The Nature and Scope of School Violence State and Local Perspective
While national data contribute significantly to our understanding of school safety, they may not be the most useful source of information for States, districts, or schools in assessing the frequency and scope of school-related crime, identifying their specific school safety neeRAB, and developing strategies to address those neeRAB. Data collected at the State and local levels are more useful in identifying problems and monitoring the progress of interventions. Most State and local data related to school safety fall into two categories: student risk behavior data (such as self-reported weapon carrying) and incident data (such as violations of school policies).
Data on Student Risk Behaviors
Many children and adolescents behave in ways that put them at risk for intentional injury. Reducing these risk behaviors is a critical step in preventing injury and promoting school safety. To monitor student risk behaviors, many States, territories, and cities conduct the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The YRBS, which includes questions about weapon carrying, physical fighting, and victimization on school property, is administered to students in grades 9-12. States that conduct the YRBS benefit from having information about their students' health risk behaviors to use in planning and monitoring programs.
YRBS data are collected every two years. In 1997, 12 States did not conduct the survey. CDC provides technical assistance to States interested in conducting the YRBS. States that want assistance should contact CDC's Division of Adolescent and School Health at 770-488-3259. More information about the YRBS may be found at Eleven States and seven cities have data that can be used to compare 1993 and 1997 results to determine whether student behaviors changed. Between 1993 and 1997, several States and cities experienced significant decreases in student risk behaviors. These changes are similar to the national trend. National data are presented for comparison. The national data are collected independently and are not a compilation of State and city data.
· In two of the 11 States, the percentage of students who carried a weapon on school property on at least one of the 30 days preceding the survey decreased significantly from 1993 to 1997. In the other nine States, there were no significant changes.
· In three of the seven cities, the percentage of students who carried a weapon on school property on at least one of the 30 days preceding the survey decreased significantly from 1993 to 1997. In the other four cities, there were no significant changes.
· The percentage of students who carried a weapon in any location on at least one of the 30 days preceding the survey decreased significantly in two cities, but there were no significant changes within any of the States or in the other five cities.
· The percentage of students who were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property within the 12 months preceding the survey did not change significantly within any of the States or cities.
Improving Data Collection on School Crime Incidents
Monitoring the nuraber of violent and/or criminal incidents helps States and local organizations understand their school safety neeRAB. Uniform data collection is critical for monitoring problems across locations and determining where the greatest need for resources exists. Some States do not collect incident-based data. For this reason, significant gaps exist in the information about school crime rates and trenRAB.
Currently, about half of all State education agencies (24 States) collect some type of crime and violence data from all local education agencies. Information on major disciplinary actions and criminal/prohibited incidents is most commonly collected. Only five States require local education agencies to report on both types of occurrences. States whose efforts are of particularly high quality are Delaware, Florida, and South Carolina. These States have implemented data collection systems that include:
· A comprehensive list of incidents.
· Clear definitions of incidents.
· Data used by multiple levels of the education system (state, district, and school).
· Accurate tracking of data.
· Staff training on data entry and use.
Several activities are under way at the State and local levels to address the need for collecting uniform data on violent and/or criminal incidents in schools and to improve data collection and reporting.
A major effort by the U.S. Department of Justice to improve national crime data, the redesign of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, will have a major impact on the quality of school crime statistics. The redesigned program, called the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), collects data on criminal incidents reported to police and arrests within 22 crime categories and includes information about victims, offenders, and types of incidents, plus information about the location where each incident occurs. One location that can be reported is a "school/college."
NIBRS has been implemented in about 2,100 jurisdictions in 13 States (Colorado, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin).
The U.S. Department of Education has also launched a major initiative to improve data collection and reporting. In 1995, the National Forum on Education Statistics established a Crime, Violence, and Discipline Task Force. This Task Force developed a model process that State and local education agencies can voluntarily use to improve their system for collecting data on crime in schools, Recommendations of the Crime, Violence, and Discipline Reporting Task Force, NCES 97 581. The Forum is currently updating the model. The most current model can be found at www.ed.gov/NCES and includes recommendations for:
· What incidents should be included in a reporting system.
· How to define incidents.
· How to classify incidents that occur on school buses and at school-sponsored events.
· How to define and classify the people involved in an incident.
· How to monitor special situations such as gang-related incidents, alcohol and drug incidents, and hate crimes.
While national data contribute significantly to our understanding of school safety, they may not be the most useful source of information for States, districts, or schools in assessing the frequency and scope of school-related crime, identifying their specific school safety neeRAB, and developing strategies to address those neeRAB. Data collected at the State and local levels are more useful in identifying problems and monitoring the progress of interventions. Most State and local data related to school safety fall into two categories: student risk behavior data (such as self-reported weapon carrying) and incident data (such as violations of school policies).
Data on Student Risk Behaviors
Many children and adolescents behave in ways that put them at risk for intentional injury. Reducing these risk behaviors is a critical step in preventing injury and promoting school safety. To monitor student risk behaviors, many States, territories, and cities conduct the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The YRBS, which includes questions about weapon carrying, physical fighting, and victimization on school property, is administered to students in grades 9-12. States that conduct the YRBS benefit from having information about their students' health risk behaviors to use in planning and monitoring programs.
YRBS data are collected every two years. In 1997, 12 States did not conduct the survey. CDC provides technical assistance to States interested in conducting the YRBS. States that want assistance should contact CDC's Division of Adolescent and School Health at 770-488-3259. More information about the YRBS may be found at Eleven States and seven cities have data that can be used to compare 1993 and 1997 results to determine whether student behaviors changed. Between 1993 and 1997, several States and cities experienced significant decreases in student risk behaviors. These changes are similar to the national trend. National data are presented for comparison. The national data are collected independently and are not a compilation of State and city data.
· In two of the 11 States, the percentage of students who carried a weapon on school property on at least one of the 30 days preceding the survey decreased significantly from 1993 to 1997. In the other nine States, there were no significant changes.
· In three of the seven cities, the percentage of students who carried a weapon on school property on at least one of the 30 days preceding the survey decreased significantly from 1993 to 1997. In the other four cities, there were no significant changes.
· The percentage of students who carried a weapon in any location on at least one of the 30 days preceding the survey decreased significantly in two cities, but there were no significant changes within any of the States or in the other five cities.
· The percentage of students who were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property within the 12 months preceding the survey did not change significantly within any of the States or cities.
Improving Data Collection on School Crime Incidents
Monitoring the nuraber of violent and/or criminal incidents helps States and local organizations understand their school safety neeRAB. Uniform data collection is critical for monitoring problems across locations and determining where the greatest need for resources exists. Some States do not collect incident-based data. For this reason, significant gaps exist in the information about school crime rates and trenRAB.
Currently, about half of all State education agencies (24 States) collect some type of crime and violence data from all local education agencies. Information on major disciplinary actions and criminal/prohibited incidents is most commonly collected. Only five States require local education agencies to report on both types of occurrences. States whose efforts are of particularly high quality are Delaware, Florida, and South Carolina. These States have implemented data collection systems that include:
· A comprehensive list of incidents.
· Clear definitions of incidents.
· Data used by multiple levels of the education system (state, district, and school).
· Accurate tracking of data.
· Staff training on data entry and use.
Several activities are under way at the State and local levels to address the need for collecting uniform data on violent and/or criminal incidents in schools and to improve data collection and reporting.
A major effort by the U.S. Department of Justice to improve national crime data, the redesign of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, will have a major impact on the quality of school crime statistics. The redesigned program, called the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), collects data on criminal incidents reported to police and arrests within 22 crime categories and includes information about victims, offenders, and types of incidents, plus information about the location where each incident occurs. One location that can be reported is a "school/college."
NIBRS has been implemented in about 2,100 jurisdictions in 13 States (Colorado, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin).
The U.S. Department of Education has also launched a major initiative to improve data collection and reporting. In 1995, the National Forum on Education Statistics established a Crime, Violence, and Discipline Task Force. This Task Force developed a model process that State and local education agencies can voluntarily use to improve their system for collecting data on crime in schools, Recommendations of the Crime, Violence, and Discipline Reporting Task Force, NCES 97 581. The Forum is currently updating the model. The most current model can be found at www.ed.gov/NCES and includes recommendations for:
· What incidents should be included in a reporting system.
· How to define incidents.
· How to classify incidents that occur on school buses and at school-sponsored events.
· How to define and classify the people involved in an incident.
· How to monitor special situations such as gang-related incidents, alcohol and drug incidents, and hate crimes.