DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03074.v1
title: Understanding Crime Victimization Among College Students in the United States, 1993-1994
title: Version 1

description: This study was designed to collect college student
victimization data to satisfy four primary objectives: (1) to
determine the prevalence and nature of campus crime, (2) to help the
campus community more fully assess crime, perceived risk, fear of
victimization, and security problems, (3) to aid in the development
and evaluation of location-specific and campus-wide security policies
and crime prevention measures, and (4) to make a contribution to the
theoretical study of campus crime and security. Data for Part 1,
Student-Level Data, and Part 2, Incident-Level Data, were collected
from a random sample of college students in the United States using a
structured telephone interview modeled after the redesigned National
Crime Victimization Survey administered by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Using stratified random sampling, over 3,000 college
students from 12 schools were interviewed. Researchers collected
detailed information about the incident and the victimization, and
demographic characteristics of victims and nonvictims, as well as data
on self-protection, fear of crime, perceptions of crime on campus, and
campus security measures. For Part 3, School Data, the researchers
surveyed campus officials at the sampled schools and gathered official
data to supplement institution-level crime prevention information
obtained from the students. Mail-back surveys were sent to directors
of campus security or campus police at the 12 sampled schools,
addressing various aspects of campus security, crime prevention
programs, and crime prevention services available on the
campuses. Additionally, mail-back surveys were sent to directors of
campus planning, facilities management, or related offices at the same
12 schools to obtain information on the extent and type of planning
and design actions taken by the campus for crime prevention. Part 3
also contains data on the characteristics of the 12 schools obtained
from PETERSON'S GUIDE TO FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES (1994). Part 4, Census
Data, is comprised of 1990 Census data describing the census tracts in
which the 12 schools were located and all tracts adjacent to the
schools. Demographic variables in Part 1 include year of birth, sex,
race, marital status, current enrollment status, employment status,
residency status, and parents' education. Victimization variables
include whether the student had ever been a victim of theft, burglary,
robbery, motor vehicle theft, assault, sexual assault, vandalism, or
harassment. Students who had been victimized were also asked the
number of times victimization incidents occurred, how often the police
were called, and if they knew the perpetrator. All students were asked
about measures of self-protection, fear of crime, perceptions of crime
on campus, and campus security measures. For Part 2, questions were
asked about the location of each incident, whether the offender had a
weapon, a description of the offense and the victim's response,
injuries incurred, characteristics of the offender, and whether the
incident was reported to the police. For Part 3, respondents were
asked about how general campus security needs were met, the nature and
extent of crime prevention programs and services available at the
school (including when the program or service was first implemented),
and recent crime prevention activities. Campus planners were asked if
specific types of campus security features (e.g., emergency telephone,
territorial markers, perimeter barriers, key-card access, surveillance
cameras, crime safety audits, design review for safety features,
trimming shrubs and underbrush to reduce hiding places, etc.) were
present during the 1993-1994 academic year and if yes, how many or how
often. Additionally, data were collected on total full-time
enrollment, type of institution, percent of undergraduate female
students enrolled, percent of African-American students enrolled,
acreage, total fraternities, total sororities, crime rate of
city/county where the school was located, and the school's Carnegie
classification. For Part 4, Census data were compiled on percent
unemployed, percent having a high school degree or higher, percent of
all persons below the poverty level, and percent of the population
that was Black.
description: Since the Student Right-to-Know and Campus
 Security Act was passed by Congress in 1990, all postsecondary
 institutions in the United States that received federal financial aid
 were required to provide access to campus crime statistics. However,
 these data were subject to the problems common to all official crime
 statistics, and there were no victimization studies of college
 students to provide supplemental data. The nature of the official
 crime data did not allow researchers to determine the prevalence and
 correlates of crime on campus and to assess the security problems of
 postsecondary institutions. Given the limitations of official data,
 this study was conducted to satisfy four primary objectives: (1) to
 determine the prevalence and nature of campus crime, (2) to help the
 campus community more fully assess crime, fear and perceived risk of
 victimization, and security problems, (3) to aid in the development
 and evaluation of location-specific and campus-wide security policies
 and crime prevention programs, and (4) to make a contribution to the
theoretical study of campus crime and security.
description: Data for Part 1, Student-Level Data, and Part 2,
 Incident-Level Data, were collected by the Institute of Policy
 Research at the University of Cincinnati using computer-aided
 telephone interviewing (CATI) for the student-level data and hardcopy
 survey instruments for the incident reports. The structured telephone
 interview technique used was modeled after the redesigned National
 Crime Victimization Survey administered by the Bureau of Justice
 Statistics. Using stratified random sampling, over 3,000 college
 students from 12 schools were interviewed. Researchers collected
 detailed information about the incident and the victimization, and
 demographic characteristics of victims and nonvictims. Each student
 was first asked a set of screen questions to determine
 eligibility. Each eligible student was then asked a series of
 victimization screen questions. If the respondent said "yes" to any of
 the screen questions, then an incident report was completed for each
 "yes" response. For Part 3, School Data, the researchers surveyed
 campus officials at the sampled schools and collected official data to
 supplement institution-level crime prevention information obtained
 from students. Mail-back surveys were sent to directors of campus
 security or campus police at the 12 sampled schools, and addressed
 various aspects of campus security, crime prevention programs, and
 crime prevention services available on the campuses. Additionally,
 mail-back surveys were sent to directors of campus planning,
 facilities management, or a related office at the same schools to
 obtain information on the extent and type of planning and design
 actions taken by the campus for crime prevention. Part 3 also contains
 data on the characteristics of the 12 schools obtained from PETERSON'S
 GUIDE TO FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES (1994). Part 4, Census Data, is comprised
 of 1990 Census data describing the census tracts in which 12 schools
were located and all tracts adjacent to the schools.
description: Demographic variables in Part 1 include year of
 birth, sex, race, marital status, current enrollment status,
 employment status, residency status, and parents'
 education. Victimization variables include whether the student had
 ever been a victim of theft, burglary, robbery, motor vehicle theft,
 assault, sexual assault, vandalism, or harassment. Students who had
 been victimized were also asked the number of times victimization
 incidents occurred, how often the police were called, and if they knew
 the perpetrator. All students were asked about measures of
 self-protection, fear of crime, perceptions of crime on campus, and
 campus security measures. For Part 2, questions were asked about the
 location of each incident, whether the offender had a weapon, a
 description of the offense and the victim's response, injuries
 incurred, characteristics of the offender, and whether the incident
 was reported to the police. For Part 3, respondents were asked about
 how general campus security needs were being met by the school, the
 nature and extent of crime prevention programs and services available
 at the school (including when the program or service was first
 implemented), and recent crime prevention activities. Campus planners
 were asked if specific types of campus security features (e.g.,
 emergency telephone, territorial markers, perimeter barriers, key-card
 access, surveillance cameras, crime safety audits, design review for
 safety features, trimming shrubs and underbrush to reduce hiding
 places, etc.) were present during the 1993-1994 academic year and if
 yes, how many or how often. Additionally, data were collected on the
 total full-time enrollment, type of institution, percent of
 undergraduate female students enrolled, percent of African-American
 students enrolled, acreage, total fraternities, total sororities,
 crime rate of city/county where the school was located, and Carnegie
 classification. For Part 4, Census data were compiled on percent
 unemployed, percent having a high school degree or higher, percent of
 all persons below the poverty level, and percent of the population
that was Black.
description: Response Rates: Parts 1 and 2: 71 percent. Part 3: 100 percent.
Part 4: Not applicable.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used.
description: Two-stage stratified random sampling.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Student-Level Data
DS2: Incident-Level Data
DS3: School Data
DS4: Census Data
description: Parts 1 and 2: All full-time and part-time undergraduate,
graduate, postdoctoral, continuing education, and certificate program
students enrolled since fall term 1993 at four-year postsecondary
institutions in the United States with a total enrollment over 1,000
students who were not full-time employees of the respective school.
Part 3: All four-year, postsecondary institutions in the United States
(not including territories or campuses overseas). Part 4: All 1990
Census tracts.