2013 SCS OMB Supporting Statement A final

Supporting Statement

2013 School Crime Supplement (SCS)

A. Justification

1. Necessity of the Information Collection

We request clearance to conduct the 2013 School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) from January through June 2013. The primary purpose of the School Crime Supplement (SCS) is to obtain additional information about school-related victimizations so that policymakers, academic researchers, practitioners at the federal, state, and local levels, and special interest groups who are concerned with crime in schools can make informed decisions concerning policies and programs. The SCS asks questions related to students' experiences with, and perceptions of crime and safety at school, including preventive measures employed by schools; students' participation in after school activities; students' perception of school rules and enforcement of these rules; the presence of weapons, drugs, alcohol, and gangs in school; student bullying; hate-related incidents; and attitudinal questions relating to the fear of victimization at school. These responses are linked to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) survey instrument responses for a more complete understanding of the individual student's circumstances.

NCVS data on school crime has shown that school crimes are under-reported to the police and those victims between the ages of 12 and 18 are not as likely as older victims to report victimizations to the police. In addition, police-based statistics are not organized in a manner to properly identify crimes that occurred at school or during school hours. Therefore, police statistics on school crime are not adequate to address the issue of the nature and prevalence of school victimization. The 2013 supplement will continue to provide critical information about the overall safety environment in schools to understand the context in which school-related victimizations occur on a national level.

Except for one minor change, the 2013 SCS questions and response items are the same as those in the 2011 SCS, and no other changes will be made until 2015. The question change involves an additional response option proposed for question 19c. Question 19c allows multiple responses to the prompt: “Still thinking about all of the times that you were bullied, where did the bullying occur? Did it occur…”

1. In a classroom at school?

2. In a hallway or stairwell at school?

3. In a bathroom or locker room at school?

4. Somewhere else inside the school building? Specify _________________

5. Outside on school grounds?

6. On a school bus?

In the 2009 administration of the survey, 6.4 percent of the interviewees who reported they were bullied, chose response option 4 and specified the location as ‘In a cafeteria or lunchroom at school’. In the postsurvey analyses, ‘cafeteria or lunchroom’ was treated as a separate response category. This postsurvey category is being continued in the analysis of the 2011 data. This also aligns with question 23a, which asks about avoidance of areas within the school, and includes a specific response option for ‘parts of the school cafeteria’. Therefore, it is proposed that a 7th option be specifically added to the possible response list in the questionnaire for item 19c. It will be added to the list presented before the current response option 4 and will appear as “In a cafeteria or lunchroom at school?” (see below):

“Still thinking about all of the times that you were bullied, where did the bullying occur? Did it occur…”

1. In a classroom at school?

2. In a hallway or stairwell at school?

3. In a bathroom or locker room at school?

4.In a cafeteria or lunchroom at school?

5. Somewhere else inside the school building? Specify _________________

6. Outside on school grounds?

7. On a school bus?

In 2011 the following appeared as Terms of Clearance for the 2011 School Crime Supplement (SCS).

TERMS OF CLEARANCE: OMB appreciates that BJS is able to restore previously cut sample to both the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and this school crime supplement to increase the precision and therefore utility of the survey. OMB is concerned however about the addition of burden in the form of new questions subjected only to limited testing, particularly in content areas not directly associated with crime victimization. Given that the main NCVS is undergoing redesign, this supplement also requires reexamination. Therefore, prior to submitting this collection for its next full clearance cycle, BJS, in concert with the National Center for Education Statistics and experts in criminology, should conduct a systematic review of the survey and its content. This review should assess purpose, burden and response rates, and if BJS decides to continue using content added in recent cycles, the review must also demonstrate that this new content is being analyzed, reported and found useful by stakeholders.

BJS/NCES agrees that the terms laid out by OMB are responsible and reasonable, but needs more time to fulfill the terms. BJS/NCES is proposing to conduct the 2013 SCS essentially as it was conducted in 2011, and will work to fulfill the terms prior to the 2015 SCS.

A number of factors made it prudent and responsible to delay fulfillment of OMB’s terms. These factors include:

1. In the past year, Education Department (ED), Center for Disease Control (CDC), and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) have been collaborating on a document that puts forth a definition of “bullying.” Once that document is released, it could have implications for how bullying is measured in the SCS. The document is currently scheduled to be released in September 2012. Because of its implications for the SCS, BJS/NCES thought it best to delay any meeting of the Technical Review Panel (TRP) until the report is publicly available.

2. NCES is working with Census to conduct cognitive lab work on students’ understanding of the definitional components of bullying. An initial round of work, cleared under OMB number 0607-0725, was completed on July 31, 2012. It is likely that several additional rounds of work will be needed to fully understand current items and how they might need to change to conform to the proposed definition of bullying.

3. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recently released a study entitled “School Bullying: Extent of Legal Protections for Vulnerable Groups.” It, too, has implications for the content of the SCS. GAO and Senior Leadership at ED are asking that sexual orientation and sexual identity items be considered for inclusion on the NCVS/SCS, so that bullying and victimization measures for these vulnerable groups can be obtained. NCES/BJS will be working with HHS and others to understand the measurement issues surrounding items related to sexual orientation and identity. More background information is needed to take to the TRP.

4. BJS/NCES cannot deliver on a systematic reexamination of the survey and its content because data from the 2011 SCS have yet to be cleared for release. The data have been reviewed by NCES and BJS and currently awaiting feedback from Census. It is not possible to fully study the new items (items 13b, 16c (reworded and expanded in 2011), 16e, 16f) in advance of having a final data set and its potential value to stakeholders. Collecting an additional year of data (2013) will provide enough data to assess the reliability of these items. A schedule for this review is below.

5. Rather than consulting with experts in criminology with a TRP prior to the seeing the results of 1 through 4, above, BJS/NCES is waiting for those activities to advance before the experts are convened. And the experts will be able to review all of these items at that time. A schedule for this TRP is below.

6. During FY11, a number of budgeting factors made continuity of planning for the SCS difficult. Funding by the Office of Safe and Healthy Students was withdrawn, and continuation of the SCS was uncertain for several months. NCES ultimately agreed to cover the SCS in FY11 and beyond.

Specific plans for meeting the 2011 Terms of Clearance are as follows:

1. By February 2013, NCES will finish compiling as much information as possible about each of the items in the current SCS. This will include: item history; any field representative debriefing comments made about the item (or earlier versions of the item); any cognitive lab findings related to the item (or earlier versions of the item); and, item response rates in 2009 and 2011.

2. By April 2013, NCES will convene a meeting of its Crime Technical Review Panel (TRP) to review SCS content and make recommendations for changes.

3. By May 2013, NCES will produce a cognitive lab plan for additional cognitive lab work needed on the items.

4. By August 2013, NCES, using Census, will complete the cognitive lab work and report findings back to the TRP.

5. By October 2013, NCES will reconvene the TRP to discuss cognitive lab findings and produce final recommendations for SCS content.

6. By December 2013, NCES will complete a thorough bibliographic search for research published in years 2005 through June 2013 using SCS data. (NOTE: By June 2013, the search for years 2009 through 2012 will be completed; these will be available to the TRP at the October meeting.)

7. If needed, there will be time for additional cognitive lab work in January 2014.

We are requesting a one-time OMB SCS clearance for the 2013 collection through December 31, 2013. During this period, the supplement will be administered to all NCVS respondents ages 12–18, who attended school in the previous 6 months following the completion of the NCVS screener and the NCVS crime incident report (if applicable NCVS crimes were reported). The BJS is authorized to collect statistics on victimization under Title 42, United States Code, Section 3732 of the Justice Systems Improvement Act of 1979 (Attachment 1).

2. Needs and Uses

General Uses. To study the relationship between victimization at school and the school environment, and to monitor changes in student experiences with victimization, accurate information regarding its characteristics and incidence must be collected. Funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences’ National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and jointly designed with BJS, the School Crime Supplement (SCS) was developed to address this data need. Since its first collection in 1989, and in 1995, 1999 and biannually thereafter, the SCS has been NCES' primary data source on student victimization. In addition to collecting characteristics related to various types of student victimization at school, the SCS also asks students about: alcohol and drug availability; fighting, bullying, and hate-related behaviors; cyber-bullying; fear and avoidance behaviors; gun and weapon carrying; and gangs at school.

Title 1 of the Education Sciences and Reform Act (ESRA) mandates that the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) collect, report, analyze, and disseminate statistical data regarding education in the U.S. as it relates to the nature of criminal incidents at school and other indices of school safety. Specifically, the incidence, frequency, seriousness, and nature of violence affecting students, school personnel, and other individuals participating in school activities, as well as other indices of school safety are to be detailed, including information regarding the relationship between victims and perpetrators and demographic characteristics of the victims. Further, Title IV Part A of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) awards funds to states for designing programs aimed at preventing or reducing drugs, violence, and student delinquency in schools.

To meet its obligation to Congress under the ESRA, NCES works with its diverse customer groups and relies on their feedback to determine how it can best meet their demands for timely, comprehensive, and useful information that maintains high statistical standards. Specifically, NCES has engaged and encouraged school practitioners, researchers, and data users of the SCS by convening a Technical Review Panel and via mailings to SCS users. Both efforts have requested, collected, and integrated feedback into subsequent administrations of the SCS. For example, in 2003, school crime and safety researchers and practitioners voiced a particular interest in the emergent issue of bullying, the behaviors associated with bullying, and definitions related to the behavior. In response, NCES/BJS revised the bullying series for the 2005 SCS collection and further elaborated on the 2003 TRP recommendations, in conjunction with more recent research detailing specific methods of bullying in schools, in the 2007, 2009, and 2011 SCS (e.g., bullying via electronic means).

Exhibit 1 displays the type of estimates that will be drawn from the 2011 SCS and the 2013 SCS.

Exhibit 1. Illustrative estimates that can be generated from the 2011 and 2013 SCS

Estimates	Relevant questions1
Percentages of students ages 12–18 who reported presence of selected security measures at school	Q14a.a-j
Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school during the school year, by selected bullying problems by selected student and school characteristics	Q19a
Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported cyber-bullying problems anywhere during the school year, by selected student and school characteristics	Q20a
Number and percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school, by the frequency of bullying, whether an adult was notified, whether the student was injured, and selected student characteristics	Q19b, Q19c, Q19d, Q19e, Q20b, and Q20c
Percentage distribution of students ages 12–18 who reported bullying problems at school and cyber-bullying problems anywhere who notified an adult	Q19d and Q20c
Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being targets of hate-related words and seeing hate-related graffiti at school during the school year, by selected student and school characteristics	Q21a, Q21b, and Q22
Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being afraid of attack or harm during the school year, by location and urbanicity	Q24, Q25, and Q26
Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported that gangs were present at school during the school year	Q30, Q31, and Q32
Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school and cyber-bullied anywhere, by student reports of unfavorable school conditions	Q17, Q27, and Q30
Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school and cyber-bullied anywhere, by presence of indicators of school attachment, performance, and future orientation	Q13, Q16, Q33, Q34, and Q35
Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school and cyber-bullied anywhere, by student reports of unfavorable school conditions and type of bullying or cyber-bullying	Q17b, Q17c, Q19a, Q20a, Q28a, Q28b, Q30, Q31, and Q32
Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school and cyber-bullied anywhere, by student reports of personal fear, avoidance behaviors, fighting, and weapon carrying at school, and type of bullying or cyber-bullying	Q18a, Q23a, Q23b, Q23c, Q23d, Q24, Q25, Q26, and Q27

¹ Some data that refer to student characteristics like sex, race, and household income are covered in the NCVS survey and not in the SCS. School characteristics for the schools of attendance reported by respondents are taken from NCES’s Common Core of Data (CCD) and Private School Universe Survey (PSS).

Use of Data for NCES Publications. NCES continues to encourage researchers and data users by promptly responding to queries about the data and presenting results from the data at national conferences geared toward data users, researchers, and practitioners. NCES also makes the SCS readily available to school officials, school administrators, Congress, researchers, the media, and the public through several vehicles. The data sets are made available to the public on the Internet at the NCES website (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crime/surveys.asp) and through a publicly-available data storage consortium (www.icpsr.umich.edu). Also provided on the NCES website are detailed tables from the data and resultant reports that discuss school crime and violence. These include the annual Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2011 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/crimeindicators2011/index.asp) as well as other reports that summarize the latest statistics on student victimization at school, Student Victimization in U.S. Schools: Results From the 2009 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012314); and select special topics,

Student Reports of Bullying and Cyber-Bullying: Results From the 2009 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011336).

Internally, NCES uses these data to complement other NCES publications, such as The Condition of Education, a congressionally mandated annual report that summarizes developments and trends in education using the latest available data. Additional users of the data are Department of Education and Department of Justice officials and officials of other Federal agencies, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), state and local officials in conjunction with researchers and planners to analyze the current trends, and the public seeking general information about student victimization. Some of these users and the ways in which they use the SCS data are as follows:

Congress – to evaluate the prevalence and extent of school crime and disorder to meet the needs of education agencies in reducing student victimization; to develop new or improved initiatives or laws aimed at ensuring the safety of America's students and monitor the effectiveness of school policies and programs.

U.S. Department of Education – to meet its obligation to Congress under the Education Sciences Reform Act to understand the current trends in school crime and disorder and its possible effects on student education and school systems.

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education – to both communicate and understand the current trends in school crime and disorder. To allocate resources to assist states and local agencies to meet the needs of school officials, administrators, teachers, and parents to assess conditions within their own schools/jurisdictions relative to those at the national level, as well as determine needs and budget requirements.

U.S. Department of Justice/Bureau of Justice Statistics – The aforementioned annual report, Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2011, is jointly published with BJS. The latest report is available http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2295. “Incidence of Victimization at School and Away from School” is the mechanism BJS uses to release these annual estimates from the NCVS for violence and theft against 12 to 18 year-olds.

State and local governments – to assess conditions within their own jurisdictions relative to those at the national level and to determine needs and budget requirements for local school districts.

Researchers and practitioners – to estimate the prevalence and impact of student victimization, as well as to investigate correlates of school crime and disorder such that prevention and programs can be developed and explored.

Media – to inform the public about all of the issues related to school crime and safety.

In addition to principal, district, or state-level data sources, students' reports of victimization and perceptions of crime, violence, and school climate are important factors in providing a comprehensive picture of school crime and safety. Currently, the SCS is the only recurring national data source that provides nationally representative student-level data detailing victimization and other school characteristics related to crime and disorder.

If the data in the School Crime Supplement were not collected, data users would have no source of student-level data on victimization and school characteristics related to victimization. Stakeholders would not have sufficient data to make comparative assessments that document the changing demands on schools, community mental health agencies, and law enforcement. These entities will not have the necessary data to obtain resources for personnel and services to ensure school safety (e.g. security, personnel, programmatic efforts) and other demands for tax dollars.

Exhibit 2 displays selected nonfederal publications that report secondary analyses of SCS data.

Exhibit 2. Nonfederal publications that cited data from SCS to the NCVS

Publication year and citation

1991

Pearson, F.S., and Toby, J. (1991). Fear of School-Related Predatory Crime. Sociology and Social Research, 75(3): 117-125.

1992

Collins, J.J., Messerschmidt, P.P., and Ringwalt, C.C. (1992). Relationship Between School Disruption and School Social Control Activities: Summary of Findings. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved August 9, 2012, from 5 https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=143995.

Lab, S.P., and Whitehead, J.T. (1992). School Environment and School Crime: Causes and Consequences; Summary Report. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved August 9, 2012, from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=144006.

Pearson, F.S., Toby, J.J., and Rutgers, U. (1992). Perceived and Actual Risks or School-Related Victimization: Final Activities Report. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved August 9, 2012, from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=143999.

Ringwalt, C., Messerschmidt, P., Graham, L., and Collins, J. (1992). Youth’s Victimization Experiences, Fear of Attack or Harm, and School Avoidance Behaviors: Summary of Findings. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved August 9, 2012, from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=143997.

Continued on next page.

Exhibit 2. Nonfederal publications that cited data from SCS to the NCVS—Continued

1993

Smith, B.E., and Elstein, S.G. (1993). Effective Ways to Reduce School Victimization: Practical and Legal Concerns. Children’s Legal Rights Journal, 14(1-2): 22-38.

1994

Furlong, M.M. (1994). Evaluating School Violence Trends. School Safety, 23-27.

Lab, S., and Whitehead, J. (1994, December). Avoidance Behavior as a Response to In-School Victimization. Journal of Security Administration, 17(2): 32-45.

1998

Kingery, P., Coggeshall, M., and Alford, A. (1998). Violence at School: Recent Evidence From Four National Surveys. Psychology in the Schools, 35(3): 247-258.

1999

Mayer, M.J., and Leone, P.E. (1999). A Structural Analysis of School Violence and Disruption: Implications for Creating Safer Schools. Education & Treatment of Children, 22(3): 333-56.

2002

Addington, L.A. (2002). The Columbine Effect: The Impact of Violent School Crime on Students’ Fear of Victimization. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Albany, United States—New York. Retrieved August 11, 2008, from Dissertations and Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3052923).

Van Dorn, R. (2002). Unrecognized Warning Signs. Education Week, 22(11): 41-41.

2003

Addington, L.A. (2003). Fear After Columbine: Findings From a Randomized Experiment. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(4): 367-387.

Planty, M. (2003, August). Telescoping Events in Student Surveys on Victimization. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Sheraton Music City, Nashville, Tennessee.

Scott, L., and Ruddy, S. (2003, August). How Students Identify Gangs at School: An Analysis of Multiple Gang Identification Questions in the 1995 SCS/NCVS. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Sheraton Music City, Nashville, Tennessee.

2004

Van Dorn, R.A. (2004). Correlates of Violent and Nonviolent Victimization in a Sample of Public High School Students. Violence and Victims, 19(3): 303-320.

2005

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

Addington, L.A. (2005). Following in Her Footsteps: Revisiting the Record on Adolescents’ College Plans. Gender Issues, 22(2): 31-44.

Greene, M.B. (2005). Reducing Violence and Aggression in Schools. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6(3): 236-253.

Kuck, D., and Popp, A. (2005). Characteristics of Students and Schools as Predictors of Being a Victim of Bullying: An Opportunity Theory Analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Royal York, Toronto.

Noonan, M. (2005). Guns in Schools: Results From the 2003 School Crime Supplement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Royal York, Toronto.

Continued on next page.

Exhibit 2. Nonfederal publications that cited data from SCS to the NCVS—Continued

2006

Moore-Polanco, R., and Raghavan, C. (2006). The Association of Social Development/Age on Juvenile Fear of Crime Levels in New York City Public Schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology (ASC), Los Angeles Convention Center, Los Angeles, California.

2007

Ades, L. (2007, August). Horror in the Halls: Examining Adolescent Fear, Avoidance, and Academic Difficulty. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, TBA, New York, New York City.

Randa, R. (2007, November). The Impact of Incivilities on Fear and Routine Activities in High Schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American society of Criminology, Atlanta Marriott Marquis, Atlanta, Georgia.

Watkins, A., and Maume, M. (2007, November). We Don’t Need No Notification: The Underreporting of Victimization by Students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American society of Criminology, Atlanta Marriott Marquis, Atlanta, Georgia.

Wynne, S., and Joo, H. (2007, November). Predicting School Victimization: A Multi-Level Approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American society of Criminology, Atlanta Marriott Marquis, Atlanta, Georgia.

2008

Cao, L., Zhang, Y., and He, N. (2008). Carrying Weapons to School for Protection: An Analysis of the 2001 School Crime Supplement Data. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(2): 154-164.

Elliott, E., and Rayne, K. (2008, November). Victimization Rates and Drug Use Among High School and College Students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ASC Annual Meeting, St. Louis Adam’s Mark, St. Louis, Missouri.

Popp, A. (2008, November). The Importance of Confidentiality and Anonymity for Victimization Surveys of Adolescents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ASC Annual Meeting, St. Louis Adam’s Mark, St. Louis, Missouri.

Randa, R., Drayer, A., and Lytle, D. (2008). Routine Activities of School Children: How Fear and Disorder Influence Avoidance of Specific Places. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ASC Annual Meeting, St. Louis Adam’s Mark, St. Louis, Missouri.

2009

Clay-Warner, J., Bunch, J., and James, K. (2009, November). Procedural Justice and School Crime. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ASC Annual Meeting, Philadelphia Marriott Downtown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

DeVoe, J. (2009, November). Social Bonding and School Victimization: The Ties That Bind. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ASC Annual Meeting, Philadelphia Marriott Downtown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Hutzell, K. (2009). The Impact of Bullying Behaviors on School Avoidance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ASC Annual Meeting, Philadelphia Marriott Downtown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Noe, K., and Petras, H. (2009). Peer Victimization in Middle and High School: An Application of Latent Class Analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ASC Annual Meeting, Philadelphia Marriott Downtown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Continued on next page.

Exhibit 2. Nonfederal publications that cited data from SCS to the NCVS—Continued

2010

Mayer, J.M. (2010). Structural Analysis of 1995-2005 School Crime Supplement Datasets: Factors Influencing Students’ Fear, Anxiety, and Avoidant Behaviors. Journal of School Violence, 9(1): 37-55.

2011

Bachman, R., Randolph, A., and Brown, B.L. (2011). Predicting Perceptions of Fear at School and Going To and From School for African American and White Students: The Effects of School Security Measures. Youth & Society, 43(2): 705-726.

Bagwell, K. (2011). Students Use Cellphones More Than Computers to Cyberbully. Education Daily, 44(189): 2.

Blosnich, J., and Bossarte, R. (2011). Low-Level Violence in Schools: Is There an Association Between School Safety Measures and Peer Victimization? Journal of School Health, 81(2): 107-113.

Watkins, A.M., and Maume, M.O. (2011). School Victims and Crime Reporting. Youth Violence & Juvenile Justice, 9(4): 333-351. doi:10.1177/1541204011409069.

Wynne, S.L., and Joo, H. (2011). Predictors of School Victimization: Individual, Familial, and School Factors. Crime & Delinquency, 57(3): 458-488.

3. Use of Information Technology

The SCS will be conducted in a fully automated interviewing environment using computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) methods whereby field representatives use a laptop computer to display questions and record answers. The use of CAPI technologies reduces data collection costs as well as respondent and interviewer burden. Furthermore, automated instruments afford the opportunity to implement inter-data item integrity constraints which minimize the amount of data inconsistency. More consistent data, in turn, reduces the need for extensive post-data collection editing and imputation processes which will significantly reduce the time needed to release the data for public consumption. The use of technology results in more accurate data products that are delivered in a more timely fashion giving data users access to information while it is still relevant.

The NCVS is conducted in 6-month intervals at selected households for a total of seven interviews. The first month interviews are conducted in person while the second through seventh month interviews are conducted over the telephone. All interviews are conducted using computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) technology.

4. Efforts to Identify Duplication

Two contemporary surveys collect information about school-related crime and safety from the students’ perspective. The Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) and Monitoring the Future (MTF) are nationally based collections that target various populations and substantive areas. However, neither of these studies provides a comprehensive picture of school crime from the students’ perspective from both the public and private sectors.

Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS). The Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) collects information on risky behaviors and offending, but there is minimal overlap of YRBS content with that of the SCS. The YRBS is a school based survey and interviews students in grades 9 through 12. The SCS is a household based sample and interviews children ages 12 to 18 who have attended school during the previous six months (grades 6 through 12). Three areas of overlap include: did the student carry a weapon on school property, was the student in a fight on school property, and did the student skip (or not attend) school because of safety concerns. In 2011, two questions on bullying and cyber-bullying were added to the YRBS. Unlike the SCS, the questions do not go into detail about the type of bullying behavior, number of incidents, or results (notification of adults, injuries sustained, avoidance, etc.). Additionally, because this is a self-administered survey, the responses are not directly comparable to the SCS, and, without historic data from the YRBS, the SCS remains the only source of trend data on student victimization, impact of victimization of school attendance, bullying in schools, and cyber-bullying.

Monitoring the Future (MTF). The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) publishes survey results from Monitoring the Future. This survey, like the YRBS, is a self-administered form. It is also a school based survey. The population surveyed does not completely overlap with the SCS as the survey is not administered to students below grade 8; it includes college students, and is not restricted by age. More importantly, the sampling procedures are representative of schools, not the general population. Monitoring the Future does not look at violence, bullying, or cyber-bullying, and only overlaps in the areas of drug and alcohol use and availability. Thus, the SCS does not duplicate existing data collections.

5. Minimizing Burden

The SCS is part of the NCVS which is a household-based sample. The supplement will be conducted in households scheduled to be interviewed in January through June 2013 and is designed to take approximately 10.6 minutes to administer. The 2011 SCS was administered to approximately 10, 341 persons in the household who are 12 through 18 years old. We estimate that approximately 10,006 respondents between the ages of 12 and 18 will be eligible for the supplement in 2013. This is a decrease of about 3 percent compared to the total number of persons 12 to 18 years of age that were eligible for the 2011 SCS. The decrease is directly attributable to the estimated decline in the number of eligible respondents ages 12 to 18.

In 2013, like 2009 and 2011, all SCS interviews collected data using only CAPI technology. Using CAPI technologies reduces respondent and interviewer burden because the automated instruments present the next ‘on-path’ question. This prevents the need for the interviewer to delay the interview to assess and proceed with the correct skip pattern. This also creates fewer delays throughout the interview which results in shorter interviews and a commensurate reduction in respondent and interviewer burden.

6. Consequences of Less Frequent Collection

To produce a regular series of data on school crime victimization requires regular data collection. In 1999, the SCS became a biennial survey for several reasons: (1) the student perspective is important in understanding school crime, (2) the data about the students’ must be analyzed over time to identify trends.

7. Special Circumstances

Collection is consistent with the guidelines in 5 C.F.R. 1320.9.

8. Federal Register Publication and Consultations Outside the Agency

The research under this clearance is consistent with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6. Comments on this data collection effort were solicited in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 142, on July 24, 2012 and in Vol. 77, No. 189, September 28, 2012. No comments were received in response to the information provided.

The U.S. Census Bureau, the BJS, and the NCES cooperated to develop the questionnaire and procedures used to collect this supplemental information. Michael Planty, Ph.D., and Jennifer Truman, Ph.D., from the BJS, and Ms. Kathryn Chandler, from the NCES, were the principal consultants. Those persons consulted from the Census Bureau included Ms. Meagan Wilson, Mr. William Samples, Ms. Terry DeMaio, and Ms. Jennifer Beck.

Prior to the 2011 collection, members of the Technical Review Panel (TRP) were consulted about content. TRP members and their affiliations include:

• Lynn Addington, Department of Justice, Law and Society, American University

• Bill Bond, National Association of Secondary School Principals

• Margaret Evans, National Association of Elementary School Principals

• Denise Gottfredson, Department of Criminology and Justice, University of Maryland

• Gary Gottfredson, Gottfredson Associates, Inc.

• Kristen Hayes, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools

• William Lassiter, Center for Prevention of School Violence

• Colin Loftin, School of Criminal Justice, State University of New York, Albany

• Sister Dale McDonald, National Catholic Education Association

• Shannon Means, Kentucky Center for School Safety

• Bill Smith, Instructional Support Services, Sioux Falls School District

9. Paying Respondents

Payment or gifts to respondents is not provided in return for participation in the survey.

10. Assurance of Confidentiality

All NCVS information about individuals or households is confidential by law--Title 42, United States Code, Sections 3789g and 3735 (formerly Section 3771) and Title 13, United States Code, Section 9. Only Census Bureau employees sworn to preserve this confidentiality may see the survey responses. Even BJS, as the sponsor of the survey, is not authorized to see or handle the data in its raw form. All unique and identifying information is scrambled or suppressed before it is provided to BJS and NCES to analyze. Data are maintained in secure environments and in restricted access locations within the Census Bureau. All data provided to BJS must meet the confidentiality requirements set forth by the Disclosure Review Board at the Census Bureau.

In a letter signed by the Director of the Census Bureau, sent to all participants in the survey, respondents are informed of this law and assured that it requires the Census Bureau to keep all information provided by the respondent confidential. The letter also informs respondents that this is a voluntary survey. Furthermore, in addition to the legal authority and voluntary nature of the survey, the letter informs respondents of the public reporting burden for this collection of information, the principal purposes for collecting the information, and the various uses for the data after it is collected which satisfies the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974.

11. Justification for Sensitive Questions

Questions will include only those related to victimization, bullying victimization, drug availability at the school, gang presence at the school, and students’ access to weapons since these are of great interest for school administrators and personnel responsible for maintaining school safety. No questions relating to sexual behaviors, religious beliefs, or other matters commonly considered private or of a sensitive nature are asked.

12. Estimated Respondent Burden

We estimate that 10,006 persons ages 12–18 will be eligible to be interviewed between January and June 2013. Since we do not anticipate any changes in the 2013 SCS, we estimate each interview will take 10.6 minutes to complete. Total respondent burden is approximately 1,773 hours. This is an expected net reduction of 317 hours in respondent burden when compared to the 2011 submitted total respondent burden estimate of 2,090 hours. This net reduction is primarily due to the lower estimate of SCS eligible respondents. The burden hours submitted in 2011 included an estimated increased burden associated with a sample increase to the total NCVS sample as well as the addition of three questions that were added to the SCS in 2011. The actual number of eligible respondents was less than the expected; and therefore affected the estimated number of eligible respondents for 2013.

13. Estimate of Cost Burden

There are no costs to respondents other than that of their time to respond.

14. Estimates of Cost to the Federal Government

The estimated annual cost to the Federal Government for the SCS is approximately $913,389. The NCES will bear all costs of data collection for the supplement incurred by the Census Bureau. The table below details estimated costs to BJS, NCES, the total estimated Census costs, and the total estimated costs to the federal government.

Annual Cost to the Federal Government for Collecting and Disseminating the School Crime Supplement
Data Collection: Census Bureau		$365,000
NCES Support Contractors		$400,000
Supplement Project Management – staff salaries
	GS12 – Statistician, BJS (15%)	$12,728
	GS15 - Supervisory Statistician, BJS (3%)	$4,208
	GS13 – Statistician, NCES (vacant) (72%)	$72,651
	GS15 – Program Director, NCES (8%)	$11,221
	Subtotal salaries	$100,808
Fringe benefits (28% of salaries)		$28,226
Subtotal: Salary and fringe		$129,034
Other administrative costs of salary and fringe (15%)		$19,355
Subtotal: Project management costs		$148,389
Total estimated costs for SCS		$913,389

NOTE: The interagency agreement with the Census Bureau is, in fact, a multi-year, unseverable agreement that covers all Census Bureau work on the 2013 SCS. The current agreement, which runs from July 1, 2012 through September 30, 2014, totals $729,148. This is considerably less than interagency agreements covering earlier collections. The cost is lower because 2013 is planned as a repeat of 2011.

15. Reasons for Changes in Burden

The decrease in the respondent burden from 2,090 hours to 1,773 hours is attributed to overestimation of the number of burden hours needed due to the sample increase to the NCVS in 2011. The number of hours and estimated number of eligible respondents submitted for 2011 was greater than the actual number of eligible respondents and burden hours used. The NCVS has also experienced an increase in the person level nonresponse for the 12–18 year old age group.

16. Plan for Publication and Project Schedule

The BJS and the NCES will be responsible for release of the data to the public (hereafter referred to as the “datafile”), the statistical analysis of the data, and the production of resultant web-based publications and tabulations. This microdata is made available as a public-use file (PUF) after it has been approved by the Census Bureau’s Disclosure Review Board (DRB). The datafile itself is released via the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/) and includes a codebook, setup program in SAS language, text file of the raw data, as well as the datafile in SPSS, SAS, STATA data formats. An example of the SCS data release documentation and datasets can be found at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/28201?archive=ICPSR.

SCS 2009 Publications Published in 2011 and 2012

The following publications have been released using data from the SCS 2009:

Student Reports of Bullying and Cyber-Bullying: Results From the 2009 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (August 2011) can be viewed at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011336.

Student Victimization in U.S. Schools: Results From the 2009 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (November 2011) can be viewed at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012314.pdf.

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2011 (February 2012) can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012002. Six of the 21 indicators in the report are based on SCS data. These include

• Indicator 8: Students’ Reports of Gangs at School

• Indicator 10: Students’ Reports of Being Called Hate-Related Words and Seeing Hate-Related Graffiti

• Indicator 11: Bullying at School and Cyber-Bullying Anywhere

• Indicator 17: Students’ Perceptions of Personal Safety at School and Away From School

• Indicator 18: Students’ Reports of Avoiding School Activities or Specific Places in School

• Indicator 21: Students’ Reports of Safety and Security Measures Observed at School

SCS 2011 Data Schedule

SCS 2011 Data File: ICPSR expects to release the data file from the 2011 SCS on the ICPSR website in late 2012.

SCS 2011 Publications: Recurring reports from the 2011 collection, similar to those described above for the SCS 2009, will be released approximately 6 months after the data are approved for release.

SCS 2013 Data Schedule

SCS 2013 Data File: Interviewing for the 2013 supplement will be conducted from January 2013 through June 2013. Processing of the survey will take place between January 2013 and December 2013. Computer-based clerical editing and coding will be completed by July 2013, and the computer processing, editing, imputation, and weighting of the data will be completed by the end of November 2013. The Census Bureau will prepare a microdata user file with documentation, which is scheduled to be sent to ICPSR by January 2014. ICPSR generally takes 2–3 months to format the data and provide documentation.

SCS 2013 Publications: Recurring reports from the 2013 collection, similar to those described above for the SCS 2009, will be released approximately 6 months after the data are approved for release.

17. Display of Expiration Date

The OMB Control Number and the expiration date will be published on instructions provided to all respondents

18. Exceptions to the Certification

N/A. There are no exceptions to the certification.

15