Download the full version of the ebook at ebookfinal.

com

Campus Crime Legal Social and Policy Perspectives

2nd Edition Bonnie S. Fisher

https://ebookfinal.com/download/campus-crime-legal-social-
and-policy-perspectives-2nd-edition-bonnie-s-fisher/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

Download more ebook instantly today at https://ebookfinal.com

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Antarctic Security in the Twenty First Century Legal and

Policy Perspectives 1st Edition Alan D. Hemmings

https://ebookfinal.com/download/antarctic-security-in-the-twenty-
first-century-legal-and-policy-perspectives-1st-edition-alan-d-
hemmings/
ebookfinal.com

Third Party Assisted Conception Across Cultures Social

Legal and Ethical Perspectives 1st Edition Eric Blyth

https://ebookfinal.com/download/third-party-assisted-conception-
across-cultures-social-legal-and-ethical-perspectives-1st-edition-
eric-blyth/
ebookfinal.com

German Public Policy and Federalism Current Debates on

Political Legal and Social Issues 1st Edition Arthur B.
Gunlicks
https://ebookfinal.com/download/german-public-policy-and-federalism-
current-debates-on-political-legal-and-social-issues-1st-edition-
arthur-b-gunlicks/
ebookfinal.com

Crime Victim s Guide to Justice 2E current for any state

Legal Survival Guides 2nd Edition Mary L Boland

https://ebookfinal.com/download/crime-victim-s-guide-to-
justice-2e-current-for-any-state-legal-survival-guides-2nd-edition-
mary-l-boland/
ebookfinal.com
Environmental governance and climate change in Africa
legal perspectives 2nd ed Edition Rose Mwebaza

https://ebookfinal.com/download/environmental-governance-and-climate-
change-in-africa-legal-perspectives-2nd-ed-edition-rose-mwebaza/

ebookfinal.com

Information Sources in the Social Sciences David Fisher

(Editor)

https://ebookfinal.com/download/information-sources-in-the-social-
sciences-david-fisher-editor/

ebookfinal.com

Immigration Policy and Security U S European and

Commonwealth Perspectives 1st Edition Terri Givens

https://ebookfinal.com/download/immigration-policy-and-security-u-s-
european-and-commonwealth-perspectives-1st-edition-terri-givens/

ebookfinal.com

Reforming Long term Care in Europe Broadening Perspectives

in Social Policy 1st Edition Joan Costa-Font

https://ebookfinal.com/download/reforming-long-term-care-in-europe-
broadening-perspectives-in-social-policy-1st-edition-joan-costa-font/

ebookfinal.com

Alzheimer s and Parkinson s Diseases Progress and New

Perspectives 8th International Conference Ad pd Salzburg
March 2007 Abstracts Neuro Degenerative Diseases Abraham
Fisher
https://ebookfinal.com/download/alzheimer-s-and-parkinson-s-diseases-
progress-and-new-perspectives-8th-international-conference-ad-pd-
salzburg-march-2007-abstracts-neuro-degenerative-diseases-abraham-
fisher/
ebookfinal.com
CAMPUS CRIME
 Second Edition

CAMPUS CRIME
Legal, Social, and Policy Perspectives

Edited by

BONNIE S. FISHER
Division of Criminal Justice
University of Cincinnati

and

JOHN J. SLOAN, III

Department of Justice Sciences
University of Alabama-Birmingham
 Published and Distributed Throughout the World by

CHARLES C THOMAS • PUBLISHER, LTD.

2600 South First Street
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9265

This book is protected by copyright. No part of

it may be reproduced in any manner without written
permission from the publisher. All rights reserved.

©2007 by CHARLES C THOMAS • PUBLISHER, LTD.

ISBN-13: 978-0-398-007736-5
ISBN-10: 0-398-07736-3
ISBN-13: 978-0-398-07737-2 (pbk.)
ISBN-10: 0-398-07737-1 (pbk.)

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2006048899

With THOMAS BOOKS careful attention is given to all details of manufacturing

and design. It is the Publisher’s desire to present books that are satisfactory as to their
physical qualities and artistic possibilities and appropriate for their particular use.
THOMAS BOOKS will be true to those laws of quality that assure a good name
and good will.

Printed in the United States of America

MM-R-3

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Campus crime : legal, social, and policy perspectives / edited by Bonnie S.

Fisher and John J. Sloan III. — 2nd ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-13: 978-0-398-07736-5
ISBN-10: 0-398-07736-3
ISBN-13: 978-0-398-07737-2 (pbk.)
ISBN-10: 0-398-07737-1 (pbk.)
1. College students—Crimes against—United States. 2. Universities and col-
leges—Security measures—United States. 3. Campus police—Legal status, laws,
etc.—United States. I. Fisher, Bonnie, 1969– II. Sloan, John J.

HV6250.4 S78F57 2007

364.973--dc22 2006048899
 ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Catherine Bath is the Executive Director of Security On

Campus, Inc. (SOC), the only national nonprofit organiza-
tion devoted exclusively to assisting the victims of violence
on college campuses, and to improving campus security.
Cofounded by Connie and Howard Clery in 1987, SOC has
been the driving force behind the federal Clery Act and near-
ly thirty other state and federal laws addressing campus crime
reporting and victims’ rights. Catherine became an advocate
for change in postsecondary institutions’ campus alcohol
policies after the death of her son at Duke University in
November of 1999 of aspiration pneumonia, a condition he
contracted after a night of heavy drinking. Her advocacy
focuses on educational efforts to reduce college students’
alcohol and other drug consumption, and to encourage
healthy lifestyle choices. An accomplished artist, Ms. Bath
studied painting at the University of Illinois in Champaign-
Urbana.

Joanne Belknap is a Professor of Sociology and Women’s

Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. She
received her doctorate in criminal justice from Michigan
State University in 1986. The third edition of her book, The
Invisible Woman: Gender, Crime and Justice (2007), is an
overview of research on women and girls as victims and
offenders, and women as workers in the criminal legal sys-
tem. Dr. Belknap has published extensively on female offend-
ers and female victims. She is a past recipient of the
“Inconvenient Woman of the Year” Award from the Division
on Women & Crime of the American Society of Criminology
and has also received numerous teaching and service awards.

v
vi Campus Crime

Kristie R. Blevins is an Assistant Professor of Criminal

Justice at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She
received her Ph.D. in Criminal Justice from the University of
Cincinnati. Dr. Blevins is coeditor of, and a contributor to,
Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory (2006). Her
research interests include correctional rehabilitation, victim-
ization, and the occupational reactions and attitudes of
employees in the criminal justice system. She is currently
involved in field research exploring the attributes, drug
habits, and motivations of solicitors of prostitutes in a south-
ern metropolitan area.

Max L. Bromley is an Associate Professor of Criminal

Justice and Director of the Masters Program in Criminal
Justice Administration in the Department of Criminology at
the University of South Florida. Previously, he was Associate
Director of Public Safety at the University of South Florida
and worked in the criminal justice field for almost twenty-five
years. He received his B.S. and M.S. in Criminology from
Florida State University, and a Doctorate in Higher
Education with an emphasis in Criminal Justice from Nova
University. Dr. Bromley is the author of Department Self-Study:
A Guide for Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, which has
been used at over 1,000 institutions of higher education in the
U.S. He is also coauthor of Crime and Justice in America (6th
Ed.) (2004), Hospital and College Security Liability (1987), and
College Crime Prevention and Personal Safety Awareness (1990).
His work has appeared in Policing, Police Quarterly, Criminal
Justice Policy Review, and Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice. His research interests involve police administration,
police organizational change, and specialized police agencies.

S. Daniel Carter is the Senior Vice President of Security On

Campus, Inc. (SOC) the only national nonprofit organization
devoted exclusively to assisting the victims of violence on
college campuses and to improving campus security.
Cofounded by Connie and Howard Clery in 1987, the organ-
ization has been the driving force behind the federal Clery Act
and nearly thirty other state and federal laws addressing cam-
pus crime reporting and victims’ rights. Carter has been
working on improving victims’ rights and campus safety for
more than fifteen years, beginning his work while a student
 About the Contributors vii

at the University of Tennessee from which he graduated in

1994 with a B.A. in Political Science. He has worked on every
amendment to the Clery Act since 1992, including the
Campus Sexual Assault Victims Bill of Rights, and serves as
SOC’s lead Crime Victim Advocate.

Francis T. Cullen is Distinguished Research Professor of

Criminal Justice and Sociology at the University of
Cincinnati. His recent work includes Combating Corporate
Crime: Local Prosecutors at Work (1998), Criminological Theory:
Context and Consequences (2007), and Criminological Theory: Past
to Present—Essential Readings (2006). His research focuses on
the impact of social support on crime, the measurement of
sexual victimization, public opinion about crime control, and
rehabilitation as a correctional policy. He is a Past President
of both the American Society of Criminology and the
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.

Leah E. Daigle is an Assistant Professor of Justice Studies in

the Department of Political Science at Georgia Southern
University. She received her Ph.D. in Criminal Justice from
the University of Cincinnati. Her research interests include
the development of offending over time, and gender differ-
ences in the antecedents to, and consequences of, criminal
victimization and participation in offending across the life-
course. Her most recent research has examined innovative
responses to college women who have suffered sexual assault
victimization, including self-protective action and acknowl-
edgment. Dr. Daigle’s work has appeared in Justice Quarterly,
the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and Criminal Justice and
Behavior.

George W. Dowdall is Professor of Sociology at Saint

Joseph’s University. His books include The Eclipse of the State
Mental Hospital (1996) and Adventures in Criminal Justice
Research (2004). His research has focused on college student
binge drinking, including one paper commissioned by the
National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Task
Force on College Drinking. A graduate of Holy Cross, he
received the Ph.D. in Sociology from Brown University and
was an NIMH Postdoctoral Fellow at the UCLA School of
Public Health. He has been a faculty member at Indiana
viii Campus Crime

University, Buffalo State, and Saint Joseph’s, and held visiting

appointments at UCLA, Penn, Brown, and Harvard. In 2000,
he was the American Sociological Association’s Congression-
al Fellow. Dr. Dowdall also serves on the Board of Directors
of Security on Campus, Inc.

Edna Erez is a Professor and Head of the Department of

Criminal Justice at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She
holds a law degree (LL.B.) from the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem and Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of
Pennsylvania. She is the current Coeditor of International
Review of Victimology and an Associate Editor of Violence and
Victims ; she is also a past editor of Justice Quarterly, the official
publication of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.
Professor Erez has published extensively on victims and
women in the criminal justice system, and violence against
women, including immigrant women. Among her current
projects is a study of women involved in terrorism.

Bonnie S. Fisher is a Professor of Criminal Justice in the

Division of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati,
and a senior research fellow at the Criminal Justice Research
Center. She has been Principle Investigator on four national-
level grants funded by the U.S. Department of Justice to
examine issues concerning the victimization of college stu-
dents, the sexual victimization and stalking of college
women, violence against college women, and responses by
colleges and universities to a report of a sexual assault. Her
research interests include the correlates of victimization, fear
of victimization, and attitudes toward criminal justice policy.
Her most recent work has examined the extent and nature of
repeat sexual victimization among college women and the
efficacy of the protective action-completion nexus for sexual
victimization.

Dennis E. Gregory is an Associate Professor of Higher

Education at Old Dominion University and serves as
Program Director for the Higher Education Graduate
Programs. He has served in student affairs positions at
schools in the Southeast between 1974 and 2000 and is a past
President of the Association for Student Judicial Affairs. He
has also served in a variety of professional leadership posi-
 About the Contributors ix

tions, including currently serving as Associate Editor of the

NASPA Journal and on the Board of Directors of the Council
for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education
(CAS). Dr. Gregory has presented over 100 programs,
speeches, teleconferences, seminars and keynote addresses
on student affairs and legal topics throughout the United
State. He has authored or coauthored over fifty articles, book
chapters, monographs and other publications, including The
Administration of Fraternal Organizations on North American
Campuses: A Pattern for the New Millennium (2003).

Timothy C. Hart is an Assistant Professor in the Department

of Criminal Justice at the University of Nevada–Las Vegas
(UNLV) and Director of the State of Nevada’s Center for the
Analysis of Crime Statistics. He received the Ph.D. in
Criminology from the University of South Florida in 2006.
His research interests include survey research, applied statis-
tics, geographic information systems, and victimization. Prior
to joining the UNLV faculty, Dr. Hart was a Statistician for
the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a Program Analyst for the
Drug Enforcement Administration and a Research Analyst
for the Hillsborough County (FL) Sheriff’s Department.

Steven M. Janosik is an Associate Professor and Senior

Policy Analyst in the Department of Educational Leadership
and Policy Studies at Virginia Tech. He received the B.S in
Business Administration from Virginia Tech, an M.A. in
Counseling and Student Personnel Services from the
University of Georgia, and the Ed. D. in Educational
Administration from Virginia Tech. Dr. Janosik has more
than twenty years experience in college administration, and
is the author or coauthor of two books, eleven book chapters,
and fifty-four journal articles on such topics as campus crime,
college administration, and higher education law. He has
received the “Outstanding Research Award” from the
American College Personnel Association’s Commission III,
the “D. Parker Young Award” for outstanding scholarship
and research in the areas of higher education law and judicial
affairs from the Association for Student Judicial Affairs, and
the “Outstanding Contribution to Student Affairs Through
Teaching Award” from National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators, Region III.
x Campus Crime

Heather M. Karjane is Gender Issues Coordinator at the

Massachusetts Administrative Office of the Trial Court. Dr.
Karjane has specialized in the fields of violence towards
women, violence prevention, traumatic stress, and survivor-
ship for over twenty years. She has served as an advisor to the
U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Department of Defense, the
Children’s Safety Network, the National Suicide Prevention
Resource Center, and the Media Education Foundation. Her
research has been funded by the National Institute of Justice
and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She is a
founding member of the Greenbook National Demonstration
Initiative and has been a member of the Massachusetts
Governor’s Commission on Sexual and Domestic Violence
since 2002. Dr. Karjane holds a Ph.D. from the University of
Massachusetts at Amherst, an M.A. from Simmons College,
and a B.A. from Rutgers University.

Mark M. Lanier is an Associate Professor of Criminal

Justice in the Department of Criminal Justice and Legal
Studies at the University of Central Florida. He earned an
interdisciplinary social science doctoral degree from
Michigan State University in 1993 and formerly taught at
Eastern Michigan University. Dr. Lanier has published
numerous articles in a variety of interdisciplinary journals,
including those in public health, criminal justice, criminolo-
gy, law, and psychology. His funded research has examined
youth and HIV/AIDS, and community-oriented policing
(COP). In 1997, the College of Health and Public Affairs at
the University of Central Florida named him one of its
“Distinguished Researchers of the Year.” He is coauthor (with
Stuart Henry) of Essential Criminology (1998; 2004) and the
Essential Criminology Reader (2006), and is coeditor (with
Stuart Henry) of What Is Crime? (2001). In 2006, he was rec-
ognized as the Educator of the Year by the Southern Criminal
Justice Association.

Samuel C. McQuade, III, Ph.D. currently serves as the

Professional Studies Graduate Program Coordinator at the
Rochester Institute of Technology. He is a former Air
National Guard security officer, deputy sheriff and police offi-
cer, police organizational change consultant, National
Institute of Justice Program Manager for the U.S. Department
 About the Contributors xi

of Justice, and Study Director for the Committee on Law and

Justice at the National Research Council of the National
Academics of Sciences. Professor McQuade holds a Doctoral
Degree in Public Policy from George Mason University and
a Masters Degree in Public Administration from the Uni-
versity of Washington. He teaches and conducts research at
RIT in areas inclusive of computer crime, security technolo-
gy administration, and career options in Technology-oriented
societies. Dr. McQuade also oversees a professional concen-
tration of graduate courses pertaining to Security Technology,
which are now offered through RIT’s Professional Studies
Masters of Science Degree. His new textbook titled, Under-
standing and Managing Cybercrime, was published by Allyn &
Bacon/Pearson Education in 2006.

Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine is an Associate Professor of

Sociology at the University of Central Florida. She earned the
Ph.D. in Sociology from the Ohio State University. Her
research centers on issues of criminal victimization risks,
domestic violence and stalking, and sex offender registration.
Dr. Mustaine is active in both community organizations and
numerous academic associations.

Matthew B. Robinson is an Associate Professor of Criminal

Justice at Appalachian State University. He earned the Ph.D.
in Criminology from Florida State University. He is author of
Justice Blind?: Ideals and Realities of American Criminal Justice
(2005), Why Crime? An Integrated Systems Theory of Antisocial
Behavior (2004), and coauthor of Spatial Aspects of Crime:
Theory and Practice (2004). His forthcoming books include
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics: A Critical Analysis of Claims
Made by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (2007) and
Death Nation: The Experts Explain American Capital Punishment
(2007). He is a Past President of the Southern Criminal Justice
Association. His main areas of interest include criminological
theory, crime prevention, the death penalty, the war on
drugs, and injustices occurring in the legal system.

Sunghoon Roh is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice

at Appalachian State University. He is a former Commander
and Chief Officer assigned to the Crime Prevention Division,
Criminal Investigation Unit and Combat Police Force Unit in
xii Campus Crime

Busan, South Korea. He has published several articles and

book chapters in the areas of community policing, spatial
aspects of crime, and theories of crime. His main areas of
interest include policing, race and crime, and crime mapping.

Shannon A. Santana is an Assistant Professor of Criminal

Justice at Florida International University. She received the
Ph.D. in Criminal Justice from the University of Cincinnati.
She conducted the content analysis of data collected for the
National Campus Sexual Assault Policy Study. Her work has
appeared in the Justice System Journal and the Security Journal.
She has also coauthored book chapters that have appeared in
Violence at Work: Causes, Patterns, and Prevention, Restorative
Justice on the College Campus: Promoting Student Growth and
Responsibility, and Reawakening the Spirit of Campus Community,
and Changing Attitudes to Punishment: Public Opinion, Crime and
Justice. Her research interests include violence against
women, the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors in vio-
lent victimizations, workplace violence, and rehabilitation.

Linda K. Shafer earned her Ph.D. in Political Science from

the University of Oregon. A former academic, Dr. Shafer
now lives and works on the West Coast. She works for the
judicial branch of state government but remains involved in
various victims’ and women’s rights causes.

Jessica Shoemaker is a candidate for the M.S. in Criminal

Justice at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, where
she earned her B.S. with Honors in Criminal Justice in 2005.
Her thesis research examines the correlation between an
inmate’s readiness to change and his participation in faith-
based correctional programs. Her research interests include
faith-based inmate rehabilitation and the effect of extra-legal
variables on sentence outcomes.

John J. Sloan, III is an Associate Professor of Criminal

Justice and Chairman of the Department of Justice Sciences
at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He earned the
Ph.D. in Sociology from Purdue University. His work has
appeared in such journals as Criminology and Public Policy,
Justice Quarterly, Social Forces, and Criminology. For over a
decade, he has collaborated with Bonnie Fisher and others on
 About the Contributors xiii

numerous projects that examined victimization patterns, fear

of victimization, and security issues on college and university
campuses in the U.S.

Megan Stewart is a doctoral student in the Division of

Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. She holds a
B.A. in Psychology from Miami University of Ohio and an
M.S. in Criminal Justice from the University of Cincinnati.
Prior to pursuing her Ph.D., she worked for the University of
Cincinnati Police Department, and was a hotline counselor
and rape crisis advocate for the Community Counseling and
Crisis Center in Oxford, Ohio. Her current research interests
include crime prevention, repeat victimization, sexual vic-
timization, stalking, fear of crime, environmental criminolo-
gy, and psychopathology.

Richard Tewksbury is a Professor of Justice Administration

at the University of Louisville and Research Director for the
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission. He holds a
Ph.D. in Sociology from the Ohio State University. He is
author/editor of eleven books and more than 150 scholarly
articles and chapters. In 2006, he received the American
Correctional Association’s “Peter P. Lejin’s Correctional
Research Award,” and in 2005, was named the Southern
Criminal Justice Association’s “Educator of the Year.” He
actively works with a number of local, state, and federal crim-
inal justice and social service agencies. Dr. Tewksbury’s
research focuses on issues of risks of criminal victimization,
sexual violence, men’s sexuality, and sex offender registra-
tion.
For T.A.H.S., T.S.M., and my family with thanks
for the support and the understanding.

J.J.S.

To Nick, Olivia, and Camille with many thanks

for their endless encouragement and patience.

B.S.F.
 PREFACE

his volume is the second edition of Campus Crime: Legal, Social and Policy
T Perspectives. The demand for a second edition is evidence that interest in
the legal, social, and policy contexts of campus crime has not waned since
publication of the first edition in 1995. Congress and state legislators have
maintained continued interest in campus crime and security through passage
of, and amendments to, laws addressing these issues. Researchers from a
variety of disciplines have published numerous studies that examined a wide
range of campus crime and security topics from the extent and nature of stu-
dent victimization to compliance by postsecondary institutions to federal and
state legislation. Law enforcement professionals have made progress reform-
ing the organizational structure and tactical practices of campus police
departments. Despite these continued actions, concerns about campus crime
and security persist among students and their parents, administrators, facul-
ty, staff, and student advocacy groups.
Among our purposes in assembling a second edition of Campus Crime:
Legal, Social and Policy Perspectives is to share with readers the advancements
that have been made to better understand campus crime, especially student
victimization, and effectively address security issues. For the sake of conti-
nuity with the first edition, we maintain the three section divisions found
there: The Legal Context of Campus Crime, The Social Context of Campus
Crime, and The Security Context of Campus Crime. Within each section,
contributors address what we believe, given our knowledge and expertise,
constitute the most pressing crime and security issues that continue to face
post-secondary administrators and their students, faculty, and staff.
Some chapters included in this second edition address “long-standing”
topics such as the sexual victimization of college women and the role of cam-
pus police departments in securing the campus. The remaining chapters
address “new” topics emerging since publication of the first edition. First,
over 15 years have passed since passage of the first ever federal-level campus
crime legislation, now known as the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security
Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (20 U.S.C. 1092[f]). Its requirements
have generated numerous critical discussions and empirical analyses that
xvii
xviii Campus Crime

raise questions about the legislation’s effectiveness and on campus crime

impact. Second, researchers have completed and published the results of at
least five national-level and numerous smaller scale victimization studies
since 1995. Together, they have filled gaps (some of which we identified in
the Postscript of the first edition) in researchers’ understanding of the extent,
nature, and spatial aspects of student victimization. Beyond estimating vic-
timization rates, these studies offer insight concerning how students’ routine
activities and lifestyles, including alcohol use and abuse, contribute to their
victimization risk. Third, since 1995, legislatures have criminalized two
“new” behaviors, stalking and “high-tech” abuses such as computer hacking
and identity theft, which pose unique victimization risks and perpetration
opportunities for students, and create security and policing challenge for
campus administrators far different from “traditional” types of violence and
property theft. Finally, implementation of community-oriented policing on
many campuses has ushered in a new era of campus policing and which
gives rise both to new practices and challenges.
Section I of the book examines the legal context of campus crime by pre-
senting five chapters focusing on the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security
Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery). From a legal standpoint, Clery
and its state-level counterparts have created important obligations for post-
secondary institutions, including annually reporting campus crime statistics
and publicly reporting institutional processes designed to enhance campus
security and provide assistance to campus crime victims. The chapters
acquaint the reader with: (1) the genesis and evolution of Clery, (2) the cur-
rent state of research concerning public awareness of Clery and its impact, (3)
results and implications of the only national-level evaluation of the sexual
assault reporting requirements of Clery, the National Campus Sexual Assault
Policy Study, (4) inherent limitations of Clery’s goals and their effect on the
“true” extent of gendered violence on campus and resulting ineffective insti-
tutional responses, and (5) a national-level comparative analysis of state-
based Clery-style legislation.
Part II examines the social context of campus crime. The six chapters in
this section present both descriptions of, and explanations for, the extent and
nature of college student victimization, addressing a range of salient topics
that are of interest to researchers and administrators. Four of the chapters
address issues such as whether student victimization rates differ from non-
students’, the utility of routine activities and lifestyle theories for explaining
college student victimization patterns, the role of alcohol use and abuse in
understanding college student victimization, and the spatial distribution on
campus of frequently occurring offenses, such as alcohol and drug violations,
and vandalism. The remaining two chapters focus on crimes typically com-
mitted primarily against women. One chapter offers a comprehensive
 Preface xix

overview of the growing body of research into sexual harassment, rape, and
intimate partner abuse of college women. The second chapter discusses the
extent, nature, and impact of stalking behaviors committed against and by
college students.
Section III of the book focuses on security issues on campus. Two chap-
ters focus on the organization and practices of campus police by examining
the evolution of campus policing over the past four decades and the admin-
istrative and operational models of campus police, including the recent
implementation of community-oriented policing and the application of com-
munity-based strategies on campuses. The third chapter examines the rise of
high-tech abuses and crimes on campus and offers suggestions for how post-
secondary institutions can address these new forms of illegal behavior.
Although we added new topics to and updated others for the second edi-
tion, we remain committed to providing a timely compilation of topics to an
audience of students, parents, academicians, practitioners, and college
administrators. In compiling these chapters, our goal was to bring together
works designed to provide readers a current picture and critical analysis of
issues concerning the legal, social, and policy contexts of campus crime and
security. We believe the collected works of this volume offer insightful dis-
cussions and raise relevant questions. The authors also provide plausible
responses to addressing campus crime and security, a social problem that
continues to affect students, their parents, and postsecondary institutions on
a daily basis.

BONNIE S. F ISHER
JOHN J. S LOAN, III
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

e again thank our editor, Michael Payne Thomas, for his guidance and
W patience with us in putting together this second edition. We also are
grateful to our contributors, both returning and new, for producing high-
quality chapters and adhering to our deadlines with a sense of humor. Their
enthusiasm for this volume and dedicated efforts give us hope that future
research can better inform the development and implementation of effective
proactive and prevention responses to campus crime.
John thanks Tavis for her support of this project, and Dr. Tennant S.
McWilliams, Dean of the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences at UAB,
for release time from administrative duties that allowed him to complete this
project. Finally, he thanks his parents, John and Christine, and his siblings,
Timothy and Kathleen, for their support over the years.
Bonnie thanks Nick for encouraging her to follow her passion for engag-
ing in college student victimization research. She thanks her daughters,
Olivia and Camille, for helping her understand how the world works from a
girl’s perspective and for making her laugh and think critically every day.
She thanks her colleagues for their guidance and support throughout the
years, especially her coauthors, Frank Cullen and Leah Daigle. Many thanks
also to her students who provided her ideas and insights into why and how
student victimization occurs.
John and Bonnie are already looking forward to working on a third edi-
tion of the book, although next time, we won’t let ten years pass between edi-
tions! Mark your calendars for 2011—we’ve already marked ours!

xxi
 CONTENTS

Page
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xvii

Chapter
1. Campus Crime Policy: Legal, Social, and Security Contexts . . . . .3
Bonnie S. Fisher and John J. Sloan, III

Part I: The Legal Context of Campus Crime

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

2. The Evolution and Components of the Jeanne Clery Act:

Implications for Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
S. Daniel Carter and Catherine Bath

3. Research on the Clery Act and Its Impact on Higher Education

Administrative Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
Dennis E. Gregory and Steven M. Janosik

4. Reporting Sexual Assault and the Clery Act: Situating Findings

from the National Campus Sexual Assault Policy Study
within College Women’s Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
Bonnie S. Fisher, Heather M. Karjane, Francis T. Cullen,
Kristie R. Blevins, Shannon A. Santana, and Leah E. Daigle

5. Women, Gender, and Safety on Campus: Reporting Is Not

Enough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87
Linda K. Shafer

xxiii
xxiv Campus Crime

6. State-Level Clery Act Initiatives: Symbolic Politics or Substantive

Policy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
John J. Sloan, III and Jessica Shoemaker

Part II: The Social Context of Campus Crime

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125

7. The Violent Victimization of College Students: Findings from the

National Crime Victimization Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129
Timothy C. Hart

8. The Routine Activities and Criminal Victimization of Students:

Lifestyle and Related Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147
Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine and Richard Tewskbury

9. The Role of Alcohol Abuse in College Student Victimization . .167

George W. Dowdall

10. Violence Against Women on College Campuses: Rape, Intimate

Partner Abuse, and Sexual Harassment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188
Joanne Belknap and Edna Erez

11. Vulnerabilities and Opportunities 101: The Extent, Nature, and

Impact of Stalking Among College Students and Implications
for Campus Policy and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .210
Bonnie S. Fisher and Megan Stewart

12. Crime on Campus: Spatial Aspects of Campus Crime at a

Regional Comprehensive University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .231
Matthew B. Robinson and Sunghoon Roh

Part III: The Security Context of Campus Crime

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259

13. Community Policing on University Campuses: Tradition,

Practices, and Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261
John J. Sloan, III and Mark M. Lanier
 Contents xxv

14. The Evolution of Campus Policing: Different Models for

Different Eras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .280
Max L. Bromley

15. High-Tech Abuse and Crime on College and University

Campuses: Evolving Forms of Victimization, Offending, and
Their Interplay in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .304
Samuel C. McQuade, III

Postscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .327
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .331
CAMPUS CRIME
 Chapter 1

CAMPUS CRIME POLICY:

LEGAL, SOCIAL, AND SECURITY CONTEXTS

BONNIE S. F ISHER AND JOHN J. S LOAN, III

INTRODUCTION

n 1990, Congress passed and President George H.W. Bush signed into law
I the Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C.
1092[f]), renamed in 1998 the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy
and Campus Crime Statistics Act (20 U.S.C. 1092[f]; henceforth the Clery Act),
in remembrance of Jeanne Clery, who was murdered by a fellow student
while she slept in her dorm room at Lehigh University in 1986.
Concurrently, colleges and universities began being held liable for “foresee-
able” criminal victimizations occurring in dormitories or other on-campus
locations, state legislatures began passing their own “Clery style” legislation,
and postsecondary institutions struggled to professionalize their campus
security and law enforcement agencies. Additionally, social science
researchers began systematically studying crime and security issues on post-
secondary institutions. Their findings revealed sometimes-startling realities
about life in “the ivory tower.”
These events form the backdrop of what we call the legal, social, and secu-
rity contexts of campus crime and are the basis for campus officials to devel-
op, implement, and evaluate policies and programs that address campus
crime. Importantly, a change in one of these contexts affects the others, mak-
ing them inextricably linked. For example, research shows that a sizable por-
tion of college students are crime victims, in particular that college women
suffer sexual victimization at high levels (the social context). This was, in
part, the rationale for legislation that was passed requiring postsecondary
institutions to create both prevention programs, procedures and services for
3
4 Campus Crime

specifically dealing with these victims (the security context). Another exam-
ple is research conducted (the social context) that examines postsecondary
institutional compliance with state and federal legislation relating to campus
crime and security (the legal context). Thus, while one can examine each
context separately, it is also important to keep in mind the linkages among
them and their relationship to campus crime policy.
In this chapter, we present an overview of the legal, social, and security
contexts of campus crime. In doing so, our two goals are: (1) to give readers
a broad-based overview of key issues relating to each context, and (2) to
show readers important linkages among the contexts.
We organize the chapter as follows. We first present discussion of the legal
context of campus crime, which includes both the judicial and legislative are-
nas. Here, we discuss postsecondary institutional liability for criminal vic-
timizations occurring on campus property, as well as explore important leg-
islative developments focusing on campus crime and security issues. Next,
we examine the social context of campus crime, that is, important social sci-
entific studies of campus crime and security. Following this, we examine the
security context of campus crime, which includes discussing the develop-
ment of professional campus police agencies, issues relating to their devel-
opment, and the increasingly important role that information technology
security plays on college campuses. We conclude the chapter by presenting
important linkages across the three contexts and suggest that policy—federal,
state, or on a single campus—is implicitly or explicitly an overarching theme
that also ties together the contexts.

The Legal Context of Campus Crime

Generally, the legal context involves two separate but related branches of
government: the judicial and the legislative. In the former arena, precedent-
setting court decisions arising from lawsuits filed by students and their par-
ents continue to shape campus crime security policy. Through these cases,
courts have held institutions liable for foreseeable victimization against their
students occurring on their campuses as a breach of express or implied con-
tract. In the legislative arena, general sentiment during the early 1990s in
Congress and state legislatures was that campus administrators and staff, lax
in the enforcement of campus security, led to college and university students
being at high risk for violent victimization, including murder. Media reports,
victims’ testimony at Congressional hearings, and campus advocacy groups
fueled this perception (see Fisher, Hartman, Cullen, & Turner, 2002; Fisher,
Sloan, Cullen, & Lu, 1998). Legislative reaction was to pass new laws or
amend existing statutes to require college and universities to annually report
and disseminate information about crime on their campuses. Mandates also
 Campus Crime Policy 5

included that campuses provide to interested parties, descriptions of security

policies, protocols and programs, such as the availability of crime prevention
education and victim services, incident reporting, filing criminal complaints,
and initiating student disciplinary procedures.
These federal and state laws, as discussed below, created among some
observers not only the perception of improved campus safety, but also
increased institutional liability for crimes committed on campus. To under-
stand better these issues, we review developments in the judicial and legisla-
tive arenas in the following discussion.

The Judicial Arena: Institutional Liability

Campus crime victims and their parents have repeatedly sued postsec-
ondary institutions for damages resulting from injuries incurred during the
commission of criminal incident. Smith (1995) described how the late 1970s
first saw these lawsuits arising, but that postsecondary institutions did not feel
their impact until the early 1980s. By the end of the 1980s, according to
Smith (1995), this type of litigation had become more frequent because plain-
tiffs were winning their lawsuits. By the 1990s, colleges and universities were
systematically responding to the threat of these lawsuits and newly passed
congressional and state-level reporting mandates relating to campus security
by upgrading security procedures and warning the campus community
about crimes occurring on campus.
THEORIES OF LIABILITY. For some time, the courts have ruled that a third
party (e.g., a college or university) is liable for damages incurred by the vic-
tim only under very specific circumstances (Burling, 2003). Within the con-
text of an educational setting, to establish liability, a plaintiff must prove: (1)
the postsecondary institution owed a duty to the plaintiff, (2) the institution
breached that duty, (3) the plaintiff suffered injuries, and (4) if the school had not
acted (or failed to act) as it did, the plaintiff would not have been injured.
Burling (2003, p. 21) argued that decisions determining when and under
what circumstances a postsecondary institution will be legally liable for dam-
ages suffered by an on-campus crime victim constitute “a maze of conflicting
and inconsistent analysis.” Burling (2003, p. 21) further noted that “What is
worse, there is no clear line of cases leading to a coherent analysis.”1
Burling (2003) suggested that three theories of liability have evolved that
define possible relationships and therefore, certain duties owed by a postsec-
ondary institution to its students. The first, known as the “special relationship”
theory, is defined within the specific context of the parties’ relationship such
that one party (the postsecondary institution) has a duty to act. For a college
or university, this relationship exists because students and parents expect the
school to have a commitment to its students’ well-being. The second theory
6 Campus Crime

recognized by the courts is the “landowner-business invitee” theory, and

involves a relationship in which the property owner (the postsecondary insti-
tution) owes a duty to the business invitee (the student). Under this theory,
colleges and universities have the same legal duty to students as any propri-
etor has to an invitee to the premises: use of reasonable care in inspecting for
possibly dangerous conditions, warning invitees of these conditions, and pro-
tecting them against foreseeable dangers. Drawing from the business invitee
relationship, the third theory of liability, “landlord-tenant,” states a property
owner must warn a tenant of any known risks or foreseeable dangers and take
reasonable actions to protect against such risks or dangers. In this instance, the
postsecondary institution is the landlord while the student is the tenant; such
a theory would seem particularly applicable to university owned housing
(e.g., dorms or apartments) in which students reside.
According to Burling (2003), courts have generally relied on the laws of
negligence and contract law in cases arising from student victimizations.
Under the laws of negligence, for courts to hold a postsecondary institution
liable, the plaintiff must prove the criminal incident was “foreseeable,” and
if the crime was foreseeable, the institution had failed to provide “reason-
able” security procedures to protect possible victims. Plaintiffs have proved
“foreseeability” by providing evidence of a “history of crime” at or near the
crime scene or of the existence of other dangerous factors, such as college
policies allowing males 24-hour access to female residence halls. Establishing
“reasonable” security protection is more difficult, with the courts generally
making this determination once the foreseeability issue is settled. In other
words, given the foreseeability of the crime, what actions, if any, did the
school take to reduce the likelihood of future victimization?
Another interesting, if infrequently used, basis of liability arises when a
postsecondary institution breaches an express or implied contract by “prom-
ising” students (and others) to “protect” them from criminal victimization by
their policies or provisions. Promises of this type may be found in college cat-
alogs or brochures, student codes of conduct handbooks, and/or annual secu-
rity reports or campus housing contracts (e.g., a university says its residence
halls are locked every night). Given these circumstances, in effect, the courts
may construe such a promise of security as a contract between the institution
and the student. Failure on the part of the school to provide protection, such
as lax or poorly implemented security measures, may constitute a breach of
contract and thus make the institution legally liable for that breach.

The Legislative Arena: Campus Crime and Security Acts

The legislative component of the legal context of campus crime involves
federal- and state-level statutes. Some of these supplement court rulings on
 Campus Crime Policy 7

postsecondary institutional liability, or require campuses to “break the wall

of silence” and “come clean” by reporting how much crime is reported on
their campuses each year and outline what they are doing about it, from inci-
dent reporting to disciplinary procedures.
The Clery Act and Clery-like state-level legislation share a common goal: to
increase student and parental awareness about, and discussion of, crime on
campus (see Carter & Bath, 2007; Sloan & Shoemaker, 2007). As the chap-
ters in Part I of this volume show, the Clery Act requires postsecondary intu-
itions who participate in federal student financial aid programs to prepare,
publish, and distribute annual reports about campus crime and security to
current and prospective members of the campus community so they can pos-
sess useful information about safety and security on the campus. The legisla-
tive intent behind these statutes was to force campus administrators to take
appropriate steps (ranging from increased police patrols to Web-based crime
incident reporting systems) for the express purposes of lowering the risk of
criminal victimization happening on campus and providing effective servic-
es to victims.
Student advocacy and campus watchdog groups have hailed these legisla-
tive efforts to make campuses safer. Their continued activism, especially
directed at the Clery Act, has focused primary on three main issues: (1) pas-
sage of amendments to legislative mandates to increase the crime reporting
requirements of postsecondary institutions, (2) passage of additional legisla-
tion, and (3) compliance with the stated mandates.
First, The Student-Right-To-Know and Campus Security Act (20 U.S.C. 1092[f])
was originally passed by Congress in 1990 so that the campus community
would have access to annual basic crime statistics and security polices (as
mentioned above, the legislation was renamed the Clery Act in 1998).
Subsequent amendments to the legislation eliminated loopholes and expand-
ed postsecondary institutional reporting requirements by adding new cate-
gories of crime (arson and negligent homicide) for which statistics had to be
compiled, requiring that schools break down their crime statistics by geo-
graphic location on campus (e.g., residence halls), and by providing a daily
crime log to the public.
Second, Congress and the states passed additional legislation, including
state-level mandates and new federal legislation, since 1988 when
Pennsylvania became the first state to enact crime/security reporting legisla-
tion. The federal Buckley Amendment Clarification (1992) states that records
kept by campus police and security for law enforcement purposes are not
confidential “education” records under federal law and thus can be made
public (see Carter & Bath, 2007). Also in 1992, Congress enacted the Campus
Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights as a part of the Higher Education
Amendments of 1992 (Public Law: 102–325, §486(c)).2 The law mandates that
8 Campus Crime

colleges and universities provide to campus sexual assault victims specific

rights, including their options to report the incident to law enforcement and
change their academic and living situation if they desire. Additional man-
dates are found in the Foley Amendment passed in 1998 and the Campus Sex
Crimes Prevention Act passed in 2000 (Public Law 106–386, §1601) that pro-
vide for the tracking of convicted sex offenders enrolled as students, or work-
ing or volunteering at postsecondary institutions (see Carter & Bath, 2007).
There are also several campus crime bills currently pending in committees
in both the House and Senate.
Third, the Clery Act contains very specific reporting mandates. Monitoring
compliance with the Clery Act has become a primary concern of interested
parties, especially the U.S. Department of Education (ED) charged with
overseeing the Act’s implementation. Concern by the ED recently prompt-
ed it to publish the Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting, designed to guide
campus administrators through Clery Act regulations by explaining their
meaning and what they require (United States Department of Education,
Office of Postsecondary Education, 2005).
The ED has established administrative procedures for filing complaints
and investigating allegations of noncompliance with the Clery Act. As part of
their watchdog tasks, Security On Campus, Inc., assists, free of charge, the
filing of a complaint alleging violations of Clery Act requirements (How to File
a Jeanne Clery Act Complaint, 2006). Since 1994, the ED has conducted 375
audits and 184 program reviews arising from alleged violations of the Clery
Act. The Department of Education has levied fines on some of these schools,
including in one instance, levying a fine of $200,000 against a postsecondary
institution (Complying with the Jeanne Clery Act, 2006).
Despite the good intentions of Congress in passing the Clery Act and the
laudable efforts of the ED, campus advocacy groups, and student victims, to
implement and monitor compliance, academicians interested in campus
safety and student victimization issues identified limitations inherent to the
Clery Act mandates. These researchers provided empirical evidence that
question both the usefulness and the effectiveness of the Clery Act to actually
increase safety on several dimensions (see Part I in this volume).
Several researchers, based on national-level studies, have questioned the
ability of the Clery Act’s crime statistics reporting mandates to provide valid
and reliable information about the “true” occurrence of crime on campus
because Clery does not require postsecondary institutions to compile and
report statistics on commonly occurring offenses such as theft, simple assault,
and stalking. Fisher et al. (1998) reported, based on results of the first ever
national-level study of student victimization, that rates of student victimiza-
tion involving personal larceny without contact/theft, and vandalism were
much higher than were rates of rape/sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated
 Campus Crime Policy 9

assault. Hart (2003, 2007), using data collected by the National Crime
Victimization Survey, showed that simple assaults were the most frequently
occurring type of violent crime committed against college students, with
rates much higher than those of rape/sexual assault, robbery, and aggravat-
ed assault. Further, Fisher, Cullen, and Turner (2000) reported results from
the National College Women Sexual Victimization (NCWSV) study indicat-
ing that 13 percent of college women experienced a stalking victimization
during an academic year—approximately seven months. Yet, statistics on
none of these crimes—personal larceny without contact/theft, vandalism, sim-
ple assault, or stalking—that a large portion of college and university students
have experienced are mandated by Clery to be included in the required
annual security report prepared by postsecondary institutions (Fisher et al.,
2000). Because campus crime reporting requirements do not require post-
secondary institutions to compile and report statistics for these common
crimes, interested parties are receiving, at best, incomplete information that
does not include the actual types of crimes most likely to touch a student’s
daily life.
Aside from omitting various crimes, for a crime to be included in the
annual security reports, victims must first report the offense to campus offi-
cials or law enforcement. Considering the types of crime that Clery mandates
must be included in annual campus crime reports, a sizeable body of vic-
timization research repeatedly shows that substantial numbers of college stu-
dents do not report their victimizations to campus officials or law enforcement
authorities for a variety of reasons (see Belknap & Erez, 2007; Hart, 2007;
Shafer, 2007). As a result, such incidents are not included in reported campus
crime statistics.
To illustrate the magnitude of this issue, using data collected from a nation-
al-level study of college student victimization, Sloan, Fisher, and Cullen
(1997) reported that 75 percent of the on-campus burglaries went unreport-
ed to either campus police or other campus officials. Further, Hart (2003)
reported that 1995–2000 NCVS data revealed that 47 percent of all rob-
beries and 52 percent of all aggravated assaults involving college students
were not reported to police. Using data collected in the NCWSV, Fisher et
al. (2000) showed that 95 percent of rapes involving college students were not report-
ed to the police, an estimate comparable to the 1995–2000 NCVS’s estimate of
86 percent of rape/sexual assault incidents not being reported to police. The
important point here is that publicly reported postsecondary crime statistics
(mandated by Clery) most likely significantly underreport the “true” amount
of campus crime.
Additionally, researchers, including Janosik and Gregory (2007), have
questioned whether students and parents, specifically targeted by Clery, are
even aware of Clery. Should this be true, it is especially important because
10 Campus Crime

some Clery Act supporters have claimed that students and their parents use the
information in the mandated annual campus crime and security report to
decide which school to attend. Research has also shown that even those who
work closely with student victims have reservations that students actually read
the annual security reports (see Gregory & Janosik, 2007). Collectively, results
of these and other studies suggest that more work needs to be done to make
all interested parties, including campus personnel, aware of the availability of
(and the limitations to) campus crime statistics, policies, and programs.
Student, faculty member, and staff awareness of the amount of campus
crime, of the availability of crime prevention or safety education programs,
or of campus security policies and protocols at a particular campus, is not
enough to make that campus safe. Since current legislation does not mandate
postsecondary evaluation of the effectiveness of crime prevention or educa-
tion programs, or of safety and security protocols, students and their parents
can only know if a school has such programs, policies, or protocols, but can-
not know if these are effective in reducing or responding to campus crime.
In summary, there are significant flaws and limitations with current legis-
lation mandating postsecondary institutions to “come clean” with their crime
statistics and to report what they are doing to address campus crime. These
problems seriously hamper the potential impact of federal and state legisla-
tion on campus crime and security. There is, however, some good news:
interest and activism by campus advocates, watchdogs groups, and
researchers with an interest in campus crime and student victimization is not
waning, but growing. Their sustained interest, as evident by the chapters in
Part I of this volume, has led to several evidence-based recommendations to
address the noted limitations (and others not specifically identified) and
weaknesses of the Clery Act and state-level Clery legislation. Lawsuits filed by
campus crime victims or their parents continue, and have resulted in
advances in the development of liability law for postsecondary institutions.
Each effort has helped focus attention on and created the impetus for the
analysis of pertinent issues concerning the legal context of campus crime and
develop recommendations for change, and we hope, enhancement of cam-
pus security, the third context of campus crime.

The Social Context of Campus Crime

For our purposes, the social context of campus crime refers to social sci-
entific research that has described and explained why campus crime hap-
pens and to evaluations of the effectiveness of campus-level programs and
policies designed to address campus crime. Here, we present an overview of
this context.
 Campus Crime Policy 11

The Evolution of Interest in Student Victimization

Academic interest in college student victimization was initially sparked by
two path-breaking sets of studies: Kirkpatrick and Kanin’s (1957) initial and
Kanin’s subsequent (1967, 1970, 1977) research into sexual aggression by col-
lege males against women, and Koss, Gidycz, and Wisnieski’s (1987) first
ever national-level study of the sexual victimization experiences of female
college students in the early 1980s. During the 1970s and 1980s, narrowly
focused research, particularly that examining the extent and nature of vio-
lence against college women, continued.
It was not until the 1990s, however, influenced by several factors—the
momentum of the feminist movement, rape law reforms, successful civil law-
suits files against colleges and universities, student activism, and federal
crime reporting mandates—that academics from different disciplines began
conducting large-scale and significant research on the victimization experi-
ences of college and university students. For example, during the mid-1990s,
the U.S. Department of Justice funded three national-level studies that exam-
ined general student victimization patterns, sexual victimization and stalking
among college women, and nonfatal violence, including rape and sexual
assault, against college women (Fisher et al., 1998; Fisher et al., 2000).
Additionally, during the 1990s, the National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS), one of two official sources of national-level data on crime in the
U.S., added a question to its main survey that asked respondents whether
they were a college student for the express purpose of developing average
annual victimization rates for college students compared to nonstudents of
similar ages (Hart, 2007). Published results of numerous case studies and
studies using small samples of college campuses also appeared during the
1990s and focused on student victimization experiences (see Mustaine &
Tewksbury, 2007).
Interest in student victimization has not waned today. Researchers contin-
ue to publish studies examining the extent and nature of student victimiza-
tion, including general levels of violent victimizations, theft victimization,
stalking, intimate partner violence, identity theft, and computer crimes.
Other studies have explored fear of victimization, including differences in
fear levels by sex, and of temporal and spatial aspects of fear (see Part II of
this volume for representative scholarship).

Classifying the Research

We divide published campus crime research into three categories: (1) stud-
ies that describe the extent and nature of student victimization, (2) studies that
explain the correlates and causes of victimization among students, and (3) studies
12 Campus Crime

that evaluate the effectiveness of responses to campus crime, including education or pre-
vention programs. Each category has produced a substantial body of research,
which, in turn, has begun informing campus-level crime prevention, educa-
tion, and policing programs and practices.
DESCRIPTIVE STUDIES. Descriptive studies describe the amount and type of
student victimization and the nature of their experiences. These studies
address fundamental issues such as developing improved measures of vic-
timization, as well as exploring how much of which types of victimization
happened among members of the campus community and where and when
these victimizations occur. While these studies are important because they
produce reasonable estimates of the extent and nature of crime against stu-
dents, because they are descriptive, they cannot answer basic questions
about possible causal forces at work that result in increased levels of risk or
fear of victimization.
EXPLANATORY STUDIES. Explanatory studies generally use existing theory
to guide empirical tests of hypotheses about why student victimization occurs. Using
theories such as lifestyle and routine activities, and advanced quantitative sta-
tistical techniques, researchers have modeled the dynamics of student vic-
timization and presented a fuller understanding of why students are at risk of
experiencing different types of victimization (Dowdall, 2007; Fisher &
Stewart, 2007; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2007). These studies have not only
identified individual-level factors associated with different types of victimiza-
tion, but present statistical models predicting students’ risk of experiencing
different types of victimization. Coupled with these studies have been stud-
ies examining “hot spots” on campus, that is, identifying specific places on
campus where most crime occurs and explaining these spatial patterns
(Robinson & Roh, 2007).
EVALUATION STUDIES. Evaluation studies assess program processes or pro-
gram outcomes (or both) of policies designed to reduce victimization,
increase campus safety, or reduce levels of fear of victimization. Studies of
this type are infrequently published in academic journals, partly because few
evaluations of campus programs or polices have occurred. In the late 1990s,
Congress attempted to remedy this situation by commissioning a national-
level evaluation, the National Campus Sexual Assault Policy Study (see Karjane,
Fisher, & Cullen, 2002, 2005) to assess how America’s postsecondary insti-
tutions have responded to reports of sexual assaults. The study also evaluat-
ed institutional compliance with Clery Act mandates directed at sexual assault
(see Fisher, Karjane, Cullen, Blevins, Santana, & Daigle, 2007).
Examples of each study type—descriptive, explanatory, and evaluation—
appear in Part II of this volume, and some of the chapters represent more
than one type of study. Regardless of study type, we believe each chapter
contributes to the growing body of social scientific research on campus
 Campus Crime Policy 13

crime. The body of knowledge that has accumulated has produced a better
understanding of the correlates of, and causal mechanisms underlying, stu-
dent victimization; this knowledge can then be used (and is being used) to
inform policies and programs to address crime on campus.

The Security Context of Campus Crime

As discussed above, postsecondary institutions face possible liability con-
cerning foreseeable victimizations resulting from security lapses which insti-
tutions fail to address in a timely manner. Liability issues relate directly to the
third context of campus crime we explore in this volume: campus security.
As shown in Figure 1.1, campus security is a subcomponent of the larger
context of “campus safety.” Campus security specifically encompasses three
related sets of activities: those relating to physical security (such as control-
ling who has keys to buildings and access to parking lots or garages, closed
circuit television (CCTV) monitoring), those relating to law enforcement
activities (the campus police), and those relating to information technology
security (such as infrastructure protection and construction of firewalls to
prevent hackers from gaining entry to on-campus networks). Part III of this
volume presents chapters addressing campus policing and information sys-
tem security, with some reference made to physical security.
As per requirements of the Clery Act, postsecondary institutions must annu-

Figure 1.1. The multifaceted nature of campus safety.

14 Campus Crime

ally report not only their campus crime statistics, but also their security poli-
cies and the power and authority of their campus security/police depart-
ments. Clery has thus put an even greater onus on colleges and universities to
develop modern security/law enforcement departments that can adequately
protect and respond to the security needs of the campus community.

The Professionalization of Campus Security

The past 20 or so years has seen a key development in the context of cam-
pus security: the professionalization of the individuals and departments
charged with the sometimes daunting task of reducing opportunities for on-
campus victimization, responding to calls for assistance, and providing serv-
ices to crime victims. This professionalization has touched almost all aspects
of campus security and has resulted in significant changes in, and upgrades
to, security policies.
When one looks back at the history of campus security, one finds that for
most of the past century, universities primarily geared security toward pro-
tecting property—preventing and responding to break-ins, addressing van-
dalism, or insuring doors were locked. As a result, until very recently, an
organized police presence on college campuses was an unknown. Rather,
“night watchmen” (so-called because women did not occupy such roles)
would “patrol” campus in search of physical plant problems, violations of
student codes of conduct, etc. and address the problems discovered.
During the early 1970s, changes occurred when college and university
administrators realized that the campus unrest of the late 1960s and other
issues would likely result in the presence of armed, local police officers on
their campuses if they did not take action to deal with the problems con-
fronting them. The action they took was to create a new department on the
campus, the campus police department.
Campus administrators typically put these early departments in the charge
of an experienced police officer with extensive experience in the realm of
municipal policing, who usually had occupied an upper rank in the depart-
ment (e.g., precinct commander or deputy chief). Campus administrators
gave these individuals the responsibility of first designing, and then staffing
and overseeing an on-campus operation whose mission not only was to pro-
tect property and person, but to enforce the law. Made possible by state-level
enabling legislation, campus police departments with sworn officers soon
became common.
During the 1980s, these operations sought legitimacy from their municipal
police colleagues by largely “copying” existing organizational, tactical, and
operational components of city agencies. Campus agencies also sought legit-
imacy by requiring new recruits to complete POST (Peace Officer Standards
 Campus Crime Policy 15

Training) training offered at the same academies attended by municipal

police recruits.
Because the organizational “model” available to campus police agencies
was municipal police departments, early campus agencies emphasized the
same sort of activities as those emphasized by municipal departments. In
particular, rapid response to calls for service, quick clearance of calls
received so the responding officer could resume patrol, and random “pre-
ventive patrol” in automobiles designed to deter prospective offenders
because they never knew when a patrol car would appear in their area, were
“hallmarks” of this model. At the same time, campus departments never real-
ly abandoned their roots, and used foot patrol and involved officers in much
more interaction with members of the campus community than was the case
with their municipal counterparts. While agencies did not overly stress these
tactics, agencies viewed them as a “normal” aspect of policing a college or
university campus.
As the chapters by Bromley (2007), and Sloan and Lanier (2007) report,
recent years have seen campus agencies slowly adopting a “new” model for
campus policing. Called Community-Oriented Policing (COP), this new
model fundamentally alters the organizational, administrative, tactical, and
philosophical aspects of policing. Stressing community partnerships and
problem solving, COP involves the police in a variety of activities designed
to enhance police/community relations, empower officers, and prevent
crime. In entering this new era that stresses partnerships with students, fac-
ulty, and staff members, the need for officers to “get out of their cars” and
interact with people, engage in foot and bicycle patrol, and develop new pro-
grams such as “campus watch,” campus police departments are now part-
nering with the campus community to identify and eliminate common crime
and security problems.
In summary, campus police have evolved over the past 100 years from
“watchmen” who were a part of the physical security department of the uni-
versity, to a highly trained, problem-oriented, professional group of law
enforcers whose focus is on preventing crime and building strong rapport
with the campus community. An additional area creating interest for both
law enforcement and security personnel has accompanied the explosion in
information-based technology the past 20 years. We now discuss this increas-
ingly important aspect of campus security.

Information Security and Infrastructure Protection

The past decade has seen an explosion of new information technology.
Computers and other information storage and communication devices, per-
ceived as the stuff of science fiction as recently as 25 years ago, are now com-
16 Campus Crime

monplace on college campuses. Campus-based computer networks that link

hundreds if not thousands of personal computers together are standard.
Students “surf the net” to conduct research, while faculty use supercomputers
which process millions of commands in seconds to explore new research prob-
lems in the disciplines of science, medicine, mathematics, and social science.
These fundamental changes in information technology have created enor-
mous problems for colleges and universities. Because of computer-based net-
works, it is now possible for intruders (“hackers”) to access the names and
social security numbers of students and employees stored in large-scale data-
bases. Students can “pirate” software from various sources on the Internet
and can “stalk” fellow students or send them obscene or threatening email
messages. Unscrupulous individuals send “junk” email (“spam”) to students
and employees that may contain hidden programs designed to “take control”
of one’s personal computer. Thus, both sides of the “new technology” are
encapsulated on the college campus and campus administrators face tremen-
dous challenges in the realm of information security.
Increasingly, colleges and universities must be both reactive and proactive in
their information technology security efforts. They must quickly react to
threats or actual attacks on information technology infrastructures while
simultaneously developing strategies that allow them to keep “one step
ahead” of those seeking to misuse the technology, including students, facul-
ty members, and staff (as well as outsiders).
The stakes are enormous by any measure. Consider the following sce-
nario: A hacker is able to penetrate the firewalls at State University and gains
access to all of the student records stored in the registrar’s database. This
individual now has access to thousands of social security numbers and he or
she can use them for a variety of illegal purposes. The implications of such
an event are overwhelming; such an event also raises a host of institutional
liability issues.
Additionally, there are “crossover” implications of the misuse of technolo-
gy that directly involve campus law enforcement. For example, a student is
using a university-issued computer to “capture” and store social security num-
bers of other students by hacking into university-based databases. Campus
law enforcement is informed of this situation and must now respond, which
means the department must have appropriate expertise in computer forensics
to identify, retrieve, preserve, and present the evidence from the personal
computer to press charges and ultimately obtain a conviction. Information
security must address these scenarios. McQuade (2007) and others have
described the challenges that campus information security face.
In summary, the security context of campus crime not only involves phys-
ical security and law enforcement, it also involves “cyber security.” Not only
must colleges and universities address traditional kinds of security issues,
 Campus Crime Policy 17

such as burglaries and thefts, but must now also address the abuse of infor-
mation technology for monetary gain or other reasons. While campus law
enforcement agencies wrestle with a “new model” of policing, information
security professionals wrestle with new and increasingly more dangerous
threats by “cyber criminals” to computer networks and electronic databases
housed on university campuses. In both, law enforcement and cyber securi-
ty, professionals must develop both reactive and proactive responses to the
challenges they face. No longer is campus security solely a matter of insuring
that doors to research laboratories and faculty offices are locked. Increas-
ingly, campus security involves not only the protection of property and per-
son, but the protection of information as well.

Campus Crime Policy:

Linking the Legal, Social, and Security Contexts
This chapter has explored the legal, social, and security contexts of campus
crime. It presented a broad-based overview of where campus crime and secu-
rity have been during the past 20 or so years and where both issues are going.
Included in this overview were glimpses into each of the three contexts: the
legal, including the judicial and legislative; the social, including social science
research that has attempted to describe, explain, or evaluate campus crime
and security; and the security, including campus law enforcement and the
increasingly important area of information technology security.
As we observed earlier in the chapter, there are important linkages across
the three contexts: the Clery Act mandates annual reporting of campus crime
statistics, but social science research shows the common forms of student vic-
timization, theft, stalking, and simple assault, are not included in the report-
ing requirements. Social science research into the victimization of college
students leads to the development of new institutional protocols for provid-
ing law enforcement and related services to victims, especially victims of sex-
ual assault. Enabling legislation at the state level of government allows col-
leges and universities to create campus police agencies, staffed by sworn offi-
cers with wide-ranging arrest powers.
Throughout this and the remaining chapters comprising this volume,
there is an implicit acknowledgement of the fact there is a circular relation-
ship between the legal, social, and security contexts of campus crime and
campus crime policy: each context influences policy and policy influences
each context. This is true whether the policy context is national, state, or that
found on a single campus. Federal or state legislation requires colleges and
universities to develop policies to address crime victimization; successful
lawsuits filed by students or their parents result in new policies concerning
security on the campus; threats to the campus information technology infra-
18 Campus Crime

structure lead to new policies concerning student, staff, or faculty member

access to key databases.
Policy, in short, is the overarching concept that not only links the individ-
ual contexts—legal, social, security—of campus crime examined in this vol-
ume, but which also serves as an instrument of change. Without policy
changes, the contributions made by researchers, administrators, law enforce-
ment and security personnel, and others concerned about campus crime
would count little toward making campuses safer. Thankfully, that has not
been the case, and the policy aspects of campus crime and security continue
to remain “front and center.”

Notes
1. For a comprehensive overview of case law of when a college or university has
been held liable for crime occurring on its campus, see Burling, 2003.
2. According to Security On Campus, Inc., The Campus Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of
Rights exists as a part of the campus security reporting requirements of the feder-
al law that establishes all student aid programs, the Higher Education Act of 1965. It
has not been amended since its enactment, except for a citation change to accom-
modate 1998 amendments to other requirements found in the campus security
section.

REFERENCES

Belknap, J., & Erez, E. (2007). The acquaintance and date rape, sexual harassment,
and intimate partner abuse of college women. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (Eds.),
Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles
C Thomas.
Bromley, M. (2007). The evolution of campus policing: Different models for differ-
ent eras. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social and policy
perspectives (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Burling, P. (2003). Crime on campus: Analyzing and managing the increasing risk of insti-
tutional liability (2nd ed.). Washington D.C.: National Association of College and
University Attorneys.
Carter, S., & Bath, C. (2007). The evolution and components of the Jeanne Clery
Act: Implications for higher education. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (Eds.), Campus
crime: Legal, social and policy perspectives (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C
Thomas.
Complying with the Jeanne Clery Act (2006). Security On Campus, Inc. Retrieved
February 13, 2007, from http://www.securityoncampus.org/schools/cleryact/
index.html.
Dowdall, G. (2007). The role of alcohol abuse in college student victimization. In B.
S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social and policy perspectives (2nd
 Campus Crime Policy 19

ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Fisher, B., Hartman, J., Cullen, F., & Turner, M. (2002). Making campuses safer for
students: The Clery Act as a Symbolic Legal Reform. Stetson Law Review,
XXXII(1), 61–89.
Fisher, B., Karjane, H., Cullen, F., Blevins, K., Santana, S., & Daigle, L. (2007).
Reporting sexual assault and the Clery Act: Situating findings from the National
Campus Sexual Assault Policy Study within college women’s experiences. In B.
S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social and policy perspectives (2nd
ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Fisher, B., Cullen, F., & Turner, M. (2000). Sexual victimization of college women.
Washington, D.C.: Department of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Karjane, H., Fisher, B., & Cullen, F. (2001). Campus sexual assault: How America’s insti-
tutions of higher education respond. Final Report. Washington, D. C.: National
Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice.
Fisher, B., Sloan, J., Cullen, F., & Lu, C. (1998). Crime in the ivory tower: The level
and sources of student victimization. Criminology, 36, 671–710.
Fisher, B., & Stewart, M. (2007). Vulnerabilities and opportunities 101: The extent,
nature, and impact of stalking among college students and implications for cam-
pus policy and programs. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (Eds.), Campus crime: Legal,
social and policy perspectives (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Gregory, D., & Janosik, S. (2007). The research on the Clery Act and the impact of
the Act on higher education administrative practice. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan
(Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social and policy perspectives (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL:
Charles C Thomas.
Hart, T. (2003). National Crime Victimization Survey, 1992–2000: Violent victimization of
college students. Washington D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved September
12, 2006, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vvcs00.pdf.
Hart, T. (2007). The violent victimization of college students: Findings from the
National Crime Victimization Survey. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (Eds.), Campus
crime: Legal, social and policy perspectives (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C
Thomas.
How to File a Jeanne Clery Act Complaint. (2006) Security On Campus, Inc.
Retrieved February 13, 2007, from http://www.securityoncampus.org/students/
clerycomplaint.html.
Kanin, E. (1967). An examination of sexual aggression as a response to sexual frus-
tration. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 29, 428–433.
Kanin, E. (1970). Sex aggression by college men. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality,
4, 25–40.
Kanin, E. (1977). Sexual aggression: A second look at the offended female. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 6, 67–76.
Karjane, H., Fisher, B., & Cullen, F. (2002). Campus sexual assault: How America’s insti-
tutions of higher education respond. Final Report, NIJ Grant No. 99–WA–VX–0008.
Retrieved February 13, 2007, from http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/grants/
196676.pdf.
20 Campus Crime

Karjane, H., Fisher, B., & Cullen, F. (2005). Sexual assault on campus: What colleges and
universities are doing about it. United States Department of Justice, NIJ Research for
Practice Series. Retrieved February 13, 2007, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdf
files1/nij/ 205521.pdf.
Kirkpatrick, C., & Kanin, E. (1957). Male sex aggression on a university campus.
American Sociological Review, 22, 52–58.
Koss, M., Gidycz, C., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and
prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher
education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162–170.
McQuade III, S. (2007). High tech abuse and crime on college and university cam-
puses: Evolving forms of victimization, offending, and their interplay in higher
education. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social and policy
perspectives (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Mustaine, E., & Tewksbury, R. (2007). The routine activities and criminal victimiza-
tion of students. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social and
policy perspectives (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Robinson, M., & Roh, S. (2007). Crime on campus: spatial aspects of campus crime
at a regional comprehensive university. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (Eds.), Campus
crime: Legal, social and policy perspectives (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C
Thomas.
Shafer, L. (2007). Women, gender, and safety on campus: Reporting is not enough.
In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives
(2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Sloan, J., Fisher, B., & Cullen, F. (1997). Assessing the Student Right-to-Know and
Campus Security Act of 1990: An analysis of the victim reporting practices of col-
lege and university students. Crime and Delinquency, 43, 148–168.
Sloan III, J., & Lanier, M. (2007). Community policing on university campuses:
Tradition, practices, and outlook. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (Eds.), Campus crime:
Legal, social and policy perspectives (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Sloan III, J., & Shoemaker, J. (2007). State level Clery Act initiatives: Symbolic pol-
itics or substantive policies? In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (Eds.), Campus crime: Legal,
social and policy perspectives (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Smith, M. (1995). Vexatious victims of campus crime. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan
(Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social and policy perspectives. Springfield, IL: Charles C
Thomas.
United States Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education (2005).
The Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting. Washington, D.C.: United States
Department of Education.
 Part I:
THE LEGAL CONTEXT
OF CAMPUS CRIME
 Part I

THE LEGAL CONTEXT OF CAMPUS CRIME

INTRODUCTION

ver 15 years have passed since Congress enacted the Student-Right-to-

O Know and Campus Security Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C. 1092[f]) in response to
concerns expressed by students, their parents, campus crime victims, and
well-meaning advocates about perceived increases in campus crime and lax
security. Requiring postsecondary institutions to “come clean” and report
their campus crime statistics and security policies, supporters of the legisla-
tion believed this information would prove useful to both current and
prospective members of the campus community, especially students and
their parents. Given the frequency by which the statute has since been
amended (most recently in 2000), Congressional interest in campus crime
and safety has apparently not waned.
The combined activism of advocacy groups, such as Security on Campus,
Inc., and student victims and their families has been the momentum behind
Congressional action, including substantial amendments that have expanded
the reporting requirements for postsecondary institutions. The most visible
change, however, was to the name of the statute. Now known as the Jeanne
Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (or the
Clery Act), the change remembers freshman Jeanne Ann Clery who was raped
and murdered by a fellow student while asleep in her Lehigh University
dorm room on April 5, 1986. In keeping with Congressional concern about
campus crime and safety, several state legislatures followed suit and passed
their own Clery-like statutes.
In Part I, we present five chapters that address the legal context of campus
crime by focusing on the Clery Act. Chapter 2, “The Evolution and
Components of the Jeanne Clery Act: Implications for Higher Education,” by
Daniel Carter and Catherine Bath, documents the genesis and evolution of
the Clery Act from its inception by providing a firsthand account from those

23
24 Campus Crime

who were involved from the beginning. Given the importance of the Clery
Act’s mandates for postsecondary institutions, the authors present thorough
outlines of the Clery Act requirements and amendments to it, and companion
legislation including the Campus Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights and the
Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act.
A reasonable amount of time has passed since the initial passage of feder-
al campus crime legislation. During this period, academicians have ques-
tioned, observed, and measured the implementation of the Clery Act and its
effects on campus safety. Researchers from a variety of disciplines—sociolo-
gy, political science, education, criminology, and women’s studies—with dif-
ferent perspectives have critically questioned whether the Clery Act has had
any substantial or measurable effects on campus crime and security. Three
chapters in this section critically question the mandates of the Clery Act and
offer data that suggest inherent weaknesses in the statute likely compromise
the Clery Act’s ability to address, in any substantive manner, the extent of
campus crime and create effective security efforts.
Chapter 3, “Research on the Clery Act and Its Impact on Higher Education
Administrative Practice,” by Dennis Gregory and Steven Janosik, presents
results from an analysis of legal, popular press, and several scholarly biblio-
graphic sources containing what has been published about the impact of the
Clery Act. Given their interests in higher education administration, the
authors present results from their own studies of the perceptions of various
campus personnel concerning the effectiveness of the Clery Act. They con-
clude that it has not had the overall impact its sponsors had hoped. Some
good news, however, is their conclusion that the Clery Act has had some mar-
ginal effects on postsecondary student affairs practice and personnel. While
Gregory and Janosik’s overall results may disappoint Clery Act proponents,
they also identify where changes are needed.
In Chapter 4, “Reporting Sexual Assault and the Clery Act: Situating
Findings from the National Campus Sexual Assault Policy Study Within
College’s Women’s Experiences,” Bonnie Fisher, Heather Karjane, Francis
Cullen, Kristie Blevins, Shannon Santana, and Leah Daigle critically question
the validity of reported campus crime statistics, in particular those relating to
sexual victimization occurring on campus. Using results from past victimiza-
tion research of college women and their National Campus Sexual Assault Policy
Study, they discuss on-campus barriers to victim reporting and explain how
these barriers contribute to institutional underreporting of sexual victimiza-
tions. They also offer policy and response recommendations that campus
administrators and campus safety advocates should consider implementing.
Linda Shafer, a political scientist and activist, wrote Chapter 5 entitled,
“Women, Gender, and Safety on Campus: Reporting Is Not Enough.”
Shafer, like other authors in this section, takes a critical view of the Clery Act.
Other documents randomly have
different content
 TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect
retained.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE READER'S
GUIDE TO THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States
copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy
and distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the
General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree
to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease
using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for
keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the
work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement
by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full
Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge
with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and
with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it,
give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country
where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of
the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
 containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute

this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must,
at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy,
a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy
upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
 payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these
efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium
on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as,
but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data,
transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property
infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be
read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE
THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT
EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you
do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission

of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status
by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or
federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions
to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact
 Section 4. Information about Donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine
the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About

Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.