Juvenile Delinquency

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014

NCES 2015-072 NCJ 248036

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 JULY 2015

Simone Robers American Institutes for Research

Anlan Zhang American Institutes for Research

Rachel E. Morgan Bureau of Justice Statistics

Lauren Musu-Gillette Project Officer National Center for Education Statistics

NCES 2015-072 NCJ 248036

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

ii

U.S. Department of Education Arne Duncan Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences Sue Betka Acting Director

National Center for Education Statistics Peggy G. Carr Acting Commissioner

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

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

July 2015

This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Statistics under Contract No. ED-IES- 12-D-0002 with American Institutes for Research. Mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Suggested Citation

This publication can be downloaded from the World Wide Web at http://nces.ed.gov or http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov.

Contact at NCES Lauren Musu-Gillette 202-502-7691 [email protected]

Contact at BJS Rachel E. Morgan 202-616-1707 [email protected]

U.S. Department of Justice Loretta E. Lynch Attorney General

Office of Justice Programs Karol V. Mason Assistant Attorney General

Bureau of Justice Statistics William J. Sabol Director

Robers, S., Zhang, A., Morgan, R.E., and Musu-Gillette, L. (2015). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 (NCES 2015-072/NCJ 248036). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 iii

Introduction Executive Summary

Our nation’s schools should be sa fe havens for teaching and learning, free of crime and violence. Any instance of crime or violence at school not only affects the individuals involved, but also may disrupt the educational process and affect bystanders, the school itself, and the surrounding community (Brookmeyer, Fanti, and Henrich 2006; Goldstein, Young, and Boyd 2008).

Establishing reliable indicators of the current state of school crime and safety across the nation and regularly updating and monitoring these indicators are important in ensuring the safety of our nation’s students. This is the aim of Indicators of School Crime and Safety.

This report covers topics such as victimization, teacher injury, bullying and cyber-bullying, school conditions, fights, weapons, availability and student use of drugs and alcohol, student perceptions of personal safety at school, and criminal incidents at postsecondary institutions. Indicators of crime and safety are compared across different population subgroups and over time. Data on crimes that occur away from school are offered as a point of comparison where available.

Key Findings

The following key findings are drawn from each section of the report.

Violent Deaths

x Of the 45 student, staff, and nonstudent school- associated violent deaths occurring between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012, there were 26 homicides, 14 suicides, and 5 legal intervention deaths.7 Of these 45 deaths, there were 15 homicides, 5 suicides, and 0 legal intervention deaths of school-age youth (ages 5–18) at school. (Indicator 1).

Preliminary data show that there were 45 school- associated violent deaths1 from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. (Indicator 1). In 2013, among students ages 12–18, there were about 1,420,900 nonfatal victimizations at school,2 which included 454,900 theft victimizations3 and 966,000 violent victimizations4 (simple assault and serious violent victimizations5). (Indicator 2). Out of 791 total hate crimes6 reported on college campuses in 2012, the most common type of hate crime reported by institutions was destruction, damage, and vandalism (412  incidents), followed by intimidation (261  incidents), simple assault (79 incidents), aggravated assault (14 incidents), larceny (11 incidents), robbery (5 incidents), burglary (5  incidents), and forcible sex offenses (4 incidents; Indicator 23).

This report is the seventeenth in a series of annual publications produced jointly by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Institute of Education Sciences (IES), in the U.S. Department of Education, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in the U.S. Department of Justice. This report presents the most recent data available on school crime and student safety. The indicators in this report are based on information drawn from a variety of data sources, including national surveys of students, teachers, principals, and postsecondary institutions. Sources include results from the School-Associated Violent Deaths Study, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, the Department of Justice, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the National Crime Victimization Survey and School Crime Supplement to that survey, sponsored by BJS and NCES, respectively; the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, sponsored by the CDC; the Schools and Staffing Survey and School Survey on Crime and Safety, both sponsored by NCES; the Supplementary Homicide Reports, sponsored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; EDFacts, sponsored by NCES; and the Campus Safety and Security Survey, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education. The most recent data collection for each indicator varied by survey, from 2009 to 2013. Each data source has an independent sample design, data collection method, and questionnaire design, or is the result of a universe data collection. All comparisons described in this report are statistically significant at the .05 level. Additional information about methodology and the datasets analyzed in this report may be found in appendix A.

1 A “school-associated violent death” is defined as “a homicide, suicide, or legal intervention (involving a law enforcement officer), in which the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school in the United States, while the victim was on the way to or from regular sessions at school or while the victim was attending or traveling to or from an official school-sponsored event.” Victims of school-associated violent deaths include students, staff members, and others who are not students or staff members. 2 “At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. 3 “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse-snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, with the exception of motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery, which involves the threat or use of force and is classified as a violent crime. 4 “Violent victimization” includes serious violent crimes and simple assault. 5 “Serious violent victimization” includes the crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. 6 A hate crime is a criminal offense that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the perpetrator’s bias against the victim(s) based on their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability. 7 A legal intervention death is defined as a death caused by police and other persons with legal authority to use deadly force, excluding legal executions.

Executive Summaryiv

x During the 2011–12 school year, 15 of the 1,199 homicides among school-age youth ages 5–18 occurred at school.8 During the 2011 calendar year, 5 of the 1,568 suicides of school-age youth ages 5–18 occurred at school. (Indicator 1).

Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization

x In 2013, among students ages 12–18, there were about 1,420,900 nonfatal victimizations at school,9 which included 454,900 theft victimizations10 and 966,000 violent victimizations11 (simple assault and serious violent victimizations12). (Indicator 2).

x In 2013, students ages 12–18 experienced higher rates of nonfatal victimizations at school than away from school. That year, they experienced 55 victimizations per 1,000 students at school and 30 per 1,000 students away from school. (Indicator 2).

x In 2013, the rate of violent victimization at school (37 per 1,000 students) was greater than the rate of violent victimization away from school (15 per 1,000 students). This difference was driven primarily by higher rates of simple assault at school (33 per 1,000 students) than away from school that year (9 per 1,000; Indicator 2).

x In 2013, students experienced about 5 serious violent victimizations per 1,000 students at school and 6 victimizations per 1,000 students away from school. (Indicator 2).

x In 2013, the total victimization rate at school was greater for students ages 12–14 (67 per 1,000 students) compared with students ages 15–18 (44 per 1,000 students; Indicator 2).

x Between 1992 and 2013, the total victimization rates for students ages 12–18 generally declined both at and away from school. (Indicator 2).

8 This finding is drawn from the School-Associated Violent Deaths Study (SAVD), which defines “at school” for survey respondents as on school property, on the way to or from regular sessions at school, and while attending or traveling to or from a school-sponsored event. 9 This finding is drawn from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which defines “at school” for survey respondents as inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. 10 “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse-snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, with the exception of motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery, which involves the threat or use of force and is classified as a violent crime. 11 “Violent victimization” includes serious violent crimes and simple assault. 12 “Serious violent victimization” includes the crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

x In 2013, approximately 3 percent of students ages 12–18 reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months. Two percent of students reported theft, 1 percent reported violent victimization, and less than one-half of 1 percent reported serious violent victimization. (Indicator 3).

x Between 1995 and 2013, the percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being victimized at school during the previous 6  months decreased overa ll (from 10 to 3 percent), a s did the percentages of students who reported theft (from 7 to 2 percent), violent victimization (from 3 to 1 percent), and serious violent victimization (from 1 percent to less than one-half of 1 percent; Indicator 3).

x About 7 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported being threatened or injured with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property13 in 2013. The percentage of students who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property has decreased over the last decade, from 9 percent in 2003 to 7 percent in 2013. (Indicator 4 ).

x In each survey year from 1993 to 2013, a higher percentage of males than of females in grades 9 –12 reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property. In 2013, approximately 8 percent of males and 6 percent of females reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property. The percentage of males who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property was lower in 2013 than in 2011 (8 vs. 10 percent); however, the percentages for females were not measurably different between these two years. (Indicator 4 ).

x In 2013, a higher percentage of students in grades 9–12 reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property 1 time (3 percent) than reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property 2 or 3 times (2  percent), 4 to 11 times (1 percent), or 12 or more times (1 percent; Indicator 4 ).

x During the 2011–12 school year, a higher perc ent a ge of publ ic t h a n pr ivate sc hool teachers reported being threatened with injury (10 vs. 3 percent) or being physically attacked (6 vs. 3 percent) by a student from their school. (Indicator 5).

13 “On school property” was not defined for survey respondents.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 v

x Ten percent of elementary teachers and 9 percent of secondary teachers reported being threatened by a student from their school in 2011–12. The percentage of elementary teachers who reported being physically attacked by a student was higher than the percentage of secondary teachers (8 vs. 3 percent; Indicator 5).

School Environment

x During the 2009–10 school year, 85 percent of public schools recorded that one or more crime incidents had taken place at school,14 amounting to an estimated 1.9 million crimes. This translates to a rate of 40 crimes per 1,000 public school students enrolled in 2009–10. During the same year, 60 percent of public schools reported a crime incident that occurred at school to the police, amounting to 689,000 crimes—or 15 crimes per 1,000 public school students enrolled. (Indicator 6 ).

x In 2009–10, about 74 percent of public schools recorded one or more violent incidents of crime, 16 percent recorded one or more serious violent incidents, 44 percent recorded one or more thefts, and 68 percent recorded one or more other incidents.15 Forty percent of public schools reported at least one violent incident to police, 10 percent reported at least one serious violent incident to police, 25 percent reported at least one theft to police, and 46 percent reported one or more other incidents to police. (Indicator 6 ).

x During the 2009–10 school year, 23 percent of public schools reported that bullying occurred among students on a daily or weekly basis, and 3 percent reported widespread disorder in classrooms on a daily or weekly basis. (Indicator 7).

x Sixteen percent of public schools reported that gang activities had occurred during the 2009–10 school year, and 2 percent reported that cult or extremist activities had occurred during this period. The percentages of public schools that reported gang activity at all at their schools during the school year decreased from 20 percent in 2007–08 to 16 percent in 2009–10. (Indicator 7).

14 “At school” was defined for respondents to include activities that happen in school buildings, on school grounds, on school buses, and at places that hold school-sponsored events or activities. Respondents were instructed to include incidents that occurred before, during, or after normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session. 15 “Other incidents” include possession of a firearm or explosive device; possession of a knife or sharp object; distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs or alcohol; vandalism; and inappropriate distribution, possession, or use of prescription  drugs.

x Nine percent of public schools reported that student acts of disrespect for teachers other than verbal abuse occurred at least once a week in 2009–10, lower than the 11 percent in 2007–08. (Indicator 7).

x The percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported that gangs were present at their school decreased from 18 percent in 2011 to 12 percent in 2013. A higher percentage of students from urban areas (18 percent) reported a gang presence than students from suburban (11 percent) and rural areas (7 percent) in 2013. (Indicator 8).

x A higher percentage of students attending public schools (13 percent) than of students attending private schools (2 percent) reported that gangs were present at their school in 2013. (Indicator 8).

x In 2013, higher percentages of Hispanic (20 percent) and Black (19 percent) students reported the presence of gangs at their school than White (7 percent) and Asian (9 percent) students. (Indicator 8).

x The percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on school property increased from 1993 to 1995 (from 24 to 32 percent), but then decreased to 22 percent in 2013. (Indicator 9).

x In 2013, lower percentages of Black students (19 percent) and White students (20 percent) than of Hispanic students (27 percent) and students of Two or more races (26 percent) reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on school property. (Indicator 9).

x A lower percentage of 12th-graders than of 9th-, 10th-, or 11th-graders reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on school property in 2013; that year, 19 percent of 12th-graders reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on school property, compared with 22 percent of 9th-graders and 23 percent each of 10th- and 11th-graders. (Indicator 9).

x The percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being the target of hate-related words decreased from 12 percent in 2001 (the first year of data collection for this item) to 7 percent in 2013. The percentage of students who reported being the target of hate-related words in 2013 was lower than the percentage in 2011 (9 percent; Indicator 10).

x The percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported seeing hate-related graffiti at school decreased from 36 percent in 1999 (the first year of data collection for this item) to 25 percent in

Executive Summaryvi

2013. The percentage of students who reported seeing hate-related graffiti in 2013 was lower than the percentage in 2011 (28 percent; Indicator 10).

x In 2013, a lower percentage of White students than students of any other race/ethnicity reported being called a hate-related word during the school year. About 5 percent of White students reported being called a hate-related word, compared with 7 percent of Hispanic students, 8 percent of Black students, 10 percent of Asian students, and 11 percent of students of other races/ethnicities. There were no measurable differences by race/ ethnicity, however, in the percentages of students who reported seeing hate-related graffiti at school in 2013. (Indicator 10).

x In 2013, about 22 percent of students ages 12–18 reported being bullied at school during the school year. Higher percentages of females than of males reported that they were made fun of, called names, or insulted (15 vs. 13 percent); were the subject of rumors (17 vs. 10 percent); and were excluded from activities on purpose (5 vs. 4 percent). In contrast, a higher percentage of males (7 percent) than of females (5 percent) reported being pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on. (Indicator 11).

x In 2013, approximately 7 percent of students ages 12–18 reported being cyber-bullied anywhere during the school year. A higher percentage of female students than of male students reported being victims of cyber-bullying overall (9 vs. 5 percent; Indicator 11).

x In 2013, about 33 percent of students who reported being bullied at school indicated that they were bullied at least once or twice a month during the school year, and about 27 percent of students who reported being cyber-bullied anywhere indicated that they were cyber-bullied at least once or twice a month. A higher percentage of students reported notifying an adult after being bullied at school than after being cyber-bullied anywhere (39 vs. 23 percent; Indicator 11).

x The percentage of students who reported being bullied was lower in 2013 (22 percent) than in every prior survey year (28 percent each in 2005, 2009, and 2011 and 32 percent in 2007). The same pattern was observed across many of the student and school characteristics examined. (Indicator 11).

x In 2011–12, about 38 percent of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that student misbehavior interfered with their teaching, and 35 percent reported that student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching. Sixty-nine percent

of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that other teachers at their school enforced the school rules, and 84 percent reported that the principal enforced the school rules. (Indicator 12).

x The percentage of teachers who reported that student misbehavior interfered with their teaching f luctuated between 1993 –94 and 2011–12; however, the percentage of teachers reporting that student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching increased over this time period (from 25 to 35 percent). Between 1993–94 and 2011–12, the percentage of teachers who reported that school rules were enforced by other teachers fluctuated between 64 and 73 percent, and the percentage who reported that rules were enforced by the principal f luctuated between 82 and 89 percent. (Indicator 12).

x A higher percentage of public school teachers (41 percent) than of private school teachers (22 percent) reported that student misbehavior interfered with their teaching in 2011–12. In addition, 38 percent of public school teachers reported that student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching, compared with 19 percent of private school teachers. During the same year, lower percentages of public school teachers than of private school teachers agreed that school rules were enforced by other teachers (68 vs. 77 percent) and by the principal in their school (84 vs. 89 percent; Indicator 12).

Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances

x In 2013, about 25 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported that they had been in a physical fight anywhere during the previous 12 months, and 8 percent reported that they had been in a physical fight on school property during this time period. (Indicator 13).

x The percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported being in a physical fight any where decreased between 1993 and 2013 (from 42 to 25 percent), and the percentage of students in these grades who reported being in a physical fight on school property also decreased during this period (from 16 to 8 percent; Indicator 13).

x In 2013, a lower percentage of 12th-graders than of 9th-, 10th-, and 11th-graders reported being in a physical fight, either anywhere or on school property during the previous 12 months. Higher percentages of Black students than of students of Two or more races, Hispanic students, Pacific Islander students, White students, and Asian students reported being in a physical fight anywhere or on school property during this time period. (Indicator 13).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 vii

x In 2013, about 19 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported being in a physical fight anywhere 1 to 3 times, 4 percent reported being in a physical fight anywhere 4 to 11 times, and 2 percent reported being in a physical fight anywhere 12 or more times during the previous 12 months. About 7 percent of students in these grades reported being in a physical fight on school property 1 to 3 times, 1 percent reported being in a physical fight on school property 4 to 11 times, and less than 1 percent reported being in a physical fight on school property 12 or more times during the 12-month period. (Indicator 13).

x The percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon on school property in the previous 30 days declined from 12 percent in 1993 to 5 percent in 2013. The percentage of students carrying weapons anywhere was lower in 2013 (18 percent) than in 1993 (22 percent; Indicator 14 ).

x In 2013, a higher percentage of White students (21  percent) than of Hispanic students (16 percent), Pacific Islander and Black students (13 percent each), and Asian students (9 percent) reported carrying a weapon anywhere in the previous 30 days. Also, a higher percentage of White students (6  percent) than of Black students (4 percent) reported carrying a weapon on school property during the previous 30 days. (Indicator 14 ).

x The percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported that they had access to a loaded gun without adult permission, either at school or away from school, during the current school year decreased from 7 percent in 2007 to 4 percent in 2013. (Indicator 14 ).

x Between 1993 and 2013, the percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported having at least one drink of alcohol during the previous 30 days decreased from 48 to 35 percent. (Indicator 15).

x In 2013, about 47 percent of 12th-graders reported consuming alcohol on at least 1 day during the previous 30 days. This percentage was higher than the percentages for 9th-graders (24 percent), 10th-graders (31 percent), and 11th- graders (39 percent; Indicator 15).

x In 2011, some 5 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported having at least one drink of alcohol on school property, which was not measurably different from the percentage in 1993. (Indicator 15).

x In 2013, some 23 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported using marijuana at least one time in the previous 30 days, which was a higher percentage than that reported in 1993 (18 percent) but not measurably different from that reported in 2011. (Indicator 16 ).

x In every survey year between 1993 and 2011, higher percentages of male students than of female students reported using marijuana at least one time in the previous 30 days; in 2013, however, there was no measurable difference in the percentages reported by male and female students (25 and 22 percent, respectively; Indicator 16 ).

x In 2013, the percentages of Asian students (16  percent) and White students (20 percent) who reported using marijuana at least one time during the previous 30 days were lower than the percentages reported by Hispanic students (28 percent), Black students and students of Two or more races (29 percent each), and American Indian/A laska Native students (36 percent; Indicator 16 ).

x In 2011, some 6 percent of students reported using marijuana at least one time on school property, which was not measurably different from the percentage in 1993. In every survey year between 1993 and 2011, higher percentages of male students than of female students reported using marijuana on school property at least one time in the previous 30 days. (Indicator 16 ).

Fear and Avoidance

x The percentage of students who reported being afraid of attack or harm at school or on the way to and from school decreased from 12 percent in 1995 to 3 percent in 2013, and the percentage of students who reported being afraid of attack or harm away from school decreased from 6 percent in 1999 to 3 percent in 2013. (Indicator 17).

x In 2013, higher percentages of Black and Hispanic students than of White students reported being afraid of attack or harm both at school and away from school. Additionally, higher percentages of students in urban areas than of students in suburban areas reported being afraid of attack or harm both at school and away from school. (Indicator 17).

Executive Summaryviii

x In 2013, about 5 percent of students reported that they avoided at least one school activity or class16 or one or more places in school17 during the previous school year because they feared being attacked or harmed.18 Specifically, 2 percent of students reported avoiding at least one school activity or class, and 4 percent reported avoiding one or more places in school. (Indicator 18).

x A higher percentage of Hispa nic students (5  percent) than of White students (3 percent) reported avoiding one or more places in school in 2013. In addition, a higher percentage of public school students (4 percent) than of private school students (1 percent) reported avoiding one or more places in school. (Indicator 18).

Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures

x During the 2009–10 school year, 39 percent of public schools (about 32,300 schools) took at least one serious disciplinary action against a student for specific offenses. Of the 433,800 serious disciplinary actions taken during the 2009–10 school year, 74 percent were suspensions for 5 days or more, 20 percent were transfers to specialized schools, and 6 percent were removals with no services for the remainder of the school year. (Indicator 19).

x Between the 2003 – 04 and 2011–12 school y e a r s , t he p e rc e nt a g e of pu bl ic s c ho ol s reporting that they required that students wear uniforms increased from 13 to 19 percent. Also, the percentages of public schools reporting the following security measures were higher in 2011–12 than in 2003–04: using security cameras to monitor the school; controlling ac c e ss to bu i ld ing s du ring school hou rs; and controlling access to grounds during school hours. (Indicator 20).

x During the 2011–12 school year, 88 percent of public schools reported that they controlled access to school buildings by locking or monitoring doors during school hours, and 64 percent

16 “Avoided school activities or classes” includes student reports of three activities: avoiding any (extracurricular) activities, avoiding any classes, or staying home from school. Before 2007, students were asked whether they avoided “any extracurricular activities.” Starting in 2007, the survey wording was changed to “any activities.” Caution should be used when comparing changes in this item over time. 17 “Avoiding one or more places in school” includes student reports of five activities: avoiding the entrance, any hallways or stairs, parts of the cafeteria, restrooms, and other places inside the school building. 18 For the 2001 survey only, the wording was changed from “attack or harm” to “attack or threaten to attack.” See appendix A for more information.

reported that they used security cameras to monitor the school. (Indicator 20).

x During the 2009–10 school year, 43 percent of public schools reported the presence of one or more security staff at their school at least once a week during the school year. Twenty-nine percent of schools reported having at least one full-time employed security staff member who was present at least once a week, and 14 percent of schools reported having only part-time staff. Twenty- eight percent of all schools reported the presence of security staff routinely carrying a firearm at school. (Indicator 20).

x In 2013, nearly all students ages 12–18 reported that they observed the use of at least one of the selected security measures at their schools. Most students ages 12–18 reported that their schools had a written code of student conduct and a requirement that visitors sign in (96 percent each). Approximately 90 percent of students reported the presence of school staff (other than security guards or assigned police officers) or other adults supervising the hallway, 77 percent reported the presence of one or more security cameras to monitor the school, and 76 percent reported locked entrance or exit doors during the day. Eleven percent of students reported the use of metal detectors at their schools, representing the least observed of the selected safety and security measures. (Indicator 21).

x About 76 percent of students ages 12–18 reported observing locked entrance or exit doors during the day in 2013, representing an increase from 65 percent in 2011 as well as an overall increase from 38 percent in 1999. (Indicator 21).

Postsecondary Campus Safety and Security

x In 2012, there were 29,500 criminal incidents at public and private 2-year and 4-year postsecondary institutions that were reported to police and securit y agencies, representing a 4 percent decrease from 2011 (30,700). There was also a decrease in the number of on-campus crimes per 10,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students, from 20.0 in 2011 to 19.4 in 2012. (Indicator 22).

x The number of disciplinary referrals for drug law violations reported by public and private 2-year and 4-year postsecondary institutions increased from 20.5 per 10,000 students in 2001 to 35.6 per 10,000 students in 2012. Also, the number of referrals for liquor law violations per 10,000 students was higher in 2012 (127.4) than in 2001 (111.3). In contrast, the number of referrals per 10,000 students for illegal weapons

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 ix

possession was lower in 2012 (0.9) than in 2001 (1.1; Indicator 22).

x The number of arrests for weapons possession reported by public and private 2-year and 4-year postsecondary institutions was 4 percent lower in 2012 than in 2001 (1,000 vs. 1,100). Arrests for drug law violations increased by 76 percent during this period, reaching 20,800, and arrests for liquor law violations rose by 8 percent, reaching 29,500. (Indicator 22).

x Out of the 791 total hate crimes reported on college campuses in 2012, the most common type of hate crime reported by institutions was destruction,

damage, and vandalism (412 incidents), followed by intimidation (261 incidents), simple assault (79 incidents), aggravated assault (14 incidents), larceny (11  incidents), robbery (5 incidents), burglary (5  incidents), and forcible sex offenses (4 incidents; Indicator 23).

x Race-related hate crimes accounted for 46 percent of reported vandalisms classified as hate crimes, 45 percent of reported intimidations, and 44 percent of reported simple assaults in 2012. Additionally, one-quarter of vandalism and intimidation hate crimes and 28 percent of simple assaults were classified with sexual orientation as the motivating bias. (Indicator 23).

This page intentionally left blank.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 xi

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 provides the most recent national indicators on school crime and safety. The information presented in this report is intended to serve as a reference for policymakers and practitioners so that they can develop effective programs and policies aimed at violence and school crime prevention. Accurate information about the nature, extent, and scope of the problem being addressed is essentia l for developing effective programs and policies.

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

The 2014 edition of Indicators of School Crime and Safety includes the most recent available data, compiled from a number of statistical data sources supported by the federal government. Such sources include results from the School-Associated Violent Deaths Study, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, the Department of Justice, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the National Crime Victimization Survey and School Crime Supplement to the survey, sponsored

by the BJS and NCES, respectively; the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, sponsored by the CDC; the Schools and Staffing Survey and School Survey on Crime and Safety, both sponsored by NCES; the Supplementary Homicide Reports, sponsored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; EDFacts, sponsored by NCES; and the Campus Safety and Security Survey, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education.

The entire report is available on the Internet (http://nces.ed.gov/progra ms/crimeindicators/ crimeindicators2014/). The Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics continue to work together in order to provide timely and complete data on the issues of school-related violence and safety.

Peggy G. Carr Acting Commissioner National Center for Education Statistics

William J. Sabol Director Bureau of Justice Statistics

Foreword

Acknowledgmentsxii

The authors are grateful to the sponsoring agencies, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), for supporting this report.

From BJS, we wish to thank Allen Beck, Gerard Ramker, Howard Snyder, Michael Planty, Doris James, Jill Thomas, and Vanessa Curto, who served as reviewers, and Elizabeth Davis, who verified data

Acknowledgments from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Outside of NCES and BJS, Nancy Brener, Mark Anderson, Jeffrey Hall, and Kristin Holland of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention generously provided data and performed a review of data documentation. We also value the review of this report and the continued support provided by the Office of Safe and Healthy Students.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 xiii

Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... iii Foreword .....................................................................................................................................................xi Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................xii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. xiv List of Figures .........................................................................................................................................xviii

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Violent Deaths ............................................................................................................................................ 5

Indicator 1: Violent Deaths at School and Away From School ............................................................ 6 Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization .............................................................................................. 9

Indicator 2: Incidence of Victimization at School and Away From School ........................................ 10 Indicator 3: Prevalence of Victimization at School ........................................................................... 16 Indicator 4: Threats and Injuries With Weapons on School Property ............................................... 20 Indicator 5: Teachers Threatened With Injury or Physically Attacked by Students ........................... 24

School Environment.................................................................................................................................. 27 Indicator 6: Violent and Other Crime Incidents at Public Schools, and Those

Reported to the Police ................................................................................................................. 28 Indicator 7: Discipline Problems Reported by Public Schools .......................................................... 34 Indicator 8: Students’ Reports of Gangs at School ............................................................................ 38 Indicator 9: Students’ Reports of Illegal Drug Availability on School Property................................. 40 Indicator 10: Students’ Reports of Being Called Hate-Related Words and Seeing

Hate-Related Graffiti ................................................................................................................... 42 Indicator 11: Bullying at School and Cyber-Bullying Anywhere ....................................................... 46 Indicator 12: Teachers’ Reports on School Conditions ..................................................................... 54

Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances ....................................................................................................57 Indicator 13: Physical Fights on School Property and Anywhere ...................................................... 58 Indicator 14: Students Carrying Weapons on School Property and Anywhere

and Students’ Access to Firearms ................................................................................................ 62 Indicator 15: Students’ Use of Alcohol on School Property and Anywhere ....................................... 66 Indicator 16: Students’ Use of Marijuana on School Property and Anywhere ................................... 70

Fear and Avoidance ....................................................................................................................................75 Indicator 17: Students’ Perceptions of Personal Safety at School and Away From School .................. 76 Indicator 18: Students’ Reports of Avoiding School Activities or Classes or Specific

Places in School ........................................................................................................................... 78 Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures ..................................................................................................81

Indicator 19: Serious Disciplinary Actions Taken by Public Schools ................................................. 82 Indicator 20: Safety and Security Measures Taken by Schools .......................................................... 86 Indicator 21: Students’ Reports of Safety and Security Measures Observed at School ...................... 92

Postsecondary Campus Safety and Security .............................................................................................. 95 Indicator 22: Criminal Incidents at Postsecondary Institutions ........................................................ 96 Indicator 23: Hate Crime Incidents at Postsecondary Institutions .................................................. 102

References ................................................................................................................................................107 Supplemental Tables ................................................................................................................................. 111 Appendix A: Technical Notes ..................................................................................................................169 Appendix B: Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................................185

List of Tablesxiv

List of Tables Table

1.1. School-associated violent deaths of all persons, homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18 at school, and total homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18, by type of violent death: 1992–93 to 2011–12 ............................................................................................ 112

2.1. Number of nonfatal victimizations against students ages 12–18 and rate of victimization per 1,000 students, by type of victimization, location, and year: 1992 through 2013. .................. 113

2.2. Number of nonfatal victimizations against students ages 12–18 and rate of victimization per 1,000 students, by type of victimization, location, and selected student characteristics: 2013 ..................................................................................................................... 114

3.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1995 through 2013 ............................................................................................... 115

4.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous 12 months, by selected student characteristics and number of times threatened or injured: Selected years, 1993 through 2013 ........................... 117

4.2. Percentage of public school students in grades 9–12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property at least one time during the previous 12 months, by state: Selected years, 2003 through 2013 .............................................................................................. 118

5.1. Number and percentage of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury or physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by selected teacher and school characteristics: Selected years, 1993–94 through 2011–12 ................................................................................... 119

5.2. Percentage of public school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury or physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by state: Selected years, 1993–94 through 2011–12 ...................................................................................120

6.1. Percentage of public schools recording incidents of crime at school and reporting incidents to police, number of incidents, and rate per 1,000 students, by type of crime: Selected years, 1999–2000 through 2009–10 ..............................................................................121

6.2. Percentage of public schools recording incidents of crime at school, number of incidents, and rate per 1,000 students, by type of crime and selected school characteristics: 2009–10 ................122

6.3. Percentage of public schools reporting incidents of crime at school to the police, number of incidents, and rate per 1,000 students, by type of crime and selected school characteristics: 2009–10 ..............................................................................................................123

6.4. Percentage distribution of public schools, by number of violent incidents of crime at school recorded and reported to the police and selected school characteristics: 2009–10 ........................124

6.5. Percentage distribution of public schools, by number of serious violent incidents of crime at school recorded and reported to the police and selected school characteristics: 2009–10 .............125

7.1. Percentage of public schools reporting selected discipline problems that occurred at school, by frequency and selected school characteristics: Selected years, 1999–2000 through 2009–10 ........126

7.2. Percentage of public schools reporting selected types of cyber-bullying problems occurring at school or away from school at least once a week, by selected school characteristics: 2009–10 ..........127

8.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported that gangs were present at school during the school year, by selected student and school characteristics and urbanicity: Selected years, 2001 through 2013 ...............................................................................................128

Page

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 xv

Table Page

9.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by selected student characteristics: Selected years, 1993 through 2013 ...............................................................................................129

9.2. Percentage of public school students in grades 9–12 who reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by state: Selected years, 2003 through 2013 ..............................................................................................130

10.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being the target of hate-related words and seeing hate-related graffiti at school during the school year, by selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1999 through 2013 .......................................................................131

10.2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being the target of hate-related words at school, by type of hate-related word and selected student and school characteristics: 2013 ..............132

11.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school or cyber-bullied anywhere during the school year, by type of bullying at school, reports of injury, and selected student and school characteristics: 2013 ..........................................................................133

11.2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school during the school year and, among bullied students, percentage who reported being bullied in various locations, by selected student and school characteristics: 2013 .....................................................................134

11.3. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being cyber-bullied anywhere during the school year, by type of cyber-bullying and selected student and school characteristics: 2013 ........135

11.4. Among students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school and cyber-bullied anywhere during the school year, percentage reporting various frequencies of bullying and the notification of an adult at school, by selected student and school characteristics: 2013 .................136

11.5. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school during the school year, by type of bullying and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 2005 through 2013 ..............................................................................................137

11.6. Percentage of public school students in grades 9–12 who reported having been bullied on school property or electronically bullied during the previous 12 months, by state: Selected years, 2009 through 2013 ..............................................................................................139

12.1. Percentage of public and private school teachers who agreed that student misbehavior and student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching, by selected teacher and school characteristics: Selected years, 1987–88 through 2011–12 .................................................140

12.2. Percentage of public and private school teachers who agreed that other teachers and the principal enforced school rules, by selected teacher and school characteristics: Selected years, 1987–88 through 2011–12 ................................................................................... 141

12.3. Percentage of public school teachers who agreed that student misbehavior and student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching and that other teachers and the principal enforced school rules, by state: 2011–12 ..................................................................142

13.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported having been in a physical fight at least one time during the previous 12 months, by location and selected student characteristics: Selected years, 1993 through 2013 .......................................................................143

13.2. Percentage distribution of students in grades 9–12, by number of times they reported having been in a physical fight anywhere or on school property during the previous 12 months and selected student characteristics: 2013 ...................................................................144

List of Tablesxvi

13.3. Percentage of public school students in grades 9–12 who reported having been in a physical fight at least one time during the previous 12 months, by location and state: Selected years, 2003 through 2013 .............................................................................................. 145

14.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and selected student characteristics: Selected years, 1993 through 2013 ...............................................................................................146

14.2. Percentage distribution of students in grades 9–12, by number of days they reported carrying a weapon anywhere or on school property during the previous 30 days and selected student characteristics: 2013 .....................................................................................................................147

14.3. Percentage of public school students in grades 9–12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and state: Selected years, 2003 through 2013 ......148

14.4. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported having access to a loaded gun, without adult permission, at school or away from school during the school year, by selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 2007 through 2013 ............................................................149

14.5. Number of incidents of students bringing firearms to or possessing firearms at a public school and ratio of incidents per 100,000 students, by state: 2008–09 through 2012–13 ............150

15.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported using alcohol at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and selected student characteristics: Selected years, 1993 through 2013 ............................................................................................... 151

15.2. Percentage distribution of students in grades 9–12, by number of days they reported using alcohol anywhere or on school property during the previous 30 days and selected student characteristics: Selected years, 2009 through 2013....................................................................... 152

15.3. Percentage of public school students in grades 9–12 who reported using alcohol at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and state: Selected years, 2003 through 2013 ...... 153

16.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported using marijuana at least one time during the previous 30 days, by location and selected student characteristics: Selected years, 1993 through 2013 ...............................................................................................154

16.2. Percentage distribution of students in grades 9–12, by number of times they reported using marijuana anywhere or on school property during the previous 30 days and selected student characteristics: Selected years, 2009 through 2013....................................................................... 155

16.3. Percentage of public school students in grades 9–12 who reported using marijuana at least one time during the previous 30 days, by location and state: Selected years, 2003 through 2013 ..............................................................................................156

17.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being afraid of attack or harm, by location and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1995 through 2013 ..................... 157

18.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported avoiding one or more places in school or avoiding school activities or classes because of fear of attack or harm, by selected student or school characteristics: Selected years, 1995 through 2013 ........................................................ 158

19.1. Number and percentage of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action in response to specific offenses, number of serious actions taken, and percentage distribution of actions, by type of offense, school level, and type of action: Selected years, 1999–2000 through 2009–10 .............................................................................. 159

Table Page

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 xvii

20.1. Percentage of public and private schools with various safety and security measures, by school level: 2003–04, 2007–08, and 2011–12 .......................................................................160

20.2. Percentage of public and private schools with various safety and security measures, by school control and selected characteristics: 2011–12 ............................................................................... 161

20.3. Percentage of public schools with one or more full-time or part-time security staff present at least once a week, and percentage of schools with security staff routinely carrying a firearm, by selected school characteristics: 2005–06, 2007–08, and 2009–10 .............................162

21.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported various security measures at school: Selected years, 1999 through 2013 ...............................................................................................163

22.1. On-campus crimes, arrests, and referrals for disciplinary action at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by location of incident, control and level of institution, and type of incident: 2001 through 2012 .....................................................................................164

22.2. On-campus crimes, arrests, and referrals for disciplinary action per 10,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by whether institution has residence halls, control and level of institution, and type of incident: 2001 through 2012 .......................................................................................................................166

23.1. On-campus hate crimes at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by level and control of institution, type of crime, and category of bias motivating the crime: 2009 through 2012 ......................................................................................................................168

Table Page

List of Figuresxviii

List of Figures

1.1. Number of student, staff, and nonstudent school-associated violent deaths, and number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18 at school: School years 1992–93 to 2011–12................ 7

1.2. Percentage distribution and number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18, by location: 2011–12 ...................................................................................................................... 7

2.1. Rate of nonfatal victimization against students ages 12–18 per 1,000 students, by type of victimization and location: 1992 through 2013 ............................................................................ 11

2.2. Rate of nonfatal victimization against students ages 12–18 per 1,000 students, by location, type of victimization, and age: 2013.............................................................................................. 13

2.3. Rate of nonfatal victimization against students ages 12–18 per 1,000 students, by location, type of victimization, and sex: 2013 .............................................................................................. 14

3.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization: Selected years, 1995 through 2013 .......................... 17

3.2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school characteristics: 1995 and 2013 ........................ 19

4.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property at least once during the previous 12 months, by sex: Selected years, 1993 through 2013 ....................................................................................................................... 21

4.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property at least once during the previous 12 months, by race/ethnicity: 2013 ................................................................................................................. 21

4.3. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property at least once during the previous 12 months, by number of times threatened or injured and grade: 2013 .......................................................................................... 22

5.1. Percentage of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury or that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months: Selected school years, 1993–94 through 2011–12 ...................................................... 25

5.2. Percentage of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury or that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by sex: School year 2011–12 ...................................................................................... 25

5.3. Percentage of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury or that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by instructional level: School year 2011–12................................................................ 26

6.1. Percentage of public schools recording and reporting to police incidents of crime at school, and the rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by type of crime: School year 2009–10 ........................ 29

6.2. Percentage of public schools recording and reporting to police incidents of crime at school, by type of incident and school level: School year 2009–10 ............................................................ 31

6.3. Percentage of public schools recording and reporting to police violent and serious violent incidents of crime at school, by the number of incidents: School year 2009–10 ............................ 32

7.1. Percentage of public schools reporting selected discipline problems that occurred at school, by locale: School year 2009–10 ..................................................................................................... 35

7.2. Percentage of public schools reporting selected types of cyber-bullying problems occurring at school or away from school daily or at least once a week, by school level: School year 2009–10 .................................................................................................................... 37

Figure Page

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 xix

8.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported that gangs were present at school during the school year, by urbanicity: 2011 and 2013 .............................................................................. 39

8.2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported that gangs were present at school during the school year, by race/ethnicity: 2011 and 2013 ......................................................................... 39

9.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by sex: Selected years, 1993 through 2013 ....................................................................................................................... 41

9.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by race/ethnicity: 2011 and 2013 ............................................................................................................................. 41

10.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being the target of hate-related words and seeing hate-related graffiti at school during the school year, by selected student and school characteristics: 2013 ........................................................................................................... 43

10.2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being the target of hate-related words at school during the school year, by type of hate-related word and sex: 2013 ................................. 45

11.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school during the school year, by type of bullying and sex: 2013 .......................................................................................... 47

11.2. Among students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school during the school year, percentage who reported being bullied in various locations: 2013 ................................................. 49

11.3. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being cyber-bullied anywhere during the school year, by type of cyber-bullying and sex: 2013 ..................................................................... 51

11.4. Among students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school or cyber-bullied anywhere during the school year, percentage reporting various frequencies of bullying and the notification of an adult at school: 2013 ......................................................................................... 51

11.5. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school during the school year, by selected school characteristics: Selected years, 2005 through 2013 .................................... 53

12.1. Percentage of public and private school teachers who agreed that student misbehavior and student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching, and percentage who agreed that other teachers and the principal enforced school rules, by school control: School year 2011–12 .................................................................................................................... 55

12.2. Percentage of public and private school teachers who agreed that student misbehavior and student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching, and percentage who agreed that other teachers and the principal enforced school rules: Selected school years, 1993–94 through 2011–12 ......................................................................................................................... 55

13.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported having been in a physical fight at least one time during the previous 12 months, by location and grade: Selected years, 1993 through 2013 ................................................................................................................................ 59

13.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported having been in a physical fight at least one time during the previous 12 months, by race/ethnicity and location: 2013 ............................. 59

13.3. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by location, number of times, and sex: 2013 .......................................... 61

14.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and sex: Selected years, 1993 through 2013 ............................... 63

Figure Page

List of Figuresxx

14.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by race/ethnicity and location: 2013 ............................................................ 63

14.3. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported having access to a loaded gun, without adult permission, at school or away from school during the school year, by sex: Selected years, 2007 through 2013 .................................................................................... 65

15.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported using alcohol at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and sex: Selected years, 1993 through 2013 ............................... 67

15.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported using alcohol at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location, number of days, and sex: 2011 and 2013 ................................. 67

15.3. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported using alcohol anywhere at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by grade: 2013 ................................................................................. 69

16.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported using marijuana at least one time during the previous 30 days, by location and sex: Selected years, 1993 through 2013 ................... 71

16.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location, number of times, and sex: 2011 and 2013 .................................................... 71

16.3. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported using marijuana anywhere at least one time during the previous 30 days, by race/ethnicity: 2013 ...................................................... 73

17.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being afraid of attack or harm during the school year, by location and sex: Selected years, 1995 through 2013 ....................................... 77

17.2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being afraid of attack or harm during the school year, by location and urbanicity: 2013 .......................................................................... 77

18.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported avoiding school activities or classes or avoiding one or more places in school because of fear of attack or harm during the school year: 2013 .......................................................................................................................... 79

18.2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported avoiding one or more places in school because of fear of attack or harm during the school year, by selected student and school characteristics: 2013 ..................................................................................................................... 80

19.1. Percentage of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action, by type of offense and school level: School year 2009–10 ................................................................................................ 83

19.2. Percentage distribution of serious disciplinary actions taken by public schools, by type of offense and type of disciplinary action: School year 2009–10 ....................................................... 84

20.1. Percentage of public and private schools that used selected safety and security measures: School year 2011–12 .................................................................................................................... 87

20.2. Percentage of public schools that used selected safety and security measures: Selected school years, 2003–04 through 2011–12 ......................................................................... 89

21.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported various security measures at school: Selected years, 1999 through 2013 ................................................................................................ 93

22.1. Number of on-campus crimes reported and number per 10,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by selected type of crime: 2001 through 2012 ................................................................................................................................ 97

Figure Page

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 xxi

22.2. Number of on-campus arrests and number per 10,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by type of arrest: 2001 through 2012 .................... 99

22.3. Number of referrals for disciplinary actions resulting from on-campus violations and number per 10,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by type of referral: 2001 through 2012 ....................................................................................... 101

23.1. Number of on-campus hate crimes at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by type of crime: 2009 through 2012 .......................................................................................... 103

23.2. Percentage distribution of the categories of bias motivating hate crimes at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by selected types of crime: 2012........................................................ 105

Figure Page

This page intentionally left blank.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 1

Introduction

Introduction2

Our nation’s schools should be safe havens for teaching and learning free of crime and violence. Any instance of crime or violence at school not only affects the individuals involved but also may disrupt the educational process and affect bystanders, the school itself, and the surrounding community (Brookmeyer, Fanti, and Henrich 2006; Goldstein, Young, and Boyd 2008). For both students and teachers, victimization at school can have lasting effects. In addition to experiencing loneliness, depression, and adjustment difficulties (Crick and Bigbee 1998; Crick and Grotpeter 1996; Nansel et al. 2001; Prinstein, Boergers, and Vernberg 2001; Storch et al. 2003), victimized children are more prone to truancy (Ringwalt, Ennett, and Johnson 2003), poor academic performance (MacMillan and Hagan 2004; Wei and Williams 2004), dropping out of school (Beauvais et al. 1996; MacMillan and Hagan 2004), and violent behaviors (Nansel et al. 2003). For teachers, incidents of victimization may lead to professional disenchantment and even departure from the profession altogether (Karcher 2002; Smith and Smith 2006).

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

Purpose and Organization of This Report

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 is the seventeenth in a series of reports produced since 1998 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) that present the most recent data available on school crime and student safety. Although the data presented in this report are the most recent data available at the time of publication, the data do not cover the most recent two or more school years. The report is not intended to be an exhaustive compilation of school crime and safety information, nor does it attempt to explore reasons for crime and violence in schools. Rather, it is designed to provide a brief summary of information from an array of data sources and to make data on national school crime and safety accessible to policymakers, educators, parents, and the general public.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 is organized into sections that delineate specif ic concerns to readers, starting with a description of the most serious violent crimes. The sections cover violent deaths; nonfatal student and teacher victimization; school environment; fights, weapons, and illegal substances; fear and avoidance; discipline, safety, and security measures, and campus safety and security. Each section contains a set of indicators that, taken together, aim to describe a distinct aspect of school crime and safety. Where available, data on crimes that occur outside of school grounds are offered as a point of comparison.1 Supplemental tables for each indicator provide more detailed breakouts and standard errors for estimates. A glossary of terms and a reference section appear at the end of the report.

This edition of the report contains updated data for sixteen indicators: violent deaths at school and away from school (Indicator 1), incidence of victimization at school and away from school (Indicator 2), prevalence of victimization at school (Indicator 3), threats and injuries with weapons on school property (Indicator 4 ), students’ reports of gangs at school (Indicator 8), students’ reports of illegal drug availability on school property (Indicator 9), students’ reports of being called hate-related words and seeing hate-related graffiti (Indicator 10), bullying at school and cyber-bullying anywhere (Indicator 11), physical fights on school property and anywhere (Indicator 13), students carrying weapons on school property and anywhere and students’ access to firearms (Indicator 14 ), students’ use of alcohol on school property and anywhere (Indicator 15), students’ use of marijuana on school property and anywhere (Indicator 16 ), students’ perceptions of personal safety at school and away from school (Indicator  17), students’ reports of avoiding school activities or classes or specific places in school (Indicator 18), students’ reports of safety and security measures observed at school (Indicator 21), and criminal incidents at postsecondary institutions (Indicator 22).

In addition, this year’s report introduces a new indicator on hate crime incidents at postsecondary institutions (Indicator 23).

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

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

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 3

Data The indicators in this report are based on information drawn from a variety of independent data sources, including national surveys of students, teachers, principals, and postsecondary institutions and universe data collections from federal departments and agencies, including BJS, NCES, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Centers for Disease C ont rol a nd Pre vent ion, a nd t he O f f ic e of Postsecondary Education. Each data source has an independent sample design, data collection method, and questionnaire design, or is the result of a universe data collection.

The combination of multiple, independent sources of data provides a broad perspective on school crime and safety that could not be achieved through any single source of information. However, readers should be cautious when comparing data from different sources. While every effort has been made to keep key definitions consistent across indicators, differences in sampling procedures, populations, time periods, and question phrasing can all affect the comparability of results. For example, both Indicators 20 and 21 report data on selected security and safety measures used in schools. Indicator 20 uses data collected from a schools and staffing survey administered to public and private school principals about safety and security practices used in their schools for the 2011–12 school year, as well as from a survey of public school principals about safety and security practices used in their schools during the 2009–10 school year. The schools range from primary through high schools. Indicator 21, however, uses data collected from 12- through 18-year-old students residing in a sample of households. These students were asked whether they observed selected safety and security measures in their school in 2013, but they may not have known whether, in fact, the security measure was present. In addition, different indicators contain various approaches to the analysis of school crime data and, therefore, will show different perspectives on school crime. For example, both Indicators 2 and 3 report data on theft and violent victimization at school based on the National Crime Victimization Survey and the School Crime Supplement to that survey, respectively. While Indicator 2 examines the number of incidents of victimization, Indicator 3 examines the percentage or prevalence of students who reported victimization. Table A provides a summary of some of the variations in the design and coverage of sample surveys used in this report.

Several indicators in this report are based on self- reported survey data. Readers should note that limitations inherent to self-reported data may affect

estimates (Addington 2005; Cantor and Lynch 2000). First, unless an interview is “bounded” or a reference period is established, estimates may include events that exceed the scope of the specified reference period. This factor may artificially increase reported incidents because respondents may recall events outside of the given reference period. Second, many of the surveys rely on the respondent to “self-determine” a condition. This factor allows the respondent to define a situation based upon his or her own interpretation of whether the incident was a crime or not. On the other hand, the same situation may not necessarily be interpreted in the same way by a bystander or the perceived offender. Third, victim surveys tend to emphasize crime events as incidents that take place at one point in time. However, victims can often experience a state of victimization in which they are threatened or victimized regularly or repeatedly. Finally, respondents may recall an event inaccurately. For instance, people may forget the event entirely or recall the specifics of the episode incorrectly. These and other factors may affect the precision of the estimates based on these surveys.

Data trends are discussed in this report when possible. Where trends are not discussed, either the data are not available in earlier surveys or the wording of the survey question changed from year to year, eliminating the ability to discuss any trend.

Where data from samples are reported, as is the case with most of the indicators in this report, the standard error is calculated for each estimate provided in order to determine the “margin of error” for these estimates. The standard errors of the estimates for different subpopulations in an indicator can vary considerably and should be taken into account when making comparisons. With the exception of Indicator 2, in this report, in cases where the standard error was between 30 and 50 percent of the associated estimate, the estimates were noted with a “!” symbol (Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent). In Indicator 2, the “!” symbol cautions the reader that estimates marked indicate that the reported statistic was based on 10 or fewer cases. With the exception of Indicator 2, in cases where the standard error was 50 percent or greater of the associated estimate, the estimate was suppressed (Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater). See appendix A for more information.

The appearance of a “!” symbol (Interpret data with caution) in a table or figure indicates a data cell with

Introduction4

a high ratio of standard error to estimate so the reader should use caution when interpreting such data. These estimates are still discussed, however, when statistically significant differences are found despite large standard errors.

The comparisons in the text have been tested for statistical significance to ensure that the differences are larger than might be expected due to sampling variation. Unless otherwise noted, all comparisons cited in the report are statistically significant at the .05  level. Several test procedures were used, depending upon the type of data being analyzed and the nature of the comparison being tested. The primary test procedure used in this report was Student’s t statistic, which tests the difference between two sample estimates. The t test formula was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Linear trend tests were used to examine changes in percentages over a range of values such as time or age. Linear trends tests allow one to examine whether, for example, the percentage of students who reported using drugs

increased (or decreased) over time or whether the percentage of students who reported being physically attacked in school increased (or decreased) with age. When differences among percentages were examined relative to a variable with ordinal categories (such as grade), analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for a linear relationship between the two variables.

Percentages reported in the tables and f igures a re genera l ly rou nded to one deci ma l plac e (e.g., 76.5 percent), while percentages reported in the text are generally rounded from the original number to whole numbers (with any value of 0.50 or above rounded to the next highest whole number). While the data labels on the figures have been rounded to one decimal place, the graphical presentation of these data is based on the unrounded estimates.

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

Table A. Nationally representative sample and universe surveys used in this report

Survey Sample Year of survey Reference time period Indicators

Campus Safety and Security Survey

All postsecondary institutions that receive Title IV funding

2001 through 2012 annually

Calendar year 22, 23

EDFacts All students in K–12 schools

2008–09 through 2012–13

Incidents during the school year

14

National Crime Victim- ization Survey (NCVS)

Individuals ages 12 or older living in households and group quarters

1992–2013 annually

Interviews conducted during the calendar year1

2

The School-Associated Violent Deaths Study (SAVD)

Universe 1992 through 2012 continuous

July 1 through June 30 1

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

Students ages 12–18 enrolled in public and private schools during the school year2

1995, 1999, and 2001–2013 biennially

Incidents during the previous 6 months

Incidents during the school year2

3

8, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, and 21

School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS)

Public primary, middle, and high schools3

1999–2000, 2003–04, 2005–06, 2007–08, and 2009–10

1999–2000, 2003–04, 2005–06, 2007–08, and 2009–10 school years

6, 7, 19, and 20

Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)

Public and private school K–12 teachers

1993–94,1999–2000, 2003–04, 2007–08, and 2011–12

Incidents during the previous 12 months

5, 12, 20

Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR)

Universe 1992 through 2012 continuous

July 1 through June 30 1

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

Universe 1992 through 2011 continuous

Calendar year 1

Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS)

Students enrolled in grades 9–12 in public and private schools at the time of the survey

1993–2013 biennially Incidents during the previous 12 months

Incidents during the previous 30 days

4, 9, 11, and 13

14, 15, and 16

1 Respondents in the NCVS are interviewed every 6 months and asked about incidents that occurred in the past 6 months. 2 In 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013, the reference period was the school year. In all other survey years, the reference period was the previous 6 months. Cognitive testing showed that estimates from 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013 are comparable to previous years. For more information, please see appendix A. 3 Either school principals or the person most knowledgeable about discipline issues at school completed the SSOCS questionnaire.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 5

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

Figure 1.1 ..................................................................7 Figure 1.2 ..................................................................7

Violent Deaths6

This indicator has been updated to include 2011–12 data for total homicides and total legal intervention deaths, and 2011 data for total suicides. For more information: Table 1.1, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2008), (http://www.cdc.gov/ mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5702a1.htm).

Violent Deaths at School and Away From School Indicator 1

Over all available survey years, the percentage of youth homicides occurring at school remained at less than 2 percent of the total number of youth homicides, and the percentage of youth suicides occurring at school remained at less than 1 percent of the total number of youth suicides. Violent deaths at schools are rare but tragic events with far-reaching effects on the school population and surrounding community. Indicator 1 presents data on school-associated violent deaths that were collected through the School-Associated Violent Deaths (SAVD) Surveillance Study. The most recent data released for the SAVD Surveillance Study cover the period from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012.

More recent information gathered from media reports can provide a glimpse of SAVD cases occurring since June 2012. For example, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting incident on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut resulted in 20 child homicides, 6 adult homicides, and 1 adult suicide.2

The SAVD Surveillance Study defines a school- associated violent death as “a homicide, suicide, or legal intervention3 (involving a law enforcement officer), in which the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school in the United States.” School-associated violent deaths include those that occurred while the victim was on the way to or returning from regular sessions at school or while the victim was attending or traveling to or from an official school-sponsored event. Victims of school-associated violent deaths include not only students and staff members, but also others who are not students or staff members, such as parents.

Between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, there were a total of 45  school-associated violent deaths in elementary and secondary schools in the United States (figure 1.1 and table 1.1). Of the 45 student, staff, and nonstudent school-associated violent deaths occurring during this time span, there were 26 homicides, 14 suicides, and 5 legal interventions. Data for school-

2 http://cspsandyhookreport.ct.gov. 3 A legal intervention death is defined as a death caused by police and other persons with legal authority to use deadly force, excluding legal executions.

associated violent deaths for the 2011–12 school year are preliminary until interviews with law enforcement personnel have been completed.

Data on violent deaths occurring away from school were included in order to compare them to data on violent deaths occurring at school. The most recent data available for total suicides of school-age youth (ages 5–18; referred to as youth in the remainder of the indicator) are for the 2011 calendar year; the most recent data available for total homicides of youth are for the 2011–12 school year.4 During the 2011–12 school year, there were 1,199 homicides of youth (figure 1.2 and table 1.1). During the 2011 calendar year, there were 1,568 suicides of youth. During the 2011–12 school year, there were 15 homicides and 5 suicides of school-age youth at school (figure 1.1 and table 1.1). When instances of homicide and suicide of school-age youth at school were combined, there was approximately 1 homicide or suicide for each 2.7 million students enrolled.5

The percentage of youth homicides occurring at school remained at less than 2 percent of the total number of youth homicides over all available survey years, even though the absolute number of homicides of school- age youth at school varied to some degree across the years (figure 1.1 and table 1.1). Between 1992–93 and 2011–12, from 1 to 10 school-age youth committed suicide at school each year, with no consistent pattern of increase or decrease in the number of suicides. The percentage of youth suicides occurring at school remained at less than 1 percent of the total number of youth suicides over all available survey years.

4 Data on total suicides are available only by calendar year, whereas data on suicides and homicides at school and data on total homicides are available by school year. Due to these differences in reference periods, please use caution when comparing violent deaths at school to total violent deaths. 5 The total number of students enrolled in prekindergarten through 12th grade during the 2011–12 school year was 54,789,757 (Snyder and Dillow 2015).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 7

Figure 1.1. Number of student, staff, and nonstudent school-associated violent deaths, and number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18 at school: School years 1992–93 to 2011–12

Homicides of youth ages 5–18 at school Suicides of youth ages 5–18 at school

Total number of student, staff, and nonstudent school-associated violent deaths2

Number

School year

2001 –021

2002 –031

2003 –041

2004 –051

2005 –061

2006 –071

2007 –081

2009 –101

2010 –111

2011 –121

2008 –091

2000 –011

0

20

40

60

80

100

1992 –93

1993 –94

1994 –95

1995 –96

1996 –97

1997 –98

1998 –99

1999 –20001

6

34 29

57 48 48 48 47

37 34 36 36 45 44 44 45

35

63

4852 57

53

28 28 34 33

14 14 16 18

23 22 21 32

21 18 19 11 15

32

6 6 6 5 5 5 23 3 5 10

4 8 8 9 7

17 7

32

1 Data from 1999–2000 onward are subject to change until interviews with school and law enforcement officials have been completed. The details learned during the interviews can occasionally change the classification of a case. For more information on this survey, please see appendix A. 2 A school-associated violent death is defined as “a homicide, suicide, or legal intervention (involving a law enforcement officer), in which the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school in the United States,” while the victim was on the way to or from regular sessions at school, or while the victim was attending or traveling to or from an official school-sponsored event. Victims include students, staff members, and others who are not students, from July 1, 1992 through June 30, 2012. NOTE: “At school” includes on school property, on the way to or from regular sessions at school, and while attending or traveling to or from a school- sponsored event. Estimates were revised and may differ from previously published data. SOURCE: Data on homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18 at school and total school-associated violent deaths are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1992–2012 School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study (SAVD), partially funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Healthy Students, previously unpublished tabulation (February 2015).

Figure 1.2. Percentage distribution and number of homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18, by location: 2011–12

Of the total 1,1991 homicides, 15 occurred at school and 1,184 occurred away from school

Of the total 1,5683 suicides, 5 occurred at school and 1,563 occurred away from school

Type of school-associated violent death

Percent 0 20 40 60 80 100

0.31,2

1.31,2

Suicides

Homicides

At school Away from school

98.71

99.74

1 Youth ages 5–18 from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. 2 Data from the School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study (SAVD) are subject to change until interviews with school and law enforce- ment officials have been completed. The details learned during the interviews can occasionally change the classification of a case. For more infor- mation on this survey, please see appendix A. 3 Youth ages 5–18 in the 2011 calendar year. 4 This number approximates the number of suicides away from school. Use caution when interpreting this number due to timeline differences. NOTE: “At school” includes on school property, on the way to or from regular sessions at school, and while attending or traveling to or from a school- sponsored event. Estimates were revised and may differ from previously published data. SOURCE: Data on homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18 at school and total school-associated violent deaths are from the Centers for Dis- ease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2012 School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study (SAVD), partially funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Healthy Students, previously unpublished tabulation (February 2015); data on total suicides of youth ages 5–18 are from the CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System Fatal (WISQARS™ Fatal), 2011, retrieved September 2014 from http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html; and data on total homicides of youth ages 5–18 for the 2011–12 school year are from the Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and tabulated by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, preliminary data (June 2014).

This page intentionally left blank.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 9

Nonfatal Student and

Teacher Victimization

Indicator 2 Incidence of Victimization at School and Away From School ............................................................. 10

Figure 2.1 ................................................................ 11 Figure 2.2 ................................................................13 Figure 2.3 ................................................................14

Indicator 3 Prevalence of Victimization at School ...................... 16

Figure 3.1 ................................................................ 17 Figure 3.2 ................................................................19

Indicator 4 Threats and Injuries With Weapons on School Property .................................................................... 20

Figure 4.1 ................................................................21 Figure 4.2 ................................................................21 Figure 4.3 ................................................................22

Indicator 5 Teachers Threatened With Injury or Physically Attacked by Students ............................................... 24

Figure 5.1 ................................................................25 Figure 5.2 ................................................................25 Figure 5.3 ................................................................26

Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization10

Incidence of Victimization at School and Away From School6 Indicator 2

For students ages 12–18, the rate of violent victimization in 2013 was higher at school than away from school. The 2013 violent victimization rates were 37 per 1,000 students at school and 15 per 1,000 students away from school. This difference was driven primarily by higher rates of simple assault at school. In 62013, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey showed that students ages 12–18 experienced more victimizations at school than away from school.7 Students ages 12–18 experienced about 1,420,900 nonfata l victimizations (theft8 and violent victimization9) at school, compared with about 778,500 nonfatal victimizations away from school (table 2.1). These figures represent total crime victimization rates of 55  victimizations per 1,000 students at school and 30 per 1,000 students away from school.

For most of the years between 1992 and 2008 and in 2012, the rate of theft at school was higher than the rate of theft away from school among students ages 12–18 (figure 2.1). There were no measurable differences between the rates of theft at school and away from school in 2009, 2010, 2011, or 2013.

At school, the rate of theft was lower in 2013 (18 thefts per 1,000 students) than in 2012 (24 thefts per 1,000 students). The rate of theft away from school was not measurably different between 2012 and 2013. In 2013, the rate of theft away from school was 16 per 1,000 students.

Bet ween 1992 a nd 20 0 0, t he rate of violent victimization per 1,000 students at school was either lower than the rate away from school or not measurably different than the rate away from school. Since 2001, the rate of violent victimization per 1,000

6 Although Indicators 2 and 3 present information on similar topics, the survey sources for these two indicators differ with respect to time coverage and administration. Indicator 3 is based on data from the School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). For more information on these two surveys, please see appendix A. 7 “Students” refers to youth ages 12–18 whose educational attainment did not exceed grade 12 at the time of the survey. An uncertain percentage of these persons may not have attended school during the survey reference period. These data do not take into account the number of hours that students spend at school or away from school. “At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. 8 “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse-snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, with the exception of motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery, which involves the threat or use of force and is classified as a violent crime. 9 “Violent victimization” includes serious violent crimes and simple assault.

students at school has generally been higher than the rate away from school or not measurably different than the rate away from school. In 2013, the rate of violent victimization at school (37 per 1,000 students) was greater than the rate of violent victimization away from school (15 per 1,000 students). This difference was driven primarily by higher rates of simple assault10 at school (33 per 1,000 students) than away from school that year (9 per 1,000).

The rate of serious violent victimization11 against students ages 12–18 was generally lower at school than away from school in most survey years between 1992 and 2008. There were no measurable differences in the rates at school and away from school between 2009 and 2013.

Between 1992 and 2013, the total victimization rates for students ages 12–18 generally declined both at and away from school (figure 2.1). The total victimization rate against students ages 12–18 at school declined 70 percent from 181 victimizations per 1,000 students in 1992 to 55 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2013. Away from school, the rate of total victimization declined 83 percent from 173 victimizations per 1,000 students to 30 victimizations per 1,000.

Indicator 2 continued on page 11.

10 “Simple assault” is the difference between total violence and serious violence. It includes threats and attacks without a weapon or serious injury. 11 “Serious violent victimization” includes the crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

This indicator has been updated to include 2013 data. For more information: Tables 2.1 and 2.2.

At school, there was no measurable difference between the rates of serious violent victimization for students ages 12–18 in 2012 and in 2013. There was also no measurable difference between 2012 and 2013 in the rates of serious violent victimizations away from school for students ages 12–18. In 2013, students experienced about 5 serious violent victimizations per 1,000 students at school and 6 victimizations per 1,000 students away from school.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 11

This pattern also held for thefts, violent victimizations, and serious violent victimizations between 1992 and 2013. Thefts at school declined from a rate of 114 per 1,000 students to 18 per 1,000, and the rate of theft away from school decreased from 79 thefts per 1,000 students to 16 per 1,000. The rate of violent victimization at school declined overall from 68 victimizations per 1,000 students in 1992 to 37 per 1,000 in 2013; however, this rate increased between

2010 and 2013 (from 17 to 37 per 1,000 students). Away from school, the rate of violent victimization declined from 94 victimizations per 1,000 students in 1992 to 15 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2013. Serious violent victimizations at school declined from 8 per 1,000 students in 1992 to 5 per 1,000 in 2013. The rate of serious violent victimization away from school declined from 43 victimizations per 1,000 students in 1992 to 6 per 1,000 in 2013.

Figure 2.1. Rate of nonfatal victimization against students ages 12–18 per 1,000 students, by type of victimization and location: 1992 through 2013

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2013 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2013

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 20131992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2013

0

50

100

150

200

Rate per 1,000 Total victimization

Year

0

50

100

150

200

Rate per 1,000 Theft

Year

0

50

100

150

200

Rate per 1,000 All violent victimization

Year

0

50

100

150

200

Rate per 1,000 Serious violent victimization 1

Year

At school

At school

At school

At school

Away from school

Away from school

Away from school

Away from school

1 Serious violent victimization is also included in all violent victimization. NOTE: Due to methodological changes, use caution when comparing 2006 estimates to other years. “Serious violent victimization” includes the crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. “All violent victimization” includes serious violent crimes as well as simple assault. “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse-snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, with the exception of motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery, which involves the threat or use of force and is classified as a violent crime. “Total victimization” includes thefts and violent crimes. “At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Although Indicators 2 and 3 present information on similar topics, the survey sources for these two indicators differ with respect to time coverage and administration. Indicator 3 is based on data from the School Crime Supplement. For more information on these two surveys, please see appendix A. The population size for students ages 12–18 was 25,856,300 in 2013. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. Estimates may vary from previously published reports. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 1992 through 2013.

Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization12

The victimization rates for students in 2013 varied according to student characteristics. The total victimization rate at school was greater for students ages 12–14 (67 per 1,000 students) than for students ages 15–18 (44 per 1,000 students; table 2.2 and figure 2.2). This difference was due primarily to the higher rate of violent victimization at school for younger students (52 per 1,000 students ages 12–14) compared with older students (24 per 1,000 students ages 15–18). No measurable differences were detected between age groups in the rates of theft victimization at school or in the rates of total victimization, theft, and violent victimization away from school in 2013.

In 2013, there were no measurable differences between the rates of total victimization, theft, and violence at school for males and females. There were also no measurable differences between the rates of total victimization, theft, and violence away from school for males and females in 2013. In 2013, the rate of nonfatal victimization for males was 62 victimizations per 1,000 students at school and the nonfatal victimization rate for females was 47 victimizations per 1,000 students at school (figure 2.3). Away from school, the nonfatal victimization rate for males was

29 victimizations per 1,000 students, and the nonfatal victimization rate for females was 31 victimizations per 1,000 students. The rate of violent victimization for males at school was 43 victimizations per 1,000 students, and the violent victimization rate for females at school was 31 victimizations per 1,000 students. Away from school, the violent victimization rate for males was 13 victimizations per 1,000 students, and the violent victimization rate for females was 16 victimizations per 1,000 students.

Students residing in rural areas had lower rates of nonfatal victimization at school than students residing in urban and suburban areas. Nonfatal victimization rates at school were 32 per 1,000 students in rural areas, compared with 57 per 1,000 students in urban areas and 60 per 1,000 students in suburban areas. Students residing in rural areas also had a lower rate of theft victimization away from school (11 per 1,000 students) compared to students residing in urban areas (20 per 1,000 students). There were no measurable differences by urbanicity in the violent victimization rates at or away from school for students living in urban, suburban, or rural areas.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 13

Figure 2.2. Rate of nonfatal victimization against students ages 12–18 per 1,000 students, by location, type of victimization, and age: 2013

Rate per 1,000

Type of victimization

Away from school

Type of victimization

15–18 years12–14 years

15–18 years12–14 years

Rate per 1,000

At school

Total Theft All violent Serious violent1

Total Theft All violent Serious violent1

0

50

100

0

50

100

67.3

15.7 19.3

51.6

24.2

7.5 2.5!

28.0 32.1

13.9 17.2 14.1 14.9

5.6 6.1

43.5

! Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50 percent. 1 Serious violent victimization is also included in all violent victimization. NOTE: “Serious violent victimization” includes the crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. “All violent victimization” includes serious violent crimes as well as simple assault. “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse-snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, with the exception of motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery, which involves the threat or use of force and is classified as a violent crime. “Total victimization” includes theft and violent crimes. “At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Although Indicators 2 and 3 present information on similar topics, the survey sources for these two indicators differ with respect to time coverage and administration. Indicator 3 is based on data from the School Crime Supplement. For more information on these two surveys, please see appendix A. The population size for students ages 12–18 was 25,856,300 in 2013. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding and missing data on student characteristics. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2013.

Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization14

Figure 2.3. Rate of nonfatal victimization against students ages 12–18 per 1,000 students, by location, type of victimization, and sex: 2013

Rate per 1,000

Type of victimization

Away from school

Type of victimization

FemaleMale

FemaleMale

Rate per 1,000

At school

0

50

100

0

50

100

Total Theft All violent Serious violent1

Total Theft All violent Serious violent1

62.1

47.4

18.7 16.4

43.5

30.9

6.4 3.3!

28.9 31.4

15.9 15.2 13.0 16.2

6.0 5.7

! Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50 percent. 1 Serious violent victimization is also included in all violent victimization. NOTE: “Serious violent victimization” includes the crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. “All violent victimization” includes serious violent crimes as well as simple assault. “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse-snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, with the exception of motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery, which involves the threat or use of force and is classified as a violent crime. “Total victimization” includes thefts and violent crimes. “At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Although Indicators 2 and 3 present information on similar topics, the survey sources for these two indicators differ with respect to time coverage and administration. Indicator 3 is based on data from the School Crime Supplement. For more information on these two surveys, please see appendix A. The population size for students ages 12–18 was 25,856,300 in 2013. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding and missing data on student characteristics. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2013.

This page intentionally left blank.

Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization16

Prevalence of Victimization at School Indicator 3

In 2013, approximately 3 percent of students ages 12–18 reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months. Two percent of students reported theft, 1 percent reported violent victimization, and less than one-half of 1 percent reported serious violent victimization. Between 1995 and 2013, the percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being victimized at school decreased overall, as did the percentages of students who reported theft, violent victimization, and serious violent victimization.

The School Crime Supplement12 collects data on the percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported criminal victimization at school13 during the previous 6 months. In addition to the total percentage reported by students, victimization is reported by type, namely theft,14 violent victimization,15 and serious violent victimization.16 Results from the most recent data collection show that in 2013 approximately 3 percent of students ages 12–18 reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months. Two percent of students reported theft, 1 percent reported violent victimization, and less than one-half of 1 percent reported serious violent victimization (figure 3.1 and table 3.1).

In 2013, a higher percentage of 9th-graders than of 12th-graders reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months (4 vs. 2 percent; figure 3.2 and table 3.1). The percentage of students who reported theft was higher for 9th- and 10th-graders

12 Although Indicators 2 and 3 present information on similar topics, the survey sources for these two indicators differ with respect to time coverage and administration. Indicator 3 is based on data from the School Crime Supplement. For more information on these two surveys, please see appendix A. 13 “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and, from 2001 onward, going to and from school. 14 “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse-snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, with the exception of motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery, which involves the threat or use of force and is classified as a violent crime. 15 “Violent victimization” includes serious violent crimes and simple assault. 16 “Serious violent victimization” includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

(3 percent each) and 11th-graders (2 percent) than for 8th-graders (1 percent). In addition, the percentage of students who reported violent victimization was higher for 6th-graders (3 percent) than for 10th- and 11th-graders (1 percent each). No measurable differences were observed by sex or race/ethnicity in reports of victimization overall or in reports of specific types of victimization.

Among students ages 12–18 in 2013, the percentage reporting theft at school during the previous 6 months was higher for students from urban and suburban areas (2 percent each) than for students from rural areas (1 percent). No measurable differences were observed between public and private schools in student reports of victimization overall or in reports of specific types of victimization.

Indicator 3 continued on page 18.

This indicator has been updated to include 2013 data. For more information: Table 3.1, and DeVoe and Bauer (2011), (http:// nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012314).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 17

Figure 3.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization: Selected years, 1995 through 2013

Percent

Total victimizations Thefts

Violent victimizations Serious violent victimizations1

Year

Year Year

Year

1995 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 0

5

10

15

20

1995 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

1995 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

1995 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

Percent

5

10

15

20

0

1 Serious violent victimization is also included in violent victimization. NOTE: “Total victimization” includes theft and violent victimization. “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse-snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, with the exception of motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery, which involves the threat or use of force and is classified as a violent crime. “Serious violent victimization” includes the crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. “Violent victimization” includes the serious violent crimes as well as simple assault. “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and, from 2001 onward, going to and from school. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding and because students who reported both theft and violent victimization are counted only once in total victimization. Although Indicators 2 and 3 present information on similar topics, the survey sources for these two indicators differ with respect to time coverage and administration. Indicator 3 is based on data from the School Crime Supplement. For more information on these two surveys, please see appendix A. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 1995 through 2013.

Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization18

Between 1995 and 2013, the percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months decreased overall (from 10 to 3 percent), as did the percentages of students who reported theft (from 7 to 2 percent), violent victimization (from 3 to 1 percent), and serious violent victimization (from 1 percent to less than one-half of 1 percent). The percentage of students who reported being victimized at school decreased between 1995 and 2013 for both male (from 10 to 3  percent) and female students (from 9 to 3 percent), as well as for White (from 10 to 3 percent), Black (from 10  to 3 percent), and Hispanic students (from 8 to 3 percent). In addition, the percentages of students who reported being victimized decreased between 1995 and 2013 for all grades 6 through 12.

A decrease between 1995 and 2013 in the percentage of students reporting criminal victimization also occurred by school characteristics. About 9 percent of students from urban areas, 10 percent of students from suburban areas, and 8 percent of students from rural areas reported being victimized at school in 1995, compared with 3 percent each of students from urban and suburban areas and 2 percent of students from rural areas in 2013. About 10 percent of public school students and 7 percent of private school students reported being victimized at school in 1995; the reported percent decreased to 3 percent each for public and private school students in 2013.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 19

Figure 3.2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school characteristics: 1995 and 2013

1995 2013

Percent

2.8! 6.6

6.1

7.3

7.6

3.1

8.3 3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.0

3.0

2.8

10.3

10.5

10.2

10.0

2.0

2.0!

9.3

9.8

9.6

9.8

9.0

9.5

9.1

11.9

11.2

3.3

3.3

3.3

2.3

2.5

4.1

4.1

Total

Sex

Race/ethnicity1

Grade

Female

Male

White

Black

Hispanic

6th

Urbanicity2

Urban

Sector Public

Private

Suburban

Rural

7th

8th

9th

10th

11th

12th

0 5 10 15 20

Student or school characteristic

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 1 Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Separate data for Asians were not collected in 1995; therefore, data for this group are not shown. 2 Refers to the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) status of the respondent’s household as defined in 2000 by the U.S. Census Bureau. Categories include “central city of an MSA (Urban),” “in MSA but not in central city (Suburban),” and “not MSA (Rural).” NOTE: “Total victimization” includes theft and violent victimization. “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and, from 2001 onward, going to and from school. Although Indicators 2 and 3 present information on similar topics, the survey sources for these two indicators differ with respect to time coverage and administration. Indicator 3 is based on data from the School Crime Supplement. For more information on these two surveys, please see appendix A. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 1995 and 2013.

Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization20

Threats and Injuries With Weapons on School Property Indicator 4

In 2013, about 7 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported that they were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property. The percentage of students who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property has decreased over the last decade, from 9 percent in 2003 to 7 percent in 2013.

In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9–12 were asked whether they had been threatened or injured with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property17 during the 12 months preceding the survey. In 2013, about 7 percent of students reported they were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property (table 4.1). This percentage was not measurably different from the percentages reported in 2011 and in 1993 (the first year of data collection for this item), but it decreased over the last decade, from a high of 9 percent in 2003 to 7 percent in 2013.

In each survey year from 1993 to 2013, a higher percentage of males than of females reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property in the previous 12 months (figure 4.1 and table 4.1). In 2013, approximately 8 percent of males and 6 percent of females reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property. The percentage of males who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property was lower in 2013 than in 2011 (8 vs. 10 percent); however, the percentages for females were not measurably different between these two years.

There were differences in the percentages of students who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property in the previous 12 months by race/ethnicity and grade level. In 2013, lower percentages of White students (6 percent) and Asian students (5 percent) than of Hispanic students (8  percent) and American Indian/Alaska Native students (18 percent) reported being threatened or

17 “On school property” was not defined for survey respondents.

injured with a weapon on school property (figure 4.2 and table 4.1). In addition, a lower percentage of White students than of Black students reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property (6 vs. 8 percent). In 2013, a lower percentage of 12th-graders (5 percent) than of students in any other grade (9 percent of 9th-graders and 7 percent each of 10th- and 11th-graders) reported being threatened or injured with a weapon (table 4.1).

As part of the survey students were also asked how many times they had been threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous 12 months. In 2013, 93 percent of students reported that they had not been threatened or injured with a weapon on school property. A higher percentage of students reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property 1 time (3 percent) than reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property 2 or 3 times (2 percent), 4 to 11 times (1  percent), or 12 or more times (1 percent; figure 4.3 and table 4.1).

In 2013, the percentage of public school students who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous 12 months varied among the 35 states for which data were available. Among these states, the percentage of students who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property ranged from 4 percent in Wisconsin and Massachusetts to 11 percent in Louisiana and Arkansas (table 4.2).

This indicator has been updated to include 2013 data. For more information: Tables 4.1 and 4.2, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014), (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss6304.pdf).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 21

Figure 4.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property at least once during the previous 12 months, by sex: Selected years, 1993 through 2013

1993

20

15

10

5

0

Total

Female

1995 1997 1999 2001

Year

Percent

Male

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

NOTE: Survey respondents were asked about being threatened or injured “with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property.” “On school property” was not defined for respondents. SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 1993 through 2013.

Figure 4.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property at least once during the previous 12 months, by race/ ethnicity: 2013

Race/ethnicity

Percent

5

10

15

20

5.8

8.4 8.5

5.3

8.7!

18.5

7.7

0 Two or

more races American

Indian/ Alaska Native

Pacific IslanderWhite Black Hispanic Asian

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Survey respondents were asked about being threatened or injured “with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property.” “On school property” was not defined for respondents. SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 2013.

Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization22

Figure 4.3. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property at least once during the previous 12 months, by number of times threatened or injured and grade: 2013

At least once

20 Percent

Number of times

15

10 7.0 6.8

4.9 3.5 3.0 3.4

2.0 2.5 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9

8.5

5

0 1 time 2 or 3 times 4 to 11 times 12 or more times

9th grade 10th grade 11th grade 12th grade

NOTE: Survey respondents were asked about being threatened or injured “with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property.” “On school property” was not defined for respondents. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 2013.

This page intentionally left blank.

Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization24

Teachers Threatened With Injury or Physically Attacked by Students Indicator 5

During the 2011–12 school year, a higher percentage of public than private school teachers reported being threatened with injury (10 vs. 3 percent) or being physically attacked (6 vs. 3 percent) by a student from their school. Students are not the only victims of intimidation or violence in schools. Teachers are also subject to threats and physical attacks, and students from their schools sometimes commit these offenses. The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) asks school teachers whether they were threatened with injury or physically attacked by a student from their school in the previous 12 months. During the 2011–12 school year, 9 percent of school teachers reported being threatened with injury by a student from their school (table 5.1). This percentage was lower than the 12 percent of teachers who reported being threatened with injury in 1993–94, but higher than the percentages of teachers who reported being threatened with injur y in 2003–04 and 2007–08 (7 percent each; figure 5.1). The percentage of teachers reporting that they had been physically attacked by a student from their school in 2011–12 (5 percent) was higher than in any previous survey year (ranging from 3 to 4 percent).

During the 2011–12 school year, there were no measurable differences in the percentages of male and female teachers who reported being threatened with injury during the school year (9 percent each); however, there were gender differences in the reports of being physically attacked (figure 5.2). Six percent of female school teachers reported being physically attacked by a student from their school, compared with 4 percent of male teachers.

There were some differences in the percentages of teachers who reported being threatened by a student and being physically attacked by the race/ethnicity of the teacher. In the 2011–12 school year, a higher

percentage of Black teachers (14 percent) than White teachers and teachers of other racial/ethnic groups (9 percent each) reported being threatened by a student from their school during the school year. A higher percentage of Black teachers (8 percent) than Hispanic teachers (4 percent) reported being physically attacked by a student.

The percentages of teachers who reported being threatened with injury or being physically attacked during the school year by a student from their school varied by school characteristics during the 2011–12 school year (figure 5.3). The percentage of elementary teachers who reported being physically attacked by a student was higher than the percentage of secondary teachers reporting it (8 vs. 3 percent). In addition, a higher percentage of public than private school teachers reported being threatened with injury (10 vs. 3 percent) or being physically attacked (6 vs. 3 percent) by a student during 2011–12.

Public school teachers’ reports of being threatened with injury or physically attacked varied among the states and the District of Columbia. During the 2011–12 school year, the percentage of public school teachers who reported being threatened with injury during the previous 12 months ranged from 5 percent in Oregon to 18 percent in Louisiana (table 5.2). The percentage who reported being physically attacked ranged from 3 percent in Alabama, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oregon, and Tennessee to 11 percent in Wisconsin.

This indicator repeats information from the Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2013 report. For more information: Tables 5.1 and 5.2, and appendix B for definitions of instructional levels.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 25

Figure 5.1. Percentage of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury or that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months: Selected school years, 1993–94 through 2011–12

Percent

School year

Physically attacked

Threatened with injury

0

5

10

15

20

25

1993–94 1999–2000 2003–04 2007–08 2011–12

NOTE: Teachers who taught only prekindergarten students are excluded. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Teacher Data File,” and “Private School Teacher Data File,” 1993–94, 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2007–08, and 2011–12; and “Charter School Teacher Data File,” 1999–2000.

Figure 5.2. Percentage of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury or that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by sex: School year 2011–12

Threatened with injury Physically attacked 0

5

10

15

20

25

9.2 9.2 9.2

5.4 3.5 6.0

Type of reported problem

Percent

Total Men Women

NOTE: Teachers who taught only prekindergarten students are excluded. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Teacher Data File,” and “Private School Teacher Data File,” 2011–12.

Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization26

Figure 5.3. Percentage of public and private school teachers who reported that they were threatened with injury or that they were physically attacked by a student from school during the previous 12 months, by instructional level: School year 2011–12

Percent

Threatened with injury Physically attacked 0

5

10

15

20

25

Type of reported problem

9.2 9.6 8.7

5.4 8.2

2.6

Total Elementary Secondary

NOTE: Teachers who taught only prekindergarten students are excluded. Instructional level divides teachers into elementary or secondary based on a combination of the grades taught, main teaching assignment, and the structure of the teachers’ class(es). Please see the glossary for a more detailed definition. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Teacher Data File” and “Private School Teacher Data File,” 2011–12.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 27

School Environment

Indicator 6 Violent and Other Crime Incidents at Public Schools, and Those Reported to the Police ............ 28

Figure 6.1 ................................................................29 Figure 6.2 ................................................................31 Figure 6.3 ................................................................32

Indicator 7 Discipline Problems Reported by Public Schools ....34

Figure 7.1 .................................................................35 Figure 7.2 ................................................................37

Indicator 8 Students’ Reports of Gangs at School .....................38

Figure 8.1 ................................................................39 Figure 8.2 ................................................................39

Indicator 9 Students’ Reports of Illegal Drug Availability on School Property ....................................................... 40

Figure 9.1 ................................................................ 41 Figure 9.2 ................................................................ 41

Indicator 10 Students’ Reports of Being Called Hate-Related Words and Seeing Hate-Related Graffiti ................. 42

Figure 10.1 ..............................................................43 Figure 10.2 ..............................................................45

Indicator 11 Bullying at School and Cyber-Bullying Anywhere ... 46

Figure 11.1 ...............................................................47 Figure 11.2 ..............................................................49 Figure 11.3 .............................................................. 51 Figure 11.4 .............................................................. 51 Figure 11.5 ..............................................................53

Indicator 12 Teachers’ Reports on School Conditions ................54

Figure 12.1 ..............................................................55 Figure 12.2 ..............................................................55

School Environment28

Violent and Other Crime Incidents at Public Schools, and Those Reported to the Police

Indicator 6

In 2009–10, about 74 percent of public schools recorded one or more violent incidents, 16 percent recorded one or more serious violent incidents, and 44 percent recorded one or more thefts. In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, public school principals were asked to provide the number of violent incidents,18 serious violent incidents,19 thefts of items valued at $10 or greater without personal confrontation, and other incidents20 that occurred at their school.21 Public school principals were also asked to provide the number of incidents they reported to the police. This indicator presents the percentage of public schools that recorded one or more of these specified crimes, the total number of these crimes recorded, and the rate of crimes per 1,000 students. These data are also presented for crimes that were reported to the police.

In all survey years the percentage of public schools that recorded incidents of crime was between 85 and 86 percent, with the exception of school year 2003– 04. In 2003–04, the percentage of public schools that recorded incidents of crime was 89 percent. Similarly, the percentage of public schools that reported incidents of crime to the police was between 60 and 62 percent in all survey years with the exception of 2003–04, when 65 percent of public schools reported one or more incidents to the police.

For the majority of types of crime, the percentages of public schools recording incidents of crime or reporting incidents of crime to the police in 2009–10 were not measurably different from the percentages of schools doing so in 2007– 08. However, the

18 “Violent incidents” include rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with or without a weapon, threat of physical attack with or without a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. 19 “Serious violent incidents” include rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with a weapon, threat of physical attack with a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. 20 “Other incidents” include possession of a firearm or explosive device; possession of a knife or sharp object; distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs or alcohol; vandalism; and inappropriate distribution, possession, or use of prescription drugs. 21 “At school” was defined for respondents to include activities that happen in school buildings, on school grounds, on school buses, and at places that hold school-sponsored events or activities. Respondents were instructed to include incidents that occurred before, during, or after normal school hours, or when school activities or events were in session.

percentage of schools that recorded vandalism decreased from 49 percent in 2007–08 to 46 percent in 2009–10.

During the 2009–10 school year, 85 percent of public schools recorded that one or more of these incidents of violence, theft, or other crimes had taken place, amounting to an estimated 1.9 million crimes (figure 6.1 and table 6.1). This figure translates to a rate of approximately 40 crimes per 1,000 students enrolled in 2009–10. During the same year, 60 percent of schools reported one of the specified crimes to the police, amounting to about 689,000 crimes—or 15 crimes per 1,000 students enrolled.

In 2009–10, a greater percentage of schools recorded an incident of crime than reported an incident of crime to the police. This pattern held true for violent crimes, serious violent crimes, thefts, and other crimes. Seventy-four percent of schools recorded one or more violent incidents of crime (a rate of 25 crimes per 1,000 students enrolled), 16 percent recorded one or more serious violent incidents (a rate of 1 crime per 1,000 students enrolled), 44 percent recorded one or more thefts (a rate of 5 crimes per 1,000 students enrolled), and 68 percent recorded one or more other incidents (a rate of 9 crimes per 1,000 students enrolled). In comparison, 40 percent of public schools reported at least one violent incident to police (a rate of 6 reported crimes per 1,000 students), 10 percent reported at least one serious violent incident to police (a rate of less than 1 percent reported crimes per 1,000 students), 25 percent reported at least one theft to police (a rate of 3 reported crimes per 1,000 students), and 46 percent reported one or more other incidents to police (a rate of 6 reported crimes per 1,000 students).

Indicator 6 continued on page 30.

This indicator repeats information first reported in the Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2011 report. For more information: Tables 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5, and Neiman (2011), (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011320).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 29

Figure 6.1. Percentage of public schools recording and reporting to police incidents of crime at school, and the rate of crimes per 1,000 students, by type of crime: School year 2009–10

100 Percent of public schools

80

60

40

20

85.0

60.0

73.8

39.9

16.4 10.4

44.1

25.4

68.1

46.3

0

100 Rate per 1,000 students

Total Violent1 Theft3 Other4Serious violent2

Type of crime

Recorded Reported to the police

Total Violent1 Theft3 Other4Serious violent2

Type of crime

80

60

40

20

0

39.6

14.6 25.0

6.4 1.1 0.5 5.5 2.6

9.2 5.5

1 “Violent incidents” include rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with or without a weapon, threat of physical attack with or without a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. 2 “Serious violent incidents” include rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with a weapon, threat of physical attack with a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. 3 “Theft or larceny” (taking things worth over $10 without personal confrontation) was defined for respondents as “the unlawful taking of another person’s property without personal confrontation, threat, violence, or bodily harm.” This includes pocket picking, stealing a purse or backpack (if left unattended or no force was used to take it from owner), theft from a building, theft from a motor vehicle or motor vehicle parts or accessories, theft of a bicycle, theft from a vending machine, and all other types of thefts. 4 “Other incidents” include possession of a firearm or explosive device; possession of a knife or sharp object; distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs or alcohol; vandalism; and inappropriate distribution, possession, or use of prescription drugs. NOTE: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. “At school” was defined for respondents to include activities that happen in school buildings, on school grounds, on school buses, and at places that hold school sponsored events or activities. Respondents were instructed to include incidents that occurred before, during, or after normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2009–10 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2010.

School Environment30

The percentage of schools that recorded incidents of violent crime, serious violent crime, theft, and other incidents varied by school characteristics. For example, by school level, primary schools recorded lower percentages of these types of crimes than middle schools and high schools: 64 percent of primary schools recorded violent incidents of crime compared with 91 percent each of middle schools and high schools (figure 6.2 and table 6.2). A lower percentage of primary schools recorded serious violent incidents of crime (13 percent) than middle or high schools (19 and 28 percent, respectively), a lower percentage of primary schools recorded incidents of theft (26 percent) than middle or high schools (65 and 83 percent, respectively), and a lower percentage of primary schools recorded other incidents (57 percent) than middle or high schools (82 and 92 percent, respectively).

A similar pattern was observed for public schools that reported such incidents of violent crime, serious violent crime, theft, and other incidents to the police. The percentages of primary schools that reported incidents of these types of crime to the police were lower than for middle schools and high schools (figure 6.2 and table 6.3).

Data on the number of crimes recorded and reported by schools in 2009–10 were categorized by frequency range as well. For example, 26 percent of schools recorded zero violent crimes, and 19 percent of schools recorded 20 or more violent crimes (figure 6.3 and table 6.4). Sixty percent of schools did not report a violent crime to the police, while 5 percent of schools reported 20 or more violent crimes to the police. With regard to serious violent crimes, 84 percent of schools did not record a serious violent crime, and 2 percent of schools recorded 10 or more such crimes. Ninety percent of schools did not report a serious violent crime to the police, and 1 percent of schools reported 10 or more serious violent crimes to the police (table 6.5). The number of crimes recorded by schools by frequency range varied by school characteristics. A larger percentage of city schools recorded 20 or more violent incidents in 2009–10 than suburban schools or rural schools (table 6.4). In 2009–10, this amounts to about 25 percent of city schools recording 20 or more violent incidents, compared with 19 percent of suburban schools and 14 percent of rural schools.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 31

Figure 6.2. Percentage of public schools recording and reporting to police incidents of crime at school, by type of incident and school level: School year 2009–10

Type of incident

Type of incident

Primary school Middle school High school Combined

100 Percent of public schools

80

64.4

90.5 90.9

73.7

13.0 18.9

27.6 15.5

25.7

65.2

82.6

60.5 57.3

81.9 92.2

72.5

60

40

20

0

100

Percent of public schools

Reported incidents to police

Recorded incidents

80

60

40

20

0

21.1

65.9

76.6

51.0

5.5

15.5 24.9

9.3

41.1

64.1

30.3

65.4

83.6

52.0

8.4

36.9

1 “Violent incidents” include rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with or without a weapon, threat of physical attack with or without a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. 2 “Serious violent incidents” include rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with a weapon, threat of physical attack with a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. 3 “Theft or larceny” (taking things worth over $10 without personal confrontation) was defined for respondents as “the unlawful taking of another person’s property without personal confrontation, threat, violence, or bodily harm.” This includes pocket picking, stealing a purse or backpack (if left unattended or no force was used to take it from owner), theft from a building, theft from a motor vehicle or motor vehicle parts or accessories, theft of a bicycle, theft from a vending machine, and all other types of thefts. 4 “Other incidents” include possession of a firearm or explosive device; possession of a knife or sharp object; distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs or alcohol; vandalism; and inappropriate distribution, possession, or use of prescription drugs. NOTE: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. “At school” was defined for respondents to include activities that happen in school buildings, on school grounds, on school buses, and at places that hold school sponsored events or activities. Respondents were instructed to include incidents that occurred before, during, or after normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2009–10 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2010.

School Environment32

Figure 6.3. Percentage of public schools recording and reporting to police violent and serious violent incidents of crime at school, by the number of incidents: School year 2009–10

Number of incidents

None

1

2

6–9

3–5

10 or more

89.6

5.9

0.5

1.9

0.6

1.6

Serious violent incidents2

Reported to police

PercentPercent

PercentPercent

Recorded

Number of incidents

None

1

2

6–9

3–5

10 or more

83.6

7.9

1.2

3.0

1.5

2.8

Violent incidents1

Reported to police

Number of incidents

None

1–2

3–5

10–14

6–9

15–19

20 or more

60.1

17.9

3.1

7.8

1.7

5.0

4.3

Recorded

Number of incidents

None

1–2

3–5

10–14

6–9

15–19

20 or more

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

26.2

7.6

11.1

14.5

6.6

19.4

14.5

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

1 “Violent incidents” include rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with or without a weapon, threat of physical attack with or without a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. 2 “Serious violent incidents” include rape, sexual battery other than rape, physical attack or fight with a weapon, threat of physical attack with a weapon, and robbery with or without a weapon. NOTE: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. “At school” was defined for respondents to include activities that happen in school buildings, on school grounds, on school buses, and at places that hold school sponsored events or activities. Respondents were instructed to include incidents that occurred before, during, or after normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2009–10 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2010.

This page intentionally left blank.

School Environment34

Discipline Problems Reported by Public Schools Indicator 7

During the 2009–10 school year, 23 percent of public schools reported that bullying occurred among students on a daily or weekly basis, 9 percent reported student acts of disrespect for teachers other than verbal abuse on a daily or weekly basis, and 5 percent reported that student verbal abuse of teachers occurred on a daily or weekly basis. Sixteen percent reported gang activities during the school year.

problems reported as occurring at least once a week, 5 percent of schools reported student verbal abuse of teachers, and 3 percent each reported student racial/ethnic tensions, student sexual harassment of other students, sexual harassment of other students based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and widespread disorder in classrooms. Sixteen percent of public schools reported that gang activities had happened at all during the 2009–10 school year and 2 percent reported that cult or extremist activities had happened at all during this period.

Discipline problems reported by public schools varied by school characteristics. In 2009–10, a higher percentage of city schools than rural schools and suburban schools reported various types of discipline problems (figure 7.1 and table 7.1). For example, 27 percent of city schools, compared with 21 percent of rural schools and 20 percent of suburban schools, reported that student bullying occurred at least once a week.

Indicator 7 continued on page 36.

In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, public school principals were asked how often certain disciplinary problems happened in their schools.22 This indicator examines the daily or weekly occurrence of student racial/ethnic tensions, bullying, sexual harassment of other students, sexual harassment of other students based on sexual orientation or gender identity, verbal abuse of teachers, acts of disrespect for teachers other than verbal abuse, and widespread disorder in the classroom. It also looks at occurrences of gang and cult or extremist group activities during the school year. In the 2009–10 survey administration, schools were also asked to report selected types of cyber- bullying problems at school or away from school that occurred daily or weekly.

During the 2009–10 school year, 23 percent of public schools reported that bullying occurred among students on a daily or weekly basis, and 9  percent reported student acts of disrespect for teachers other than verbal abuse on a daily or weekly basis (table 7.1). With regard to other discipline

22 “At school” was defined for respondents to include activities that happen in school buildings, on school grounds, on school buses, and at places that hold school-sponsored events or activities. Respondents were instructed to include incidents that occurred before, during, or after normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session.

This indicator repeats information first reported in the Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2011 report. For more information: Tables 7.1 and 7.2, and Neiman (2011), (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011320).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 35

Figure 7.1. Percentage of public schools reporting selected discipline problems that occurred at school, by locale: School year 2009–10

Discipline problem

5.3 2.7

1.0! 1.6!

Student racial/ ethnic tensions1

Student bullying1

Student sexual harrassment of other students1

Student harrassment of other students based on sexual orientation

or gender identity1

Student verbal abuse of teachers1

Widespread disorder in classrooms1

Student acts of disrespect for

teachers other than verbal abuse1

Gang activities2

Cult or extremist group activities2

27.0 19.9

26.2 21.2

3.6! 2.6

2.9!

2.9

9.1 4.7

4.5 3.0

0.6! 1.3!

11.7

11.6 5.0

8.1

3.3! 1.9!

3.6 2.9!

2.0 2.0

28.3 14.6

13.9 9.1

2.5 1.2! 1.7! 1.6!

Percent

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 1 Includes schools that reported the activity happens either at least once a week or daily. 2 Includes schools that reported the activity happens at all at their school during the school year. NOTE: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. “At school” was defined for respondents to include activities that happen in school buildings, on school grounds, on school buses, and at places that hold school sponsored events or activities. Respondents were instructed to respond only for those times that were during normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2009–10 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2010.

School Environment36

In 2009–10, the percentage of middle schools reporting student racial and ethnic tension (5 percent) was higher than the percentage of high schools (3 percent) and primary schools (2 percent) that reported student racial and ethnic tension (table 7.1). Schools with an enrollment size of 1,000 or more reported higher percentages of student racial and ethnic tension (6 percent) than schools with an enrollment size of 500–999 or 300–499 (3 percent each).

In addition, 10 percent of schools where 76 percent or more of the students were eligible for free or reduced- price lunch reported the daily or weekly occurrence of student verbal abuse of teachers, compared to 1 percent of schools where 25 percent or less of the students were eligible.23

The percentages of public schools that reported the occurrence of student bullying, student verbal abuse of teachers, and student acts of disrespect for teachers other than verbal abuse were greater in 1999–2000 than in 2009–10. For example, in 1999–2000, approximately 29 percent of public schools reported student bullying, compared with 23 percent of public schools that reported student bullying in 2009–10.

Eleven percent of schools reported that student acts of disrespect for teachers other than verbal abuse occurred at least once a week in 2007–08, higher than the 9 percent in 2009–10 (table 7.1). The percentage of public schools that reported widespread disorder in the classrooms decreased from 4 percent in

23 The percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch programs is a proxy measure of school poverty.

2007–08 to 3 percent in 2009–10. The percentages of public schools that reported gang activity at all at their schools during the school year decreased from 20 percent in 2007–08 to 16 percent in 2009–10 (table 7.1).

Public schools’ reports on the occurrence of cyber- bullying at school and away from school in 2009–10 varied by school characteristics (table 7.2). Primary schools reported lower percentages of cyber-bullying among students (2 percent) than middle schools (19 percent), high schools (18 percent), and combined schools (13 percent). Thirteen percent of schools with less than 5 percent combined enrollment of Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian/ Alaska Native students reported cyber-bullying among students, compared with 5 percent of schools with 50 percent or more combined enrollment.

24 “Cyber-bullying” was defined for respondents as “occurring when willful and repeated harm is inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, or other electronic devices.”

In 2009–10, the School Survey on Crime and Safety included a questionnaire item on cyber-bullying in which public schools were asked to report the occurrence of cyber-bullying among students at school and away from school.24 Eight percent of public schools reported that cyber-bullying had occurred among students daily or at least once a week at school or away from school. Four percent each of public schools also reported that the school environment was affected by cyber-bullying and that staff resources were used to deal with cyber-bullying (table 7.2 and figure 7.2).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 37

Figure 7.2. Percentage of public schools reporting selected types of cyber-bullying problems occurring at school or away from school daily or at least once a week, by school level: School year 2009–10

7.9 4.4 3.8

1.5 0.9! 0.9!

18.6 17.6

9.8 9.98.5 8.6 7.4!

12.6

30 Percent of public schools

All public schools Primary Middle

School level1

Cyber-bullying among students

School environment is affected by cyber-bullying

Staff resources are used to deal with cyber-bullying

High school Combined

20

10

0

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the CV is 50 percent or greater. 1 Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 12. Combined schools include all other combinations of grades, including K–12 schools. NOTE: “Cyber-bullying” was defined for respondents as “occurring when willful and repeated harm is inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, or other electronic devices.” Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. “At school” was defined for respondents to include activities that happen in school buildings, on school grounds, on school buses, and at places that hold school-sponsored events or activities. Respondents were instructed to respond only for those times that were during normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2009–10 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2010.

School Environment38

Students’ Reports of Gangs at School Indicator 8

The percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported that gangs were present at their school decreased from 18 percent in 2011 to 12 percent in 2013. A higher percentage of students from urban areas (18 percent) reported a gang presence than students from suburban (11 percent) and rural areas (7 percent) in 2013. In order to assess gang activity in and around the vicinity of schools, the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey asked students ages 12–18 if gangs were present at their school25 during the school year. The percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported that gangs were present at their school decreased from 18 percent in 2011 to 12 percent in 2013 (figure 8.1 and table 8.1). The percentage of students who reported a gang presence has decreased every year since 2005, when it was 24 percent.

In 2013, a higher percentage of students from urban areas (18 percent) reported a gang presence at their school than students from suburban (11 percent) and rural areas (7 percent). Between 2011 and 2013, the percentages of students from urban and suburban areas who reported a gang presence at their school both decreased (from 23 to 18 percent for students from urban areas and from 16 to 11 percent for students in suburban areas). There was no measurable change in the percentage of rural students who reported a gang presence at their school between 2011 and 2013.

A higher percentage of students attending public schools (13 percent) than of students attending private schools (2 percent) reported that gangs were present at their school in 2013. The percentage of public school students who reported a gang presence decreased from 19 percent in 2011 to 13 percent in 2013. However, the percentage of private school students who reported a gang presence at their school in 2013 was not measurably different from the percentage in 2011.

25 “At school” includes in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and going to and from school.

In 2013, the percentages of male and female students who reported a gang presence at their school were not measurably different (13 and 12 percent, respectively). Between 2011 and 2013, the percentage of male students who reported a gang presence decreased from 18 to 13 percent, and the percentage of female students who reported a gang presence decreased from 17 to 12 percent.

Higher percentages of Hispanic (20 percent) and Black (19 percent) students reported the presence of gangs at their school than White (7 percent) and Asian (9 percent) students (figure 8.2 and table 8.1). The percentage of White students who reported a gang presence decreased from 11 percent in 2011 to 7 percent in 2013. Similarly, between 2011 and 2013 the percentage of Black students who reported a gang presence decreased from 33 to 19 percent, and the percentage of Hispanic students decreased from 26 to 20 percent. The percentages reported in 2013 by Asian students and students of other races/ethnicities were not measurably different from the percentages reported in 2011.

The percentages of students in 6th through 8th grade who reported a gang presence at their school were lower than the percentages for students in 9th through 12th grade in 2013 (table 8.1). Five percent of 6th-graders and 8 percent each of 7th- and 8th- graders reported the presence of gangs, compared with 14 percent of 9th-graders, 15 percent of 12th- graders, 17 percent of 11th-graders, and 18 percent of 10th-graders.

This indicator has been updated to include 2013 data. For more information: Table 8.1, and DeVoe and Bauer (2011), (http:// nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012314).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 39

Figure 8.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported that gangs were present at school during the school year, by urbanicity: 2011 and 2013

Total

17.5

12.4

22.8 18.3

16.1 10.8 12.1 6.8

Urban

Urbanicity

0

10

20

30

40

50 Percent

2011 2013

Suburban Rural

NOTE: Urbanicity refers to the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) status of the respondent’s household as defined in 2000 by the U.S. Census Bureau. Categories include “central city of an MSA (Urban),” “in MSA but not in central city (Suburban),” and “not MSA (Rural).” All gangs, whether or not they are involved in violent or illegal activity, are included. “At school” includes in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and going to and from school. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2011 and 2013.

Figure 8.2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported that gangs were present at school during the school year, by race/ethnicity: 2011 and 2013

White Black

Race/ethnicity

10

0

20

30

40

50 Percent

2011 2013

Hispanic Asian Other

11.1 7.5

32.7

18.6 26.4

20.1

9.9 9.4 9.9 14.3

NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. “Other” includes American Indians/Alaska Natives, Pacific Islanders, and persons of Two or more races. All gangs, whether or not they are involved in violent or illegal activity, are included. “At school” includes in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and going to and from school. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2011 and 2013.

School Environment40

Students’ Reports of Illegal Drug Availability on School Property Indicator 9

The percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported that illegal drugs were offered, sold, or given to them on school property increased from 1993 to 1995 (from 24 to 32 percent), but then decreased to 22 percent in 2013. The percentage of students who reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on school property was lower in 2013 than in 2011 (22 vs. 26 percent). In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9–12 were asked whether someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property in the 12 months preceding the survey.26 From 1993 to 1995 the percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on school property increased (from 24 to 32 percent), but then decreased to 22 percent in 2013 (table 9.1). There was no measurable difference between the percentages reported in 1993 and 2013. However, the percentage of students who reported that drugs were made available to them on school property was lower in 2013 (22 percent) than in 2011 (26 percent; figure 9.1 and table 9.1).

In every survey year from 1993 to 2013, a lower percentage of females than of males reported that illegal drugs were offered, sold, or given to them on school property. In 2013, some 20 percent of females and 24 percent of males reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on school property. The percentage of males who reported that drugs were offered, sold, or given to them on school property in 2013 was lower than the percentage reported in 2011 (29 percent). However, for females the percentage reported in 2013 was not measurably different from the percentage reported in 2011.

In 2013, lower percentages of Black students (19 percent) and White students (20 percent) than of Hispanic students (27 percent) and students of Two

26 “On school property” was not defined for survey respondents.

or more races (26 percent) reported that illegal drugs were offered, sold, or given to them on school property (figure 9.2 and table 9.1). In addition, the percentage of Black students who reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on school property was lower than the percentage of Pacific Islander students (19 vs. 28 percent). Between 2011 and 2013, the percentages of Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students who reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on school property declined.

A lower percentage of 12th-graders than of 9th-, 10th-, or 11th-graders reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on school property in 2013 (table 9.1). Nineteen percent of 12th-graders reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on school property that year, compared with 22 percent of 9th-graders and 23 percent each of 10th- and 11th-graders.

In 2013, public school student reports of the availability of illegal drugs on school property varied across the 36 states for which state-level data were available (table 9.2). Among these states, the percentage of students reporting that illegal drugs were offered, sold, or given to them on school property ranged from 12 percent in Mississippi to 33 percent in New Mexico.

This indicator has been updated to include 2013 data. For more information: Tables 9.1 and 9.2, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014), (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss6304.pdf).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 41

Figure 9.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by sex: Selected years, 1993 through 2013

Percent

Male

Female

Total

0

10

20

30

40

50

19951993 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

NOTE: “On school property” was not defined for survey respondents. SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 1993 through 2013.

Figure 9.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on school property during the previous 12 months, by race/ethnicity: 2011 and 2013

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent

Race/ethnicity

2011 2013

White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian/

Alaska Native

Pacific Islander

Two or more races

22.7 20.4 18.6

27.4

22.6

27.7 25.5 26.422.8

33.2

23.3

40.538.9

33.3

NOTE: “On school property” was not defined for survey respondents. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 2011 and 2013.

School Environment42

Students’ Reports of Being Called Hate-Related Words and Seeing Hate-Related Graffiti

Indicator 10

In 2013, about 7 percent of students ages 12–18 reported being the target of hate-related words and 25 percent reported seeing hate-related graffiti at school during the school year; the corresponding 2011 percentages were both higher (9 and 28 percent, respectively). The School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey collects data on students’ reports of being the target of hate-related27 words and seeing hate-related graffiti at school.28 Specifically, students ages 12–18 were asked whether someone at school had called them a derogatory word having to do with their race, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender, or sexual orientation. Additionally, students were asked if they had seen hate-related graffiti at their school—that is, hate-related words or symbols written in classrooms, bathrooms, or hallways or on the outside of the school building.

In 2013, about 7 percent of students ages 12–18 reported being the target of hate-related words at school during the school year, which was lower than the 9 percent reported in 2011 (figure 10.1 and table 10.1). The percentage of students who reported being the target of hate-related words decreased from 12 percent in 2001 (the first year of data collection for this item) to 7 percent in 2013. Similarly, in 2013, about 25 percent of students reported seeing hate-related graffiti at school during the school year, which was lower than the 28 percent reported in 2011, and also represented a decrease from the 36 percent reported in 1999, when data for students’ reports of seeing hate-related graffiti at school were first collected.

The percentages of males and females who reported being called a hate-related word during the school year did not measurably differ in any survey year from 2001 to 2013. The percentages of male and female students who reported being called a hate-related word were lower in 2013 (7 percent each) than in

27 “Hate-related” refers to derogatory terms used by others in reference to students’ personal characteristics. 28 “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and, from 2001 onward, going to and from school.

2011 (9 percent each). In addition, the percentages of both males and females who reported being called a hate-related word decreased overall between 2001 and 2013 (from 13 to 7 percent for males and from 12 to 7 percent for females).

The percentages of males and females who reported seeing hate-related graffiti at school during the school year did not measurably differ in any survey year from 2001 to 2013. The percentage of male students who reported seeing hate-related graffiti at school was lower in 2013 (24 percent) than in 2011 (29 percent), as well as in 1999 (34 percent). The percentage of female students who reported seeing hate-related graffiti at school was lower in 2013 (25  percent) than in 2011 (28 percent) and lower than in 1999 (39 percent).

Indicator 10 continued on page 44.

This indicator has been updated to include 2013 data. For more information: Tables 10.1 and 10.2, and DeVoe and Bauer (2011), (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012314).

In 2013, a lower percentage of White students than students of any other race/ethnicity reported being called a hate-related word during the school year. About 5 percent of White students reported being called a hate-related word, compared with 7 percent of Hispanic students, 8 percent of Black students, 10 percent of Asian students, and 11 percent of students of other races/ethnicities. There were no measurable differences by race/ethnicity, however, in the percentages of students who reported seeing hate- related graffiti at school in 2013. About 21 percent of Asian students, 24 percent of White students, 26  percent each of Hispanic and Black students, and 28 percent of students of other races/ethnicities reported seeing hate-related graffiti at school.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 43

Figure 10.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being the target of hate-related words and seeing hate-related graffiti at school during the school year, by selected student and school characteristics: 2013

Total

Student or school characteristic

Hate-related graffitiHate-related words

Female

Male

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Other

6th

Public

Private

7th

8th

9th

10th

11th

12th

Percent

Sex

Race/ ethnicity1

Grade

Sector

Total

Student or school characteristic

Female

Male

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Other

6th

Public

Private

7th

8th

9th

10th

11th

12th

Percent

Sex

Race/ ethnicity1

Grade

Sector

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

28.4

25.6

12.6

20.8

25.6

26.3

23.7

24.2

25.8

26.0

27.2

24.0

21.7

21.9

25.1

24.1

24.6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3535

6.6

6.6

6.6

6.4

7.5

4.1

5.3

7.8

7.4

10.3

11.2

6.6

6.7

6.7

6.7

7.5

7.4

1 Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. “Other” includes American Indians/Alaska Natives, Pacific Islanders, and persons of Two or more races. NOTE: “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and going to and from school. “Hate-related” refers to derogatory terms used by others in reference to students’ personal characteristics. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2013.

School Environment44

Some measurable differences were observed across grades in students’ reports of being called a hate- related word and seeing hate-related graffiti at school in 2013 (figure 10.1 and table 10.1). In 2013, a lower percentage of 12th-graders (4 percent) than of 7th-, 8th-, and 9th-graders (7 percent each), and 11th-graders (8  percent) reported being called a hate-related word at school. A lower percentage of 7th-graders (22  percent) reported seeing hate-rated graffiti at school than 9th- and 10th-graders (27 and 26 percent, respectively).

In each data collection year between 1999 and 2013, a higher percentage of public school students than of private school students reported seeing hate-related graffiti at school. For instance, in 2013, approximately 26 percent of public school students reported seeing hate-related graffiti at school, compared with 13 percent of private school students. However, the percentages of public and private school students who reported being called a hate-related word were not measurably different in 2013 (7 percent each).

Students who reported being the target of hate- related words at school in 2013 were asked to indicate whether the derogatory word they were called referred to their race, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender, or sexual orientation (figure 10.2 and table 10.2). A lower percentage of male students than of female students reported being called a hate-related word referring to their gender (less than one-half of 1 percent vs. 2 percent).

With respect to being called a hate-related word referring to their race, a lower percentage of White students than of their peers reported being targeted in 2013 (table 10.2). Specifically, 2 percent of White students reported being called a hate-related word referring to their race, compared with 4 percent of Hispanic students, 6 percent of Black students, and 8 percent each of Asian students and students of other races/ethnicities.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 45

Figure 10.2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being the target of hate-related words at school during the school year, by type of hate-related word and sex: 2013

Percent

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 Total1 Race Ethnicity Gender Sexual

orientation Type of hate-related word

6.6 6.6 6.7 3.3 3.5 3.1

1.9 1.9 1.2 1.4 0.8 0.7 0.91.0 1.0 0.3 1.7 1.1 0.9 1.31.9

MaleTotal Female

Religion Disability

1 Students who indicated that they had been called a hate-related word were asked to choose the specific characteristics that the hate-related word or words targeted. Students were allowed to choose more than one characteristic. If a student chose more than one characteristic, he or she is counted only once in the total percentage of students who reported being called a hate-related word; therefore, the total is less than the sum of the students’ individual characteristics. NOTE: “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and going to and from school. “Hate-related” refers to derogatory terms used by others in reference to students’ personal characteristics. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2013.

School Environment46

Bullying at School and Cyber-Bullying Anywhere Indicator 11

The percentage of students who reported being bullied was lower in 2013 (22 percent) than in every prior survey year (28 percent each in 2005, 2009, and 2011 and 32 percent in 2007). The School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Sur vey collects data on bullying29 and cyber-bullying30 by asking students ages 12–18 if they had been bullied at school31 and cyber-bullied any where during the school year. Students were also asked about the types and frequencies of bullying and cyber-bullying they had been subjected to, as well as whether an adult at school32 had been notified of the incidents. Cyber- bullying is distinct from bullying at school; however, bullying at school might be a pertinent context to understand cyber-bullying anywhere. In the SCS, survey items on cyber-bullying anywhere were asked separately from survey items on bullying at school. In a different survey, the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), students in grades 9–12 were asked if they had been bullied on school property33 or electronically bullied during the previous 12 months. In addition to collecting data at the national level, the YRBS also collects data at the state level. Readers should take note of the differing data sources and terminology.

On the SCS in 2013, about 22 percent of students ages 12–18 reported being bullied at school during the school year (figure 11.1 and table 11.1). Of students ages 12–18, about 14 percent reported that they were made fun of, called names, or insulted; 13 percent reported being the subject of rumors; and 6 percent

29 “Bullying” includes students who responded that another student had made fun of them, called them names, or insulted them; spread rumors about them; threatened them with harm; tried to make them do something they did not want to do; excluded them from activities on purpose; destroyed their property on purpose; or pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on them. 30 “Cyber-bullying” includes students who responded that another student had posted hurtful information about them on the Internet; purposely shared private information about them on the Internet; threatened or insulted them through instant messaging; threatened or insulted them through text messaging; threatened or insulted them through e-mail; threatened or insulted them while gaming; or excluded them online. 31 “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. 32 “Adult at school” refers to a teacher or other adult at school. 33 In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), bullying was defined for respondents as “when one or more students tease, threaten, spread rumors about, hit, shove, or hurt another student over and over again.” “On school property” was not defined for survey respondents.

reported that they were pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on. Of those students who reported being pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on at school, about 21 percent reported injury as a result of the incident. Additionally, about 4 percent of all students reported being excluded from activities on purpose, 4 percent reported being threatened with harm, 2 percent reported that others tried to make them do things they did not want to do, and 2 percent reported that their property was destroyed by others on purpose.

In 2013, a higher percentage of females than of males ages 12–18 reported being bullied at school during the school year (24 vs. 19 percent). Also, higher percentages of females than of males reported that they were made fun of, called names, or insulted (15 vs. 13 percent); were the subject of rumors (17 vs. 10 percent); and were excluded from activities on purpose (5 vs. 4 percent). In contrast, a higher percentage of males (7 percent) than of females (5 percent) reported being pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on.

A higher percentage of White students (24 percent) than of Hispanic students (19 percent) and Asian students (9 percent) reported being bullied at school in 2013. In addition, higher percentages of Black students (20 percent) and Hispanic students than of Asian students reported being bullied at school. A higher percentage of White students (16 percent) than of Hispanic students (12 percent), Black students (10 percent), and Asian students (7 percent) reported being made fun of, called names, or insulted. Similarly, 15 percent of White students reported that they had been the subject of rumors, compared with 11 percent of Hispanic students and 4 percent of Asian students.

Indicator 11 continued on page 48.

This indicator has been updated to include 2013 data. For more information: Tables 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, and 11.6, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014), (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss6304.pdf), and DeVoe and Bauer (2011), (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012314).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 47

Figure 11.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school during the school year, by type of bullying and sex: 2013

Type of bullying

Bullied at school

Subject of rumors

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent

Total Male Female

Made fun of, called names,

or insulted

21.5 19.5

23.7

13.6 12.6

14.7

13.2 9.6

17.0

Threatened with harm 3.9 4.1

3.7

Tried to make do things did not

want to do

2.2 2.4

1.9

Excluded from activities on purpose

4.5 3.5

5.5

Property destroyed on

purpose

1.6 1.8

1.3

Pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on

6.0 7.4

4.6

NOTE: “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Bullying types do not sum to totals because students could have experienced more than one type of bullying. Students who reported experiencing more than one type of bullying at school were counted only once in the total for students bullied at school. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2013.

School Environment48

Higher percentages of students in grades 6 through 11 than of students in grade 12 reported being bullied at school during the school year. In 2013, about 14   percent of 12th-graders reported being bullied at school, compared with 28 percent of 6th- graders, 26 percent of 7th-graders, 22 percent of 8th-graders, 23 percent of 9th-graders, 19 percent of 10th-graders, and 20 percent of 11th-graders. No measurable differences were observed in the percentage of students who reported being bullied at school by school characteristics such as urbanicity and control of school.

The SCS also asked students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school to indicate the location where they had been victimized. In 2013, of students who reported being bullied during the school year, about 46 percent of students reported that the bullying occurred in the hallway or stairwell at school, 34  percent reported being bullied inside the classroom, and 23 percent reported being bullied outside on school grounds (figure 11.2 and table 11.2). About 19 percent of students who were bullied reported that the bullying occurred in the cafeteria, 9 percent reported that it occurred in the bathroom or locker room, 8 percent reported that it occurred on the school bus, and 1 percent reported that it occurred somewhere else in school.

In 2013, approximately 7 percent of students ages 12–18 reported being cyber-bullied anywhere during the school year (figure 11.3 and table 11.3). About

3 percent of students reported that another student had posted hurtful information about them on the Internet, and 3 percent reported being the subject of harassing text messages. Some 2 percent reported being the subject of harassing instant messages and 1 percent each reported having their private information purposely shared on the Internet, being the subject of harassing e-mails, being harassed while gaming, and being excluded online.

A higher percentage of female students than of male students ages 12–18 reported being victims of cyber- bullying in 2013. Nine percent of females compared with 5 percent of males were victims of cyber-bullying overall. In particular, a higher percentage of females than of males were victims of various types of cyber- bullying: Having hurtful information about them posted on the Internet by another student (5 vs. 1 percent), having their private information purposely shared on the Internet (1 percent vs. less than one-half of 1 percent), being the subject of harassing instant messages (3 vs. 1 percent), and being the subject of harassing text messages (5 vs. 2 percent). In contrast, 2 percent of male students reported being harassed while gaming, compared with less than one-half of 1 percent of female students.

Indicator 11 continued on page 50.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 49

Figure 11.2. Among students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school during the school year, percentage who reported being bullied in various locations: 2013

Percent

10

20

30

40

50

0

33.6

Inside classroom

In hallway or stairwell

In bathroom or locker room

Location of bullying

Cafeteria Somewhere else in school

Outside on school grounds

On school bus

45.6

9.1

18.9

0.8!

22.9

7.8

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. NOTE: “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Location totals may sum to more than 100 percent because students could have been bullied in more than one location. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2013.

School Environment50

The percentage of students who reported being cyber- bullied anywhere during the school year in 2013 was higher for White students (8 percent) than for Black students (5 percent). There were no measurable differences by grade level, urbanicity, or school sector in the prevalence of students reporting being a victim of cyber-bullying.

In 2013, about 33 percent of students who reported being bullied at school indicated that they were bullied at least once or twice a month during the school year: 19 percent reported being bullied once or twice a month, 8 percent reported being bullied once or twice a week, and 6 percent reported being bullied almost every day (figure 11.4 and table 11.4). About 27  percent of students who reported being cyber-bullied anywhere indicated that they were cyber-bullied at least once or twice a month during the school year: 15 percent reported being cyber- bullied once or twice a month, 8 percent reported being cyber-bullied once or twice a week, and 4 percent reported being cyber-bullied almost every day. Among students who reported being cyber- bullied, a higher percentage of females than of males reported being cyber-bullied once or twice a month (19 vs. 9 percent).

Students who reported being bullied or cyber-bullied were also asked whether they had notified an adult about the incident. In 2013, a higher percentage of students reported notifying an adult after being bullied at school than after being cyber-bullied anywhere (39 vs. 23 percent). While there was no measurable difference by sex in the percentage of students notifying an adult after being bullied at school, a higher percentage of females than of males reported notifying an adult after being cyber-bullied (32 vs. 11 percent). In addition, higher percentages of 6th- and 7th-graders than of 8th- through 12th- graders reported notifying an adult after being bullied at school, and higher percentages of 7th- and 8th-graders than of 9th-graders reported notifying an adult after being cyber-bullied. The percentage of students who reported notifying an adult after being bullied at school was higher for those who reported being bullied once or twice a week (55 percent) than for those who reported being bullied once or twice a year (37 percent) or once or twice a month (38 percent).

Indicator 11 continued on page 52.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 51

Figure 11.3. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being cyber-bullied anywhere during the school year, by type of cyber-bullying and sex: 2013

Percent

Total cyber- bullying

Hurtful information on Internet

Private information purposely shared on

Internet Type of cyber-bullying

Total Male Female

Subject of harassing

instant messages

Subject of harassing

text messages

Subject of harassing

e-mails

Subject of harassment

while gaming

Excluded online

10

20

30

40

50

0

6.9 5.2 8.6

1.2 4.5

0.9 0.4 1.5 2.1 1.0 3.4 3.2 1.6

4.9 0.9 0.2!1.7 1.5 2.5 0.4! 0.9 0.9 0.9

2.8

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. NOTE: Students who reported experiencing more than one type of cyber-bullying were counted only once in the cyber-bullying total. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding and because students could have experienced more than one type of cyber-bullying. Students who reported being cyber-bullied are those who responded that another student had done one or more of the following: posted hurtful information about them on the Internet; purposely shared private information about them on the Internet; threatened or insulted them through instant messaging; threatened or insulted them through text messaging; threatened or insulted them through e-mail; threatened or insulted them while gam ing; or excluded them online. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2013.

Figure 11.4. Among students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school or cyber-bullied anywhere during the school year, percentage reporting various frequencies of bullying and the notification of an adult at school: 2013

Percent

67.3

Once or twice in the school year

Once or twice

a month

Bullying at school Cyber-bullying anywhere2

Once or twice

a week

Almost every day

Adult notified1

Once or twice in the school year

Once or twice

a month

Once or twice

a week

Almost every day

Adult notified1

19.4

7.6 5.7

38.9

73.2

15.0 7.9

3.8

23.3 20

40

60

80

100

0

1 Teacher or other adult at school notified. 2 Students who reported being cyber-bullied are those who responded that another student had done one or more of the following: posted hurtful information about them on the Internet; purposely shared private information about them on the Internet; threatened or insulted them through instant messaging; threatened or insulted them through text messaging; threatened or insulted them through e-mail; threatened or insulted them while gaming; or excluded them online. NOTE: “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2013.

School Environment52

The percentages of students reporting being bullied at school varied over time from 2005 through 2013. Prior data are excluded from the time series due to a significant redesign of the bullying items in 2005. The percentage of students who reported being bullied was lower in 2013 (22 percent) than in every prior survey year (28 percent each in 2005, 2009, and 2011 and 32 percent in 2007; table 11.5). A similar pattern was observed for some of the student and school characteristics examined. For example, in 2013 about 24 percent of female students reported being bullied at school, compared with 29 percent each in 2005 and 2009, about 31 percent in 2011, and 33 percent in 2007. Similarly, about 24 percent of White students reported being bullied at school in 2013, compared with 29 percent in 2009, about 30 percent in 2005, about 31 percent in 2011, and 34 percent in 2007. By school characteristics, in 2013 about 22 percent of students from suburban schools reported being bullied at school, compared with 28  percent in 2009, about 29 percent each in 2005 and 2011, and 31 percent in 2007 (figure 11.5). Similarly, about

21 percent of public school students reported being bullied at school in 2013, compared with 28 percent in 2011, about 29 percent each in 2005 and 2009, and 32 percent in 2007.

As mentioned in the introduction, the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) collects both national and state-level data on bullying and electronic bullying for students in grades 9–12. In 2013, both national and state-level data on the percentages of students who reported being bullied on school property during the previous 12 months were available for 40 states (table 11.6). Among these states, the percentages of students who reported being bullied on school property ranged from 16 percent in Florida to 26 percent in Montana. There were also 40 states that had 2013 data available on the percentages of students who reported being electronically bullied during the previous 12 months. Among these states, the percentages of students who reported being electronically bullied ranged from 12 percent in Mississippi, Florida, and North Carolina to 21 percent in Maine.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 53

Figure 11.5. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school during the school year, by selected school characteristics: Selected years, 2005 through 2013

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 0

10

20

30

40

50 Percent

Urbanicity1 Sector2

Year Year

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

Rural

SuburbanUrban

Public

Private

1 Refers to the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) status of the respondent’s household as defined in 2000 by the U.S. Census Bureau. Categories include “central city of an MSA (Urban),” “in MSA but not in central city (Suburban),” and “not MSA (Rural).” These data by metropolitan status were based on the location of households and differ from those published in Student Reports of Bullying and Cyber-Bullying: Results From the 2011 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, which were based on the urban-centric measure of the location of the school that the child attended. 2 Sector of school as reported by the respondent. These data differ from those based on a matching of the respondent-reported school name to the Common Core of Data’s Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey or the Private School Survey, as reported in Student Reports of Bul- lying and Cyber-Bullying: Results From the 2011 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey. NOTE: “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2005 through 2013.

School Environment54

Indicator 12 continued on page 56.

Teachers’ Reports on School Conditions Indicator 12

In 2011–12, higher percentages of public school teachers than of private school teachers reported that student misbehavior and student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching.

i nter fered w it h t hei r te ac h i ng ; i n 2011–12 , 31 percent of elementar y school teachers and 45 percent of secondary school teachers reported that student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching (table 12.1). There was no measurable difference between the percentages of elementary and secondary school teachers who reported that student misbehavior interfered with their teaching.

The percentage of teachers who reported that student misbehavior interfered with their teaching fluctuated bet ween 1993 –94 and 2011–12; however, the percentage was higher in 2011–12 (38 percent) than in the previous survey year (34 percent in 2007–08; figure 12.2). The percentage of teachers reporting that student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching increased between 1993–94 and 2011–12 (from 25 to 35 percent). A higher percentage of teachers reported that student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching in 2011–12 than in 2007–08 (35 vs. 31 percent).

In every survey year, a lower percentage of public school teachers than of private school teachers agreed that school rules were enforced by other teachers and by the principal in their school (table 12.2). In 2011–12, some 68 percent of public school teachers reported that school rules were enforced by other teachers, compared with 77 percent of private school teachers. In addition, 84 percent of public school teachers reported that school rules were enforced by the principal, compared with 89 percent of private school teachers.

Managing inappropriate behaviors and classroom disruptions is time-consuming and takes away from valuable instructional time and student engagement in academic behaviors (Riley, McKevitt, Shriver, and Allen 2011). In the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), public and private school teachers were asked whether student misbehavior and student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching. During the 2011–12 school year, 38 percent of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that student misbehavior interfered with their teaching, and 35 percent reported that student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching (figure 12.1 and table 12.1). Teachers were also asked whether school rules were enforced by other teachers at their school, even for students not in their classes, and whether school rules were enforced by the principal. In 2011–12, about 69 percent of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that other teachers at their school enforced the school rules, and 84 percent reported that the principal enforced the school rules (figure 12.1 and table 12.2).

The percentages of teachers who reported that student misbehavior and student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching varied by school characteristics during the 2011–12 school year (table 12.1). For example, a higher percentage of public school teachers (41 percent) than of private school teachers (22 percent) reported that student misbehavior interfered with their teaching. Thirty- eight percent of public school teachers reported that student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching, compared with 19 percent of private school teachers.

In every survey year, a lower percentage of elementary school teachers than of secondary school teachers reported that student tardiness and class cutting

This indicator repeats information from the Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2013 report. For more information: Tables 12.1, 12.2, and 12.3; appendix B for definitions of school levels; and Coopersmith (2009), (http://nces.ed.gov/ pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009324).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 55

Figure 12.1. Percentage of public and private school teachers who agreed that student misbehavior and student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching, and percentage who agreed that other teachers and the principal enforced school rules, by school control: School year 2011–12

Student misbehavior interfered

Student tardiness and class cutting interfered

Other teachers enforced¹ Principal enforced² 0

20

40

60

80

100

38.5 40.7

22.0

35.3 37.6

18.8

68.8 67.6 77.4

84.4 83.7 89.4

Percent

PrivateTotal Public

1 Teachers were asked whether “rules for student behavior are consistently enforced by teachers in this school, even for students not in their classes.” 2 Teachers were asked whether their “principal enforces school rules for student conduct and backs me up when I need it.” NOTE: Teachers who taught only prekindergarten students are excluded. Includes teachers who “strongly” agreed and teachers who “somewhat” agreed that students’ misbehavior, tardiness, and class cutting interfered with their teaching, as well as teachers who “strongly” agreed and teachers who “somewhat” agreed that other teachers and the principal enforced school rules. The public sector includes traditional public and public charter school teachers. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Teacher Data File” and “Private School Teacher Data File,” 2011–12.

Figure 12.2. Percentage of public and private school teachers who agreed that student misbehavior and student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching, and percentage who agreed that other teachers and the principal enforced school rules: Selected school years, 1993–94 through 2011–12

Percent Percent

School year

Student misbehavior interfered

Principal enforced1

Other teachers enforced2

Student tardiness and class cutting interfered

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

1993–94 1999–2000 2003–04 2007–08 2011–12 1993–94 1999–2000 2003–04 2007–08 2011–12

1 Teachers were asked whether their “principal enforces school rules for student conduct and backs me up when I need it.” 2 Teachers were asked whether “rules for student behavior are consistently enforced by teachers in this school, even for students not in their classes.” NOTE: Teachers who taught only prekindergarten students are excluded. Includes teachers who “strongly” agreed and teachers who “somewhat” agreed that students’ misbehavior, tardiness, and class cutting interfered with their teaching, as well as teachers who “strongly” agreed and teachers who “somewhat” agreed that other teachers and the principal enforced school rules. The public sector includes traditional public and public charter school teachers. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Teacher Data File” and “Private School Teacher Data File,” 1993–94, 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2007–08, and 2011–12; and “Charter School Teacher Data File,” 1999–2000.

School Environment56

Between 1993–94 and 2011–12, the percentage of teachers who agreed or strongly agreed that school rules were enforced by other teachers fluctuated between 64 and 73 percent, and the percentage who agreed that rules were enforced by the principal fluctuated between 82 and 89 percent, showing no consistent trends. However, a lower percentage of teachers reported that school rules were enforced by other teachers in 2011–12 (69 percent) than in the previous survey year (72 percent in 2007–08). Similarly, the percentage of teachers who reported that school rules were enforced by the principal was lower in 2011–12 than in 2007– 08 (84 vs. 89 percent).

In 2011–12, the percentages of public school teachers who reported that student misbehavior and student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching varied by state. For example, among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, the percentage of teachers who reported that student misbehavior interfered with their teaching ranged from 31 percent in Wyoming to 55 percent in Louisiana (table 12.3). The percentages of teachers who reported that school rules were enforced by other teachers and by the principal also varied by state.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 57

Fights, Weapons, and Illegal

Substances Indicator 13 Physical Fights on School Property and Anywhere .................................................................58

Figure 13.1 ..............................................................59 Figure 13.2 ..............................................................59 Figure 13.3 ..............................................................61

Indicator 14 Students Carrying Weapons on School Property and Anywhere and Students’ Access to Firearms .......... 62

Figure 14.1 ..............................................................63 Figure 14.2 ..............................................................63 Figure 14.3 ..............................................................65

Indicator 15 Students’ Use of Alcohol on School Property and Anywhere ..........................................................66

Figure 15.1 ..............................................................67 Figure 15.2 ..............................................................67 Figure 15.3 ..............................................................69

Indicator 16 Students’ Use of Marijuana on School Property and Anywhere .......................................................... 70

Figure 16.1 ..............................................................71 Figure 16.2 ..............................................................71 Figure 16.3 ..............................................................73

Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances58

Physical Fights on School Property and Anywhere Indicator 13

The percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported being in a physical fight anywhere decreased between 1993 and 2013 (from 42 to 25 percent), and the percentage of students in these grades who reported being in a physical fight on school property also decreased during this period (from 16 to 8 percent). In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9–12 were asked about their involvement in physical fights in general (referred to as “anywhere” in this indicator),34 as well as about their involvement in physical fights on school property, during the 12 months preceding the survey.35 In this indicator, percentages of students reporting involvement in fights occurring anywhere are used as a point of comparison with percentages of students reporting involvement in fights occurring on school property.

Overall, the percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported being in a physical fight anywhere decreased between 1993 and 2013 (from 42 to 25 percent), and the percentage of students in these grades who reported being in a physical fight on school property also decreased during this period (from 16 to 8 percent; figure 13.1 and table 13.1). The percentage of students in these grades who reported being in a physical fight anywhere was lower in 2013 (25 percent) than in 2011 (33 percent); the percentage of those who reported being in a physical fight on school property was also lower in 2013 (8 percent) than in 2011 (12 percent).

From 1993 through 2013, the percentages of students in grades 9–12 who reported being in a physical fight anywhere as well as a physical fight on school property decreased for all four grade levels. The 2013 percentages of 12th-graders who reported being in a physical fight, either anywhere or on school property, were lower than the percentages reported by 9th-, 10th-, and 11th-graders. In 2013, about 19 percent of 12th-graders reported being in a physical fight anywhere, compared with 28 percent of 9th-graders, 26 percent of 10th-graders, and 24 percent of 11th-graders. Similarly, 5 percent of 12th-graders, compared with 11 percent of 9th-graders, 8 percent of 10th-graders, and 7 percent of 11th-graders reported being in a physical fight on school property.

34 “Anywhere” includes on school property. 35 The term “anywhere” is not used in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) questionnaire; students were simply asked how many times in the past 12 months they had been in a physical fight. In the question asking students about physical fights at school, “on school property” was not defined for survey respondents.

The percentages of 9th- to 12th-graders who reported being in a physical fight in 2013 differed by race/ ethnicity. For example, a higher percentage of Black students (35 percent) than of students of Two or more races (29 percent), Hispanic students (28 percent), Pacific Islander students (22 percent), White students (21 percent), and Asian students (16 percent) reported being in a physical fight anywhere (figure 13.2 and table 13.1). In addition, higher percentages of Hispanic students and students of Two or more races than of White students and Asian students reported being in a physical fight anywhere. With regard to the involvement of 9th- to 12th-graders in physical fights on school property, the same patterns by race/ ethnicity were observed. The percentage of students who reported being in a physical fight on school property was higher for Black students (13 percent) than for students of Two or more races (10 percent), Hispanic students (9 percent), Pacif ic Islander students (7 percent), White students (6 percent), and Asian students (5 percent), and the percentages were higher for students of Two or more races and Hispanic students than for White students and Asian students.

Between 1993 and 2013, the percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported being in a physical fight anywhere decreased for White students (from 40 to 21 percent), Hispanic students (from 43 to 28 percent), and American Indian/Alaska Native students (from 50 to 32 percent). During the same period, the percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported being in a physical fight on school property decreased for White students (from 15 to 6 percent), Black students (from 22 to 13 percent), and Hispanic students (from 18 to 9 percent). The percentages of Asian students who reported being in a physical fight anywhere and on school property both decreased between 1999 (the first year separate data on Asian and Pacific Islander students were available) and 2013. The percentage of Pacific Islander students who reported being in a physical fight on school property also decreased between 1999 and 2013.

Indicator 13 continued on page 60.

This indicator has been updated to include 2013 data. For more information: Table 13.1, 13.2, and 13.3 and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014), (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss6304.pdf).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 59

Figure 13.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported having been in a physical fight at least one time during the previous 12 months, by location and grade: Selected years, 1993 through 2013

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Percent

On school property

Year

Percent

Anywhere (including on school property)

Year

12th

9th

9th

10th

10th11th

12th11th

Total Total

NOTE: The term “anywhere” is not used in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) questionnaire; students were simply asked how many times in the past 12 months they had been in a physical fight. In the question asking students about physical fights at school, “on school property” was not defined for survey respondents. SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 1993 through 2013.

Figure 13.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported having been in a physical fight at least one time during the previous 12 months, by race/ethnicity and location: 2013

White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian/

Alaska Native

Pacific Islander

Two or more races

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percent

Race/ethnicity

Anywhere (including on school property) On school property

20.9

6.4

34.7

12.8

28.4

9.4 16.1

5.5

22.0

7.1!

32.1

10.7

28.5

10.0

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. The term “anywhere” is not used in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) questionnaire; students were simply asked how many times in the past 12 months they had been in a physical fight. In the question asking students about physical fights at school, “on school property” was not defined for survey respondents. SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 2013.

Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances60

Students in grades 9–12 were also asked how often they had been in physical fights during the previous 12 months. In 2013, about 19 percent of students in these grades reported being in a physical fight anywhere 1 to 3 times, 4 percent reported being in a physical fight anywhere 4 to 11 times, and 2 percent reported being in a physical fight anywhere 12 or more times (figure 13.3 and table 13.2) during the 12-month period. When students in these grades were asked about the incidence of physical fights on school property during the 12-month period, 7  percent reported being in a physical fight on school property 1 to 3 times, 1 percent reported being in a physical fight on school property 4 to 11 times, and less than 1 percent reported being in a physical fight on school property 12 or more times.

The percentages of both male and female 9th- to 12th-graders who reported being in a physical fight both anywhere and on school property decreased between 1993 and 2013. About 30 percent of male students reported being in a physical fight anywhere in 2013 compared with 51 percent in 1993, and 11 percent reported being in a physical fight on school property in 2013 compared with 24 percent in 1993. About 19 percent of female students reported being in a physical fight anywhere in 2013 compared with 32 percent in 1993, and 6 percent reported being in a physical fight on school property in 2013 compared with 9 percent in 1993.

In 2013, a higher percentage of male than of female 9th- to 12th-graders reported being in a physical fight

during the previous 12 months (30 vs. 19 percent; figure 13.3 and table 13.1). The reported frequency of fights involving students in these grades was also higher for males than for females (table 13.2). A higher percentage of males than of females reported being in a physical fight anywhere 1 to 3 times (22 vs. 16 percent), 4 to 11 times (5 vs. 3 percent), and 12 or more times (3 vs. 1 percent) during the 12-month period. Similar to the frequency of fights anywhere, in 2013, a higher percentage of males than of females in grades 9 through 12 reported that they had been in a physical fight on school property during the previous 12 months (11 vs. 6 percent). Additionally, a higher percentage of males than of females reported being in a physical fight on school property 1 to 3 times (9 vs. 5 percent), 4 to 11 times (1 percent vs. less than 1 percent), and 12 or more times (1 percent vs. less than 1 percent).

Data for the percentage of public school students who reported being in a physical fight anywhere in 2013 were available for 37 states, and data for physical fights on school property involving these students were available for 35 states. Among these states, the percentages of students who reported being in a physical fight anywhere ranged from 17 percent in Hawaii and Maine to 31 percent in Louisiana and Mississippi, and the percentages of students who reported being in a physical fight on school property ranged from 5 percent in Massachusetts to 14 percent in Mississippi and Maryland (table 13.3).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 61

Figure 13.3. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported having been in a physical fight during the previous 12 months, by location, number of times, and sex: 2013

8.110.7 5.6

7.1 9.1 5.1

0.6 0.8 0.3! 0.5 0.7 0.3

24.7 30.2

19.2 18.8 22.1

15.6

4.0 5.4 2.6 1.9 2.7 1.0 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percent

At least 1 time

1 to 3 times

4 to 11 times

12 or more times

At least 1 time

1 to 3 times

4 to 11 times

12 or more times

Number of times

Anywhere (including on school property) On school property

Total Male Female

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. NOTE: The term “anywhere” is not used in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) questionnaire; students were simply asked how many times in the past 12 months they had been in a physical fight. In the question asking students about physical fights at school, “on school property” was not defined for survey respondents. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 2013.

Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances62

Students Carrying Weapons on School Property and Anywhere and Students’ Access to Firearms

Indicator 14

Between 1993 and 2013, the percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported carrying a weapon on school property 1 day during the previous 30 days declined from 12 to 5 percent. A higher percentage of male students than of female students reported they had carried a weapon, both anywhere and on school property, in every survey year from 1993 to 2013.

This indicator uses data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) to discuss students’ carrying of weapons on school property and anywhere, then uses state data from the EDFacts data collection to discuss the numbers of incidents involving students with firearms at school by state, and concludes with a discussion of data from the School Crime Supplement (SCS) survey on students’ access to firearms at school or away from school. Readers should take note of the differing data sources and terminology.

In the YRBS, students were asked if they had carried a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club anywhere in the previous 30 days and if they had carried such a weapon on school property during the same time period.36 In this indicator, the percentage of students carrying a weapon “anywhere”37 is included as a point of comparison with the percentage of students carrying a weapon on school property.

In 2013, some 18 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported that they had carried a weapon anywhere at least 1 day during the previous 30 days: 9 percent reported carrying a weapon anywhere on 6 or more days, 6 percent reported carrying a weapon on 2 to 5 days, and 3 percent reported carrying a weapon on 1 day (tables 14.1 and 14.2). In comparison, 5 percent of students reported carrying a weapon on school property at least 1 day during the previous 30 days. This percentage was composed of the 3 percent of students who reported carrying a weapon on 6 or more days, the 1 percent of students who reported carrying a weapon on 2 to 5 days, and the 1 percent of students who reported carrying a weapon on 1 day during the 30-day period.

The percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon on school property in the previous 30 days

36 The term “anywhere” is not used in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) questionnaire; students were simply asked how many days they carried a weapon during the past 30 days. In the question asking students about carrying a weapon at school, “on school property” was not defined for survey respondents. 37 “Anywhere” includes on school property.

declined from 12 percent in 1993 to 5 percent in 2013 (figure 14.1 and table 14.1). The percentage of students who reported carrying weapons anywhere was lower in 2013 (18 percent) than in 1993 (22 percent) or 1995 (20 percent). There were no measurable differences between the 2011 and 2013 percentages of students who reported carrying a weapon either anywhere or on school property during the previous 30 days.

In every survey year from 1993 to 2013, a higher percentage of male students than of female students reported that they had carried a weapon, both any where and on school property. In 2013, for example, 28 percent of male students reported carrying a weapon any where, compared with 8 percent of female students. In addition, 8 percent of male students reported carrying a weapon on school property, compared with 3 percent of female students.

In 2013, the percentage of White students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere in the previous 30 days (21 percent) was higher than the percentages of Hispanic students (16 percent), Pacific Islander and Black students (13 percent each), and Asian students (9 percent) who reported doing so (figure 14.2 and table 14.1). In addition, higher percentages of students of Two or more races (19 percent) and Hispanic students than of Black students and Asian students reported carrying a weapon anywhere during the period. The percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native students (18 percent) who reported carrying a weapon anywhere was also higher than the percentage of Asian students. With respect to students reporting that they carried a weapon on school property during the previous 30 days, a higher percentage of White students (6 percent) than of Black students (4 percent) reported that they had carried a weapon during the previous 30 days.

Indicator 14 continued on page 64.

This indicator has been updated to include 2013 data. For more information: Tables 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, and 14.5, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014), (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss6304.pdf), and DeVoe and Bauer (2011), (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012314).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 63

Figure 14.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and sex: Selected years, 1993 through 2013

Anywhere (including on school property)

Year

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent

On school property

Year

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent

Male

Total

Female Male Total

Female

NOTE: The term “anywhere” is not used in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) questionnaire; students were simply asked how many days they carried a weapon during the past 30 days. In the question asking students about carrying a weapon at school, “on school property” was not defined for survey respondents. Respondents were asked about carrying “a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club.” SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 1993 through 2013.

Figure 14.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by race/ethnicity and location: 2013

Percent

0

20

10

30

40

50

Race/ethnicity

Anywhere (including on school property) On school property

Total White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian/

Alaska Native

Pacific Islander

Two or more races

17.9

5.2

20.8

5.7

12.5

3.9

15.5

4.7

8.7

3.8

12.6!

4.0!

17.8

7.0!

18.8

6.3

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. The term “anywhere” is not used in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) question- naire; students were simply asked how many days they carried a weapon during the past 30 days. In the question asking students about carrying a weapon at school, “on school property” was not defined for survey respondents. Respondents were asked about carrying “a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club.” SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 2013.

Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances64

There were no measurable differences by grade in the percentages of students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere or on school property at least 1  day during the previous 30 days in 2013: About 18 percent of students at each of grade levels 9 through 12 reported carrying a weapon anywhere during the previous 30 days, and 5 percent each of 9th-, 10th-, and 12th-graders and 6 percent of 11th-graders reported carrying a weapon on school property. However, a higher percentage of 12th-graders (11 percent) than of 9th- and 10th-graders (8 percent each) reported carrying a weapon anywhere on 6 or more days during the previous 30 days (table 14.2).

In 2013, state-level data on percentages of public school students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere were available for 34 states (table 14.3). Among these states, the percentages of students who reported carrying a weapon anywhere ranged from 10 percent in New Jersey and Hawaii to 29 percent in Wyoming. There were also 34 states that had 2013 data available on the percentages of students reporting that they carried a weapon on school property during the previous 30 days; the percentages ranged from 3 percent in New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Nevada to 10 percent in Montana, Wyoming, and Vermont.

The majority of states had ratios between 1.0 and 10.0 firearm possession incidents per 100,000 students from 2008–09 to 2012–13. During the 2012–13 school year, eight states and the District of Columbia had ratios of firearm possession incidents per 100,000 students that were at or below 1.0. The eight states were: Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and West

Virginia. All of these states, with the exception of West Virginia, had ratios of firearm incidents per 100,000 students that were at or below 1.0 in the 2011–12 school year as well. During the 2012–13 school year, three states had ratios above 10.0: Arkansas, Missouri, and Wyoming. However, only one of these states, Arkansas, also had a ratio above 10.0 during the 2011–12 school year. During 2011–12, Utah was the only other state with a ratio above 10.0 firearm possession incidents per 100,000 students.

Information about students’ access to firearms can put student reports of carrying a gun anywhere and on school property into context. In the SCS survey, students were asked if they could have gotten a loaded gun without adult permission, either at school or away from school, during the current school year. In 2013, about 4 percent of students ages 12–18 reported having access to a loaded gun without adult permission, either at school or away from school, during the current school year (figure 14.3 and table 14.4). The percentage of 12- to 18-year-old students reporting that they had access to a loaded gun without adult permission decreased from 7 percent in 2007 (the first year of data collection for this item) to 4 percent in 2013. There was no measurable difference between the percentages who reported having such access to a loaded gun between 2011 and 2013.

In every survey year from 2007 to 2011, a higher percentage of male students than of female students ages 12–18 reported having access to a loaded gun without adult permission. However, there was no measurable difference between the percentages of male and female students who reported having such access to a loaded gun in 2013. The percentage of male students who reported having access to a loaded gun without adult permission was lower in 2013 than in 2011 (4 vs. 6 percent). The percentages of female students who reported having such access to a loaded gun were not measurably different between these two years.

In 2013, higher percentages of 10th-, 11th-, and 12th-graders reported having access to a loaded gun without adult permission than did 7th- and 8th-graders. About 5 percent of 10th-graders and 6 percent each of 11th- and 12th-graders reported having access to a loaded g un wit hout adu lt supervision, compared with 2 percent each of 7th- and 8th-graders. The percentage of 11th-graders reporting that they had access to a gun without adult supervision was also higher than the percentage of 9th-graders reporting such access (3 percent).

Reported incidents involving students who brought or possessed firearms at school are also important to examine. As part of the EDFacts data collection, state education agencies report the number of incidents involving students who brought or possessed firearms at school. State education agencies compile these data based on incidents that were reported by their schools and school districts. During the 2012–13 school year, there were 1,556 reported firearm possession incidents at school in the United States (table 14.5). The total number of incidents varied widely across states, due in large part to the differing populations at the state level. Therefore, the ratio of firearm possession incidents per 100,000 students can provide a more comparable indication of the frequency of these incidents across states. During the 2012–13 school year, the ratio of firearm possession incidents per 100,000 students in the United States was 3.1.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 65

Figure 14.3. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported having access to a loaded gun, without adult permission, at school or away from school during the school year, by sex: Selected years, 2007 through 2013

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent

Sex

2007 2009 2011 2013

Total Male Female

6.7 5.5 4.7 3.7

8.4 7.6 5.6 3.9 5.0 3.4 3.6 3.4

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007 through 2013.

Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances66

Students’ Use of Alcohol on School Property and Anywhere Indicator 15

Between 1993 and 2013, the percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported having at least one drink of alcohol during the previous 30 days decreased from 48 to 35 percent. The percentage who reported consuming alcohol in 2013 was lower than the percentage in 2011 (39 percent). In 2011, some 5 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported having at least one drink of alcohol on school property. In the 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, students in grades 9–12 were asked if they had consumed alcohol on at least 1 day during the previous 30 days. Prior to 2013, students were also asked if they had consumed alcohol on school property38 during the previous 30 days. Due to this change in the questionnaire, this indicator differs from previous editions: it first discusses results on alcohol consumption anywhere using data up to 2013 and then discusses students’ reports of alcohol consumption on school property using data up to 2011.

Between 1993 and 2013, the percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported having at least one drink of alcohol during the previous 30 days decreased from 48 to 35 percent (figure 15.1 and table 15.1). Additionally, the percentage who reported consuming alcohol in 2013 was lower than the percentage in 2011 (39 percent). In 2013, about 17 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported consuming alcohol on 1 or 2 days during the previous 30 days, 17 percent reported consuming alcohol on 3 to 29 of the previous 30 days, and 1 percent reported consuming alcohol on all of the previous 30 days (table 15.2). The percentage of students who reported consuming alcohol on 1 or 2 days was lower in 2013 than in 2011 (17 vs. 19 percent).

In every survey year between 1993 and 2001, except in 1995, a higher percentage of males than of females reported consuming alcohol on at least 1 day during the previous 30 days. However, in the survey years since 2003, there have been no measurable differences between the percentages of male and female students who reported consuming alcohol on at least 1 of the previous 30 days. Nevertheless, there were differences by sex in the number of days students reported

38 In the question about drinking alcohol at school, “on school property” was not defined for survey respondents. The term “anywhere” was not used in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) questionnaire; students were simply asked how many days during the previous 30 days they had at least one drink of  alcohol.

consuming alcohol in 2013. A higher percentage of females than of males reported consuming alcohol on 1 or 2 days (19 vs. 16 percent). In contrast, a higher percentage of males than of females reported consuming alcohol on all of the previous 30 days (1 percent vs. less than one-half of 1 percent; figure 15.2 and table 15.2).

In 2013, the percentage of students who reported consuming alcohol increased with grade level. About 47 percent of 12th-graders reported consuming alcohol on at least 1 day during the previous 30 days (figure 15.3 and table 15.1). This percentage was higher than the percentages for 9th-graders (24  percent), 10th-graders (31 percent), and 11th-graders (39 percent). Additionally, higher percentages of Hispanic students (37 percent), White students and students of Two or more races (36 percent each), American Indian/Alaska Native students (33  percent), and Black students (30 percent) than of Asian students (22 percent) reported consuming alcohol at least 1 day during the previous 30 days in 2013. The percentage of Black students who reported consuming alcohol at least 1 day was lower than the percentages reported by White students, Hispanic students, and students of Two or more races.

In 2013, state-level data on the percentages of students who reported consuming alcohol were available for 41  states (table 15.3). Among these states, the percentages of students who reported drinking alcohol on at least 1 day during the previous 30 days ranged from 11 percent in Utah to 39 percent in Louisiana and New Jersey.

Indicator 15 continued on page 68.

This indicator has been updated to include 2013 data. For more information: Tables 15.1, 15.2, and 15.3, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014), (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss6304.pdf).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 67

Figure 15.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported using alcohol at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location and sex: Selected years, 1993 through 2013

Anywhere, 1993–2013 (including on school property)

Year

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 0

20

40

60

Percent

On school property, 1993–2011

Year

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 0

20

40

60

Percent

Total

Male

Male

Female

Female

Total

NOTE: The term “anywhere” was not used in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) questionnaire; students were simply asked how many days during the previous 30 days they had at least one drink of alcohol. In the question about drinking alcohol at school, “on school property” was not defined for survey respondents. Data on alcohol use at school were not collected in 2013. SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 1993 through 2013.

Figure 15.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported using alcohol at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by location, number of days, and sex: 2011 and 2013

3.15.4 4.7 3.4 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.1!

Number of days

Male Female

35.5

15.7 18.8 17.4 16.3

1.2 0.3

34.4

0

20

40

60

Percent

0

20

40

60

Percent

At least 1 day

1 or 2 days 3 to 29 days All 30 days At least 1 day

1 or 2 days 3 to 29 days All 30 days

Anywhere, 2013 (including on school property) On school property, 2011

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. NOTE: The term “anywhere” was not used in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) questionnaire; students were simply asked how many days during the previous 30 days they had at least one drink of alcohol. In the question about drinking alcohol at school, “on school property” was not defined for survey respondents. Data on alcohol use at school were not collected in 2013. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 2011 and 2013.

Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances68

Prior to 2013, data were also collected on student alcohol consumption on school property during the previous 30 days. In 2011, some 5 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported having at least one drink of alcohol on school property, which was not measurably different from the percentage in 1993 (figure 15.1 and table 15.1). About 3 percent of students reported using alcohol on school property on 1 or 2 of the previous 30 days in 2011. One percent of students reported using alcohol on school property on 3 to 29 of the previous 30 days, and one-half percent of students reported using alcohol on school property on all of the previous 30 days (table 15.2).

Higher percentages of American Indian/Alaska Native students (21 percent) and Hispanic students

(7 percent) than of Black students (5 percent), White students (4 percent), and Asian students (3 percent) reported alcohol consumption on school property in 2011. However, there were no measurable differences in t he percenta ges of students who repor ted consuming alcohol on at least 1 day on school property in 2011 by sex and grade level.

In 2011, state-level data on the percentages of students who reported using alcohol on at least 1 day during the previous 30 days on school property were available for 37 states and the District of Columbia (table 15.3). Among these states, the percentages of students who reported drinking alcohol on school property ranged from 2 percent in Indiana and Iowa to 7 percent in the District of Columbia.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 69

Figure 15.3. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported using alcohol anywhere at least 1 day during the previous 30 days, by grade: 2013

0

20

40

60

34.9

24.4 30.9

39.2

46.8

Percent

Total 9th 10th

Grade

11th 12th

NOTE: The term “anywhere” was not used in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) questionnaire; students were simply asked how many days during the previous 30 days they had at least one drink of alcohol. “Anywhere” includes on school property. SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 2013.

Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances70

Students’ Use of Marijuana on School Property and Anywhere Indicator 16

In 2013, some 23 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported using marijuana at least one time in the previous 30 days, which was higher than the percentage reported in 1993 (18 percent). In 2011, some 6 percent of students reported using marijuana at least one time on school property. The 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Survey asked students in grades 9–12 whether they had used marijuana in the previous 30 days. Prior to 2013, students were also asked whether they had used marijuana on school property39 in the previous 30 days. Due to this change in the questionnaire, this indicator differs from previous editions; it first discusses students’ reports of marijuana use anywhere using data up to 2013, and then discusses students’ reports of marijuana use on school property using data up to 2011.

In 2013, some 23 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported using marijuana at least one time in the previous 30 days, which was higher than the percentage reported in 1993 (18 percent) but not measurably different from that reported in 2011 (figure 16.1 and table 16.1). In 2013, about 7 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported using marijuana 1 or 2 times during the previous 30 days, 11 percent reported using marijuana 3 to 39 times during the previous 30 days, and 5 percent reported using marijuana 40 or more times during the previous 30 days (table 16.2).

In every survey year between 1993 and 2011, higher percentages of male students than of female students reported using marijuana at least one time in the previous 30 days; in 2013, there was no measurable difference in the percentages reported by male and female students (25 and 22 percent, respectively; figure  16.1 and table 16.1). However, a higher percentage of males (7 percent) than of females (3 percent) reported using marijuana 40 or more times during the previous 30 days in 2013 (figure 16.2 and table 16.2).

39 In the question about using marijuana at school, “on school property” was not defined for survey respondents. The term “anywhere” is not used in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) questionnaire; students were simply asked how many times during the previous 30 days they had used marijuana.

In 2013, some differences in the percentages of students who reported marijuana use were observed by race/ethnicity and grade level. The percentages of Asian students (16 percent) and White students (20  percent) who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days were lower than the percentages reported by Hispanic students (28 percent), Black students and students of Two or more races (29 percent each), and American Indian/Alaska Native students (36 percent; figure 16.3 and table 16.1). In addition, the percentage of students in 9th grade (18 percent) who reported using marijuana was lower than the percentages of students in 10th grade (23 percent), 11th grade (26 percent), and 12th grade (28 percent) who reported doing so.

In 2013, state-level data for students who reported using marijuana at least one time in the previous 30  days were available for 42 states (table 16.3). Among these states, the percentages of students who reported using marijuana ranged from 8 percent in Utah to 28 percent in New Mexico.

Indicator 16 continued on page 72.

This indicator has been updated to include 2013 data. For more information: Tables 16.1, 16.2, and 16.3, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014), (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss6304.pdf).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 71

Figure 16.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported using marijuana at least one time during the previous 30 days, by location and sex: Selected years, 1993 through 2013

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 20132011 0

10

20

30

40

50

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent

Anywhere, 1993–2013 (including on school property)

Year

Male

MaleFemale

Female

Total

Total

Percent

On school property, 1993–2011

Year

NOTE: The term “anywhere” is not used in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) questionnaire; students were simply asked how many times during the previous 30 days they had used marijuana. In the question about using marijuana at school, “on school property” was not defined for survey respondents. Data on marijuana use at school were not collected in 2013. SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 1993 through 2013.

Figure 16.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported using marijuana during the previous 30 days, by location, number of times, and sex: 2011 and 2013

Number of times

Male Female

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent

At least 1 time

1 or 2 times

21.9

7.5 4.1 3.1 2.5 3.2 1.4 1.2 0.2

25.0

6.5 7.8

12.0 10.7 6.5

3.4

3 to 39 times

40 or more times

At least 1 time

1 or 2 times

3 to 39 times

40 or more times

Anywhere, 2013 (including on school property) On school property, 2011

NOTE: The term “anywhere” is not used in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) questionnaire; students were simply asked how many times during the previous 30 days they had used marijuana. In the question about using marijuana at school, “on school property” was not defined for survey respondents. Data on marijuana use at school were not collected in 2013. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 2011 and 2013.

Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances72

Prior to 2013, data were also collected on students’ marijuana use on school property during the previous 30 days. Some 6 percent of students reported using marijuana at least one time on school property in 2011; this was not measurably different from the percentage reported in 1993 but was higher than the percentage reported in 2009 (5 percent; figure 16.1  and table 16.1). In 2011, about 3 percent of students reported using marijuana on school property 1 or 2 times in the previous 30 days, about 2 percent reported using marijuana 3 to 39 times during the previous 30 days, and 1 percent reported using marijuana 40 or more times during the previous 30 days (table 16.2).

In every survey year between 1993 and 2011, higher percentages of male students than of female students reported using marijuana on school property at least one time in the previous 30 days (figure 16.1 and table 16.1). For example, 8 percent of male students reported using marijuana on school property in 2011, compared with 4 percent of female students.

In 2011, a higher percentage of American Indian/ Alaska Native students (21 percent) than of students from most other racial/ethnic groups reported using marijuana on school property at least one time in the previous 30 days. Additionally, a higher percentage of Hispanic students (8 percent) than of White or Asian students (5 and 4 percent, respectively) reported using marijuana on school property, and a higher percentage of Black students (7 percent) than of White students reported doing so. There were no measurable differences by grade level in the percentages of students reporting marijuana use on school property in 2011.

In 2011, state-level data for students who reported using marijuana on school property at least one time in the previous 30 days were available for 36 states and the District of Columbia (table 16.3). Among these states, the percentages of students who reported using marijuana on school property ranged from 2 percent in Oklahoma to 10 percent in New Mexico.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 73

Figure 16.3. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported using marijuana anywhere at least one time during the previous 30 days, by race/ethnicity: 2013

Percent

0

20

10

30

40

50

Race/ethnicity

White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian/

Alaska Native

Pacific Islander

Two or more races

20.4

28.9 27.6

16.4

23.4!

35.5 28.8

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. The term “anywhere” is not used in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) question- naire; students were simply asked how many times during the previous 30 days they had used marijuana. “Anywhere” includes on school property. SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 2013.

This page intentionally left blank.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 75

Fear and Avoidance

Indicator 17 Students’ Perceptions of Personal Safety at School and Away From School ................................ 76

Figure 17.1 ...............................................................77 Figure 17.2 ..............................................................77

Indicator 18 Students’ Reports of Avoiding School Activities or Classes or Specific Places in School .................. 78

Figure 18.1 ..............................................................79 Figure 18.2 ..............................................................80

Fear and Avoidance76

Students’ Perceptions of Personal Safety at School and Away From School

Indicator 17

The percentage of students who reported being afraid of attack or harm at school decreased from 12 percent in 1995 to 3 percent in 2013, and the percentage of students who reported being afraid of attack or harm away from school decreased from 6 percent in 1999 to 3 percent in 2013. In the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12–18 were asked how often40 they had been afraid of attack or harm “at school or on the way to and from school” as well as “away from school.”41 In 2013, about 3 percent of students ages 12–18 reported that they were afraid of attack or harm at school or on the way to and from school during the school year (figure 17.1 and table 17.1). Similarly, 3 percent of students ages 12–18 reported that they were afraid of attack or harm away from school during the school year.

Between 1995 and 2013, the percentages of students who reported being afraid of attack or harm at school decreased overall (from 12 to 3 percent), as well as among male students (from 11 to 3 percent) and female students (from 13 to 4 percent; figure 17.1). In addition, the percentage of students who reported being afraid of attack or harm at school decreased between 1995 and 2013 for White students (from 8 to 3 percent), Black students (from 20 to 5 percent), and Hispanic students (from 21 to 5 percent). A declining trend was also observed for away from school: between 1999 (the first year of data collection for this item) and 2013, the percentage of students who reported being afraid of attack or harm decreased from 6 to 3 percent overall, from 4 to 2 percent for male students, and from 7 to 3 percent for female students. The percentages of White students (from 4 to 2 percent), Black students (from 9 to 4 percent), and Hispanic students (from 9 to 4 percent) who reported being afraid of attack or harm away from school also decreased during this period. Between the two most recent survey years, 2011 and 2013, no measurable differences were found in the overall percentages of students who reported being afraid of attack or harm, either at school or away from school.

40 Students were asked if they “never,” “almost never,” “sometimes,” or “most of the time” feared that someone would attack or harm them at school or away from school. Students responding “sometimes” or “most of the time” were considered fearful. For the 2001 survey only, the wording was changed from “attack or harm” to “attack or threaten to attack.” 41 “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and, from 2001 onward, going to and from school.

In 2013, higher percentages of Black and Hispanic students (5 percent each) than of White students (3 percent) reported being afraid of attack or harm at school (table 17.1). Similarly, higher percentages of Black and Hispanic students (4 percent each) than of White students (2 percent) reported being afraid of attack or harm away from school.

Higher percentages of 6th-graders (5 percent) and 7th- and 10th-graders (4 percent each) reported being afraid of attack or harm at school than did 12th-graders (2 percent) in 2013. Likewise, higher percentages of 6th-, 9th-, and 10th-graders (3 to 4  percent each) reported being afraid of attack or harm away from school than did 12th-graders (1 percent).

In 2013, higher percentages of students in urban areas than of students in suburban areas reported being afraid of attack or harm both at school and away from school (figure 17.2). Specifically, 4 percent of students in urban areas reported being afraid of attack or harm at school, compared with 3 percent of students in suburban areas. Similarly, 4 percent of students in urban areas reported being afraid of attack or harm away from school, higher than the 2 percent of students in suburban areas. In addition, a higher percentage of students in urban areas than of students in rural areas reported being afraid of attack or harm away from school (4 vs. 2 percent). There were no measurable differences between the percentages of public school and private school students who reported being afraid of attack or harm at school or away from school in 2013.

This indicator has been updated to include 2013 data. For more information: Table 17.1, and DeVoe and Bauer (2011), (http:// nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012314).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 77

Figure 17.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being afraid of attack or harm during the school year, by location and sex: Selected years, 1995 through 2013

25

20

15

10

5

0

Total

Female

At school

Male

25

20

15

10

5

0 1995

TotalFemale

Away from school

Year Year

Male

1999 2001 2003 2005 20071 20091 20111 201311995 1999 2001 2003 2005 20071 20091 20111 20131

Percent Percent

1 Starting in 2007, the reference period was the school year, whereas in prior survey years the reference period was the previous 6 months. Cognitive testing showed that estimates from 2007 onward are comparable to previous years. NOTE: “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and, from 2001 onward, going to and from school. Students were asked if they “never,” “almost never,” “sometimes,” or “most of the time” feared that someone would attack or harm them at school or away from school. Students responding “sometimes” or “most of the time” were considered fearful. For the 2001 survey only, the wording was changed from “attack or harm” to “attack or threaten to attack.” Data on fear of attack or harm away from school were not collected in 1995. For more information, please see appendix A. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 1995 through 2013.

Figure 17.2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being afraid of attack or harm during the school year, by location and urbanicity: 2013

At school Away from school Location

0

5

10

15

20

25

3.5 4.5 3.0

3.3 2.7

4.0 2.2 1.7

Percent

Suburban RuralTotal Urban

NOTE: “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and going to and from school. Students were asked if they “never,” “almost never,” “sometimes,” or “most of the time” feared that someone would attack or harm them at school or away from school. Students responding “sometimes” or “most of the time” were considered fearful. Urbanicity refers to the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) status of the respondent’s household as defined in 2000 by the U.S. Census Bureau. Categories include “central city of an MSA (Urban),” “in MSA but not in central city (Suburban),” and “not MSA (Rural).” SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2013.

Fear and Avoidance78

Students’ Reports of Avoiding School Activities or Classes or Specific Places in School

Indicator 18

In 2013, about 5 percent of students ages 12–18 reported that they avoided school activities or classes or one or more places in school because they thought someone might attack or harm them. The School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey asked students ages 12– 18 whether they avoided school activities or classes42 or one or more places in school43 because they were fearful that someone might attack or harm them.44 In 2013, about 5 percent of students reported that they avoided at least one school activity or class or one or more places in school during the previous school year because they feared being attacked or harmed. Specifically, 2 percent of students reported avoiding at least one school activity or class, and about 4 percent reported avoiding one or more places in school (figure 18.1 and table 18.1).

There was no overall pattern of increase or decrease between 1999 and 2013 in the percentage of students who reported that they avoided at least one school activity or class or one or more places in school because of fear of attack or harm. The percentage in 2013 (5 percent) was lower than the percentage in 1999 (7 percent) but not measurably different from the percentage in 2011.

In 2013, about 1 percent each of students reported that they avoided any activities, avoided any classes, and stayed home from school. With respect to avoiding specific places in school, 2 percent of students reported that they avoided the hallways or stairs in school, and 1 percent each reported that they avoided parts of the school cafeteria, any school restrooms, the entrance to the school, and other places inside the school building.

Students’ reports of avoiding one or more places in school because of fear of attack or harm varied by some student and school characteristics in 2013 (figure 18.2). A higher percentage of Hispanic students (5  percent) t ha n of W hite students (3 percent) reported avoiding one or more places in school. By grade, higher percentages of 7th-graders and 9th-graders (5 percent each) than of 8th-graders (3 percent), 11th-graders (3 percent), or 12th-graders (2 percent) reported avoiding one or more places in school. Also, a higher percentage of public school students (4 percent) than of private school students (1 percent) reported avoiding one or more places in  school.

42 “Avoided school activities or classes” includes student reports of three activities: avoiding any (extracurricular) activities, avoiding any classes, or staying home from school. Before 2007, students were asked whether they avoided “any extracurricular activities.” Starting in 2007, the survey wording was changed to “any activities.” Caution should be used when comparing changes in this item over time. 43 “Avoiding one or more places in school” includes student reports of five activities: avoiding the entrance, any hallways or stairs, parts of the cafeteria, restrooms, and other places inside the school building. 44 For the 2001 survey only, the wording was changed from “attack or harm” to “attack or threaten to attack.” See appendix A for more information.

This indicator has been updated to include 2013 data. For more information: Table 18.1, and DeVoe and Bauer (2011), (http:// nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012314).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 79

Figure 18.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported avoiding school activities or classes or avoiding one or more places in school because of fear of attack or harm during the school year: 2013

Total

Any activities

Any classes

Stayed home from school

Avoided one or more places in school

Other places inside the school buidling

0 5 10 15 20

Percent

Entrance to the school

Hallways or stairs in school

Parts of the school cafeteria

Any school restrooms

Avoided school activities or classes

4.7

2.0

1.0

0.5

0.9

3.7

0.8

1.7

1.4

1.3

0.8

NOTE: “Avoided school activities” includes avoiding any (extracurricular) activities, skipping class, or staying home from school. “Avoided one or more places in school” includes avoiding the entrance, any hallways or stairs, parts of the cafeteria, restrooms, and other places inside the school building. Students were asked whether they avoided places, activities, or classes because they thought that someone might attack or harm them. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding and because students reporting more than one type of avoidance were counted only once in the totals. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2013.

Fear and Avoidance80

Figure 18.2. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported avoiding one or more places in school because of fear of attack or harm during the school year, by selected student and school characteristics: 2013

Total

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Other

Urban

Suburban

Rural

Public

Private

Male

Sex

Urbanicity2

Sector

Race/ ethnicity1

Female

0 5 10 15 20

Percent

3.7

3.4

3.9

3.0

3.3

4.9

3.8!

5.9

4.3

3.3

3.5

3.9

1.0!

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 1 Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. “Other” includes American Indians/Alaska Natives, Pacific Islanders, and persons of Two or more races. 2 Refers to the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) status of the respondent’s household as defined in 2000 by the U.S. Census Bureau. Categories include “central city of an MSA (Urban),” “in MSA but not in central city (Suburban),” and “not MSA (Rural).” NOTE: Places include the entrance, any hallways or stairs, parts of the cafeteria, restrooms, and other places inside the school building. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2013.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 81

Discipline, Safety, and

Security Measures

Indicator 19 Serious Disciplinary Actions Taken by Public Schools..................................................................... 82

Figure 19.1 ..............................................................83 Figure 19.2 ..............................................................84

Indicator 20 Safety and Security Measures Taken by Schools ...86

Figure 20.1 ..............................................................87 Figure 20.2 ..............................................................89

Indicator 21 Students’ Reports of Safety and Security Measures Observed at School ................................ 92

Figure 21.1 ..............................................................93

Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures82

Serious Disciplinary Actions Taken by Public Schools Indicator 19

During the 2009–10 school year, 39 percent of public schools took at least one serious disciplinary action against a student for specific offenses. A total of 433,800 serious disciplinary actions were taken by public schools during this period. In the School Survey on Crime and Safety, public school principals were asked to report the number of disciplinary actions their schools had taken against students for specific offenses. The student offenses were physical attacks or fights; distribution, possession, or use of alcohol; distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs; use or possession of a firearm or explosive device; and use or possession of a weapon other than a firearm or explosive device.

During the 2009–10 school year, 39 percent of public schools (32,300 schools) took at least one serious disciplinary action—including suspensions lasting 5 days or more, removals with no services for the remainder of the school year (i.e., expulsions), and transfers to specialized schools—for specific offenses (table 19.1).

Out of all offenses reported, physical attacks or fights prompted the largest percentage of schools (29 percent) to respond with at least one serious disciplinary action (figure 19.1 and table 19.1). In response to other offenses by students, 20 percent of schools reported that they took disciplinary action for the distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs; 13 percent took action for the use or possession of a weapon other than a firearm or explosive device; 9 percent did so for the distribution, possession, or use of alcohol; and 3 percent did so for the use or possession of a firearm or explosive device.

No linear trends were detected in the percentages of schools that took at least one serious disciplinary action for any of the reported offenses over time between 2003 – 04 and 2009–10, although the percentage of schools taking at least one serious disciplinary action for physical attacks or fights declined between 1999–2000 (35 percent) and 2009–10 (29 percent).

During the 2009–10 school year, the percentage of public schools that took serious disciplinary actions increased with school level. A higher percentage of high schools (83 percent) took at least one serious disciplinary action than did middle schools (67  percent) and primary schools (18 percent). Combined schools (schools that provide instruction at both elementary and secondary grades) took at least one serious disciplinary action at a higher percentage (49 percent) than primary schools, but at a lower percentage than either middle schools or high schools. This pattern by school level was generally observed for disciplinary actions taken in response to specific offenses as well. For example, 66 percent of high schools took serious disciplinary actions in response to distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs, compared with 37 percent of middle schools, 23 percent of combined schools, and 2 percent of primary schools.

A total of 433,800 serious disciplinary actions were taken by public schools during the 2009–10 school year for specific offenses. Most of these reported disciplinary actions were taken in response to physical attacks or fights (265,100 actions). The number of disciplinary actions taken in response to the use or possession of a firearm or explosive device (5,800 actions) was smaller than for other offenses reported. Of the serious disciplinary actions taken during the 2009–10 school year, 74 percent were suspensions for 5 days or more, 20 percent were transfers to specialized schools, and 6 percent were removals with no services for the remainder of the school year.

Indicator 19 continued on page 84.

This indicator repeats information first reported in the Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2011 report. For more information: Tables 19.1 and Neiman (2011), (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011320).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 83

Figure 19.1. Percentage of public schools that took a serious disciplinary action, by type of offense and school level: School year 2009–10

29.0

9.2 1.0!

13.6 36.1

19.5 2.0

36.9 66.1

3.0

4.1 1.7!

7.3

13.5 6.4

25.1 28.9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Total Primary school1 Middle school1 Percent

High school1

49.7 62.6

13.2

Type of offense

Physical attacks or fights

Distribution, possession, or use of alcohol

Distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs

Use or possession of a firearm or explosive device

Use or possession of a weapon other than a

firearm or explosive device

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 1 Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 12. NOTE: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Serious disciplinary actions include removals with no continuing services for at least the remainder of the school year, transfers to specialized schools for disciplinary rea- sons, and out-of-school suspensions lasting 5 or more days, but less than the remainder of the school year. Respondents were instructed to respond only for those times that were during normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session, unless the survey specified otherwise. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2009–10 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2010.

Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures84

Greater percentages of out-of-school suspensions lasting 5 days or more were imposed upon students in response to physical attacks or fights (81 percent) and the distribution, possession, or use of alcohol (74 percent) than were imposed in response to the other offenses covered in the survey (ranging from 55 to 62 percent; figure 19.2). Greater percentages of removals with no services for the remainder of the school year were imposed upon students in response to the use or possession of a firearm or

explosive device (22 percent) than were imposed in response to other offenses reported (ranging from 4 to 9 percent). Greater percentages of transfers to specialized schools were imposed in response to the distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs (32 percent) and the use or possession of a weapon other than a firearm or explosive device (29 percent) than were imposed in response to the distribution, possession, or use of alcohol (22 percent) and physical attacks or fights (14 percent).

Figure 19.2. Percentage distribution of serious disciplinary actions taken by public schools, by type of offense and type of disciplinary action: School year 2009–10

Out-of-school suspensions lasting 5 days or more

Type of offense

Total

Physical attacks or fights

Distribution, possession, or use of alcohol

Distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs

Use or possession of a firearm or explosive device

Use or possession of a weapon other than a

firearm or explosive device

Removal with no services for remainder of school year

Transfer to specialized schools

Percent

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. NOTE: Responses were provided by the principal or the person most knowledgeable about crime and safety issues at the school. Serious disciplin- ary actions include removals with no continuing services for at least the remainder of the school year, transfers to specialized schools for disciplinary reasons, and out-of-school suspensions lasting 5 or more days, but less than the remainder of the school year. Respondents were instructed to respond only for those times that were during normal school hours or when school activities or events were in session, unless the survey specified otherwise. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2009–10 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2010.

This page intentionally left blank.

Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures86

Safety and Security Measures Taken by Schools Indicator 20

During the 2011–12 school year, 88 percent of public schools reported that they controlled access to school buildings by locking or monitoring doors during school hours, and 64 percent reported that they used security cameras to monitor the school. In the 2009–10 school year, 43 percent of schools reported the presence of one or more security staff at their school at least once a week during the school year. Schools use a variety of practices and procedures to promote the safety of students and staff. In the Schools and Staffing Survey, principals of public and private schools were asked about their schools’ use of safety and security measures and procedures. Certain practices, such as locking or monitoring doors or gates, are intended to limit or control access to school campuses, while others, such as the use of metal detectors and security cameras, are intended to monitor or restrict students’ and visitors’ behavior on campus. Another measure of safety and security, collected in the School Survey on Crime and Safety, is the presence of full-time and part-time security staff in public schools during the school year.

In the 2011–12 school year, 88 percent of public schools reported that they controlled access to school buildings by locking or monitoring doors during school hours (table 20.1). Other safety and security measures frequently reported by public schools included the use of security cameras to monitor the school (64 percent) and the enforcement of a strict dress code (49 percent; figure 20.1). In addition, 44 percent of public schools reported that they controlled access to school grounds by locking or monitoring

gates during school hours, 24 percent reported the use of random dog sniffs to check for drugs, and 19 percent required that students wear uniforms.

In general, higher percentages of public than of private schools reported the use of various safety and security measures in the 2011–12 school year (table 20.1). For example, higher percentages of public than of private schools reported the use of security cameras (64 vs. 41 percent) and random dog sniffs to check for drugs (24 vs. 4 percent). Higher percentages of public than of private schools also reported the following measures: controlling access to school buildings during school hours; requiring that students wear badges or picture IDs; requiring that book bags be clear or banning them from school; conducting metal detector checks on students (including both random and daily checks); and conducting random sweeps for contraband.45 However, higher percentages of private than of public schools enforced a strict dress code (71 vs. 49 percent) and required that students wear uniforms (57 vs. 19 percent).

45 For example, drugs or weapons. Does not include dog sniffs.

Indicator 20 continued on page 88.

This indicator repeats information from the Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2013 report. For more information: Tables 20.1, 20.2, and 20.3, and Neiman (2011), (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011320).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 87

Figure 20.1. Percentage of public and private schools that used selected safety and security measures: School year 2011–12

Students required to pass through metal detectors daily

Random metal detector checks on students

Required clear book bags or banned book bags

on school grounds

Required students to wear badges or picture IDs

Random sweeps for contraband3

Required students to wear uniforms

Random dog sniffs to check for drugs

Controlled access to grounds during school hours2

Enforced a strict dress code

Security cameras used to monitor the school

Controlled access to buildings during school hours1

0.4!

2.7

1.2!

5.0

1.7

5.7

2.7

7.4

7.5

12.1

56.9

19.3

4.1

24.0

42.1

44.1

71.3

49.1

40.6 64.3

80.1 88.2

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 1 For example, locked or monitored doors. 2 For example, locked or monitored gates. 3 For example, drugs or weapons. Does not include dog sniffs. NOTE: Responses were provided by the principal. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Principal Data File” and “Private School Principal Data File,” 2011–12.

Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures88

In the 2011–12 school year, higher percentages of public secondary schools or combined schools than of elementary schools reported using the following safety and security measures: enforcing a strict dress code; requiring that students wear badges or picture IDs; requiring that book bags be clear or banning them from school; conducting metal detector checks on students (including both random and daily checks); using random dog sniffs to check for drugs; conducting random sweeps for contraband;46 and using security cameras to monitor the school (table 20.2). For example, among public schools, 81 percent of secondary schools, 72 percent of combined schools, and 58 percent of elementary schools reported the use of security cameras to monitor the school (table 20.1). In addition, the percentage of public secondary schools who reported using random dog sniffs for drugs (57 percent) was higher than the percentages of combined schools (41 percent) and elementary schools (11 percent) with such a procedure in place. However, lower percentages of public secondary schools (84 percent) and combined schools (83 percent) than of elementary schools (90 percent) reported controlling access to buildings during school hours. Also, the percentage of public secondary schools who reported requiring that students wear uniforms (12 percent) was lower than the percentages of elementary schools (20 percent) and combined schools (30 percent) with such a requirement.

The use of safety and security measures in the 2011–12 school year also varied by public school locale (table 20.2). Higher percentages of public city schools than of public schools in suburban, town, and rural areas reported the following measures: controlling access to school grounds during school hours; requiring that students wear uniforms; enforcing a strict dress code; requiring that students

46 For example, drugs or weapons. Does not include dog sniffs.

wear badges or picture IDs; and conducting metal detector checks on students (including both random and daily checks). For example, 55 percent of public city schools reported controlling access to school grounds, compared with 46 percent of suburban schools and 37 percent each of public schools in towns and rural areas. However, public city schools had the lowest reported percentage of schools with security cameras (59 percent of city schools vs. between 65 and 67 percent of rural, suburban, and town schools). In addition, higher percentages of public town and rural schools than of city and suburban schools reported the use of random dog sniffs for drugs and random sweeps for contraband.

Many safety and security measures tended to be more prevalent in high-poverty public schools (where 76 percent or more of students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) than in low-poverty schools (where 25 percent or less of students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) during the 2011–12 school year (table 20.2). Higher percentages of high- poverty public schools than of low-poverty schools reported controlling access to school grounds during school hours; requiring that students wear uniforms; enforcing a strict dress code; requiring that students wear badges or picture IDs; requiring that book bags be clear or banning them from school; conducting metal detector checks on students (including both random and daily checks); and conducting sweeps for contraband.46 For instance, 64 percent of high-poverty public schools reported enforcing a strict dress code, compared with 38 percent of low- poverty schools. Also, 47 percent of high-poverty public schools reported requiring school uniforms, compared to 6 percent of low-poverty public schools.

Indicator 20 continued on page 90.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 89

Figure 20.2. Percentage of public schools that used selected safety and security measures: Selected school years, 2003–04 through 2011–12

2007–082003–04 2011–12

Required students to wear badges

or picture IDs

Random sweeps for contraband3

Uniforms

Controlled access to grounds

during school hours2

Strict dress code

Security cameras

Controlled access to buildings during

school hours1

7.4

7.5

6.1

12.1

14.8

12.8

19.3

16.5

13.5

44.1

44.9

39.4

49.1

54.0

49.3

64.3

51.8

32.5

88.2

88.8

81.5

1 For example, locked or monitored doors. 2 For example, locked or monitored gates. 3 For example, drugs or weapons. Does not include dog sniffs. NOTE: Responses were provided by the principal. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Princi- pal Data File,” 2011–12.

Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures90

The percentages of public schools reporting the use of various safety and security measures in 2011–12 tended to be higher or not measurably different from the percentages reported in 2003–04 (figure 20.2 and table 20.1). For example, the percentage of public schools reporting that they required that students wear uniforms increased from 13 to 19  percent between the 2003–04 and 2011–12 school years. Public schools’ reported use of security cameras to monitor the school increased from 2003 – 04 (32  percent) to 2011–12 (64 percent). Also, the percentage of public schools reporting that they controlled access to buildings during school hours was higher in 2011–12 than in 2003–04 (88 vs. 82 percent). A similar pattern was observed for controlled access to grounds during school hours (44 percent in 2011–12 vs. 39 percent in 2003–04).

In the 2009–10 school year, 43 percent of public schools reported the presence of one or more security guards, security personnel, School Resource Officers, or sworn law enforcement officers at their school at least once a week during the school year (table 20.3).47 The percentage of public schools reporting the presence of security staff did not measurably differ between 2005–06 (42 percent) and 2009–10 (43 percent); however, the percentage of public schools reporting the presence of security staff was higher in 2007–08 (46 percent) than in either 2005–06 or 2009–10. Twenty-nine percent of public schools reported having at least one full-time employed security staff who was present at least once a week, and 14 percent of public schools reported having only part-time staff. A lower percentage of public schools reported full-time security staff at their school in 2005–06 (27 percent) than in 2007–08 (30 percent), while there were no measurable differences between each of these percentages and the percentage reported in 2009–10 (29 percent). No measurable differences were found across years for the percentages of public schools reporting part-time only security staff.

47 Security guards or security personnel does not include law enforcement. School Resource Officers include all career law enforcement officers with arrest authority who have specialized training and are assigned to work in collaboration with school organizations. Sworn law enforcement includes sworn law enforcement officers who are not School Resource Officers.

A bout 28 percent of public prima r y schools reported the presence of one or more security staff at their school at least once a week in 2009–10. The percentage of public primary schools reporting security staff was lower than the percentages of middle schools and high schools reporting the presence of security staff (66 and 76 percent, respectively) but was not measurably different from the percentage of combined schools reporting the presence of security staff. A higher percentage of public high schools (62 percent) than of primary (16 percent), combined (24 percent), or middle schools (46 percent) reported having full-time security staff (table 20.3).

Differences in the presence of security staff were also found by other school characteristics. For example, the percentage of public city schools that reported the presence of one or more security staff at least once a week during the 2009–10 school year (51 percent) was higher than the percentages of town schools (39 percent) and rural schools (35 percent). The percentage of public suburban schools reporting the presence of security staff (45 percent) was also higher than the percentage of rural schools.

Public schools were also asked to report whether any of their security staff routinely carried a firearm at school.48 In 2009–10, some 28 percent of all public schools reported the presence of security staff routinely carrying a firearm (table 20.3). The percentage of public schools reporting security staff routinely carrying firearms was higher in 2007–08 (34 percent) than in either 2005–06 (31 percent) or 2009–10 (28 percent); there was no measurable difference between 2005–06 and 2009–10. Twelve percent of public primary schools, 25 percent of combined schools, 51 percent of middle schools, and 63 percent of high schools reported the presence of one or more security staff at their schools routinely carrying firearms during the 2009–10 school year.

48 The survey item about carrying firearms did not include the term “School Resource Officer” in the question text.

This page intentionally left blank.

Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures92

Students’ Reports of Safety and Security Measures Observed at School

Indicator 21

In the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, students ages 12–18 were asked whether their schools used certain security measures.49 Security measures include metal detectors, locker checks, security cameras, security guards or assigned police officers, adults supervising hallways, badges or picture identification for students, a written code of student conduct, locked entrance or exit doors during the day, and a requirement that visitors sign in. In 2013, nearly all students ages 12–18 reported that they observed the use of at least one of the selected security measures at their schools (figure 21.1 and table 21.1).

In 2013, most students ages 12–18 reported that their schools had a written code of student conduct and a requirement that visitors sign in (96 percent each). Approximately 90 percent of students reported the presence of school staff (other than security guards or assigned police officers) or other adults supervising the hallway, 77 percent reported the use of one or more security cameras at their schools, and 76 percent reported locked entrance or exit doors during the day. About 70 percent of students reported the presence of security guards and/or assigned police officers, 52 percent reported locker checks, and 26 percent reported that students were required to wear badges or picture identification at their schools. Eleven percent of students reported the use of metal detectors at their schools, representing the least observed of the selected safety and security measures.

The percentage of students who reported locked entrance or exit doors during the day increased

In 2013, about 77 percent of students ages 12–18 reported observing one or more security cameras to monitor the school during the day at their schools, and 76 percent of students reported observing locked entrance or exit doors during the day.

between the two most recent survey years, as well as over the past 14 years. Specifically, 76 percent of students reported observing locked entrance or exit doors during the day in 2013, representing an increase from 65 percent in 2011, as well as an overall increase from 38 percent in 1999. The percentage of students who reported the presence of school staff (other than security guards or assigned police officers) or other adults supervising the hallway also was higher in 2013 (90 percent) than in 2011 (89 percent) and in 1999 (85 percent).

The percentage of students who reported the presence of metal detectors at school increased from 1999 to 2013 (from 9 to 11 percent), as did the percentage of students who reported the presence of security guards and/or assigned police officers (from 54 to 70  percent) and the percentage of students who reported a requirement that visitors sign in (from 87 to 96 percent). Beginning in 2001, students were asked whether they observed the use of security cameras at school and whether they were required to wear badges or picture identification. From 2001 to 2013, the percentage of students who reported the use of one or more security cameras at school increased from 39 to 77 percent, and the percentage of students who reported that they were required to wear badges or picture identification increased from 21 to 26 percent. No measurable differences were found between the two most recent survey years (2011 and 2013) in the percentages of students reporting these safety and security measures.

49 Readers should note that this indicator relies on student reports of security measures and provides estimates based on students’ awareness of the measure rather than on documented practice. See Indicator 20 for a summary of the use of various security measures as reported by schools.

This indicator has been updated to include 2013 data. For more information: Table 21.1, and DeVoe and Bauer (2011), (http:// nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012314).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 93

Figure 21.1. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported various security measures at school: Selected years, 1999 through 2013

Total1

Security measure

A written code of student conduct1

A requirement that visitors

sign in

Other school staff or other

adults supervising the hallway

One or more security cameras

to monitor the school1

Percent

Locked entrance or exit doors

during the day

Security measure

Security guards and/or assigned

police officers

Locker checks

A requirement that students wear badges

or picture identification1

Metal detectors

0 20 40 Percent

60 80 1000 20 40 60 80 100

1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

99.4 99.3 99.6 99.8 99.3 99.6 99.6

95.1 95.3 95.5 95.9 95.6 95.7 95.9

90.2 87.1

91.7 93.0 94.3 94.3 94.9 95.8

88.3 85.4

90.6 90.1 90.0 90.6 88.9 90.5

38.5 47.9

57.9 66.0

70.0 76.7 76.7

8.7 9.0

10.1 10.7 10.1 10.6 11.2 11.0

21.2 22.5

24.9 24.3 23.4 24.8 26.2

53.5 53.3

54.1 63.6

69.6 68.3 68.8 68.1 69.8 70.4

38.1 48.8

52.8 54.3

60.9 64.3 64.5

75.8

53.0 53.2 53.6 53.8

53.0 52.0

1 Data for 1999 are not available. NOTE: “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and, from 2001 onward, going to and from school. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 1999 through 2013.

This page intentionally left blank.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 95

Postsecondary Campus

Safety and Security

Indicator 22 Criminal Incidents at Postsecondary Institutions .....96

Figure 22.1 ..............................................................97 Figure 22.2 ..............................................................99 Figure 22.3 ............................................................101

Indicator 23 Hate Crime Incidents at Postsecondary Institutions .............................................................. 102

Figure 23.1 ............................................................103 Figure 23.2 ............................................................105

Postsecondary Campus Safety and Security 96

Criminal Incidents at Postsecondary Institutions Indicator 22

In 2012, there were 29,500 criminal incidents on campus at public and private 2-year and 4-year postsecondary institutions that were reported to police and security agencies, representing a 4 percent decrease from 2011 (30,700). There was also a decrease in the number of on-campus crimes reported per 10,000 full-time-equivalent students, from 20.0 in 2011 to 19.4 in 2012. Since 1990, postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV federal student financial aid programs have been required to comply with the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, known as the Clery Act. The Clery Act requires institutions to give timely warnings about crimes to students and staff; to publicly report campus crime and safety policies; and to collect, report, and disseminate campus crime data. Since 1999, data on campus safety and security have been reported by institutions through the Campus Safety and Security Survey. These reports include on-campus criminal offenses and arrests involving students, faculty, staff, and the general public. Reports on referrals for disciplinary action primarily deal with persons associated formally with the institution (i.e., students, faculty, and other staff ).

In 2012, there were 29,500 criminal incidents against persons and property on campus at public and private 2-year and 4-year postsecondary institutions that were reported to police and security agencies, representing a 4 percent decrease from 2011 (30,700; table 22.1). There was also a decrease in the number of on-campus crimes per 10,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students, from 20.0 in 2011 to 19.4 in 2012 (table 22.2).

Among the various types of on-campus crimes reported in 2012, there were 18,100 burglaries, constituting 61  percent of all criminal incidents (table 22.1 and figure 22.1). Other commonly reported crimes included forcible sex offenses (3,900 incidents, or 13 percent of crimes) and motor vehicle theft (3,000 incidents, or 10 percent of crimes). In addition, 2,400 aggravated assaults and 1,400 robberies were reported. These estimates translate to 11.9 burglaries, 2.6 forcible sex offenses, 2.0 motor vehicle thefts, 1.6 aggravated assaults, and 0.9  robberies per 10,000 FTE students (table 22.2). Eleven murders occurred on college campuses in 2012, fewer than the 16 that occurred in 2011.

Looking at on-campus crime patterns over a longer period, the overall number of crimes reported between 2001 and 2012 decreased by 29 percent (table 22.1). Although the number of reported on-campus crimes increased by 7 percent between 2001 and 2006 (from 41,600 to 44,500), the number of crimes decreased by 34 percent (to 29,500) between 2006 and 2012. The number of on-campus crimes reported in 2012 was lower than in 2001 for every category except forcible sex offenses. The number of reported forcible sex crimes on campus increased from 2,200 in 2001 to 3,900 in 2012 (a 77 percent increase). More recently, the number of reported forcible sex crimes increased from 3,400 in 2011 to 3,900 in 2012 (a 15 percent increase).

Increases in FTE college enrollment between 2001 and 2012 as well as changes in the number of crimes affected the number of on-campus crimes per 10,000 FTE students (see Digest of Education Statistics 2014 for details about college enrollment). Overall, the number of on-campus crimes per 10,000 students was lower in 2012 (19.4 per 10,000) than in 2001 (35.6 per 10,000; table 22.2). Between 2001 and 2006, enrollment increased by a larger percentage than the number of crimes, which resulted in the number of on-campus crimes per 10,000 students in 2006 (33.3) actually being lower than in 2001 (35.6). Between 2006 and 2012, the number of reported on-campus crimes decreased, enrollment increased, and the number of on-campus crimes per 10,000 students decreased from 33.3 to 19.4. The rates per 10,000 students for all types of reported on-campus crimes other than forcible sex offenses were lower in 2012 than in 2001. In the case of forcible sex offenses, the rate was higher in 2012 (2.6 per 10,000 students) than in 2001 (1.9 per 10,000 students).

Indicator 22 continued on page 98.

This indicator has been updated to include 2012 data. For more information: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 22.1 and 22.2, and http://ope.ed.gov/security/.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 97

Figure 22.1. Number of on-campus crimes reported and number per 10,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by selected type of crime: 2001 through 2012

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of on-campus crimes

0

10

20

30

40

50

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of crimes per 10,000 FTE students

Burglary2

Motor vehicle theft3 Motor vehicle theft 3

Forcible sex offense4

Total1

Burglary2

Forcible sex offense4

Total1

Year Year

1 Includes other reported crimes not separately shown. 2 Unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft. 3 Theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle. 4 Any sexual act directed against another person forcibly and/or against that person’s will. NOTE: Data are for degree-granting institutions, which are institutions that grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Some institutions that report Clery Act data—specifically, non-degree-granting institutions and institutions outside of the 50 states and the District of Columbia—are excluded from this figure. Crimes include incidents involving students, staff, and on- campus guests. Excludes off-campus crimes even if they involve college students or staff. Detail may not sum to total because of rounding. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Campus Safety and Security Reporting System, 2001 through 2012; and National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2002 through Spring 2013, Enrollment component.

Postsecondary Campus Safety and Security 98

In 2012, the number of crimes committed on college campuses differed by type of institution, though to some extent this reflects the enrollment size of the sectors and the presence of student residence halls. For example, more crimes were committed at institutions with residence halls than at institutions without residence ha lls (table 22.2). Crimes involving students on campus after normal class hours, such as those occurring in residence halls, are included in campus crime reports, while crimes involving students off campus are not. At public 4-year institutions in 2012, some 50 percent of the 14,200 on-campus crimes occurred in residence halls; at nonprofit 4-year institutions, 61 percent of the 10,700 on-campus crimes occurred in residence halls (table 22.1). Burglaries constituted the majority of the reported crimes at both types of institutions.

Although data for different types of institutions are dif f icult to compare directly because of the differing structures of student services and campus arrangements, there were decreases in the numbers of on-campus crimes at most types of institutions between 2006 and 2012. At public 4-year institutions, the number of on-campus crimes decreased from a high of 20,600 in 2006 to 14,200 in 2012. Also, the number of on-campus crimes per 10,000 students decreased from 35.5 to 21.1 during this period (table 22.2). Similarly, at nonprofit 4-year institutions, the number of crimes decreased from 16,900 in 2006 to 10,700 in 2012, and the number of crimes per 10,000 students decreased from 57.7 to 32.5. At public 2-year institutions, which generally do not have residence halls, the number of crimes decreased from 5,700 to 3,800 between 2006 and 2012, and the number of crimes per 10,000 students decreased from 15.4 to 9.4.

As part of the Clery Act, institutions are required to report the number of arrests made for illegal weapons possession and drug and liquor law violations on college campuses. In contrast to the decreases in reported on-campus crimes, the total number of arrests for illegal weapons possession and drug and liquor law violations increased from 40,300 in 2001 to 51,400 in 2012, although

the 2012 figure was down from 54,400 in 2011 (table 22.1 and figure 22.2). While the number of arrests for weapons possession was 4 percent lower in 2012 than in 2001 (1,000 vs. 1,100), there were increases over the period in the larger categories of arrests for drug and liquor law violations. Arrests for drug law violations increased by 76 percent during this period, reaching 20,800, and arrests for liquor law violations rose by 8 percent, reaching 29,500. Some of the increases in arrests may be associated with increases in student enrollment during this period. The number of arrests for drug law violations per 10,000 students increased from 10.2 to 13.7 (table 22.2); however, the number of arrests per 10,000 students for liquor law violations was lower in 2012 (19.4) than in 2001 (23.5).

There were some differences among institution types in the patterns of on-campus arrests made for illegal weapons possession and drug and liquor law violations. At public 4-year institutions, the number of on-campus arrests per 10,000 students was higher in 2012 than in 2001 (62.5 vs. 60.1). In contrast, there was a decrease in the number of on-campus arrests per 10,000 students at nonprofit 4-year institutions (from 24.5 to 16.8). The number of on- campus arrests per 10,000 students at public 2-year institutions in 2012 was 8.7, which was higher than in 2001 (7.8) but lower than in 2006 (10.9).

In addition to reporting on-campus arrests, institutions report referrals for disciplinary action for cases involving illegal weapons possession, drug law violations, and liquor law violations. Disciplinary action counts only include incidents for which there was a referral for institutional disciplinary action, but no arrest. In 2012, there were 248,900 referrals for disciplinary action for cases involving weapons, drugs, and liquor law violations, with most of the referrals (90 percent) involving violations in residence halls. The largest number of disciplinary referrals (193,500) involved liquor law violations (table 22.1).

Indicator 22 continued on page 100.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 99

Figure 22.2. Number of on-campus arrests and number per 10,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by type of arrest: 2001 through 2012

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of on-campus arrests

0

10

20

30

40

50

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Year Year

Liquor law violations

Drug law violations

Illegal weapons possession

Total

Number of arrests per 10,000 FTE students

Liquor law violations

Drug law violations

Illegal weapons possession

Total

NOTE: Data are for degree-granting institutions, which are institutions that grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Some institutions that report Clery Act data—specifically, non-degree-granting institutions and institutions outside of the 50 states and the District of Columbia—are excluded from this figure. Crimes and arrests include incidents involving students, staff, and on-campus guests. Excludes off-campus crimes and arrests even if they involve college students or staff. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. If an individual is both arrested and referred to college officials for disciplinary action for a single offense, only the arrest is counted. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Campus Safety and Security Reporting System, 2001 through 2012; and National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2002 through Spring 2013, Enrollment component.

Postsecondary Campus Safety and Security 100

Similar to the number of on-campus arrests for drug and liquor law violations, the number of disciplinary referrals for these incidents has increased. The number of referrals for drug law violations rose by 126 percent, from 23,900 in 2001 to 54,000 in 2012 (figure 22.3). The number of referrals for liquor law violations rose by 49 percent, from 130,000 to 193,500. The number of referrals for illegal weapons possession was lower in 2012 (1,400) than in 2006 (1,900), but it was slightly higher than the number of such referrals in 2001 (1,300). Some of these increases may be associated with there being more students on college campuses; however, there were also increases in the number of disciplinary actions per 10,000 students, as the number of disciplinary actions rose faster than enrollment. The number of referrals for drug law violations increased from 20.5 per 10,000 students in 2001 to 35.6 per 10,000 students in 2012 (table 22.2). Also, the number of referrals for liquor law violations

per 10,000 students was higher in 2012 (127.4) than in 2001 (111.3). In contrast, the number of referrals per 10,000 students for illegal weapons possession was lower in 2012 (0.9) than in 2001 (1.1).

Both public 4-year and nonprofit 4-year institutions had increases in disciplinary referrals between 2001 and 2012. At public 4-year institutions, the number of referrals for disciplinary action involving illegal weapons, drug law violations, and liquor law violations increased from 153.1 per 10,000 students in 2001 to 192.2 in 2012. At nonprofit 4-year institutions, the number of referrals for these types of incidents rose from 275.5 per 10,000 students to 334.3 per 10,000 students. In both 2001 and 2011, more than three- quarters of these referrals for disciplinary action at public 4-year and nonprofit 4-year institutions were for liquor law violations.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 101

Figure 22.3. Number of referrals for disciplinary actions resulting from on-campus violations and number per 10,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by type of referral: 2001 through 2012

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of referrals

0

50

100

150

200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of referrals per 10,000 FTE students

Year Year

Liquor law violations

Drug law violations

Illegal weapons possession

Total

Liquor law violations

Drug law violations

Illegal weapons possession

Total

NOTE: Data are for degree-granting institutions, which are institutions that grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Some institutions that report Clery Act data—specifically, non-degree-granting institutions and institutions outside of the 50 states and the District of Columbia—are excluded from this figure. Referrals include incidents involving students, staff, and on-campus guests. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. If an individual is both arrested and referred to college officials for disciplinary action for a single offense, only the arrest is counted. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Campus Safety and Security Reporting System, 2001 through 2012; and National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2002 through Spring 2013, Enrollment component.

Postsecondary Campus Safety and Security 102

Hate Crime Incidents at Postsecondary Institutions Indicator 23

In 2012, out of the 791 total hate crimes reported on college campuses, the most common type of hate crime reported by institutions was destruction, damage, and vandalism (412 incidents), followed by intimidation (261 incidents), and simple assault (79 incidents). Race-related and sexual orientation-related hate crimes accounted for most of the motivating types of bias. A 2008 amendment to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security and Campus Crime Statistics Act (see Criminal Incidents at Postsecondary Institutions; Indicator 22) requires campuses to report hate crime incidents. A hate crime is a criminal offense that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the perpetrator’s bias against the victim(s) based on their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability. In addition to reporting data on hate- related incidents for the existing 7 types of crimes, the 2008 amendments to the Clery Act required campuses to report hate-related incidents on four additional types of crimes: simple assault; larceny; intimidation; and destruction, damage, and vandalism.

The distribution of on-campus crimes classified as hate crimes in 2012 was similar to the distributions in previous years. In 2011, there were 763 criminal incidents on campus that were classified as hate

crimes. Further, the three most common types of hate crimes in 2011 were vandalism (366 incidents), intimidation (282 incidents), and simple assault (67  incidents). These were also the three most common types of hate crimes reported in 2009 and 2010. There were no reported incidents of murder, negligent manslaughter, non-forcible sex offenses, or motor vehicle theft classified as hate crimes in 2009, 2010, or 2011.

For the three most common types of hate crimes reported in 2012 (vandalism, intimidation, and simple assault), the most frequent category of bias associated with these crimes was race. Race-related hate crimes accounted for 46 percent of reported vandalisms classified as hate crimes, 45 percent of reported intimidations, and 44 percent of reported simple assaults. The second most frequent category of bias associated with all three types of crimes was sexual orientation. One-quarter of vandalism and intimidation hate crimes and 28 percent of simple assaults were classified with sexual orientation as the motivating bias. Among the other categories of bias, 18 percent of vandalism hate crimes were classified as associated with religion, 8 percent with ethnicity, and 3 percent with gender. No vandalism hate crimes were associated with disability. For intimidation hate crimes, 11 percent were classified as associated with religion, 9 percent with ethnicity, 8 percent with gender, and 2 percent with disability. Simple assault had a similar distribution across the remaining categories of bias: 11 percent were associated with religion, 6 percent with ethnicity, 6 percent with gender, and 4 percent with disability.

This indicator includes newly added data. For more information: Table 23.1, and http://ope.ed.gov/security/.

Indicator 23 continued on page 104.

In 2012, there were 791 criminal incidents classified as hate crimes that occurred on the campuses of public and private 2-year and 4-year postsecondary institutions which were reported to police and security agencies (table 23.1). The most common type of hate crime reported by institutions was destruction, damage, and vandalism (412 incidents), followed by intimidation (261 incidents), simple assault (79  incidents), aggravated assault (14 incidents), larceny (11 incidents), robbery (5 incidents), burglary (5 incidents), and forcible sex offenses (4 incidents). For several other types of on-campus crimes— namely, murder, negligent manslaughter, non-forcible sex offenses, motor vehicle theft, and arson—there were no incidents classified as hate crimes.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 103

Figure 23.1. Number of on-campus hate crimes at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by type of crime: 2009 through 2012

2009 2010 20122011

Type of crime

Vandalism1 0

600

Number of on-campus hate crimes

500

400

300

200

100

Intimidation2 Simple assault3

Aggravated assault4

Larceny5 Robbery6 Burglary7 Forcible sex offenses8

45 9711811811159101413179

79 67 6758

175

412

555

396 366

261 282

260

5225

1 Willfully or maliciously destroying, damaging, defacing, or otherwise injuring real or personal property without the consent of the owner or the person having custody or control of it. 2 Placing another person in reasonable fear of bodily harm through the use of threatening words and/or other conduct, but without displaying a weapon or subjecting the victim to actual physical attack. 3 A physical attack by one person upon another where neither the offender displays a weapon, nor the victim suffers obvious severe or aggravated bodily injury involving apparent broken bones, loss of teeth, possible internal injury, severe laceration, or loss of consciousness. 4 Attack upon a person for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. 5 The unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession of another. 6 Taking or attempting to take anything of value using actual or threatened force or violence. 7 Unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft. 8 Any sexual act directed against another person forcibly and/or against that person’s will. NOTE: Data are for degree-granting institutions, which are institutions that grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Some institutions that report Clery Act data—specifically, non-degree-granting institutions and institutions outside of the 50 states and the District of Columbia—are excluded. A hate crime is a criminal offense that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the perpetrator’s bias against a group of people based on their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability. Includes on-campus incidents involving students, staff, and on-campus guests. Excludes off-campus crimes and arrests even if they involve college students or staff. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Campus Safety and Security Reporting System, 2009 through 2012.

Postsecondary Campus Safety and Security 104

Similar frequencies of bias were associated with vandalism, intimidation, and simple assault in 2011. Race was the category of bias most frequently associated with the three most common hate crimes: 46 percent of vandalisms, 39 percent of intimidations, and 33 percent of simple assaults. Also similar to 2012, sexual orientation was the second most frequently reported category of bias for these three types of hate crimes in 2011: 28 percent of vandalisms, 32 percent of intimidations, and 24 percent of simple assaults.

Aggravated assault was the fourth most commonly reported hate crime in both 2011 and 2012. In 2012, out of the 14 total aggravated assaults reported, most crimes were associated with race (6 incidents;

43  perc ent), fol lowed by se x u a l or ient at ion (5  incidents; 36 percent) and religion, gender, and disability (1 incident each; 7 percent each).

While the number of hate crimes reported in 2012 was highest at 4-year public and 4-year private nonprofit postsecondary institutions (334 and 300 total incidents, respectively), these institutions also enroll the largest numbers of students. Public 2-year institutions, which also enroll a large number of students, had the third highest number of reported hate crimes (137 incidents). The frequency of crimes and the most commonly reported categories of bias were similar across all types of postsecondary institutions.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 105

Figure 23.2. Percentage distribution of the categories of bias motivating hate crimes at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by selected types of crime: 2012

Vandalism1

45.9 50 Percent

40

30

20

10

0

45.2 44.3

27.8

11.4

6.3 6.3 3.8

25.2 25.3

11.1 8.8 8.0

1.5

17.7

7.8 3.4

#

Intimidation2 Simple assault 3

Sexual orientationRace Religion Ethnicity Gender Disability

Type of crime

# Rounds to zero. 1 Willfully or maliciously destroying, damaging, defacing, or otherwise injuring real or personal property without the consent of the owner or the person having custody or control of it. 2 Placing another person in reasonable fear of bodily harm through the use of threatening words and/or other conduct, but without displaying a weapon or subjecting the victim to actual physical attack. 3 A physical attack by one person upon another where neither the offender displays a weapon, nor the victim suffers obvious severe or aggravated bodily injury involving apparent broken bones, loss of teeth, possible internal injury, severe laceration, or loss of consciousness. NOTE: Data are for degree-granting institutions, which are institutions that grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Some institutions that report Clery Act data—specifically, non-degree-granting institutions and institutions outside of the 50 states and the District of Columbia—are excluded. A hate crime is a criminal offense that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the perpetrator’s bias against a group of people based on their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability. Includes on-campus incidents involving students, staff, and on-campus guests. Excludes off-campus crimes and arrests even if they involve college students or staff. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Campus Safety and Security Reporting System, 2012.

This page intentionally left blank.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 107

References

References108

Addington, L. (2005). Disentangling the Effects of Bounding and Mobilit y on Reports of Criminal Victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21(3): 321–343.

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

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

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

Brookmeyer, K.A., Fanti, K.A., and Henrich, C.C. (2006). Schools, Parents, and Youth Violence: A Multilevel, Ecological Analysis. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35(4): 504–514.

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

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). School-Associated Student Homicides—United States, 1992–2006. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2008, 57(02): 33–36. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/ preview/mmwrhtml/mm5702a1.htm.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Youth R isk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2013. Surveillance Summaries. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2014, 63(4).

Coopersmith, J. (2009). Characteristics of Public, Private, and B ureau of Indian Education Elementary and Secondary School Teachers in the United States: Results From the 2007–08 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2009-324). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of E duc ation Sciences, U. S. Depa r t ment of Education. Washington, DC.

Cox, S., Parmer, R., Strizek, G., and Thomas, T. (forthcoming). Documentation for the 2011–12 Schools and Staffing Survey. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Depa rtment of Education. Washington, DC.

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

Crick, N.R., and Grotpeter, J.K. (1996). Children’s Treatment by Peers: Victims of Relational a nd O ver t A g g re s sion. D evel opment and Psychopathology, 8: 367–380.

DeVo e , J.F., a nd B auer, L . (2 011). S t u d e n t Victimization in U.S. Schools: Results From the 2009 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCES 2012-314). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Eaton, D., Brener, D., Kann, L., and Pittman, V. (2007). High School Student Responses to Different Question Formats Assessing Race/ Ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41: 488–494.

Goldring, R., Taie, S., Rizzo, L., Colby, D., and Fraser, A. (2013). User’s Manual for the 2011–12 Schools and Staffing Survey, Volumes 1–6. (NCES 2013-330 through 2013-335). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Depa rtment of Education. Washington, DC.

Goldstein, S.E., Young, A., and Boyd, C. (2008). Relational Aggression at School: Associations With School Safety and Social Climate. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 37: 641–654.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 109

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

K a rcher, M. (20 02). T he Cycle of Violenc e a nd Disconnection A mong Rura l Midd le School Students: Teacher Disconnection as a Consequence of Violence. Journal of School Violence, 1: 35–51.

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

MacMillan, R., and Hagan, J. (2004). Violence in the Transition to Adulthood: Adolescent Victimization, Education, and Socioeconomic Attainment in Later Life. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1(2): 127–158.

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

Nansel, T.R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R., Ruan, W., Simons-Morton, B., and Scheidt, P. (2001). Bu l ly i n g B e h av ior s A mon g U. S . Yout h: Prevalence and Association With Psychosocial Adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285: 2094–2100.

Neiman, S. (2011). Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools: Findings From the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2009–10 (NCES 2011-320). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

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

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

Riley, J.L., McKevitt, B.C., Shriver, M.D., and Allen, K.D. (2011). Increasing On-Task Behavior Using Teacher Attention Delivered on a Fixed-Time Schedule. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20(3): 149–162.

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

Smith, D.L., and Smith, B.J. (2006). Perceptions of Violence: The Views of Teachers Who Left Urban Schools. The High School Journal, 89(3): 34–42.

Snyder, T.D., and Dillow, S.A. (2015). Digest of Education Statistics 2013 (NCES 2015-011). Nationa l Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Snyder, T.D., and Dillow, S.A. (forthcoming). Digest of Education Statistics 2014. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

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

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2003). NCES Statistical Standards (NCES 2003-601). Washington, DC.

Wei, H., and Williams, J.H. (2004). Relationship B et ween Peer Vic t i m i z at ion a nd Sc hool A d j u s t m e n t i n S i x t h - G r a d e S t u d e n t s : Investigating Mediation Effects. Violence and Victims, 19: 557–571.

This page intentionally left blank.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 111

Supplemental Tables

Table 1.1 School-associated violent deaths of all persons, homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18 at school, and total homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18, by type of violent death: 1992–93 to 2011–12

CHAPTER 2: Elementary and Secondary Education 287 School Crime Victims

DIGEST OF EDUCATION STATISTICS 2014

1A school-associated violent death is defined as “a homicide, suicide, or legal intervention (involving a law enforcement officer), in which the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or secondary school in the United States,” while the victim was on the way to or from regular sessions at school, or while the victim was attending or traveling to or from an official school-sponsored event. 2“At school” includes on school property, on the way to or from regular sessions at school, and while attending or traveling to or from a school-sponsored event. 3Total youth suicides are reported for calendar years 1992 through 2011 (instead of school years 1992–93 through 2011–12). 4Data from 1999–2000 onward are subject to change until interviews with school and law enforcement officials have been completed. The details learned during the interviews can occasionally change the classification of a case.

NOTE: Unless otherwise noted, data are reported for the school year, defined as July 1 through June 30. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1992–2012 School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study (SAVD) (partially funded by the U.S. Department of Educa- tion, Office of Safe and Healthy Students), previously unpublished tabulation (February 2015); CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System Fatal (WISQARS™ Fatal), 1999–2010, retrieved September 2014 from http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html; and Federal Bureau of Investigation and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), preliminary data (June 2014). (This table was prepared February 2015.)

School CrimeVictims Table 228.10. School-associated violent deaths of all persons, homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18 at school, and total homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18, by type of violent death: 1992–93 to 2011–12

Year

School-associated violent deaths1 of all persons (includes students, staff, and other nonstudents) Homicides of youth ages 5–18 Suicides of youth ages 5–18

Total Homicides Suicides Legal

interventions

Unintentional firearm-related

deaths Homicides at

school2 Total homicides Suicides at

school2 Total suicides3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1992–93............................. 57 47 10 0 0 34 2,721 6 1,680 1993–94............................. 48 38 10 0 0 29 2,932 7 1,723 1994–95............................. 48 39 8 0 1 28 2,696 7 1,767

1995–96............................. 53 46 6 1 0 32 2,545 6 1,725 1996–97............................. 48 45 2 1 0 28 2,221 1 1,633 1997–98............................. 57 47 9 1 0 34 2,100 6 1,626 1998–99............................. 47 38 6 2 1 33 1,777 4 1,597 1999–2000......................... 37 4 26 4 11 4 0 4 0 4 14 4 1,567 8 4 1,415

2000–01............................. 34 4 26 4 7 4 1 4 0 4 14 4 1,509 6 4 1,493 2001–02............................. 36 4 27 4 8 4 1 4 0 4 16 4 1,498 5 4 1,400 2002–03............................. 36 4 25 4 11 4 0 4 0 4 18 4 1,553 10 4 1,331 2003–04............................. 45 4 37 4 7 4 1 4 0 4 23 4 1,474 5 4 1,285 2004–05............................. 52 4 40 4 10 4 2 4 0 4 22 4 1,554 8 4 1,471

2005–06............................. 44 4 37 4 6 4 1 4 0 4 21 4 1,697 3 4 1,408 2006–07............................. 63 4 48 4 13 4 2 4 0 4 32 4 1,801 9 4 1,296 2007–08............................. 48 4 39 4 7 4 2 4 0 4 21 4 1,744 5 4 1,231 2008–09............................. 44 4 29 4 15 4 0 4 0 4 18 4 1,605 7 4 1,344 2009–10............................. 35 4 27 4 5 4 3 4 0 4 19 4 1,410 2 4 1,467

2010–11............................. 32 4 26 4 6 4 0 4 0 4 11 4 1,339 3 4 1,456 2011–12............................. 45 4 26 4 14 4 5 4 0 4 15 4 1,199 5 4 1,568

112 Supplemental Tables

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 113

Ta bl

e 2.

1 N

um be

r of

n on

fa ta

l v ic

tim iz

at io

ns a

ga in

st s

tu de

nt s

ag es

1 2–

18 a

nd r

at e

of v

ic tim

iz at

io n

pe r

1, 00

0 st

ud en

ts , b

y ty

pe o

f v ic

tim iz

at io

n, lo

ca tio

n, a

nd

ye ar

: 1 99

2 th

ro ug

h 20

13

288 CHAPTER 2: Elementary and Secondary Education School Crime Victims

DIGEST OF EDUCATION STATISTICS 2014

1 S

e ri o u

s vi

o le

n t vi

ct im

iz a tio

n is

a ls

o in

cl u

d e d in

a ll

vi o le

n t vi

ct im

iz a tio

n .

2 “A

t sc

h o

o l”

in cl

u d

e s

in si

d e t h e

s ch

o o l b

u ild

in g , o n s

ch o o

l p ro

p e rt

y, o

r o n t h e w

ay t o a

n d f ro

m s

ch o

o l.

3 D

u e

t o

m e

th o d

o lo

g ic

a l d

iff e re

n ce

s, u

se c

a u

tio n w

h e

n c

o m

p a ri n

g 2

0 0 6 e

st im

a te

s to

o th

e r

ye a rs

. N

O T

E : “

S e ri

o u s

vi o le

n t vi

ct im

iz a tio

n ”

in cl

u d e

s th

e c

ri m

e s

o f ra

p e , s

ex u a l a

ss a u

lt, r

o b b e ry

, a n

d a

g g ra

va te

d a

ss a u

lt. “

A ll

vi o le

n t v

ic -

tim iz

a tio

n ”

in cl

u d e

s se

ri o u s

vi o le

n t

cr im

e s

a s

w e ll

a s

si m

p le

a ss

a u

lt. “

T h e ft ”

in cl

u d e

s a tt e m

p te

d a

n d c

o m

p le

te d p

u rs

e -s

n a tc

h in

g ,

co m

p le

te d p

ic kp

o ck

e tin

g ,

a n

d a

ll a tt e m

p te

d a

n d c

o m

p le

te d t

h e ft s,

w ith

t h e e

xc e p tio

n o

f m

o to

r ve

h ic

le t

h e ft s.

T h e ft d

o e

s n o

t in

cl u d

e r

o b b e ry

, w

h ic

h i nv

o lv

e s

th e t

h re

a t

o r

u se

o f

fo rc

e a

n d i s

cl a ss

ifi e d a

s a v

io le

n t

cr im

e .

“T o ta

l vi

ct im

iz a

tio n

” in

cl u d e s

th e ft

a n d v

io le

n t

cr im

e s.

D a ta

in t h

is t

a bl

e a

re f ro

m t h e N

a tio

n a l C

ri m

e V

ic tim

iz a tio

n S

u rv

ey (

N C

V S

); d

u e t

o d

iff e re

n ce

s in

t im

e c

o ve

r- a g e a

n d a

d m

in is

tr a tio

n b

e tw

e e n

t h e N

C V

S a

n d t

h e S

ch o o

l C ri m

e S

u p

p le

m e

n t

(S C

S )

to t

h e N

C V

S ,

d a ta

in t

h is

t a bl

e c

a n n o t

b e

co m

p a re

d w

ith d

a ta

i n t

a bl

e s

th a

t a re

b a se

d o

n t

h e S

C S

. D

e ta

il m

ay n

o t

su m

t o t

o ta

ls b

e ca

u se

o f

ro u n d

in g .

S o m

e d

a ta

h av

e b e e n

r ev

is e d f ro

m p

re vi

o u sl

y p

u bl

is h e

d f ig

u re

s. S

O U

R C

E :

U .S

. D

e p

a rt

m e n t

o f

Ju st

ic e ,

B u re

a u o

f Ju

st ic

e S

ta tis

tic s,

N a tio

n a

l C ri

m e V

ic tim

iz a tio

n S

u rv

ey (

N C

V S

), 1

9 9 2 t

h ro

u g

h 2 0 1

3 . (T

h is

t a b le

w a s

p re

p a re

d A

u g u

st 2

0 1

4 ).

Ta bl

e 22

8. 20

. N

um be

r of

n on

fa ta

l v ic

tim iz

at io

ns a

ga in

st s

tu de

nt s

ag es

1 2–

18 a

nd r

at e

of v

ic tim

iz at

io n

pe r

1, 00

0 st

ud en

ts , b

y ty

pe o

f v ic

tim iz

at io

n, lo

ca tio

n, a

nd y

ea r:

1 99

2 th

ro ug

h 20

13 [S

ta n

d a rd

e rr

o rs

a p p

e a r

in p

a re

n th

e se

s]

Lo ca

tio n

an d

ye ar

N um

be r o

f n on

fa ta

l v ic

tim iz

at io

ns R

at e

of v

ic tim

iz at

io n

pe r 1

,0 00

s tu

de nt

s

To ta

l Th

ef t

V io

le nt

To ta

l Th

ef t

V io

le nt

A ll

vi ol

en t

S er

io us

v io

le nt

1 A

ll vi

ol en

t S

er io

us v

io le

nt 1

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9

A t s

ch oo

l2 19

92 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

4, 28

1, 20

0 (2

25 ,6

00 )

2, 67

9, 40

0 (1

47 ,6

60 )

1, 60

1, 80

0 (1

21 ,6

30 )

19 7,

60 0

(3 5,

43 0)

18 1.

5 (7

.9 9)

11 3.

6 (5

.6 4)

67 .9

(4 .7

7) 8.

4 (1

.4 8)

19 93

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 4,

69 2,

80 0

(3 21

,2 20

) 2,

47 7,

10 0

(1 21

,2 00

) 2,

21 5,

70 0

(1 94

,5 20

) 53

5, 50

0 (7

6, 05

0) 19

3. 5

(1 1.

02 )

10 2.

1 (4

.6 1)

91 .4

(7 .2

3) 22

.1 (3

.0 2)

19 94

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 4,

72 1,

00 0

(2 71

,7 30

) 2,

47 4,

10 0

(1 21

,2 60

) 2,

24 6,

90 0

(1 65

,5 30

) 45

9, 10

0 (5

8, 11

0) 18

7. 7

(9 .0

4) 98

.4 (4

.4 6)

89 .3

(5 .9

5) 18

.3 (2

.2 4)

19 95

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 4,

40 0,

70 0

(2 67

,6 10

) 2,

46 8,

40 0

(1 20

,6 90

) 1,

93 2,

20 0

(1 52

,6 70

) 29

4, 50

0 (4

2, 89

0) 17

2. 2

(8 .8

2) 96

.6 (4

.3 7)

75 .6

(5 .4

4) 11

.5 (1

.6 4)

19 96

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 4,

13 0,

40 0

(2 81

,6 40

) 2,

20 5,

20 0

(1 07

,6 50

) 1,

92 5,

30 0

(1 66

,6 90

) 37

1, 90

0 (5

4, 15

0) 15

8. 4

(9 .1

7) 84

.5 (3

.8 8)

73 .8

(5 .8

1) 14

.3 (2

.0 1)

19 97

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 3,

61 0,

90 0

(2 82

,4 30

) 1,

97 5,

00 0

(1 11

,8 30

) 1,

63 5,

90 0

(1 64

,5 30

) 37

6, 20

0 (6

0, 99

0) 13

6. 6

(9 .2

5) 74

.7 (3

.9 5)

61 .9

(5 .7

4) 14

.2 (2

.2 4)

19 98

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 3,

24 7,

30 0

(2 54

,2 50

) 1,

63 5,

10 0

(1 04

,2 10

) 1,

61 2,

20 0

(1 55

,8 40

) 31

4, 50

0 (4

9, 77

0) 12

1. 3

(8 .2

7) 61

.1 (3

.6 9)

60 .2

(5 .3

4) 11

.7 (1

.8 0)

19 99

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 3,

15 2,

40 0

(2 58

,5 60

) 1,

75 2,

20 0

(1 04

,9 70

) 1,

40 0,

20 0

(1 48

,2 30

) 28

1, 10

0 (5

0, 06

0) 11

7. 0

(8 .4

3) 65

.1 (3

.6 9)

52 .0

(5 .1

1) 10

.4 (1

.8 1)

20 00

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 2,

30 1,

00 0

(2 11

,1 40

) 1,

33 1,

50 0

(9 5,

94 0)

96 9,

50 0

(1 15

,6 80

) 21

4, 20

0 (4

0, 98

0) 84

.9 (7

.0 0)

49 .1

(3 .3

4) 35

.8 (4

.0 2)

7. 9

(1 .4

8) 20

01 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

2, 52

1, 30

0 (2

02 ,8

90 )

1, 34

8, 50

0 (9

3, 24

0) 1,

17 2,

70 0

(1 20

,5 60

) 25

9, 40

0 (4

4, 11

0) 92

.3 (6

.6 7)

49 .4

(3 .2

3) 42

.9 (4

.1 4)

9. 5

(1 .5

8)

20 02

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 2,

08 2,

60 0

(2 12

,5 20

) 1,

08 8,

80 0

(7 7,

11 0)

99 3,

80 0

(1 26

,2 10

) 17

3, 50

0 (3

7, 30

0) 75

.4 (6

.9 6)

39 .4

(2 .6

9) 36

.0 (4

.2 9)

6. 3

(1 .3

2) 20

03 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

2, 30

8, 80

0 (2

10 ,9

30 )

1, 27

0, 50

0 (8

8, 55

0) 1,

03 8,

30 0

(1 21

,4 90

) 18

8, 40

0 (3

8, 24

0) 87

.4 (7

.1 6)

48 .1

(3 .1

8) 39

.3 (4

.3 2)

7. 1

(1 .4

2) 20

04 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

1, 76

2, 20

0 (1

54 ,3

90 )

1, 06

5, 40

0 (7

5, 16

0) 69

6, 80

0 (8

3, 09

0) 10

7, 30

0 (2

5, 11

0) 67

.2 (5

.4 0)

40 .6

(2 .7

6) 26

.6 (3

.0 3)

4. 1

(0 .9

5) 20

05 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

1, 67

8, 60

0 (1

69 ,0

40 )

87 5,

90 0

(7 0,

14 0)

80 2,

60 0

(1 02

,3 60

) 14

0, 30

0 (3

2, 40

0) 63

.2 (5

.8 5)

33 .0

(2 .5

6) 30

.2 (3

.6 6)

5. 3

(1 .2

0) 20

06 3 .

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ..

1, 79

9, 90

0 (1

70 ,4

90 )

85 9,

00 0

(6 8,

73 0)

94 0,

90 0

(1 09

,8 80

) 24

9, 90

0 (4

5, 67

0) 67

.5 (5

.8 6)

32 .2

(2 .5

2) 35

.3 (3

.9 0)

9. 4

(1 .6

8)

20 07

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 1,

80 1,

20 0

(1 88

,4 50

) 89

6, 70

0 (6

6, 23

0) 90

4, 40

0 (1

14 ,3

20 )

11 6,

10 0

(2 5,

43 0)

67 .8

(6 .4

0) 33

.7 (2

.4 1)

34 .0

(4 .0

2) 4.

4 (0

.9 4)

20 08

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 1,

43 5,

50 0

(1 61

,3 30

) 64

8, 00

0 (6

1, 17

0) 78

7, 50

0 (1

08 ,4

80 )

12 8,

70 0

(3 4,

37 0)

54 .3

(5 .6

7) 24

.5 (2

.2 6)

29 .8

(3 .9

1) 4.

9 (1

.2 8)

20 09

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 1,

32 2,

80 0

(1 68

,3 70

) 59

4, 50

0 (5

4, 48

0) 72

8, 30

0 (1

11 ,5

50 )

23 3,

70 0

(5 1,

61 0)

51 .0

(6 .0

0) 22

.9 (2

.0 5)

28 .1

(4 .0

8) 9.

0 (1

.9 4)

20 10

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 89

2, 00

0 (1

24 ,2

60 )

46 9,

80 0

(4 5,

30 0)

42 2,

30 0

(7 3,

31 0)

15 5,

00 0

(3 6,

50 0)

34 .9

(4 .5

5) 18

.4 (1

.7 5)

16 .5

(2 .7

5) 6.

1 (1

.4 0)

20 11

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 1,

24 6,

20 0

(1 39

,9 40

) 64

7, 70

0 (6

1, 50

0) 59

8, 60

0 (8

4, 09

0) 89

,5 00

(2 3,

36 0)

49 .3

(5 .1

1) 25

.6 (2

.3 6)

23 .7

(3 .1

6) 3.

5 (0

.9 1)

20 12

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 1,

36 4,

90 0

(1 33

,8 10

) 61

5, 60

0 (5

1, 44

0) 74

9, 20

0 (9

0, 25

0) 89

,0 00

(2 3,

85 0)

52 .4

(4 .7

8) 23

.6 (1

.9 3)

28 .8

(3 .3

1) 3.

4 (0

.9 1)

20 13

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 1,

42 0,

90 0

(1 76

,3 90

) 45

4, 90

0 (4

3, 39

0) 96

6, 00

0 (1

34 ,1

40 )

12 5,

50 0

(3 2,

11 0)

55 .0

(6 .2

4) 17

.6 (1

.6 5)

37 .4

(4 .8

4) 4.

9 (1

.2 2)

A w

ay fr

om s

ch oo

l 19

92 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

4, 08

4, 10

0 (2

18 ,9

10 )

1, 85

7, 60

0 (1

18 ,6

10 )

2, 22

6, 50

0 (1

49 ,2

10 )

1, 02

5, 10

0 (9

2, 60

0) 17

3. 1

(7 .8

1) 78

.7 (4

.6 6)

94 .4

(5 .7

0) 43

.5 (3

.7 2)

19 93

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 3,

83 5,

90 0

(2 80

,7 90

) 1,

73 1,

10 0

(9 6,

70 0)

2, 10

4, 80

0 (1

87 ,9

60 )

1, 00

4, 30

0 (1

14 ,8

70 )

15 8.

2 (9

.9 0)

71 .4

(3 .7

5) 86

.8 (7

.0 1)

41 .4

(4 .4

7) 19

94 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

4, 14

7, 10

0 (2

49 ,2

60 )

1, 71

3, 90

0 (9

6, 25

0) 2,

43 3,

20 0

(1 74

,5 80

) 1,

07 4,

90 0

(1 01

,3 70

) 16

4. 9

(8 .4

4) 68

.1 (3

.6 1)

96 .7

(6 .2

4) 42

.7 (3

.8 0)

19 95

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 3,

62 6,

60 0

(2 34

,6 40

) 1,

60 4,

80 0

(9 2,

00 0)

2, 02

1, 80

0 (1

57 ,4

70 )

82 9,

70 0

(8 5,

83 0)

14 1.

9 (7

.9 1)

62 .8

(3 .4

1) 79

.1 (5

.5 9)

32 .5

(3 .1

9) 19

96 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

3, 48

3, 20

0 (2

50 ,6

20 )

1, 57

2, 70

0 (8

7, 83

0) 1,

91 0,

60 0

(1 65

,8 10

) 87

0, 00

0 (9

6, 51

0) 13

3. 5

(8 .3

2) 60

.3 (3

.2 2)

73 .3

(5 .7

9) 33

.4 (3

.5 0)

19 97

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 3,

71 7,

60 0

(2 88

,0 80

) 1,

71 0,

70 0

(1 01

,8 10

) 2,

00 6,

90 0

(1 89

,1 80

) 85

3, 30

0 (1

05 ,6

60 )

14 0.

7 (9

.4 1)

64 .7

(3 .6

2) 75

.9 (6

.5 1)

32 .3

(3 .7

9) 19

98 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

3, 04

7, 80

0 (2

43 ,2

70 )

1, 40

8, 00

0 (9

4, 90

0) 1,

63 9,

80 0

(1 57

,7 00

) 68

4, 90

0 (8

5, 52

0) 11

3. 8

(7 .9

6) 52

.6 (3

.3 8)

61 .3

(5 .4

0) 25

.6 (3

.0 4)

19 99

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 2,

71 3,

80 0

(2 33

,3 50

) 1,

12 9,

20 0

(7 9,

77 0)

1, 58

4, 50

0 (1

61 ,3

50 )

67 5,

40 0

(9 0,

15 0)

10 0.

8 (7

.7 1)

41 .9

(2 .8

5) 58

.8 (5

.5 3)

25 .1

(3 .2

0) 20

00 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

2, 30

3, 60

0 (2

11 ,3

10 )

1, 22

8, 90

0 (9

0, 77

0) 1,

07 4,

80 0

(1 24

,2 80

) 40

2, 10

0 (6

2, 95

0) 85

.0 (7

.0 1)

45 .3

(3 .1

7) 39

.6 (4

.3 0)

14 .8

(2 .2

4) 20

01 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

1, 78

0, 30

0 (1

60 ,0

90 )

96 1,

40 0

(7 4,

23 0)

81 9,

00 0

(9 4,

59 0)

31 4,

80 0

(5 0,

07 0)

65 .2

(5 .3

9) 35

.2 (2

.6 0)

30 .0

(3 .3

0) 11

.5 (1

.7 9)

20 02

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 1,

61 9,

50 0

(1 78

,0 50

) 82

0, 10

0 (6

4, 53

0) 79

9, 40

0 (1

08 ,2

60 )

34 1,

20 0

(5 9,

59 0)

58 .6

(5 .9

2) 29

.7 (2

.2 7)

28 .9

(3 .7

1) 12

.4 (2

.0 9)

20 03

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 1,

82 4,

10 0

(1 79

,2 40

) 78

0, 90

0 (6

4, 21

0) 1,

04 3,

20 0

(1 21

,8 80

) 41

2, 80

0 (6

4, 66

0) 69

.1 (6

.1 9)

29 .6

(2 .3

4) 39

.5 (4

.3 3)

15 .6

(2 .3

7) 20

04 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

1, 37

1, 80

0 (1

30 ,4

80 )

71 8,

00 0

(5 9,

07 0)

65 3,

70 0

(7 9,

66 0)

27 2,

50 0

(4 5,

08 0)

52 .3

(4 .6

3) 27

.4 (2

.1 9)

24 .9

(2 .9

1) 10

.4 (1

.6 8)

20 05

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 1,

42 9,

00 0

(1 51

,4 60

) 63

7, 70

0 (5

7, 74

0) 79

1, 30

0 (1

01 ,3

80 )

25 7,

10 0

(4 7,

95 0)

53 .8

(5 .2

9) 24

.0 (2

.1 2)

29 .8

(3 .6

3) 9.

7 (1

.7 7)

20 06

3 . ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

.. 1,

41 3,

10 0

(1 44

,6 60

) 71

4, 20

0 (6

1, 90

0) 69

8, 90

0 (8

9, 98

0) 26

3, 60

0 (4

7, 28

0) 53

.0 (5

.0 4)

26 .8

(2 .2

7) 26

.2 (3

.2 2)

9. 9

(1 .7

3)

20 07

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 1,

37 1,

70 0

(1 54

,7 40

) 61

4, 30

0 (5

2, 74

0) 75

7, 40

0 (1

00 ,4

40 )

33 7,

70 0

(5 5,

63 0)

51 .6

(5 .3

4) 23

.1 (1

.9 4)

28 .5

(3 .5

5) 12

.7 (2

.0 1)

20 08

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 1,

13 2,

60 0

(1 37

,8 40

) 49

8, 50

0 (5

2, 35

0) 63

4, 10

0 (9

4, 16

0) 25

8, 60

0 (5

2, 98

0) 42

.8 (4

.9 0)

18 .9

(1 .9

4) 24

.0 (3

.4 2)

9. 8

(1 .9

6) 20

09 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

85 7,

20 0

(1 24

,7 70

) 48

4, 20

0 (4

8, 32

0) 37

2, 90

0 (7

0, 66

0) 17

6, 80

0 (4

2, 89

0) 33

.1 (4

.5 4)

18 .7

(1 .8

3) 14

.4 (2

.6 3)

6. 8

(1 .6

2) 20

10 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

68 9,

90 0

(1 03

,6 20

) 37

8, 80

0 (4

0, 20

0) 31

1, 20

0 (5

9, 19

0) 16

7, 30

0 (3

8, 46

0) 27

.0 (3

.8 3)

14 .8

(1 .5

5) 12

.2 (2

.2 4)

6. 5

(1 .4

7) 20

11 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

96 6,

10 0

(1 17

,2 00

) 54

1, 90

0 (5

5, 16

0) 42

4, 30

0 (6

6, 35

0) 13

7, 60

0 (3

1, 00

0) 38

.2 (4

.3 3)

21 .4

(2 .1

3) 16

.8 (2

.5 2)

5. 4

(1 .2

0)

20 12

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 99

1, 20

0 (1

08 ,3

70 )

47 0,

80 0

(4 4,

07 0)

52 0,

40 0

(7 1,

28 0)

16 9,

90 0

(3 5,

26 0)

38 .0

(3 .9

3) 18

.1 (1

.6 6)

20 .0

(2 .6

4) 6.

5 (1

.3 3)

20 13

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 77

8, 50

0 (1

15 ,1

10 )

40 3,

00 0

(4 0,

47 0)

37 5,

50 0

(6 8,

80 0)

15 1,

20 0

(3 6,

49 0)

30 .1

(4 .1

9) 15

.6 (1

.5 4)

14 .5

(2 .5

6) 5.

8 (1

.3 8)

Ta bl

e 2.

2 N

um be

r of

n on

fa ta

l v ic

tim iz

at io

ns a

ga in

st s

tu de

nt s

ag es

1 2–

18 a

nd r

at e

of v

ic tim

iz at

io n

pe r

1, 00

0 st

ud en

ts , b

y ty

pe o

f v ic

tim iz

at io

n, lo

ca tio

n, a

nd

se le

ct ed

s tu

de nt

c ha

ra ct

er is

tic s:

2 01

3

296 CHAPTER 2: Elementary and Secondary Education School Crime Victims

DIGEST OF EDUCATION STATISTICS 2014

— N

ot a

va ila

bl e.

†N ot

a pp

lic a bl

e. !In

te rp

re t d

at a

w ith

c au

tio n.

E st

im a te

b as

ed o

n 10

o r

fe w

er s

am pl

e c

as e s,

o r

th e

co ef

fic ie

nt o

f v ar

ia tio

n is

g re

at er

th a n

5 0

p e rc

e n t.

‡R ep

or tin

g st

a nd

a rd

s no

t m e t.

T he

re a

re to

o fe

w c

a se

s fo

r a

re lia

bl e

es tim

at e.

1 S

er io

us v

io le

nt v

ic tim

iz at

io n

is a

ls o

in cl

ud e d

in a

ll vi

o le

nt v

ic tim

iz a tio

n. 2 “A

t s ch

oo l”

in cl

ud es

in si

de th

e sc

ho ol

b ui

ld in

g , o

n sc

h oo

l p ro

pe rt

y, o

r on

th e

w ay

to a

n d

fr om

s ch

oo l.

3 R

a ce

c at

e go

rie s

ex cl

u de

p e rs

o ns

o f H

is pa

ni c

et h ni

ci ty

. “O

th er

” in

cl ud

es A

si an

s, P

ac ifi

c Is

la n de

rs , A

m er

ic a n

In d ia

ns /A

la sk

a N

at iv

e s,

an d p

e rs

o ns

o f T

w o

or m

o re

r a ce

s. 4 R

e fe

rs to

th e S

ta nd

a rd

M et

ro po

lit a n

S ta

tis tic

al A

re a

(M S

A )

st at

u s

of th

e re

sp o nd

en t’s

h ou

se ho

ld a

s de

fin ed

in 2

00 0 b

y th

e U

.S . C

en -

su s

B u re

au . C

at eg

or ie

s in

cl ud

e “c

en tr al

c ity

o f a

n M

S A

( U

rb an

),” “ in

M S

A b

ut n

o t i

n ce

n tr a l c

ity (

S u bu

rb a n ),”

a n d “

n o t M

S A

( R

u ra

l). ”

N O

T E

: “S

er io

us v

io le

nt v

ic tim

iz at

io n ”

in cl

u de

s th

e cr

im es

o f ra

pe , se

xu a l a

ss au

lt, r

ob be

ry , an

d a gg

ra va

te d

as sa

ul t.

“A ll

vi ol

en t vi

ct im

- iz

at io

n” in

cl ud

e s

se rio

u s

vi ol

en t

cr im

es a

s w

el l a

s si

m pl

e as

sa ul

t. “T

he ft”

in cl

ud e s

at te

m p te

d a

nd c

om pl

et e d

pu rs

e- sn

at ch

in g,

c o m

- pl

et e d

p ic

kp o ck

et in

g, a

n d

al l a

tte m

p te

d a

nd c

o m

pl et

e d

th ef

ts , w

ith th

e ex

ce pt

io n o

f m ot

o r v

e hi

cl e

th ef

ts . T

h ef

t d oe

s n ot

in cl

ud e r o b b e ry

, w

h ic

h in

vo lv

es th

e th

re a t o

r us

e o

f f or

ce a

nd is

c la

ss ifi

ed a

s a

vi ol

e nt

c rim

e. “

To ta

l v ic

tim iz

at io

n” in

cl ud

e s

th e ft

an d

vi ol

en t c

rim e s.

D at

a in

th is

ta bl

e a

re fr

o m

th e

N at

io n al

C rim

e V

ic tim

iz a tio

n S

u rv

ey (

N C

V S

) an

d a

re r ep

o rt

e d

in a

cc o rd

an ce

w ith

B u re

au o

f J u st

ic e

S ta

tis tic

s st

an d ar

ds . D

ue to

d iff

er en

ce s

in ti

m e c

ov er

ag e

an d

ad m

in is

tr a tio

n be

tw ee

n th

e N

C V

S a

n d

th e S

ch oo

l C rim

e S

up p le

m en

t ( S

C S

) to

th e

N C

V S

, da

ta in

th is

t ab

le c

an no

t be

c o m

pa re

d w

ith d

at a

in t ab

le s

th a t a

re b

a se

d o

n th

e S

C S

. D et

ai l m

ay n

ot s

um t o to

ta ls

b ec

a us

e o

f ro

u nd

in g

an d m

is si

n g

d at

a on

s tu

de nt

c ha

ra ct

er is

tic s.

T he

p op

ul at

io n

si ze

fo r

st ud

e nt

s a ge

s 12

–1 8

w as

2 5,

85 6 ,3

0 0

in 2

01 3 .

S O

U R

C E

: U

.S .

D ep

ar tm

en t

of J

us tic

e, B

ur e au

o f

Ju st

ic e S

ta tis

tic s,

N at

io na

l C rim

e V

ic tim

iz at

io n

S ur

ve y

(N C

V S

), 2

01 3.

( T

hi s

ta bl

e w

as p

re pa

re d

A ug

us t 2

01 4.

)

Ta bl

e 22

8. 25

. N

um be

r o f n

on fa

ta l v

ic tim

iz at

io ns

a ga

in st

s tu

de nt

s ag

es 1

2– 18

a nd

ra te

o f v

ic tim

iz at

io n

pe r 1

,0 00

s tu

de nt

s, b

y ty

pe o

f v ic

tim iz

at io

n, lo

ca tio

n, a

nd s

el ec

te d

st ud

en t c

ha ra

ct er

is tic

s: 2

01 3

[S ta

n d a rd

e rr

o rs

a p p

e a r

in p

a re

n th

e se

s]

Lo ca

tio n

an d

st ud

en t

ch ar

ac te

ris tic

N um

be r o

f n on

fa ta

l v ic

tim iz

at io

ns R

at e

of v

ic tim

iz at

io n

pe r 1

,0 00

s tu

de nt

s

To ta

l Th

ef t

V io

le nt

To ta

l Th

ef t

V io

le nt

A ll

vi ol

en t

S er

io us

v io

le nt

1 A

ll vi

ol en

t S

er io

us v

io le

nt 1

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9

A t s

ch oo

l2 To

ta l..

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

1, 42

0, 90

0 (1

76 ,3

90 )

45 4,

90 0

(4 3,

39 0)

96 6,

00 0

(1 34

,1 40

) 12

5, 50

0 (3

2, 11

0) 55

.0 (6

.2 4)

17 .6

(1 .6

5) 37

.4 (4

.8 4)

4. 9

(1 .2

2) S

ex M al

e ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ..

82 4,

50 0

(1 19

,8 90

) 24

7, 90

0 (3

0, 71

0) 57

6, 60

0 (9

3, 08

0) 84

,3 00

(2 4,

48 0)

62 .1

(8 .1

4) 18

.7 (2

.2 7)

43 .5

(6 .4

6) 6.

4 (1

.8 0)

Fe m

al e

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

59 6,

40 0

(9 5,

33 0)

20 7,

00 0

(2 7,

75 0)

38 9,

40 0

(7 0,

57 0)

41 ,2

00 !

(1 5,

15 0)

47 .4

(6 .9

3) 16

.4 (2

.1 7)

30 .9

(5 .2

4) 3.

3 !

(1 .1

9) A

ge 1 2–

14 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... 83

4, 90

0 (1

20 ,9

60 )

19 4,

90 0

(2 6,

83 0)

64 0,

00 0

(1 00

,2 10

) 92

,5 00

(2 6,

07 0)

67 .3

(8 .7

3) 15

.7 (2

.1 3)

51 .6

(7 .3

6) 7.

5 (2

.0 5)

15 –1

8 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... 58

6, 00

0 (9

4, 16

0) 26

0, 10

0 (3

1, 55

0) 32

6, 00

0 (6

2, 29

0) 33

,0 00

! (1

3, 10

0) 43

.5 (6

.4 4)

19 .3

(2 .3

0) 24

.2 (4

.3 7)

2. 5

! (0

.9 6)

R ac

e/ et

hn ic

ity 3

W hi

te ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

82 2,

20 0

(1 19

,6 50

) 19

9, 60

0 (2

7, 19

0) 62

2, 50

0 (9

8, 27

0) 71

,6 00

! (2

1, 91

0) 58

.5 (7

.7 1)

14 .2

(1 .9

1) 44

.3 (6

.4 4)

5. 1

! (1

.5 3)

B la

ck ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

16 1,

90 0

(3 8,

26 0)

10 7,

90 0

(1 9,

35 0)

54 ,0

00 (1

8, 14

0) 15

,6 00

! (8

,1 10

) 40

.7 (8

.8 7)

27 .1

(4 .7

5) 13

.6 (4

.3 9)

3. 9

! (2

.0 1)

H is

pa ni

c ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ..

36 7,

50 0

(6 7,

76 0)

11 1,

20 0

(1 9,

67 0)

25 6,

30 0

(5 2,

65 0)

28 ,8

00 !

(1 1,

99 0)

63 .4

(1 0.

48 )

19 .2

(3 .3

3) 44

.2 (8

.3 3)

5. 0

! (2

.0 3)

O th

er ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

69 ,4

00 (2

1, 46

0) 36

,2 00

(1 0,

75 0)

33 ,1

00 !

(1 3,

14 0)

9, 50

0 !

(5 ,9

30 )

33 .9

(9 .7

8) 17

.7 (5

.1 7)

16 .2

! (6

.1 6)

4. 6

! (2

.8 5)

U rb

an ic

ity 4

U rb

an ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... 43

2, 00

0 (7

5, 92

0) 19

2, 10

0 (2

6, 61

0) 23

9, 90

0 (5

0, 27

0) 38

,8 00

! (1

4, 58

0) 57

.0 (9

.0 5)

25 .3

(3 .4

2) 31

.6 (6

.1 9)

5. 1

! (1

.8 8)

S ub

ur ba

n. ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... 86

0, 70

0 (1

23 ,6

00 )

24 0,

70 0

(3 0,

20 0)

62 0,

10 0

(9 7,

99 0)

76 ,6

00 (2

2, 94

0) 60

.4 (7

.8 3)

16 .9

(2 .0

8) 43

.5 (6

.3 3)

5. 4

(1 .5

7) R

ur al

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

.. 12

8, 20

0 (3

2, 58

0) 22

,2 00

! (8

,2 90

) 10

6, 10

0 (2

8, 62

0) 10

,1 00

! (6

,1 50

) 31

.9 (7

.5 7)

5. 5

! (2

.0 5)

26 .4

(6 .7

0) 2.

5 !

(1 .5

1) H

ou se

ho ld

in co

m e

Le ss

th an

$ 15

,0 00

... ...

... ...

... .

32 7,

50 0

(6 2,

50 0)

21 ,1

00 !

(8 ,0

80 )

30 6,

40 0

(5 9,

65 0)

50 ,4

00 !

(1 7,

32 0)

16 1.

6 (2

4. 97

) 10

.4 !

(3 .9

5) 15

1. 2

(2 4.

08 )

24 .9

! (8

.0 8)

$1 5,

00 0–

29 ,9

99 ...

... ...

... ...

... ..

15 4,

20 0

(3 7,

01 0)

52 ,4

00 (1

3, 08

0) 10

1, 90

0 (2

7, 84

0) 23

,9 00

! (1

0, 62

0) 49

.6 (1

0. 85

) 16

.8 (4

.1 4)

32 .8

(8 .3

5) 7.

7 !

(3 .3

3) $3

0, 00

0– 49

,9 99

... ...

... ...

... ...

.. 22

3, 50

0 (4

7, 86

0) 72

,5 00

(1 5,

58 0)

15 1,

00 0

(3 6,

47 0)

22 ,6

00 !

(1 0,

25 0)

48 .4

(9 .4

6) 15

.7 (3

.3 2)

32 .7

(7 .3

6) 4.

9 !

(2 .1

8) $5

0, 00

0– 74

,9 99

... ...

... ...

... ...

.. 16

7, 30

0 (3

9, 14

0) 46

,7 00

(1 2,

30 0)

12 0,

60 0

(3 1,

25 0)

9, 90

0 !

(6 ,0

90 )

50 .5

(1 0.

76 )

14 .1

(3 .6

7) 36

.4 (8

.7 6)

3. 0

! (1

.8 2)

$7 5,

00 0

or m

or e.

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 34

8, 80

0 (6

5, 32

0) 20

0, 90

0 (2

7, 29

0) 14

7, 90

0 (3

5, 94

0) 10

,2 00

! (6

,1 90

) 47

.5 (8

.1 3)

27 .4

(3 .6

2) 20

.2 (4

.6 5)

1. 4

! (0

.8 4)

N ot

re po

rt ed

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

.. 19

9, 50

0 (4

4, 22

0) 61

,3 00

(1 4,

24 0)

13 8,

20 0

(3 4,

30 0)

8, 60

0 !

(5 ,5

80 )

36 .5

(7 .5

0) 11

.2 (2

.5 8)

25 .3

(5 .9

2) 1.

6 !

(1 .0

1)

A w

ay fr

om s

ch oo

l To

ta l..

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

77 8,

50 0

(1 15

,1 10

) 40

3, 00

0 (4

0, 47

0) 37

5, 50

0 (6

8, 80

0) 15

1, 20

0 (3

6, 49

0) 30

.1 (4

.1 9)

15 .6

(1 .5

4) 14

.5 (2

.5 6)

5. 8

(1 .3

8) S

ex M al

e ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ..

38 3,

20 0

(6 9,

79 0)

21 1,

10 0

(2 8,

06 0)

17 2,

10 0

(3 9,

91 0)

79 ,2

00 (2

3, 45

0) 28

.9 (4

.9 3)

15 .9

(2 .0

8) 13

.0 (2

.8 9)

6. 0

(1 .7

3) Fe

m al

e ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 39

5, 30

0 (7

1, 32

0) 19

1, 80

0 (2

6, 59

0) 20

3, 40

0 (4

4, 82

0) 72

,0 00

(2 2,

00 0)

31 .4

(5 .2

9) 15

.2 (2

.0 8)

16 .2

(3 .4

1) 5.

7 (1

.7 1)

A ge 1

2– 14

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

34 6,

70 0

(6 5,

05 0)

17 1,

80 0

(2 5,

01 0)

17 4,

90 0

(4 0,

37 0)

69 ,0

00 (2

1, 37

0) 28

.0 (4

.9 3)

13 .9

(1 .9

9) 14

.1 (3

.1 3)

5. 6

(1 .6

9) 15

–1 8

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

43 1,

80 0

(7 5,

90 0)

23 1,

20 0

(2 9,

52 0)

20 0,

60 0

(4 4,

39 0)

82 ,2

00 (2

4, 06

0) 32

.1 (5

.2 7)

17 .2

(2 .1

5) 14

.9 (3

.1 6)

6. 1

(1 .7

5) R

ac e/

et hn

ic ity

3

W hi

te ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

40 0,

30 0

(7 1,

96 0)

20 4,

00 0

(2 7,

53 0)

19 6,

20 0

(4 3,

71 0)

84 ,5

00 (2

4, 52

0) 28

.5 (4

.8 1)

14 .5

(1 .9

3) 14

.0 (2

.9 9)

6. 0

(1 .7

1) B

la ck

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 19

3, 60

0 (4

3, 31

0) 91

,2 00

(1 7,

65 0)

10 2,

40 0

(2 7,

94 0)

31 ,5

00 !

(1 2,

70 0)

48 .7

(9 .9

4) 23

.0 (4

.3 5)

25 .8

(6 .6

2) 7.

9 !

(3 .1

1) H

is pa

ni c

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

.. 15

0, 30

0 (3

6, 34

0) 94

,1 00

(1 7,

96 0)

56 ,1

00 (1

8, 62

0) 35

,2 00

! (1

3, 66

0) 25

.9 (5

.9 0)

16 .2

(3 .0

5) 9.

7 (3

.1 1)

6. 1

! (2

.3 1)

O th

er ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

34 ,3

00 (1

3, 44

0) 13

,6 00

! (6

,4 20

) 20

,7 00

! (9

,6 90

) ‡

(† )

16 .8

(6 .2

9) 6.

6 !

(3 .1

2) 10

.1 !

(4 .6

0) —

(† )

U rb

an ic

ity 4

U rb

an ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... 26

5, 40

0 (5

3, 94

0) 15

1, 30

0 (2

3, 30

0) 11

4, 10

0 (3

0, 08

0) 64

,7 00

(2 0,

48 0)

35 .0

(6 .6

1) 20

.0 (3

.0 1)

15 .1

(3 .8

0) 8.

5 (2

.6 2)

S ub

ur ba

n. ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... 41

3, 80

0 (7

3, 66

0) 20

8, 60

0 (2

7, 87

0) 20

5, 20

0 (4

5, 09

0) 62

,6 00

(2 0,

03 0)

29 .0

(4 .8

5) 14

.6 (1

.9 2)

14 .4

(3 .0

4) 4.

4 (1

.3 8)

R ur

al ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ..

99 ,3

00 (2

7, 36

0) 43

,1 00

(1 1,

79 0)

56 ,2

00 (1

8, 63

0) 23

,8 00

! (1

0, 61

0) 24

.7 (6

.4 3)

10 .7

(2 .9

0) 14

.0 (4

.4 6)

5. 9

! (2

.5 8)

H ou

se ho

ld in

co m

e Le

ss th

an $

15 ,0

00 ...

... ...

... ...

. 17

0, 10

0 (3

9, 60

0) 67

,8 00

(1 5,

03 0)

10 2,

30 0

(2 7,

92 0)

35 ,5

00 !

(1 3,

75 0)

83 .9

(1 7.

13 )

33 .5

(7 .2

1) 50

.5 (1

2. 56

) 17

. 5 !

(6 .5

0) $1

5, 00

0– 29

,9 99

... ...

... ...

... ...

.. 12

3, 30

0 (3

1, 72

0) 51

,3 00

(1 2,

93 0)

72 ,0

00 (2

2, 00

0) 35

,4 00

! (1

3, 72

0) 39

.7 (9

.4 2)

16 .5

(4 .1

0) 23

.2 (6

.7 0)

11 .4

! (4

.2 7)

$3 0,

00 0–

49 ,9

99 ...

... ...

... ...

... ..

13 1,

00 0

(3 3,

07 0)

77 ,0

00 (1

6, 10

0) 54

,0 00

(1 8,

13 0)

19 ,1

00 !

(9 ,2

00 )

28 .4

(6 .7

2) 16

.7 (3

.4 3)

11 .7

(3 .7

9) 4.

1 !

(1 .9

6) $5

0, 00

0– 74

,9 99

... ...

... ...

... ...

.. 56

,1 00

(1 8,

60 0)

25 ,9

00 !

(9 ,0

00 )

30 ,2

00 !

(1 2,

35 0)

13 ,0

00 !

(7 ,2

10 )

16 .9

(5 .3

8) 7.

8 !

(2 .7

0) 9.

1 !

(3 .6

3) 3.

9 !

(2 .1

4) $7

5, 00

0 or

m or

e. ...

... ...

... ...

... .

15 1,

10 0

(3 6,

48 0)

98 ,1

00 (1

8, 37

0) 53

,0 00

(1 7,

91 0)

23 ,7

00 !

(1 0,

57 0)

20 .6

(4 .7

2) 13

.4 (2

.4 7)

7. 2

(2 .3

8) 3.

2 !

(1 .4

2) N

ot re

po rt

ed ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ..

14 6,

90 0

(3 5,

78 0)

82 ,8

00 (1

6, 74

0) 64

,1 00

(2 0,

36 0)

24 ,4

00 !

(1 0,

77 0)

26 .9

(6 .1

6) 15

.2 (3

.0 2)

11 .7

(3 .6

0) 4.

5 !

(1 .9

4)

114 Supplemental Tables

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 115

Table 3.1 Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1995 through 2013

CHAPTER 2: Elementary and Secondary Education 297 School Crime Victims

DIGEST OF EDUCATION STATISTICS 2014

Table 228.30. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1995 through 2013

[Standard errors appear in parentheses]

Type of victimization and student or school characteristic 1995 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Total ................................. 9.5 (0.35) 7.6 (0.35) 5.5 (0.31) 5.1 (0.24) 4.3 (0.31) 4.3 (0.30) 3.9 (0.28) 3.5 (0.28) 3.0 (0.25) Sex

Male ...................................... 10.0 (0.46) 7.8 (0.46) 6.1 (0.41) 5.4 (0.33) 4.6 (0.42) 4.5 (0.43) 4.6 (0.40) 3.7 (0.35) 3.2 (0.40) Female .................................. 9.0 (0.47) 7.3 (0.46) 4.9 (0.39) 4.8 (0.36) 3.9 (0.38) 4.0 (0.39) 3.2 (0.35) 3.4 (0.38) 2.8 (0.34)

Race/ethnicity1 White..................................... 9.8 (0.37) 7.5 (0.44) 5.8 (0.39) 5.4 (0.31) 4.7 (0.35) 4.3 (0.38) 3.9 (0.37) 3.6 (0.35) 3.0 (0.32) Black ..................................... 10.2 (1.04) 9.9 (0.85) 6.1 (0.78) 5.3 (0.80) 3.8 (0.80) 4.3 (0.83) 4.4 (0.74) 4.6 (0.89) 3.2 (0.71) Hispanic ................................ 7.6 (0.90) 5.7 (0.77) 4.6 (0.64) 3.9 (0.50) 3.9 (0.70) 3.6 (0.54) 3.9 (0.75) 2.9 (0.47) 3.2 (0.46) Asian ..................................... — (†) — (†) — (†) — (†) 1.5 ! (0.68) 3.6 ! (1.38) ‡ (†) 2.5 ! (1.23) 2.6 ! (1.08) Other ..................................... 8.8 (1.54) 6.4 (1.28) 3.1 (0.91) 5.0 (1.08) 4.3 ! (2.00) 8.1 (2.01) ‡ (†) 3.7 ! (1.37) 2.2 ! (1.08)

Grade 6th ......................................... 9.6 (0.97) 8.0 (1.24) 5.9 (0.90) 3.8 (0.77) 4.6 (0.83) 4.1 (0.87) 3.7 (0.91) 3.8 (0.85) 4.1 (0.92) 7th ......................................... 11.2 (0.81) 8.2 (0.81) 5.8 (0.66) 6.3 (0.74) 5.4 (0.71) 4.7 (0.69) 3.4 (0.70) 3.1 (0.61) 2.5 (0.51) 8th ......................................... 10.5 (0.78) 7.6 (0.84) 4.3 (0.61) 5.2 (0.65) 3.6 (0.63) 4.4 (0.63) 3.8 (0.78) 3.8 (0.67) 2.3 (0.52) 9th ......................................... 11.9 (0.88) 8.9 (0.79) 7.9 (0.81) 6.3 (0.70) 4.7 (0.69) 5.3 (0.75) 5.3 (0.85) 5.1 (0.83) 4.1 (0.76) 10th ....................................... 9.1 (0.76) 8.0 (0.82) 6.5 (0.77) 4.8 (0.63) 4.3 (0.71) 4.4 (0.67) 4.2 (0.79) 3.0 (0.58) 3.3 (0.57) 11th ....................................... 7.3 (0.74) 7.2 (0.88) 4.8 (0.62) 5.1 (0.68) 3.6 (0.51) 4.0 (0.75) 4.7 (0.88) 3.1 (0.65) 3.3 (0.65) 12th ....................................... 6.1 (0.74) 4.8 (0.81) 2.9 (0.52) 3.6 (0.71) 3.8 (0.85) 2.7 (0.70) 2.0 (0.52) 2.9 (0.68) 2.0 ! (0.67)

Urbanicity2 Urban .................................... 9.3 (0.64) 8.4 (0.69) 5.9 (0.58) 6.1 (0.58) 5.3 (0.65) 4.5 (0.58) 4.2 (0.56) 4.3 (0.56) 3.3 (0.47) Suburban .............................. 10.3 (0.49) 7.6 (0.43) 5.7 (0.40) 4.8 (0.33) 4.2 (0.34) 4.1 (0.38) 4.0 (0.36) 3.3 (0.34) 3.2 (0.35) Rural ..................................... 8.3 (0.79) 6.4 (0.96) 4.7 (0.93) 4.7 (0.75) 2.8 (0.69) 4.4 (0.55) 3.1 (0.66) 2.8 (0.57) 2.0 (0.58)

Sector Public .................................... 9.8 (0.38) 7.9 (0.37) 5.7 (0.34) 5.2 (0.26) 4.4 (0.32) 4.6 (0.32) 4.1 (0.30) 3.7 (0.29) 3.1 (0.27) Private................................... 6.6 (0.90) 4.5 (0.80) 3.4 (0.72) 4.9 (0.79) 2.7 (0.77) 1.1 ! (0.50) 1.8 ! (0.76) 1.9 ! (0.68) 2.8 ! (0.89)

Theft ................................. 7.1 (0.29) 5.7 (0.32) 4.2 (0.24) 4.0 (0.21) 3.1 (0.27) 3.0 (0.23) 2.8 (0.23) 2.6 (0.23) 1.9 (0.20) Sex

Male ...................................... 7.1 (0.38) 5.7 (0.41) 4.5 (0.34) 4.0 (0.27) 3.1 (0.34) 3.0 (0.34) 3.4 (0.36) 2.6 (0.29) 2.0 (0.30) Female .................................. 7.1 (0.41) 5.7 (0.43) 3.8 (0.33) 4.1 (0.32) 3.2 (0.36) 3.0 (0.33) 2.1 (0.28) 2.6 (0.33) 1.8 (0.28)

Race/ethnicity1 White..................................... 7.4 (0.32) 5.8 (0.43) 4.2 (0.30) 4.3 (0.28) 3.4 (0.32) 3.1 (0.29) 2.9 (0.31) 2.5 (0.28) 1.6 (0.22) Black ..................................... 7.1 (0.85) 7.4 (0.77) 5.0 (0.68) 4.0 (0.66) 2.7 (0.65) 3.0 (0.70) 2.5 (0.61) 3.7 (0.78) 2.7 (0.67) Hispanic ................................ 5.8 (0.78) 3.9 (0.61) 3.7 (0.69) 3.0 (0.41) 3.1 (0.64) 2.2 (0.47) 3.0 (0.63) 2.0 (0.41) 1.8 (0.39) Asian ..................................... — (†) — (†) — (†) — (†) ‡ (†) 3.2 ! (1.32) ‡ (†) 2.5 ! (1.23) 2.6 ! (1.08) Other ..................................... 6.5 (1.40) 4.4 (0.98) 2.9 (0.87) 4.4 (1.04) ‡ (†) 4.5 ! (1.57) ‡ (†) 2.8 ! (1.21) ‡ (†)

Grade 6th ......................................... 5.4 (0.66) 5.2 (0.97) 4.0 (0.70) 2.2 (0.63) 2.8 (0.75) 2.7 (0.77) 1.3 ! (0.52) 2.7 (0.70) 1.4 ! (0.57) 7th ......................................... 8.1 (0.71) 6.0 (0.73) 3.4 (0.51) 4.8 (0.67) 2.9 (0.50) 2.7 (0.54) 2.1 (0.57) 1.9 (0.44) 1.4 (0.38) 8th ......................................... 7.9 (0.72) 5.9 (0.81) 3.3 (0.50) 4.1 (0.56) 2.4 (0.53) 2.5 (0.54) 2.0 (0.55) 2.0 (0.48) 1.0 ! (0.33) 9th ......................................... 9.1 (0.77) 6.5 (0.71) 6.2 (0.76) 5.3 (0.62) 3.7 (0.61) 4.6 (0.70) 4.9 (0.80) 4.4 (0.78) 2.7 (0.58) 10th ....................................... 7.7 (0.72) 6.5 (0.73) 5.7 (0.72) 3.7 (0.59) 3.8 (0.66) 3.6 (0.63) 3.5 (0.72) 2.1 (0.50) 2.6 (0.48) 11th ....................................... 5.5 (0.66) 5.5 (0.67) 3.8 (0.57) 4.1 (0.64) 2.8 (0.45) 2.6 (0.61) 3.3 (0.74) 2.7 (0.58) 2.3 (0.50) 12th ....................................... 4.6 (0.67) 4.0 (0.71) 2.3 (0.45) 3.1 (0.68) 3.5 (0.85) 1.9 (0.55) 1.5 (0.44) 2.4 (0.62) 1.6 ! (0.62)

Urbanicity2 Urban .................................... 6.6 (0.51) 6.9 (0.59) 4.5 (0.52) 4.5 (0.47) 3.6 (0.51) 2.8 (0.48) 2.9 (0.45) 3.0 (0.45) 2.4 (0.44) Suburban .............................. 7.6 (0.40) 5.4 (0.36) 4.3 (0.32) 3.8 (0.27) 3.2 (0.31) 3.0 (0.31) 2.8 (0.32) 2.5 (0.30) 1.9 (0.27) Rural ..................................... 6.8 (0.66) 5.0 (0.95) 3.4 (0.65) 3.9 (0.66) 2.2 ! (0.68) 3.2 (0.46) 2.3 (0.59) 2.0 (0.47) 0.8 (0.24)

Sector Public .................................... 7.3 (0.32) 5.9 (0.34) 4.4 (0.26) 4.0 (0.22) 3.3 (0.28) 3.2 (0.25) 2.9 (0.25) 2.7 (0.24) 1.9 (0.21) Private................................... 5.2 (0.74) 4.3 (0.78) 2.5 (0.67) 4.0 (0.77) 1.3 ! (0.48) 1.1 ! (0.50) ‡ (†) 1.2 ! (0.52) 2.0 ! (0.76)

Violent .............................. 3.0 (0.21) 2.3 (0.18) 1.8 (0.19) 1.3 (0.15) 1.2 (0.15) 1.6 (0.18) 1.4 (0.17) 1.1 (0.15) 1.2 (0.15) Sex

Male ...................................... 3.5 (0.27) 2.5 (0.26) 2.1 (0.26) 1.8 (0.24) 1.6 (0.25) 1.7 (0.26) 1.6 (0.25) 1.2 (0.21) 1.3 (0.23) Female .................................. 2.4 (0.25) 2.0 (0.22) 1.5 (0.24) 0.9 (0.16) 0.8 (0.15) 1.4 (0.23) 1.1 (0.21) 0.9 (0.17) 1.1 (0.23)

Race/ethnicity1 White..................................... 3.0 (0.23) 2.1 (0.22) 2.0 (0.24) 1.4 (0.18) 1.3 (0.20) 1.5 (0.22) 1.2 (0.21) 1.2 (0.17) 1.5 (0.24) Black ..................................... 3.4 (0.61) 3.5 (0.55) 1.3 ! (0.40) 1.6 (0.41) 1.3 ! (0.46) 1.6 ! (0.50) 2.3 (0.62) 1.1 ! (0.42) ‡ (†) Hispanic ................................ 2.7 (0.43) 1.9 (0.38) 1.5 (0.41) 1.1 (0.28) 0.9 (0.24) 1.4 (0.42) 1.3 ! (0.40) 1.0 (0.28) 1.5 (0.26) Asian ..................................... — (†) — (†) — (†) — (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) # (†) # (†) ‡ (†) Other ..................................... 2.5 ! (0.87) 2.2 ! (0.81) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) 4.5 ! (1.50) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†)

Grade 6th ......................................... 5.1 (0.73) 3.8 (0.76) 2.6 (0.66) 1.9 (0.53) 1.9 (0.55) 1.5 ! (0.54) 2.6 ! (0.83) 1.3 ! (0.49) 2.7 (0.73) 7th ......................................... 3.8 (0.54) 2.6 (0.43) 2.6 (0.47) 1.7 (0.43) 2.6 (0.53) 2.4 (0.50) 1.2 ! (0.42) 1.2 ! (0.41) 1.2 ! (0.38) 8th ......................................... 3.1 (0.44) 2.4 (0.44) 1.3 (0.34) 1.5 (0.35) 1.4 (0.39) 2.1 (0.47) 2.0 (0.60) 2.1 (0.50) 1.4 (0.42) 9th ......................................... 3.4 (0.50) 3.2 (0.47) 2.4 (0.46) 1.5 (0.31) 1.0 (0.29) 1.2 ! (0.37) 0.9 ! (0.37) 1.1 ! (0.35) 1.4 ! (0.44) 10th ....................................... 2.1 (0.36) 1.7 (0.39) 1.2 (0.31) 1.4 (0.36) 0.5 ! (0.24) 1.2 ! (0.39) 1.0 ! (0.37) 0.9 ! (0.34) 1.0 ! (0.35) 11th ....................................... 1.9 (0.40) 1.8 ! (0.58) 1.6 (0.39) 1.0 ! (0.33) 0.7 ! (0.31) 1.5 ! (0.46) 1.5 ! (0.51) ‡ (†) 1.0 ! (0.43) 12th ....................................... 1.9 (0.41) 0.8 ! (0.31) 0.9 ! (0.31) 0.5 ! (0.26) ‡ (†) 0.8 ! (0.35) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†)

Urbanicity2 Urban .................................... 3.3 (0.40) 2.3 (0.38) 1.7 (0.29) 1.8 (0.32) 1.8 (0.34) 2.0 (0.35) 1.8 (0.41) 1.4 (0.31) 0.9 (0.21) Suburban .............................. 3.5 (0.30) 2.4 (0.26) 1.7 (0.20) 1.2 (0.19) 1.1 (0.18) 1.3 (0.23) 1.3 (0.23) 0.9 (0.16) 1.4 (0.21) Rural ..................................... 1.8 (0.31) 1.9 (0.50) 2.0 ! (0.64) 0.9 ! (0.31) 0.6 ! (0.26) 1.7 (0.36) 0.8 ! (0.32) 1.0 ! (0.31) 1.1 ! (0.46)

Sector Public .................................... 3.1 (0.22) 2.5 (0.20) 1.9 (0.20) 1.4 (0.15) 1.2 (0.15) 1.7 (0.20) 1.4 (0.19) 1.1 (0.15) 1.2 (0.16) Private................................... 1.7 (0.45) ‡ (†) 1.0 ! (0.32) 0.9 ! (0.39) 1.4 ! (0.60) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†)

See notes at end of table.

Table 3.1 Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1995 through 2013—Continued

298 CHAPTER 2: Elementary and Secondary Education School Crime Victims

DIGEST OF EDUCATION STATISTICS 2014

—Not available. †Not applicable. #Rounds to zero. !Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. ‡Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater. 1Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. “Other” includes American Indians/ Alaska Natives, Asians (prior to 2005), Pacific Islanders, and, from 2003 onward, persons of Two or more races. Due to changes in racial/ethnic categories, comparisons of race/ethnicity across years should be made with caution. 2Refers to the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) status of the respondent’s house- hold as defined in 2000 by the U.S. Census Bureau. Categories include “central city of an MSA (Urban),” “in MSA but not in central city (Suburban),” and “not MSA (Rural).”

3Serious violent victimization is also included in violent victimization. NOTE: “Total victimization” includes theft and violent victimization. A single student could report more than one type of victimization. In the total victimization section, students who reported both theft and violent victimization are counted only once. “Theft” includes attempted and completed purse-snatching, completed pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, with the exception of motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery, which involves the threat or use of force and is classified as a violent crime. “Serious violent victimization” includes the crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. “Violent victimization” includes the serious violent crimes as well as simple assault. “At school” includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and, from 2001 onward, going to and from school. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supple- ment (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, selected years, 1995 through 2013. (This table was prepared August 2014.)

Serious violent3 ............... 0.7 (0.09) 0.5 (0.09) 0.4 (0.08) 0.2 (0.06) 0.3 (0.07) 0.4 (0.08) 0.3 (0.09) 0.1 ! (0.05) 0.2 ! (0.07) Sex

Male ...................................... 0.9 (0.14) 0.6 (0.12) 0.5 (0.11) 0.3 ! (0.10) 0.3 ! (0.10) 0.5 ! (0.14) 0.6 (0.16) 0.2 ! (0.08) 0.2 ! (0.10) Female .................................. 0.4 (0.10) 0.5 (0.12) 0.4 ! (0.12) ‡ (†) 0.3 (0.07) 0.2 ! (0.08) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) 0.2 ! (0.10)

Race/ethnicity1 White..................................... 0.6 (0.09) 0.4 (0.09) 0.4 (0.08) 0.2 ! (0.06) 0.3 ! (0.09) 0.2 ! (0.08) 0.3 ! (0.10) 0.2 ! (0.07) 0.2 ! (0.09) Black ..................................... 1.0 ! (0.31) 1.2 (0.33) 0.5 ! (0.25) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) Hispanic ................................ 0.9 ! (0.30) 0.6 ! (0.22) 0.8 ! (0.33) 0.4 ! (0.18) 0.4 ! (0.16) 0.8 ! (0.32) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) 0.4 ! (0.17) Asian ..................................... — (†) — (†) — (†) — (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) # (†) # (†) ‡ (†) Other ..................................... ‡ (†) # (†) # (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) # (†) # (†) ‡ (†)

Grade 6th ......................................... 1.5 (0.42) 1.3 ! (0.40) ‡ (†) # (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) 0.8 ! (0.42) 7th ......................................... 0.9 (0.24) 0.9 ! (0.27) 0.6 ! (0.24) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) 0.4 ! (0.20) ‡ (†) 0.5 ! (0.23) ‡ (†) 8th ......................................... 0.8 ! (0.23) 0.5 ! (0.22) 0.3 ! (0.14) 0.3 ! (0.15) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) # (†) ‡ (†) 9th ......................................... 0.7 (0.21) 0.6 ! (0.18) 0.8 ! (0.31) 0.6 ! (0.21) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) 10th ....................................... 0.4 ! (0.17) ‡ (†) 0.4 ! (0.18) # (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) # (†) ‡ (†) 11th ....................................... 0.4 ! (0.16) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) 0.6 ! (0.27) ‡ (†) # (†) ‡ (†) 12th ....................................... ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) # (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) # (†) ‡ (†)

Urbanicity2 Urban .................................... 1.3 (0.24) 0.7 (0.19) 0.5 (0.15) 0.4 ! (0.14) 0.4 ! (0.17) 0.7 ! (0.23) 0.6 ! (0.22) ‡ (†) 0.3 ! (0.16) Suburban .............................. 0.6 (0.12) 0.5 (0.11) 0.4 (0.09) 0.1 ! (0.05) 0.3 ! (0.08) 0.2 ! (0.09) 0.3 ! (0.11) ‡ (†) 0.2 ! (0.08) Rural ..................................... 0.3 ! (0.10) 0.4 ! (0.18) 0.5 ! (0.24) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†)

Sector Public .................................... 0.7 (0.10) 0.6 (0.10) 0.5 (0.09) 0.2 (0.06) 0.3 (0.06) 0.4 (0.09) 0.4 (0.10) 0.1 ! (0.06) 0.2 ! (0.08) Private................................... ‡ (†) # (†) # (†) # (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) # (†) ‡ (†)

Table 228.30. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by type of victimization and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1995 through 2013—Continued

[Standard errors appear in parentheses]

Type of victimization and student or school characteristic 1995 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

116 Supplemental Tables

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014 117

Ta bl

e 4.

1 P

er ce

nt ag

e of

s tu

de nt

s in

g ra

de s

9– 12

w ho

r ep

or te

d be

in g

th re

at en

ed o

r in

ju re

d w

ith a

w ea

po n

on s

ch oo

l p ro

pe rt

y du

ri ng

th e

pr ev

io us

1 2

m on

th s,

b y

se le

ct ed

s tu

de nt

c ha

ra ct

er is

tic s

an d

nu m

be r

of ti

m es

th re

at en

ed o

r in

ju re

d: S

el ec

te d

ye ar

s, 1

99 3

th ro

ug h

20 13

CHAPTER 2: Elementary and Secondary Education 299 School Crime Victims

DIGEST OF EDUCATION STATISTICS 2014

— N

o t av

a ila

bl e .

† N

o t a p p

lic a

bl e .

!I n te

rp re

t d a ta

w ith

c a u

tio n . T

h e

c o

e ff ic

ie n t o f va

ri a tio

n (

C V

) fo

r th

is e

st im

a te

is b

e tw

e e n

3 0

a n

d 5

0 p

e rc

e n t.

‡ R

e p

o rt

in g

s ta

n d a rd

s n o t m

e t. E

ith e r

th e re

a re

t o o fe

w c

a se

s fo

r a

r e lia

bl e e

st im

a te

o r

th e

c o e ff ic

ie n t o f va

ri a tio

n (

C V

) is

5 0

p e

r- ce

n t o r

g re

a te

r. 1 R

a ce

c a te

g o

ri e s

ex cl

u d e p

e rs

o n

s o

f H

is p a

n ic

e th

n ic

ity .

2 B

e fo

re 1

9 9

9 , A

si a n s

tu d e n

ts a

n d

P a ci

fic Is

la n d

e r

st u

d e n ts

w e re

n o t c

a te

g o ri

ze d s

e p a

ra te

ly , a

n d s

tu d e n

ts c

o u ld

n o

t b e c

la ss

ifi e

d a s

Tw o o

r m

o re

r a ce

s. B

e ca

u se

t h e

r e

sp o

n se

c a te

g o

ri e s

ch a

n g e d

in 1

9 9 9 ,

ca u tio

n s

h o u ld

b e u

se d i n c

o m

p a ri

n g d

a ta

o n

r a ce

fr o

m 1

9 9 3 , 1 9

9 5 , a n

d 1

9 9 7 w

ith d

a ta

f ro

m la

te r

ye a rs

. N

O T

E : S

u rv

e y

re sp

o n d e

n ts

w e re

a sk

e d

a b

o u t b

e in

g t h re

a te

n e d

o r

in ju

re d “

w ith

a w

e a p

o n s

u ch

a s

a g

u n , k

n ife

, o r

cl u b

o n s

ch o o l

p ro

p e rt

y. ”

“O n s

ch o o l p

ro p e rt

y” w

a s

n o

t d

e fin

e d

fo r

re sp

o n

d e n

ts . D

e ta

il m

ay n

o t su

m t o

t o

ta ls

b e ca

u se

o f ro

u n d in

g .

S O

U R

C E

: C

e n te

rs fo

r D

is e

a se

C o

n tr

o l a

n d P

re ve

n tio

n ,

D iv

is io

n o

f A

d o

le sc

e n t

a n d S

ch o o

l H e a lth

, Yo

u th

R is

k B

e h

av io

r S

u rv

e il-

la n ce

S ys

te m

( Y

R B

S S

), 1

9 9 3 t h ro

u g h

2 0

1 3 . (T

h is

t a

bl e w

a s

p re

p a

re d J

u n

e 2

0 1 4 .)

Ta bl

e 22

8. 40

. Pe

rc en

ta ge

o f s

tu de

nt s

in g

ra de

s 9–

12 w

ho re

po rt

ed b

ei ng

th re

at en

ed or

in ju

re d

w ith

a w

ea po

n on

sc ho

ol p

ro pe

rt y

du rin

g th

e pr

ev io

us 1

2 m

on th

s, b

y se

le ct

ed s

tu de

nt c

ha ra

ct er

is tic

s an

d nu

m be

r of

ti m

es th

re at

en ed

o r

in ju

re d:

S el

ec te

d ye

ar s,

1 99

3 th

ro ug

h 20

13 [S

ta n

d a rd

e rr

o rs

a p p

e a r

in p

a re

n th

e se

s]

N um

be r o

f t im

es a

nd y

ea r

To ta

l

S ex

R ac

e/ et

hn ic

ity 1

G ra

de

M al

e Fe

m al

e W

hi te

B la

ck H

is pa

ni c

A si

an 2

Pa ci

fic Is

la nd

er 2

A m

er ic

an In

di an

/ A

la sk

a N

at iv

e2 Tw

o or

m or

e ra

ce s2

9t h

gr ad

e 10

th g

ra de

11 th

g ra

de 12

th g

ra de

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11 12

13 14

15

A t l

ea st

o nc

e 19

93 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ..

7. 3

(0 .4

4) 9.

2 (0

.6 4)

5. 4

(0 .4

0) 6.

3 (0

.5 8)

11 .2

(0 .9

5) 8.

6 (0

.8 3)

— (†

) —

(† )

11 .7

(2 .5

0) —

(† )

9. 4

(0 .9

2) 7.

3 (0

.5 9)

7. 3

(0 .6

4) 5.

5 (0

.6 2)

19 95

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

.. 8.

4 (0

.5 2)

10 .9

(0 .5

7) 5.

8 (0

.6 8)

7. 0

(0 .5

3) 11

.0 (1

.6 1)

12 .4

(1 .4

4) —

(† )

— (†

) 11

.4 !

(4 .2

2) —

(† )

9. 6

(0 .9

6) 9.

6 (1

.0 3)

7. 7

(0 .6

4) 6.

7 (0

.5 7)

19 97

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

.. 7.

4 (0

.4 5)

10 .2

(0 .7

1) 4.

0 (0

.3 2)

6. 2

(0 .5

6) 9.

9 (0

.9 1)

9. 0

(0 .6

3) —

(† )

— (†

) 12

.5 !

(5 .1

5) —

(† )

10 .1

(1 .0

2) 7.

9 (1

.1 4)

5. 9

(0 .7

0) 5.

8 (0

.8 0)

19 99

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

.. 7.

7 (0

.4 2)

9. 5

(0 .8

0) 5.

8 (0

.6 4)

6. 6

(0 .3

5) 7.

6 (0

.8 5)

9. 8

(1 .0

9) 7.

7 (1

.0 5)

15 .6

(4 .4

6) 13

.2 !

(5 .4

5) 9.

3 (1

.2 2)

10 .5

(0 .9

5) 8.

2 (0

.9 2)

6. 1

(0 .4

6) 5.

1 (0

.7 9)

20 01

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

.. 8.

9 (0

.5 5)

11 .5

(0 .6

6) 6.

5 (0

.5 2)

8. 5

(0 .6

6) 9.

3 (0

.7 1)

8. 9

(1 .0

5) 11

.3 (2

.7 3)

24 .8

(7 .1

6) 15

.2 !

(4 .5

7) 10

.3 (2

.3 3)

12 .7

(0 .8

9) 9.

1 (0

.7 5)

6. 9

(0 .6

5) 5.

3 (0

.5 2)

20 03

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

.. 9.

2 (0

.7 5)

11 .6

(0 .9

6) 6.

5 (0

.6 1)

7. 8

(0 .7

7) 10

.9 (0

.8 0)

9. 4

(1 .2

3) 11

.5 (2

.6 6)

16 .3

(4 .3

1) 22

.1 (4

.7 9)

18 .7

(3 .1

1) 12

.1 (1

.2 5)

9. 2

(1 .0

2) 7.

3 (0

.6 9)

6. 3

(0 .9

2) 20

05 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ..

7. 9

(0 .3

5) 9.

7 (0

.4 2)

6. 1

(0 .4

1) 7.

2 (0

.4 6)

8. 1

(0 .6

9) 9.

8 (0

.8 6)

4. 6

(1 .1

0) 14

.5 !

(4 .9

3) 9.

8 (2

.6 7)

10 .7

(2 .3

3) 10

.5 (0

.6 3)

8. 8

(0 .7

2) 5.

5 (0

.4 3)

5. 8

(0 .5

2) 20

07 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ..

7. 8

(0 .4

4) 10

.2 (0

.5 9)

5. 4

(0 .4

1) 6.

9 (0

.5 2)

9. 7

(0 .8

6) 8.

7 (0

.6 0)

7. 6

! (2

.2 9)

8. 1

! (2

.4 5)

5. 9

(1 .2

4) 13

.3 (2

.2 5)

9. 2

(0 .6

9) 8.

4 (0

.5 1)

6. 8

(0 .5

7) 6.

3 (0

.6 4)

20 09

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

.. 7.

7 (0

.3 7)

9. 6

(0 .5

9) 5.

5 (0

.3 7)

6. 4

(0 .4

3) 9.

4 (0

.8 0)

9. 1

(0 .6

1) 5.

5 (0

.9 1)

12 .5

(3 .1

1) 16

.5 (2

.6 8)

9. 2

(1 .5

0) 8.

7 (0

.5 3)

8. 4

(0 .7

2) 7.

9 (0

.6 0)

5. 2

(0 .5

3) 20

11 ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ..

7. 4

(0 .3

1) 9.

5 (0

.3 9)

5. 2

(0 .3

7) 6.

1 (0

.3 5)

8. 9

(0 .6

4) 9.

2 (0

.8 1)

7. 0

(0 .9

9) 11

.3 (3

.2 3)

8. 2

(1 .5

2) 9.

9 (1

.3 5)

8. 3

(0 .6

3) 7.

7 (0

.5 8)

7. 3

(0 .6

1) 5.

9 (0

.4 5)

20 13

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

.. 6.

9 (0

.3 8)

7. 7

(0 .5

4) 6.

1 (0

.4 0)

5. 8

(0 .3

2) 8.

4 (0

.8 2)

8. 5

(0 .7

3) 5.

3 (1

.4 1)

8. 7

! (2

.7 1)

18 .5

(5 .2

4) 7.

7 (2

.1 1)

8. 5

(0 .7

5) 7.

0 (0

.6 7)

6. 8

(0 .6

0) 4.

9 (0

.6 1)

N um

be r o

f t im

es , 2

01 3

0 tim

es ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

. 93

.1 (0

.3 8)

92 .3

(0 .5

4) 93

.9 (0

.4 0)

94 .2

(0 .3

2) 91

.6 (0

.8 2)

91 .5

(0 .7

3) 94

.7 (1

.4 1)

91 .3

(2 .7

1) 81

.5 (5

.2 4)

92 .3

(2 .1

1) 91

.5 (0

.7 5)

93 .0

(0 .6

7) 93

.2 (0

.6 0)

95 .1

(0 .6

1) 1

tim e

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

3. 0

(0 .2

2) 3.

0 (0

.2 5)

3. 0

(0 .3

3) 2.

7 (0

.2 7)

3. 8

(0 .5

1) 3.

3 (0

.5 1)

1. 7

! (0

.5 1)

2. 0

(0 .5

9) 9.

6 !

(3 .1

4) 3.

1 !

(0 .9

6) 3.

5 (0

.5 0)

3. 0

(0 .5

2) 3.

4 (0

.3 9)

2. 0

(0 .2

7) 2

or 3

ti m

es ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

1. 7

(0 .1

4) 1.

7 (0

.2 1)

1. 6

(0 .2

0) 1.

6 (0

.1 7)

1. 8

(0 .3

5) 1.

6 (0

.2 9)

‡ (†

) ‡

(† )

‡ (†

) 2.

2 !

(0 .6

7) 2.

5 (0

.3 7)

1. 7

(0 .2

6) 1.

3 (0

.2 4)

1. 1

(0 .2

1) 4

to 1

1 tim

es ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

1. 3

(0 .1

4) 1.

7 (0

.2 1)

0. 9

(0 .1

8) 0.

8 (0

.1 2)

1. 7

(0 .3

6) 2.

3 (0

.3 4)

‡ (†

) ‡

(† )

4. 9

! (2

.3 4)

1. 5

! (0

.6 3)

1. 5

(0 .2

2) 1.

4 (0

.3 0)

1. 3

(0 .2

8) 1.

0 (0

.2 1)

12 o

r m or

e tim

es ...

... ...

... ...

... ...

... .

0. 9

(0 .1

1) 1.

3 (0

.1 9)

0. 6

(0 .0

8) 0.

7 (0

.1 7)

1. 2

(0 .2

3) 1.

2 (0

.2 5)

‡ (†

) ‡

(† )

‡ (†

) ‡

(† )

1. 0

(0 .2

0) 0.

9 (0

.2 0)

0. 9

(0 .2

2) 0.

9 (0

.2 5)