Search results

Showing 1 – 9 of 9 results.
Curated

Crime on Campus, 1978-1979: A Survey of 150 College Campuses and Cities (ICPSR 8381)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1978-01-01--1979-01-01
This data collection provides information on crime on 150 selected college campuses and cities in the United States in the period 1978-1979. The collection covers violent crime and property crime on campus and in cities, and the number and sex of police officers assigned to campus duty and in cities. Aggregate socioeconomic information for campuses includes the amount of financial aid received, while information for cities includes the percentage of residents who were unemployed or below poverty level, female labor force participation, and household activity ratio. Campus demographic variables itemize the percentage of males and females residing on campus, percentage of Blacks attending school, number of foreign students, student-faculty ratio, total number of students on campus, students per acre, and students per 1,000 city residents. Aggregate demographic variables for cities are provided on total population, percentage of residents aged 15-19 or 20-24 years old, total number of households, number of single mother-headed households, and percentage of Blacks in the city.
Curated

Drugs, Alcohol, and Student Crime in the United States, April-May 1989 (ICPSR 9585)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1989-04-01--1989-05-01
This project examined different aspects of campus crime -- specifically, the prevalence of crimes among college students, whether the crime rate was increasing or decreasing on college campuses, and the factors related to campus crime. Researchers made the assumption that crimes committed by and against college students were likely to be related to drug and alcohol use. Specific questions designed to be answered by the data include: (1) Do students who commit crimes differ in their use of drugs and alcohol from students who do not commit crimes? (2) Do students who are victims of crimes differ in their use of drugs and alcohol from students who are not victims? (3) How do multiple offenders differ from single offenders in their use of drugs and alcohol? (4) How do victims of violent crimes differ from victims of nonviolent crimes in their use of drugs and alcohol? (5) What types of student crimes are more strongly related to drug or alcohol use than others? (6) Other than drug and alcohol use, in what ways can victims and perpetrators of crimes be differentiated from students who have had no direct experiences with crime? Variables include basic demographic information, academic information, drug use information, and experiences with crime since becoming a student.
Curated
Partially restricted

Impact of Information Security in Academic Institutions on Public Safety and Security in the United States, 2005-2006 (ICPSR 21188)

Released/updated on: 2008-08-22
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2005-02-01--2006-06-01

Despite the critical information security issues faced by academic institutions, little research has been conducted at the policy, practice, or theoretical levels to address these issues, and few policies or cost-effective controls have been developed. The purpose of this research study was three-fold: (1) to create an empirically-based profile of issues and approaches, (2) to develop a practical road map for policy and practice, and (3) to advance the knowledge, policy, and practice of academic institutions, law enforcement, government, and researchers. The study design incorporated three methods of data collection: a quantitative field survey, qualitative one-on-one interviews, and an empirical assessment of the institutions' network activity.

Survey data collection involved simple random sampling of 600 academic institutions from the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) database, recruitment via postcard, telephone, and email, Web-based survey administration, and three follow-ups. Results are contained in Part 1, Quantitative Field Survey Data. Interview data collection involved selecting a sample size of 15 institutions through a combination of simple random and convenience sampling, recruitment via telephone and email, and face-to-face or telephone interviews. Results are contained in Part 2, Qualitative One-on-One Interview Data. Network analysis data collection involved convenience sampling of two academic institutions, recruitment via telephone and email, installing Higher Education Network Analysis (HENA) on participants' systems, and six months of data collection. Results are in Part 3, Subject 1 Network Analysis Data, and Part 4, Subject 2 Network Analysis Data.

The Quantitative Field Survey Data (Part 1) contains 19 variables on characteristics of institutions that participated in the survey component of this study, as well as 263 variables derived from responses to the Information Security in Academic Institutions Survey, which was organized into five sections: Environment, Policy, Information Security Controls, Information Security Challenges, and Resources. The Qualitative One-on-One Interview Data (Part 2) contains qualitative responses to a combination of closed-response and open-response formats. The data are divided into the following seven sections: Environment, Institution's Potential Vulnerability, Institution's Potential Threat, Information Value and Sharing, End Users, Countermeasures, and Insights. Data collected through the empirical analysis of network activity (Part 3 and Part 4) include type and protocol of attack, source and destination information, and geographic location.

Curated

Longitudinal Study of Violence Against Women: Victimization and Perpetration Among College Students in a State-Supported University in the United States, 1990-1995 (ICPSR 3212)

Released/updated on: 2015-09-11
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1990-01-01--1995-01-01
The purpose of this study was to investigate longitudinally the developmental antecedents of physical and sexual violence against young women, using a theoretically based multicausal model that included characteristics related to the victim, the perpetrator, and the environment. The researchers used a classic longitudinal design, replicated over two cohorts (those born in 1972 and 1973), each assessed first when 18 years old, and again when 19, 20, 21, and 22 years old. The first survey (Part 1, Female Data) collected information on the respondent's experiences of sexual assault from age 14 to the present (age 18). Other questions focused on the kind of person the respondent thought she was, how much of an influence religion had on the way she chose to spend each day, her dating behavior during high school, the number of times the respondent had used behavior such as discussing issues relatively calmly, arguing, sulking, stomping out of the room, or threatening to hit, with a romantic partner during high school, and how frequently romantic partners used these types of behavior with the respondent. Other items elicited information on the number of women the respondent knew who had been sexually victimized, whether men forced them to engage in sexual activities, the nature of the respondent's sexual experience from the time she was 14 to the present, the respondent's age when each experience occurred, if the respondent or the other person was using drugs or alcohol when it happened, if the respondent was injured, and whom the respondent told about the experience. Information was collected on sexual abuse prior to the age of 14 as well. The respondent was also asked to describe how often her parents or stepparents had administered physical blows (i.e., hitting, kicking, throwing someone down), whether someone had fondled her in a sexual way, whether a male had attempted intercourse with the respondent, the relationship between the respondent and the perpetrator, the respondent's age when the experience occurred, who the other person was, who initiated the date or paid for the food, drinks, or tickets, whether the respondent or the other person was using drugs or alcohol, the respondent's opinions about men and women in America (i.e., if the respondent agreed or disagreed that chivalrous gestures toward women on the part of men should be encouraged), whether the respondent had engaged in sexual intercourse when she did not want to because a male threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting her arm, holding her down, etc.), and the respondent's drug and alcohol use. The subsequent surveys contained measures of sexual assault during each year of college (i.e., since the previous survey). Questions asked in subsequent surveys were similar to those in the first survey, and the responses are all included in Part 1. Questions posed to males (Part 2, Male Data) included the number of women the respondent had sexual intercourse with, how often the respondent heard talk that speculated how a particular woman would be in bed, reasons the respondent engaged in sexual activity, number of times the respondent engaged in sexual intercourse when a woman didn't want to, and questions similar to those in Part 1 with the respondent as the perpetrator. Demographic information in Part 1 and Part 2 describes the female or the male respondent's education, race, religious preference, sexual orientation, and marital or relationship status.
Curated

Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995: [United States] (ICPSR 6846)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
In 1995, to determine the nature of law enforcement services provided on campus, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) surveyed four-year institutions of higher education in the United States with 2,500 or more students. This survey describes nearly 600 of these campus law enforcement agencies in terms of their personnel, expenditures and pay, operations, equipment, computers and information systems, policies, and special programs. The survey was based on the BJS Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) program, which collected similar data from a national sample of state and local law enforcement agencies.
Curated

Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2004-2005: [United States] (ICPSR 27261)

Released/updated on: 2010-03-09
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2004-01-01--2005-01-01
This survey covered the 2004-2005 academic year and collected data from law enforcement agencies using sworn police officers and those using only non-sworn security officers. Agencies serving 4-year United States universities and colleges with a fall 2004 enrollment of 2,500 or more, and those serving 2-year public colleges with a fall 2004 enrollment of 10,000 or more were surveyed. United States military academies and for-profit institutions were excluded. Data were collected in conjunction with the 2004 BJS Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies. The survey instrument was patterned after the BJS Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics survey. Data were collected describing campus law enforcement agencies, including personnel, expenditures and pay, operations, equipment, computers and information systems, policies, and special programs. BJS conducted an earlier survey of campus law enforcement agencies, covering the 1994-1995 school year. Users can access the data collection from the ICPSR Web site (ICPSR 6846).
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2011-2012 (ICPSR 36217)

Released/updated on: 2015-08-13
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2011-01-01--2012-01-01

These data are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) 2011- 12 Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies. In preparation for the survey, a universe list of 4-year and 2-year campuses was compiled using the United States Department of Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).

The survey focused primarily on agencies serving 4-year universities and colleges with a fall headcount enrollment of 2,500 or more. In addition, 2-year institutions with 2,500 or more students and a sample of 4-year institutions with 1,000 to 2,499 students were surveyed. These campuses are covered in a separate report. Schools were classified according to the level of the highest proportion of degrees awarded. The survey excluded:

  • United States military academies and schools,
  • for-profit institutions,
  • schools operating primarily online.

Of the 905 4-year campuses with 2,500 or more students identified as being potentially eligible for the 2011-12 survey, 861 reported that they were operating their own campus law enforcement agency. These 861 agencies were asked to provide data describing their personnel, functions, expenditures and pay, operations, equipment, computers and information systems, community policing activities, specialized units, and emergency preparedness activities. ICF International, with the assistance of BJS, served as the data collection agent. BJS also conducted surveys of campus law enforcement agencies covering the 1994-95 and 2004-05 school years. The reports produced from these surveys are available on the BJS Web site and data are available on the ICPSR Web site.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 2021-2022: [United States] (ICPSR 39452)

Released/updated on: 2026-04-09
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2021-01-01--2022-01-01
These data are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) 2021-2022 Survey of Campus Law Enforcement Agencies (SCLEA). The 2021 SCLEA was conducted as a census of campus law enforcement agencies serving public and private 4-year and 2-year institutions offering in-person instruction with more than 1,000 full-time students. Respondents provided data on agency personnel, functions, technology and communication, training, and equipment and techniques. BJS also conducted surveys of campus law enforcement agencies covering the 1994-95 (ICPSR 6846), 2004-05 (ICPSR 27261), and 2011-12 (ICPSR 36217) school years. The reports produced from these surveys are available on the BJS Web site and data are available on the ICPSR Web site.
Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1993-01-01--1994-01-01
This study was designed to collect college student victimization data 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, perceived risk, fear of victimization, and security problems, (3) to aid in the development and evaluation of location-specific and campus-wide security policies and crime prevention measures, 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 from a random sample of college students in the United States using a structured telephone interview 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, as well as data on self-protection, fear of crime, perceptions of crime on campus, and campus security measures. For Part 3, School Data, the researchers surveyed campus officials at the sampled schools and gathered official data to supplement institution-level crime prevention information obtained from the students. Mail-back surveys were sent to directors of campus security or campus police at the 12 sampled schools, addressing 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 related offices at the same 12 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 the 12 schools were located and all tracts adjacent to the schools. 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 met, 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 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 the school's 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.
Back to top