The Sexual Victimization 

of College Women

Bonnie S. Fisher

Francis T. Cullen

Michael G. Turner

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Research Report

Bureau of

Justice

Statistics
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

Daniel Marcus

Acting Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou Leary

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Julie E. Samuels

Acting Director, National Institute of Justice

Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice

World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

World Wide Web Site

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs
The Sexual Victimization

of College Women

Bonnie S. Fisher

Francis T. Cullen

Michael G. Turner

December 2000

NCJ 182369
Julie E. Samuels

Acting Director

National Institute of Justice

Jan M. Chaiken

Director

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bernard V. Auchter

Program Monitor 

National Institute of Justice

Michael R. Rand

Program Monitor 

Bureau of Justice Statistics

The results from the college women studies were supported under award

95–WT–NX–0001 from the National Institute of Justice and award

97–MU–MU–0011 from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department

of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do

not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of

Justice. Joanne Belknap, Ph.D., worked with Professors Fisher and Cullen

on award 95–WT–NX–0001 in developing and revising the surveys and led

the focus groups with Professor Fisher.

The National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics are components of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice

Assistance, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the

Office for Victims of Crime.
iii

Foreword

This study contributes extremely important data to our understanding about

the prevalence and nature of violence against women in the United States.

College campuses host large concentrations of young women who are at

greater risk for rape and other forms of sexual assault than women in the

general population or in a comparable age group. Based on their findings,

Bonnie Fisher and her colleagues estimate that the women at a college that

has 10,000 female students could experience more than 350 rapes a year—

a finding with serious policy implications for college administrators. 

Fisher also found that many women do not characterize their sexual victimizations as a crime for a number of reasons (such as embarrassment, not

clearly understanding the legal definition of rape, or not wanting to define

someone they know who victimized them as a rapist) or because they blame

themselves for their sexual assault. The study reinforces the importance of

many organizations’ efforts to improve education and knowledge about sexual assault.

A unique feature of this study, brought about by joint funding from our two

agencies, is its parallel use of two different survey methods for learning

about sexual assault of women. The differences in estimated levels of sexual

assault that are associated with the methodological differences will help us

design better and more accurate surveys in the future.

Julie E. Samuels

Acting Director

National Institute of Justice

Jan M. Chaiken

Director

Bureau of Justice Statistics
v

Contents

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

What we know about sexual victimization of college women . . . . . . . . . . 2

Who was surveyed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

How was sexual victimization measured? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

What types of sexual victimization were measured 

in the NCWSV study? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

How extensive is rape among college women? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

How do the NCWSV rape estimates compare with the rape estimates

based on the National Crime Victimization Survey? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Do women define their victimization as a rape? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

How extensive are other forms of sexual victimization? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

How extensive is prior sexual victimization? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Do victims know their offenders? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

When does sexual victimization occur? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Where does sexual victimization occur? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Are women victimized on or off campus? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Do sexual victims take protective actions during the incident? . . . . . . . . . 19

Are victims hurt in the victimization incidents? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Are some women more at risk of being sexually victimized? . . . . . . . . . . 23

Do women report victimization incidents to the police? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

How extensive is stalking? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

What is the nature of stalking incidents? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
vi

Are some women more at risk of being stalked? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

What is the extent of visual and verbal sexual victimization? . . . . . . . . . . 30

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
During the past decade, concern over the sexual victimization of female

college students has escalated. In part, the interest in this problem has

been spurred by increasing attention to the victimization of women in

general; until the relatively recent past, female victims received very little

attention. However, this is no longer true. Terms such as “date rape” and

“domestic violence” have entered the public lexicon and signify the

unprecedented, if still insufficient, notice given to women who have 

been victimized.

Attention to the sexual victimization of college women, however, also has

been prompted by the rising fear that college campuses are not ivory towers

but, instead, have become hot spots for criminal activity. Researchers have

shown that college campuses and their students are not free from the risk of

criminal victimization.1 It is noteworthy that large concentrations of young

women come into contact with young men in a variety of public and private

settings at various times on college campuses. Previous research suggests

that these women are at greater risk for rape and other forms of sexual

assault than women in the general population or in a comparable age group.2

College women might, therefore, be a group whose victimization warrants

special attention.

Recognizing these risks, the U.S. Congress passed the Student Right-toKnow and Campus Security Act of 1990 (hereafter referred to as the act).

This legislation mandates that colleges and universities participating in

Federal student aid programs “prepare, publish, and distribute, through

appropriate publications or mailings, to all current students and employees,

and to any applicant for enrollment or employment upon request, an annual

security report” containing campus security policies and campus crime

statistics for that institution (see 20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(1)).3

Congress has maintained an interest in campus crime issues, passing legislation that requires higher educational institutions to address the rights of

victims of sexual victimization and to collect and publish additional crime

statistics (e.g., murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, arson). For example,

Congress amended the act in 1992 to include the Campus Sexual Assault

Victims’ Bill of Rights, which requires colleges and universities (1) to

develop and publish as part of their annual security report their policies

regarding the awareness and prevention of sexual assaults and (2) to afford

basic rights to sexual assault victims.4 The act was amended again in 1998

to include additional reporting obligations, extensive campus security-related

provisions, and the requirement to keep a daily public crime log; some States

1

The Sexual Victimization of College Women
already required a public log (Public Law 105–244).5 The 1998 amendments

also officially changed the name of the act to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of

Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act. In 1999, the U.S.

Department of Justice awarded $8.1 million to 21 colleges and universities

to combat sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking.6 In 2000, 20 additional schools were awarded $6.8 million. Two national-level studies are

currently in the field. The first study examines how institutions of higher

education respond to the report of a sexual assault. The second one is a multisite evaluation of the programs and policies implemented in the abovementioned 41 schools.

What we know about sexual victimization of

college women

Like government officials, researchers also have given attention to the sexual

victimization of college women and have conducted a number of studies.7

Although illuminating, much of the research is generally characterized by

one or more of the following limitations:

• The failure to use a randomly selected, national sample of college women.

(Many studies have sampled students at only one college or at a limited

number of institutions.)

• The failure to assess the various ways in which women can be victimized.

(Most studies have focused on a limited number of types of sexual 

victimization.)

• The failure to use question wording or sufficiently detailed measures that

prevent biases that might cause researchers to underestimate or overestimate the extent of sexual victimization.

• The failure to collect detailed information on what occurred during the

victimization incident.

• The failure to explore systematically the factors that place female students

at risk for sexual victimization.

• The failure to study whether women have been stalked—a victimization

that, until recently, had not received systematic research.

The National College Women Sexual Victimization (NCWSV) study,

described in this report and funded by the National Institute of Justice 

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

2
(NIJ), attempted to build on, and surmount the limitations of, existing

research on the sexual victimization of college students by:

• Employing a nationally representative sample of college women.

• Assessing a range of sexual victimizations, including stalking.

• Measuring sexual victimization using a two-stage process starting with

“behaviorally specific” screen questions that attempted to cue respondents

to recall and report to the interviewer different types of sexual victimization experiences they may have had. Those who reported a victimization

were then asked a series of questions, called an incident report, to verify

what type of sexual victimization, if any, had occurred.

• Acquiring detailed information on each victimization incident, including

the type of penetration(s) or unwanted sexual contact experienced and the

means of coercion, if any, used by the offender.

• Examining how the risk of being sexually victimized was affected by a

variety of variables, including demographic characteristics, lifestyles,

prior victimization, and the characteristics of the college or university

attended.

In addition, the research project contained a comparison component designed

to assess how rape estimates that use the two-stage process (behaviorally

specific questions and incident reports) compared with rape estimates drawn

from a sample of college women who completed a survey based on the

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The comparison component

was funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).8

The resulting data furnish perhaps the most systematic analysis of the extent

and nature of the sexual victimization of college women in the past decade.

Who was surveyed?

NCWSV study results are based on a telephone survey of a randomly selected, national sample of 4,446 women who were attending a 2- or 4-year 

college or university during fall 1996. The questions were asked between

February and May 1997. The sample was limited to schools with at least

1,000 students and was stratified by the size of the total student enrollment

(1,000–2,499; 2,500–4,999; 5,000–19,999; 20,000 or more) and the school’s

location (urban, suburban, and rural). Schools were randomly chosen using

a probability proportional with the size of the total female enrollment.

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

3
Students were then randomly selected using a sampling frame provided by

the American Student List Company. This company provided the school

address and telephone number for each student in the sample.

Each sample member was sent a letter describing the study and research

protocol approximately 2 weeks prior to when a trained female interviewer

called using a computer-aided telephone interviewing system.9 The response

rate was 85.6 percent.10

The comparison component used the same two-stage methodology as the

main study except victimization was measured by using the screen questions

and the incident report employed by NCVS. One purpose of the comparison

component was to conduct a methodological experiment that would provide

insight into the extent to which rape estimates are influenced by survey

methods.

How was sexual victimization measured?

Measurement of sexual victimization was based on responses to “screen

questions” and on a reference period for the victimization. In addition to the

victimization measures, survey questions and secondary data sources were

used to investigate the factors that potentially placed women at risk of being

sexually victimized.

Two-stage measurement design: The screen 

question-incident report methodology

With important exceptions noted later, sexual victimization was measured

largely by following the two-stage measurement format of NCVS. NCVS

first asks a series of screen questions that seek to determine if a respondent

has experienced an act that may possibly be a victimization. If the respondent answers “yes,” then for each of the times that the act was experienced,

the respondent is asked by the interviewer to complete an “incident report.”

This report contains detailed questions about the nature of the events that

occurred in the incident. The report is used to classify the type of victimization that took place; that is, responses to questions in the incident report—

not the screen questions—are used to categorize whether a victimization

occurred and, if so, what type.

Some researchers have contended that the screen questions as worded in

NCVS are not detailed enough to identify all women who have experienced

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

4
a rape or another type of sexual assault. A respondent may not answer “yes”

to a screen question unless it is worded in a way that reflects the experience

the respondent has had. To rectify this limitation, researchers have argued

that sexual victimization should be measured with screen questions that are

both numerous and detailed enough that respondents will not misunderstand

what is being asked.11

NCWSV, therefore, used a series of behaviorally specific screen questions

that sought to assess whether respondents had experienced a range of sexual

victimizations. A behaviorally specific question, for example, is one that

does not ask simply if a respondent “had been raped”; rather, it describes an

incident in graphic language that covers the elements of a criminal offense

(e.g., someone “made you have sexual intercourse by using force or threatening to harm you . . . by intercourse I mean putting a penis in your vagina”).

The same logic can be used to ask about other forms of sexual victimization, such as sexual coercion or unwanted sexual contact.

Examples of the screen questions used in the NCWSV study are listed in

exhibit 1. Each completed rape screen question asks the respondent about a

different form of penetration in which force or the threat of harm was used.

A statement then follows each question that defines the type of penetration.

For example, anal sex is defined as “putting a penis in your anus or rectum.”

The other screen questions provide examples of the behaviors that respondents were asked about.

The NCWSV rape screen questions are similar, if not identical, to those

used by Kilpatrick and his associates12 and by Tjaden and Thoennes.13 The

use of behaviorally specific screen questions is an important difference

between the current survey and NCVS. The NCVS screen questions begin

with a reference to a type of criminal victimization that may have been

experienced (e.g., “were you attacked or threatened”), which is then followed by a list of short cue responses about the potential victimization.

This list includes cues regarding specific places or situations in which the

victimization could have occurred (e.g., “at work or at school”); objects 

that could have been used (e.g., “with any weapon, for instance, a gun or

knife”); actions that could have been associated with the victimization 

(e.g., “face-to-face threats”); actions that constitute a criminal victimization

(e.g., “rape, attempted rape, or other types of sexual attack”); and people

who might have perpetrated the criminal act (e.g., “a relative or family

member”). There is also a screen question that asks about “incidents 

involving forced or unwanted sexual acts.”14

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

5
Exhibit 1: Survey Screen Questions

Women may experience a wide range of unwanted sexual experiences in college. Women

do not always report unwanted sexual experiences to the police or discuss them with family

and friends. The person making the advances is not always a stranger, but can be a friend,

boyfriend, fellow student, professor, teaching assistant, supervisor, coworker, somebody you

meet off campus, or even a family member. The experience could occur anywhere: on or off

campus, in your residence, in your place of employment, or in a public place. You could be

awake, or you could be asleep, unconscious, drunk, or otherwise incapacitated. Please keep

this in mind as you answer the questions.

Now, I’m going to ask you about different types of unwanted sexual experiences you may

have experienced since school began in fall 1996. Because of the nature of unwanted sexual experiences, the language may seem graphic to you. However, this is the only way to

assess accurately whether or not the women in this study have had such experiences. You

only have to answer “yes” or “no.”

• Since school began in fall 1996, has anyone made you have sexual intercourse by using

force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you? Just so there is no mistake,

by intercourse I mean putting a penis in your vagina.

• Since school began in fall 1996, has anyone made you have oral sex by force or threat of

harm? By oral sex, I mean someone’s mouth or tongue making contact with your vagina

or anus or your mouth or tongue making contact with someone else’s genitals or anus.

• Since school began in fall 1996, has anyone made you have anal sex by force or threat of

harm? By anal sex, I mean putting a penis in your anus or rectum.

• Since school began in fall 1996, has anyone ever used force or threat of harm to sexually

penetrate you with a foreign object? By this, I mean for example, placing a bottle or finger in your vagina or anus.

• Since school began in fall 1996, has anyone attempted but not succeeded in making you

take part in any of the unwanted sexual experiences that I have just asked you about?

For example, did anyone threaten or try but not succeed to have vaginal, oral, or anal sex

with you or try unsuccessfully to penetrate your vagina or anus with a foreign object or

finger?

• Not counting the types of sexual contact already mentioned, have you experienced any

unwanted or uninvited touching of a sexual nature since school began in fall 1996? This

includes forced kissing, touching of private parts, grabbing, fondling, and rubbing up

against you in a sexual way, even if it is over your clothes.

• Since school began in fall 1996, has anyone attempted but not succeeded in unwanted

or uninvited touching of a sexual nature? 

• Since school began in fall 1996, has anyone made or tried to make you have sexual intercourse or sexual contact when you did not want to by making threats of nonphysical

punishment, such as lowering a grade, being demoted or fired from a job, damaging

your reputation, or being excluded from a group for failure to comply with requests for

any type of sexual activity?

• Since school began in fall 1996, has anyone made or tried to make you have sexual intercourse or sexual contact when you did not want to by making promises of rewards, such

as raising a grade, being hired or promoted, being given a ride or class notes, or getting

help with coursework from a fellow student if you complied sexually?

• Since school began in fall 1996, has anyone made or tried to make you have sexual intercourse or sexual contact when you did not want to by simply being overwhelmed by

someone’s continual pestering and verbal pressure?

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

6
Drawing on the NCVS screen question and incident report methodology,

the NCWSV screen questions were followed by a detailed incident report

that (1) clarified what type of victimization, if any, had occurred and (2) collected information about various aspects of the incident (e.g., victim-offender

relationship, whether the victimization took place on or off the college

campus, whether the incident was reported to the police). Responses to the

screen questions were not used to classify the type of victimization reported

by the respondent. Instead, classification was based on the responses in the

incident report to questions about (1) the type of penetration experienced

(e.g., penile-vaginal, anal, oral); (2) the type of unwanted sexual contact

experienced (e.g., touching, grabbing, or fondling); and (3) the means of

coercion used by the perpetrators (e.g., force, threat of force). Like Koss et

al. and NCVS, the incidents were classified using a hierarchical algorithm;

that is, incidents were classified by the most severe type of sexual victimization that occurred within an incident.15 For example, if within an incident

report the victim answered questions indicating she had experienced a completed rape and attempted sexual coercion, the incident was classified as a

completed rape.

Reference period

To limit potential response bias due to recall or memory decay, the NCWSV

survey questions used a reference period that had a clear starting date for

students. Thus, respondents were asked if they had experienced a sexual 

victimization “since school began in fall 1996.” The survey was conducted

in 1997 between late February and early May. On average, the reference

period for the victimization covered almost 7 months (6.91 months).16 To

participate in the study, respondents had to be enrolled in a college or university at the start of the 1996 fall semester.

Risk factors

In addition to the victimization measures, the NCWSV survey contained

questions about respondents’ demographic characteristics, lifestyles or routine activities, living arrangements, prior sexual victimizations, and so forth.

Secondary data sources were used to measure the characteristics of the

schools the respondents attended (e.g., size of enrollment, location, crime

rate). These individual- and institution-level variables were used in multivariate analyses that investigated which factors potentially placed women at

risk of being sexually victimized.

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

7
The Sexual Victimization of College Women

8

Exhibit 2: Descriptions of Types of Victimizations

Type of victimization Definition

Completed rape Unwanted completed penetration by force or the threat of

force. Penetration includes: penile-vaginal, mouth on your

genitals, mouth on someone else’s genitals, penile-anal,

digital-vaginal, digital-anal, object-vaginal, and object-anal.

Attempted rape Unwanted attempted penetration by force or the threat of

force. Penetration includes: penile-vaginal, mouth on your

genitals, mouth on someone else’s genitals, penile-anal, 

digital-vaginal, digital-anal, object-vaginal, and object-anal. 

Completed sexual Unwanted completed penetration with the threat of noncoercion physical punishment, promise of reward, or pestering/verbal

pressure. Penetration includes: penile-vaginal, mouth on

your genitals, mouth on someone else’s genitals, penile-anal,

digital-vaginal, digital-anal, object-vaginal, and object-anal.

Attempted sexual Unwanted attempted penetration with the threat of noncoercion physical punishment, promise of reward, or pestering/verbal

pressure. Penetration includes: penile-vaginal, mouth on

your genitals, mouth on someone else’s genitals, penile-anal,

digital-vaginal, digital-anal, object-vaginal, and object-anal.

Completed sexual contact Unwanted completed sexual contact (not penetration) with

with force or threat of force or the threat of force. Sexual contact includes: touchforce ing; grabbing or fondling of breasts, buttocks, or genitals, 

either under or over your clothes; kissing; licking or sucking; 

or some other form of unwanted sexual contact.

Completed sexual contact Any type of unwanted completed sexual contact (not penewithout force tration) with the threat of nonphysical punishment, promise 

of reward, or pestering/verbal pressure. Sexual contact 

includes: touching; grabbing or fondling of breasts, buttocks, 

or genitals, either under or over your clothes; kissing; licking 

or sucking; or some other form of unwanted sexual contact.

Attempted sexual contact Unwanted attempted sexual contact (not penetration) with

with force or threat of force force or the threat of force. Sexual contact includes: touching; grabbing or fondling of breasts, buttocks, or genitals, 

either under or over your clothes; kissing; licking or sucking; 

or some other form of unwanted sexual contact.
What types of sexual victimization were 

measured in the NCWSV study?

Measures of 12 types of sexual victimization were constructed; they are

defined in exhibit 2. Most important, the NCWSV study included measures

of both completed and attempted rape as well as threats of rape. The study

also measured completed, attempted, and threatened sexual coercion (penetration with the use of nonphysical forms of coercion) and unwanted sexual

contact (sexual contact, but not penetration, with force or threat of force). In

addition, the study measured stalking and visual and verbal forms of sexual

victimization.

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

9

Exhibit 2: Descriptions of Types of Victimizations, continued

Type of victimization Definition

Attempted sexual contact Unwanted attempted sexual contact (not penetration) with

without force the threat of nonphysical punishment, promise of reward, or

pestering/verbal pressure. Sexual contact includes: touching; 

grabbing or fondling of breasts, buttocks, or genitals, either

under or over your clothes; kissing; licking or sucking; or 

some other form of unwanted sexual contact.

Threat of rape Threat of unwanted penetration with force and threat of

force. Penetration includes: penile-vaginal, mouth on your

genitals, mouth on someone else’s genitals, penile-anal, digitalvaginal, digital-anal, object-vaginal, and object-anal.

Threat of contact with Threat of unwanted sexual contact with force and threat of 

force or threat of force force. Sexual contact includes: touching; grabbing or 

fondling of breasts, buttocks, or genitals, either under or 

over your clothes; kissing; licking or sucking; or some other 

form of unwanted sexual contact.

Threat of penetration Threat of unwanted penetration with the threat of nonphyswithout force ical punishment, promise of reward, or pestering/verbal pressure. Penetration includes: penile-vaginal, mouth on your 

genitals, mouth on someone else’s genitals, penile-anal, 

digital-vaginal, digital-anal, object-vaginal, and object-anal.

Threat of contact without Threat of unwanted sexual contact with the threat of nonforce physical punishment, promise of reward, or pestering/verbal 

pressure. Sexual contact includes: touching; grabbing or 

fondling of breasts, buttocks, or genitals, either under or 

over your clothes; kissing; licking or sucking; or some other 

form of unwanted sexual contact.
How extensive is rape among college women?

Exhibit 3 reports the extent of rape found in the NCWSV study. As shown,

2.8 percent of the sample had experienced either a completed rape (1.7 percent) or an attempted rape incident (1.1 percent). The victimization rate was

27.7 rapes per 1,000 female students. 

We recognize that a hierarchical scoring procedure is not the only way to

count victims and incidents, especially because we have multiple victims.

Another estimation procedure is to count the total number of completed

rape victims and the total number of attempted rape victims separately. For

example, suppose there were two incident records for respondent 00: One

incident was classified as a completed rape, and the other was classified

as an attempted rape (recall that using a hierarchical scoring procedure,

respondent 00 would be counted as a completed rape victim). Respondent

00 would now count as a completed rape victim and as an attempted rape

victim. Using this “separate” counting procedure, there were 57 attempted

rape victims, or 1.3 percent of the sample. 

Because some women were victimized more than once, the rate of incidents

was higher than the rate of victims (35.3 per 1,000 students). Of the 123

victims, 22.8 percent (n = 28) were multiple-rape victims.

A separate analysis, again using the same hierarchical scoring procedure,

found that when rates were computed for only undergraduate students, the

percentage of students victimized was 1.8 percent for rape and 1.3 percent

for attempted rape. The comparable figures for nonundergraduate students

were, respectively, 0.8 percent and 0 percent.17

At first glance, one might conclude that the risk of rape victimization for

college women is not high; “only” about 1 in 36 college women (2.8 percent) experience a completed rape or attempted rape in an academic year.

Such a conclusion, however, misses critical, and potentially disquieting,

implications. The figures measure victimization for slightly more than half a

year (6.91 months). Projecting results beyond this reference period is problematic for a number of reasons, such as assuming that the risk of victimization is the same during summer months and remains stable over a person’s

time in college. However, if the 2.8 percent victimization figure is calculated

for a 1-year period, the data suggest that nearly 5 percent (4.9 percent) of

college women are victimized in any given calendar year. Over the course of

a college career—which now lasts an average of 5 years—the percentage of

completed or attempted rape victimization among women in higher educational institutions might climb to between one-fifth and one-quarter.18

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

10
Exhibit 3: Extent of Rape, by Number of Victims, and Number of Incidents, 

by Type of Victimization Incident

Victims Incidents

Rate per Rate per

Number 1,000 Number 1,000

Type of of victims Percentage female of female

victimization in sample of sample students incidents students

Completed rape 74 1.7 16.6 86 19.3

Attempted rape 49 1.1 11.0 71 16.0

Total 123 2.8 27.7a 157 35.3

a. Total has been rounded (from 27.665 to 27.7).

Furthermore, from a policy perspective, college administrators might be disturbed to learn that for every 1,000 women attending their institutions, there

may well be 35 incidents of rape in a given academic year (based on a victimization rate of 35.3 per 1,000 college women). For a campus with 10,000

women, this would mean the number of rapes could exceed 350. Even more

broadly, when projected over the Nation’s female student population of several million, these figures suggest that rape victimization is a potential problem of large proportion and of public policy interest.

How do the NCWSV rape estimates compare

with the rape estimates based on the National

Crime Victimization Survey?

The sexual victimization literature contains a great deal of discussion about

how rape estimates from the Nation’s federally sponsored victimization survey, NCVS, compare with estimates from other national surveys. This issue

was examined through a comparison component.19 Like the main NCWSV

study, the comparison study was conducted in the 1996–97 academic year,

from late March to mid-May. The sample size was 4,432 college women;

the response rate was 91.6 percent.20

Every effort was made to ensure that, aside from using different screen and

incident report questions, the methodology used in both the main and comparison components was the same. Thus, both components (1) contacted

sample members with a letter that explained the purpose of the survey, (2)

employed the same sampling design and sampling frame, (3) used the same

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

11
reference period for victimization (“Since school began in fall 1996 . . .”),

and (4) measured victimization using the screen question-incident report

methodology. Both components also were conducted by the same survey

research firm (see endnote 10) and were administered by trained female

interviewers using a computer-aided telephone interviewing system.

However, in assessing the influence of different methodologies for measuring sexual victimization, the two studies differed on one methodological

issue: the wording of the screen questions and the wording of the incidentlevel questions used to determine the type of incident. As previously described,

the main study substantially modified the NCVS format to include a range

of behaviorally specific screen questions. In contrast, the comparison component used a format that was closely aligned with the survey format of

NCVS. All of the screen questions used in the comparison component came

directly from NCVS, as did the incident-level questions used to determine

what type of violent victimization the respondent had experienced.21 Both

components used a hierarchical algorithm to classify the type(s) of victimization that the respondent described in the incident report.

We should note, however, that the methodology used in the comparison

component differs from that used in NCVS in one respect. In addition to

structured responses to the survey questions, NCVS interviewers record 

a brief “verbatim description” of the victimization incident from those

respondents who report experiencing rape or sexual assault. These verbatim

responses are used to clarify what occurred in an incident and to code

whether an incident should count as a sexual victimization. Thus, according

to BJS staff:

In the NCVS, all questionnaires for which any rape or sexual assault

code is entered in any of the pertinent items are reviewed to determine

whether the codes reflect the written entries in the summaries. Where

there are clear indications that the coded entries are not correct, they

are edited, using guidelines developed by BJS and Bureau of Census

staffs. This procedure has proven beneficial towards improving the

NCVS estimates of rape and sexual assault by removing, to the extent

possible, the discrepancies existing between the coded and written

entries.22

In our comparison component study, the estimates were not adjusted using

verbatim responses.23 We do not know how much this consideration affects

the findings reported for the comparison component that is, again, based

on NCVS methodology. None of the Criminal Victimization in the United

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

12
States annual publications report how much the NCVS estimates are adjusted

using verbatim responses, or whether such adjustments cause estimates to

increase or decrease compared with estimates coded solely on respondents’

answers to the structured screen and incident-report questions.

NCVS defines rape as:

Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as

well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal,

or oral penetration by the offender(s). This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle.

Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both

heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal

threats of rape.

This definition guided the classification of incidents in the comparison study

as a completed rape, an attempted rape, or a threat of rape. In the Criminal

Victimization in the United States series published by BJS, estimates for

attempted rape and threats of rape are reported separately. The same is true

in this report so as to compare rape estimates from the two components of

the study.

How do the rape estimates from these two studies compare? It should be

noted that studies that use behaviorally specific screen questions generally

find higher levels of sexual victimization than those reported by NCVS.24

Most important, this finding has occurred in recent research using a 

national-level sample and behaviorally specific questions.25

Looking at exhibit 4, it is clear that estimates from the comparison study for

completed rape, attempted rape, and threats of rape are considerably lower

than the respective estimates from the main study. The percentage of the

sample that reported experiencing a completed rape in the comparison study

was 11 times smaller than the percentage of victims in the main component

(0.16 percent compared with 1.7 percent). The attempted rape estimate from

the comparison component was six times smaller than the attempted rape

estimate (0.18 percent compared with 1.1 percent) from NCWSV. A similar

pattern was evident for threats of rape; the estimate based on the comparison component was four times smaller than the NCWSV estimate (0.07 percent compared with 0.3 percent).

What accounts for these differences? Given the similarities between the two

studies, it would appear that the differences most likely stem from the wide

range of behaviorally specific screen questions used in the NCWSV study.

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

13
Compared with the NCVS screen questions employed in the comparison

component, the use of graphically worded screen questions in NCWSV likely prompted more women who had experienced a sexual victimization to

report this fact to the interviewer. Their responses in the incident report

determined whether those answering “yes” to a rape screen question were

subsequently classified as rape victims.26 Even so, it appears that behaviorally specific screen questions are more successful in prompting women who

have in fact been sexually victimized to answer in such a way that they are

then “skipped into” the incident report by interviewers.

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

14

Exhibit 4: Comparison of Rape Estimates Between the NCWSV Main Study 

and Comparison Component Study

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Main study

Comparison study

Completed rape Attempted rape Threat of rape

Type of victimization

1.7

0.16

1.1

0.18

0.3

0.07

Percentage of sample

What is unknown, however, is whether behaviorally specific screen questions

produce higher estimates of victimization in general or only higher estimates

of sexual victimization. It is possible that, due to the sensitive nature of

sexual victimization, graphically descriptive screen questions are needed to

prompt reluctant victims to report their victimization to interviewers. The

other possibility, however, is that a large set of behaviorally specific questions would result in more victim reports for any type of victimization,

including property crimes and other forms of violent crime (e.g., aggravated

assault, robbery). Future research on NCVS methodology might profit from

exploring this issue.
Do women define their victimization as a rape?

In each incident report, respondents were asked, “Do you consider this incident to be a rape?” For the 86 incidents categorized as a completed rape,

46.5 percent (n = 40) of the women answered “yes,” 48.8 percent (n = 42)

answered “no,” and 4.7 percent (n = 4) answered “don’t know.” Among

women who experienced other forms of sexual victimization (n = 1,318), it

is noteworthy that 3.4 percent (n = 42) defined their sexual victimization as

a rape and 1.1 percent (n = 14) answered “don’t know.”

Some scholars believe that the failure of women to define a victimization as

a rape calls into question whether researchers have truly measured the crime

of rape.27 Others suggest, however, that the true prevalence of rape is best

measured by carefully worded questions on victimization surveys, such as

NCWSV.28 Women may not define a victimization as a rape for many reasons

(such as embarrassment, not clearly understanding the legal definition of the

term, or not wanting to define someone they know who victimized them as a

rapist) or because others blame them for their sexual assault.29 Which of these

reasons is more or less correct cannot be definitively substantiated here

because little systematic research has examined why women do or do not

define as a rape an incident that has met the researcher’s criteria for a rape.

How extensive are other forms of sexual 

victimization?

Exhibit 5 presents the extent of victimization across 10 forms of sexual

victimization other than rape. Threats of sexual victimization happened less

often than other forms of sexual victimization. Across the 10 types of victimization in exhibit 5, the incident rate per 1,000 female students ranged

from a low of 9.5 to a high of 66.4.

Exhibit 6 presents the data in a slightly different form and contains rape

incidents. This exhibit illustrates the percentages of women in the sample

who had experienced at least one victimization in three separate categories:

(1) physical force, (2) nonphysical force, and (3) either physical or nonphysical force or both. Because the third category includes respondents who have

experienced both types of victimization, its percentage is not computed by

summing the percentages in the physical and nonphysical categories. As is

shown, 15.5 percent of the college women were sexually victimized during

the current academic year. In the sample, 7.7 percent experienced an incident

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

15
The Sexual Victimization of College Women

16

Exhibit 5: Extent of Sexual Victimization

Victims Incidents

Rate per Rate per

Number 1,000 Number 1,000

Type of of victims Percentage female of female

victimization in sample of sample students incidents students

Completed or attempted

Completed sexual 

coercion 74 1.7 16.6 107 24.1

Attempted sexual

coercion 60 1.3 13.5 114 25.6

Completed sexual

contact with force 

or threat of force 85 1.9 19.1 130 29.2

Completed sexual 

contact without force 80 1.8 18.0 132 29.7

Attempted sexual 

contact with force 

or threat of force 89 2.0 20.0 166 37.6

Attempted sexual

contact without force 133 3.0 29.9 295 66.4

Threats

Threat of rape 14 0.31 3.2 42 9.5

Threat of contact with

force or threat of force 8 0.18 1.8 50 11.3

Threat of penetration 

without force 10 0.22 2.3 50 11.3

Threat of contact

without force 15 0.34 3.4 75 16.9

Total 568 1,161

involving the use or threat of physical force, and 11.0 percent experienced a

victimization that did not involve force.

How extensive is prior sexual victimization?

Respondents were also asked if they had experienced sexual victimization

incidents before starting school in fall 1996. These incidents were measured

only with single questions, not incident reports (that is, the two-stage process
The Sexual Victimization of College Women

17

Exhibit 6: Percentage of Sample Having at Least One 

Victimization Incident 

5 10 15 20

Any victimization (either physical

or nonphysical force or both)

Victimization involving

nonphysical force

Victimization involving

physical force 7.7

11.0

15.5

Type of victimization

Percentage of sample

of screen questions followed by an incident report was not used). To limit

bias, we attempted to use the detailed questions shown in exhibit 7. Still,

the findings must be assessed in light of this methodological limitation.

As exhibit 7 shows, about 1 in 10 college women said they had experienced

a rape, while the same proportion stated that they were victims of an attempted rape. Almost the same proportion also had sexual intercourse or contact

in which they were subject to threats of nonphysical punishment or promises of reward. Unwanted or uninvited sexual contacts were widespread, with

more than one-third of the sample reporting these incidents.

Do victims know their offenders?

Most victims knew the person who sexually victimized them. For both 

completed and attempted rapes, about 9 in 10 offenders were known to the

victim. Most often, a boyfriend, ex-boyfriend, classmate, friend, acquaintance, or coworker sexually victimized the women. College professors were

not identified as committing any rapes or sexual coercions, but they were

cited as the offender in a low percentage of cases involving unwanted sexual

contact. The victim-offender relationship for rape incidents is displayed in

exhibit 8.

Variation in the type of sexual victimization that occurred on a date was evident. With regard to date rape, 12.8 percent of completed rapes, 35.0 percent

of attempted rapes, and 22.9 percent of threatened rapes took place on a date.
When does sexual victimization occur?

The vast majority of sexual victimizations occurred in the evening (after 

6 p.m.). For example, 51.8 percent of completed rapes took place after 

midnight, 36.5 percent occurred between 6 p.m. and midnight, and only

11.8 percent took place between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.

Where does sexual victimization occur?

The majority of sexual victimizations, especially rapes and physically

coerced sexual contact, occurred in living quarters. Almost 60 percent of

the completed rapes that occurred on campus took place in the victim’s

residence, 31 percent occurred in other living quarters on campus, and 

10.3 percent took place in a fraternity. Off-campus sexual victimizations,

especially rapes, also occurred in residences. However, particularly for 

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

18

Exhibit 7: Percent of Sample Who Were Sexually Victimized Before the 

Start of the 1996 School Year

Yes No

Type of victimization (percentage) (percentage)

Rapea 10.1 89.9

Attempted rapeb 10.9 89.1

Threatened, attempted, or completed unwanted/ 

uninvited sexual contactc 35.5 64.5

Sexual intercourse or contact with nonphysical threats/rewardsd 8.6 91.4

Any other unwanted or uninvited sexual intercourse/contacte 5.9 94.1

a. Prior to school starting in fall 1996, did anyone ever make you have vaginal, oral, or anal intercourse—

including penetrating you with a penis, a finger, or a foreign object—by using force or threatening to

harm you?

b. Prior to school starting in fall 1996, did anyone ever attempt but not succeed in making you have 

vaginal, oral, or anal intercourse—including penetrating you with a penis, a finger, or a foreign object—

by using force or threatening to harm you?

c. Prior to school starting in fall 1996, have you ever experienced any unwanted or uninvited touching

of a sexual nature, or threats or attempts of such touching, including forced kissing, touching of private

parts, grabbing, fondling, and rubbing up against you in a sexual way?

d. Prior to school starting in fall 1996, has anyone ever tried to make you have sexual intercourse or sexual contact when you did not want to by making either threats of nonphysical punishment or promises

of reward if you complied sexually?

e. Prior to school starting in fall 1996, is there any type of unwanted or uninvited sexual intercourse or

physical sexual contact that you ever experienced that was not covered in the questions thus far?
sexual contacts and threatened victimizations, incidents also took place 

in settings such as bars, dance clubs or nightclubs, and work settings.

Are women victimized on or off campus?

College women are victimized both on campus and off campus. For nearly

all types of sexual victimization, however, off-campus victimization is more

common (exhibit 9). This conclusion must be qualified because off-campus

sexual victimizations may take place in bars and nightclubs or in student

residences close to campus. Thus, even if a student is victimized off campus, she may be engaged in an activity that is connected to her life as a 

student at the college she attends.

Do sexual victims take protective actions 

during the incident?

As exhibit 10 shows, for nearly all forms of sexual victimization, the majority of female students reported attempting to take protective actions during

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

19

Exhibit 8: Victim-Offender Relationship for Rape Victimizations Committed 

by Single Offenders 

0

10

20

30

40

50

Completed rape

Attempted rape

Boyfriend/ Acquaintance Other

ex-boyfriend

Friend

Offender

Classmate

Percentage of sample

35.5

43.5

34.2

24.2 23.7

14.5

2.6

9.7

4.0

8.1
The Sexual Victimization of College Women

20

Exhibit 9: The Location of Victimization by On-Campus and Off-Campus 

Location, by Type of Victimization

Location of victimizationa

On campus Off campus

percentage percentage

Type of victimization (n) (n)

Completed or attempted

Completed rape 33.7 66.3

(29) (57)

Attempted rape 45.1 54.9

(32) (39)

Completed sexual coercion 29.0 71.0

(31) (76)

Attempted sexual coercion 46.5 53.5

(53) (61)

Completed sexual contact with 34.6 65.4

force or threat of force (45) (85)

Completed sexual contact 38.6 61.4

without force (51) (81)

Attempted sexual contact with 33.9 66.1

force or threat of force (56) (109)

Attempted sexual contact 35.9 64.1

without force (106) (189)

Threats

Threat of rape 45.2 54.8

(19) (23)

Threat of contact with force or 44.0 56.0

threat of force (22) (28)

Threat of penetration without force 48.0 52.0

(24) (26)

Threat of contact without force 54.1 45.9

(40) (34)

a. Don’t know (n = 2) not included.

the incident. For both completed rape and sexual coercion, victims of completed acts were less likely to take protective action than those who experienced attempted victimization. This finding suggests that the intended

victim’s willingness or ability to use protection might be one reason

attempts to rape or coerce sex failed.
Exhibit 11 reports the most common forms of protective action taken by

victims during rape incidents. Note that the most common protective action

was using physical force against the assailant. Nearly 70 percent of victims

of attempted rape used this response—again, a plausible reason many of

these acts were not completed. Other common physical responses included

removing the offender’s hand, running away, and trying to avoid the offender.

Verbal responses also were common, including pleading with the offender

to stop, screaming, and trying to negotiate with the offender.

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

21

Exhibit 10: Percentage of Victims Taking Protective Action, by Type 

of Victimization

Victim attempted to protect

Type of victimization herself (n)

Completed or attempted

Completed rape 65.1

(56)

Attempted rape 91.5

(65)

Completed sexual coercion 46.7

(50)

Attempted sexual coercion 74.3

(84)

Completed sexual contact with 87.6

force or threat of force (113)

Completed sexual contact without force 81.8

(108)

Attempted sexual contact with 89.8

force or threat of force (149)

Attempted sexual contact 76.6

without force (226)

Threats

Threat of rape 81.0

(34)

Threat of contact with force 86.0

or threat of force (43)

Threat of penetration without 60.0

force (30)

Threat of contact without 66.7

force (50)
Are victims hurt in the victimization incidents?

Victims in the sample generally did not state that their victimization resulted

in physical or emotional injuries. In about one in five rape and attempted

rape incidents, victims reported being injured, most often citing the response

“bruises, black-eye, cuts, scratches, swelling, or chipped teeth.” The percentage

injured by other types of victimization was lower, ranging from 0 percent

(completed sexual contact without force) to 16.7 percent (threatened rape).

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

22

Exhibit 11: Most Common Forms of Protective Actions Used in 

Rape Incidents

a. Percentages may be greater than 100 because a respondent could give more than one response.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Attempted rape

Completed rape

Tried to reason/negotiate 

 with the person

Tried to avoid 

 person

Ran or tried to run 

 away/escape

 Removed 

person’s hand

Screamed or yelled to 

Pleaded with or begged

 scare off the person

 person to stop

Told the person

 to stop

Used physical force 

 against the person

ercentage

55.4

69.2

50.0

40.0

19.6

9.2

16.1

9.2

16.1

9.2 10.7 10.8 10.7

7.7 7.1

4.1
Are some women more at risk of being 

sexually victimized?

Multivariate logit models for each type of sexual victimization measured

were estimated to predict the likelihood of having been victimized. Consistent

across the models, it was found that four main factors consistently increased

the risk of sexual victimization: (1) frequently drinking enough to get drunk,

(2) being unmarried, (3) having been a victim of a sexual assault before the

start of the current school year, and (4) living on campus (for on-campus

victimization only).

Do women report victimization incidents 

to the police?

Few incidents of sexual victimization were reported to law enforcement

officials. Thus, fewer than 5 percent of completed and attempted rapes were

reported to law enforcement officials. In about two-thirds of the rape incidents, however, the victim did tell another person about the incidents. Most

often this person was a friend, not a family member or college official.

Victims gave a number of reasons for not reporting their victimizations to

law enforcement officials (exhibit 12). Some reasons indicated that they did

not see the incidents as harmful or important enough to bring in the authorities. Thus, the common answers included that the incident was not serious

enough to report and that it was not clear that a crime was committed. 

Other reasons, however, suggested that there were barriers to reporting.

Such answers included not wanting family or other people to know about

the incident, lack of proof the incident happened, fear of reprisal by the

assailant, fear of being treated with hostility by the police, and anticipation

that the police would not believe the incident was serious enough and/or

would not want to be bothered with the incident.

How extensive is stalking?

In addition to the 12 types of sexual victimization (exhibit 2), this research

assessed a form of victimization that has been infrequently studied: stalking.

In general, for behavior to qualify as stalking, the attention given to someone must be repeated and it must create fear in a reasonable person. Accordingly, stalking was measured with this screen question: “Since school began

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

23
Exhibit 12: Reasons for Not Reporting Incident to the Police, by Type of 

Victimization

Reason for not reporting incidenta

Did not Fear of

Did not want Lack of being

Incident want other proof that treated

was not family to people incident hostilely

reported know to know happened by police

% %% %%

Type of incident (n) (n) (n) (n) (n)

Completed or attempted

Completed rape 95.2 44.4 46.9 42.0 24.7

(82) (36) (38) (34) (20)

Attempted rape 95.8 32.4 32.4 30.9 8.8

(68) (22) (22) (21) (6)

Completed sexual 100.0 41.9 43.8 33.3 8.6

coercion (107) (44) (46) (35) (9)

Attempted sexual 100.0 21.2 19.5 15.9 2.7

coercion (114) (24) (22) (18) (3)

Completed sexual 

contact with force 99.2 19.5 16.4 21.9 9.4

or threat of force (128) (25) (21) (28) (12)

Completed sexual 98.5 4.7 11.7 18.0 4.7

contact without force (129) (6) (15) (23) (6)

Attempted sexual 

contact with force 97.0 13.8 21.9 23.1 8.8

or threat of force (160) (22) (35) (37) (14)

Attempted sexual 99.3 7.2 10.2 18.1 4.4

contact without force (293) (21) (30) (53) (13)

Threats

Threat of rape 90.5 26.3 34.2 31.6 13.2 

(38) (10) (13) (12) (5)

Threat of contact with 90.0 22.2 20.0 20.0 8.9

force or threat of force (45) (10) (9) (9) (4)

Threat of penetration 100.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 4.0 

without force (50) (10) (11) (12) (2)

Threat of contact 98.7 6.8 8.1 21.6 8.1

without force (74) (5) (6) (16) (6)

a. Percentages may be greater than 100 because a respondent could give more than one response.

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

24
Exhibit 12: Reasons for Not Reporting Incident to the Police, by Type of 

Victimization, continued

Reason for not reporting incidenta

Fear of being Not clear Police

treated hostilely it was a Did not wouldn’t

by other crime or know think it 

parts of that harm how to was serious 

justice system was intended report enough

% %% %

Type of incident (n) (n) (n) (n)

Completed or attempted

Completed rape 6.2 44.4 13.6 27.2

(5) (36) (11) (22)

Attempted rape 1.5 39.7 7.4 33.8

(1) (27) (5) (23)

Completed sexual 1.9 58.1 14.3 24.8

coercion (2) (61) (15) (26)

Attempted sexual 2.7 46.9 6.2 28.3

coercion (3) (53) (7) (32)

Completed sexual 

contact with force 0 37.5 7.0 37.5

or threat of force (0) (48) (9) (48)

Completed sexual 1.6 43.0 5.5 29.7

contact without force (2) (55) (7) (38)

Attempted sexual 

contact with force 6.3 37.5 10.0 31.3

or threat of force (10) (60) (16) (50)

Attempted sexual 1.4 39.6 6.1 22.9

contact without force (4) (116) (18) (67)

Threats

Threat of rape 7.9 39.5 13.2 34.2

(3) (15) (5) (13)

Threat of contact with 4.4 51.1 13.3 37.8

force or threat of force (2) (23) (6) (17)

Threat of penetration 4.0 46.0 6.0 30.0 

without force (2) (23) (3) (15)

Threat of contact 6.8 31.1 2.7 21.6

without force (5) (23) (2) (16)

a. Percentages may be greater than 100 because a respondent could give more than one response.

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

25
The Sexual Victimization of College Women

26

Exhibit 12: Reasons for Not Reporting Incident to the Police, by Type of 

Victimization, continued

Reason for not reporting incidenta

Police Did not

wouldn’t Afraid of think it 

want to reprisal was serious 

be by assailant enough 

bothered or others to report Other

% % %%

Type of incident (n) (n) (n) (n)

Completed or attempted

Completed rape 25.9 39.5 65.4 7.4

(21) (32) (53) (6)

Attempted rape 13.2 25.0 76.5 1.5

(9) (17) (52) (1)

Completed sexual 21.9 31.4 71.4 1.9

coercion (23) (33) (75) (2)

Attempted sexual 18.6 11.5 86.7 0

coercion (21) (13) (98) (0)

Completed sexual 

contact with force 30.5 22.7 81.3 3.1

or threat of force (39) (29) (104) (4)

Completed sexual 18.8 12.5 91.4 0.8

contact without force (24) (16) (117) (1)

Attempted sexual 

contact with force 22.5 23.8 80.0 2.5

or threat of force (36) (38) (128) (4)

Attempted sexual 18.4 10.9 88.4 2.7

contact without force (54) (32) (259) (8)

Threats

Threat of rape 31.6 26.3 65.8 2.6 

(12) (10) (25) (1)

Threat of contact with 26.7 17.8 68.9 4.4

force or threat of force (12) (8) (31) (2)

Threat of penetration without 30.0 12.0 88.0 2.0

force (15) (6) (44) (1)

Threat of contact without 9.5 13.5 83.8 0

force (7) (10) (62) (0)

a. Percentages may be greater than 100 because a respondent could give more than one response.
in fall 1996, has anyone—from a stranger to an ex-boyfriend—repeatedly

followed you, watched you, phoned, written, e-mailed, or communicated

with you in other ways that seemed obsessive and made you afraid or concerned for your safety?” If a respondent answered “yes,” she was then given

an incident report that asked detailed questions about the stalking that

occurred.

The survey indicated an incidence rate of 156.5 per 1,000 female students.

Indeed, fully 13.1 percent of the female students in the sample (n = 581)

had been stalked since the school year began. This figure approximates what

was found in a pretest of the survey conducted on students attending one

university. It also is similar to the 6-month prevalence figure reported by

Mustaine and Tewksbury,30 which, in a survey of 861 women attending 9

postsecondary institutions, found that 10.5 percent of the female students

reported that they had been stalked.31

In contrast, Tjaden and Thoennes’ national study of women reports much

lower annual rates of stalking: 1 percent to 6 percent, depending on the definition of stalking used.32 Compared with the current study, the lower extent

of stalking in Tjaden and Thoennes’ research may be because (1) their study

used a more restrictive definition of stalking; (2) their study focused on

females across the life course (age 18 to 80 years or older), rather than

on younger women among whom stalking is more prevalent; and (3) their

study did not focus specifically on college students. It may be that the social

domain of college places women in situations and in contact with a range

of men that increase the chances of being stalked.

It should be noted, however, that like the study by Tjaden and Thoennes, the

estimates in this study of the extent of stalking vary depending on the criteria used to define what counts as stalking victimization.33 Again, more than

13 percent of the women in the sample were stalked if this victimization is

defined as a woman experiencing repeated, obsessive, and frightening behavior

that made the victim afraid or concerned for her safety. Even so, if we were

to decide that such behavior counts as a stalking victimization only if the

person were actually threatened with harm—a requirement for criminal

stalking in many States—the extent of stalking victims in the sample falls

to 1.96 percent. These results suggest that, in the future, researchers should

examine how estimates of the extent of stalking may vary widely depending

on the criteria used to define what “counts” as a stalking victimization.

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

27
What is the nature of stalking incidents?

As with other sexual victimizations, four in five victims knew their stalkers.

Of the stalkers who were known, they were most often a boyfriend or exboyfriend (42.5 percent), classmate (24.5 percent), acquaintance (10.3 

percent), friend (5.6 percent), or coworker (5.6 percent). Female students

were infrequently stalked by college professors or graduate assistants.

Stalking incidents lasted an average of 60 days. About 30 percent of the

female students were stalked only off campus; the remaining victims were

stalked either only on campus or both on and off campus. The most common

forms of stalking behaviors reported by victims were being telephoned

(77.7 percent), having an offender waiting outside or inside places (47.9

percent), being watched from afar (44.0 percent), being followed (42.0 percent), being sent letters (30.7 percent), and being e-mailed (24.7 percent).34

Almost two-thirds of the sample indicated that they were stalked at least

two to six times a week.

Although some victims reported being physically injured, the most common

consequence was psychological: Almost 3 in 10 women said they were

“injured emotionally or psychologically” from being stalked. In 15.3 percent

of incidents, victims reported that the stalker either threatened or attempted

to harm them. In 10.3 percent of incidents, the victim reported that the

stalker “forced or attempted sexual contact.”

In nearly three-fourths of incidents, victims reported that they had taken

“actions as a result of their stalking.” Exhibit 13 shows actions victims took

following stalking incidents. Two of the most common responses were “to

avoid the stalker” (43.2 percent) or, conversely, “to confront the stalker”

(16.3 percent). Beyond the data in exhibit 13, in about 17 percent of incidents, victims reported the stalker to the police. In contrast, in more than 

9 in 10 incidents, victims confided in someone—such as a friend, family

member, or roommate—that they were being stalked.

Are some women more at risk of being

stalked?

A multivariate logit model was estimated to predict the likelihood of being

stalked. The risk of being a stalking victim was increased by a number of

factors: the propensity to be in places with alcohol; living alone; being in a

dating relationship, especially early in the relationship, as opposed to being

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

28
Exhibit 13: Actions Taken by Victim as a Result of Stalking Incidents

Actions Percentagea n

Avoidance

Avoided or tried to avoid the stalker 43.2 210

Did not acknowledge messages or e-mails 8.8 43

Moved residence 3.3 16

Dropped a class the stalker was in or taught 1.4 7

Quit job 0.8 4

Changed colleges or university 0.4 2

Changed majors 0.2 1

Legal/Judicial

Sought a restraining order 3.9 19

Filed a grievance or initiated disciplinary 16

action with university officials 3.3

Went forward with criminal charges 1.9 9

Filed civil charges 1.2 6

Self-Protection

Got caller ID 4.9 24

Improved security system of residence 4.1 20

Began traveling with companion 3.9 19

Bought a weapon 1.9 9

Took a self-defense class 0.4 2

Psychological

Became less trustful or more cynical of others 5.6 27

Sought psychological counseling 2.9 14

Confrontation

Confronted the stalker 16.3 79

Other actions taken but not specified 21.8 106

a. Percentages may be greater than 100 because a respondent could give more than one response.

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

29

married or living with an intimate partner; being an undergraduate; being

from an affluent family; and having experienced sexual victimization before

the beginning of the current academic year. Also, among racial/ethnic

groups, Asian/Pacific Islander women were significantly less likely to be

stalked while American Indian/Alaska Native women were significantly

more likely to be stalked compared with women in other racial/ethnic
groups. Notably, American Indian/Alaska Native women had the highest

likelihood of any racial/ethnic group to experience a stalking. This is consistent with Tjaden and Thoennes’ research, which reported that American

Indians/Alaska Natives are at greatest risk of being stalked.35

What is the extent of visual and 

verbal sexual victimization?

Finally, this research measured the extent to which women were involuntarily exposed to visual images and verbal comments that would generally be

considered sexually victimizing. Since these relatively “minor” types of 

victimization were plentiful, it was not possible to obtain a detailed report

on each incident. Instead, results showed only whether a type of victimization was experienced and, if so, how many times it happened both on and

off campus.

As exhibit 14 reveals, most respondents did not experience visual victimization. Still, about 6 percent of female students had been shown pornographic

pictures, almost 5 percent had someone expose their sexual organs to them,

and 2.4 percent were observed naked without their consent. Verbal victimizations, moreover, were commonplace. About half the respondents were

subjected to sexist remarks and to catcalls and whistles with sexual overtones. One in five female students received an obscene telephone call and

was asked intrusive questions about her sex or romantic life. One in ten students had false rumors spread about her sex life.

Conclusions

The sexual victimization of college students has emerged as a controversial

issue, pitting feminist scholars who claim that the sexual victimization of

women is a serious problem against conservative commentators who claim

that such victimization is rare and mostly a fictitious creation of ideologically tainted research.36 The research reported here undoubtedly will not settle

this debate; battle lines are solidly entrenched and how the data are interpreted

will, to a degree, lie in the “eye of the beholder.” However, the current study

attempts to add a judicious voice to this conversation by attempting to furnish a methodologically sound assessment of the extent and nature of the

sexual victimization of female students.

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

30
The Sexual Victimization of College Women

31

Exhibit 14: The Extent of Verbal and Visual Victimization

Percentage Rate

and number Total per 1,000 

of victims number of female 

for sample victimizationsa students

Type of verbal victimization

General sexist remarks 54.3

in front of you (2,398) 31,434 7,070.2

Cat calls, whistles about 

your looks, or noises with 48.2

sexual overtones (2,129) 29,609 6,660.0

Obscene telephone calls or 21.9

messages (973) 4,885 1,099.0

Asked questions about sex 

or romantic life when clearly 19.0

none of their business (844) 4,694 1,055.8

False rumors about sex life 9.7

with them or other people (431) 1,166 262.3

Type of visual victimization 

Someone exposed you to 

pornographic pictures or 

materials when you did not 6.1

agree to see them (272) 865 194.6

Someone exposed their sexual 

organs to you when you did 4.8

not agree to see them (214) 568 127.8

Anyone, without your consent, 

observed or tried to observe 

you while you were undressing, 2.4

nude, or in a sexual act (105) 302 67.9

Anyone, without your consent, 

showed other people or played 

for other people photographs, 

videotapes, or audiotapes having 0.3

sex or in a nude or seminude state (15) 18 4.0

Anyone, without your consent, 

photographed, videotaped, or 

audiotaped you having sex or 0.2

in a nude or seminude state (8) 9 2.0

a. The distributions for the number of victimization variables are right censored because they include the

value ”97 or more.“
The Sexual Victimization of College Women

32

Exhibit 14: The Extent of Verbal and Visual Victimization, continued

Percentage Percentage

and and 

Number of number of number of 

victimizations victimizations victimizations

per victim on campus off campus

Type of verbal victimization

General sexist remarks 50.6 49.4

in front of you 13.0 (15,894) (15,540)

Cat calls, whistles about 

your looks, or noises with 38.6 61.4

sexual overtones 13.9 (11,423) (18,186)

Obscene telephone calls or 59.8 40.2

messages 5.0 (2,922) (1,963)

Asked questions about sex 

or romantic life when clearly 41.2 58.8

none of their business 5.6 (1,933) (2,761)

False rumors about sex life 59.7 40.3

with them or other people 2.7 (696) (470)

Type of visual victimization 

Someone exposed you to 

pornographic pictures or 

materials when you did not 59.9 40.1

agree to see them 3.2 (518) (347)

Someone exposed their sexual 

organs to you when you did 34.0 66.0

not agree to see them 2.7 (193) (375)

Anyone, without your consent, 

observed or tried to observe 

you while you were undressing, 44.0 56.0

nude, or in a sexual act 2.9 (133) (169)

Anyone, without your consent, 

showed other people or played 

for other people photographs,

videotapes, or audiotapes having 44.4 55.6

sex or in a nude or seminude state 1.2 (8) (10)

Anyone, without your consent, 

photographed, videotaped, or 

audiotaped you having sex or 77.8 22.2

in a nude or seminude state 1.1 (7) (2)
To summarize, the national-level survey of 4,446 college women suggests

that many students will encounter sexist and harassing comments, will likely

receive an obscene phone call, and will have a good chance of being stalked

or of enduring some form of coerced sexual contact. During any given 

academic year, 2.8 percent of women will experience a completed and/or

attempted rape. This figure is not based only on broadly worded, behaviorally specific screen questions because all victimization incidents reported in

the screen questions were verified through subsequent questions in the incident report. Furthermore, the level of rape and other types of victimization

found in the survey becomes an increasing concern when the victimization

figures are projected over a full year, a full college career, and the full population of women at one college or at colleges across the Nation.

The results also hold important methodological implications. The comparison component study sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics allowed

the rare opportunity to conduct a quasi-experiment in how the methods used

to measure sexual victimization might potentially affect estimates of victimization. Thus, two randomly selected samples of college women were surveyed using very similar methodology, with one noteworthy exception: A

different way of measuring sexual victimization was used with each sample.

Results showed that a methodology that uses behaviorally specific screen

questions in combination with an incident report yields considerably higher

estimates of completed, attempted, and threatened rape than are found using

NCVS methodology.

Future research should explore the implications of this finding for NCVS.

As noted, it was not determined whether using a number of behaviorally

specific screen questions tends to increase estimates of only rape or whether

the technique would also increase estimates of other types of victimization

(i.e., the more widely in scope and the more closely in detail that possible

victimizations are probed, the more victims are prompted to report their victimization to interviewers). However, assuming that the methodology used

in this study is defensible, it seems likely that NCVS underestimates the

true incidence of rape victimization in the United States.

We should note, however, one other possible factor that might have contributed to the differences in victimization between the main and comparison components: the “context” of two surveys. In the main component of

NCWSV, the respondents were instructed in an initial contact letter and in

instructions during the interview that the survey was focusing on “unwanted

sexual experiences.” In contrast, the comparison component was patterned

after NCVS, which is a crime survey. In this part of the study, respondents

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

33
were sent an initial letter that mentioned the “increasing concern about

criminal victimizations that women may experience during college,” and the

interview itself contained questions measuring victimization by other types

of criminal offenses. It is conceivable, therefore, that respondents on the

main component study were sensitized to report a broad range of sexual 

victimization incidents they experienced, while those on the NCVS-based

comparison component limited their reports to the incidents they defined as

criminal. If so, this contextual difference would mean that the comparison

component was measuring a much narrower domain of sexual victimization.

One caution in this line of reasoning is that, as discussed previously, nearly

half of the completed rape victims defined their victimization as a “rape,” a

clear criminal offense. Even when the count of rape victims is limited to this

group, the prevalence of rape victims is several times greater in the main

component than in the comparison components. Still, the impact of survey

context on respondents’ responses to sexual victimization questions remains

an area that warrants further research.

Of course, many other methodological issues in addition to the use of

behaviorally specific screen questions and survey context will have to be

addressed in the quest to design surveys capable of achieving more accurate

estimates of rape and other forms of sexual victimization. These would

include, but not be limited to, issues such as the differential meaning that

words used in questions might have to respondents, the impact of the

sequencing of questions on answers, the use of more verbatim descriptions

of victimization incidents in coding “what happened” in a sexual assault,

and perhaps the use of computer-aided personal interviewing as a means of

encouraging respondents to disclose traumatic events. In short, systematic,

rigorous experimental research into the factors that affect victim responses

and, in turn, victimization estimates—especially in the sensitive area of rape

and sexual assault—remains in its beginning stages.

Although exceptions exist, most sexual victimizations occur when college

women are alone with a man they know, at night, and in the privacy of a

residence. Most women attempt to take protective actions against their

assailants but are then reluctant to report their victimization to the police.

Although based on fewer cases, these same patterns were found as well in

the comparison component survey, which used NCVS methodology.37 The

analysis also revealed that some college women were more at risk of being

victimized than others. Several factors appeared to increase various types of

victimization: living on campus, being unmarried, getting drunk frequently,

and experiencing prior sexual victimization.

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

34
Finally, in the aftermath of this study, an important challenge remains:

Taking the information found and developing programs and policies that

may reduce female students’ risk of victimization. Minor forms of sexual

victimization—sexist statements, harassing catcalls, sexually tainted whistles—appear to be commonplace. How can a more civil environment be

achieved without compromising free speech? Much is known about the circumstances under which sexual victimization, including rape, most often

occurs. How can this information be used in crime prevention programs,

including rape awareness seminars designed for women or rape prevention

seminars designed for men? Furthermore, the relatively high prevalence of

stalking—a form of victimization often ignored by college officials—is

cause for concern. What strategies can women use to prevent or end stalking? What programs might colleges implement to control or counsel men

who stalk? More generally, how can the lives of college women—whether

on, close to, or off campus—be made safer and thus free from the costs

imposed by the experience of sexual victimization?

Notes

1. Bonnie S. Fisher et al., “Crime in the Ivory Tower: The Level and Sources of

Student Victimization,” Criminology 36 (1998): 671–710.

2. Walter DeKeseredy and Katharine Kelly, “The Incidence and Prevalence of

Women Abuse in Canadian University and College Dating Relationships,”

Canadian Journal of Sociology 18 (1993): 137–59; Fisher et al., “Crime in 

the Ivory Tower”; Mary P. Koss, Christine A. Gidycz, and Nadine Wisniewski, 

“The Scope of Rape: Incidence and Prevalence of Sexual Aggression and

Victimization in a National Sample of Higher Education Students,” Journal 

of Counseling and Clinical Psychology 55 (1987): 162–70.

3. John J. Sloan, Bonnie S. Fisher, and Francis T. Cullen, “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 (1997): 248–68.

4. “The Jeanne Clery Act Information Page,” at www.campussafety.org (Security

On Campus: College and University Campus Safety Information On-Line,

maintained by Security on Campus, Inc., King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 2000).

5. Bonnie S. Fisher, “Campus Crime and Fear of Victimization: Judicial,

Legislative, and Administrative Responses,” The Annals of the American

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

35
Academy of Political and Social Science 539 (1995): 85–101; Michael C.

Griffaton, “State-Level Initiatives and Campus Crime,” in Campus Crime:

Legal, Social, and Policy Perspectives, edited by Bonnie S. Fisher and John J.

Sloan III (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1995).

6. “Justice Department Awards $8.1 Million to Colleges and Universities to

Combat Violence Against Women,” edited by Daniel S. Carter, at www.campus

safety.org (Security On Campus: College and University Campus Safety Information On-Line, maintained by Security on Campus, Inc., King of Prussia,

Pennsylvania, 2000).

7. DeKeseredy and Kelly, “The Incidence and Prevalence of Women Abuse”;

Fisher et al., “Crime in the Ivory Tower”; Koss et al., “The Scope of Rape.”

8. In the comparison component, the screen questions and incident questions were

virtually identical to those used in NCVS. In designing the comparison component, two minor changes were made to NCVS. First, slight word changes or

additional responses to the response sets of questions in the incident report

were made to capture plausible response from a college student sample. For

example, to determine to which authority the victim reported the victimization,

“campus police” was included in the response set. Second, a few questions

were added to the NCVS incident report. For example, questions about offender characteristics included a question about fraternity membership.

9. Most of the sample (n = 4,446) were full-time students (90.1 percent) and

undergraduates (86.1 percent). Freshmen at 4-year schools/first-year students

at 2-year schools made up 24.2 percent of the sample; sophomores at 4-year

schools/second-year students at 2-year schools, 22.0 percent; juniors, 17.5 

percent; seniors, 22.4 percent; graduate students, 12.1 percent; and others 

(postdoctorate, continuing education, certification programs), 1.7 percent. As

expected, the sample was youthful: Slightly more than 76 percent of the sample

was between the ages of 17 and 22 years (mean = 21.54, standard deviation =

4.25). Most of the sample were white, non-Hispanic (80.6 percent), followed

by African-American, non-Hispanic (7.0 percent), Hispanic (6.2 percent), Asian/

Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic (3.4 percent), American Indian/Alaska Native,

non-Hispanic (0.8 percent), and mixed or other (1.5 percent). Less than 1 percent

(0.5) of respondents refused or did not know their race or ethnicity.

10. The interview was conducted by the firm of Shulman, Ronca, and Bucuvalas,

Inc., and lasted an average of 25.9 minutes. This is the same firm that Tjaden and

Thoennes (1998) employed for the National Violence Against Women Study.

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

36
11. Bonnie S. Fisher and Francis T. Cullen, The Extent and Nature of Sexual

Victimization Among College Women: Results from a National-Level Study

(Unpublished report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, 1999); Bonnie S. Fisher and Francis T. Cullen, “Measuring

the Sexual Victimization of Women: Evolution, Current Controversies and

Future Research,” in Criminal Justice 2000, Volume 4: Measurement and

Analysis of Crime, edited by David Duffee (Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2000).

12. Dean G. Kilpatrick, Christine N. Edmunds, and Anne Seymour, Rape in America:

A Report to the Nation (Arlington, Virginia: National Victim Center, 1992).

13. Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Stalking in America: Findings From the

National Violence Against Women Survey, Research in Brief (Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1998, NCJ 169592).

14. Questionnaires are available in portable document format (pdf) files from the

BJS Web site, at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/quest.htm (July 24, 2000).

15. Koss et al., “The Scope of Rape.”

16. The minimum reference period was 6 months, and the maximum was 8 months

(standard deviation = 20.3 days).

17. Nonundergraduates made up 13.8 percent of the sample. They included graduate students, postdoctorate fellows, continuing education students, certification 

students, and others.

18. These projections are suggestive. To assess accurately the victimization risk for

women throughout a college career, longitudinal research following a cohort of

female students across time is needed.

19. Bonnie S. Fisher and Frances T. Cullen, Violent Victimization Against College

Women: Results From a National-Level Study (Unpublished report, Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999).

20. The interviews lasted, on average, 12.7 minutes. Most of the sample (N =

4,432) were full-time students (89.3 percent) and undergraduates (82.1 percent). Freshmen at 4-year schools/first-year students at 2-year schools made up

19.9 percent of the sample; sophomores at 4-year schools/second-year students

at 2-year schools, 19.5 percent; juniors, 17.3 percent; seniors, 25.4 percent; graduate students, 16.6 percent; and others (postdoctorate, continuing education,

certification programs), 1.6 percent. As expected, the sample was youthful; 61

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

37
The Sexual Victimization of College Women

38

percent of the sample was between the ages of 17 and 22 years (mean = 23.18,

standard deviation = 4.79). Most of the sample was white, non-Hispanic (81.6

percent), followed by African-American, non-Hispanic (6.9 percent), Hispanic

(5.1 percent), Asian/Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic (3.5 percent), American

Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic (0.7 percent), and mixed or other (1.8 percent). Less than 1 percent (0.5) of respondents refused or did not know their

race or ethnicity.

21. Some of the incident-level questions had to be modified to reflect the characteristics of a college sample. For example, locations where an incident occurred

included on-campus locations, such as a residence hall room or the library.

22. Personal communication with Jan Chaiken and Michael Rand, April 14, 2000.

23. In the comparison component study, we collected verbatim responses for all

incidents. We subsequently explored how the use of verbatim responses can

potentially affect estimates of completed rape, attempted rape, and threat of

rape. See Fisher and Cullen, Criminal Justice 2000.

24. DeKeseredy and Kelly, “The Incidence and Prevalence of Women Violence”;

Koss et al., “The Scope of Rape”; Nancy A. Crowell and Ann W. Burgess, 

editors, Understanding Violence Against Women, by the Panel on Violence

Against Women, National Research Council (Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1996).

25. Tjaden and Thoennes, Stalking in America.

26. Rape victims also have screened into an incident report based on a “yes” to

other sexual victimization screen questions (Fisher and Cullen, Criminal Justice

2000).

27. Neil Gilbert, “Advocacy Research and Social Policy,” in Crime and Justice: A

Review of Research, edited by Michael Tonry (Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1997).

28. Mary P. Koss, “The Underdetection of Rape: Methodological Choices Influence

Incidence Estimates,” Journal of Social Issues 48 (1992): 61–75; Mary P. Koss,

“The Measurement of Rape Victimization in Crime Surveys,” Criminal Justice

and Behavior 23 (1996): 55–69.
29. Victoria L. Pitts and Martin D. Schwartz, “Promoting Self-Blame in Hidden

Rape Cases,” Humanity and Society 17(4) (1993): 383–98.

30. Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine and Richard Tewksbury, “A Routine Activity

Theory Explanation of Women’s Stalking Victimizations,” Violence Against

Women 5(1) (1999): 43–62. 

31. Mustaine and Tewksbury provide no definition of stalking. Instead, to operationalize stalking, surveyed respondents were asked whether, during the prior 

6 months, they had been a victim of behavior that they defined as stalking.

32. Tjaden and Thoennes, Stalking in America.

33. Ibid.

34. Of the 696 incidents, in 11 incidents the respondents refused to discuss the 

incident, and in 13 incidents the respondents did not tell us the form(s) of the

stalking behavior. Reported percentages are based on 672 incidents.

35. Ibid.

36. Gilbert, “Advocacy Research and Social Policy.”

37. Fisher and Cullen, Violent Victimization Among College Women.

The Sexual Victimization of College Women

39
About the National Institute of Justice

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), a component of the Office of Justice Programs, is the research

agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Created by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets

Act of 1968, as amended, NIJ is authorized to support research, evaluation, and demonstration programs, development of technology, and both national and international information dissemination.

Specific mandates of the Act direct NIJ to: 

• Sponsor special projects and research and development programs that will improve and

strengthen the criminal justice system and reduce or prevent crime.

• Conduct national demonstration projects that employ innovative or promising approaches for

improving criminal justice.

• Develop new technologies to fight crime and improve criminal justice.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice programs and identify programs that promise to 

be successful if continued or repeated.

• Recommend actions that can be taken by Federal, State, and local governments as well as by

private organizations to improve criminal justice. 

• Carry out research on criminal behavior.

• Develop new methods of crime prevention and reduction of crime and delinquency. 

In recent years, NIJ has greatly expanded its initiatives, the result of the Violent Crime Control and

Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the Crime Act), partnerships with other Federal agencies and private

foundations, advances in technology, and a new international focus. Examples of these new initiatives include: 

• Exploring key issues in community policing, violence against women, violence within the 

family, sentencing reforms, and specialized courts such as drug courts.

• Developing dual-use technologies to support national defense and local law enforcement needs.

• Establishing four regional National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers and

a Border Research and Technology Center. 

• Strengthening NIJ’s links with the international community through participation in the United

Nations network of criminological institutes, the U.N. Criminal Justice Information Network,

and the NIJ International Center.

• Improving the online capability of NIJ’s criminal justice information clearinghouse. 

• Establishing the ADAM (Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring) program—formerly the Drug 

Use Forecasting (DUF) program—to increase the number of drug-testing sites and study 

drug-related crime.

The Institute Director establishes the Institute’s objectives, guided by the priorities of the Office of

Justice Programs, the Department of Justice, and the needs of the criminal justice field. The Institute

actively solicits the views of criminal justice professionals and researchers in the continuing search

for answers that inform public policymaking in crime and justice. 

To find out more about the National Institute of Justice 

please contact:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service 

P.O. Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849–6000 

800–851–3420

e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

To obtain an electronic version of this document, access the NIJ Web site

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).

If you have questions, call or e-mail NCJRS.