U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics School Crime September NCJ-131645 Hard copy of full text with tables available from: Bureau of Justice Statistics Clearinghouse 1-800-732-3277 School Crime By Lisa D. Bastian and Bruce M. Taylor, Ph.D BJS Statisticians U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Steven D. Dillingham, Ph.D. Director Acknowledgments. This report was written by Lisa D. Bastian and Bruce M. Taylor of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Thomas Hester edited the report. Lawrence A. Greenfeld provided initial editorial and statistical guidance. Marilyn Marbrook administered its publication, assisted by Jayne Pugh, Tina Dorsey, and Yvonne Boston. BJS reports are produced under the direction of Michael W. Agopian, Deputy Director for Data Analysis. The Assistant Attorney General is responsible for matters of administration and management with respect to the Office of Justice Program agencies: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bureau of Justice Assistance, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and Office for Victims of Crime. The Assistant Attorney General further establishes policies and priorities consistent with the statutory purposes of the OJP agencies and the priorities of the Department of Justice. Data utilized in this report are available from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data at the University of Michigan, 1-800-999-0950. The data set is archived as the NCVS School Crime Supplement (ICPSR 9394). Foreword The prevalence of crime in our Nation's schools concerns us all. In addition to the costs to the victims and their families, crimes at school disrupt education and may have longer lasting effects on society than crime committed elsewhere. Any consideration of a response to crime at school must begin with an accurate, national accounting of the extent of such crime and a description of its likely victims. This report summarizes the responses collected by the National Crime Victimiza-tion Survey (NCVS) in a special supple-ment during the first half of 1989. The data represent an estimated 21.6 million students, ages 12 to 19. As do other NCVS reports, this analysis accounts for crime experienced by different groups _ males and females; blacks and whites; Hispanics and non-Hispanics; central city, suburban, and rural residents. It also accounts for selected characteristics of schools and students: public and private, grade levels, and security measures. This study asked students for their perceptions regarding such crime issues as the following: How difficult were drugs or alcohol to obtain at school? How prevalent were street gangs in school? How fearful were students of being attacked at school? The questionnaire used for the supplement, reprinted on pages 15 to 18, also gathered information on the school environment, victimization, and the efforts to avoid becoming a victim. This report provides an excellent overview of crime concerns that the students reported. We encourage other research-ers to explore the data further. The computerized files are available from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data at the University of Michigan. Steven D. Dillingham, Ph.D. Director Introduction An estimated 9% of students, ages 12 to 19, were crime victims in or around their school over a 6-month period: 2% reported experiencing one or more violent crimes and 7% reported at least one property crime. Violent crime is largely composed of simple assaults. These crimes involve attacks without weapons and may result in minor injury, such as cuts or bruises. Violent crimes can also include aggravated assaults, robberies, and rapes. Fifteen percent of the students said their school had gangs, and 16% claimed that a student had attacked or threatened a teacher at their school. Among public school students 9% reported drugs as impossible to obtain at school; among private school students, 36% reported drugs to be impossible to obtain at school. These findings are based on a nationally representative sample survey of more than 10,000 youth who were interviewed from January through June of 1989 and who attended school at any time during the 6 months before the interview.1 (SCS responses were collected only from those respondents attending a primary or secondary school which advanced them toward a high school diploma.) The School Crime Supplement (SCS) was conducted as an enhancement of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), an ongoing household survey that gathers information on the victimiza-tion of household members age 12 or older. The survey asks only about crimes that have occurred during the 6 months before the interview. Other findings from the SCS include the following: Victimization ú Male and female students were equally likely to experience a victimization at school. ú Students of different races experienced about the same amount of violent or property victimization in and around their schools (table 1). However, Hispanic students were less likely than non-Hispanics to have sustained a property crime. ú For crimes at school, the students older than age 17 were generally less likely to be victims than were younger students. ú Students living in families that had moved three or more times in the preceding 5 years were nearly twice as likely to have experienced a criminal victimization as students who had moved no more than once. The frequent movers were 3 times more likely to suffer a violent victimization than students who had moved less often. ú Victimization by violent crime at school had no consistent relation to income levels of the victims' families. For property crime, however, students in families with annual incomes of $50,000 or more were more likely to be victimized than were students whose families earned less than $10,000 a year. ú Public school students (9%) were more likely to be crime victims than private school students (7%) (table 2). ú High school seniors were the least likely students to be crime victims. Ninth grade students were more likely to be crime victims than were students in all higher grades. ú An estimated 21.6 million youth ages 12 to 19 were enrolled in the Nation's public and private schools between January and June, 1989. About 52% of these students were male, and 48% were female. Approximately 80% were white; 16%, black; and 4%, from other racial groups. ("Other race" includes Asisans, Pacific Islanders, About 9% of students indicated they were Hispanic. ú Households of 88% of students had not moved for at least 5 years before the interview. ú Approximately 13% of students were in families that earned less than $10,000 annually, and 16% were in families earning at least $50,000. ú About 27% of students lived in central cities, 47% in suburbs, and 26% in nonmetropolitan areas. These residen-tial areas are based on Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) classifications. Suburbs are inside an MSA, but not in a central area, and nonmetropolitan areas are all outside MSA's. ú Eighty-nine percent of students attended public schools, while 9% were in private schools. The remaining 2% did not provide information on the nature of support for their schools. ú The number of students was evenly distributed among grades from 7th to 12th, approximately 15% for each grade. Only 8% of the students were sixth graders because many students in that grade were younger than age 12, the minimum for NCVS respondents. ú Of the school security practices measured by the SCS, the most common was requiring visitors to report to the school office (91%), followed by restricting students to school grounds during lunch (75%), placing teachers in halls during class changes (71%), and patrolling the halls at other times (65%). ú Slightly more than 4 of 10 students believed that valuables were safe in their lockers. Drugs and alcohol in school Drugs ú In the first half of 1989 about 30% of the students' interviewed believed that marijuana was easy to obtain at school (table 3). In comparison, 9% said crack was easy to obtain, and 11% claimed cocaine to be readily available. ú Overall, students most frequently reported that drugs of any type were hard or impossible to obtain at school. Approximately 58% of students said cocaine and crack were hard or impossible to obtain at school. ú A larger proportion of males than of females knew whether drugs were available in school (table 4). Among those students who knew whether someone could obtain drugs at their school, the same proportions of males and females reported that drugs were available. ú Although similar proportions of black (67%) and white (69%) students claimed that drugs were available at school, these students were significantly more likely than persons belonging to other racial groups to say drugs could be obtained (58%). ú Generally, the older the student (from ages 12 to 15), the more likely he or she was to say that drugs were available at school. However, among those who knew whether a person could obtain drugs at their school, students for each age between 15 and 19 were about equally likely (58%) to have said drugs were available. ú Students' reporting of the availability of drugs in school did not vary significantly by ethnicity or levels of family income. ú Among students who knew whether a person could obtain drugs at their school, no measurable differences distinguished reports of drug availability by central city (84%), suburban (86%), and nonmetro-politan area (86%) students. Central city and suburban students were more likely than nonmetropolitan area students to say that they did not know about the availability of drugs. ú Public school students were more likely than private school students to say drugs were available (70% versus 52%) (table 5). ú About half of the sixth graders reported that drugs were available, compared to three-fourths or more of the students in grades 10 to 12. ú Students who said a person would find drugs easy to obtain were generally more likely to have been victims than students who said someone would find drugs either hard or impossible to obtain (table 6). ú Comparing students who said someone could obtain drugs at their school with those in schools where drugs were impossible to obtain, the students in schools with drugs available were twice as likely to fear an attack at school (25% versus 13%) and 1.5 times as likely to fear an attack going to or from school (16% versus 10%) (table 7). Drug prevention ú Students attending schools in which drugs were available were more likely than students in schools without drugsto indicate that their schools were taking some action to prevent drug use (91% versus 74%) (table 8). ú Nearly a fourth of students in schools where they said drugs were not available reported that their schools had taken no preventative measures. ú Students most frequently said hall patrols were used as a drug prevention measure at school (71%). Other common strategies to prevent drug use included locker searches (46%) and restroom checks (43%) (table 9).Drug education classes ú White students (40%) were more likely than black students (36%) to have atten-ded drug education classes (table 10). ú Forty-four percent of students in nonmetropolitan areas said that in the previous 6 months they had attended drug education classes at school. These students were more likely than students from suburban areas (40%) to have attended such classes, and central city students (35%) were the least likely to have attended drug education classes. ú About the same proportions of public and private school students had attended drug education classes, although a larger proportion of those in public schools said that a person could obtain drugs at their school. ú Sixth graders, while the least likely to feel that someone could obtain drugs at their schools, were the most likely to have attended drug education classes (56%). Ninth through twelfth graders were the least likely to have attended drug education classes but claimed, in the largest proportions, that drugs were obtainable at school (see tables 5 and 10). ú Students saying drugs were not avail-able in their school were more likely to have attended drug education classes than students in schools where a person could obtain drugs (44% versus 40%). Alcohol ú Roughly equal proportions of students said that alcohol was easy or hard to obtain at school (31%) (table 3). ú Students who reported that alcohol was easy to obtain were more likely to have been victims of property crimes than students who claimed that alcohol was hard or impossible to obtain (table 6). Findings on the availability of alcohol in school resemble the findings on drug availability with a few exceptions: ú Non-Hispanics were more likely than Hispanics to report that a person could obtain alcohol at school (63% versus 56%) (table 11). ú Students whose families earned under $15,000 a year were less likely than students in families with higher incomes to say that a person could obtain alcohol at school. ú Among students who knew whether or not a person could obtain alcohol in their school, suburban (80%) and nonmetro-politan area (82%) students were more likely than urban (76%) students to have claimed that alcohol was available in their schools. ú The higher their grade level, the more likely the students were to report that alcohol was available at their school (table 12). ú Students who reported alcohol to be available at school were more likely to fear attack than students who reported alcohol as being unavailable (table 13). Gangs ú Seventy-nine percent of students said no gangs existed at their schools; 15% reported gangs, while another 5% were not sure whether gangs existed at their schools (table 14). ú Of those students who said there were or could be gangs at their school, 37% reported that the gang members never fought at school. An additional 19% claimed that gang members fought once or twice a year, while 12% said that members fought once or twice a week or even every day. ú Sixteen percent of respondents claimed that a student had attacked or threatened a teacher at their school in the 6 months before the interview. Nearly three-fourths said no attacks or threats against teachers had occurred at their schools, and an additional 11% did not know. ú Among all students, the 15% who reported the presence of gangs were more likely than students from schools without gangs to be victims of some type of crime (12% versus 8%) (table 15). ú A higher percentage of black students (20%) than white students (14%) said their school had gangs (table 16). A relatively high proportion of Hispanics (32%), compared to non-Hispanics (14%), attended schools with gangs. ú Overall, about the same percentage of students of different ages reported gangs at school, except that the schools of students age 12 were somewhat less likely to have gangs than the schools of students ages 14 to 17. ú Students in households with an income below $30,000 a year were more likely to attend a school that had gangs than were students in families with higher annual incomes. ú Students in central cities were the most likely to report gangs at their schools (25%); nonmetropolitan area students the least (8%). ú Students at schools with gangs were about twice as likely as students from schools without gangs to be afraid of attack, both at school and on the way to or from school (table 17). ú Students at schools with gangs were more likely to avoid areas inside the school, such as rest rooms or hallways, than areas outside the school building. ú Seventy-eight percent of students at schools with gangs reported that a person could obtain drugs at school, compared to 66% of students at schools without gangs (table 5). Fear of crime at school ú Victims of violent crimes were about 3 times as likely as nonvictims to report they were afraid of being attacked at school (53% versus 19%) (table 18). The overwhelming majority of students who had not been victimized reported no fear of attack, either at school (81%) or on the way to and from school (87%). ú Seventy-four percent of violent crime victims said that they never feared attack on the way to and from school; 47% never feared attack at school. ú Students who had been robbed or assaulted during the previous 6 months were more likely to avoid certain places at school out of fear of attack or harm (25%) than those who had experienced a theft or attempted theft (10%). About 5% of those who had not been victimized reported staying away from places at school to avoid attacks (table 19). ú Six percent of students indicated they avoided some place in or around their school because they thought someone might attack or harm them there (table 20). School restrooms (3%) were most often mentioned as a place students avoided, followed by school hallways (2%). ú About the same percentage of male and female students feared an attack at school and avoided certain places because of that fear (table 21). However, female students expressed more fear of attack going to and from school than did male students. ú About the same percentage of black students, white students, and students of other races such as Asians and American Indians reported being afraid of attack at school and avoiding a place out of fear. However, more black students (21%) and students of other races (18%) feared attack going to and from school than did white students (13%). ú Hispanic students were more likely than non-Hispanics to indicate fear of attack both at school and going to and from school. Compared to non-Hispanic students, Hispanics were more likely to have avoided at least one place at school out of fear of being hurt. ú Younger students were more likely than older students to fear attack at school or going to and from school. Also, younger students were more likely to avoid certain places than were older students _ 12-year-olds being twice as likely to report such action as 18-year-olds. ú Students whose families had moved twice or more during the previous 5 years were more likely to report being afraid of attack at school than were students who had moved less frequently. ú Generally, students from families with low incomes were the most likely to be afraid of attacks at school and to avoid places because of that fear. ú Students in central cities were more likely than suburban students to indicate that at least occasionally they feared attack at school and that they avoided certain places out of fear. Central city students were also more likely to fear attack going to and from school than were either suburban or nonmetropolitan area students. ú Black students in the central city were more likely to harbor fear of attack going to and from school (24%) than were suburban blacks (15%) (table 22). Similarly, white students in the central city were more likely to fear such an attack (18%) than were suburban whites (12%). ú Among students in the central city, blacks (24%) were more likely than whites (18%) to fear an attack going to and from school. Suburban students of different races reported about the same level of fear. ú Public school students (22%) were substantially more likely than students in private schools (13%) to indicate some level of fear of attack at school (table 23). Students in public schools were also twice as likely as private school students to avoid certain places at school out of fear. ú Students going to and from school by car were the least likely of all students _ and those using public transit the most likely _ to claim they had feared attack going to and from school (table 24). Students who walked were more likely to fear attack going to and from school, to avoid the shortest route to school, and to stay away from places outside the school building out of fear than were students using other modes of transportation except public transit. ú Students going to and from school by car were the least likely of all students -- and those using public transit the most likely -- to claim they had feared attack going to and from school (table 24). Students who walked were more likely to fear attack going to and from school, to avoid the shortest route to school, and tostay away from places outside the school building out of fear than were students using the other modes of transportation except public transit. Objects for self-protection ú Two percent of students had taken something to school to protect them-selves from attack or harm at least once during a 6-month period (table 25). Ojects for protection could have included weapons like a gun, knife, or brass knuckles, or knives that could be used as weapons -- razor blades, spiked jewelry, and other objects capable of hurting an assailant. ú Students in central cities (3%) were more likely than those in the suburbs (2%) to report taking to school something that could be used as a weapon; students in nonmetropolitan areas (1%) were the least likely to arm themselves with objects for protection. Males (3%) were slightly more likely than females (1%) to take such objects to school. School security measures ú The SCS asked students whether teachers stood in doorways and monitored hallways during class changes, whether anyone patrolled hallways, and whether visitors were required to report to the school office. Black students were more likely than students of other racial groups to report that their schools took such security measures (table 26). ú Hispanic students were more likely than non-Hispanics to attend schools where halls were patrolled. ú Teacher monitors were less common in schools attended by students age 15 or older. However, these older students were more likely than other students to indicate that nonteachers patrolled their halls. ú Students whose annual family income was less than $15,000 were the most likely to attend schools where teachers monitored class changes and visitors had to sign in. Students whose families earned less than $30,000 annually reported school hall patrols more frequently than other students. ú Students from nonmetropolitan areas were the most likely to attend schools using teacher monitors, and suburban students the least likely. Students from urban centers were more likely to have their halls patrolled than students from other areas. ú Violent crime occurred about as frequently in schools using security measures like hall monitors as in schools without such measures, according to student reports (table 27). ú Students in schools using hall monitors or patrols as a security measure were more likely to fear an attack than those attending schools without monitors or patrols (table 28). ú Two-thirds of all students reported that those caught fighting or drunk at school could be suspended (table 29). Approximately 38% indicated that students who cut class could also be suspended and/or given detention. By comparison, a fourth of the survey participants said students who were disrespectful to teachers could be suspended. Students were most likely to be sent to the principal's office and/or given detention for being disrespectful. Methodology The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) collects data on crime from a nationally representative sample of households (47,000 in 1990). When a household is selected for inclusion in the sample, household members age 12 or older are interviewed every 6 months for 3 years. During each interview information is obtained about the personal victimiza-tions, if any, experienced by the inter-viewee in the 6 months preceding the interview. One member, generally over age 18, is also designated the household respondent, from whom information is obtained about all crimes committed against the household during the preceding 6 months. The NCVS measures both attempted and completed incidents of the violent crimes of rape, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault; personal thefts with and without contact; and the household crimes of burglary, household larceny, and motor vehicle theft. This report presents data collected in interviews conducted from January through June of 1989 as a supplement to the regular NCVS data collection program. It focuses on personal crimes of violence and theft that were committed inside a school building or on school property only. The eligible respondents for this School Crime Supplement (SCS) were those household members who were between the ages of 12 and 19, had attended school at any time during the 6 months preceding the interview, and were enrolled in a school which would advance them towards the eventual receipt of a high school diploma. The number of valid respondents for the supplement was 10,449. The tables that deal with crime measure victimization in terms of prevalence rather than incidence. Thus, victimization is measured in terms of how widespread it is among survey respondents rather than in terms of how frequently all victims had been victimized during the measurement period. Each individual who has been the victim of a violent crime, for example, is counted once in the violent crime index even if he or she has been victimized multiple times, each in separate violent incidents. Unweighted counts of crimes occurring at school, from the NCVS survey instrument, reveal a slight underreporting of these crimes in the SCS. The supplement is administered to eligible respondents only after completion of their entire NCS interview. Thus, some students may forget to report to the supplement all victimizations occurring at school that were previously noted in the NCVS interview. In order to obtain the most complete count of crimes occurring at school and their characteristics, the authors chose to tally crimes committed against eligible SCS respondents by using NCVS victimizations of these respondents which were reported to have occurred at school. In this report, nonvictims are those valid respondents who did not report any victimizations on either the NCVS questionnaire or the SCS. Estimation procedures An incident is a specific criminal act involving one or more victims, while a victimization refers to the criminal act as it affects a single victim. Therefore, because personal crimes may involve more than one victim, the number of victimizations is determined by the number of victims of the crime. This number is calculated by the application of a victim-weight, using standard NCVS weighting procedures, which results in a national estimate of victimization. The data in this report have been weighted by a special "school crime" weight. This weight differs from the victim-weight in that incoming (first interview) as well as continuing household rotation groups are used in its computation. For a detailed description of NCVS estimation procedures, see appendix III of Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1989 (NCJ-129391). Reliability of comparisons All comparisons made in this report were tested to determine whether the differences between groups were statistically significant. The comparisons presented are significant at the 95% confidence level or above, except where qualified by phrases such as, "somewhat "or "some evidence", which indicate significance at the 90% confidence level only. Statistical significance at the 95% confidence level requires that the estimated difference between the values being compared is greater than twice the standard error of this difference. Tables also note when estimates are based on 10 or fewer sample cases; standard errors cannot be computed accurately for such estimates. It is particularly inadvisable to compare these with other estimates based on a small sample size. Definition of terms Hall monitors: Hall monitors other than teachers such as security guards, principals, or other students. Inside areas: Inside areas include hallways, stairs, cafeterias, rest rooms, and any other areas inside of the school building. Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA): A county or group of counties containing at least one city or combined cities of 50,000 or more inhabitants and adjacent counties which are metropolitan in character that are economically and socially integrated with the central city. The MSA is named after the central city (or cities) contained in it. Boundaries are drawn by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Open school: A school in which stu-dents are permitted to leave the school grounds during lunch. Other drugs: Other illegal drugs such as heroine, LSD, PCP, and unspecified drugs which may be available at school. Other race Includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans. Outside areas: Outside areas include entrances into the school, parking lots, and any other areas on school grounds. Property crime: In this report, this crime category comprises personal larceny, both with and without contact, and motor vehicle theft. Violent crime: Includes the crimes of rape, robbery, and simple and aggravated assault. END OF FILE