Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2013

June 2014: NCJ 243299

Presents data on crime and safety at school from the perspectives of students, teachers, and principals. This annual report, a joint effort by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), provides the most current detailed statistical information on the nature of crime in schools.

This report contains 22 indicators of crime at school from a number of sources, including the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the School Crime Supplement to the NCVS, the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the School Survey on Crime and Safety, and the School and Staffing Survey.

Topics covered include victimization at school, teacher injury, bullying and cyber-bullying, school conditions, fights, weapons, availability and student use of drugs and alcohol, and student perceptions of personal safety at school.

Highlights:

• In 2012, students ages 12 to 18 experienced about 1.4 million nonfatal victimizations at school, including 615,600 thefts and 749,200 violent victimizations.
• The total nonfatal crime victimization rate of students ages 12 to 18 at school increased from 35 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2010 to 52 per 1,000 in 2012. The victimization rate away from school also increased, from 27 per 1,000 in 2010 to 38 per 1,000 in 2012.
• Following nearly two decades of steady decline, the total nonfatal victimization rate at school was higher in 2012 (52 victimizations per 1,000 students) than in 2010 (35 per 1,000) for students ages 12 to 18. The victimization rate away from school was also higher in 2012 (38 victimizations per 1,000 students) than in 2010 (27 per 1,000).
• During the 2009–10 school year, 85% of public schools recorded that one or more crime incidents had taken place at school, 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.
• In 2009–10, about 74% of public schools recorded one or more violent incidents of crime, 16% recorded one or more serious violent incidents, 44% recorded one or more thefts, and 68% recorded one or more other incidents.

..Source.. by Rachel E. Morgan, Ph.D., BJS Statistician, Jana Kemp, Amy Rathbun, and Simone Robers, American Institutes for Research, Thomas D. Synder, National Center for Education Statistics

Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey

September 2013: NCJ 241656

Presents comparisons of victimization rates and prevalence rates of nonfatal violent crime and household property crime from 1993 to 2010. The report uses prevalence rates to describe patterns of repeat victimization for violent and property crime and to identify specific population subgroups at the highest risk for repeat victimization.

It compares violent victimization and prevalence rates across victim age and sex and according to victim-offender relationships. Data on nonfatal victimizations are from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to the police against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households.

Highlights:

• From 1993 to 2010, the decline in violent victimization rates (down 76%) was greater than the decline in prevalence rates (down 63%).
• The percentage of violent crime victims who experienced two or more victimizations during a year declined from 23% in 1993 to 17% in 2010. In 2010, this 17% accounted for more than half (54%) of all violent victimizations.
• Victims of intimate partner violence (21%) were more likely to experience repeat victimization within the year than were victims of stranger violence (9%).
• The proportion of household property crime victims who reported two or more incidents during the year decreased from 25% in 1993 to 18% in 2010. In 2010, the 18% of repeat household victims accounted for about 41% of all household property victimizations.

..Source.. by Janet L. Lauritsen, Ph.D., BJS Visiting Fellow, Maribeth L. Rezey, University of Missouri - St. Louis

The Wrongfully Convicted Sex Offender

Never have I found the topic "Wrongful Convictions" covered more completely than here. Worth every minute of your time to review.

9-2-2013 National:

(Editorial Note: In no way do I want to minimize the issue of violence against women or children. Rape is clearly a crime of violence, and must be dealt with appropriately. Pedophile predation is abhorrant, and must also be dealt with sternly and appropriately. But I think the issue has become – what actually is appropriate for dealing with the range of sex offenses, and in some cases, have we gone too far; and what does this mean for the wrongfully convicted? It begs the age old question – does the punishment fit the crime?)

Woe be to the wrongfully convicted sex offender, because you’re not just a wrongfully convicted ‘felon.’ You’re a wrongfully convicted ‘sex offender,’ and the state makes sure you get some extra special attention. Note that I’m careful to use the qualifier “wrongfully convicted” here, because in the case of sex offenders, when the justice system “gets it wrong,” the injustice gets amplified. I’m not saying we should let actually guilty sex offenders off the hook, but the punitive measures have become so severe, that when someone is wrongfully convicted of a sex offense, the consequences they are forced to endure magnify the injustice.

To understand why a wrongful conviction in a sex offender case is such a travesty, you need to know a little about the sex offender laws and the mandatory, so-called “rehabilitation” methods. (This will be a little bit lengthy.)

Over the last few decades, states have been steadily rewriting their sex offense laws to become more and more draconian. I judge that this has been caused by something akin the to wave of hysteria that swept the US in the 80′s over preschool child sex abuse. The primary driver for this was the McMartin preschool case in which accusations were made in 1983. All charges were dropped in 1990, after the lives of all defendants involved were completely ruined. Because sex crimes, particularly those involving children, scrape a particularly sensitive region in the human psyche, it makes a great issue for politicians to campaign on. My opinion is that much of today’s sex offender legislation has had little, if any, basis in research, and is an all-too-typical legislative knee jerk to high profile cases that have created something of a bully pulpit for affected victims and families. You can’t blame the victims and families. Your heart has to go out to the them.

They have suffered unspeakable tragedy. They want “justice,” but in the case of a wrongful conviction, that justice is visited upon the wrong person. Sadly, the legislative responses have proven to be the classically inefficient and expediency-driven political solutions that treat the symptom and not the disease. The key here is lack of research and the absence of statistically valid data. A classic example of this is “Megan’s Law,” which established the original sex offender registry. This law was enacted by the New Jersey General Assembly in 1994 in response to the rape and murder of seven year old Megan Kanka.

Since then, the law has been enacted in some form by every state, and has also resulted in a federal FBI sex offender registry. However, a 2008 federally funded study conducted in New Jersey, where Megan’s Law was first enacted, found that it failed to reduce sex crimes or repeat offenders. Read that story here. If you’re interested in plodding through a 50 state survey of sex offender legislation, you can read the one done by the National Institute of Corrections and the Washington College of Law here. ..continued.. by Wrongful Convictions blog

Post-Conviction DNA Testing and Wrongful Conviction

June 2012:

Executive Summary
Forensic evidence, particularly fingerprints, has been used for more than a century to aid law enforcement investigations. However, only in the past decade has the use of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing to include or eliminate suspects and exonerate those convicted in serious crimes become relatively common. DNA evidence is said to be individualizing because of its power to link a person to a criminal incident. And unlike fingerprints, the probability that questioned evidence from a crime scene matches DNA from a known person can be calculated. In past decades, the investigation of serious crimes that led to a conviction typically did not use individualizing forensic biological evidence such as DNA. Thus, it is possible that some individuals convicted in serious person crimes (sexual assault and homicide) would have been eliminated by a forensic analysis more discriminating than what was available at the time. To estimate the rate of such possible wrongful convictions and to identify their predictors, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in the U.S. Department of Justice funded retrospective DNA testing of physical evidence in cases where there was a conviction of a sexual assault or homicide and physical evidence was retained.

Two states participated in this research. In Arizona, every eligible prisoner was informed about the program and was given the opportunity to request DNA testing of physical evidence. Testing was performed when physical evidence could be located and if a review of the case deemed that evidence to be probative in the conviction. The Arizona site thus provides a case study that can be used to qualitatively evaluate how often a voluntary program leads to detection of wrongful conviction. The results of the Arizona experiment are described in a separate report.

In Virginia, a cohort of 634 cases of sexual assault and/or homicide dating from 1973 to 1987 was discovered to have retained physical evidence. Since most state legislation that requires evidence storage was enacted in the post-DNA era, it is likely that many states have not preserved physical evidence for cases from the pre-DNA era. Therefore, the evidence in the Virginia cases provides a unique opportunity to determine how often DNA testing can be used to identify wrongful convictions. The results can be generalized (with caveats) because the physical evidence was retained for reasons unrelated to the case outcome, and the cases were assigned to the serologist who retained the evidence in a way that did not introduce bias.

Once cases were found to meet the NIJ eligibility requirements (retained physical evidence, conviction of a sexual assault and/or homicide), the evidence was sent to a private lab for DNA analysis. The goal of this DNA testing was to develop a profile from questioned evidence, generally from the crime scene, and compare it to profiles of known persons developed from the original evidence or stored in a database.1 From these comparisons, a determination can be made whether that evidence is indeterminate,2 inculpatory, or exculpatory.3 The Virginia cases, all of which occurred before DNA evidence testing was readily available, can therefore be used to answer a critical policy question: “What proportion of convicted offenders in serious person crimes with retained forensic evidence could be exonerated if that evidence were DNA tested?”

To answer this question, the Urban Institute (UI) conducted a retrospective study using observational data from the Virginia post-conviction DNA analyses to estimate the rate at which defendants are wrongly convicted and to identify case attributes associated with such wrongful convictions. Toward this end, the Virginia data, which were contained in files maintained by the Virginia Department of Forensic Science (DFS), were made available to UI researchers. All files contained information about the pre- and post-conviction forensic facts of the case, including results of the original forensic testing on the physical evidence, as well as results of the contemporary DNA analysis. Additionally, most files contained information about other basic case attributes, such as the charge and jurisdiction of the crime and demographic information about the convicted offender and other known suspects and victims. These data will serve two purposes. ..continued.. by John Roman, Ph.D., Kelly Walsh, Ph.D., Pamela Lachman, Jennifer Yahner

Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2012

June 2013: NCJ 241446

Presents data on crime and safety at school from the perspectives of students, teachers, and principals. This annual report, a joint effort by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), provides detailed statistical information on the nature of crime in schools. This report contains 21 indicators of crime at school from a number of sources, including the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the School Crime Supplement to the NCVS, the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the School Survey on Crime and Safety, and the School and Staffing Survey. Topics covered include victimization at school, teacher injury, bullying and cyber-bullying, school conditions, fights, weapons, availability and student use of drugs and alcohol, and student perceptions of personal safety at school.
Highlights:

• Of the 31 student, staff, and nonstudent school associated violent deaths occurring between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011, 25 were homicides and 6 were suicides. From July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, there were 11 homicides and 3 suicides of school-age youth (ages 5–18) at school.
• In 2011, students ages 12–18 were victims of about 1,246,000 nonfatal victimizations at school, including 648,600 thefts and 597,500 violent victimizations. This was more than the number of nonfatal victimizations that occurred at school in 2010.
• During the 2009–10 school year, 85% of public schools recorded that one or more crime incidents had taken place at school, 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% 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.
• During the 2009–10 school year, 39% 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% were suspensions for 5 days or more, 20% were transfers to specialized schools, and 6% were removals with no services for the remainder of the school year.

..Source.. by Thomas Snyder, NCES, Jennifer Truman, Ph.D., BJS

Violent Crime Against Youth, 1994–2010

December 2012, NCJ 240106:

Introduction
From 1994 to 2010, the overall rate of serious violent crime against youth declined by 77%, from 61.9 victimizations per 1,000 youth ages 12 to 17 in 1994 to 14.0 per 1,000 in 2010 (figure 1). Among serious violent crimes against youth, the rate of rape or sexual assault declined by 68%, robbery declined by 77%, and aggravated assault declined by 80% (table 2). The overall rate of simple assault declined by 83% during the same period, from 125.1 victimizations per 1,000 youth in 1994 to 21.6 per 1,000 in 2010. Declines in simple assault against youth were similar from 1994 to 2002 (down 61%) and from 2002 to 2010 (down 56%).

Declines in serious violent crime were greater from 1994 to 2002 (down 69%) than from 2002 to 2010 (down 27%). The data in this report were developed from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which annually collects information on nonfatal victimizations reported and not reported to the police against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. Homicide data in this report are from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR). ..Source.. by Nicole White, Ph.D., and Janet L. Lauritsen, Ph.D., University of Missouri - St. Louis

SPECIAL REPORT: Violent Victimization Committed by Strangers 1993-2010

December 2012:

Report No: NCJ239424

Presents findings on the rates and levels of violent victimization committed by offenders who were strangers to the victims, including homicide, rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. The report presents annual trends and compares changes across three 6-year periods in the incidence and type of violence committed by strangers from 1993 through 2010. It describes the characteristics of victims and circumstances of the violent crime. The nonfatal violent victimization estimates were developed from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) which collects information on nonfatal crimes, reported and not reported to the police, against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. The homicide data are from the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) for 1993 through 2008.

Highlights:

• In 2010, strangers committed about 38% of nonfatal violent crimes, including rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.
• In 2005-10, about 10% of violent victimizations committed by strangers involved a firearm, compared to 5% committed by offenders known to the victim.
• From 1993 to 2008, among homicides reported to the FBI for which the victim-offender relationship was known, between 21% and 27% of homicides were committed by strangers and between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victim

...Source... by Erika Harrell, Ph.D, BJS Statistician

eAdvocate note: Interesting, as bad as the report seems -generally speaking-, there is no -SPECIFIC- mention of Rape and Other Sexual Assaults in the Highlights. Also, on pg-10 (PDF) Table-13 shows that both Rape and Other Sexual Assault Homicides by Strangers have come down about 50% since 1993.

Criminal Victimization: All Years

All Years:

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) collects information on nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to the police against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households.

It produces national rates and levels of personal and property victimization, as well as information on the characteristics of crimes and victims, and the consequences of victimization to victims.

Because the NCVS is based on interviews with victims, it cannot measure murder. Information on homicide presented in this report was obtained from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR).

---

All Years

---

Criminal Victimization 2015: 10-2016. NCJ 250180

Criminal Victimization 2014: 8-2015. NCJ 248973

Criminal Victimization 2013 Revised: 9/18 NCJ 247648

Criminal Victimization 2012: 10/24. NCJ 243389

Criminal Victimization 2011: 10/12. NCJ 239437

Criminal Victimization 2010: 9/11. NCJ 235508

Criminal Victimization 2009: 10/10. NCJ 231327

Criminal Victimization 2008: 9/09. NCJ 227777

Criminal Victimization 2007: 12/08. NCJ 224390

Criminal Victimization 2006: 12/07. NCJ 219413

Criminal Victimization 2005: 9/06. NCJ 214644

Criminal Victimization 2004: 9/05. NCJ 210674

Criminal Victimization 2003: 9/04. NCJ 205455

Criminal Victimization 2002: 8/03. NCJ 199994

Criminal Victimization 2001: 9/02. NCJ 194610

Criminal Victimization 2000: 6/01. NCJ 187007

Criminal Victimization 1999: 8/00. NCJ 182734

Criminal Victimization 1998: 7/99. NCJ 176353

Criminal Victimization 1997: 12/98. NCJ 173385

Criminal Victimization 1996: 11/97. NCJ 165812

Criminal Victimization 1994: 4/96 NCJ 158022

Victimizations Not Reported to the Police, 2006-2010

August 2012:

During the period from 2006 to 2010, 52% of all violent victimizations, or an annual average of 3,382,200 violent victimizations, were not reported to the police. Of these, over a third (34%) went unreported because the victim dealt with the crime in another way, such as reporting it to another official, like a guard, manager, or school official (figure 1). Almost 1 in 5 unreported violent victimizations (18%) were not reported because the victim believed the crime was not important enough.

When crimes are not reported to the police, victims may not be able to obtain necessary services to cope with the victimization, offenders may go unpunished, and law enforcement and community resources may be misallocated due to a lack of accurate information about local crime problems. Understanding the characteristics of crimes unknown to police, victims who do not report crimes, and the reasons these crimes are not reported may help identify gaps in the provision of criminal justice services and inform police practice and policies. Using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, this report examines trends in the types of crime not reported to police, the characteristics of unreported victimizations, and the victims’ rationale for not reporting these crimes. ..Source.. by Lynn Langton, BJS Statistician

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2010 (Revised)

November 2010:

Presents data on crime and safety at school from the perspectives of students, teachers, and principals. A joint effort by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), this annual report examines crime occurring in school as well as on the way to and from school. It also provides the most current detailed statistical information on the nature of crime in schools and school environments; and responses to violence and crime at school. Data are drawn from several federally funded collections, including the National Crime Victimization Survey, Youth Risk Behavior Survey, School Survey on Crime and Safety, and the Schools and Staffing Survey.

Information was gathered from an array of sources including:

- National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) (1992-2008)

- School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (1995, 1991, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007)

- Youth Risk Behavior Survey (1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009)

- School Survey on Crime and Safety (1999-2000, 2003-04, 2005-06, and 2007-08)

- School and Staffing Survey (1993-94, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2007-08)

Highlights include the following:

In 2008, among students ages 12 -18, there were about 1.2 million victims of nonfatal crimes at school, including 619,000 thefts and 629,800 violent crimes (simple assault and serious violent crime).

During the school year 2007 - 08, there were 1,701 homicides among school-age youth ages 5 - 18.

In 2009, 31 percent of students in grades 9 - 12 reported they had been in a physical fight at least one time during the previous 12 months anywhere, and 11 percent said they had been in a fight on school property during the previous 12 months.

..Source.. by Simone Robers (NCES), Jennifer Truman (BJS), Jijun Zhang (NCES)

Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance - United States, 2007

Dec. 2008:

Abstract

Problem: Priority health-risk behaviors, which are behaviors that contribute to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality among youth and adults, often are established during childhood and adolescence, extend into adulthood, are interrelated, and are preventable.

Reporting Period Covered: January–December 2007.

Description of the System: The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) monitors six categories of priority health-risk behaviors among youth and young adults, including behaviors that contribute to unintentional injuries and violence; tobacco use; alcohol and other drug use; sexual behaviors that contribute to unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection; unhealthy dietary behaviors; and physical inactivity. In addition, YRBSS monitors the prevalence of obesity and asthma. YRBSS includes a national school-based survey conducted by CDC and state and local school-based surveys conducted by state and local education and health agencies. This report summarizes results from the national survey, 39 state surveys, and 22 local surveys conducted among students in grades 9–12 during
2007.

Results: In the United States, 72% of all deaths among persons aged 10–24 years result from four causes: motorvehicle crashes, other unintentional injuries, homicide, and suicide. Results from the 2007 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) indicated that many high school students engaged in behaviors that increased their likelihood of death from these four causes. Among high school students nationwide during 2007, 11.1% had never or rarely worn a seat belt when riding in a car driven by someone else. During the 30 days before the survey, 29.1% of high school students had ridden in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol, 18.0% had carried a weapon, and 5.5% had not gone to school because they felt they would be unsafe at school or on their way to or from school. During the 12 months before the survey, 6.9% of high school students had attempted suicide. In addition, 75.0% of high school students had ever drunk alcohol, and 4.4% had ever used methamphetamines. Substantial morbidity and social problems among youth also result from unintended pregnancies and STDs, including HIV infection. Results from the 2007 survey indicated that 47.8% of students had ever had sexual intercourse, 35.0% of high school students were currently sexually active, and 38.5% of currently sexually active high school students had not used a condom during last sexual intercourse. Among U.S. adults aged >25 years, 59% of all deaths result from two causes: cardiovascular disease and cancer. Results from the 2007 national YRBS indicated that risk behaviors associated with these two causes of death were present during adolescence. Among high school students nationwide during 2007, 20.0% had smoked cigarettes during the 30 days before the survey, 35.4% had watched television 3 or more hours per day on an average school day, and 13.0% were obese. During the 7 days before the survey, 78.6% of high school students had not eaten fruits and vegetables five or more times per day, 33.8% had drunk soda or pop at least one time per day, and 65.3% had not met recommended levels of physical activity.

For the remainder of this report: by The Center for Disease Control