Download & Other Tools
Download & Other Tools
| California | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 17.4% | 40.5% | 33.2% | 5.8% | 3.1% | 21.1% | 42.2% | 26.9% | 5.5% | 4.2% |
| Grade 9 | 10.7% | 41.4% | 39.6% | 5.6% | 2.7% | 15.2% | 43.1% | 32.3% | 4.9% | 4.5% |
| Grade 11 | 10.9% | 40.1% | 40.7% | 5.7% | 2.6% | 16.2% | 40.7% | 33.9% | 5.0% | 4.3% |
| Non-Traditional | 24.2% | 33.4% | 35.2% | 4.0% | 3.1% | 20.0% | 35.0% | 33.7% | 4.2% | 7.0% |
| Alameda County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 17.4% | 44.9% | 30.7% | 4.9% | 2.2% | 21.0% | 45.5% | 25.8% | 5.0% | 2.7% |
| Grade 9 | 10.1% | 45.6% | 37.5% | 5.0% | 1.8% | 16.2% | 46.6% | 30.4% | 3.9% | 2.9% |
| Grade 11 | 10.5% | 42.8% | 39.3% | 5.3% | 2.1% | 18.5% | 42.1% | 30.8% | 4.9% | 3.7% |
| Non-Traditional | 23.0% | 34.1% | 39.1% | 2.2% | 1.6% | 22.0% | 34.0% | 35.2% | 2.9% | 5.9% |
| Alpine County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Grade 9 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Grade 11 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Non-Traditional | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Amador County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 12.0% | 41.0% | 35.4% | 8.0% | 3.6% | 14.0% | 36.4% | 33.6% | 11.4% | 4.6% |
| Grade 9 | 13.4% | 43.7% | 36.0% | 4.9% | 1.9% | 17.2% | 35.8% | 39.8% | 4.9% | 2.4% |
| Grade 11 | 12.5% | 43.6% | 36.2% | 5.5% | 2.1% | 19.6% | 43.1% | 30.6% | 4.7% | 1.9% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Butte County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 18.1% | 44.1% | 31.6% | 4.6% | 1.6% | 19.2% | 44.9% | 26.5% | 5.6% | 3.7% |
| Grade 9 | 12.7% | 46.3% | 35.7% | 3.2% | 2.2% | 16.7% | 46.7% | 31.5% | 3.7% | 1.5% |
| Grade 11 | 4.3% | 78.7% | 15.9% | 0.9% | 0.3% | 24.0% | 40.2% | 27.0% | 5.7% | 3.1% |
| Non-Traditional | 18.7% | 47.7% | 30.3% | 3.1% | 0.2% | 23.5% | 36.3% | 32.2% | 2.9% | 5.2% |
| Calaveras County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 19.8% | 44.8% | 28.3% | 5.6% | 1.6% | 12.6% | 44.2% | 35.7% | 5.4% | 2.2% |
| Grade 9 | 13.3% | 42.5% | 35.3% | 6.2% | 2.7% | 18.0% | 40.1% | 29.1% | 7.6% | 5.3% |
| Grade 11 | 10.7% | 40.4% | 40.8% | 6.7% | 1.5% | 12.8% | 43.6% | 33.2% | 5.0% | 5.4% |
| Non-Traditional | 7.7% | 43.5% | 41.0% | 5.7% | 2.1% | 7.7% | 32.7% | 48.3% | 5.4% | 5.9% |
| Colusa County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 23.1% | 37.5% | 33.9% | 2.4% | 3.1% | 28.0% | 47.0% | 16.2% | 6.8% | 1.9% |
| Grade 9 | 9.4% | 56.4% | 30.2% | 0.0% | 4.0% | 0.0% | 45.7% | 44.4% | 1.6% | 8.3% |
| Grade 11 | 13.4% | 51.6% | 31.8% | 2.2% | 1.1% | 15.4% | 44.8% | 30.9% | 1.4% | 7.5% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Contra Costa County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 20.7% | 45.7% | 26.5% | 5.1% | 2.0% | 24.2% | 44.8% | 23.2% | 4.5% | 3.3% |
| Grade 9 | 13.0% | 45.7% | 34.7% | 4.7% | 1.9% | 17.7% | 44.2% | 29.7% | 5.0% | 3.3% |
| Grade 11 | 12.9% | 42.4% | 37.1% | 5.3% | 2.4% | 21.6% | 41.5% | 28.2% | 5.2% | 3.5% |
| Non-Traditional | 26.3% | 27.4% | 36.0% | 4.7% | 5.7% | 26.9% | 25.0% | 36.0% | 6.6% | 5.6% |
| Del Norte County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 7.3% | 25.3% | 38.3% | 17.3% | 11.9% | 6.0% | 21.0% | 38.6% | 25.1% | 9.3% |
| Grade 9 | 8.1% | 27.5% | 48.1% | 11.8% | 4.4% | 12.2% | 22.2% | 50.0% | 9.4% | 6.2% |
| Grade 11 | 8.3% | 25.0% | 42.0% | 20.6% | 4.1% | 21.6% | 29.4% | 41.2% | 2.0% | 5.9% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| El Dorado County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 19.4% | 46.8% | 26.9% | 4.7% | 2.2% | 26.8% | 45.0% | 22.4% | 3.8% | 2.0% |
| Grade 9 | 12.2% | 47.2% | 33.9% | 4.9% | 1.8% | 17.1% | 45.8% | 30.0% | 4.6% | 2.4% |
| Grade 11 | 12.5% | 41.7% | 37.4% | 7.1% | 1.4% | 19.2% | 42.6% | 30.2% | 5.5% | 2.5% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Fresno County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Grade 9 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Grade 11 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Glenn County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 23.7% | 52.0% | 19.9% | 3.3% | 1.0% | 31.3% | 35.7% | 26.4% | 3.4% | 3.2% |
| Grade 9 | 11.6% | 38.0% | 41.3% | 5.5% | 3.6% | 15.0% | 49.7% | 28.0% | 4.3% | 3.0% |
| Grade 11 | 15.9% | 37.1% | 40.2% | 3.4% | 3.4% | 21.2% | 47.6% | 23.0% | 3.9% | 4.4% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Humboldt County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 16.5% | 41.0% | 31.0% | 7.6% | 4.0% | 19.9% | 41.1% | 27.4% | 5.9% | 5.7% |
| Grade 9 | 7.8% | 42.9% | 42.6% | 5.0% | 1.7% | 18.3% | 44.3% | 29.8% | 4.6% | 3.0% |
| Grade 11 | 11.7% | 42.8% | 37.1% | 6.0% | 2.4% | 21.5% | 40.9% | 28.6% | 4.8% | 4.1% |
| Non-Traditional | 22.2% | 39.5% | 32.6% | 1.9% | 3.8% | 19.9% | 32.0% | 38.4% | 5.5% | 4.2% |
| Imperial County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 15.1% | 38.7% | 36.4% | 6.1% | 3.8% | 22.0% | 39.2% | 29.1% | 5.5% | 4.1% |
| Grade 9 | 10.3% | 41.0% | 40.5% | 6.1% | 2.1% | 16.7% | 37.8% | 34.6% | 5.7% | 5.3% |
| Grade 11 | 10.6% | 36.9% | 43.1% | 5.6% | 3.8% | 14.0% | 37.4% | 37.2% | 5.3% | 6.2% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Inyo County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 20.2% | 51.3% | 20.8% | 5.4% | 2.3% | 19.6% | 53.0% | 20.0% | 2.4% | 5.0% |
| Grade 9 | 8.4% | 42.2% | 38.9% | 10.5% | 0.0% | 13.5% | 51.2% | 26.0% | 4.5% | 4.8% |
| Grade 11 | 14.0% | 43.7% | 38.8% | 1.8% | 1.8% | 24.1% | 36.6% | 27.6% | 7.0% | 4.6% |
| Non-Traditional | 38.4% | 38.9% | 11.3% | 5.5% | 5.9% | 35.7% | 38.4% | 15.6% | 2.0% | 8.3% |
| Kern County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 18.5% | 39.7% | 32.4% | 5.7% | 3.6% | 23.6% | 39.0% | 26.4% | 6.2% | 4.9% |
| Grade 9 | 10.3% | 37.1% | 42.5% | 6.2% | 3.9% | 15.2% | 38.8% | 35.1% | 6.0% | 4.9% |
| Grade 11 | 9.6% | 36.2% | 44.2% | 6.6% | 3.3% | 15.7% | 38.1% | 36.3% | 6.1% | 3.9% |
| Non-Traditional | 19.0% | 34.5% | 36.7% | 5.9% | 3.9% | 19.8% | 29.1% | 37.8% | 4.9% | 8.3% |
| Kings County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Grade 9 | 10.1% | 40.7% | 43.2% | 1.8% | 4.2% | 11.8% | 40.6% | 33.2% | 6.6% | 7.8% |
| Grade 11 | 6.4% | 37.5% | 45.1% | 5.7% | 5.4% | 9.2% | 47.5% | 37.7% | 2.7% | 2.9% |
| Non-Traditional | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Lake County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 15.4% | 39.9% | 33.4% | 7.7% | 3.6% | 15.9% | 36.0% | 31.2% | 7.8% | 9.0% |
| Grade 9 | 9.7% | 46.8% | 35.8% | 4.0% | 3.7% | 13.9% | 40.6% | 36.5% | 6.0% | 3.0% |
| Grade 11 | 10.8% | 33.6% | 43.3% | 8.3% | 3.9% | 17.8% | 36.5% | 37.0% | 5.5% | 3.2% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Lassen County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 22.6% | 36.7% | 24.9% | 8.3% | 7.6% | 21.2% | 41.7% | 23.7% | 7.1% | 6.2% |
| Grade 9 | 12.6% | 36.7% | 40.1% | 7.0% | 3.7% | 19.5% | 37.5% | 25.4% | 11.4% | 6.2% |
| Grade 11 | 8.7% | 33.6% | 43.5% | 9.3% | 4.9% | 11.3% | 27.1% | 42.6% | 10.7% | 8.4% |
| Non-Traditional | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Los Angeles County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 18.4% | 43.8% | 30.1% | 4.8% | 2.9% | 23.2% | 43.6% | 24.0% | 5.5% | 3.8% |
| Grade 9 | 12.4% | 42.4% | 38.1% | 4.3% | 2.8% | 17.5% | 43.4% | 30.2% | 5.1% | 3.7% |
| Grade 11 | 11.8% | 41.4% | 38.8% | 5.4% | 2.5% | 17.3% | 42.3% | 31.7% | 5.0% | 3.7% |
| Non-Traditional | 18.6% | 37.5% | 37.2% | 3.9% | 2.8% | 21.3% | 32.4% | 37.4% | 4.0% | 4.9% |
| Madera County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Grade 9 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Grade 11 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Marin County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 20.9% | 45.9% | 27.7% | 4.2% | 1.3% | 26.9% | 46.7% | 21.9% | 2.4% | 2.0% |
| Grade 9 | 11.2% | 49.4% | 32.4% | 4.8% | 2.1% | 19.6% | 46.6% | 28.0% | 3.0% | 2.8% |
| Grade 11 | 17.0% | 44.1% | 32.1% | 6.1% | 0.7% | 30.9% | 42.0% | 21.5% | 2.6% | 2.9% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Mariposa County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 30.4% | 42.9% | 21.3% | 2.1% | 3.3% | 25.4% | 38.3% | 32.7% | 1.7% | 1.9% |
| Grade 9 | 17.3% | 49.4% | 23.4% | 4.9% | 4.9% | 37.7% | 34.7% | 19.7% | 4.1% | 3.7% |
| Grade 11 | 20.8% | 40.7% | 32.3% | 3.0% | 3.0% | 38.6% | 36.6% | 22.9% | 1.9% | 0.0% |
| Non-Traditional | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Mendocino County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 11.3% | 48.0% | 34.6% | 3.6% | 2.5% | 16.1% | 34.2% | 33.0% | 7.9% | 8.9% |
| Grade 9 | 18.9% | 35.7% | 36.5% | 7.5% | 1.4% | 28.3% | 33.2% | 27.0% | 5.8% | 5.6% |
| Grade 11 | 10.9% | 44.4% | 37.7% | 6.2% | 0.8% | 25.4% | 36.1% | 28.3% | 4.9% | 5.3% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Merced County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 18.7% | 42.7% | 31.3% | 4.6% | 2.7% | 21.0% | 43.9% | 23.8% | 6.2% | 5.1% |
| Grade 9 | 11.2% | 43.2% | 38.7% | 4.7% | 2.2% | 15.3% | 41.2% | 34.3% | 4.9% | 4.2% |
| Grade 11 | 10.1% | 40.2% | 42.5% | 4.8% | 2.3% | 14.1% | 39.5% | 37.2% | 5.7% | 3.5% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Modoc County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 28.5% | 20.2% | 44.6% | 6.7% | 0.0% | 33.9% | 31.4% | 30.1% | 4.5% | 0.0% |
| Grade 9 | 14.0% | 50.9% | 23.1% | 9.5% | 2.5% | 29.9% | 34.1% | 18.9% | 4.8% | 12.3% |
| Grade 11 | 18.9% | 42.6% | 33.8% | 2.3% | 2.3% | 20.5% | 39.3% | 30.1% | 10.0% | 0.0% |
| Non-Traditional | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Mono County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 34.3% | 56.7% | 9.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 32.7% | 46.9% | 18.9% | 0.0% | 1.6% |
| Grade 9 | 25.4% | 45.8% | 28.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 20.1% | 43.6% | 28.6% | 2.1% | 5.7% |
| Grade 11 | 14.0% | 52.2% | 23.9% | 6.1% | 3.8% | 23.5% | 29.3% | 29.3% | 5.7% | 12.2% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Monterey County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 14.8% | 39.1% | 37.0% | 5.5% | 3.6% | 19.4% | 39.3% | 29.8% | 6.5% | 5.0% |
| Grade 9 | 10.5% | 41.4% | 41.3% | 4.7% | 2.1% | 15.4% | 43.0% | 33.3% | 4.6% | 3.7% |
| Grade 11 | 22.5% | 35.2% | 37.3% | 2.3% | 2.7% | 11.6% | 35.2% | 36.0% | 4.2% | 13.1% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Napa County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 14.1% | 45.9% | 31.5% | 5.3% | 3.3% | 20.9% | 45.4% | 25.2% | 5.3% | 3.2% |
| Grade 9 | 12.7% | 47.3% | 36.1% | 2.7% | 1.2% | 17.3% | 47.1% | 28.4% | 4.3% | 2.9% |
| Grade 11 | 15.2% | 46.3% | 33.9% | 3.5% | 1.2% | 23.3% | 42.7% | 28.1% | 3.9% | 2.0% |
| Non-Traditional | 22.5% | 33.7% | 35.7% | 6.9% | 1.1% | 21.6% | 30.5% | 39.4% | 2.6% | 5.9% |
| Nevada County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 17.4% | 46.2% | 30.0% | 3.6% | 2.8% | 17.7% | 41.0% | 32.6% | 5.4% | 3.3% |
| Grade 9 | 9.7% | 42.5% | 40.5% | 5.1% | 2.1% | 14.0% | 45.8% | 35.3% | 3.4% | 1.5% |
| Grade 11 | 14.6% | 40.7% | 35.9% | 6.5% | 2.3% | 17.1% | 41.6% | 31.3% | 6.9% | 3.1% |
| Non-Traditional | 10.3% | 33.0% | 49.7% | 6.3% | 0.6% | 16.4% | 35.4% | 37.1% | 8.4% | 2.8% |
| Orange County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 21.7% | 44.4% | 27.1% | 4.3% | 2.4% | 25.8% | 44.4% | 22.8% | 4.2% | 2.9% |
| Grade 9 | 14.5% | 47.8% | 32.1% | 4.1% | 1.6% | 20.0% | 47.7% | 26.0% | 3.8% | 2.5% |
| Grade 11 | 15.3% | 44.8% | 33.8% | 4.6% | 1.5% | 22.4% | 43.8% | 26.8% | 4.2% | 2.7% |
| Non-Traditional | 26.9% | 33.4% | 35.1% | 3.0% | 1.5% | 21.4% | 31.8% | 38.3% | 3.9% | 4.6% |
| Placer County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 25.2% | 47.6% | 21.8% | 4.3% | 1.1% | 24.8% | 46.5% | 21.5% | 4.6% | 2.7% |
| Grade 9 | 19.0% | 52.4% | 23.9% | 3.6% | 1.0% | 22.4% | 50.4% | 21.7% | 3.4% | 2.1% |
| Grade 11 | 21.5% | 48.3% | 25.2% | 3.4% | 1.6% | 27.6% | 44.9% | 22.3% | 2.5% | 2.6% |
| Non-Traditional | 31.2% | 35.3% | 30.3% | 0.0% | 3.1% | 34.8% | 26.4% | 27.1% | 4.6% | 7.1% |
| Plumas County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 29.3% | 36.3% | 26.9% | 5.9% | 1.6% | 26.3% | 55.1% | 14.7% | 3.9% | 0.0% |
| Grade 9 | 16.6% | 38.2% | 39.3% | 4.8% | 1.1% | 26.6% | 43.5% | 22.1% | 6.2% | 1.7% |
| Grade 11 | 23.8% | 40.1% | 26.8% | 9.3% | 0.0% | 28.0% | 43.6% | 18.7% | 5.6% | 4.2% |
| Non-Traditional | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Riverside County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 18.1% | 41.7% | 30.9% | 6.0% | 3.2% | 21.8% | 41.8% | 26.4% | 5.8% | 4.2% |
| Grade 9 | 11.5% | 42.6% | 37.6% | 5.5% | 2.9% | 16.1% | 42.4% | 31.8% | 5.3% | 4.4% |
| Grade 11 | 11.5% | 41.1% | 39.1% | 5.8% | 2.5% | 15.5% | 40.6% | 34.5% | 5.5% | 3.9% |
| Non-Traditional | 37.7% | 29.0% | 29.3% | 2.3% | 1.7% | 21.3% | 38.0% | 33.1% | 3.5% | 4.1% |
| Sacramento County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 20.5% | 42.4% | 29.7% | 4.9% | 2.5% | 24.0% | 43.4% | 24.4% | 5.2% | 3.1% |
| Grade 9 | 11.7% | 42.4% | 37.8% | 5.6% | 2.6% | 17.5% | 42.1% | 31.5% | 5.5% | 3.5% |
| Grade 11 | 12.2% | 41.1% | 38.6% | 5.9% | 2.2% | 19.9% | 40.0% | 32.0% | 4.6% | 3.5% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| San Benito County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 13.6% | 41.8% | 35.7% | 5.5% | 3.4% | 12.4% | 41.6% | 34.0% | 7.0% | 5.0% |
| Grade 9 | 11.7% | 47.8% | 37.9% | 1.6% | 0.9% | 20.2% | 43.1% | 29.3% | 4.2% | 3.3% |
| Grade 11 | 12.2% | 40.0% | 42.9% | 2.9% | 2.1% | 12.7% | 45.5% | 37.1% | 2.1% | 2.6% |
| Non-Traditional | 4.7% | 31.1% | 39.9% | 9.5% | 14.8% | 5.1% | 31.8% | 47.6% | 2.7% | 12.9% |
| San Bernardino County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Grade 9 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Grade 11 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| San Diego County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 18.0% | 42.3% | 31.4% | 5.4% | 2.8% | 21.8% | 42.5% | 26.7% | 5.4% | 3.6% |
| Grade 9 | 13.1% | 44.9% | 35.6% | 4.4% | 2.0% | 18.9% | 44.2% | 29.1% | 4.3% | 3.5% |
| Grade 11 | 14.0% | 42.7% | 36.3% | 4.6% | 2.4% | 21.7% | 41.8% | 30.0% | 3.8% | 2.7% |
| Non-Traditional | 39.9% | 31.5% | 25.6% | 2.0% | 1.0% | 27.2% | 34.1% | 34.2% | 1.7% | 2.9% |
| San Francisco County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 14.8% | 42.8% | 33.0% | 5.7% | 3.7% | 23.7% | 42.9% | 26.6% | 4.5% | 2.2% |
| Grade 9 | 24.8% | 39.2% | 34.2% | 1.2% | 0.6% | 9.5% | 50.8% | 35.4% | 0.8% | 3.5% |
| Grade 11 | 14.1% | 58.3% | 26.1% | 1.0% | 0.5% | 27.3% | 38.5% | 27.0% | 5.7% | 1.5% |
| Non-Traditional | 21.3% | 37.4% | 34.3% | 5.0% | 2.1% | 29.5% | 37.1% | 28.3% | 1.1% | 4.0% |
| San Joaquin County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 16.6% | 43.3% | 30.8% | 6.1% | 3.2% | 22.0% | 39.1% | 27.4% | 6.1% | 5.4% |
| Grade 9 | 9.8% | 35.2% | 43.4% | 6.6% | 5.0% | 13.2% | 37.2% | 33.5% | 9.9% | 6.2% |
| Grade 11 | 10.0% | 37.2% | 36.2% | 5.7% | 10.8% | 22.1% | 29.4% | 35.4% | 7.2% | 6.0% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| San Luis Obispo County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 18.9% | 49.1% | 25.6% | 4.8% | 1.5% | 22.2% | 44.5% | 25.4% | 6.0% | 2.0% |
| Grade 9 | 10.5% | 43.0% | 37.2% | 6.2% | 3.1% | 17.7% | 41.0% | 30.9% | 7.1% | 3.3% |
| Grade 11 | 9.2% | 41.1% | 39.1% | 8.2% | 2.5% | 17.0% | 33.3% | 37.5% | 6.5% | 5.7% |
| Non-Traditional | 18.3% | 39.6% | 32.7% | 9.4% | 0.0% | 28.3% | 35.5% | 29.5% | 3.1% | 3.6% |
| San Mateo County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 16.4% | 46.1% | 29.6% | 5.6% | 2.3% | 19.4% | 45.2% | 27.3% | 4.8% | 3.4% |
| Grade 9 | 13.1% | 51.3% | 30.5% | 4.6% | 0.5% | 20.6% | 46.3% | 28.1% | 3.6% | 1.4% |
| Grade 11 | 14.2% | 46.3% | 32.5% | 5.7% | 1.2% | 21.7% | 48.2% | 24.5% | 3.4% | 2.2% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Santa Barbara County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 18.0% | 43.1% | 31.5% | 5.2% | 2.2% | 22.2% | 43.5% | 25.9% | 5.5% | 2.8% |
| Grade 9 | 12.3% | 43.6% | 37.6% | 4.0% | 2.4% | 16.9% | 44.2% | 30.2% | 4.0% | 4.7% |
| Grade 11 | 11.6% | 42.1% | 39.9% | 4.2% | 2.1% | 18.1% | 38.1% | 35.4% | 4.3% | 4.2% |
| Non-Traditional | 31.9% | 42.9% | 23.4% | 1.2% | 0.5% | 32.2% | 29.8% | 31.4% | 1.7% | 4.9% |
| Santa Clara County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Grade 9 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Grade 11 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Non-Traditional | 53.7% | 33.7% | 12.0% | 0.2% | 0.4% | 58.6% | 29.6% | 10.9% | 0.5% | 0.5% |
| Santa Cruz County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 18.3% | 44.9% | 30.2% | 4.0% | 2.6% | 24.7% | 42.1% | 25.4% | 3.0% | 4.8% |
| Grade 9 | 13.6% | 49.5% | 33.0% | 3.2% | 0.7% | 18.7% | 48.3% | 27.0% | 3.8% | 2.2% |
| Grade 11 | 13.4% | 46.6% | 31.4% | 8.0% | 0.6% | 27.2% | 49.6% | 18.6% | 1.5% | 3.0% |
| Non-Traditional | 46.7% | 39.0% | 13.3% | 0.9% | 0.1% | 51.5% | 33.9% | 12.4% | 0.1% | 2.1% |
| Shasta County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Grade 9 | 12.4% | 45.4% | 34.5% | 5.0% | 2.7% | 17.8% | 44.8% | 29.0% | 4.5% | 3.9% |
| Grade 11 | 13.1% | 39.1% | 38.3% | 7.2% | 2.3% | 18.4% | 44.5% | 26.4% | 7.0% | 3.8% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Sierra County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Grade 9 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Grade 11 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Non-Traditional | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Siskiyou County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 19.1% | 46.8% | 23.4% | 5.9% | 4.8% | 26.4% | 46.1% | 19.2% | 3.7% | 4.6% |
| Grade 9 | 6.2% | 42.5% | 43.7% | 5.7% | 2.0% | 15.0% | 39.3% | 34.6% | 8.7% | 2.4% |
| Grade 11 | 7.4% | 46.9% | 34.3% | 10.6% | 0.8% | 10.9% | 45.4% | 35.6% | 7.7% | 0.5% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Solano County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 14.3% | 40.4% | 35.2% | 6.5% | 3.6% | 18.1% | 42.0% | 29.2% | 6.5% | 4.1% |
| Grade 9 | 8.7% | 40.9% | 41.6% | 5.6% | 3.2% | 13.3% | 37.8% | 37.0% | 7.1% | 4.8% |
| Grade 11 | 7.4% | 34.7% | 46.1% | 8.0% | 3.9% | 10.9% | 37.0% | 40.6% | 6.7% | 4.8% |
| Non-Traditional | 15.0% | 28.2% | 46.2% | 4.9% | 5.7% | 12.3% | 30.9% | 40.1% | 9.6% | 7.2% |
| Sonoma County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 18.2% | 44.8% | 30.8% | 4.2% | 2.1% | 20.6% | 45.3% | 27.7% | 4.1% | 2.4% |
| Grade 9 | 10.4% | 43.0% | 39.2% | 5.4% | 2.1% | 17.2% | 44.6% | 30.6% | 4.3% | 3.3% |
| Grade 11 | 12.7% | 38.9% | 38.0% | 7.2% | 3.2% | 19.3% | 43.3% | 30.0% | 3.9% | 3.5% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Stanislaus County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 15.4% | 40.2% | 33.8% | 6.8% | 3.8% | 23.9% | 36.0% | 31.5% | 5.0% | 3.7% |
| Grade 9 | 9.9% | 39.4% | 40.8% | 7.1% | 2.7% | 12.8% | 43.8% | 31.4% | 7.8% | 4.2% |
| Grade 11 | 7.9% | 43.4% | 40.7% | 4.9% | 3.1% | 15.3% | 36.1% | 37.0% | 5.2% | 6.3% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Sutter County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 14.0% | 32.2% | 42.7% | 6.8% | 4.3% | 12.9% | 38.7% | 31.3% | 8.8% | 8.3% |
| Grade 9 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Grade 11 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Tehama County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 22.3% | 38.3% | 29.4% | 6.5% | 3.6% | 23.9% | 44.5% | 14.2% | 7.9% | 9.5% |
| Grade 9 | 14.7% | 41.9% | 35.4% | 4.4% | 3.6% | 20.8% | 44.9% | 30.1% | 3.0% | 1.2% |
| Grade 11 | 13.8% | 36.1% | 38.9% | 6.3% | 4.9% | 17.7% | 37.6% | 32.4% | 5.6% | 6.7% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Trinity County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 20.2% | 42.6% | 26.4% | 8.3% | 2.5% | 25.6% | 47.2% | 19.2% | 3.6% | 4.5% |
| Grade 9 | 12.1% | 40.2% | 41.5% | 2.5% | 3.8% | 7.5% | 41.7% | 40.0% | 1.3% | 9.6% |
| Grade 11 | 7.5% | 45.1% | 47.1% | 0.4% | 0.0% | 7.2% | 49.6% | 29.5% | 11.1% | 2.6% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Tulare County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Grade 9 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Grade 11 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| Tuolumne County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 14.6% | 42.6% | 32.0% | 7.7% | 3.1% | 18.4% | 49.2% | 21.9% | 5.4% | 5.1% |
| Grade 9 | 8.2% | 47.8% | 34.8% | 7.4% | 1.8% | 14.7% | 44.7% | 35.5% | 1.9% | 3.2% |
| Grade 11 | 8.5% | 46.5% | 37.4% | 5.0% | 2.5% | 13.9% | 38.2% | 37.7% | 4.1% | 6.1% |
| Non-Traditional | 15.6% | 34.2% | 44.0% | 0.0% | 6.2% | 9.2% | 43.5% | 45.7% | 0.7% | 0.8% |
| Ventura County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 16.9% | 41.4% | 33.0% | 6.1% | 2.6% | 21.3% | 42.0% | 27.3% | 5.4% | 4.0% |
| Grade 9 | 12.8% | 45.0% | 35.3% | 5.2% | 1.7% | 16.4% | 44.6% | 29.8% | 4.2% | 5.0% |
| Grade 11 | 12.3% | 43.6% | 36.1% | 5.4% | 2.5% | 20.0% | 40.9% | 30.6% | 4.4% | 4.2% |
| Non-Traditional | 21.2% | 40.9% | 35.2% | 1.9% | 0.9% | 30.0% | 35.9% | 27.8% | 3.1% | 3.3% |
| Yolo County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 14.3% | 45.8% | 32.3% | 5.1% | 2.6% | 18.0% | 46.8% | 26.1% | 5.0% | 4.1% |
| Grade 9 | 10.1% | 43.9% | 40.5% | 4.0% | 1.4% | 17.8% | 40.9% | 33.7% | 4.4% | 3.2% |
| Grade 11 | 10.8% | 45.0% | 39.7% | 3.1% | 1.4% | 21.7% | 42.7% | 28.4% | 3.9% | 3.2% |
| Non-Traditional | 34.6% | 36.5% | 24.0% | 4.8% | 0.0% | 34.1% | 31.3% | 27.8% | 3.2% | 3.7% |
| Yuba County | Percent | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||||||||
| Grade Level | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe | Very Safe | Safe | Neither Safe nor Unsafe | Unsafe | Very Unsafe |
| Grade 7 | 15.7% | 40.7% | 33.4% | 6.7% | 3.6% | 17.2% | 42.0% | 29.3% | 6.5% | 4.9% |
| Grade 9 | 5.4% | 39.0% | 40.0% | 10.0% | 5.5% | 9.5% | 44.0% | 31.7% | 9.3% | 5.5% |
| Grade 11 | 7.5% | 39.2% | 37.9% | 11.0% | 4.4% | 11.2% | 34.9% | 41.0% | 5.3% | 7.6% |
| Non-Traditional | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
- Definition: Estimated percentage of public school students in grades 7, 9, 11, and non-traditional programs who feel safe and unsafe at school, by gender, grade level, and level of safety (e.g., in 2017-2019, 10.7% of female 9th graders in California felt very safe at school).
- Data Source: WestEd, California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) & Biennial State CHKS. California Dept. of Education (Aug. 2020).
- Footnote: Years presented comprise two school years (e.g., 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years are shown as 2017-2019). County- and state-level data are weighted estimates; school district-level data are unweighted. Students in non-traditional programs are those enrolled in community day schools or continuation education. The notation S refers to (a) data for school districts that have been suppressed because there were fewer than 10 respondents in that group, and (b) data for counties that have been suppressed because the sample was too small to be representative. N/A means that data are not available.
Learn More About School Safety
- Measures of School Safety on Kidsdata.org
-
On kidsdata.org, indicators of school safety are based on student reports regarding:
- Their perceived level of safety when at school, from very safe to very unsafe
- The number of times in the previous year they were afraid of being beaten up, were in physical fights, carried a gun, and carried a weapon other than a gun at school
Also available are data from school staff on the extent to which:- Their school is a safe place for students and for staff
- Physical fighting between students and student weapons possession are problems at school
Data based on student reports come from the California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) and are available by grade level (7, 9, 11, and/or non-traditional), gender, level of school connectedness,* parent education level, and sexual orientation.
State-level CHKS estimates, although derived from the Biennial State CHKS, may differ from data published in Biennial State CHKS reports due to differences in grade-level classification of students in continuation high schools.
*Levels of school connectedness are based on a scale created from responses to five questions about feeling safe, close to people, and a part of school, being happy at school, and about teachers treating students fairly. -
- School Safety
-
- Perceptions of School Safety, by Grade Level
- Fear of Being Beaten Up at School, by Grade Level
- Physical Fighting at School, by Grade Level
- Carrying a Gun at School, by Grade Level
- Carrying a Weapon Other Than a Gun at School, by Grade Level
- Perceptions of School Safety for Students (Staff Reported)
- Perceptions of School Safety for Staff (Staff Reported)
- Student Physical Fighting Is a Problem at School (Staff Reported)
- Student Weapons Possession Is a Problem at School (Staff Reported)
- Bullying and Harassment at School
-
- Bullying/Harassment, by Grade Level
- Bias-Related Bullying/Harassment, by Grade Level
- Disability as Reason for Bullying/Harassment, by Grade Level
- Gender as Reason for Bullying/Harassment, by Grade Level
- Race/Ethnicity or National Origin as Reason for Bullying/Harassment, by Grade Level
- Religion as Reason for Bullying/Harassment, by Grade Level
- Sexual Orientation as Reason for Bullying/Harassment, by Grade Level
- Cyberbullying, by Grade Level
- Student Bullying/Harassment Is a Problem at School (Staff Reported)
- Pupil Support Services
-
- Number of Pupil Support Service Personnel, by Type of Personnel
- Ratio of Students to Pupil Support Service Personnel, by Type of Personnel
- School Provides Adequate Counseling and Support Services for Students (Staff Reported)
- School Provides Services for Substance Abuse or Other Problems (Staff Reported)
- School Collaborates with Community Organizations to Address Youth Problems (Staff Reported)
- School Climate
-
- Academic Motivation (Student Reported), by Grade Level
- School Connectedness (Student Reported), by Grade Level
- School Supports (Student Reported), by Grade Level
- Caring Relationships with Adults at School (Student Reported), by Grade Level
- High Expectations from Adults at School (Student Reported), by Grade Level
- Meaningful Participation at School (Student Reported), by Grade Level
- Students Are Motivated to Learn (Staff Reported)
- School Motivates Students to Learn (Staff Reported)
- School Is a Supportive and Inviting Place to Learn (Staff Reported)
- Adults at School Care About Students (Staff Reported)
- Adults at School Believe in Student Success (Staff Reported)
- School Welcomes and Facilitates Parent Involvement (Staff Reported)
- School Gives Students Opportunities to Make a Difference (Staff Reported)
- School Fosters Youth Resilience or Asset Promotion (Staff Reported)
- Students Respect Each Other’s Differences (Staff Reported)
- Cultural or Racial/Ethnic Tension at School (Staff Reported)
- School Attendance and Discipline
- Gang Involvement
- Why This Topic Is Important
-
The safety and supportiveness of young people's school environments play a crucial role in their development and academic success. Students who feel safe and supported at school tend to have better emotional health and are less likely to engage in risky behaviors (1, 2). Exposure to violence in schools and school neighborhoods is associated with many negative outcomes for youth, including poor academic performance, truancy, substance use, violent behavior, depression-related feelings, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors (1, 3). Experiencing violence during childhood or adolescence also increases the likelihood of long-term physical, behavioral, and mental health problems in adulthood (1). Further, school violence not only affects the individuals involved but also can adversely impact teachers, bystanders, and surrounding communities (3).
Unfortunately, school safety is often compromised. According to a 2019 survey, nearly half (44%) of U.S. high school students had one or more violent experiences in the previous year, such as bullying, physical fighting, being threatened with a weapon at school, dating violence, or sexual violence (1). Females and LGBTQ students were significantly more likely to experience multiple types of violence when compared with males and heterosexual students, respectively (1). In addition, studies show that reports of hate crimes and mass casualty events in schools have increased in recent years (3, 4).For more information, see kidsdata.org’s Research & Links section. Also see kidsdata.org’s topics on Bullying and Harassment at School and School Climate.
Sources for this narrative:
1. David-Ferdon, C., et al. (2021). Vital signs: Prevalence of multiple forms of violence and increased health risk behaviors and conditions among youths — United States, 2019. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 70, 167-173. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7005a4.htm?s_cid=mm7005a4_w
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). School connectedness. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/protective/school_connectedness.htm
3. Wang, K., et al. (2020). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2019. National Center for Education Statistics & Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020063
4. Frederique, N. (2020). What do the data reveal about violence in schools? National Institute of Justice Journal, 282, 65-71. Retrieved from: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-do-data-reveal-about-violence-schools - How Children Are Faring
-
According to a 2017-2019 survey, less than a quarter of California public school students in grades 7, 9, 11, and non-traditional programs felt very safe when at school. Across survey years, boys are more likely to feel very safe at school than their female counterparts, as are students whose parents have a college degree when compared with those whose parents have lower educational attainment.
In 2017-2019, an estimated 16% of 7th graders, 10% of 9th graders, 7% of 11th graders, and 11% of non-traditional students statewide had been in at least one physical fight on school property in the previous year. Among racial/ethnic groups with data, 6% of Asian youth were in physical fights at school in the previous year, compared with 12% of their Hispanic/Latino and 20% of their African American/black peers.
Across measures, it is more common for gay, lesbian, and bisexual students and those with low levels of school connectedness to feel unsafe, fear victimization, and engage in violence-related risk behaviors when compared with other youth. For example, the share of gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth who on more than one occasion in the previous year were afraid of being beaten up at school (15%) was three times higher than for straight youth (5%) in 2017-2019. In the same period, an estimated 20% of students with low levels of school connectedness felt very unsafe at school, compared with less than 1% of students with high levels of connectedness.
In 2017-2019, an estimated 4% of students in non-traditional programs had carried a gun at school at least once in the previous year and 6% had carried another type of weapon at least once—down from 12% and 21%, respectively, in 2011-2013. By comparison, in 2017-2019 1% of students in traditional 11th grade had carried a gun and 4% had carried another type of weapon. Across all student groups with data in 2017-2019, less than 6% of youth had carried a gun at school in the previous year and less than 9% had carried a weapon other than a gun. - Policy Implications
-
When students are exposed to violence or feel unsafe at school, it can affect their academic performance and negatively impact their mental and physical health, sometimes with lasting consequences into adulthood (1, 2). The safety of school environments can be improved by creating positive school climates, strengthening youth mental health services, revamping school discipline policies, and supporting evidence-based violence prevention programs at the individual, family, school, and neighborhood levels (2, 3, 4). Strategies to increase school safety also should address bullying and harassment, which jeopardizes the well being of millions of students nationwide (5, 6). In addition, there is growing public concern around mass casualty events in schools, which (while rare) have increased in recent years (7, 8). Preventing and reducing all types of school violence will require continued collaboration across sectors to address student needs and behaviors, together with comprehensive efforts to strengthen protective factors in homes, schools, and communities (2, 3).
Policy and practice options that could enhance student and staff safety include:- Providing schools with adequate support to create positive school climates—environments in which students feel valued, supported, and engaged—which are linked to lower rates of violence; such efforts should provide staff with ongoing training and students with systems of support to address their behavioral health needs (2, 4, 9)
- Supporting family- and school-based programs that build social-emotional skills including teamwork, communication, problem solving, and conflict resolution (2, 3)
- Expanding the workforce of qualified mental health professionals serving youth—particularly in under-resourced schools and communities—and ensuring that school staff are trained to recognize emotional and behavioral problems and refer students to appropriate services (2, 4, 10)
- Engaging all school stakeholders—students, families, teachers, leaders, and others—in developing shared codes of conduct, anti-bullying statements, and reporting systems for concerning behavior; these should pay particular attention to vulnerable populations (e.g., LGBTQ youth) and include training for bystanders and school staff on how to deal with bullying and cyberbullying incidents (5, 6, 9, 10)
- Ensuring that school emergency drills are developmentally appropriate, are sensitive to the unique needs of children participating (e.g., those with disabilities or past trauma), and consider carefully the emotional risks for students (8)
- Assuring that schools have non-punitive discipline policies that are clear, fair, and consistent, and that teachers and administrators are adequately trained; this should include trauma-informed, culturally-sensitive practices and a tiered system of appropriate responses to misconduct that keeps students in school when possible (2, 4)
- Promoting evidence-based violence prevention strategies that are tailored to community needs and led by cross-sector coalitions; for example, ensuring that youth are connected to caring adults through mentoring or after-school programs and that young children have nurturing early childhood environments (3)
For more information, see kidsdata.org’s Research & Links section. Also see Policy Implications under Bullying and Harassment at School, School Climate, and School Attendance and Discipline.
Sources for this narrative:
1. David-Ferdon, C., et al. (2021). Vital signs: Prevalence of multiple forms of violence and increased health risk behaviors and conditions among youths — United States, 2019. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 70, 167-173. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7005a4.htm?s_cid=mm7005a4_w
2. Darling-Hammond, L., & Cook-Harvey, C. M. (2018). Educating the whole child: Improving school climate to support student success. Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/educating-whole-child-report
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Preventing youth violence. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/fastfact.html
4. Whitaker, A., et al. (n.d.). Cops and no counselors: How the lack of school mental health staff is harming students. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved from: https://www.aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/school-prison-pipeline/cops-and-no-counselors
5. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2021). Cyberbullying: Identification, Prevention, and Response. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from: https://cyberbullying.org/cyberbullying-fact-sheet-identification-prevention-and-response
6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Maternal and Child Health Bureau. (2017). Assessing prevention capacity and implementing change: An evidence-informed and evidence-based bullying prevention capacity assessment and change package. Retrieved from: https://mchb.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/mchb/MaternalChildHealthInitiatives/MCHB_ChangePkg_8-24-17_sxf.pdf
7. Frederique, N. (2020). What do the data reveal about violence in schools? National Institute of Justice Journal, 282, 65-71. Retrieved from: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-do-data-reveal-about-violence-schools
8. Schonfeld, D. J., et al. (2020). Participation of children and adolescents in live crisis drills and exercises.Pediatrics, 146(3), e2020015503. Retrieved from: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/146/3/e2020015503/36710/Participation-of-Children-and-Adolescents-in-Live
9. Afkinich, J. L., & Klumpner, S. (2018). Violence prevention strategies and school safety. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 9(4), 637-650. Retrieved from: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/700656
10. National Threat Assessment Center. (2021). Averting targeted school violence: A U.S. Secret Service analysis of plots against schools. Department of Homeland Security, Retrieved from: https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2021-03/USSS%20Averting%20Targeted%20School%20Violence.2021.03.pdf - Research & Links
-
- Websites with Related Information
-
- California Dept. of Education: Safe Schools
- California Safe and Supportive Schools. WestEd.
- California Safe Schools Coalition
- Community Matters
- Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
- National Center for Healthy Safe Children: Safe Schools Framework Implementation Toolkit. American Institutes for Research.
- National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments. American Institutes for Research.
- Preventing School Violence. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
- SchoolSafety.gov. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, et al.
- School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
- StopBullying.gov. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.
- VetoViolence. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
- Youth.gov. Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs.
- Key Reports and Research
-
- 2019 National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Youth in Our Nation’s Schools. (2020). Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). Kosciw, J. G., et al.
- A Comprehensive Technical Package for the Prevention of Youth Violence and Associated Risk Behaviors. (2016). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. David-Ferdon, C., et al.
- Averting Targeted School Violence: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Plots Against Schools. (2021). U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. National Threat Assessment Center.
- California School Climate, Health, and Learning Surveys Reports and Data. WestEd & California Dept. of Education.
- California School Safety Toolkit. (2016). Zellerbach Family Foundation, et al. Campie, P., et al.
- Cops and No Counselors: How the Lack of School Mental Health Staff Is Harming Students. American Civil Liberties Union. Whitaker, A., et al.
- Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools: Findings from the School Survey on Crime and Safety. American Institutes for Research.
- Cyberbullying: Identification, Prevention, and Response. (2021). Cyberbullying Research Center. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W.
- Educating the Whole Child: Improving School Climate to Support Student Success. (2018). Learning Policy Institute. Darling-Hammond, L., & Cook-Harvey, C. M.
- Interventions to Reduce Bullying and Cyberbullying. (2019). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Smith, P., et al. (Eds.)
- LGBTQ Youth in California’s Public Schools: Differences Across the State. (2017). Williams Institute. Choi, S. K., et al.
- Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises. (2020). Pediatrics. Schonfeld, D. J., et al.
- School Discipline Consensus Report: Strategies from the Field to Keep Students Engaged in School and Out of the Juvenile Justice System. (2014). Council of State Governments Justice Center. Morgan, E., et al.
- Violence Impacts Teens’ Lives: Prevent Violence. Improve Lifelong Health. (2021). CDC Vital Signs.
- What Do the Data Reveal About Violence in Schools? (2020). National Institute of Justice Journal. Frederique, N.
- County/Regional Reports
-
- 2023 California County Scorecard of Children's Well-Being. Children Now.
- Santa Monica Youth Wellbeing Report Card. Santa Monica Cradle to Career.
- More Data Sources For School Safety
-
- California School Climate, Health, and Learning Surveys Public Dashboards. WestEd & California Dept. of Education.
- Condition of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.
- K-12 School Shooting Database. Center for Homeland Defense and Security & Federal Emergency Management Agency.
- Reports on the Implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act. National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments.
- Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Receive Kidsdata News
New and notable data findings delivered regularly to your inbox.