Incidents of Violence and Crime Inside Educational Institutions 2014-2017


The report aims to monitor the incidents of violence & crime inside educational institutions (pre higher education) in Egypt during the period 2014-2017.The report contains the incidents which were referred to administrative & criminal investigation and the incidents which were published in the press only, except same cases which will be presented in the research methodology.The number of incidents was 362 in 2014, 377 in 2015, 184 in 2016, and 465 in 2017. The total number of incidents in the four year period was 1379.

The timeline of the monitoring process showed that the highest total of human losses took place in the first half of 2017 with a total of 1947 incidents (996 males, 951 females).While the first half of 2014 was the first in number of deaths with a total of 25 (19 males, 6 females), the first half of 2016 was the lowest in number of injured with a total of 239 (130 males, 109 females) and the second half of 2016 was the lowest in number of deaths with a total of 4 (1 male, 3 females).


The geographical analysis showed that Giza governorate was first with 139 incidents then Sohag with 110, then Dakahlia with 93 incidents, whereas the borders and coastal governorates had the lowest number of incidents as follows, 3 in South Sinai, 10 in Matruh, 11 in Ismailia and 12 in North Sinai.


The geographical track of human losses shown, 70% of human losses were centralized in 5 governorates. Beheira governorate had the largest number with 20 death cases (14 males, 6 females), as for injured Sohag came first with 1868 cases (966 males, 902 females) where Beheira came second with 359 cases (185 males, 174 females).


As for the education levels during the four years, the primary level ranked the first with 522 incidents, the preparatory level came second with 278 incidents, then the general secondary level with 277 incidents and the military secondary came at the end with 5 incidents.


The monitoring showed that 56% of physical assaults incidents took place in the “preschool” level and 43% in the “preparatory” level.
33% of sexual assaults and sexual harassments incidents happened in different educational levels in “intellectual education” schools, 19% of them in the preschool level.


As for the categorization of the educational institutions, the monitoring showed that the mixed and the boys’ schools ranked first with 520 incidents each and the girls’ schools came second with 169 incidents.In public schools there were 1244 incidents, 697 of them resulted in “physical effects”, 168 incidents involved “human factor” and 165 incidents of “exams violations”. In private schools only 103 incidents took place during the same period 2014-2017, 59 of them resulted in “physical effects” and 29 incidents involved “human factor”.

The monitoring showed that 93% of injured occurred in public schools, while 5% occurred in private schools.As for human losses 42% happened in public schools whereas 54% in private schools.

The monitoring showed that the highest total of injured occurred in the primary level with 4582 incidents, the preparatory level has the second largest number of 454 incidents.20 deaths happened in the preparatory level whereas 19 happened in hospitality and tourism secondary.


Physical assault incidents were the most prevalent inside educational institutions in Egypt with a total of 488 incidents, of which 12% took place in Giza governorate.Incidents of fire came next with a total of 116 incidents, 10.3% of them happened in Sohag governorate, motor vehicle accidents followed with 20 incidents, of which 40% took place in Giza governorate.


The monitoring showed that 448 physical assault incidents took place in public schools, while 35 incidents happened in private schools. 79 incidents of sexual “harassment/assault” happened in public schools, whereas 14 incidents took place in private schools.

Motor vehicle incidents occurred in public and private schools with a total of 5 and 12 respectively.


During the years 2014-2017 nearly 1843 students (males, females) suffered from infectious diseases like favus, chickenpox and mumps. 2755 students (males, females) – developed food poisoning from school meals.Also motor vehicle accidents caused the death of 38 students during the same period.


The monitoring showed that incidents which resulted in “physical effects” were the most occurring with a total of 768 incidents, incidents that involved “human factor” came next with a total of 206 incidents while incidents which resulted in “moral effects” were the least occurring with a total of 37 incidents.

The monitoring has provided a statistical track of the reactions of those affected by all forms of damage.During the years 2014-2017, there were submitted communications for approximately 672 incidents, filing complaints for 23 incidents, 511 incidents were investigated by officials, 7 incidents resulting in protest action and the victims tried to report 25 incidents using the media.


The report stated that criminal proceedings were pursued for approximately 1478 injured and 66 death cases; and administrative complaint proceedings were pursued for approximately 3970 injured and 7 death cases.
The total of service recipients’ victims inside educational institutions was 5673, while total of service providers’ victims was 294 and 4 victims from outside educational institutions.

With regard to the type of action taken by the competent authorities, there were approximately 666 incidents for which criminal action was taken, 557 administrative procedures and in 27 cases the media was used as a procedure that may contribute in their final decisions.

Data collection methods and research methodology

At the beginning, the approximate timeline for the research was determined, starting 2011 ending 2016, but the sample available was limited to 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. The researcher considered this adequate information to fulfill the research objective.
The research was limited to desk research depending only on the electronic search without field research.
The proposed period of time to finish the research was 2 months but it was extended to 3 months in order to maintain the standards of the information as much as possible.

According to some initial standards set by the researcher the target unit and type of incidents to be monitored were determined.

Type of sources and the credibility of the report methodology

First: Data sources

Sociological contexts are secondary sources, whereas historical contexts are primary sources. Data sources are decentralized, they arise from local media that are decentralized and dispersed across governorates, and they are largely contingent on daily and periodical data provided by official entities, which can be relied on in conveying data literally.


Because this report contains information based on facts (i.e. reported acts of violence, perpetrator and abuser according to educational institutions, disciplinary procedures) rather than stories (i.e. how the incident took place according to each party) only these sources were selected in this version.


Second: Data methodology and data authentication 

The Data Methodology technique, well-known in the field of social sciences, depends on building interrelated multi-source information pyramid. Data is checked at different stages through comparisons and evaluations considering the context, bias, data obsolescence, extrapolations and poor and hyper-information. Therefore, most of the data variables have more than one source and all sources are well illustrated in details and explained transparently.


Working on the data on all its different stages requires at first understanding the context, nature of data, its structure, and its sources. This step is followed by the phase of dismantling the content into variables, then bridging the information gaps through reconstructing the levels of information sources, and then building descriptive data for the basic variables. These phases are followed by concluding information which is not available with 100% accuracy.


Then comes the assumptions phase with 90% confidence interval based upon the academic standards.

At last there is a comprehensive evaluation done to assess the developed data and information in terms of its reliability and credibility.

Third: Sources categorization

3 types of sources were categorized:

Official Sources: reported incidents according to official state sources.
Press Sources: reported incidents taken directly from press sources or media coverage.
Syndicate Sources: reported incidents directly from syndicate members


The data was collected using keywords “pupil, student, teacher” each word separately, day by day, on the following sites: “Almasry alyoum, Alyoum alsabah, Alahram gate”, then the same keywords were used on Google, each word separately, week by week, and this phase took approximately one month and a half.

– The monitoring included an assessment of the data credibility, based on the researcher’s perspective; each incident was assessed in terms of the primary source type, the incident details and its accuracy. The monitoring relied on 1219 official sources, 156 press sources and 4 syndicate sources. The assessment showed that 156 sources were ranked as “good”, 802 sources were “average” and 421 sources were “acceptable”.
– A Google document was used for collecting and recording the incidents by writing the title of the incident and its electronic link according to the date of publication.
– A Google Form was used as data entry tool according to  classifications set by the researcher as initial idea concluded during data collection phase.
One of the researchers suggested using an Excel sheet instead of Google form to save time. In fact, the Excel sheet was used during this phase, which lasted for almost 3 weeks.

The data filtration phase started after data collection and data entry phases followed by adding the metadata/descriptive data according to the final conclusion after completion of all phases.

A plan for the statistical and graphical system was prepared and implemented in two days.

– The methodology, standards and conceptual framework were written in just 3 days.


The monitoring map and the conceptual framework

First: the data on incidents

This section included the time and location of the incident in addition to the description.It included the following:

– The date: when the incident happened according to the information available; if there is no information available then the publication date was used.
-The governorate: where the educational institution which witnessed the incident is located. It includes all Egyptian governorates.
The district: The district of the Police Station to which the educational institution belongs according to the information available.”Due to the lack of information available, in some cases the police station was identified without its number, for example “Zagazig first, Zagazig second”.

– The period of the incident: the academic period in which the incident took place, such as the period of examinations or school holidays, etc…
The type and category of incident: the incident was identified as descriptive /metadata, which includes the type of the incident, and this, is considered as the most detailed description of the incident.  

There are some concepts to be clarified as follows:
* Physical assault or injury:  includes beating and fighting in all its forms.
* Verbal violation: includes swearing, inappropriate speech (offensive to public morals), mal treatment and arguments.
* Possession or use of banned materials: includes drugs, weapons and counterfeit money.

* Exam violation: includes destroying the exam/answer sheet, preventing the student from entering the exam and impersonating the student.

* Acts that are contrary to public morals: includes the use of the school premises for purposes other than what they should be used for, such as using it to store goods or a den for the practice of vice or the occurrence of an act contrary to public morals such as dance and entertainment in the classrooms during the school day.

* Vehicle accident: includes crashing or overturning of the educational institution’s vehicles, falling out of the vehicle and hit-and-run incidents.

* Falling from a height: includes falls from the school’s higher floors, or from on top of the walls or falling into a well or a hole inside the schoolyard.
* Collapse of a facility or its equipment: includes the collapse of a building or a part thereof, or equipment such as a school gate, board in the playground, a ceiling fan, a fountain, or a piano.


Second: data on the institution


This data identifies the educational institution that witnessed the occurrence of the incident and includes the following:
* The name of the institution: as announced by the Ministry of Education according to the information available.
* Social classification of the institution: the gender, either boys, girls or mixed according to the information available.
* Type of Institution: the legal administrative classification of the institution in terms of being an institution that follows the administrative structure of the state (governmental) or not (private), according to the information available.

* Location of the incident: the precise location of the incident within the educational institution according to the information available.

* Educational level of the institution: this includes all the educational levels where the incidents were observed according to the information available, knowing that the research does not include incidents that occurred in universities or other tertiary institutions.


Third: data on the perpetrators

This section determines the status of the individual or individuals or entity responsible for causing or perpetrating the incident according to the information available.
It includes the following:

* Service recipients: including all those who received the educational service in the educational institutions, in addition to the students’ parents.
* Service providers: including the educational institution with all its personnel such as director, teacher, administrator, worker, driver, etc.

* Outside the educational institution: meaning each individual and entity which doesn’t belong to the educational institution.

Fourth: Data on the victims

This section identifies the individual, the individuals or the entity which are victims of injury or death, and determines the type of injury, cause of death, number of casualties and deaths (males/females).
* The reaction of the victims: this is a set of descriptive data of the responses of affected persons, according to the information available.

* Media: means that the victim used the available media tools in an attempt to involve public opinion in resolving their case.

* Submit a communication: when the victim submits a communication to the departments of the entity or to the public prosecution.

* File a complaint: when the victim files a complaint to the administrative authorities responsible or authorized to investigate these complaints.
* Opening an investigation: when the responsible administrative or criminal authorities started to investigate prior to the victim’s request.

* A protest act: when the victim declares any act of protest such as strike, sit-ins, demonstration, etc.
* Type of the victim response: This column contains more detailed  

data of the victim response according to the information available.

Fifth: Post incident proceedings

Type and classification of the procedure: it is descriptive / metadata, each classification includes the type of action taken, which is considered the most detailed and expressive.

There are some concepts to be clarified as follows:

* Primary criminal investigations: including summons, arrest and referral to the prosecution / trial.
* Academic suspension: including granting leave due to exceptional circumstances, and the closure of the educational institution.
* Administrative investigations and prosecutions: including exclusion and referral to legal affairs.

Sixth: Data sources

It includes all the data related to the type of source and its credibility according to the researcher’s perspective.

Criteria of recording the incidents

The timeline of the monitoring started 1st January 2014 and ended 31st December 2017. It was statistically divided according to the biannual scope.
The date listed is the date of the incident according to the information provided. In cases where this information was not available we recorded the incident publication date.
– No official information was available for the beginning or the end of the semester in 2014, 2015 and 2016, therefore it was divided biannually.  
– The geographical range covered all Egyptian governorates.
– The monitoring included only the incidents which occurred inside government and private educational institutions, vehicles which belong to these institutions or during trips made under their supervision.

– In some incidents, only the department of the police station was determined for example: police station “Zagazig first” and police station “Zagazig second”, but the police station number was not available.
Violence and criminal incidents on the ground of political events were not listed, as they occurred in different contexts and circumstances.
– Incidents of administrative corruption, for example absence, poor cleanliness, lack of administrative discipline, routine intransigence and resulting damage were excluded.
Exam panic attack cases were excluded
– Food poisoning cases caused by reasons other than the school meals were excluded.
– Incidents like palm trees falling, landfall, exam delays, finding harmful animals, pupils getting lost, kidnapping attempts, were excluded.
– Recording “not available” means that the information was not available.

Hypothesis and assumptions

– If there are two types or more for the same incident, the total of incidents will be calculated according to the types.
– In the column of “Perpetrators’ data”, if one or more have committed the incident the most powerful and/or responsible perpetrator is the one to be recorded.
In the column of “Total number of perpetrators”, the highest number of accused persons included in the investigations is the number to be recorded.
– In the columns of “Victims’ data”, “Total of victims”, in case the number of males and females is not available the number of males is calculated by 50% in proportion to the number of females in the incidents taking place within mixed schools.
– If two different proceedings took place, one being administrative and the other criminal, the criminal is to be recorded.
– If two administrative or two criminal proceedings took place, the strongest action taken against the perpetrator is the action to be used.
– In the case of reconciliation between the victim and the perpetrator it could be either registered as “investigations or administrative trials” or “primary criminal investigations” according to the entity responsible for the reconciliation.
– In the event that the organizations or institutions concerned were notified of the investigations or the action taken was not specified, the procedure will be recorded as “unavailable”.
– The total number of incidents, victims and the perpetrators is not the real total number.
– The figure “zero” doesn’t necessarily mean that no cases took place at a specific time and place, but it means that no information was available according to the data collection mechanism and the methodology used.

– It has been taken into consideration that the incidents which took place during the period of Althanaweya alama exams (final year of high school) were listed as general secondary however the exams were held in primary and or preparatory schools.


– The research took more time than anticipated.
– There was difficulty in collecting precise and holistic data due to the poor electronic resources and the absence of reliable coverage of incidents.
–  Accurate and archived information related to the research, from government sources, was not easily available.
– Data collection and entry is a routine process which may lead to the boredom of the researcher.
– The observation of incidents in 2017 revealed the highest total by 456, whereas 2014, 2015, 2016 showed a lower number of incidents due to obsolete information.
– There was difficulty in obtaining accurate information related to the post incident proceedings especially if there were more than one proceeding for the same incident.
– The use of legal terms in the press for describing the post procedures was inaccurate.


By | 2018-06-11T19:13:45+00:00 11/06/2018 3:39:45 PM|PUBLICATIONS, Social Data Sets|0 Comments