My da|ra Login

Detailed view

metadata language: English

Understanding Crime Victimization Among College Students in the United States, 1993-1994

Version
v0
Resource Type
Dataset : Parts 1 and 2: survey data, Part 3: survey data and administrative records data, Part 4: census/enumeration data
Creator
  • Fisher, Bonnie S. (University of Cincinnati)
  • Sloan III, John J. (University of Cincinnati)
  • Cullen, Francis T. (University of Cincinnati)
Other Title
  • Archival Version (Subtitle)
Publication Date
2001-04-17
Funding Reference
  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice
Language
English
Free Keywords
college students; colleges; crime prevention; fear of crime; risk assessment; security; victimization
Description
  • Abstract

    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.
  • Abstract

    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.
  • Abstract

    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.
  • Abstract

    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.
  • Methods

    ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
  • Methods

    Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used.
  • Methods

    Response Rates: Parts 1 and 2: 71 percent. Part 3: 100 percent. Part 4: Not applicable.
  • Table of Contents

    Datasets:

    • DS0: Study-Level Files
    • DS1: Student-Level Data
    • DS2: Incident-Level Data
    • DS3: School Data
    • DS4: Census Data
Temporal Coverage
  • 1993 / 1994
    Time period: 1993--1994
  • 1993 / 1994
    Collection date: 1993--1994
Geographic Coverage
  • United States
Sampled 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.
Sampling
Two-stage stratified random sampling.
Note
2006-03-30 File UG3074.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.2006-03-30 File CB3074.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (93-IJ-CX-0049).
Availability
Delivery
One or more files in this study are not available for download due to special restrictions; consult the study documentation to learn more on how to obtain the data.
Alternative Identifiers
  • 3074 (Type: ICPSR Study Number)
Relations
  • Is previous version of
    DOI: 10.3886/ICPSR03074.v1
Publications
  • Morral, Andrew R., Gore, Kristie L., Schell, Terry L.. Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military. Volume 1. Design of the 2014 RAND Military Workplace Study.Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. 2014.
    • ID: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR800/RR870z1/RAND_RR870z1.pdf (URL)
  • Allen, W. David. Self-protection against crime victimization: Theory and evidence from university campuses. International Review of Law and Economics.34, 21-33.2013.
    • ID: 10.1016/j.irle.2012.11.002 (DOI)
  • Farina, Katie A.. The Effects of Situational Crime Prevention on Crime and Fear among College Campuses and Students. Thesis, Villanova University. 2009.
  • Cass, Amy I.. Routine activities and sexual assault: An analysis of individual- and school-level factors. Violence and Victims.22, (3), 350-366.2007.
    • ID: 10.1891/088667007780842810 (DOI)
  • Fisher, Bonnie S., Sloan, John J., III. Unraveling the fear of victimization among college women: Is the 'shadow of sexual assault' hypothesis supported?. Justice Quarterly.20, (3), 633-659.2003.
    • ID: 10.1080/07418820300095641 (DOI)
  • Fisher, Bonnie S., Wilkes, Andrew R. P.. Tale of two ivory towers: A comparative analysis of victimization rates and risks between university students in the United States and England. British Journal of Criminology.43, (2), 526-545.2003.
  • Fisher, B.S., Sloan, J.J., Jr., Cullen, F.T., Lu, C.. Crime in the Ivory Tower: The Level and Sources of Student Victimization. Criminology.36, (3), 671-710.1998.
    • ID: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01262.x (DOI)
  • Sloan III, J.J., Fisher, B.S., Cullen, F.T.. Assessing the Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act of 1990: An Analysis of the Victim Reporting Practices of College and University Students. Crime and Delinquency.43, (2), 148-168.1997.
    • ID: 10.1177/0011128797043002002 (DOI)
  • Fisher, B.S.. Crime and Fear on Campus. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.539, 85-101.1995.
    • ID: 10.1177/0002716295539001007 (DOI)
  • Fisher, Bonnie S., Sloan, John J., III, Cullen, Francis T.. Understanding Crime Victimization among College Students. Research-in-Brief.NCJ 175503, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 1995.
  • Fisher, Bonnie S., Sloan, John J., III, Cullen, Francis T.. Understanding Crime Victimization on College Campuses: Implications for Crime Prevention, Final Report. NCJ 173071, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 1995.
  • Fisher, Bonnie S., Sloan, John J., III., Cullen, Francis T., Lu, Chunmeng. On-Campus Victimization Patterns of Students Implications for Crime Prevention by Students and Post-Secondary Institutions. NCJ 175504, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. .
    • ID: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/175504NCJRS.pdf (URL)

Update Metadata: 2015-08-05 | Issue Number: 6 | Registration Date: 2015-06-15

Fisher, Bonnie S.; Sloan III, John J.; Cullen, Francis T. (2001): Understanding Crime Victimization Among College Students in the United States, 1993-1994. Archival Version. Version: v0. ICPSR - Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03074