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

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. The goal of the study was to determine what effect, if any, the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program had on students. The G.R.E.A.T., a 13-lesson general prevention program taught by uniformed law enforcement officers to middle school students, had three stated goals: 1) to reduce gang membership, 2) to reduce delinquency, especially violent offending, and 3) to improve students' attitudes toward the police. To assess program effectiveness, researchers conducted a randomized control trial involving 3,820 students nested in 195 classrooms in 31 schools in 7 cities. A process evaluation consisted of multiple methods to assess program fidelity: 1) observations of G.R.E.A.T. Officer Trainings, 2) surveys and interviews of G.R.E.A.T.-trained officers and supervisors, 3) surveys of school personnel, and 4) "on-site," direct observations of officers delivering the G.R.E.A.T. program in the study sites. Only the data from the student surveys, law enforcement officer surveys, and school personnel surveys are available. Data file 1 (Student Survey Data) has 3,820 cases and 1,926 variables. Data file 2 (Law Enforcement Survey Data) has 137 cases and 140 variables. Data file 3 (School Personnel Survey Data) has 230 cases and 148 variables.

This survey was conducted by the National Youth Gang Intervention and Suppression Program. The primary goals of the program were to assess the national scope of the gang crime problem, to identify promising programs and approaches for dealing with the problem, to develop prototypes from the information gained about the most promising programs, and to provide technical assistance for the development of gang intervention and suppression programs nationwide. The survey was designed to encompass every agency in the country that was engaged in or had recently engaged in organized responses specifically intended to deal with gang crime problems. Cities were screened with selection criteria including the presence and recognition of a youth gang problem and the presence of a youth gang program as an organized response to the problem. Respondents were classified into several major categories and subcategories: law enforcement (mainly police, prosecutors, judges, probation, corrections, and parole), schools (subdivided into security and academic personnel), community, county, or state planners, other, and community/service (subdivided into youth service, youth and family service/treatment, comprehensive crisis intervention, and grassroots groups). These data include variables coded from respondents' definitions of the gang, gang member, and gang incident. Also included are respondents' historical accounts of the gang problems in their areas. Information on the size and scope of the gang problem and response was also solicited.

This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the Gang Resistance Education And Training (GREAT) program by surveying five different groups: students in a cross-sectional design (Part 1), law enforcement officers (Part 2), educators (Part 3), parents (Part 4), and students in a longitudinal design (Part 5). Middle school students in the cross-sectional design were surveyed to examine GREAT's short- and long-term effects, and to assess the quality and effectiveness of officer training. Law enforcement officers were surveyed to determine whether their perceptions and expectations of the GREAT program varied depending on sex, race, rank, age, level of education, and length of time working in policing. Data were collected from middle school personnel (administrators, counselors, and teachers) in order to assess educators' attitudes toward and perceptions of the effectiveness of the GREAT program, including the curriculum's appropriateness for middle school students and its effectiveness in delinquency and gang prevention both in the school and in the community. Parents were surveyed to assess their attitudes toward crime and gangs in their community, school prevention programs, the role of police in the school, and their satisfaction with and perceptions of the effectiveness of the GREAT program. The middle school students participating in the longitudinal aspect of this study were surveyed to examine the change in attitudes and behavior, germane to gang activity, over time. Variables for all parts were geared toward assessing perception and attitudes about the police and the GREAT program and their overall effectiveness, community involvement, neighborhood crime, and gang-related activities.

This dataset provides estimated percentages of public school students in grades 7, 9, 11, and non-traditional programs (community day schools or continuation education) who considered themselves gang members in 2015-2017. Some school districts are left blank because there were either too little samples to be considered representative or there was no data available. Information like this may be useful for studying children.Spatial Extent: Southern California (Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura County)Spatial Unit: 2015 School DistrictsCreated: 2018Updated: n/aSource: California Department of Education (2015-2017 California Healthy Kids Survey)Contact Person: Coordinated School Health and Safety OfficeContact Email: hchan@cde.ca.govSource Link: https://calschls.org/reports-data/legacy/

This study was undertaken to measure the criminal behavior of gangs, including their involvement in delinquent behavior such as drug use and drug trafficking activities, and to compare gang behavior with that of youth who were at risk, but who had not yet become active in gangs. The project assessed the role that gangs play in the lives of youth whose living conditions are otherwise comparable. In order to study the criminal behavior of gangs, investigators sought to interview 50 gang members and 50 non-gang, at-risk youth at two sites in Colorado and one site in Florida. A large portion of the interview questions asked in both the gang member interview and the at-risk youth interview were parallel. The following variables appear in both the gang member and at-risk youth files (Parts 1 and 2 respectively) created for this data collection: gang popularity variables (respondents' perceptions of the positive and negative attributes of a gang, and why gangs endure over time), drug involvement variables (whether respondents or fellow members/friends sold various types of drugs, why selling drugs increases a person's "juice", the drug source organization, and where they traveled to get the drugs), criminal history variables (the reasons why respondents believed they were able to get away with crimes, their first arrest age, and their most serious arrest charge), personal activity variables (whether respondents or fellow members/friends participated in dances, sporting events, fighting, drug use or selling, shoplifting, assaulting people, or burglarizing homes), variables concerning the future (whether respondents would join a gang again/join a gang today, why some gangs survive and others don't, and how respondents see their future), and demographic variables (respondents' age, sex, race, city, neighborhood, school, school status, type of work, marital status, and relationship with parent(s)). In addition, Part 1, the Gang Member Data, contains gang status variables (gang symbols, gang nickname, gang turf, and how members define a gang) and gang membership variables (roles of the respondents within the gang, why members join a gang, what the most important gang rule is, and what happens to those who refuse the gang). Part 2, At-Risk Youth Data, contains additional variables on gang contact (the names of gangs who had approached the respondents, methods used to try to get the youths to join, how the youths refused the gang, and what happened as a result of refusing) and prevention (how at-risk youth would advise a young person to react if approached by a gang, and what the youths felt was the best way to prepare children to deal with gangs).

This supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (formerly the National Crime Surveys) was designed to collect data on crime victimization in schools in the United States. Student respondents were asked a series of questions to determine their school attendance in the last six months. Other questions concerning schools were posed including preventive measures employed by schools, students' participation in after-school activities, students' perception of school rules and enforcement of these rules, the presence of weapons, drugs, alcohol, and gangs in schools, student bullying, hate-related incidents, and attitudinal questions relating to the fear of victimization at school. Other variables cover general violent crimes, personal larceny crimes, and household crimes and offer information on date, time, and place of crime. Demographic characteristics of household members such as age, sex, race, education, employment, household income, and marital status are provided.

Between 1966 and June 19, 2025, students were the most likely offenders of K-12 school shootings in the United States, accounting for 42.8 percent of the shootings that took place in elementary and secondary schools. Within the provided time period, almost three percent of K-12 school shootings were perpetrated by a parent, while 3.6 percent were committed by a former student. The source defines a school shooting as every time a gun is brandished, fired, or a bullet hits school property for any reason, regardless of the number of victims (including zero), time, day or the week, or reason, including gang shootings, domestic violence, shootings at sports games and after hours school events, suicides, fights that escalate into shootings, and accidents.

As of June 19, 116 school shooting incidents were recorded in K-12 schools in the United States in 2025. Within the provided time period, the greatest number of K-12 school shootings was recorded in 2023, at 350. The source defines a school shooting as every time a gun is brandished, fired, or a bullet hits school property for any reason, regardless of the number of victims (including zero), time, day or the week, or reason, including gang shootings, domestic violence, shootings at sports games and after hours school events, suicides, fights that escalate into shootings, and accidents.

The purpose of this study was to gather evidence on the relationship between discipline and the control of victimization in schools and to investigate the effectiveness of humanistic versus coercive disciplinary measures. Survey data were obtained from students, teachers, and principals in each of the 44 junior and senior high schools in a county in Ohio that agreed to participate in the study. The data represent roughly a six-month time frame. Students in grades 7 through 12 were anonymously surveyed in February 1994. The Student Survey (Part 1) was randomly distributed to approximately half of the students in all classrooms in each school. The other half of the students received a different survey that focused on drug use among students (not available with this collection). The teacher (Part 2) and principal (Part 3) surveys were completed at the same time as the student survey. The principal survey included both closed-ended and open-ended questions, while all questions on the student and teacher surveys were closed-ended, with a finite set of answers from which to choose. The three questionnaires were designed to gather respondent demographics, perceptions about school discipline and control, information about weapons and gangs in the school, and perceptions about school crime, including personal victimization and responses to victimization. All three surveys asked whether the school had a student court and, if so, what sanctions could be imposed by the student court for various forms of student misconduct. The student survey and teacher surveys also asked about the availability at school of various controlled drugs. The student survey elicited information about the student's fear of crime in the school and on the way to and from school, avoidance behaviors, and possession of weapons for protection. Data were also obtained from the principals on each school's suspension/expulsion rate, the number and type of security guards and/or devices used within the school, and other school safety measures. In addition to the surveys, census data were acquired for a one-quarter-mile radius around each participating school's campus, providing population demographics, educational attainment, employment status, marital status, income levels, and area housing information. Also, arrest statistics for six separate crimes (personal crime, property crime, simple assault, disorderly conduct, drug/alcohol offenses, and weapons offenses) for the reporting district in which each school was located were obtained from local police departments. Finally, the quality of the immediate neighborhood was assessed by means of a "windshield" survey in which the researchers conducted a visual inventory of various neighborhood characteristics: type and quality of housing in the area, types of businesses, presence of graffiti and gang graffiti, number of abandoned cars, and the number and perceived age of pedestrians and people loitering in the area. These contextual data are also contained in Part 3.

As of July 14, 2025, there have been a total of 277 school shootings in California since 1966, the most out of any state. Texas had the second highest number of school shootings within this time period, with 237 shootings. The source defines a school shooting as every time a gun is brandished, fired, or a bullet hits school property for any reason, regardless of the number of victims (including zero), time, day or the week, or reason, including gang shootings, domestic violence, shootings at sports games and after hours school events, suicides, fights that escalate into shootings, and accidents.

The Department for Education (DfE) commissioned the Our Future study (also known as the Second Longitudinal Study of Young People in England (LSYPE2)) at the beginning of 2013. This is one of the largest and most challenging studies of young people ever commissioned and aims to build upon the Next Steps study (LSYPE1), which began in 2004, following young people from the age of 13/14 onwards (Next Steps is held at the UK Data Archive under SN 5545 (End User Licence) and SN 7104 (Secure Access)).

The purposes of Our Future are:

• to follow a sample of young people through the final years of compulsory education; through their transition from compulsory education to other forms of education, training employment, and other activities
• to collect information about their career paths and about the factors affecting them; and
• to provide a strategic evidence base about the lives and experiences of young people

It is intended that Our Future will track a sample of over 13,000 young people from the age of 13/14 annually through to the age of 20 (seven waves).

The study currently includes data from Wave 1 to 3 of Our Future. Face-to-face interviews with both the young people and their parents were conducted between April and September 2013 when the young people were 13/14 (in school Year 9) for Wave 1, between April and September 2014 when the young people were 14/15 (in Year 10) for Wave 2 and between April and September 2015 when the young people were 15/16 (in Year 11) for Wave 3.

Besides the End User Licence version, two other versions of the Our Future data are available from the UK Data Archive: the Secure Access version (SN 7838) and the Safe Room version (SN 7813), which are both subject to more restrictive access conditions. See the respective catalogue records for details of data contents.

For the second edition (March 2018), data and documentation for Waves 2 and 3 were added to the study.

In 2014, Chicago Public Schools, looking to reduce the possibility of gun violence among school-aged youth, applied for a grant through the National Institute of Justice. CPS was awarded the Comprehensive School Safety Initiative grant and use said grant to establish the "Connect and Redirect to Respect" program. This program used student social media data to identify and intervene with students thought to be at higher risk for committing violence. At-risk behaviors included brandishing a weapon, instigating conflict online, signaling gang involvement, and threats towards others. Identified at-risk students would be contacted by a member of the CPS Network Safety Team or the Chicago Police Department's Gang School Safety Team, depending on the risk level of the behavior. To evaluate the efficacy of CRR, the University of Chicago Crime Lab compared outcomes for students enrolled in schools that received the program to outcomes for students enrolled in comparison schools, which did not receive the program. 32 schools were selected for the study, with a total of 44,503 students. Demographic variables included age, race, sex, and ethnicity. Misconduct and academic variables included arrest history, in-school suspensions, out-of-school suspensions, GPA, and attendance days.

From 1966 to January 2024, ** percent of mass public shooters who carried out the shooting at K-12 schools in the United States identified as White, followed by ** percent who were Native American and * percent who were Latinx. For mass public shootings occurring at colleges and universities, the shooter was most likely to identify as Asian, at ** percent, followed by ** percent who were White. In addition, Black and Middle Eastern shooters each made up ** percent. The source defines a mass public shooting as a multiple homicide incident in which 4 or more victims are murdered with firearms—not including the offender(s)—within one event, and at least some of the murders occurred in a public location or locations in close geographical proximity (e.g., a workplace, school, restaurant, or other public settings), and the murders are not attributable to any other underlying criminal activity or commonplace circumstance (armed robbery, criminal competition, insurance fraud, argument, or romantic triangle). Mass shootings attributable to gangs, as well as most domestic homicides, are therefore excluded from this definition.

The Department for Education (DfE) commissioned the Our Future study (also known as the Second Longitudinal Study of Young People in England (LSYPE2)) at the beginning of 2013. This is one of the largest and most challenging studies of young people ever commissioned and aims to build upon the Next Steps study (LSYPE1), which began in 2004, following young people from the age of 13/14 onwards (Next Steps is held at the UK Data Archive under SN 5545 (End User Licence) and SN 7104 (Secure Access)).

The purposes of Our Future are:

• to follow a sample of young people through the final years of compulsory education; through their transition from compulsory education to other forms of education, training employment, and other activities
• to collect information about their career paths and about the factors affecting them; and
• to provide a strategic evidence base about the lives and experiences of young people

It is intended that Our Future will track a sample of over 13,000 young people from the age of 13/14 annually through to the age of 20 (seven waves).

The study currently includes data from Wave 1 to 3 of Our Future. Face-to-face interviews with both the young people and their parents were conducted between April and September 2013 when the young people were 13/14 (in school Year 9) for Wave 1, between April and September 2014 when the young people were 14/15 (in Year 10) for Wave 2 and between April and September 2015 when the young people were 15/16 (in Year 11) for Wave 3.

Besides the Safe Room Access version, a Secure Access version (SN 7838) is available.

For the second edition (March 2018), data and documentation for Waves 2 and 3 were added to the study. Also included is a NPD linked data file containing linked pupil-level KS2 results and two datasets to support analysis with missing data for KS2 attainment for pupils who attended boycott schools in 2010. Further information is available in the User Guide.

Background:
The Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) is a large-scale, multi-purpose longitudinal dataset providing information about babies born at the beginning of the 21st century, their progress through life, and the families who are bringing them up, for the four countries of the United Kingdom. The original objectives of the first MCS survey, as laid down in the proposal to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) in March 2000, were:

• to chart the initial conditions of social, economic and health advantages and disadvantages facing children born at the start of the 21st century, capturing information that the research community of the future will require
• to provide a basis for comparing patterns of development with the preceding cohorts (the National Child Development Study, held at the UK Data Archive under GN 33004, and the 1970 Birth Cohort Study, held under GN 33229)
• to collect information on previously neglected topics, such as fathers' involvement in children's care and development
• to focus on parents as the most immediate elements of the children's 'background', charting their experience as mothers and fathers of newborn babies in the year 2000, recording how they (and any other children in the family) adapted to the newcomer, and what their aspirations for her/his future may be
• to emphasise intergenerational links including those back to the parents' own childhood
• to investigate the wider social ecology of the family, including social networks, civic engagement and community facilities and services, splicing in geo-coded data when available

Additional objectives subsequently included for MCS were:

• to provide control cases for the national evaluation of Sure Start (a government programme intended to alleviate child poverty and social exclusion)
• to provide samples of adequate size to analyse and compare the smaller countries of the United Kingdom, and include disadvantaged areas of England

Further information about the MCS can be found on the Centre for Longitudinal Studies web pages.

The content of MCS studies, including questions, topics and variables can be explored via the CLOSER Discovery website.

The first sweep (MCS1) interviewed both mothers and (where resident) fathers (or father-figures) of infants included in the sample when the babies were nine months old, and the second sweep (MCS2) was carried out with the same respondents when the children were three years of age. The third sweep (MCS3) was conducted in 2006, when the children were aged five years old, the fourth sweep (MCS4) in 2008, when they were seven years old, the fifth sweep (MCS5) in 2012-2013, when they were eleven years old, the sixth sweep (MCS6) in 2015, when they were fourteen years old, and the seventh sweep (MCS7) in 2018, when they were seventeen years old.

Safeguarded versions of MCS studies:
The Safeguarded versions of MCS1, MCS2, MCS3, MCS4, MCS5, MCS6 and MCS7 are held under UK Data Archive SNs 4683, 5350, 5795, 6411, 7464, 8156 and 8682 respectively. The longitudinal family file is held under SN 8172.

Polygenic Indices
Polygenic indices are available under Special Licence SN 9437. Derived summary scores have been created that combine the estimated effects of many different genes on a specific trait or characteristic, such as a person's risk of Alzheimer's disease, asthma, substance abuse, or mental health disorders, for example. These polygenic scores can be combined with existing survey data to offer a more nuanced understanding of how cohort members' outcomes may be shaped.

Sub-sample studies:
Some studies based on sub-samples of MCS have also been conducted, including a study of MCS respondent mothers who had received assisted fertility treatment, conducted in 2003 (see EUL SN 5559). Also, birth registration and maternity hospital episodes for the MCS respondents are held as a separate dataset (see EUL SN 5614).

Release of Sweeps 1 to 4 to Long Format (Summer 2020)
To support longitudinal research and make it easier to compare data from different time points, all data from across all sweeps is now in a consistent format. The update affects the data from sweeps 1 to 4 (from 9 months to 7 years), which are updated from the old/wide to a new/long format to match the format of data of sweeps 5 and 6 (age 11 and 14 sweeps). The old/wide formatted datasets contained one row per family with multiple variables for different respondents. The new/long formatted datasets contain one row per respondent (per parent or per cohort member) for each MCS family. Additional updates have been made to all sweeps to harmonise variable labels and enhance anonymisation.

How to access genetic and/or bio-medical sample data from a range of longitudinal surveys:
For information on how to access biomedical data from MCS that are not held at the UKDS, see the CLS Genetic data and biological samples webpage.

Secure Access datasets:
Secure Access versions of the MCS have more restrictive access conditions than versions available under the standard Safeguarded Licence or Special Licence (see 'Access data' tab above).

Secure Access versions of the MCS include:

• detailed sensitive variables not available under EUL. These have been grouped thematically and are held under SN 8753 (socio-economic, accommodation and occupational data), SN 8754 (self-reported health, behaviour and fertility), SN 8755 (demographics, language and religion) and SN 8756 (exact participation dates). These files replace previously available studies held under SNs 8456 and 8622-8627
  
• detailed geographical identifier files which are grouped by sweep held under SN 7758 (MCS1), SN 7759 (MCS2), SN 7760 (MCS3), SN 7761 (MCS4), SN 7762 (MCS5 2001 Census Boundaries), SN 7763 (MCS5 2011 Census Boundaries), SN 8231 (MCS6 2001 Census Boundaries), SN 8232 (MCS6 2011 Census Boundaries), SN 8757 (MCS7), SN 8758 (MCS7 2001 Census Boundaries) and SN 8759 (MCS7 2011 Census Boundaries). These files replace previously available files grouped by geography SN 7049 (Ward level), SN 7050 (Lower Super Output Area level), and SN 7051 (Output Area level)
• linked education administrative datasets for Key Stages 1, 2, 4 and 5 held under SN 8481 (England). This replaces previously available datasets for Key Stage 1 (SN 6862) and Key Stage 2 (SN 7712)
  
• linked education administrative datasets for Key Stage 1 held under SN 7414 (Scotland)
• linked education administrative dataset for Key Stages 1, 2, 3 and 4 under SN 9085 (Wales)
  
• linked NHS Patient Episode Database for Wales (PEDW) for MCS1 – MCS5 held under SN 8302
• linked Scottish Medical Records data held under SNs 8709, 8710, 8711, 8712, 8713 and 8714;
• Banded Distances to English Grammar Schools for MCS5 held under SN 8394
• linked Health Administrative Datasets (Hospital Episode Statistics) for England for years 2000-2019 held under SN 9030
• linked Hospital of Birth data held under SN 5724.

The linked education administrative datasets held under SNs 8481,7414 and 9085 may be ordered alongside the MCS detailed geographical identifier files only if sufficient justification is provided in the application.

Researchers applying for access to the Secure Access MCS datasets should indicate on their ESRC Accredited Researcher application form the EUL dataset(s) that they also wish to access (selected from the MCS Series Access web page).

The seventh sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS7) was carried out when the cohort members were 17 years old. As 17 is a key transitional age, the sweep purposefully focused on engaging with the cohort members themselves (in addition to their parents). MCS7 marks an important transitional time in the cohort members' lives, where educational and occupational paths can diverge significantly. It is also an important age in data collection terms since it may be the last sweep at which parents are interviewed and it is an age when direct engagement with the cohort members themselves rather than their families is crucial to the long term viability of the study. To reflect this, face-to-face interviews with the cohort members have been conducted for the first time. Cohort members were also asked to do a range of other activities including filling in a self-completion questionnaire on the interviewer's tablet, completing a cognitive assessment (number activity) and having their height, weight and body fat measurements taken. In addition, they were asked to complete a short online questionnaire after the visit.

Parents were still interviewed at MCS7. Resident parents were asked to complete a household interview and a short online questionnaire, and one parent was asked to complete a Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) about the cohort member. Cohort members who were either unable or unwilling to complete the main survey were asked to complete a short follow up questionnaire online after the fieldwork finished.

This supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (formerly the National Crime Surveys) was designed to collect data on crime victimization in schools in the United States. Student respondents were asked a series of questions to determine their school attendance in the last six months. Other questions concerning schools were posed, including preventive measures employed by schools, students' participation in after-school activities, students' perception of school rules and enforcement of these rules, the presence of weapons, drugs, alcohol, and gangs in schools, student bullying, hate-related incidents, and attitudinal questions relating to the fear of victimization at school. Other variables cover general violent crimes, personal larceny crimes, and household crimes and offer information on date, time, and place of crime. Demographic characteristics of household members such as age, sex, race, education, employment, median family income, and marital status are provided.

The goal of this study was to test specific hypotheses illustrating the relationships among serious victimization experiences, the mental health effects of victimization, substance abuse/use, and delinquent behavior in adolescents. The study assessed familial and nonfamilial types of violence. It was designed as a telephone survey of American youth aged 12-17 living in United States households and residing with a parent or guardian. One parent or guardian in each household was interviewed briefly to establish rapport, secure permission to interview the targeted adolescent, and to ensure the collection of comparative data to examine potential nonresponse bias from households without adolescent participation. All interviews with both parents and adolescents were conducted using Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) technology. From the surveys of parents and adolescents, the principal investigators created one data file by attaching the data from the parents to the records of their respective adolescents. Adolescents were asked whether violence and drug abuse were problems in their schools and communities and what types of violence they had personally witnessed. They were also asked about other stressful events in their lives, such as the loss of a family member, divorce, unemployment, moving to a new home or school, serious illness or injury, and natural disaster. Questions regarding history of sexual assault, physical assault, and harsh physical discipline elicited a description of the event and perpetrator, extent of injuries, age at abuse, whether alcohol or drugs were involved, and who was informed of the incident. Information was also gathered on the delinquent behavior of respondents and their friends, including destruction of property, assault, theft, sexual assault, and gang activity. Other questions covered history of personal and family substance use and mental health indicators, such as major depression, post-traumatic stress disorders, weight changes, sleeping disorders, and problems concentrating. Demographic information was gathered from the adolescents on age, race, gender, number of people living in household, and grade in school. Parents were asked whether they were concerned about violent crime, affordable child care, drug abuse, educational quality, gangs, and the safety of their children at school. In addition, they were questioned about their own victimization experiences and whether they discussed personal safety issues with their children. Parents also supplied demographic information on gender, marital status, number of children, employment status, education, race, and income.

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) asks a sole adult in a random sample of households about their, or their household's, experience of crime victimisation in the previous 12 months. These are recorded in the victim form data file (VF). A wide range of questions are then asked, covering demographics and crime-related subjects such as attitudes to the police and the criminal justice system (CJS). These variables are contained within the non-victim form (NVF) data file. In 2009, the survey was extended to children aged 10-15 years old; one resident of that age range was also selected from the household and asked about their experience of crime and other related topics. The first set of children's data covered January-December 2009 and is held separately under SN 6601. From 2009-2010, the children's data cover the same period as the adult data and are included with the main study.The Telephone-operated Crime Survey for England and Wales (TCSEW) became operational on 20 May 2020. It was a replacement for the face-to-face CSEW, which was suspended on 17 March 2020 because of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. It was set up with the intention of measuring the level of crime during the pandemic. As the pandemic continued throughout the 2020/21 survey year, questions have been raised as to whether the year ending March 2021 TCSEW is comparable with estimates produced in earlier years by the face-to-face CSEW. The ONS Comparability between the Telephone-operated Crime Survey for England and Wales and the face-to-face Crime Survey for England and Wales report explores those factors that may have a bearing on the comparability of estimates between the TCSEW and the former CSEW. These include survey design, sample design, questionnaire changes and modal changes.More general information about the CSEW may be found on the ONS Crime Survey for England and Wales web page and for the previous BCS, from the GOV.UK BCS Methodology web page.History - the British Crime SurveyThe CSEW was formerly known as the British Crime Survey (BCS), and has been in existence since 1981. The 1982 and 1988 BCS waves were also conducted in Scotland (data held separately under SNs 4368 and 4599). Since 1993, separate Scottish Crime and Justice Surveys have been conducted. Up to 2001, the BCS was conducted biennially. From April 2001, the Office for National Statistics took over the survey and it became the CSEW. Interviewing was then carried out continually and reported on in financial year cycles. The crime reference period was altered to accommodate this. Secure Access CSEW dataIn addition to the main survey, a series of questions covering drinking behaviour, drug use, self-offending, gangs and personal security, and intimate personal violence (IPV) (including stalking and sexual victimisation) are asked of adults via a laptop-based self-completion module (questions may vary over the years). Children aged 10-15 years also complete a separate self-completion questionnaire. The questionnaires are included in the main documentation, but the data are only available under Secure Access conditions (see SN 7280), not with the main study. In addition, from 2011 onwards, lower-level geographic variables are also available under Secure Access conditions (see SN 7311).New methodology for capping the number of incidents from 2017-18The CSEW datasets available from 2017-18 onwards are based on a new methodology of capping the number of incidents at the 98th percentile. Incidence variables names have remained consistent with previously supplied data but due to the fact they are based on the new 98th percentile cap, and old datasets are not, comparability has been lost with years prior to 2012-2013. More information can be found in the 2017-18 User Guide (see SN 8464) and the article ‘Improving victimisation estimates derived from the Crime Survey for England and Wales’. Latest Edition InformationFor the second edition (March 2020), data based upon a new methodology of capping the number of incidents at the 98th percentile have been made available. Incidence variables names have remained consistent with previously supplied data but due to the fact they are based on the new 98th percentile cap, and old data sets are not, comparability has been lost with years prior to 2012-2013. More information can be found in the user guide that accompanies the 2017-2018 CSEW study, held under SN 8464. The study includes information from the adult and child questionnaires. Data from the adult and child samples are available as separate files.

Adults: The adult non-victim form questionnaire covers: perceptions of crime and local area; performance of the CJS; mobile phone crime; experiences of the police (Module A); attitudes to the CJS (Module B); crime prevention and security (Module C); online security (Module D); plastic card fraud; mass-marketing fraud; anti-social behaviour; demographics and media.

The adult victim form contains offence-level data. Up to six different incidents were asked about for each respondent. Each of these constituted a separate victim form and can be matched back to the respondent-level data. Topics covered included: the nature and circumstances of the incident; details of offenders; security measures; costs; emotional reactions; contact with the CJS; and outcomes where known.

Self-completion modules for adult respondents covered drug use and drinking behaviour, gangs and personal security, interpersonal violence (IPV) (domestic violence, sexual victimisation and stalking) and nature of partner domestic abuse. The data are subject to Secure Access conditions.

Children: The child questionnaire included: schooling and perceptions of crime; crime screener questions; victimisation module; perceptions of and attitudes towards the police; anti-social behaviour; and personal safety, crime prevention and security.

The child self-completion questionnaire covered: use of the internet; bullying; street gangs; school truancy; personal security; drinking behaviour and cannabis use. Data from the child self-completion questions are also available only under Secure Access.

In 2019, there were six deaths by homicide per 100,000 of the population in the United States, compared to 5.9 deaths by homicide in the previous year. This is an increase from 1950, when there were 5.1 deaths by homicide per 100,000 resident population in the United States. However, within the provided time period, the death rate for homicide in the U.S. was highest in 1980, when there were 10.4 deaths by homicide per 100,000 of the population in the United States.

Homicides in the United States

The term homicide is used when a human being is killed by another human being. Criminal homicide takes several forms, for example murder; but homicide is not always a crime, it also includes affirmative defense, insanity, self-defense or the execution of convicted criminals. In the United States, youth homicide has especially been seen as a problem of urban areas, due to poverty, limited adult supervision, involvement in drug and gang activities, and school failure. Both homicide rates and suicide rates in the U.S. among people aged 20 to 24 and teenagers aged 15 to 19 have vastly increased since 2001.