Understanding Crime Victimization Among College Students in the United States, 1993-1994 (ICPSR 3074)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Hide

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

Since the Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act was passed by Congress in 1990, all postsecondary institutions in the United States that received federal financial aid were required to provide access to campus crime statistics. However, these data were subject to the problems common to all official crime statistics, and there were no victimization studies of college students to provide supplemental data. The nature of the official crime data did not allow researchers to determine the prevalence and correlates of crime on campus and to assess the security problems of postsecondary institutions. Given the limitations of official data, this study was conducted to satisfy four primary objectives: (1) to determine the prevalence and nature of campus crime, (2) to help the campus community more fully assess crime, fear and perceived risk of victimization, and security problems, (3) to aid in the development and evaluation of location-specific and campus-wide security policies and crime prevention programs, and (4) to make a contribution to the theoretical study of campus crime and security.

Study Design View help for Study Design

Data for Part 1, Student-Level Data, and Part 2, Incident-Level Data, were collected by the Institute of Policy Research at the University of Cincinnati using computer-aided telephone interviewing (CATI) for the student-level data and hardcopy survey instruments for the incident reports. The structured telephone interview technique used was modeled after the redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Using stratified random sampling, over 3,000 college students from 12 schools were interviewed. Researchers collected detailed information about the incident and the victimization, and demographic characteristics of victims and nonvictims. Each student was first asked a set of screen questions to determine eligibility. Each eligible student was then asked a series of victimization screen questions. If the respondent said "yes" to any of the screen questions, then an incident report was completed for each "yes" response. For Part 3, School Data, the researchers surveyed campus officials at the sampled schools and collected official data to supplement institution-level crime prevention information obtained from students. Mail-back surveys were sent to directors of campus security or campus police at the 12 sampled schools, and addressed various aspects of campus security, crime prevention programs, and crime prevention services available on the campuses. Additionally, mail-back surveys were sent to directors of campus planning, facilities management, or a related office at the same schools to obtain information on the extent and type of planning and design actions taken by the campus for crime prevention. Part 3 also contains data on the characteristics of the 12 schools obtained from PETERSON'S GUIDE TO FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES (1994). Part 4, Census Data, is comprised of 1990 Census data describing the census tracts in which 12 schools were located and all tracts adjacent to the schools.

Sample View help for Sample

Two-stage stratified random sampling.

Universe View help for Universe

Parts 1 and 2: All full-time and part-time undergraduate, graduate, postdoctoral, continuing education, and certificate program students enrolled since fall term 1993 at four-year postsecondary institutions in the United States with a total enrollment over 1,000 students who were not full-time employees of the respective school. Part 3: All four-year, postsecondary institutions in the United States (not including territories or campuses overseas). Part 4: All 1990 Census tracts.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Source View help for Data Source

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

Demographic variables in Part 1 include year of birth, sex, race, marital status, current enrollment status, employment status, residency status, and parents' education. Victimization variables include whether the student had ever been a victim of theft, burglary, robbery, motor vehicle theft, assault, sexual assault, vandalism, or harassment. Students who had been victimized were also asked the number of times victimization incidents occurred, how often the police were called, and if they knew the perpetrator. All students were asked about measures of self-protection, fear of crime, perceptions of crime on campus, and campus security measures. For Part 2, questions were asked about the location of each incident, whether the offender had a weapon, a description of the offense and the victim's response, injuries incurred, characteristics of the offender, and whether the incident was reported to the police. For Part 3, respondents were asked about how general campus security needs were being met by the school, the nature and extent of crime prevention programs and services available at the school (including when the program or service was first implemented), and recent crime prevention activities. Campus planners were asked if specific types of campus security features (e.g., emergency telephone, territorial markers, perimeter barriers, key-card access, surveillance cameras, crime safety audits, design review for safety features, trimming shrubs and underbrush to reduce hiding places, etc.) were present during the 1993-1994 academic year and if yes, how many or how often. Additionally, data were collected on the total full-time enrollment, type of institution, percent of undergraduate female students enrolled, percent of African-American students enrolled, acreage, total fraternities, total sororities, crime rate of city/county where the school was located, and Carnegie classification. For Part 4, Census data were compiled on percent unemployed, percent having a high school degree or higher, percent of all persons below the poverty level, and percent of the population that was Black.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

Parts 1 and 2: 71 percent. Part 3: 100 percent. Part 4: Not applicable.

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

Several Likert-type scales were used.

Hide

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2001-04-17

Version History View help for Version History

Hide