items included in this item. Only sub-items in this question 

which were revised or new were included in the cognitive testing. Sub-item a is a new item. 

Please see the sub-item findings and recommendations below.

Item 15, Sub-item Findings

a. Stalking*

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new sub-item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

No principals had any difficulty answering this question. Two principals, who did not know the answer to 

the question, indicated that they could look up incidents of stalking in their school’s records. Two other 

principals, who responded from memory that there had been no incidents of stalking, indicated that they 

would not be able to query this information from a database since stalking is not reported on separately.

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: Further discussion led to the agreement that schools may not be able to accurately 

provide this information as cognitive testing indicated that many schools do not keep sufficient 

records of incidents of stalking. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Further development needed.

Remove the item from the 2015–16 questionnaire and continue development on it (specifically, 

clarifying how incidents of stalking are counted for recording and reporting purposes) for possible 

inclusion in SSOCS:2018.
35

Hate Crimes, General Findings (Items 16 and 17)

Cognitive Testing Findings: Six principals received item 16, and, based on their answers to this item, two 

principals received the follow-up item (item 17). Note that if principals could not recall hate crimes that had 

occurred at school during the current school year, principals were asked to respond to item 17 based on hate 

crimes that they could recall from previous school years. 

No principals had difficultly responding to the items in this section. 

Item 16, Findings

Cognitive Testing Findings: This item underwent minor revisions from SSOCS:2010; the previous item 

asked about the occurrence of gang-related crimes and gang-related hate crimes in addition to hate-crimes.

No principals had difficulty answering the question.

Initial Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change. 

Item 17, Findings

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

Two principals received this question based on hate crimes that they could recall from previous school 

years. Both principals indicated that it was easy to decide which answers to give and did not have any 
36

difficulty in answering the question.

Recommendation: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this 

item based on cognitive testing. However, further discussion led to the suggestion that the item 

start with “To the best of your knowledge...” to align with language used in similar perception 

questions in the SSOCS questionnaire.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise item.

FINAL ITEM: To the best of your knowledge, were any of these hate crimes* 

motivated by the offender’s bias against the following characteristics?

 Check “Yes” or “No” on each line 

 If a hate-crime was motivated by multiple characteristics, answer “Yes” for each 

that applies.

Section: School Mental Health Services16

School Mental Health Services, General Findings (Items 18 and 19)

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new section proposed for SSOCS:2016.

All 17 principals received the items in this section. However, after approximately half of the interviews had 

been conducted, principals showed a high level of confusion with the terms and item structures in this 

section. Based on these initial findings, NCES, AIR, and Census revised items 18 and 19 for further testing, 

resulting in Wave 1 and Wave 2 versions of these items.

Items 18 and 19 were revised on January 20, 2015. Nine principals received the Wave 1 version of 

these items, and eight principals received the Wave 2 version.

 

16 Note that this section was moved to follow the School Security Staff section in the final version of the questionnaire to improve the flow of the 

questionnaire. During cognitive testing, the School Mental Health Services section was the final section tested.
37

Item 18 (Wave 1), Findings

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

Of the nine principals who received this item, four principals had trouble with the structure of this question.

Three principals indicated that they were confused about how to provide answers within the matrix,

specifically within the “Mark all that apply” section. Three principals initially only responded to the Yes/No

column of the matrix.

Additionally, two principals had trouble finding a response that matched their school’s experience. One 

principal indicated that they have some services (screenings) that are done at school using a collaboration 

between district and community personnel, and, if the student is identified as a risk, they are referred to an 

off-site psychiatrist within 24 hours. This principal expressed uncertainty about where to record this in the 

matrix. Another principal was unsure of where to categorize a mental health professional from a co-op from 

the larger school district who has an office in their school and tests students. 

Furthermore, three principals had trouble understanding the meaning of “community provider” in this 

question, while one principal had trouble understanding the meaning of “at school by school or district 

employee” in this question.

Finally, two principals had trouble understanding the meaning of “mental health professional” in this 

question. For example, one principal defined this as someone licensed in counseling; however, he only gave 

the example of a special education teacher.

Initial Recommendation Following Wave 1: As a number of principals had issues with the terms, 

phrasing, and structure of this question and found the item difficult to answer, following a discussion 

with NCES on January 20, 2015, it was recommended this item be revised for the remaining 

cognitive interviews. A revision was implemented and tested in Wave 2 of the cognitive labs with 

eight participants. 
38

See below for the results from the revised Wave 2 item.

Item 18 (Wave 1), Sub-item Findings

a. Pre-diagnostic counseling*

Cognitive Testing Findings: Six principals had trouble understanding the meaning of “pre-diagnostic 

counseling” in this question.

Initial Recommendation Following Wave 1: Following a discussion with NCES on January 20, 

2015, it was recommended this sub-item be changed to “mental health counseling* prior to or 

without a diagnosis.” A revision was implemented and tested in Wave 2 of the cognitive labs with 

eight participants. 

See below for the results from the revised Wave 2 item.

b. Diagnostic assessment* for mental health disorders*

Cognitive Testing Findings: Three principals had trouble understanding the term “diagnostic assessment” 

in this question. One principal noted that the terminology of this question made it difficult to answer because 

this is not her area and because the school does refer students for mental health services but they do not use 

these phrases (e.g., pre-diagnostic counseling, diagnostic assessment). This principal expressed particular 

confusion regarding the term diagnostic assessment.

Another principal had trouble finding a response that matched their school’s experience as the principal’s 

school does not do diagnostic assessments unless they are required under an individualized education 

program (IEP).

Initial Recommendation Following Wave 1: Following a discussion with NCES on January 20, 

2015, this item was not revised before testing in Wave 2 of the cognitive labs with eight participants. 

See below for the results from the revised Wave 2 item. 

c. Treatment* for mental health disorders*

Cognitive Testing Findings: Two principals had trouble understanding the meaning of the term 

“treatment.” One of these principals noted this part of the question was confusing because he defined 

treatment as counseling, which had previously been asked about. 

Initial Recommendation Following Wave 1: Following a discussion with NCES on January 20, 

2015, this item was not revised before testing in Wave 2 of the cognitive labs with eight participants.

See below for the results from the revised Wave 2 item. 
39

Item 18 (Wave 2), Findings

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

Eight principals received this item in Wave 2. Five principals had trouble with the structure of this question. 

Specifically, three principals found the matrix format confusing; one principal noted that it was hard to get 

what the question was asking because of its format; and one principal said that a “Don’t know” or “N/A” 

would be more appropriate.

Additionally, two principals had trouble understanding the term “mental health professional” and two 

principals had trouble understanding the meaning of “at school...employed by the school or district” in this 

question. Five principals had trouble understanding the term “formal relationship” in the context of this 

question, while one principal had trouble understanding the term “outside of school” in the context of this 

question.

Initial Recommendation Following Wave 2: Suggest changing “formal relationship” to 

“contracted by the school or district” and specifying that, for the last column, these professionals do 

not have a contract with the school or district.

Discussion: As many principals in Wave 2 were confused by the “formal relationship” language, it 

was agreed that this language would be removed from the column headers and replaced with “other 

than a school or district employee” to differentiate whether services are being provided by school 

personnel. 

Additionally, the last column (outside of school by a mental health professional* as a referral of 

the school or district) should be dropped to limit the question to services available to students and 

funded by schools. The matrix for the final questionnaire should contain the following three 

columns:
40

 AT SCHOOL* by a mental health professional* employed by the school or district

 AT SCHOOL* by a mental health professional* other than a school or district employee, 

funded by the school or district

 OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL by a mental health professional* other than a school or district 

employee, funded by the school or district

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise item. 

FINAL ITEM: During the 2015–16 school year, were the following mental health services 

available to students under the official responsibilities of a licensed mental health 

professional*?

Item 18 (Wave 2), Sub-item Findings

a. Mental health counseling* prior to or without a diagnosis

Cognitive Testing Findings: Three principals in Wave 2 had trouble understanding the meaning of 

“mental health counseling” in this question. For example, one of these principals noted that it was difficult 

to define counseling because it is used to address a wide range of issues—from student conflict resolution, to 

problems at home, to student cutting or self-harm—and because it can also include families in counseling 

that are referred to an agency. Another principal said that she didn’t see the difference between counseling in 

sub-item a and treatment in sub-item c since treatment includes counseling according to the definition.

Initial Recommendation Following Wave 2: In both iterations of this sub-item (Wave 1 and 

Wave 2), principals expressed difficulty with the term “counseling.” Principals indicated that the term 

was broad and difficult to define and were often not able to differentiate between whether it referred 

to mental health counseling or academic or other counseling.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census consulted with the mental health expert who served on the 

SSOCS TRP regarding this issue. The expert indicated that he did not think this counseling item 

belonged in this matrix because pre-diagnostic counseling was not typically done by a mental health 

professional in or through schools. At the point where a mental health professional is counseling a 

student, it would be considered the treatment stage, which is captured in sub-item c of this question.

Given the difficulty in principals’ interpretation of “counseling” and the input of the TRP member, it 

was recommended that this sub-item be removed from this item.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Remove item.

b. Diagnostic assessment* for mental health disorders*

Cognitive Testing Findings: Two principals had trouble understanding the meaning of the term 

“diagnostic assessment” in this question. One of these principals described this as going through the formal 

process of assessment for an IEP for an emotional disturbance. Additionally, two principals had trouble 

understanding the meaning of the term “mental health disorders” in this question.

Initial Recommendation Following Wave 2: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change.
41

c. Treatment* for mental health disorders*

Cognitive Testing Findings: No principals had trouble understanding the meaning of the term 

“treatment” in this question, but one principal had trouble understanding the meaning of the term “mental 

health disorders” in this question.

Initial Recommendation Following Wave 2: No change.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that no change was necessary to this item 

based on the cognitive interview findings and the removal of sub-item a. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change.

Item 19 (Wave 1), Findings

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

Of the nine principals who received this question, one principal had trouble understanding the phrase 

“mental health disorders,” and two principals had trouble understanding the phrase “conduct disorders” in 

the context of this question. 

Furthermore, three principals indicated that it was difficult to answer this question because “the question was 

blending together a lot of things” and because “there are a lot of students who act out or behave 

inappropriately.”

Initial Recommendation Following Wave 1: As a number of principals in Wave 1 had issues with 

the terms, phrasing, and structure of this question and found the item difficult to answer, following a 

discussion with NCES on January 20, 2015, it was recommended this item be revised for the 

remaining cognitive interviews. A revision was implemented and tested in Wave 2 of the cognitive 

labs with eight participants. 

See below for the results from the revised Wave 2 item.
42

Item 19 (Wave 2), Findings

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

Of the eight principals who received this item in Wave 2, four had trouble finding a response that matched 

their school’s experience, and three principals had trouble understanding the question. One principal had to 

read the question twice before answering and changed one of her answers after her initial response, while 

another principal indicated that she was having difficulty with the multiple parts of the question that needed 

to be addressed. One principal also had trouble understanding the phrase “conduct disorders” in the context 

of this question.

Finally, one principal felt that this question had a negative connotation and does not adequately address the 

point at which a student would be evaluated. She felt that not all students who display even somewhat 

repetitive problem behavior (e.g., disrupts class three times) should be assumed to have a disorder and tested.

Initial Recommendation Following Wave 2: Given the issues demonstrated during cognitive 

testing, this item may not be ready to field in the 2016 SSOCS questionnaire. It was recommended

that this item be refined through further research and the input of our mental health TRP consultant 

and that a revised version of this question undergo additional testing for possible inclusion in the 

next iteration of the SSOCS questionnaire.

Discussion: During further discussion, it became clear that the revised item was still confusing to 

principals and that further revisions to the item would require additional testing. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Further development needed. 

Remove this item from the 2015–16 questionnaire and continue development on it for possible 

inclusion in SSOCS:2018.

Item 20, Findings

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

All 17 principals received this item. Due to the placement of this item within the mental health framework, 

one principal was confused as to whether “threat assessment team” was referring to issues of mental health 

or issues of violence. Another principal said that of all the terms in this survey, “threat assessment team” was

the term most foreign to her.

Initial Recommendation: To alleviate confusion as to whether “threat assessment team” addresses

issues of mental health or violence, it was recommended that the items on threat assessment teams 

be moved to the “School Practices and Programs” section for the 2016 SSOCS questionnaire.

Discussion: NCES, AIR, and Census were in agreement that this item should be moved to the 

“School Practices and Programs” section for the 2016 SSOCS questionnaire and that no additional 

changes to the item are necessary.
43

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: No change, but relocate item. 

Move this item (and the subsequent item) to the “School Practices and Programs” section to follow 

the item on formal programs intended to prevent or reduce violence.

Item 21, Findings

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

All 17 principals received this item. Only one principal had difficult answering it, because the principal’s 

school has a threat assessment team that meets bi-weekly.

Initial Recommendation: It was recommended that this item be moved to the “School Practices 

and Programs” section for the 2016 SSOCS questionnaire.

Discussion: Further discussion led to the conclusion that the item should be moved (along with the 

above item) to the “School Practices and Programs” section and that the response options should be 

revised to address schools that may meet at intervals different from those listed. The response 

options were crafted to mirror those used in item 3517 in the final 2016 SSOCS questionnaire.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise and relocate item.

Move this item to the “School Practices and Programs” section to follow the above item on the 

existence of a threat assessment team. Additionally, revise the response options.

FINAL ITEM: During the 2015–16 school year, how often did your school’s threat 

assessment team* formally meet?

a. At least once a week.

b. At least once a month.

c. On occasion.

d. Never.

 

17 This item number is a reference to the numbering in the final 2016 SSOCS questionnaire; this item did not undergo cognitive testing and therefore is 

not included in this report.
44

Item 22, Findings

Cognitive Testing Findings: This is a new item proposed for SSOCS:2016.

All 17 principals received this question. One principal had trouble understanding this question and thought 

that the question was driving at whether it would be helpful to have a mental health professional at school. 

Furthermore, six principals indicated that it was difficult to answer this question: four principals noted that 

they had difficulty in answering the parts regarding legal issues, and two had difficulty answering the item on 

policies about schools’ liability to pay. Several principals indicated that it was difficult to distinguish between 

the three response choices for some items, including one principal who said that she could not gauge if 

things were a chronic or a minor need.

Additionally, four principals had trouble finding a response that matched their school’s experience: two 

principals felt that “support from the school community” was a missing option from this list; one principal

felt that the location of the school administration office might also be a factor, and one principal suggested 

access to formal relationships/outside providers was a limiting factor.

Initial Recommendation: Given the interpretive/subjective nature of this item, suggest adding “To 

the best of your knowledge” to the item stem to mirror similar items included in the questionnaire. 

Additionally, propose to add a sub-item on “support from the wider school community” since 

several principals noted this was a limiting factor.

Discussion: It was decided that “refer” should be removed from the stem of the item in order to 

focus the question solely on factors that limit schools’ ability to provide these mental health services. 

In order to clarify the distinction between sub-item c on legal issues and sub-item e on schools’ 

liability to pay for mental health services, it was also decided that sub-item e should be revised to 

avoid using legal-sounding language. Furthermore, NCES, AIR, and Census agreed that an additional 

sub-item on lack of community support should be added to this question as several principals 

identified this as a limiting factor. The recommendation to include “To the best of your knowledge”

was not implemented after further review of the language used in a similar historic SSOCS item; the 

current wording maintained consistency with the similar item.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Revise item.

Revise the item stem of tested sub-item e, and add a new item on lack of community support.
45

FINAL ITEM: During the 2015–16 school year, to what extent did the following factors 

limit your school’s efforts to provide mental health services to students?

a. Inadequate access to licensed mental health professionals*

b. Inadequate funding

c. Potential legal issues for school or districts (e.g., malpractice, insufficient supervision)

d. Lack of parental support in addressing their children’s mental health disorders*

e. Lack of community support for providing mental health services to students in your 

school

f. Written or unwritten policies regarding the school’s requirement to pay for the 

diagnostic assessment or treatment of students

g. Reluctance to label students with mental health disorders* to avoid stigmatizing the 

child
46

Attachment 1: SSOCS:2016 Cognitive Testing Questionnaire

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS 

 

SCHOOL SURVEY ON CRIME AND SAFETY

PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE

2014–15

NCES is authorized to conduct the School Survey on Crime and Safety by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 

(ESRA; 20 U.S.C. §9543). Your answers may be used only for statistical purposes and may not be disclosed, or used, in 

identifiable form for any other purpose except as required by law (20 U.S.C. §9573). Reports of the findings from the 

survey will not identify participating districts, schools, or staff. Individual responses will be combined with those from other 

participants to produce summary statistics and reports.

 

DRAFT FORM SSOCS-2016-COGLAB

(10-30-14)
47 SSOCS-2016-COGLAB (10-30-2014)

DEFINITIONS

The following words are bolded and marked by an asterisk (*) wherever they appear in the

questionnaire. Please use these definitions as you respond.

Active shooter – an individual actively engaged in killing or 

attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most 

cases, active shooters use firearm(s) and there is no pattern or 

method to their selection of victims.

At school/at your school – activities happening in school buildings, 

on school grounds, on school buses, and at places that hold schoolsponsored events or activities. Unless otherwise specified, this 

refers to normal school hours or to times when school 

activities/events were in session. 

Bullying – any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth 

or group of youths who are not siblings or current dating partners 

that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance and is 

repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated.

Community provider – a mental health professional who is not a 

school district employee. This may include professionals employed 

by local mental health or social service agencies.

Conduct disorder – refers to a group of behavioral and emotional 

problems that can occur in children and teens. A child with this 

disorder may display a pattern of disruptive and violent behavior and 

have problems following rules. Children with conduct disorder may 

exhibit some of the following behaviors: aggression to people and 

animals; destruction of property; deceitfulness, lying, or stealing; and 

serious violations of rules.

Counseling – the provision of information, assistance, and guidance 

to students with behavioral or mental health issues. This is in 

contrast to counselors who provide only academic counseling or 

college or career placement.

Cyberbullying – occurs when willful and repeated harm is inflicted 

through the use of computers, cell phones, or other electronic 

devices.

Diagnostic assessment – an evaluation conducted by a medical or 

mental health professional that identifies whether an individual has 

one or more medical and/or mental health diagnoses. This is in 

contrast to an educational assessment, which does not focus on 

clarifying a student’s diagnosis.

Evacuation – a procedure that requires all students and staff to 

leave the building. While evacuating to the school’s field makes 

sense for a fire drill that only lasts a few minutes, it may not be an 

appropriate location for a longer period of time. The evacuation plan 

should encompass relocation procedures and include backup 

buildings to serve as emergency shelters, such as nearby 

community centers, religious institutions, businesses, or other 

schools. Evacuation also includes “reverse evacuation,” a procedure 

for schools to return students to the building quickly if an incident 

occurs while students are outside. 

Firearm/explosive device – any weapon that is designed to (or may 

readily be converted to) expel a projectile by the action of an 

explosive. This includes guns, bombs, grenades, mines, rockets, 

missiles, pipe bombs, or similar devices designed to explode and 

capable of causing bodily harm or property damage. 

Hate crime – a criminal offense or threat against a person, 

property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the 

offender’s bias against a race, color, national origin, ethnicity, 

gender, religion, disability, or sexual orientation. 

Lockdown – a procedure that involves occupants of a school 

building being directed to remain confined to a room or area within 

a building with specific procedures to follow. A lockdown may be 

used for when a crisis occurs outside of the school and an 

evacuation would be dangerous. A lockdown may also be called for 

when there is a crisis inside and movement within the school will 

put students in jeopardy. All exterior doors are locked and students 

and staff stay in their classrooms. 

Mental health disorders – collectively all diagnosable mental 

disorders or health conditions that are characterized by alterations 

in thinking, mood, or behavior (or some combination thereof) 

associated with distress and/or impaired functioning.

Mental health professionals – mental health services are 

provided by several different professions, each of which has its own 

training and areas of expertise. Types of professionals who may 

provide mental health services include: psychiatrists, psychologists, 

psychiatric/mental health nurse practitioners, psychiatric/mental 

health nurses, clinical social workers, and professional counselors.

Restorative circle – a formal mediation process led by a facilitator 

that brings affected parties of a problem together to explore what 

happened, reflect on their roles, find a solution, and ultimately 

restore harmony to individual relationships and larger community.

Reunification plan – a procedure to return students to their homes 

and family as rapidly as possible. Schools need to have current 

plans that include names and telephone numbers of family and 

designated surrogates.

Stalking - a course of conduct directed at a specific person that 

involves repeated visual or physical proximity; nonconsensual 

communication; verbal, written, or implied threats; or a combination 

of these actions that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear. 

This includes cyber-stalking (threatening communication or 

unwanted advances directed at another person using the Internet 

and other forms of online and computer communications).

Shelter-in-place – a procedure similar to a lockdown in that the 

occupants are to remain on the premises; however, shelter-in-place 

is designed to use a facility and its indoor atmosphere to 

temporarily separate people from a hazardous outdoor 

environment. Everyone would be brought indoors and building 

personnel would close all windows and doors and shut down the 

heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system (HVAC). This 

would create a neutral pressure in the building, meaning the 

contaminated air would not be drawn into the building.

Threat assessment team – a formalized group of persons who 

meet on a regular basis with the common purpose of identifying, 

assessing, and managing students who may pose a threat of 

targeted violence in schools.

Treatment – a clinical service addressed at lessening or 

eliminating the symptoms of a disorder. In mental health, this may 

include psychotherapy, medication treatment, and/or counseling. 
48 SSOCS-2016-COGLAB (10-30-2014)

SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS: 

 For most questions, please mark the box that best reflects your school’s circumstances. Please mark your response 

with an "X".

 For questions that ask for counts or percents, please place an “X” in the None box, rather than leaving the item blank. 

 Definitions are available for many terms on page 2. Defined terms are bolded and marked with an asterisk (*) 

throughout the survey. 

 Some questions refer to the 2015–16 school year. Please report for the school year to date. 

 Please have this questionnaire filled out by the person most knowledgeable about school crime and policies to 

provide a safe environment. 

Paperwork Burden Statement

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 

valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this voluntary survey is 1850–0803. The time required to complete this 

survey is estimated to average 45 minutes, including the time to review instructions, gather the data needed, and complete and review

the survey. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate, suggestions for improving this survey, or any 

comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this survey, please write to: School Survey on Crime and 

Safety, National Center for Education Statistics, 1990 K Street, N.W., Room 9027, Washington, D.C. 20006.
49 DRAFT FORM SSOCS-2016-COGLAB (10-24-2014)

School Practices and Programs

1. During the 2014–15 school year, was it a practice of your school to do the following? 

 If your school changed its practices during the school year, please answer regarding your most recent practice.

 Check “Yes” or “No” on each line. 

YES NO

a. Require visitors to sign or check in and wear badges xxx 1 2

b. Require metal detector checks on students every day xxx 1 2

c. Equip classrooms with locks so that doors can be locked from the inside xxx 1 2

d. Have “panic buttons” or silent alarms that directly connect to law enforcement in the 

event of an incident

xxx 1 2

2. Does your school have a written plan on actions to be performed in the event of an emergency that describes the 

following procedures? If yes, has your school drilled students on the use of this procedure during the 2014–15

school year?

Have a written

plan?

If “Yes,” has your

school drilled

students on the plan

during the 2015–16

YES NO YES NO

a. Evacuation* xxx 1 2 xxx 1 2

b. Lockdown* xxx 1 2 xxx 1 2

c. Shelter-in-place* xxx 1 2 xxx 1 2

d. Reunification plan* xxx 1 2 xxx 1 2

3. Do your school’s emergency plans (as identified item 2) address the following crisis scenarios?

YES NO

a. Active shooter* xxx 1 2

b. Natural disasters (e.g. earthquakes or tornadoes) xxx 1 2

c. Hostages xxx 1 2

d. Bomb threats or incidents xxx 1 2

e. Chemical, biological, or radiological threats or incidents (e.g., release of mustard gas, 

anthrax, smallpox, or radioactive materials)

xxx 1 2

f. Suicide threat or incident xxx 1 2

h. Pandemic flu xxx 1 2

*Please use the definitions as provided on page 2.
50 DRAFT FORM SSOCS-2016-COGLAB (10-24-2014)

4. During the 2014–15 school year, did your school have any formal programs intended to prevent or reduce violence*

that included the following components for students?

 If a program has multiple components, answer "Yes" for each that applies.

 Check "Yes" or "No" on each line.

YES NO

a. Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training for students (e.g., conflict resolution, 

anti-bullying*, dating violence prevention)

xxx 1 2

b.

Behavioral or behavior modification intervention for students (including the use of 

positive reinforcements)

xxx 1 2

c. Student involvement in peer mediation xxx 1 2

d. Student court to address student conduct problems or minor offenses xxx 1 2

e. Student involvement in restorative circles* (e.g., “peace circles,” “talking circles,” 

“conflict circles”)

xxx 1 2

f. Social emotional learning (SEL) training for students (e.g., social skills, anger 

management, mindfulness)

xxx 1 2

5. During the 2014–15 school year, did your school have any recognized student groups with the following 

purposes?

 Check "Yes" or "No" on each line.

YES NO

a. Acceptance of LGBTQ students (e.g., Gay-Straight Alliance) xxx 1 2

b. Acceptance of students with disabilities (e.g., Best Buddies) xxx 1 2

c. Acceptance of cultural diversity xxx 1 2

*Please use the definitions as provided on page 2.
51 DRAFT FORM SSOCS-2016-COGLAB (10-24-2014)

School Security Staff

6. During the 2014–15 school year, did you have any School Resource Officers (career law enforcement officers with arrest 

authority, who have specialized training and are assigned to work in collaboration with school organizations) or 

other sworn law enforcement officers present at your school* at least once a week?

 Do not include security guards or other security personnel who are not sworn law enforcement in your response 

to this item; information on additional security staff is gathered in NEW ITEM 12.

 xxx 1 Yes 

2 No – GO TO ITEM 11 ON PAGE 7.

7. During the 2014–15 school year, did your school have a School Resource Officer or other sworn law enforcement officer 

present for all school hours every day that school was in session?

 Include officers who are used as temporary coverage while regularly assigned officers are performing duties 

external to the school (such as attending court) or during these officers’ personal leave time. 

 Check “No” if your school does not have officer coverage while regularly assigned officers are performing duties 

external to the school (such as attending court) or during these officers’ personal leave time.

 Do not include security guards or other security personnel who are not sworn law enforcement in your response 

to this item; information on additional security staff is gathered in item 12.

 xxx 1 Yes 

2 No

8. Did these School Resource Officers or other sworn law enforcement officers participate in the following activities at your 

school*?

 Do not include security guards or other security personnel who are not sworn law enforcement in your response 

to this item; information on additional security staff is gathered in item 12.

 Check “Yes” or “No” on each line.

School 

Resource 

officers

Other sworn law 

enforcement 

officers

YES NO YES NO

a. Motor vehicle traffic control xxx 1 2 xxx 1 2

b. Recording or reporting discipline problems xxx 1 2 xxx 1 2

c. Providing information to school authorities about the legal definitions of 

behavior for recording or reporting purposes

xxx 1 2 xxx 1 2

9. During the 2014–15 school year, did your school or school district have any formalized policies or written documents 

(e.g., Memorandum of Use, Memorandum of Agreement) that outlined the roles, responsibilities, and expectations 

of School Resource Officers or other sworn law enforcement officers at school?

xxx 1 Yes 

2 No - GO TO ITEM 11 ON PAGE 7.

*Please use the definitions as provided on page 2.
52 DRAFT FORM SSOCS-2016-COGLAB (10-24-2014)

10. Did these written documents or policies include language defining the role of School Resource Officers or other sworn 

law enforcement officers at school in the following areas?

 Check “Yes,” “No,” or “Don’t know” on each line.

YES NO Don’t know

a. Student discipline xxx 1 2 3

b. Use of physical restraints (e.g. handcuffs, Tasers, Mace, pepper 

spray, or other physical or chemical restraints)

xxx 1 2 3

c. Use of firearms* xxx 1 2 3

d. Making arrests on school grounds xxx 1 2 3

e. Reporting of criminal offenses to a law enforcement agency xxx 1 2 3

11. During the 2014–15 school year, were there any probation or parole officers present at your school* at least once a 

week?

xxx 1 Yes 

2 No

12. Aside from School Resource Officers or other sworn law enforcement officers, how many additional security guards or 

security personnel were present in your school at least once a week during the 2014–15 school year?

 If a security guard or other security personnel works full-time across various schools in the district, please 

count this person as “part-time” for your school.

 If none, please place an “X” in the None box.

Number 

at your school*

Security guards or security personnel

i. Full-Time

xxx None

ii. Part-Time xxx None

13. Please record the number of arrests that occurred at your school during the 2014–15 school year. Please include all 

arrests that occurred at school*, regardless of whether a student or non-student was arrested.

 If none, please place an “X” in the None box.

 xxx Number of arrests

 

 None

*Please use the definitions as provided on page 2.
1

Staff Training

14. During the 2014–15 school year, did your school or school district provide any of the following

for classroom teachers or aides?

 Check “Yes” or “No” on each line.

YES NO

a. Training in school-wide discipline policies and practices related to bullying* xxx 1 2

b. Training in school wide discipline policies and practices specifically related to 

cyberbullying*

xxx 1 2

c. Training in intervention and referral strategies for students displaying signs of mental 

health issues (e.g. depression, mood disorders, ADHD)

xxx 1 2

Number of Incidents

15. Please record the number of incidents that occurred at school* during the 2014–15 school year for the offenses listed 

below. (NOTE: The number in column 1 should be greater than or equal to the number in column 2).

 If none, please place an “X” in the None box.

Please provide information on:

 The number of incidents, not the number of victims or offenders.

 Recorded incidents, regardless of whether any disciplinary action was taken.

 Recorded incidents, regardless of whether students or non-students were involved.

 Incidents occurring before, during, or after normal school hours.

Column 1 Column 2

Total number

of recorded incidents

Number reported to police or

other law enforcement

a. Stalking* xxx None xxx None

16. During the 2014–15 school year, how many hate-crimes* occurred at your school*?

 If none, please place an “X” in the None box.

xxx Number of hate-crimes*

 

 

 None – GO TO ITEM 18 ON PAGE 9.

17. Were any of these hate-crimes* motivated by the offender’s bias against the following characteristics?

 Check “Yes” or “No” on each line Check “Yes” or “No” on each line.

YES NO

a. Race or color xxx 1 2

b. National origin or ethnicity xxx 1 2

c. Gender xxx 1 2

d. Religion xxx 1 2

e. Disability xxx 1 2
2

f. Sexual orientation or gender identity (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, 

questioning)

xxx 1 2

School Mental Health Services

(WAVE 1) 18. During the 2014–15 school year, were the following mental health services available to students under 

the official responsibilities of a licensed mental health professional*? If so, please indicate the location and provider 

for each mental health service that was available to students.

 If the service was available to students, mark “yes,” regardless of whether the service was used this school 

year.

 Check “Yes” or “No” for each type of service. 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY

Service was 

available

At school* by 

school or district 

employee

At school* by 

community provider*

as part of a relationship 

with the school/school 

district

Outside of the school 

by a community

provider* as part of a 

relationship with the 

school/school district

Outside of the school 

with a provider as a 

referral of the 

school/school district

YES NO

a. Pre-diagnostic

counseling*

xxx

1 2

xxx

1

xxx

2

xxx

3

xxx

4

b. Diagnostic 

assessment* for 

mental health 

disorders* xxx

1 2

xxx

1

xxx

2

xxx

3

xxx

4
3

*Please use the definitions as provided on page 2.

(WAVE 1) 19. During the 2014–15 school year, were all students who exhibited conduct disorder* behaviors evaluated 

by a mental health professional* to identify coexisting mental health disorders*?

 xxx 1 Yes 

2 No

c. Treatment* for 

mental health 

disorders*

xxx

1 2

xxx

1

xxx

2

xxx

3

xxx

4

(WAVE 2) 18. During the 2014–15 school year, were the following mental health services available to students 

under the official responsibilities of a licensed mental health professional*? 

 If the service was available to students, mark “yes,” regardless of whether the service was used this 

school year.

 Check “Yes” or “No” for each type of service available to students.

Service was available to students...

AT SCHOOL*

by a mental health 

professional* employed by 

the school or district

AT SCHOOL*

by a mental health 

professional* as part of a 

formal relationship with the 

school or district

OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL 

by a mental health 

professional* as part of 

a formal relationship 

with the school or 

district

OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL

by a mental health 

professional* as a 

referral of the school or 

district

a. Mental health

counseling* 

prior to or 

without a 

diagnosis

xxx 1 Yes 2 N

o

xxx 1 Yes 2 No xxx 1 Yes 2 No xxx 1 Yes 2 N

o

b. Diagnostic 

assessment* for 

mental health 

disorders*

xxx 1 Yes 2 N

o

xxx 1 Yes 2 No xxx 1 Yes 2 No xxx 1 Yes 2 N

o

c. Treatment* for 

mental health 

disorders*

xxx 1 Yes 2 N

o

xxx 1 Yes 2 No xxx 1 Yes 2 No xxx 1 Yes 2 N

o

22. During the 2014–15 school year, to what extent did the following factors limit your school’s efforts to provide or refer 

students for mental health services?

 Check one response on each line.
4

(WAVE 2) 19. To the best of your knowledge, during the 2014–15 school year, was it the practice of your school to 

recommend that students exhibiting problem behaviors (e.g., stealing, assault, lying, destruction of property, etc.)

be evaluated by a mental health professional* for both conduct disorder* and coexisting mental health 

disorders*?

 1 Yes, all students exhibiting conduct problem behaviors were recommended for both evaluations

2 That recommendation was made in some situations

3 No, our school did not make these recommendations

4 Not applicable, no students exhibited problem disorder behaviors during this school year

20. During the 2014–15 school year, did your school have a threat assessment team* or any other formal group of 

persons to identify students who might be a potential risk for violent or harmful behavior (towards themselves or 

others)?

 xxx 1 Yes 

2 No – GO TO ITEM 22 ON PAGE 10.

21. During the 2014–15 school year, how often did your school’s threat assessment team* formally meet?

 Check one response.

xxx 1 Weekly

2 Monthly

3 Occasionally

4 Never

*Please use the definitions as provided on page 2.

Attachment 2: SSOCS:2016 Cognitive Testing Tracking

SSOCS Cognitive Testing Tracking

Program Name Sample Surveys Division: Cross-Sectional Surveys Branch, NCES

Study Name 2015–16 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) Cognitive Interviews

OMB Clearance Date 11/7/2014

Recruitment Efforts Start Date 11/20/2014

Data Collection Start Date 12/15/2014 

Limits in 

major way

Limits in 

minor way

Does not 

limit

a. Inadequate access to licensed mental health professionals* xxx 1 2 3

b. Inadequate funding xxx 1 2 3

c. Potential legal issues for school or districts (e.g., malpractice, 

insufficient supervision) xxx 1 2 3

d. Lack of parental support in addressing their children’s mental 

health issues xxx 1 2 3

e. Written or unwritten policies regarding the school’s potential 

liability to pay for these services xxx 1 2 3

f. Reluctance to label students with mental health disorders* to 

avoid stigmatizing the child xxx 1 2 3
5

Data Collection End Date 02/04/2015 

Target Principal Number 20

Type of research (cognitive 

interview, usability study, focus 

group)

Cognitive interview

Target participants* (key 

demographic characteristics)

5 participants from primary schools

3 participants from middle schools 

8 participants from high schools

1 participant from a combined school 

2 participants from schools with a total enrollment of less than 300 

2 participants from schools with a total enrollment between 300 and 499 

9 participants from schools with a total enrollment between 500 and 999 

4 participants from schools with a total enrollment of 1,000 or more 

9 participants from schools located in urban areas 

4 participants from schools located in suburban areas 

3 participants from schools located in towns 

1 participant from schools located in rural areas 

2 participants from schools with more than 95 percent White enrollment 

2 participants from schools with more than 80 to 95 percent White enrollment 

5 participants from schools with more than 50 to 80 percent White enrollment 

8 participants from schools with 50 percent or less White enrollment 

Expected interview length

(in minutes) 90 minutes

Mode of the interview (e.g., in 

person, WebEx, telephone) 3 WebEx, 11 phone, 3 in-person (17 total)

Location where interviews 

were conducted (participant’s 

home, participant’s business, 

focus group facility, or location 

convenient for participant [e.g., a 

coffee shop])

14 interviews conducted remotely; 3 in-person interviews conducted at 

participants’ schools

Source of participants 

(pre-recruited database, 

advertisements, etc.)

ONLINE ADVERTISING (resulting in approximately 2 interviews) (e.g., 

Craigslist ads; Young Education Professionals Listserv in DC and Boston; 

Reddit advertisements; social media)

POINT-OF-CONTACT (resulting in approximately 8 interviews) (e.g., 

professional and personal contacts of contractor [AIR] staff in DC, Chicago, 

and Boston; NCES staff forum)

TARGETED E-MAILS/CALLS (resulting in approximately 7 interviews) (e.g., 

e-mails to state administrator associations; e-mails and reminder e-mails to 

over 600 principals in targeted school districts; direct calls to over 100 

principals in targeted school districts)

Number of eligible 

participants screened

Outreached to 700+ potential participants; contact was made with 

approximately 60 people:

 18 people were screened and were not eligible to participate

 25 screened and eligible, but did not participate

 17 screened and eligible, and participated in an interview

Final number of interviews 

conducted 17 interviews

Incentive offered $40 for in-person interviews; $25 for remote interviews
6

Participant travel allowance, 

parking reimbursement in 

addition to honorarium, etc. 

(if applicable)

none

Any other funds paid to 

principal (e.g., bonus for 

arriving at all or early, referral 

bonus, child care allowance)

none

Any nonmonetary 

gratuities/gifts to participants

(e.g., food provided, free parking, 

child care, gift cards)

none

Urbanicity of area where 

interview took place 9 urban; 4 suburb; 3 town; and 1 rural

Time of day interviews were 

scheduled 9 a.m.–7 p.m.

Days of the week interviews 

were scheduled Monday–Friday

*Participants will fit into more than one category.