Search

Even though school safety is a topic of concern for many people, there are laws that specifically protect students because of race, national origin, sex, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Educational spaces should prioritize the safety and well-being of all students (Ladson-Billings, 2014). Hence, educators are charged with the responsibility of ensuring all students feel safe and secure while attending school. The purpose of this resource is to support educational practitioners in understanding how laws protect the safety and security of learning environments for students. Concurrently, this resource affirms the various identities of individuals by providing relevant information on how laws provide protection for students who are susceptible to being marginalized because of their race, national origin, sex, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

The Houston Independent School District (HISD) is seeking a $4.4 billion bond aimed at addressing critical infrastructure and educational needs. Branded as "Renew HISD," the package would rebuild and modernize over 40 campuses, upgrade HVAC systems, improve campus security, and expand early childhood and career and technical education programs. As the district was preparing the proposal, the Kinder Institute for Urban Research fielded survey questions in January 2024 to the Greater Houston Community Panel to understand public support for a bond. Results of that survey were shared with district officials, and a follow-up survey was conducted in August 2024 to determine whether public support had changed. This brief summarizes the main findings of the January survey with additional discussion of what was learned in the August follow-up survey.

This report provides the most recent national indicators on school crime and safety. The information presented in this report serves as a reference for policymakers and practitioners so that they can develop effective programs and policies aimed at violence and school crime prevention. Accurate information about the nature, extent, and scope of the problem being addressed is essential for developing effective programs and policies. The report is organized into five sections: elementary and secondary student and teacher victimization; school environment; fights and weapons; safety, security, and mental health practices; and postsecondary campus safety and security. Each section begins with a set of key findings. In this report, where available, data on victimization that occurred away from school are offered as a point of comparison for data on victimization that occurred at school. Indicators of crime and safety are compared across different population subgroups and over time. All data reflect the most current data available at the time the report was produced. Data throughout this report represent the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Findings described with comparative language (e.g., higher, lower, increase, and decrease) are statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

The School Funding Reform Act (SFRA), New Jersey's school finance law, requires the Governor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Education, to review certain components of the school funding formula every three years. The New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) issued four Educational Adequacy Reports (EAR) between 2013 and 2022, but none provided the in-depth analysis that is required to ensure the formula is delivering adequate resources to all students. These reports updated the underlying costs of the formula while failing to consider whether the inputs themselves are adequate for delivering the state's evolving learning standards. These surface-level reviews have left the SFRA out of step with current thinking on the resources needed to meet the state's academic and social-emotional standards. To ensure New Jersey students are receiving a constitutional "thorough and efficient" education, it is time for the NJDOE to conduct a much more thorough analysis. The FY2026 EAR, due to the Legislature in early 2025, provides the long overdue opportunity to do a thorough analysis of the formula and its components to ensure it is calibrated to the resources needed to provide all students with an adequate education aligned with New Jersey's current standards and curriculum.

The Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA) is required to protect students from discrimination based on sex, which can include sexual harassment. Senate Report 117-130 and House Report 117-397 include a provision for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine DODEA's response to unwanted sexual behaviors. This report examines (1) the information DODEA collects to identify unwanted sexual behavior; and (2) the availability of support services to students that are harmed by or exhibit such behavior. GAO analyzed the most recent available DODEA data on reported incidents of unwanted sexual behavior among students in school years 2019-2020 through 2022-2023. GAO also conducted site visits to 11 DODEA schools and the Military Community Advocacy Directorate's Family Advocacy Program (FAP) agencies serving five military communities in the U.S. and Europe, selected for geographic, grade level, and service branch variation. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws and agency policies and interviewed agency officials from DODEA, Child and Youth Advocacy, and FAP. GAO is making five recommendations to DOD, including to: (1) assess reporting processes for normative behaviors; (2) monitor DODEA inclusion in response efforts; (3) monitor efforts to increase FAP clinical expertise; (4) assess efforts to improve participation in FAP support services; and (5) assess its policy to exclude civilian-dependent students from receiving most FAP services. DOD generally agreed with GAO's recommendations.

The tables in this report provide national-level estimates of the extent to which students ages 12-18 enrolled in grades 6-12 experience bullying during school. The tables show how bullying victimization varies by student and school characteristics such as sex, race/ethnicity, grade, household income, region, school locale, school enrollment size, and the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. The tables also show how rates of bullying victimization vary by crime-related characteristics such as: the presence of gangs, guns, drugs, alcohol, and hate-related graffiti at school; selected school security measures; student criminal victimization; personal fear of attack or harm; avoidance behaviors; fighting; and the carrying of weapons to school.

As school safety has become a growing concern for U.S. schools, school leaders have adopted various approaches to strengthen school security. Some experts argue that this might increase the frequency of interactions with law enforcement and the likelihood of youth ending up in the criminal justice system, and that school security ultimately does more harm than good to the learning environment as a whole. The purpose of this brief is to consider trends in the use of different types of school security measures and to review research evidence on how school security measures may differentially impact students across racial and other identity differences. Because a safe and nurturing learning environment is a fundamental need for all students, this brief is central to the Midwest & Plains (MAP) Equity Assistance Center's goal of ensuring equal educational opportunities for all students.

While institutions of higher education (IHEs) encourage freedom of expression, critical thinking, and the dynamic exchange of ideas, they have also historically been the setting for social and political demonstrations. It is important for university leaders to collaborate closely with safety, security, and emergency management partners. This fact sheet provides information on the types of protests and demonstrations at IHEs, the importance of protecting student voices and their right to protest while maintaining safety, considerations for campus safety leaders and partners, and emergency management planning and developing a Protest/Civil Unrest Annex.

Using data from the School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), this report presents findings both on crime and violence in U.S. public schools and on the practices and programs schools have used to promote school safety. SSOCS is managed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences and collects data from public school principals about violent and nonviolent crimes in their schools. The survey also collects data on school security measures, school security staff, mental health services, parent and community involvement at school, and staff training on school discipline and safety policies and practices. SSOCS data can be used to study how violent incidents in schools relate to the programs and practices that schools have in place to prevent crime. In addition to collecting data on these core topics, SSOCS:2022 collected data on schools' responses to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic during the 2021-22 school year. The national sample for SSOCS:2022 was made up of 4,800 U.S. public schools. Data collection began on February 15, 2022, and continued through July 19, 2022.

In accordance with the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, the OIG reports annually on the most serious management and performance challenges the Department faces. For FY 2024, we identified seven management challenges for the Department: (1) Implementing pandemic relief laws for elementary and secondary education; (2) Implementing pandemic relief laws for higher education; (3) Oversight and monitoring of student financial assistance programs; (4) Oversight and monitoring of grantees; (5) Data quality and reporting; (6) Improper payments, and (7) Information technology security. The report includes a summary of each challenge, a brief assessment of the Department's progress in addressing each challenge, and shares information on further actions that, if properly implemented, could enhance the effectiveness of the Department's programs and operations.

The "Fall 2023 Snapshot on International Student Enrollment" findings are based on responses from over 630 U.S. higher education institutions on current patterns in international student enrollment as of fall 2023. The report focuses on international students studying at U.S. higher education institutions in person or online (in the United States or from abroad). The report, conducted by the Institute of International Education (IIE) and ten partner higher education associations, complements the "Open Doors® Report on International Educational Exchange." The findings from the "Fall 2023 Snapshot" reflect the resilience of the U.S. higher education system and provide an understanding of the current state of U.S. higher education institutions' commitment to international student mobility. With increases noted across all academic levels for the second consecutive year, the findings point to the continued growth of international student totals in the 2023/24 academic year. The full picture of the 2023/24 academic year will be available in November 2024 with the release of "Open Doors 2024." [This report was co-produced with the Association of International Enrollment Management (AIRC).]

School safety and student well-being are crucial to the social, emotional, and academic development of young people. Many districts have turned to school security measures that offer visible signs or outward appearances of safety; however, other approaches--those that create positive and inclusive school climates--both support students' well-being and more effectively result in safe learning environments. This mixed-methods case study examines two urban school districts in the United States. After public calls to end policing in schools, leaders in these districts reformed both policy and practice to support student safety. This study sought to answer the following research questions through interviews, surveys, and in-person observations: (1) How do district and school leaders make decisions about issues related to school safety practices (for example, School Resource Officer (SRO) programs)? (2) What programs, policies, and/or practices are used to support student well-being and school safety in addition to or in place of SRO programs? (3) How do students and school staff understand and experience school safety and well-being? (4) How are students and school staff experiencing changes in school safety practices? and (5) What do students and school staff perceive as the policies and/or practices most needed to improve school safety and student well-being? Recommendations are provided for school and district leaders to evaluate where they are in their current policies and practices and consider how best to move forward with evidence-based reforms.

This is the 25th edition of Indicators of School Crime and Safety. This report provides summary statistics to inform the nation about current aspects of crime and safety in schools. This report does so by highlighting selected findings from 23 indicators on various school crime and safety topics. By synthesizing findings in this way, the report allows readers to gauge the breadth of the content more efficiently and make connections across indicators. This report covers a variety of topics on school crime and safety. It first examines different types of student victimization, including violent deaths and school shootings, nonfatal criminal victimization, and bullying victimization. Then, the report presents data on teacher victimization. This report concludes the section on crime and safety issues at the elementary and secondary level by examining data on school conditions--such as discipline problems, gangs, hate-related speech, possession of weapons, and use and availability of illegal drugs--as well as data that reflect student perceptions about their personal safety at school. [For the 2021 report, see ED620652.]

A rise in the number of school shootings over time has driven increasing attention to school safety. However, school shootings are not the only physical safety threat students may encounter at school. Other types of violence include sexual assault, robbery, physical attack or fights, and threats of physical attack (with or without a weapon). In addition to immediate physical harms, school violence can have long-lasting effects that undermine students' engagement and mental health. It can also increase drug use and risk of suicide. Although there is widespread agreement that all children and youth deserve a safe and healthy school environment, there is significant debate about how best to promote student safety. As states, districts, and schools consider policies and practices that will promote school safety, they can look to existing research to understand more about the effectiveness of proposed strategies and the potential risk of unintended consequences. This report summarizes what is known about the prevalence and effectiveness of strategies to improve student safety in schools. The authors acknowledge that schools are not the only place where young people experience violence, and there is much to be done to ensure safety in all homes and social spaces.

Schools should be safe places for young people, educators, school staff, and community members, and policies and practices can help create learning environments where kids thrive. Gun violence in U.S. schools has prompted calls for increased school safety measures; however, which policies contribute to safe school environments is often a topic of debate. How can schools create safe environments while also fostering welcoming, equitable school climates that support growth, learning, and community? To help Colorado policymakers and school communities answer this question, the Colorado Children's Campaign has identified and compiled research on strategies that are supported by strong evidence. While school safety can be defined broadly as freedom from physical, emotional, and psychological violence, this brief focuses on promoting freedom from bodily harm in a school setting. Strategies that support students' well-being and prevent bullying, fighting, the use of weapons, and other types of violence can contribute to reducing harm. [Leslie Colwell, Megan Ives, Erica Manoatl, and Jackie Zubrzycki contributed to this report.]

As outlined in the "Guide for Developing High-Quality School Emergency Operations Plans (School Guide)" (ED571878), multidisciplinary planning teams--composed of school personnel and community partners--can develop a comprehensive school emergency operations plans (EOP) customized to the needs of the students, the staff, and the community that the school comprises. The "School Guide" and six-step planning process are for both private and public schools and allow for flexibility at the school level. Like public schools, private schools are susceptible to a wide range of threats and hazards, of which their core planning teams should be aware so that they address them in their EOP. The purpose of this fact sheet is to provide considerations for private schools, including their administrators, core planning teams, and community partners, to incorporate in their emergency management planning efforts. This fact sheet presents challenges and considerations, points to consider when developing a school EOP, methods of engaging the community and promoting partnerships in emergency management planning, and resources.

In collaboration with their local government and community partners, schools can take a proactive approach to crime prevention as a part of developing, implementing, and maintaining school emergency operations plans (EOPs) using the "Guide for Developing High-Quality School Emergency Operations Plans (School Guide)" [ED571878]. In addition to outlining the school's approach to operations before, during, and after an emergency, the "School Guide" suggests that comprehensive all-hazards and all-threats school EOPs include "courses of action that schools will implement on a routine, ongoing basis to secure the school from criminal threats originating from both inside and outside the school," including implementation of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). This fact sheet presents an overview of the CPTED approach to reducing and removing opportunities for criminal behaviors, along with tips and strategies for applying CPTED in a K-12 school environment.

Located in Phoenix, Arizona, the Phoenix Union High School District (PXU) was the only high school district profiled as part of this project. The high school district is made up of 13 elementary districts that feed into it and has 11 comprehensive high schools, four small specialty schools, three micro-schools, three support schools and a digital academy. The district has 4,000 employees and covers 220-square miles of Arizona's capital city. The most diverse city of those profiled, Phoenix students speak more than 100 languages and represent 50 Native American tribes. This profile highlights the school district's restorative policies and practices including: (1) Catalyst for Change; (2) Sense of Community While Utilizing Staff; (3) Police Department; (4) Police involved Youth; (5) Transition Plan; (6) COVID; (7) Sustainability; and (8) Disproportionality. [For the summary report, see ED628985.]

This publication provides an overview of the literature on school safety in the United States, with a focus on equity. Using the framework developed by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), this publication situates a comprehensive school safety approach as a balance of three key elements: physical safety, school climate, and student behavior, with an emphasis on equity and the inclusion of knowledge gained from projects funded by the NIJ Comprehensive School Safety Initiative. The recent effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the national outcry to address systemic racism have highlighted the continuing inequities that make schools unsafe for marginalized students. Systems must consider the experiences of these students and be intentional about implementing policies that balance the elements of a comprehensive school safety framework while also explicitly considering equity. For the purposes of this discussion, equity in school safety is defined as a system that not only considers but respects the varied and intersectional individual identities that students possess to ensure that they do not hinder their ability to feel safe at school and receive a fair education. The scope of this discussion will focus on the need for equity specifically relating to racial and ethnic identities.

The "Fall 2022 Snapshot on International Student Enrollment" findings are based on responses from over 630 U.S. higher education institutions on current patterns in international student enrollment as of fall 2022. The report focuses on international students studying at U.S. higher education institutions in person or online (in the United States or from abroad). The report, conducted by the Institute of International Education (IIE) and nine partner higher education associations, complements the "Open Doors® Report on International Educational Exchange." The findings from the "Fall 2022 Snapshot" reflect the resilience of the U.S. higher education system and provide an understanding of the current state of U.S. higher education institutions' commitment to international student mobility. With increases noted across all academic levels, the findings point to a continued rebound of international student totals in the 2022/23 academic year. The full picture of the 2022/23 academic year available in November 2023 with the release of "Open Doors 2023."

This 50-state comparison assesses the K-12 school safety policies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The information presented in this interactive resource gives an overview of relevant laws in each state and does not reflect how these laws may interact with other state or federal policies. The interactive resource does not include district- or school-level policies, handbooks, manuals or other sources outside of state statute or regulations. It also does not provide legal advice on specific circumstances. Hyperlinked data tables for 50-state comparisons showing how all states approach school safety policies are provided. A specific state's approach can be viewed by going to the individual state profile page.

Using data from the School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), this report presents findings both on crime and violence in U.S. public schools and on the practices and programs schools have used to promote school safety. SSOCS collects data from public school principals about violent and nonviolent crimes in their schools. The survey also collects data on school security measures, school security staff, mental health services, parent and community involvement at school, and staff training. SSOCS data can be used to study how violent incidents in schools relate to the programs and practices that schools have in place to prevent crime. The purpose of this report is to introduce the data by presenting selected descriptive information from SSOCS:2020. The tables in the report contain totals and percentages, which have been weighted to represent U.S. public schools. The report also includes selected findings and figures. Together, the tables, findings, and figures show the range of data available from the survey rather than a full review of all observed differences. [For the full report, see ED621593.]

Using data from the School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), this report presents findings both on crime and violence in U.S. public schools and on the practices and programs schools have used to promote school safety. SSOCS collects data from public school principals about violent and nonviolent crimes in their schools. The survey also collects data on school security measures, school security staff, mental health services, parent and community involvement at school, and staff training. SSOCS data can be used to study how violent incidents in schools relate to the programs and practices that schools have in place to prevent crime. Data collection began in February 2020 and was conducted mostly using an online survey instrument. In March 2020, many schools began closing their physical buildings due to the coronavirus pandemic. This affected data collection activities. Also, the change to virtual schooling and the adjusted school year may have impacted the data collected by SSOCS. Readers should use caution when comparing SSOCS:2020 estimates with those from earlier years. The national sample for SSOCS:2020 was made up of 4,800 U.S. public schools. Of these schools, 2,370 elementary, middle, high/secondary, and combined/other schools responded. The results showed that nonresponding schools were significantly different from responding schools. However, the results also showed that weighting adjustments removed most of the observed nonresponse bias. [For the summary report, see ED621594. For the 2019 report, see ED596638.]