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, 2003-2004, and 2005-2006. The 2003-2004 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS:2004) was developed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and conducted by Abt Associates Inc. 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.

The School Survey on Crime and Safety, 2008 (SSOCS:2008), is a study that is part of the School Survey on Crime and Safety program. SSOCS:2008 (https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/) is a cross-sectional survey of the nation's public schools designed to provide estimates of school crime, discipline, disorder, programs and policies. SSOCS is administered to public primary, middle, high, and combined school principals in the spring of even-numbered school years. The study was conducted using a questionnaire and telephone follow-ups of school principals. Public schools were sampled in the spring of 2008 to participate in the study. The study's response rate was 74.5 percent. A number of key statistics on a variety of topics can be produced with SSOCS data.

The School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) collects information on crime and safety from U.S. public school principals. SSOCS was administered in the spring of 2000 and again in the spring of 2004. SSOCS is a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey of 3,000 public elementary and secondary schools. Data are collected on such topics as frequency and types of crimes at school, frequency and types of disciplinary actions at school, perceptions of other disciplinary problems, and descriptions of school policies and programs concerning crime and safety.

description: The 2016 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS:2016) is a data collection that is part of the School Survey on Crime and Safety program; program data are available since 2000 at https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/data_products.asp. SSOCS:2016 (https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/) is a cross-sectional survey of the nation's public schools designed to provide estimates of school crime, discipline, disorder, programs and policies. Regular public schools were sampled. The data collection was conducted using a mail questionnaire with telephone follow-up. The data collection s response rate was 62.9 percent. Key statistics produced from SSOCS:2016 include the frequency and types of disciplinary actions taken for select offenses; perceptions of other disciplinary problems, such as bullying, verbal abuse and disorder in the classroom; the presence and role of school security staff; parent and community involvement; staff training; mental health services available to students; and school policies and programs concerning crime and safety.; abstract: The 2016 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS:2016) is a data collection that is part of the School Survey on Crime and Safety program; program data are available since 2000 at https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/data_products.asp. SSOCS:2016 (https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/) is a cross-sectional survey of the nation's public schools designed to provide estimates of school crime, discipline, disorder, programs and policies. Regular public schools were sampled. The data collection was conducted using a mail questionnaire with telephone follow-up. The data collection s response rate was 62.9 percent. Key statistics produced from SSOCS:2016 include the frequency and types of disciplinary actions taken for select offenses; perceptions of other disciplinary problems, such as bullying, verbal abuse and disorder in the classroom; the presence and role of school security staff; parent and community involvement; staff training; mental health services available to students; and school policies and programs concerning crime and safety.

Analysis of ‘School Survey on Crime and Safety, 2000’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/a527d2d1-9fd8-490c-968d-c8a2cf78c5d9 on 12 February 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

The School Survey on Crime and Safety, 2000 (SSOCS:2000), is a study that is part of the School Survey on Crime and Safety's program; program data is available since 2000 at https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/data_products.asp. SSOCS:2000 (https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/) is a cross-sectional survey of the nation's public schools designed to provide estimates of school crime, discipline, disorder, programs and policies. SSOCS is administered to public primary, middle, high, and combined school principals in the spring of even-numbered school years. The study was conducted using a questionnaire and telephone follow-ups of school principals. Public schools were sampled in the spring of 2000 to participate in the study. The study�s response rate was 70 percent. A number of key statistics on a variety of topics can be produced with SSOCS data.

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

The School Survey on Crime and Safety, 2000 (SSOCS:2000), is a study that is part of the School Survey on Crime and Safety's program; program data is available since 2000 at . SSOCS:2000 (https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/) is a cross-sectional survey of the nation's public schools designed to provide estimates of school crime, discipline, disorder, programs and policies. SSOCS is administered to public primary, middle, high, and combined school principals in the spring of even-numbered school years. The study was conducted using a questionnaire and telephone follow-ups of school principals. Public schools were sampled in the spring of 2000 to participate in the study. The study's response rate was 70 percent. A number of key statistics on a variety of topics can be produced with SSOCS data.

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.

The purpose of this research was to develop an accurate description of the current involvement of law enforcement in schools. The researchers administered a school survey (Part 1) as well as a law enforcement survey (Part 2 and Part 3). The school survey was designed specifically for this research, but did incorporate items from previous surveys, particularly the School Survey on Crime and Safety and the National Assessment of School Resource Officer Programs Survey of School Principals. The school surveys were then sent out to a total of 3,156 school principals between January 2002 and May 2002. The researchers followed Dillman's mail survey design and received a total of 1,387 completed surveys. Surveys sent to the schools requested that each school identify their primary and secondary law enforcement providers. Surveys were then sent to those identified primary law enforcement agencies (Part 2) and secondary law enforcement agencies (Part 3) in August 2002. Part 2 and Part 3 each contain 3,156 cases which matches the original sample size of schools. For Part 2 and Part 3, a total of 1,508 law enforcement surveys were sent to both primary and secondary law enforcement agencies. The researchers received 1,060 completed surveys from the primary law enforcement agencies (Part 2) and 86 completed surveys from the secondary law enforcement agencies (Part 3). Part 1, School Survey Data, included a total of 309 variables pertaining to school characteristics, type of law enforcement relied on by the schools, school resource officers, frequency of public law enforcement activities, teaching activities of law enforcement officers, frequency of private security activities, safety plans and meetings with law enforcement, and crime/disorder in schools. Part 2, Primarily Relied Upon Law Enforcement Agency Survey Data, and Part 3, Secondarily Relied Upon Law Enforcement Agency Survey Data, each contain 161 variables relating to school resource officers, frequency of public law enforcement activities, teaching activities of law enforcement agencies, safety plans and meetings with schools, and crime/disorder in schools reported to police according to primary/secondary law enforcement.

School safety research rarely considers the school security climate as a product of the simultaneous implementation of several school safety interventions. This is potentially problematic, as schools seldom employ only one safety intervention. Rather, schools today employ several interventions simultaneously to meet their safety and security needs. The purpose of this study is to investigate and identify effective types of school security climates and examine student growth within these climates. This multi-year project attempts to meet two goals: 1) Identify effective types of school security climates; and 2) Determine how the school security climate affects individual students. Data were collected from approximately 600 students attending 10 schools over the course of three years. Measures included an adapted version of the School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) and the Maryland Safe and Supportive Schools Survey (MDS3). The survey also included questions to obtain respondent demographics (age, gender, race/ethnicity) and other descriptive information about students and their experiences.

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.

School Safety and Discipline, 2013-14 (FRSS 106), is a study that is part of the Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) program; program data is available since 1998-99 at . FRSS 106 (https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/index.asp) is a study that provides nationally representative data on safety and discipline in public schools. The study was conducted using mailed questionnaires that could be completed on paper or online. Public schools in each level (elementary, middle, high school, and combined) were sampled. The study's weighted response rate was 85%. Key statistics produced from FRSS 106 will provide information on specific safety and discipline plans and practices; training for teachers and aides related to school safety and discipline issues; use of law enforcement or security personnel on school grounds; frequency of specific discipline problems; and the number of incidents of various crimes that occurred during the 2013-14 school year.

This study examined safety and security in Finnish schools as well as preparedness for safety disturbances and detrimental behaviour in the school environment. The respondents of the survey were rectors and vice rectors in Finnish primary and upper secondary schools. The study was commissioned and funded by the Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy at the University of Helsinki. Three different questionnaires were used to collect the data depending on the type of the institution (primary school, upper secondary school, combined primary and upper secondary school). The data were processed according to the questionnaire for primary schools because primary schools constituted the majority of responses, but variables specific to a certain type of institution are indicated in the data. First, the study charted background information concerning e.g. class sizes in the school, how long the respondent had worked for the school, which grades were taught in the school, and how many times during a given day students had to switch from one classroom to another. It was also queried whether a school social worker, a school psychologist and a school nurse/doctor visited the school at least once per week. The next questions covered the school environment with questions regarding whether a variety of phenomena occurred near the school premises, e.g. panhandling, littering, drug use/sale or vandalism. It was also charted which services and locations were found within 500 metres of the school building as well as what sort of security personnel worked at the school during and outside school hours. The respondents were also asked whether syringes or other items relating to drug use had been found on school premises during the school year 2015-2016. The next questions pertained to whether the school had adopted specific security-increasing practices, such as camera surveillance, access control in school buildings, personal user accounts and passwords for computers, restricted access to internet sites, anti-bullying campaigns, and collaboration with the police. It was also queried what sort of punishments the school used for student misbehaviour (e.g. removing a student from class, teacher-parent discussion, detention or expulsion). Next, incidents of criminal behaviour against the school and the school building were examined (e.g. intentional damage to school or staff property, breaking and entering into school premises, arson or attempted arson, harm to information systems). It was also asked if any crimes had been reported to the police and what the monetary extent of intentional damage to school property had been during the school year 2015-2016. Cases of defamation, violence or threat of violence against personnel were charted, as well as how many days staff members had spent absent from work due to these crimes during the school year 2015-2016. Different crimes against students were also charted, such as bicycle and cellphone thefts and violence, as well as whether these cases were reported to the police. Further questions were asked about the perpetrators and victims of violent crimes, such as their gender and national background, and whether the crime was motivated by e.g. skin colour or sexual orientation. Next, the study surveyed whether students or other persons had brought dangerous items, such as knives or other weapons, into school premises during school hours and whether the school had reported these incidents to the police. Certain phenomena, such as racism among students and between students and teachers, were also charted. General threats of violence not against any particular person were also examined as well as whether there was any sign that the maker of the threat would have been preparing to carry out the act. The respondents were also asked if the school had carried out different surveillance and security measures during the school year 2015-2016 (e.g. searching students' bags, clothes or lockers; confiscating dangerous items, alcohol or drugs) and whether these measures had prevented an act or threat of violence or if they had caused a threatening situation. Finally, it was queried whether any students or their parents had threatened the respondent or teachers with legal action or reported a crime to the police where the respondent or teachers were accused. In addition, the respondents' preparedness to report a student's crime to the police in two hypothetical situations was examined (a student paints a graffiti on the school's wall; a student hits another student in the face, causing bruises and bleeding from the nose). The study finally surveyed some more background information on e.g. gender, age, and how many years the respondent had worked as rector or vice rector.

The Bully-Proofing Your School (BPYS) outcome evaluation consisted of school climate surveys administered to elementary school students (Part 1), middle school students (Part 2), and staff (Part 3) in both the treatment and the comparison schools. The design of the data collection for the study was a repeated cross-sectional design. Within each cross-section, the basic design was a hierarchically nested multilevel design. Students were nested within the schools, and schools were split between treatment and comparison conditions, with unequal numbers of cases and potentially different distributions, ranges, and variances on outcome variables. The evaluation of BPYS took place over five years. In the spring semesters of 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, all participating schools completed a school climate survey. The researchers collected 4,136 completed elementary school surveys (Part 1), 1,627 completed middle school surveys (Part 2), and 1,209 completed staff surveys (Part 3). More specifically, in year one, the 2001-2002 school year, the treatment and comparison schools were identified in the fall, and baseline student and staff outcome evaluation surveys were conducted with the schools during the spring semester. Concurrently, the teachers in the treatment schools were to begin receiving training, but did not yet begin any program implementation. In years two, three, and four, 2002-2005, the treatment schools implemented BPYS and outcome evaluation surveys were completed during the spring semesters in the treatment and comparison schools. Year five, the 2005-2006 school year, was the post-implementation year. In Spring 2006, the school climate survey was conducted again with both staff and students. For the elementary (Part 1) and middle school (Part 2) students, the mode of data collection was an in-class (group administration) anonymous self-completed survey. The research design required active parental consent for participation in both the elementary and middle school surveys. Active parental consent meant that parents were requested to fill out a form indicating their willingness to have their child participate in the survey. If a parent said no, or if a parent did not return the form, the child was not included in the study. Members of the research team returned to the school several times per week for approximately two weeks to pick up returned forms and to serve as a reminder to the students to bring back their signed consent forms. Once the consent process had begun, the research team scheduled times with the teachers to return to the school and conduct the survey with the students. On the day of the survey, when the researchers first entered the classroom, they consulted with the teacher to be sure only those students with consent remained for the survey. The researcher guided the students in completing their assent forms, which asked the students to write and sign their names and then to indicate whether or not they wanted to participate in the survey. Next, the researcher guided the students through the sociodemographic portion of the surveys and showed the student how to use their colored piece of paper to cover up their answers. At the end, the research team collected the completed surveys and thanked the students for their participation. For the 1,209 staff surveys (Part 3), the mode of data collection was a mail questionnaire. On the first day of student surveys in a school, the research team placed a packet in the mailbox of each teacher and each school staff member who had any contact with the students, including cafeteria workers and maintenance staff. The packet consisted of a letter explaining the staff survey, a copy of the staff survey, and a postage-paid envelope that allowed the staff member to mail the survey back to the research staff anonymously. Once the data arrived, the surveys were logged in and put into locked file cabinets. They were only removed to enter the data into the computer and were then returned to the locked cabinets as soon as possible thereafter. Part 1 variables include 8 sociodemographic and general school information items, 23 items relating to school climate, 46 items pertaining to school safety: attitudes and aggressive behavior (perpetration, victimization, and witnessing), and 14 home and family environment variables. Also included are two reverse scored variables and a filter variable which can be used to select the 3,497 cases that were used in the original analyses. More specifically, the eight sociodemographic and general school information variables are case id, year, school id code, type (treatment or comparison), grade, sex, race, and self-reported school performance. The 23 school climate variables asked students how they felt about their school and the people in their school. Of the 46 questions pertaining to school safety, 5 questions asked students about how safe they felt at school, 7 questions asked about their friends, 21 questions aske...

This study was designed to explore school culture and climate and their effects on school disorder, violence, and academic performance on two levels. At the macro level of analysis, this research examined the influences of sociocultural, crime, and school characteristics on aggregate-level school violence and academic performance measures. Here the focus was on understanding community, family, and crime compositional effects on disruption and violence in Philadelphia schools. This level included Census data and crime rates for the Census tracts where the schools were located (local data), as well as for the community of residence of the students (imported data) for all 255 schools within the Philadelphia School District. The second level of analysis, the intermediate level, included all of the variables measured at the macro level, and added school organizational structure and school climate, measured with survey data, as mediating variables. Part 1, Macro-Level Data, contains arrest and offense data and Census characteristics, such as race, poverty level, and household income, for the Census tracts where each of the 255 Philadelphia schools is located and for the Census tracts where the students who attend those schools reside. In addition, this file contains school characteristics, such as number and race of students and teachers, student attendance, average exam scores, and number of suspensions for various reasons. For Part 2, Principal Interview Data, principals from all 42 middle schools in Philadelphia were interviewed on the number of buildings and classrooms in their school, square footage and special features of the school, and security measures. For Part 3, teachers were administered the Effective School Battery survey and asked about their job satisfaction, training opportunities, relationships with principals and parents, participation in school activities, safety measures, and fear of crime at school. In Part 4, students were administered the Effective School Battery survey and asked about their attachment to school, extracurricular activities, attitudes toward teachers and school, academic achievement, and fear of crime at school. Part 5, Student Victimization Data, asked the same students from Part 4 about their victimization experiences, the availability of drugs, and discipline measures at school. It also provides self-reports of theft, assault, drug use, gang membership, and weapon possession at school.

This is a multi-method study of school violence and victimization during the transition to high school. This study has two major data collection efforts. First, a full population survey of 7th through 10th grade students across 10 Flint Community Schools (fall 2016) -- which serve primarily African American and poor populations -- that will identify patterns of student victimization, including the location and seriousness of violent events, and examine the connections between school and community violence. This will be followed by a three-wave panel qualitative study of 100 students interviewed every 6 months beginning in the spring of their 8th grade year (spring 2017) and continuing through their 9th grade year. The goal of the interviews will be to further the research from the survey and develop a deeper understanding of how school safety impacts the transition experience, school violence, including how communities conflict impacts school safety, and what youth do to protect themselves from school-related victimization. Researchers integrated crime incident data from the Flint police department as a source for triangulation of findings. A community workgroup will provide guided translation of findings generated from mixed-methods analyses, and develop an action plan to help students successfully transition to high school. Results and policy implications will be given to practitioner, researcher, and public audiences through written, oral, and web-based forums. De-identified data will be archived at the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data.

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.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

The Young Persons' Behaviour and Attitudes Survey (YPBAS) is a school-based survey carried out among 11-16 year olds and covers a wide range of topics relevant to the lives of young people today. The main aim of the YPBAS is to gain an insight into, and increase understanding of, the behaviours and lifestyles of adolescents. It also aims to influence various government policies and practices relating to young people and to facilitate access to research findings and expertise.

YPBAS was introduced in 2000 as an omnibus survey of post-primary school children which replaced a number of previous surveys. It is a triennial study, conducted once every three years. Repeating this survey on a regular basis will allow government to continue to identify and monitor any significant changes, and if necessary, new policies and strategies will be developed and implemented as a result. Therefore to ensure comparability, the same methodology has been applied over the all rounds to date and the questionnaires were of a similar format.

Further information is available on the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) Young Persons' Behaviour and Attitudes Survey webpages.

• demographics
• school
• travelling to school
• nutrition and sports
• smoking
• alcohol, solvents and drugs
• personal safety
• sexual experience and relationships
• health
• education

The purpose of this study was to assess both the school-level effects and the participant-level effects of Youth Crime Watch (YCW) programs. Abt Associates conducted a four-year impact evaluation of Youth Crime Watch (YCW) programs in three Florida school districts (Broward, Hillsborough, and Pinellas Counties). School-based YCW programs implement one or more of a variety of crime prevention activities, including youth patrol, in which YCW participants patrol their school campus and report misconduct and crime. The evaluation collected both School-Level Data (Part 1) and Student-Level Data (Part 2). The School-Level Data (Part 1) contain 9 years of data on 172 schools in the Broward, Hillsborough, and Pinellas school districts, beginning in the 1997-1998 school year and continuing through the 2005-2006 school year. A total of 103 middle schools and 69 high schools were included, yielding a total of 1,548 observations. These data provide panel data on reported incidents of crime and violence, major disciplinary actions, and school climate data across schools and over time. The Student-Level Data (Part 2) were collected between 2004 and 2007 and are comprised of two major components: (1) self-reported youth attitude and school activities survey data that were administered to a sample of students in middle schools in the Broward, Hillsborough, and Pinellas School Districts as part of a participant impact analysis, and (2) self-reported youth attitude and school activities survey data that were administered to a sample of YCW continuing middle school students and YCW high school students in the same three school districts as part of a process analysis. For Part 2, a total of 3,386 completed surveys were collected by the project staff including 1,319 "new YCW" student surveys, 1,581 "non-YCW" student surveys, and 486 "Pro" or "Process" student surveys. The 138 variables in the School-Level Data (Part 1) include Youth Crime Watch (YCW) program data, measures of crime and the level of school safety in a school, and other school characteristics. The 99 variables in the Student-Level Data (Part 2) include two groups of questions for assessing participant impact: (1) how the respondents felt about themselves, and (2) whether the respondent would report certain types of problems or crimes that they observed at the school. Part 2 also includes administrative variables and demographic/background information. Other variables in Part 2 pertain to the respondent's involvement in school-based extracurricular activities, involvement in community activities, attitudes toward school, attitudes about home environment, future education plans, attitudes toward the YCW advisor, attitudes about effects of YCW, participation in YCW, reasons for joining YCW, and reasons for remaining in YCW.

The survey provides comparable data on the perceived extent and nature of antisemitism across a number of selected EU Member States, whether it is manifested as hate crime, hate speech, discrimination or in any other form that undermines Jewish people’s feelings of safety and security. The survey was commissioned by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). It follows up on the agency’s first survey, conducted in seven countries in 2012.

The overall objectives of FRA’s second survey on discrimination and hate crime against Jews in the European Union (EU) are 1) to collect comparable data in the selected EU Member States and thereby contributing to the assessment and further development of policies that aim to protect the fundamental rights of Jewish people living in the EU; 2) to identify changes over time with respect to the results of the first survey on discrimination and hate crime against Jews in 2012; 3) to further develop research methodologies for surveying hard-to-reach groups using online survey tools; 4) to deliver FRA’s key stakeholders research evidence that can be used to raise awareness of fundamental rights and address gaps in the protection of rights.

The 2018 survey collected data from 16,395 self-identified Jewish respondents (aged 16 or over) in 12 EU Member States – Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. These Member States are home to over 96 % of the EU’s estimated Jewish population. The survey collected data through an open online survey and was available for respondents to complete for seven weeks in May–June 2018.

The survey asked respondents about their opinions on trends in antisemitism, antisemitism as a problem in everyday life, personal experiences of antisemitic incidents, witnessing antisemitic incidents and worries about becoming a victim of an antisemitic attack. The survey also provides data on the extent to which respondents consider antisemitic acts against the Jewish community – such as vandalism of Jewish sites or antisemitic messages in the broadcast media or on the internet – to be a problem in the countries. The survey collected data on the effects of antisemitism on respondents’ daily behaviour and their feelings of safety, and about any actions they take due to security fears. The questions about personal experiences of specific forms of harassment or physical violence were followed up with questions concerning the details of such incidents, including their frequency, the number and characteristics of perpetrators, and the reporting of the incident to any organisation or institution. The survey collected data about personal experiences of feeling discriminated against on different grounds and in various areas of everyday life – for example, at work, school, or when using specific services. The survey followed up on respondents’ discrimination experiences with questions concerning the reporting of incidents and the reasons for non-reporting. The survey also explored the level of rights awareness regarding antidiscrimination legislation, victim support organisations and knowledge of any legislation concerning the trivialisation or denial of the Holocaust. In addition, the survey collected socio-demographic data, such as respondents´ gender and age, educational background, employment status, and income.

Topics: 1. Rights awareness, perceptions and attitudes: perception of crime level, unemployment racism, antisemitism, immigration, government corruption, and intolerance towards Muslims as a problem in the country; increase vs. decrease of racism, antisemitism and intolerance towards Muslims in the country; perception of antisemitic acts against the Jewish community as a problem in the country (antisemitic graffiti, desecration of Jewish cemeteries, vandalism of Jewish buildings or institutions, expressions of hostility towards Jews in the street or other public places, antisemitism in the media, in political life, and on the internet including social media; increase vs. decrease of the aforementioned problems; frequency of personally experienced antisemitic comments of non-Jewish people (Jews have too much power in the country, Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own purposes, the Holocaust is a myth or has been exaggerated, Israelis behave ‘like Nazis’ towards the Palestinians, world a better place without Israel, Jews are not capable of integrating into national ...

The Boston Neighborhood Survey (BNS) was conducted by the Injury Control Research Center at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (HSPH). The BNS was a telephone survey administered to Boston residents over three waves, in 2006, 2008, and 2010. The survey covered topics ranging from public safety to collective efficacy to social networks.