THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY, NY 12234
Safe Schools Against Violence in Education Act
Executive Summary
The Safe Schools Against Violence in Education (SAVE) Act was passed by the New York State Legislature and signed into law by Governor George E. Pataki on July 24, 2000, to address issues of school safety and violence prevention.
The New York State Board of Regents, in response to the legislation, amended the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, Section 100.2 (gg) to provide specifications for the creation of a uniform violent incident reporting system. The Regulations, which were adopted by emergency action in April 2001 and made permanent in June 2001, were developed in consultation with the Division of Criminal Justice Services and with legislative and executive staff. They make use of definitions of crimes taken from the Penal Law and require schools to record information on violent and disruptive incidents beginning with the 2001-02 school year. Each school is required to complete and maintain a record on each reportable violent or disruptive incident. In addition, each school must provide a summary of these incidents on the Basic Educational Data System (BEDS) School Data Form the following school year.
The report provides data obtained from the BEDS forms submitted by the districts for the 2001-02 and 2002-03 school years. The report describes:
the prevalence of violent and disruptive incidents on school grounds;
the number and percentage of New York City and the Rest of the State schools reporting violent and disruptive incidents for the 2001-02 and 2002-03 school years;
the school buildings and districts with the least and greatest incidence of violent and disruptive incidents for New York City and the Rest of the State for the 2001-02 and 2002-03 school years;
the school buildings and districts with the greatest incidence of violent and disruptive incidents for 2001-02 with the least and most improvement in 2002-03; and,
the effectiveness of school violence measures undertaken by school districts and the Department including information on the implementation of school codes of conduct and safety plans required by the law.
The report also identifies the limitations of the use of this data. Caveats caution about using this information for comparative purposes. Executive and legislative support is requested in implementing recommendations that will make the data more valid and relevant. Unless and until districts have the same understanding of terms and use similar standards regarding the level of seriousness of reported incidents, limits will exist regarding the use of the data. The recommendations that will alleviate concerns regarding the use of the data are attached to the report as Appendix "A".
Introduction
The Safe Schools Against Violence in Education (SAVE) Act was passed by the New York State Legislature and signed into law by Governor George E. Pataki on July 24, 2000, to address issues of school safety and violence prevention. The SAVE legislation amended the Education Law, in relation to improving school safety; amended the Penal Law, the Criminal Procedure Law, the Executive Law and the Family Court Act, in relation to directing courts to provide schools with notification of criminal and juvenile delinquency adjudications against students; and repealed section 2801 of the Education Law relating to regulation of conduct on school district property.
The New York State Board of Regents, in response to the legislation, amended the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, Section 100.2 (gg) to provide specifications for the creation of a uniform violent incident reporting system. The Regulations, which were adopted by emergency action in April 2001, and made permanent in June 2001, were developed in consultation with the Division of Criminal Justice Services and with legislative and executive staff. They make use of definitions of crimes taken from the Penal Law and require schools to record information on violent and disruptive incidents beginning with the 2001-02 school year. Each school is required to complete and maintain a record on each reportable violent or disruptive incident. In addition, each school must provide a summary of these incidents on the Basic Educational Data System (BEDS) School Data Form the following school year and each school district and BOCES is required to include a summary of the data in its School District or BOCES Report Card.
Information obtained from the BEDS forms submitted for the 2001-02 and 2002-03 school years is the basis upon which this report has been developed. The report describes:
the prevalence of violent and disruptive incidents on school grounds;
the number and percentage of New York City and the Rest of the State schools reporting violent and disruptive incidents for the 2001-02 and 2002-03 school years;
the school buildings and districts with the least and greatest incidence of violent and disruptive incidents for New York City and the Rest of the State for the 2001-02 and 2002-03 school years;
the school buildings and districts with the greatest incidence of violent and disruptive incidents for 2001-02 with the least and most improvement in 2002-03; and,
the effectiveness of school violence measures undertaken by school districts and the Department including information on the implementation of school codes of conduct and safety plans required by the law.
Information regarding the effectiveness of specific school programs undertaken to reduce violence and assure the safety and security of students and school personnel will be provided in subsequent reports. The caveat section of this report identifies the limitations of the available information, and explains why multi-year comparisons are not appropriate.
Caveats Related to Violent and Disruptive Incident Data
Users of the Violent and Disruptive Incident Data should understand the following factors that affect interpretation of the data and comparisons among schools:
The use of a wide range of definitions of violent and disruptive incidents taken from the Penal Law places school officials in the unfamiliar position of making judgments similar to those made by a criminal court. For example, in the Personal Injury and Intimidation Category, school officials must judge whether a student has intentionally caused physical injury to another person (assault); or recklessly engaged in conduct which creates a substantial risk of physical injury (reckless endangerment); or has intentionally placed or attempted to place another person in fear of imminent physical injury (menacing); or has threatened, stalked or sought to coerce or compelled a person to do something or engaged in verbal or physical conduct that threatens another with harm (intimidation or bullying). Even the weapons categories include "any other dangerous or deadly instrument," leading to debate over whether a pencil or a ruler can fit the definition. The categories used were modeled after the New York City violent incident reporting system, which pre-existed the statewide system. However, in New York City, police officers make the judgments about whether particular conduct fits definitions of crimes. School officials are ill-equipped to decide whether conduct constituting a crime has been committed and school districts made differing decisions as to what incidents should be reported. These decisions resulted in counts that varied so widely among districts and schools that limited valid use can be made of these data. For the data to be reliable and valid for comparison between school districts, the operational definitions for the categories of incidents need to be narrowed and made more objective and understandable to school officials.
In the absence of sufficiently developed operational definitions for the categories of incidents to be reported, school districts made differing decisions as to what incidents should be reported. These decisions resulted in counts that varied so widely among districts and schools that limited valid use can be made of these data.
School districts used different policies in determining which incidents to report, including the following:
Zero Tolerance Policies - Many schools have adopted zero tolerance policies identifying all incidents as serious, requiring all incidents to be reported to the criminal justice system and all incidents to result in suspension.
Incidents Involving Police - Many schools, including several of the large upstate city school districts, submitted Violent and Disruptive Incident Report (VADIR) changes, thereby reducing the number of incidents reported to include only incidents involving police reports.
Incidents Involving Police and/or Injury - Some schools reported only incidents involving the police and/or personal injuries.
Suspensions - Some schools reported only incidents
resulting in suspensions.
Subcategories - The Personal Injury or Intimidation category, which accounts for the largest number of incidents, includes intimidation, bullying, menacing, reckless endangerment, kidnapping and assault. The range of seriousness of incidents counted in this category makes comparisons across schools invalid.
Reliability of Data - The Uniform Violent Incident Reporting System (UVIRS) was initiated in the 2001-02 school year. Schools have little experience in standardizing their classification and reporting of data based upon one year of experience. The data for subsequent years may reveal different patterns.
Data Availability Differences - Data availability for upstate schools differs from New York City data. Upstate schools report on the BEDS School Data Form, which requires responses regarding each type of incident. A major portion of the New York City data is collected and maintained by the New York City Police Department (NYCPD). The following caveats, specific to New York City data, identify the concerns associated with the use of this information for comparative purposes.
Additional Caveats – New York City Data
In addition to the previous cautions, there are a number of unique circumstances regarding the collection and reporting of the data for New York City public schools:
The NYCPD compiles data in accordance with the New York State Penal Law. Incidents involving use of weapons are most often categorized as assaults and therefore are computed in column D – "personal injury or intimidation." Because of this categorization, there are no entries in column C – "weapons use."
The NYCPD’s categorization of school-related incidents includes incidents that occur within the vicinity of the school (e.g., subway stations, bus stops), and other off-site incidents involving one or more students from a school regardless of whether the incident takes place at a school-sponsored function. Therefore, the data contained on the summary forms includes these incidents as well.
Because school organizations are combined during the summer, and the student population varies from the regular school year population, the inclusion of these incidents is not a reflection on the safety of a particular school.
The NYCPD’s data also includes incidents that occur on school property after school hours at meetings or events which are not sponsored by the Department or the school and may not involve any individuals associated with a particular school. Unfortunately, there is no existing mechanism by which the New York City Department of Education or the NYCPD can separate out these non-school-related incidents for each of the New York City public schools. Consequently, their inclusion may skew the data.
The current small schools initiative has increased the number of multiple schools at one site. The NYCPD’s database of school organizations has not kept pace with these changes, and therefore contains many outdated records. They often assign an incident to an outdated school organization code or to another organization that shares the building, rather than the entity where the event actually occurred. To the extent possible, the New York City Department of Education (DOE) has reconciled the school listings to reflect the current status for this particular year. Where the DOE was unable to accurately disaggregate the incidents, the data has been provided under the previous school organization.
Concerns and Recommendations
The Department has collected two years’ worth of district-generated violent and disruptive incident data. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the data. However, from the beginning, Department staff has been concerned that the lack of definitional clarity would provide information with limited capacity for comparisons and judgments. The result is a series of caveats included in this document that identify the limitations of the use of this data. The State Education Department is requesting support to implement the specific recommendations that are identified in Appendix "A".
Chronology of Significant Events and Efforts to Ensure Accurate Information
The following chronology of events identifies the steps taken in the development of definitions, the process of informing school districts, and finally the efforts to collect and analyze information reported by the school districts.
January 1999 – A Governor's Task Force was established on "SAVE Legislation" to examine issues related to tracking, reporting and sharing information relative to school violence.
July 2000- Education Law section 2802 was enacted by Chapter 181 of the Laws of 2000 (Project SAVE legislation) and signed into law.
Fall 2000 – Public forums were held regarding the proposed SAVE legislation.
April 2001 – Regulations regarding SAVE legislation were adopted by emergency action. The regulations require a violent and disruptive incident reporting system for schools beginning with the 2001-2002 school year.
June 2001- Emergency Regulations made permanent.
Fall 2001 – Memo was sent to the field informing them of regulations.
Fall 2001-June 2002 – Governor's Task Force meetings took place and reviewed "SAVE" policy implementation including criteria for reporting and developing functional definitions. During this period policy decisions and recommendations were formulated through the following public engagements:
SED enlisted the assistance of the NYS Center for School Safety (NYSCSS) to get local constituents and State agency input in the process.
The Vera Institute of Justice conducted focus groups in New York City, Long Island and Syracuse and summarized discussions from the group.
Consultation with a representative sample of Local Educational Agency staff helped establish policy parameters.
Consultation and discussion held with the Committee
of Practitioners.
December 2001-June 2002 –Guidelines containing operational definitions for use in the BEDS data system were developed in consultation with legislative and executive staff.
July 2002 – VADIR and BEDS forms sent to schools with directions (2001-02).
October 2002 – BEDS data collection took place (2001-02 school year).
March-May 2003 – Upstate data analysis and review completed.
October 2003 – BEDS data collection took place (2002-03 school year).
December 2003 – Analysis of the information indicates that schools did not report using consistent rules. Further analysis of data reveals that due to the lack of clear operational definitions, inconsistencies of reporting policies exist across schools relative to the determination of what incidents to report (see caveats).
February 2004 – SED leadership determined that school superintendents should have the opportunity to review and correct data before public release.
February 2004 – Superintendents were requested to verify 2001-02 and 2002-03 data.
April 2004 – Analysis of corrected and verified 2001-02 and 2002-03 data completed.
May 2004 – Senior leadership approves strategy for corrective action.
Report on Effectiveness of School Violence Measures
As indicated earlier in the report, the data available do not allow a comparison to determine the impact of specific strategies and activities implemented by various districts and schools. However, the Department has provided the following list of technical assistance and staff development activities that have resulted in district and school staff possessing a much better understanding of the various sections of the SAVE legislation.
SAVE Technical Assistance Sessions
Department and School Safety staff accompanied Lieutenant Governor Mary O. Donohue to statewide regional meetings to explain the intent of the SAVE legislation and provide clarity to the requirements as they impacted school districts.
One live session and several televised programs related to SAVE were broadcast.
SAVE questions and answers are posted on the Department’s web page.
County evaluation study on SAVE implementation was conducted and published on the Department web page.
Student Support Services Team’s web site provides significant information regarding this topic.
Student Support Services regional network staff provided many hours of staff development in SAVE training, SAVE Legislation Certification Training.
Uniform Violent Incident Reporting System (UVIRS) - School Districts and Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) are required to submit this data annually to the Commissioner.
Technical assistance sessions were held around the State for school administrators, with Department staff, New York State Center for School Safety (NYSCSS) staff, and a representative from the BOCES District Superintendents. These sessions were co-sponsored by the Student Support Services regional offices.
Focus groups were held to define violent incidents in New York City, Syracuse, Long Island, and Albany with representatives from the Big 5 and professional organizations. Additionally, an online survey was used to gather additional input from rural and suburban areas of the State.
Safety Plans - School Districts and BOCES are required to complete and annually review a comprehensive school safety plan.
Conducted peer reviews of all plans submitted to SED, at nine locations across the State. This involved support from BOCES Risk Managers.
Technical assistance sessions were held across the State to ensure that plans were completed in compliance with the legislation.
Web-based resources are available for safety plan development.
Produced and distributed a Guidance Document for School Safety Planning which was sent to all school superintendents. This was accomplished through the efforts of an inter-agency work group.
Student Support Services regional network staff provided School Safety Plan staff development.
Codes of Conduct - School Districts and BOCES are required to have the governing board adopt a Codes of Conduct, that is developed in collaboration with parent organizations and others.
Peer reviews of Codes of Conduct were accomplished in conjunction with School Administrators Association of New York State (SAANYS).
Technical assistance was available upon request.
Efforts were coordinated in consultation with SAANYS, New York State United Teachers (NYSUT), and New York State School Boards Association (NYSSBA).
NYSUT has provided an extensive section on their web site regarding this topic, including information on teacher removal of disruptive student procedures.
Character, Civility and Citizenship Education, Health Curriculum, Interpersonal Violence Prevention Information.
Deputy Commissioner Kadamus sent an informational letter to all districts on character education.
Department’s web page on character education was established to correspond with the Governor’s town hall meeting.
Planning assistance was given to the Governor’s Office for the town hall meeting broadcast from White Plains.
Respect
Please Stand Up Against Violence
Statewide training regarding use of this guide is being scheduled.
Student Support Services regional staff development occurred in areas such as Asset Building for Parents Anonymous, Growing Healthy Training, Character By Choice, Ruby Paine-Framework for Understanding Poverty, Keep Your Head in the Game and Youth Empowerment.
Court Notification - Requires districts to identify a "designated educational official" and for family and criminal courts to provide notification of all juvenile delinquency adjudications of a student placed with the Office of Children and Family Services.
Letter sent to all schools from Judge Traficant identifying the requirements of this section of the law.
Assault on Teachers
Provided assistance to NYSUT’s health and safety office on their survey with teachers.
School Violence Training - School districts are required to include school violence prevention training in regular conference days.
Two-hour certification course training manual developed.
Approved providers list available and posted on the Department’s web site.
Online course developed for the two-hour course. Over 1,000 students took the course in the first year.
Regional centers are conducting ongoing training for the two-hour course.
Conducted training of trainers for institutions of higher education in upstate, downstate and the New York City areas.
Training support for the two-hour course for New York City, especially institutions of Higher Education.
Required inclusion of annual violence prevention staff development as part of superintendent’s conference day that is supported through regional centers.
Whistleblower Protection
Limited involvement consisting of referral to appropriate sources for information.
Violent and Disruptive Incident Trends
The following tables and charts provide a clear indication of the violent and disruptive incidents reported by school buildings in New York State. Specifically, you will find:
Table 1 - Comparison of Violent or Disruptive Incidents for 2001-02 and 2002-03. The table provides information for New York City and Rest of State schools. The data shows a downward trend in the total number of reported incidents in most categories. The exceptions being "theft" and " weapons use" categories reported by the Rest of State schools and a slight increase in "weapons possessions" in New York City.
Table 2 - Violent or Disruptive Incidents by Need/Resource Capacity Category. The table provides a comparison of 2001-02 and 2002-03 incidents reported by the Rest of State Schools. The chart shows that students in schools from rich and poor districts are victimized by violent and disruptive incidents.
Pie Charts 1 & 2 - provide a graphic breakout of New York City data for 2001-02 and 2002-03. The charts show that 70 percent of the reported incidents fall into the "weapons possession" and "personal injury and intimidation" categories.
Pie Charts 3 & 4 - provide a graphic breakout of Rest of State data for 2001-02 and 2002-03. The charts show that 80 percent of the reported incidents are in the "use, possession, or sale of drugs or alcohol" and "personal injury or intimidation" categories.
Tables 1 and 2 lacked adequate space to include a full listing of the violent and disruptive incident categories. The categories included are:
Homicide
Weapons (possession only)
Weapons Use
Personal Injury or Intimidation
Sexual Offenses Use, Possession, or Sale of Drugs or Alcohol Bomb Threat, False Alarm, Arson or Riot Theft Burglary Criminal Mischief
School Buildings with the Greatest Frequency of Violent Incidents
Charts 5 through 8 provide information regarding the school buildings with the greatest incidence of violent and disruptive incidents for New York City and the Rest of the State for the 2001-02 and 2002-03 school years. The charts list the school buildings from New York City and the Rest of State reporting the greatest incidence of violent and disruptive incidents for the school years. The report does not list the approximately 1,400 and 1,600 school buildings that reported zero violent and disruptive incidents for the 2001-02 and 2002-03 school year, respectively.
Charts 9 and 10 provide information regarding the school buildings in New York City and the Rest of State with the greatest incidence of violent and disruptive incidents for the 2001-02 school year that made the least and most improvement for the 2002-03 school year. Although the majority of school buildings showed improvement, too large a percentage did not.
Charts 11 and 12 provide information regarding the school districts with the greatest incidence of violent and disruptive incidents for the 2001-02 and 2002-03 school years.
Chart 13 provides information regarding the districts with the greatest incidence of violent and disruptive incidents for the 2001-02 school year that made the least and most improvement for the 2002-03 school year.
Charts 14 and 15 provide information regarding the school districts with the least incidence of violent and disruptive incidents for the 2001-02 and 2002-03 school years.
Table 1
Comparison of Violent or Disruptive Incidents
2001-02 and 2002-03
New York City *
| 2001-02 (1,222 Schools) | 2002-03 (1,219 Schools) | |||||
| Number of Schools Reporting Incidents | Percentage of Total Number of Schools | Number of Actual Incidents | Number of Schools Reporting Incidents | Percentage of Total Number of Schools | Number of Actual Incidents | |
|
Homicides |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Weapons Possession |
549 |
45% |
2,336 |
506 |
42% |
2,364 |
|
Personal Injury |
899 |
74% |
7,190 |
805 |
66% |
6,291 |
|
Sexual Offenses |
251 |
21% |
437 |
234 |
19% |
361 |
|
Drugs, etc. |
222 |
18% |
712 |
188 |
15% |
659 |
|
Bomb Threat, etc. |
235 |
19% |
480 |
126 |
10% |
188 |
|
Theft |
646 |
53% |
1,762 |
566 |
46% |
1,642 |
|
Burglary |
143 |
12% |
208 |
107 |
9% |
134 |
|
Criminal Mischief |
230 |
19% |
340 |
183 |
15% |
306 |
Rest of State
| 2001-02 (1,863 Schools) |
2002-03 (1,715 Schools) |
|||||
| Number of Schools Reporting Incidents | Percentage of Total Number of Schools | Number of Actual Incidents | Number of Schools Reporting Incidents | Percentage of Total Number of Schools | Number of Actual Incidents | |
|
Homicides |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Weapons Possession |
840 |
45% |
2,204 |
831 |
48% |
2,149 |
|
Weapons Use |
80 |
4% |
108 |
86 |
5% |
140 |
|
Personal Injury |
1,401 |
75% |
27,711 |
1,329 |
77% |
26,649 |
|
Sexual Offenses |
307 |
16% |
894 |
300 |
17% |
762 |
|
Drugs, etc. |
858 |
46% |
4,744 |
871 |
51% |
4,577 |
|
Bomb Threat, etc. |
394 |
21% |
730 |
359 |
21% |
635 |
|
Theft |
688 |
37% |
2,752 |
682 |
40% |
2,777 |
|
Burglary |
66 |
4% |
120 |
52 |
3% |
93 |
|
Criminal Mischief |
348 |
19% |
1,239 |
280 |
16% |
1,224 |
*Note: Since New York City reports "weapons use" as "personal injury and
intimidation," the "weapons use" category has not been included in the NYC
report.
Table 2
Rest of State
Violent or Disruptive Incidents by
Need/Resource Capacity Category*
2001-02 School Year
|
Need/Resource Capacity |
Weapons Possession |
Weapons Use |
Personal Injury or Intimidation |
Sexual Offenses |
Use, Possession or Sale of Drugs or Alcohol |
Bomb Threat, False Alarm, Arson, or Riot |
Theft |
Burglary |
Criminal Mischief |
| Big 4 Cities |
224 |
4 |
1,011 |
47 |
209 |
85 |
148 |
13 |
34 |
| Urban Suburban High Need |
645 |
38 |
6,986 |
256 |
443 |
142 |
611 |
30 |
331 |
| Rural High Need |
254 |
12 |
5,644 |
123 |
650 |
102 |
363 |
24 |
222 |
| Average Need |
883 |
48 |
11,664 |
387 |
2,660 |
323 |
1,215 |
38 |
516 |
| Low Need |
198 |
6 |
2,406 |
81 |
782 |
78 |
415 |
15 |
136 |
| Total |
2,204 |
108 |
27,711 |
894 |
4,744 |
730 |
2,752 |
120 |
1,239 |
2002-03 School Year
|
Need/Resource Capacity |
Weapons Possession |
Weapons Use |
Personal Injury or Intimidation |
Sexual Offenses |
Use, Possession or Sale of Drugs or Alcohol |
Bomb Threat, False Alarm, Arson, or Riot |
Theft |
Burglary |
Criminal Mischief |
| Big 4 Cities |
276 |
11 |
1,059 |
43 |
166 |
63 |
190 |
12 |
43 |
| Urban Suburban High Need |
572 |
53 |
5,353 |
148 |
419 |
99 |
579 |
26 |
265 |
| Rural High Need |
200 |
6 |
6,071 |
190 |
639 |
90 |
424 |
16 |
284 |
| Average Need |
863 |
52 |
11,701 |
327 |
2,529 |
282 |
1,168 |
31 |
554 |
| Low Need |
238 |
18 |
2,465 |
54 |
824 |
101 |
416 |
8 |
78 |
| Total |
2,149 |
140 |
26,649 |
762 |
4,577 |
635 |
2,777 |
93 |
1,224 |
* The need/resource capacity index, a measure of a district's ability to meet the needs of its students with local resources, is the ratio of the estimated poverty percentage to the Combined Wealth Ratio.
Pie Chart 3
Rest of State Violent or Disruptive Incidents
2001-2002 School Year
Pie Chart 4
Rest of State Violent or Disruptive Incidents
2002-2003 School Year
Schools with the Highest Reported Incidence of Violent and
Disruptive Incidents
New York City 2001-02
|
BEDS CODE |
SCHOOL NAME |
ENROLLMENT |
NO OF INCIDENTS |
INCIDENTS PER 100 |
|
337500010371 |
Lillian L. Rashkis |
348 |
87 |
25.0 |
|
337700010575 |
Street Academy |
301 |
51 |
16.9 |
|
357500010025 |
South Richmond |
347 |
50 |
14.4 |
|
317800010605 |
Humanities |
184 |
25 |
13.6 |
|
328500010183 |
Paul Robeson |
512 |
65 |
12.7 |
|
337500010004 |
P 4K |
242 |
30 |
12.4 |
|
327500010012 |
Lewis & Clark |
520 |
58 |
11.2 |
|
327500010754 |
School For Career |
576 |
61 |
10.6 |
|
317500010035 |
PS 35 |
202 |
20 |
9.9 |
|
347500010752 |
Queens School |
417 |
40 |
9.6 |
|
320700010184 |
Rafael Cordero y |
942 |
90 |
9.6 |
|
331600010057 |
The Ron Brown |
366 |
34 |
9.3 |
|
337500010370 |
Jim Thorpe |
232 |
21 |
9.1 |
|
342700010198 |
Benjamin Cardozo |
590 |
53 |
9.0 |
|
328500010158 |
Theodore |
867 |
77 |
8.9 |
|
320800010201 |
Star Academy |
413 |
36 |
8.7 |
|
317700010500 |
Unity |
182 |
15 |
8.2 |
|
333200010291 |
Roland Hayes |
1192 |
90 |
7.6 |
|
317800010450 |
East Side |
302</ |