Fluent Essays

CRJU 525: Advanced Statistics for Criminal Justice Presentation Instructions (worth 25\% of course grade) Syllabus Description: In order to facilitate learning through the application of course concepts, you are to complete a 15 to 20-minute presentation applying univariate, bivariate, and multivariate statistics to a dataset of your choosing. You will need to choose a research question(s) and apply the appropriate statistical techniques to answer your question(s). External research on your topic of interest will also be essential. You will need to turn your Presentation in for grading. Presentation Instructions: Step 1: Choose your topic of interest. This will likely be related to your thesis topic if you are completing a thesis, or similar to previous papers you have written if you are completing a comprehensive exam. Step 2: Identify your dataset. If you have already collected your thesis data, or you have obtained your thesis dataset from a secondary source, then you are ahead of the game. If not, then visit https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/landing.jsp and begin searching for datasets that are related to your topic of interest. You might also find a good database using the Google Database search tool: https://datasetsearch.research.google.com/. Please make every attempt to locate a dataset that is less than 20 years old. If you have any trouble downloading the SPSS data, please contact me. Note that some SPSS datasets will be saved as .por data. You may need to instruct your computer to open these files with SPSS, or open SPSS first, and then click to open .por files. You should also download the codebook as well. You may use the GSS dataset if you like. Step 3: Construct a few possible research questions. Step 4: Identify variables that are appropriate operationalizations for your dependent variable (DV). For example, if my topic of interest is police officer use of force, then I would look in my codebook and search for variables that measure police officers using force on a citizen. I might choose one of the following: V56 In any of these contacts with a police officer, did any officer warn you that he or she would use physical force such as: a nightstick or baton, a firearm, a chemical spray, a flashlight, a police dog, or any device other than handcuffs to restrain you or to take you into custody? V57 In any of these contacts with a police officer, did any officer actually use any form of physical force against you including using any of the items just mentioned? V58 How many times did the police actually use or threaten to use force against you during the last 12 months? For this class, your DV must be scale level or dichotomous, so recoding might be necessary if you have a nominal or low-order ordinal DV (less than 7 categories). Step 5: Identify variables (IV) that are appropriate operationalizations for your independent variable(s). Your independent variables should be chosen with your guiding theory in mind. You can be very deductive and test a theory by choosing variables that your theory suggests effect your DV, or you can be more inductive and play around with your data and see what variables significantly associate with your DV and then pick a theory that helps explain these associations. Remember that your IVs need to be at the scale or high-order ordinal level of measurement to include in a regression model. You may need to dummy code nominal or ordinal variables to suit this requirement. Step 6: Identify your control variables. Control variables are variables you think might associate with your DV, but are not part of your guiding theory. These often include demographics which have been shown to associate with your DV (i.e., gender, age, employment, ethnicity, etc.) or variables that represent alternative theoretical explanations. Dummy coding may also be necessary for control variables. Step 7: Construct your hypothesis or hypotheses. Based on your guiding theory, construct hypotheses predicting the relationship between your DV and IVs. Step 8: Univariate analysis. You need to describe each of your variables through frequency tables and/or graphs. Step 9: Bivariate analysis. Next, you should conduct bivariate analyses to see how your IVs and control variables associate with your DV. This will take the form of a correlation matrix (refer to your notes, readings, and lab chapter from Week 6 & 7). During this step you also want to check for intercorrelations, or IVs and control variables that have a Pearson’s correlation of over .70. If the correlation is over .7, then they are too closely related (measuring essentially the same thing) and will steal each other’s explanatory power in your multivariate model. In this instance, you must pick one of the pair and remove the other. In your presentation report on the significant correlations. Provide explanations referring back to your guiding theory. Step 10: Multivariate analysis. In this very important step, you must choose the appropriate multivariate regression technique. For this class, you must pick between multiple linear regression or binomial logistic regression (your choice depends on your DV level of measurement). Correctly interpret your findings. Refer to your notes, readings, and lab readings from Weeks 10 and 12. Step 11: Discussion. After your analysis is complete, you must discuss your findings referring back to your guiding theory. Did your results support your hypotheses? Was your guiding theory supported? What are some possible policy implications of your findings? Are there limitations to your research? Where would you like to take future research? Predictors of Police-Citizen Interaction Logistic Regression Meets a Criminological Theory Trifecta Purpose of the Study Can data collected in the General Social Survey predict whether U.S. citizens with certain racial or socioeconomic background will be formally questioned by law enforcement? Using Logistic Regression and three theoretical backdrops, this study will attempt to find the best predictor of formal police-citizen encounters. A Review of the Literature: Urban Inequality & Formal Social Control “The social transformation of the inner city in recent decades has resulted in an increased concentration of the most disadvantages segments of the urban black population, especially poor, female-headed families” (Sampson & Wilson, 1990/2011, p. 107). Law enforcement presence and practices in these communities is known as formal social control (Sampson, Raudenbush & Earls, 1997/2011). We are looking at Formal social control as it relates to collective efficacy/social disorganized neighborhoods. NOT G/H’s belief in society’s use of social control, or the sociological theories behind social control…we are just using a restrictive definition. 3 A Review of the Literature: Labeling Theory How and Why do racially-based policing practices occur? “The agents of control, who function on behalf of the powerful in society, impose the labels on the less powerful” (Akers & Sellers, 2013, p. 137). Racism and inequality are present in the criminal justice system in the over-representation of African-Americans in the criminal justice system who are often labeled and stigmatized by society (Alexander, 2012). Research has demonstrated that African-Americans are more likely to be watched, approached, and questioned by law enforcement (Brown, 2005). A Review of the Literature: Inequality and Power-Themes from a Conflict Perspective In every industrialized society, divisions occur between racial and ethnic groups (Loury, 2000). The mere idea of crime and deviance is a form of social control meant to protect the interests of the rich. To do this, the powerful target the poor and ethnic minorities (Bryant, 2000). There is concensus among researchers that the poor and racial groups are marginalized in communities marked by social disorganization. 5 Theory to Practice Studies have identified AND examined how to combat racially-based policing practices that arise as a result of law enforcement practices (Fridell, L., Lunney, R., Diamond, D., & Kubu, B., 2001) What drives racially based police practices…that is what we will test 6 Hypotheses Will a person’s race and/or socioeconomic status predict the likelihood that a citizen is questioned as a murder suspect? Based on the research, we would predict that law enforcement officials are more likely to formally question a person who is non-white and/or has a low socioeconomic status… Conceptualization Based on the previously discussed theories and literature, we can conceptualize “being questioned by police for murder” as a form of formal social control and an indicator of police presence in a neighborhood. Next, if an urban area is said to have poor, single family ethnic groups, then race and socioeconomic variables should be used to indicate the likelihood (i.e. predict) of police-citizen interaction (as evidenced by police questioning). Data Source: The GSS Since 1972, the General Social Survey has attempted to “take the pulse of America”. The goals of the GSS include: a) Assemble scientific research on the structure and development of American society. b) To distribute up-to-date, important, high-quality data to social scientists, students, policy makers, and others (GSS Website, 2014). Operationalizing: GSS Variables Used in Analysis Dependent variable: “Polmurdr” Have been questioned by police for murder. This is a dichotomous nominal variable (D/C). Independent variables: 1. “Race” respondents race, nominal (D/C). 2. “Rincome06” respondent’s total family income, ordinal with 25 categories. 3. “Sei” respondent’s socioeconomic status, a scale-level variable. D/C=Dummy coded 10 GSS Variables Used in Analysis Control Variables used to rule out spurious explanations. 1. Respondent’s Sex, nominal (D/C) 2. Respondent’s Age, scale 3. Number of People in Respondent’s Household, scale and transformed due to high skew. 4. Respondent’s highest degree, ordinal with 5 categories. Statistical Analysis Due to the fact that we have a categorical dichotomous dependent variable, we can use logistic regression to predict an outcome (the DV) using a set of predictor variables (the IVs). Results: Univariate Descriptive Statistics Using the Mode, we can tell what response was selected the most by the respondents…for example, R’s Highest degree, one was selected the most, that represents a high school education. The average respondent age was 25. This chart gives a strong over view of the sample characteristics, but keep in mind, several variables were dummy coded and one was logged due to extreme skew. Here are three graphic visuals of my one of my control and IV, and my DV. 13 Results: Bivariate Correlations This analysis tells us two things: There are significant correlations (especially with being a white respondent and the level of a respondent’s degree which will be important in the Logistic Regression) and also, that Multicolinarity will not be an issue. Every correlation is below .8 with the largest being .622. 14 Results: Multivariate Logistic Regression Looking at the Onnibus Test of Model Coefficients is important because it tells us that this model is a good predictor of the variables I used. It is a significant predictor across the variables. Next, looking at the Nagelkerke R Squared, we can see that there is a correlation, but at .145, it is a moderate correlation. This essentially suggests that approximately 14\% of the variance in my DV can be accounted for by the IVs that I used in this model. 15 Results: Multivariate Logistic Regression Beta is weak and negitative, significance…two, Odds Ratios protective vs. risk 16 Discussion We identified two predictors for the likelihood of being questioned for murder: being white and the level of degree (which was high school for most respondents and also a control variable, not an IV). The data showed us an inverse, negative relationship between being white and degree. Odds Ratio: there is a 63.7\% DECREASE in the risk of being questioned by police for murder if you are a white respondent, and there is a 34.5\% DECREASE in the risk of being questioned by the police for murder if a respondent has a higher degree. These results are compatible with the literature. Land in the “no category” and be in the higher degree category 17 Conclusions Based on This Model We can reject the null hypothesis because we found a relationship beyond chance between race and being formally questioned by police for murder. However, there was no correlation with low-socioeconomic status so the research hypothesis is not entirely valid as it currently stands. GPD Homicide example 18 Study Limitations Data collection. I cannot be sure what type of neighborhoods are being represented in this particular sample (representative sample?). Variable Selection. Whether it was a limited data set, or poor conceptualization and analysis, other variables would be stronger predictors than race and socioeconomic status (perhaps prior arrests? Position in a social network?) The two items above combined with statistical analysis errors ultimately lowers the validity and reliability of this study’s results. GPD Homicide example 19 Implications and Future Research Change policing practices and evaluate the outcomes! (Police-citizen encounters may continue to improve and decrease law enforcement bias when community oriented policing models are used in communities (Brown, 2005)). Increase informal social control in neighborhoods. Lower the socioeconomic gap and stigmas between the wealthy and the poor (macro-level changes). References Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2013). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (6th ed.). New York: Oxford university Press. Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York, NY: New Press. Brown, R. A. (2005). Black, white, and unequal: Examining situational determinants of arrest decisions from police–suspect encounters. Criminal Justice Studies, 18(1), 51-68. doi: 10.1080/14786010500071121 Bryant, L. (2000). Marxism and Crime. Retrieved May 2, 2014, from http:// www.historylearningsite.co.uk/marxism_crime.htm Fridell, L., Lunney, R., Diamond, D., & Kubu, B. (2001). Racially biased policing: A principled response [Abstract]. Police Executive Research Forum. Retrieved from https :// www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=190927 References Continued GSS General Social Survey. Retrieved April 30, 2014, from http://www3.norc.org/gss+website/ Loury, G. C. (2000). Social exclusion and ethnic groups: The challenge to economics. The International Bank for Reconstruction an D Development / THE WORLD BANK, 225-252. Retrieved from http :// www.bu.edu/irsd/files/socialethnic.pdf Sampson, R.J., & Wilson, W.J. (1990/2011). A Theory of Race, Crime, and Urban Inequality. In F. T. Cullen & R. Agnew (Eds.), Criminological theory: Past to present: Essential readings (4th ed., pp. 105-111). New York: Oxford University Press. Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., & Earls, F. Collective Efficacy and Crime. In F. T. Cullen & R. Agnew (Eds.), Criminological theory: Past to present: Essential readings (4th ed., pp. 112-117). New York: Oxford University Press. School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2004 ICPSR 25681 United States Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics Codebook Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 www.icpsr.umich.edu Terms of Use The terms of use for this study can be found at: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR/TERMS/25681.xml Information about Copyrighted Content Some instruments administered as part of this study may contain in whole or substantially in part contents from copyrighted instruments. Reproductions of the instruments are provided as documentation for the analysis of the data associated with this collection. Restrictions on fair use apply to all copyrighted content. More information about the reproduction of copyrighted works by educators and librarians is available from the United States Copyright Office. NOTICE WARNING CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research. If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of fair use, that user may be liable for copyright infringement. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR/TERMS/25681.xml TABLE OF CONTENTS Study Description… ………………………………………………………………....... 4 Citation.……………………………………………………………………………… 4 Title Statement………………………………………………………………....... 4 Responsibility Statement……………………………………………………….. 4 Production Statement………………………………………………………....... 4 Distribution Statement……………………………………………………………. 4 Study Scope…………………………………………………………………………. 4 Subject Information…………………………………………………………….... 4 Abstract……………………………………………………………………………. 4 Summary Data Description……………………………………………………… 4 Methodology and Processing…………………………………………………… 5 Data Collection Methodology…………………………………………………… 5 Data Access…………………………………………………………………………. 5 Dataset Availability.……………………………………………………………… 5 Dataset Use Statement…………………………………………………………… 5 Other Study Description Materials………………………………………………… 5 Related Publications…………………………………………………………… 5 Data Files Description…………………………………………………………………. 7 Variable Description……………………………………………………………………. 8 Codebook.……………………………………………………………………………… 24 PI Supplied Documentation…………………………………………………………… 281 Public Use Data File Codebook ………………………………………………… 281 Study Description Citation Title Statement The School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2004Title: 25681Identification No.: Responsibility Statement National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of EducationAuthoring Entity: Production Statement Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social ResearchProducer: Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social ResearchPlace of Production: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of EducationFunding Agency: Distribution Statement Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social ResearchDistributor: Study Scope Subject Information crime, crime reporting, crime statistics, educational environment, juvenile crime, offenses, school security, school violence, student behavior Keyword(s): Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System, Education, United States, Crime and Delinquency Topic Classification(s): Abstract The School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) is managed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) on behalf of the United States Department of Education (ED). SSOCS collects extensive crime and safety data from principals and school administrators of public schools in America. Data from this collection can be used to correlate school characteristics with violent and serious violent crimes in American schools. Furthermore, data from SSOCS can be used to assess what school programs, practices, and policies are used by schools in their efforts to prevent crime. SSOCS has been conducted three times, in school years 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2005-06. The 2003-04 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS:2004) was developed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and conducted by Abt Associates Inc. Funding for the survey was provided by the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. Questionnaire packets were mailed to 3,743 public primary, middle, high, and combined schools. A total of 2,772 public schools submitted usable questionnaires for a weighted response rate of 77.2 percent. Data were collected from March 1, 2004 to June 4, 2004. Summary Data Description 2003 - 2004Time Period: March 6, 2004 - June 4, 2004Date(s) of Collection: United StatesCountry: - 4 - - Study 25681 - United StatesGeographic Coverage: US public school districtsGeographic Unit: SchoolsUnit of Analysis: Public elementary and secondary schools in the United States.Universe: Survey dataKind of Data: Methodology and Processing Data Collection Methodology Cross-sectionTime Method: U.S. Census BureauData Collector: Mail questionnaireMode of Data Collection: Notes For further details on the methodology, please consult the PI supplied documentation in the user guide. Data Access Dataset Availability Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social ResearchLocation: 1 data file + machine-readable documentation (PDF) + SAS setup file + SPSS setup file + STATA setup file Extent of Collection: Data Use Statement: Publications based on ICPSR data collections should acknowledge those sources by means of bibliographic citations. To ensure that such source attributions are captured for social science bibliographic utilities, citations must appear in footnotes or in the reference section of publications. Citation Requirement: To provide funding agencies with essential information about use of archival resources and to facilitate the exchange of information about ICPSR participants research activities, users of ICPSR data are Deposit Requirement: requested to send to ICPSR bibliographic citations for each completed manuscript or thesis abstract. Visit the ICPSR Web site for more information on submitting citations. ICPSR data may not be redistributed or sold to other individuals, institutions, or organizations without the written agreement of ICPSR. Conditions: The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for uses of this collection or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. Disclaimer: Other Study Description Materials Related Publication(s) Neiman, S., and DeVoe, J.F. (2009). Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools: Findings From the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2007-08 (NCES 2009-326). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. - 5 - - Study 25681 - Dinkes, R., Kemp, J., and Baum, K. (2009). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2008 (NCES 2009-022/ NCJ 226343). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC Chen, G. (2008). Communities, students, schools, and school crime: A confirmatory study of crime in U.S. high schools. Urban Education, 43(3): 301-318. Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E.F., and Lin-Kelly, W. (2007). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2007 (NCES 2008-021/NCJ 219553). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC. Guerino, P., Hurwitz, M.D., Noonan, M.E., and Kaffenberger, S.M. (2007). Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools: Findings from the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2003-04. First Look. (NCES 2007-302) National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Jekielek, S., Brown, B., Marin, P., and Lippman, L. (2007). Public School Practices for Violence Prevention and Reduction: 2003-04 (NCES 2007-010). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Nickerson, A.B., and Spears, W.H. (2007). Influences on Authoritarian and Educational/Therapeutic Approaches to School Violence Prevention. Journal of School Violence, 6(4): 3-31. Nolle, K.L., Guerino, P., and Dinkes, R. (2007). Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools: Findings From the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2005-06 (NCES 2007-361). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E.F., Kena, G., and Baum, K. (2006). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006 (NCES 2007-003/NCJ 214262). U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Nickerson, A. B., and Osborne, K. M. (2006). Crisis preparedness, response, and management: Surveys of school professionals. In S. R. Jimerson and M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice (pp. 89-101). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DeVoe, J.F., Peter, K., Noonan, M., Snyder, T.D., and Baum, K. (2005). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005. U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. DeVoe, J.F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Miller, A., Noonan, M., Snyder, T.D., and Baum, K. (2004). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2004 (NCES 2005-002/NCJ 205290). U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. DeVoe, J.F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Ruddy, S.A., Miller, A.K., Planty, M., Snyder, T.D., and Rand, M.R (2003). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2003. U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. NCES 2004-004/NCJ 201257. Washington, DC: 2003. Miller, A.M. (2003). Violence in U.S. Public Schools: 2000 School Survey on Crime and Safety, (NCES 2004- 314 REVISED). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. - 6 - - Study 25681 - Data Files Description File-by-File Description da25681-0001.txtFile Name: The records in the data file contain information regarding crime, violence, and disorder in our nations schools. Data is provided at the school-level. Contents of Files: File Dimensions: • No. of Cases: 2,772 • No. of Variables: 517 • Record Length: 1,513 • Records per Case: 1 • Overall No. of Records: 2,772 ASCII data fileType of File: Logical record lengthData Format: Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social ResearchPlace of File Production: The data collection was processed according to standard ICPSR processing procedures. The data were checked for illegal or inconsistent code values which, when found, were resolved or recoded to missing data. No consistency checks were performed. Extent of Processing Checks: - 7 - - Study 25681 - ICPSR 25681 The School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2004 Variable Description Summary statistics (minimum, maximum, mean, median, and standard deviation) may not be available for every variable in the codebook. Conversely, a listing of frequencies in table format may not be present for every variable in the codebook either. However, all variables in the dataset are present and display sufficient information about each variable. These decisions are made intentionally and are at the discretion of the archive producing this codebook. - 8 - The School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), 2004 da25681-0001.txt Variable Groups Variable Groups Containing Variables PageVariable Group LabelVariable Group Name 9SCHOOL IDENTIFIERVG1 9RESPONDENT INFORMATIONVG2 9SCHOOL PRACTICES AND PROGRAMSVG3 10PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AT SCHOOLVG4 11SCHOOL SECURITYVG5 12TEACHER TRAININGVG6 12LIMITATIONS ON CRIME PREVENTIONVG7 12FREQUENCY OF CRIME AND VIOLENCE AT SCHOOLVG8 13NUMBER OF INCIDENTSVG9 13DISCIPLINARY PROBLEMS AND ACTIONSVG10 16SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICSVG11 16RECORDED TOTALSVG12 17WEIGHTSVG13 18IMPUTATION FLAGSVG14 SCHOOL IDENTIFIERVG1 Variables within this Variable Group PageVariable LabelVariable 24TEMPORARY UNIQUE SCHOOL IDENTIFIERABTID RESPONDENT INFORMATIONVG2 Variables within this Variable Group PageVariable LabelVariable 24NUMBER OF YEARS RESPONDENT AT THE SCHOOLQ_NUMYRS 24TITLE/POSITION OF RESPONDENTQ_RESP 25TITLE/POSITION OF RESPONDENT - OTHER VERBATIM RESPONSES Q_R_SPFY SCHOOL PRACTICES AND PROGRAMSVG3 Variables within this Variable Group PageVariable LabelVariable 25SCHOOL PRACTICE REQUIRES VISITOR CHECK INQ1A 25ACCESS CONTROLLED LOCKED/MONITORED DOORSQ1B 25GROUNDS HAVE LOCKED/MONITORED GATESQ1C 26STUDENTS PASS THROUGH METAL DETECTORSQ1D 26VISITORS PASS THROUGH METAL DETECTORSQ1E - 9 - - Study 25681 - Variables within this Variable Group PageVariable LabelVariable 26HAVE RANDOM METAL DETECTOR CHECKS ON STUDENTSQ1F 27PRACTICE TO CLOSE CAMPUS FOR LUNCHQ1G 27PRACTICE RANDOM DOG SNIFFS FOR DRUGSQ1H 27RANDOM SWEEPS FOR CONTRABAND NOT INCLUDING DOG SNIFFS Q1I 28REQUIRE DRUG TESTING FOR ANY STUDENTSQ1J 28REQUIRE DRUG TESTING FOR ATHLETESQ1K 29REQUIRE DRUG TESTING FOR STUDENTS IN EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES Q1L 29REQUIRE STUDENTS TO WEAR UNIFORMSQ1M 29PRACTICE TO ENFORCE A STRICT DRESS CODEQ1N 30PROVIDE SCHOOL LOCKERS TO STUDENTSQ1O 30REQUIRE CLEAR BOOK BAGS OR BAN BOOK BAGSQ1P 30REQUIRE STUDENTS TO WEAR BADGE OR PHOTO IDQ1Q 31REQUIRE FACULTY/STAFF TO WEAR BADGE OR PHOTO IDQ1R 31SECURITY CAMERA(S) MONITOR THE SCHOOLQ1S 31PROVIDE TELEPHONES IN MOST CLASSROOMSQ1T 32PROVIDE TWO-WAY RADIOS TO ANY STAFFQ1U 32TOBACCO PROHIBITED ON SCHOOL GROUNDSQ1V 32SCHOOL HAS WRITTEN PLAN FOR SHOOTINGSQ2A1 33DRILLED STUDENTS ON PLAN FOR SHOOTINGSQ2A2 33WRITTEN PLAN FOR NATURAL DISASTERSQ2B1 33DRILLED STUDENTS ON PLAN FOR NATURAL DISASTERSQ2B2 34WRITTEN CRISIS PLAN FOR HOSTAGESQ2C1 34DRILLED STUDENTS ON PLAN FOR HOSTAGESQ2C2 34WRITTEN PLAN FOR BOMB THREATSQ2D1 35DRILLED STUDENTS ON PLAN FOR BOMB THREATSQ2D2 35WRITTEN PLAN FOR CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, OR RADIOLOGICAL THREATS Q2E1 35DRILLED STUDENTS ON PLAN FOR CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, OR RADIOLOGICAL THREATS Q2E2 36PREVENTION CURRICULUM/INSTRUCTION/TRAININGQ3A 36BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATION FOR STUDENTSQ3B 36STUDENT COUNSELING/SOCIAL WORKQ3C 37INDIVIDUAL MENTORING/TUTORING STUDENTSQ3D 37RECREATION/ENRICHMENT STUDENT ACTIVITIESQ3E 37STUDENT INVOLVEMENT RESOLVING PROBLEMSQ3F 38PROMOTE SENSE OF COMMUNITY/INTEGRATIONQ3G 38HOTLINE/TIPLINE TO REPORT PROBLEMSQ3H PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AT SCHOOLVG4 - 10 - - Study 25681 - Variables within this Variable Group PageVariable LabelVariable 38FORMAL PROCESS TO OBTAIN PARENTAL INPUTQ4A 39PROVIDE TRAINING/ASSISTANCE TO PARENTSQ4B 39PROGRAM INVOLVES PARENTS AT SCHOOLQ4C 39PARENT PARTICIPATES IN OPEN HOUSE OR BACK-TO-SCHOOL NIGHT Q5A 40PARENT PARTICIPATES IN PARENT-TEACHER CONFERENCEQ5B 40PARENT PARTICIPATES IN SUBJECT-AREA EVENTSQ5C 40PARENT VOLUNTEERS AT SCHOOLQ5D 41COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT-PARENT GROUPSQ6A 41COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT-SOCIAL SERVICESQ6B 41COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT-JUVENILE JUSTICEQ6C 42COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT-LAW ENFORCEMENTQ6D 42COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT-MENTAL HEALTHQ6E 42COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT-CIVIC ORGANIZATIONSQ6F 43COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT-BUSINESSQ6G 43COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT-RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONSQ6H SCHOOL SECURITYVG5 Variables within this Variable Group PageVariable LabelVariable 43SWORN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR SECURITY GUARDQ7 44SECURITY USED DURING SCHOOL HOURSQ8A 44SECURITY WHILE STUDENTS ARRIVE/LEAVEQ8B 44SECURITY AT SELECTED SCHOOL ACTIVITIESQ8C 45SECURITY WHEN SCHOOL NOT OCCURRINGQ8D 45OTHER TIMES SECURITY USEDQ8E 45CODED OTHER TIMES SECURITY USEDQ8ECODE 46VERBATIM RESPONSESQ8E_SPFY 46# OF FULL-TIME SECURITY GUARDSQ9A1 46# OF PART-TIME SECURITY GUARDSQ9A2 46# OF FULL-TIME SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERSQ9B1 47# OF PART-TIME SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERSQ9B2 47# OF FULL-TIME SWORN LAW ENFORCEMENTOFFICERS---NOT SROS Q9C1 47#OFPART-TIMESWORNLAWENFORCEMENTOFFICERS---NOT SROS Q9C2 48GUARDS IN UNIFORM OR IDENTIFIABLE CLOTHESQ10A 48GUARDS ARMED WITH FIREARMSQ10B 48SECURITY ENFORCEMENT AND PATROLQ11A 49MAINTAIN SCHOOL DISCIPLINEQ11B 49COORDINATED WITH LOCAL POLICEQ11C 49IDENTIFY PROBLEMS AND SEEK SOLUTIONSQ11D - 11 - - Study 25681 - Variables within this Variable Group PageVariable LabelVariable 50TRAIN TEACHERS IN SCHOOL SAFETYQ11E 50MENTOR STUDENTSQ11F 50TEACH OR TRAIN STUDENTS (E.G., DRUG-RELATED EDUCATION) Q11G TEACHER TRAININGVG6 Variables within this Variable Group PageVariable LabelVariable 51TEACHER TRAINING---CLASSROOM MANAGEMENTQ12A 51TEACHER TRAINING---DISCIPLINE POLICIESQ12B 51TEACHER TRAINING---SAFETY PROCEDURESQ12C 52TEACHER TRAINING---EARLY WARNING SIGNS FOR VIOLENT BEHAVIOR Q12D 52TEACHER TRAINING---STUDENT ALCOHOL/DRUG ABUSEQ12E 52TEACHER TRAINING---POSITIVE BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONQ12F LIMITATIONS ON CRIME PREVENTIONVG7 Variables within this Variable Group PageVariable LabelVariable 53EFFORTS LIMITED BY INADEQUATE/LACK OF TEACHER TRAINING Q14A 53EFFORTS LIMITED BY INADEQUATE/LACK OF ALTERNATIVE PLACEMENT Q14B 53EFFORTS LIMITED BY PARENTAL COMPLAINTSQ14C 54EFFORTS LIMITED BY INADEQUATE/LACK OF TEACHER SUPPORT Q14D 54EFFORTS LIMITED BY INADEQUATE/LACK OF PARENT SUPPORT Q14E 54EFFORTS LIMITED BY FEAR OF STUDENT RETALIATIONQ14F 54EFFORTS LIMITED BY FEAR OF LITIGATIONQ14G 55EFFORTS LIMITED BY INADEQUATE FUNDSQ14H 55EFFORTS LIMITED BY INCONSISTENT APPLICATION OF POLICIES Q14I 55EFFORTS LIMITED BY FEAR OF DISTRICT OR STATE REPRISALQ14J 56EFFORTS LIMITED BY FEDERAL POLICIES/SPECIAL EDQ14K 56EFFORTS LIMITED BY OTHER FEDERAL POLICIESQ14L 56EFFORTS LIMITED BY STATE/DISTRICT POLICYQ14M FREQUENCY OF CRIME AND VIOLENCE AT SCHOOLVG8 Variables within this Variable Group PageVariable LabelVariable 56ANY SCHOOL DEATHS FROM HOMICIDESQ15 57SCHOOL SHOOTING INCIDENTSQ16 - 12 - - Study 25681 - NUMBER OF INCIDENTSVG9 Variables within this Variable Group PageVariable LabelVariable 57# OF RAPES/ATTEMPTED RAPES---TOTALQ17A1 57# OF RAPES REPORTED TO POLICEQ17A2 58# OF SEXUAL BATTERY OTHER THAN RAPE---TOTALQ17B1 58# OF SEXUAL BATTERY OTHER THAN RAPE REPORTED TO POLICE Q17B2 58# OF ROBBERIES WITH WEAPON---TOTALQ17C1_1 58# OF ROBBERIES WITH WEAPON REPORTED TO POLICEQ17C1_2 58# OF INCIDENTS OF ROBBERY WITHOUT WEAPON---TOTALQ17C2_1 58# OF ROBBERY WITHOUT WEAPON REPORTED TO POLICEQ17C2_2 59# OF ATTACKS WITH WEAPON---TOTALQ17D1_1 59# OF ATTACKS WITH WEAPON REPORTED TO POLICEQ17D1_2 59# OF ATTACKS WITHOUT WEAPON---TOTALQ17D2_1 59# OF ATTACKS WITHOUT WEAPON REPORTED TO POLICEQ17D2_2 60# OF THREATS OF ATTACK WITH WEAPON---TOTALQ17E1_1 60# OF THREATS OF ATTACK WITH WEAPON REPORTED TO POLICE Q17E1_2 60# OF THREATS OF ATTACK WITHOUT WEAPON---TOTALQ17E2_1 60# OF THREATS OF ATTACK WITHOUT WEAPON REPORTED TO POLICE Q17E2_2 60# OF INCIDENTS THEFT/LARCENY---TOTALQ17F1 61# OF INCIDENTS THEFT/LARCENY REPORTED TO POLICEQ17F2 61# OF POSSESSION OF FIREARMS---TOTALQ17G1 61# OF POSSESSION OF FIREARMS REPORTED TO POLICEQ17G2 61# OF POSSESSION KNIFE/SHARP OBJECT---TOTALQ17H1 61# OF POSSESSION KNIFE/SHARP OBJECT REPORTED TO POLICE Q17H2 61# OF DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS---TOTALQ17I1 62# OF DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS REPORTED TO POLICEQ17I2 62# OF POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL---TOTALQ17J1 62# OF POSSESSION OR USE OF ALCOHOL REPORTED TO POLICE Q17J2 62# OF INCIDENTS OF VANDALISM---TOTALQ17K1 62# OF INCIDENT OF VANDALISM REPORTED TO POLICEQ17K2 62# OF HATE CRIMESQ18A 63# OF GANG-RELATED CRIMESQ18B 63# OF TIMES SCHOOL DISRUPTED (E.G., BOMB, CHEMICAL, RADIOLOGICAL, DEATH THREATS) Q19 DISCIPLINARY PROBLEMS AND ACTIONSVG10 - 13 - - Study 25681 - Variables within this Variable Group PageVariable LabelVariable 63HOW OFTEN STUDENT RACIAL TENSIONSQ20A 63HOW OFTEN STUDENT BULLYING OCCURSQ20B 64HOW OFTEN STUDENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF STUDENTQ20C 64HOW OFTEN STUDENT VERBAL ABUSE OF TEACHERSQ20D 64HOW OFTEN STUDENT DISORDER IN CLASSROOMSQ20E 65HOW OFTEN STUDENT ACTS OF DISRESPECTQ20F 65HOW OFTEN STUDENT GANG ACTIVITIESQ20G 65HOW OFTEN STUDENT CULT OR EXTREMIST ACTIVITIESQ20H 66REMOVAL WITH NO SERVICES AVAILABLEQ21A1 66REMOVAL WITH NO SERVICES---ACTION USEDQ21A2 66REMOVALWITHTUTORING/AT-HOMEINSTRUCTIONAVAILABLEQ21B1 67REMOVAL WITH TUTORING/AT-HOME INSTRUCTION---ACTION USED Q21B2 67TRANSFER TO SPECIALIZED SCHOOL AVAILABLEQ21C1 67TRANSFER TO SPECIALIZED SCHOOL AVAILABLE---ACTION USED Q21C2 68TRANSFER TO REGULAR SCHOOL AVAILABLEQ21D1 68TRANSFER TO REGULAR SCHOOL AVAILABLE---ACTION USEDQ21D2 68OUTSIDE SUSPENSION/NO SERVICES AVAILABLEQ21E1 69OUTSIDE SUSPENSION/NO SERVICES AVAILABLE---ACTION USED Q21E2 69OUTSIDE SUSPENSION WITH SERVICES AVAILABLEQ21F1 69OUTSIDE SUSPENSION WITH SERVICES AVAILABLE---ACTION USED Q21F2 70IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION/NO SERVICES AVAILABLEQ21G1 70IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION/NO SERVICES AVAILABLE---ACTION USED Q21G2 70IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION WITH SERVICES AVAILABLEQ21H1 71IN-SCHOOLSUSPENSIONWITHSERVICESAVAILABLE---ACTION USED Q21H2 71REFERRAL TO SCHOOL COUNSELOR AVAILABLEQ21I1 71REFERRAL TO SCHOOL COUNSELOR AVAILABLE---ACTION USED Q21I2 72IN-SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY PLAN AVAILABLEQ21J1 72IN-SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY PLAN AVAILABLE---ACTION USEDQ21J2 72OUTSIDE SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY PLAN AVAILABLEQ21K1 73OUTSIDE SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY PLAN AVAILABLE---ACTION USED Q21K2 73KEEP OFF BUS FOR MISBEHAVIOR AVAILABLEQ21L1 73KEEP OFF BUS FOR MISBEHAVIOR AVAILABLE---ACTIONUSEDQ21L2 74CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AVAILABLEQ21M1 74CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AVAILABLE---ACTION USEDQ21M2 74SCHOOL PROBATION AVAILABLEQ21N1 - 14 - - Study 25681 - Variables within this Variable Group PageVariable LabelVariable 75SCHOOL PROBATION AVAILABLE---ACTION USEDQ21N2 75DETENTION/SATURDAY SCHOOL AVAILABLEQ21O1 75DETENTION/SATURDAY SCHOOL AVAILABLE---ACTION USEDQ21O2 76LOSS OF STUDENT PRIVILEGES AVAILABLEQ21P1 76LOSS OF STUDENT PRIVILEGES AVAILABLE---ACTION USEDQ21P2 76REQUIRE COMMUNITY SERVICE AVAILABLEQ21Q1 77REQUIRE COMMUNITY SERVICE AVAILABLE---ACTION USEDQ21Q2 77STUDENT USE/POSSESSION FIREARM/EXPLOSIVE DEVICE---TOTAL Q22A1 77# OF REMOVALS FOR FIREARM USE/POSSESSIONQ22A2 78# OF TRANSFERS FOR FIREARM USE/POSSESSIONQ22A3 78# OF SUSPENSIONS FOR FIREARM USE/POSSESSIONQ22A4 78# OF OTHER ACTIONS FOR FIREARM USE/POSSESSIONQ22A5 78STUDENT USE/POSSESSION WEAPON (OTHER THAN FIREARM)---TOTAL Q22B1 78# OF REMOVALS FOR WEAPON USEQ22B2 79# OF TRANSFERS FOR WEAPON USEQ22B3 79# OF SUSPENSIONS FOR WEAPON USEQ22B4 79# OF OTHER ACTIONS FOR WEAPON USEQ22B5 79# OF DISTRIBUTION/POSSESSION/USE ILLEGAL DRUGS---TOTAL Q22C1 80# OF REMOVALS FOR DISTRIBUTION/POSSESSION/USE---ILLEGAL DRUGS Q22C2 80# OF TRANSFERS FOR DISTRIBUTION/POSSESSION/USE---ILLEGAL DRUGS Q22C3 80# OF SUSPENSIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION/POSSESSION/USE---ILLEGAL DRUGS Q22C4 80# OF OTHER ACTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION/POSSESSION/USE---ILLEGAL DRUGS Q22C5 80# OF DISTRIBUTION/POSSESSION/USE ALCOHOL---TOTALQ22D1 81# OF REMOVALS FOR DISTRIBUTION/POSSESSION/USE---ALCOHOL Q22D2 81# OF TRANSFERS FOR DISTRIBUTION/POSSESSION/USE---ALCOHOL Q22D3 81# OF SUSPENSIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION/POSSESSION/USE---ALCOHOL Q22D4 81# OF OTHER ACTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION/POSSESSION/USE---ALCOHOL Q22D5 81ATTACKS/FIGHTS---TOTALQ22E1 82# OF REMOVALS FOR ATTACKS/FIGHTSQ22E2 82# OF TRANSFERS FOR ATTACKS/FIGHTSQ22E3 82# OF SUSPENSIONS FOR ATTACKS/FIGHTSQ22E4 82# OF OTHER ACTIONS FOR ATTACKS/FIGHTSQ22E5 - 15 - - Study 25681 - Variables within this Variable Group PageVariable LabelVariable 82INSUBORDINATION---TOTALQ22F1 83# OF REMOVALS FOR INSUBORDINATIONQ22F2 83# OF TRANSFERS FOR INSUBORDINATIONQ22F3 83# OF SUSPENSIONS FOR INSUBORDINATIONQ22F4 83# OF OTHER ACTIONS FOR INSUBORDINATIONQ22F5 83# OF REMOVALS WITH NO SERVICE---TOTALQ23A 84# OF TRANSFERS TO SPECIALIZED SCHOOLS---TOTALQ23B SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICSVG11 Variables within this Variable Group PageVariable LabelVariable 84PERCENT STUDENTS LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENTQ25B 84PERCENT SPECIAL-EDUCATION STUDENTSQ25C 84PERCENT STUDENTS BELOW 15TH PERCENTILE STANDARDIZED TESTS Q26A 84PERCENT STUDENTS LIKELY TO GO TO COLLEGEQ26B 84PERCENT STUDENTS ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IMPORTANTQ26C 85TYPICAL NUMBER OF CLASSROOM CHANGESQ27 85# OF PAID FULL-TIME SPECIAL-ED TEACHERQ28A1 85# OF PAID PART-TIME SPECIAL-ED TEACHERQ28A2 85# OF PAID FULL-TIME SPECIAL-ED AIDESQ28B1 85# OF PAID PART-TIME SPECIAL-ED AIDESQ28B2 85# OF PAID FULL-TIME COUNSELORSQ28E1 86# OF PAID PART-TIME COUNSELORSQ28E2 86CRIME WHERE STUDENTS LIVEQ29 86CRIME WHERE SCHOOL LOCATEDQ30 86AVERAGE PERCENT DAILY ATTENDANCEQ32 86# OF STUDENTS TRANSFERRED TO SCHOOLQ33A 87# OF STUDENTS TRANSFERRED FROM SCHOOLQ33B 87DATE QUESTIONNAIRE COMPLETEDQ34C_DD 87MONTH QUESTIONNAIRE COMPLETEDQ34C_MM 87YEAR QUESTIONNAIRE COMPLETEDQ34C_YY 88NESTING VARIABLESTRATA64 91RECODED \% MINORITY STUDENT ENROLLMENT IN SCHOOL---BASED ON 03-04 SASS FRAME VARIABLE (SCHOOL) FR_CATMN 91URBANICITY---FROM 03-04 SASS FRAME VARIABLE (SCHOOL)FR_LOC4 91SCHOOL GRADES OFFERED---BASED ON 03-04 SASS FRAME VARIABLES (SCHOOL) FR_LVEL 91SCHOOL SIZE CATEGORIES---FROM 03-04 SASS FRAME (SCHOOL) FR_SIZE RECORDED TOTALSVG12 - 16 - - Study 25681 - Variables within this Variable Group PageVariable LabelVariable 88NUMBER OF TYPES OF CRISES COVERED IN WRITTEN PLANSCRISIS04 88TOTAL NUMBER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS RECORDEDDISTOT04