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.
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.
Two-stage stratified random sampling.
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.
Part 1: Students, Part 2: Incidents, Part 3:
Schools, Part 4: Census tracts.
Parts 1 and 2: telephone interviews, Part 3: mail-back
questionnaire and PETERSON'S GUIDE TO FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES (1994), Part
4: 1990 United States Census of Population and Housing
Parts 1 and 2: survey data, Part 3: survey data and
administrative records data, Part 4: census/enumeration data
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.
Parts 1 and 2: 71 percent. Part 3: 100 percent.
Part 4: Not applicable.
Several Likert-type scales were used.