Beyond Clery Act Statistics

Many have recognized that crime on college campuses across the United States is a significant issue in need of attention (Fisher, Sloan, Cullen, & Lu, 1998). Research demonstrates that experience with victimization can have pernicious, lifelong implications for college students (Harrell et al., 2009). Various types of college campus victimization have been explored, including stalking, rape, and other types of unwanted sexual behavior. Alarming rates of victimization have been corroborated across many campuses, and underreporting of such events is suspected due to fear and a tendency to minimize the experience (Biaggio, Brownell, & Watts, 1991). For instance, 20% of a random sample of females reported some form of stalking victimization, yet the study investigators discovered that half did not seek help (Buhi, Clayton, & Surrency, 2008). This study seeks to contribute to the emergent body of literature that aims to identify who is at risk for multiple types of victimization. In addition, in a school that correctly implements the Clery Act, this study provides evidence that with assessment of more victimization types, different means of victimization assessment, and with findings that dramatically differ from the Clery reported data, that there are important limitations to the data reported by the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act.

Sexual victimization, which is of great concern on college campuses, is foremost in the college victimization literature. Findings from a national research study with 8,000 female research subjects showed that 7.0% of women experience 72.4% of all sexual victimization incidents (Daigle, Fisher, & Cullen, 2008). A 2000 survey of 4,446 college females reported that 2.8% (roughly 124 students) experienced a completed and/or attempted rape (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000). The women also reported sexist comments, harassment, stalking, and coerced sexual conduct. Although rape, stalking, and sexual abuse are clearly prevalent and particularly violent, victimization on college campuses extends well beyond these types of crimes. Yet research on other kinds of victimization experienced by college students, and the possible risk factors associated, has been surprisingly sparse. Given the extent and range of the violence and abuse that is perpetrated in this setting, the multifarious forms of college victimization constitute a public health issue for students at all institutions of higher education.

In 1998, in response to this public health issue, the Federal Government enacted legislation known as the Clery Act, which was intended to mandate the reporting of campus security policies and crime statistics by institutions of higher education (20 USCS §1092 (f), 2012) in an effort to protect students. The Clery Act is named in honor of Jeanne Clery, a woman who was raped and murdered in her campus residential hall. Prior to her murder, several violent crimes had occurred on campus without the knowledge of the student body. The statute was implemented to increase public awareness on college campuses and help students protect themselves from victimization.

The Clery Act enumerates murder, sex offenses (forcible or non-forcible), robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, manslaughter, arson, liquor law violations, drug-related violations, and weapons possessions as reportable offenses (20 USCS 1092 (f)(F)(i), 2012). Also included are larceny-theft; simple assault; intimidation; destruction, damage, or vandalism of property; and other crimes involving bodily injury based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability (20 USCS 1092 (f)(F)(ii), 2012). Researchers who have examined the implications of the Clery Act encourage college administrators to reexamine services and programs designed to address victimization on campus, and to provide support to administrators and staff based on Clery statistics and knowledge of crime on campus (Janosik & Gregory, 2009). However, there is a dearth of literature examining the impact of the Clery Act on the criminal activity committed on college campuses (Nobles, Fox, Khey, & Lizotte, 2010). Researchers have suggested that campus safety remains an area of concern and more research is needed to understand the effectiveness of the Clery Act (Gregory & Janosik, 2002).

Non-compliance and underreporting are primary concerns. Results from the 2007 partnership between the U.S. Education Department’s Federal Student Aid office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation of campus security reports describe university violations of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Grasgreen, 2011; Lipka, 2011). Although the Clery Act requires universities to relay crime statistics and disclose the information about security procedures to parents and students (Clery Center for Security on Campus, 2012), some universities still do not comply. Identified infractions on reporting official rates, and underreporting by students, normal for adolescent populations and their consistent underreporting behaviors (Finkelhor & Ormrod, 2001; Kilpatrick, Saunders, & Smith, 2003), produce underestimates of college crime rates. Crucially, in 2000, Fisher et al. found significant underreporting of rape by college-aged women and noted a variety of causal reasons, including familiarity with offender, perceived lack of harm, and barriers to reporting (Fisher et al., 2000). This suggests that anonymous, self-reporting may elicit more forthright campus victimization figures. Failure to account for the vast number of victimizations that are not reported as well as the numerous forms of victimization that do not fall into the covered offenses (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2002) are limitations of the Clery Act.

Perhaps the most significant shortcoming, however, is that little has been done to determine how these compiled crime data would be meaningful to students, parents, and administrators, and effectively utilized to protect students. Despite the over 20-year history of the Clery Act, a lack of awareness by students and parents regarding campus crime is still a great barrier to accomplishing the Clery Act’s intent of providing safety (Janosik, 2004). Furthermore, the Clery Act does not necessarily distinguish that certain students may be at greater risk due to their living situations, years living on campus, and social networks. There is a significant analytical gap regarding the specific groups of people who are most likely to be subjected to crime, and the best resource allocation strategies needed to address these at-risk populations.

Certain socio-demographic characteristics, such as age, race, and lower income, are some of the strongest determinants of experiencing a higher rate of certain types of victimization (Truman, 2011). For example, Cohen, Kluegel, and Land (1981) found that age was related to the risk of victimization in association with exposure, proximity, and guardianship. Other research has suggested the role of drinking lifestyle variables as significant predictors of predatory victimization, regardless of gender (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1998). College students are comprised of a range of ages, races, genders, sexual orientations, and a host of other factors that may place some students at greater risk for victimization. Greater research is needed to begin to disentangle college campus crime victimization risk from socio-demographic variables.

The current study adopts routine activity theory as its theoretical framework, commonly utilized in work regarding lifestyle and victimization risk. Routine activity theory, first posited by Cohen and Felson (1979), stipulates that the convergence of crucial elements—motivated offenders, suitable targets, and a lack of capable guardians—produces an optimal situation for crime to occur. They argued that changes in one’s routine activities, for example, one’s pattern of being out of the house to attend work, could affect these three elements, increasing crime potential (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Related routine activity work notes that lifestyles and routines differ among various age groups (e.g., young children compared with adults; Henson, Wilcox, Reyns, & Cullen, 2010). For example, in the current study’s population, college students are likely to socialize and study away from families, thereby decreasing traditional guardianship of the home.

While crime statistics illustrate that certain socio-demographic characteristics, such as age, race, and lower income are some of the strongest determinants of experiencing a higher rate of certain types of victimization (Truman, 2011), research relating to routine activity theory has further explored these relationships. For example, Cohen et al. (1981) found that age was related to the risk of victimization in association with exposure, proximity, and guardianship. Other research has suggested the role of drinking lifestyle variables as significant predictors of predatory victimization, regardless of gender (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1998). College students are comprised of a range of ages, races, genders, sexual orientations, and a host of other factors that may place some students at greater risk for victimization. Additional research is needed to begin to disentangle college campus crime victimization risk from socio-demographic variables.

In addition to socio-demographics, routine activity theory suggests that activities are important to understanding victimization. For example, related work has focused on conventional activities (Lauritsen, Laub, & Sampson, 1992), comparing structured and unstructured activities (Henderson et al., 2010), and illegitimate activities (Henderson et al., 2010; Lauritsen et al., 1992) to assess whether these activity types are protective against victimization or put people more at risk. The changing nature of routines and activities across the lifespan has resulted in the proposal of an “age-graded routine activity theory” (Henderson et al., 2010, p. 322).

Identifying the individual characteristics that may put a student at greater risk for specific forms of victimization, as well as the various forms of victimization, some of which are not enumerated in the Clery Act, may provide higher education administrators insight into how campus resources can be used to better prevent crime and support student victims. This study broadens the definition of victimization, cognizant that other forms of victimization also have significant deleterious psychosocial effects (Haden & Scarpa, 2008; Pastore, Fisher, & Friedman, 1996; Rigby, 2000), such as stalking and harassment based on religion, race, sexual orientation, or gender. The overall goal of this study is to better understand the various types of college campus crime victimization and what socio-demographic characteristics, and types of chosen activities, may put students at greater risk using anonymous and self-report data collection techniques. This information, along with victimization frequency data, may provide impetus for further and more targeted research concerning legal, administrative, and psychological support, as well as policy prevention strategies.

Based on the consistent findings of underreporting by multiple researchers (Finkelhor & Ormrod, 2001; Kilpatrick et al., 2003), we hypothesized that the Clery Act crime statistics for a college campus would be lower than the frequency of crimes students reported in an anonymous survey. We also hypothesized that student socio-demographic characteristics (gender, class year, race, grade point average [GPA], social networks) may put students at greater risk for victimization. In addition, given routine activities theory, we expected that seniors would have had more exposure than students newer to campus. While the original basis of the secondary analysis was meant to explore the psychosocial experience related to progressing victimization experiences, its capture of prevalent rates provides a general idea of what we can expect rates of victimization on college campuses to be. However, these data had a different sample and time frame than that of the Clery Act mandated reporting and, therefore, cannot be compared with directly. We hypothesized that our data would yield higher prevalence rates because of the anonymous and unofficial nature of our data collection and the sample of students. This suggests that, in the context of our research limitations, more research is needed to determine the extent of the victim underreporting of victimization affecting the Clery mandated report statistics.

Method

Participants

Of a total of 5,106 undergraduates, from an academically intensive, private, eastern university, 481 students (9.4%) opted to participate in the study. The participants were comprised of 354 females (74%) and 127 males (26%), ranging in age (evenly distributed) from 18 to 22+ years (M = 19.81 years; SD = 1.32). In addition, 64.9% of respondents identified as Caucasian, 21.3% as Asian, and 13.8% identified as a non-Asian minority. Natural science and social science majors comprised of 83.4% of the participant sample. Overwhelmingly, the sample’s GPAs tended to be closer to 4.0 on a 4.0 scale. In both Greek-letter and student activities organizations, females comprised of roughly three quarters of the sample, while the respective numbers for male participants were 17 (Greek-letter) and 23 (student activities). A marginal majority of women tended to consume less than one alcoholic drink per month, and the distribution for household income tended to be higher income levels. Table 1 provides the socio-demographics in more detail.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Sample Demographics.

Item	Male		Female		Chi-Square
	n	%	n	%	df	Asymp. Sig (Two-Sided)
1. Class year					6	.482
Freshman	39	29	94	71
Sophomore	28	25	85	75
Junior	27	26	74	74
Senior and 5th	29	22	101	78
2. Ethnicity					4	.566
Non-Asian minority	16	24	50	76
Asian	21	21	81	79
Caucasian	87	28	222	72
3. GPA					6	.854
0.00-2.80; <C	14	31	31	69
2.81-3.20; >C, <B−	22	24	71	76
3.21-3.60; >B−, <B+	38	25	112	75
3.61-4.00; >B+, ≤A+	48	27	129	73
4. Varsity sports	19	32	41	68	2	.512
5. Greek-letter membership	17	18	80	82	2	.095
6. Student organization	23		77		2	.055
7. Alcohol consumption					8	.075
<1 a month	47	28	122	72
1-2 a month	16	18	71	82
3-4 a month	22	23	74	76
5-6 a month	16	26	46	74
>7 a month	22	42	30	58
8. Household income					5	.306
<US$20,000	10	20	39	80
US$20,001-US$40,000	10	19	43	81
US$40,001-US$60,000	18	29	45	71
US$60,001-US$80,000	16	27	44	73
US$80,001-US$120,000	30	35	55	65
>US$120,001	33	29	80	71

Note. GPA = grade point average.

Study Procedures

The study team recruited participants for this cross-sectional survey from December 2010 through March 2011. Participants voluntarily and anonymously completed a survey through online tools, utilizing self-selection processes. All participants completed the survey in English. In addition to campus-wide paper and electronic advertisements, a raffle for an Amazon Kindle and two iPod shuffles were used to attract participants to the study. The survey solicited the general constructs of demographics, victimization, coping styles, mental health, college adjustment, post-traumatic stress disorder, self-esteem, and social support. University Human Subjects Review Board approved all aspects of this study as exempt because participants signed an informed consent and authors ensured anonymous data collection.

Efforts were made to try to obtain a representative sample of college students. Advertisements were placed in common areas and in campus-wide electronic media. Detailed demographic information is provided in Table 1 and nuanced analysis on the demographic information was completed to determine if any demographic variables related to the results.

The University security, at the University studied here, provides personal safety education through student orientation, parent orientation, service fairs, new employee orientation, and individual residence hall floor presentations. Through personal safety presentations and publications, students and employees are encouraged to report all criminal behaviors they experience or witness to Security or other campus reporting authorities (Think Safe Annual Reports: Security and Fire Safety). Crime victims are encouraged to contact security through a central security communications center. Depending on the severity of the in-progress crime, local law enforcement may be contacted for an immediate response. Officers responding to a criminal complaint will assess the impact on the victim as well as university operations, and, if appropriate, will begin requesting additional internal and/or external resources. The victim’s complaint is documented on a security case report. Case reports are used by security administrators for investigative follow-up, to prepare timely warnings to the university community of criminal activity that is considered a serious or continued threat, develop patterns of activity to focus special attention for patrol officers, and to disclose crime statistics.

Measures

This study’s secondary analysis was performed on data from College Victimization and Adjustment: Social Protection (2014, manuscript under preparation) and utilizes victimization and socio-demographic data.

Adapted Crime Victimization Survey

The authors adapted the 17-item measure from the Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey, in operation from 1973 to 2008, to capture the independent variable, “victimization.” Items addressed residential, property, physical, threat, sexual, race/gender/religious/sexual-orientation harassment, stalking, and psychological violence; in general, this measure aimed to record numbers of instances of victimization types. For example, the following question addressed sexual victimization: “During college, have you ever been forced or coerced to engage in unwanted sexual activity?” Threat was addressed by items such as “During college, has anyone ever threatened to kill you or harm you with a weapon?” Physical violence was operationalized via questions such as “During college, has anyone attacked you with any weapon, for instance, a gun or knife?” This measure used a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (no), 2 (yes, only once), 3 (yes, 1-2 times), 4 (yes, 3-5 times), to 5 (yes, 5 times or more). For purposes of analysis, we recoded victimization into dichotomous variables for sexual victimization, physical victimization, harassment, and property crimes due to scale response overlapping error. Finally, the alpha coefficient for internal consistency for this measure was .637. This figure is considered moderately consistent, but this measure was purposefully broad in conceptual scope.

Demographic Survey

Demographic information was utilized as predictor variables for victimization and was collected using a 13-item questionnaire. The following demographic information was obtained: age, class year, academic major, ethnic identification, overall GPA, athletics participation, varsity sports participation, Greek-letter organization membership, duration of intimate relationship status, alcohol consumption, average household income, and gender identification. Race was recoded as Caucasian versus non-Caucasian due to small sample sizes.

Analyses

This study design utilized a cross-sectional survey. The data were entered into a SPSS database, which was used for both management and analysis (SPSS Inc., 2009). After the data were cleaned and frequencies were examined, missing data were replaced with the mean for the item. This was a limitation to the study analyses. However, due to the nature of the survey administration, there were minimal missing data. No items were missing more than 5% in a sequence of items, and less than 5% of the sample had any missing data. We stratified the data by gender to explore socio-demographics. Inferential and chi-square tests were used to understand the relations between victimization prevalence and demographic factors. Unadjusted regression was utilized to examine which socio-demographic factors increased the odds of four classifications of victimization. Multivariate logistic regression included gender, class year, race, overall GPA, student organization membership, alcohol use, and income; all were considered salient variables for a priori reasons, noted in the analysis above, and there were no collinearity issues. Six individuals were removed from the data set because they terminated the survey prior to conclusion. Two individuals were removed for failure to provide basic socio-demographic information.

Results

After examining the differences between men and women regarding group membership, we examined the potential covariates related to increased odds of victimization. Table 2 provides the adjusted and multivariate logistic regression results described below by crime category.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Unadjusted and Multivariate Regression of Demographics on Victimization.

		Sexual Victimization (n = 59, 12.4%)		Physical Victimization (n = 30, 6.3%)		Harassment Victimization (n = 175, 36.8%)		Property Victimization (n = 99, 20.8%)
		(OR) [CI]		(OR) [CI]		(OR) [CI]		(OR) [CI]
		Norm	Adjusted	Norm	Adjusted	Norm	Adjusted	Norm	Adjusted
Gender	Male	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
	Female	(4.26) [1.66, 10.92]**	(3.49) [1.29, 9.47]*	(0.28) [0.13, 0.58]***	(0.35) [0.15, 0.79]*	(1.22) [0.79, 1.89]	(1.05) [0.65, 1.70]	(0.71) [0.44, 1.15]	(0.60) [0.34, 1.05]
Class year	Senior	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
	Junior	(0.30) [0.13, 0.68]**	(0.23) [0.09, 0.63]**	(0.73) [0.28, 1.92]	(0.69) [0.23, 2.04]	(0.42) [0.24, 0.74]**	(0.43) [0.23, 0.80]**	(0.64) [0.36, 1.14]	(0.59) [0.30, 1.16]
	Sophomore	(0.41) [0.20, 0.86]*	(0.37) [0.16, 0.85]*	(0.36) [0.11, 1.15]	(0.29) [0.08, 1.10]	(0.77) [0.46, 1.29]	(0.73) [0.42, 1.29]	(0.30) [0.16, 0.58]***	(0.27) [0.13, 0.55]***
	Fresh	(0.28) [0.13, 0.60]***	(0.33) [0.14, 0.80]*	(0.54) [0.21, 1.42]	(0.52) [0.18, 1.48]	(0.55) [0.33, 0.91]*	(0.49) [0.27, 0.86]*	(0.23) [0.12, 0.44]***	(0.24) [0.12, 0.50]***
Race	Non-Caucasian	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
	Caucasian	(1.66) [0.89, 3.09]	(2.57) [1.13, 5.82]*	(1.30) [0.58, 2.90]	(0.92) [0.37, 2.30]	(0.98) [0.67, 1.45]	(1.17) [0.73, 1.87]	(0.90) [0.57, 1.42]	(0.81) [0.46, 1.44]
GPA	3.61-4.00	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
	3.21-3.60	(1.67) [0.81, 3.45]	(0.62) [0.45, 0.87]**	(1.32) [0.52, 3.33]	(0.81) [0.53, 1.23]	(0.89) [0.56, 1.39]	(0.98) [0.79, 1.22]	(1.21) [0.71, 2.09]	(0.83) [0.64, 1.08]
	2.81-3.20	(1.87) [0.84, 4.16]		(1.05) [0.34, 3.22]		(0.68) [0.40, 1.16]		(0.89) [0.46, 1.73]
	1.01-2.80	(3.72) [1.56, 8.90]**		(2.84) [0.95, 8.44]		(1.26) [0.65, 2.44]		(2.15) [1.04, 4.45]*
Student organization	Yes	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
	No	(0.86) [0.47, 1.56]	(1.02) [0.50, 2.07]	(0.92) [0.41, 2.05]	(0.93) [0.38, 2.27]	(0.56) [0.37, 0.85]**	(0.56) [0.35, 0.90]*	(0.72) [0.44, 1.18]	(0.71) [0.40, 1.26]
Alcohol use	>5	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
	1-4	(1.70) [0.87, 3.32]	(2.37) [1.02, 5.49]*	(0.80) [0.34, 1.89]	(1.28) [0.73, 2.26]	(1.81) [1.10, 2.97]*	(1.73) [0.98, 3.06]	(0.39) [0.22, 0.69]***	(0.58) [0.30, 1.12]
	<1	(0.40) [0.17, 0.97]*	(0.91) [0.31, 2.66]	(0.45) [0.17, 1.23]		(1.21) [0.72, 2.02]	(1.51) [0.80, 2.85]	(0.53) [0.31, 0.92]*	(1.24) [0.61, 2.55]
Greek member	Yes	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
	No	(0.54) [0.29, 0.99]*	(0.81) [0.39, 1.70]	(1.31) [0.49, 3.52]	(1.79) [0.55, 5.83]	(0.84) [0.53, 1.33]	(0.74) [0.43, 1.28]	(0.46) [0.28, 0.76]**	(0.43) [0.23, 0.80]**
Income	>120K	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
	80K-120K	(0.56) [0.23, 1.35]	(1.03) [0.84, 1.25]	(0.71) [0.25, 2.01]	(1.16) [0.89, 1.51]	(0.70) [0.39, 1.28]	(0.98) [0.86, 1.12]	(0.70) [0.36, 1.38]	(1.05) [0.90, 1.23]
	60K-80K	(0.48) [0.17, 1.36]		(0.16) [0.02, 1.25]		(1.12) [0.59, 2.12]		(0.55) [0.25, 1.23]
	40K-60K	(0.78) [0.32, 1.92]		(0.47) [0.13, 1.76]		(0.93) [0.49, 1.75]		(0.35) [0.15, 0.86]*
	20K-40K	(0.67) [0.25, 1.81]		(0.97) [0.32, 2.94]		(1.11) [0.57, 2.16]		(0.81) [0.38, 1.74]
	<20K	(0.88) [0.34, 2.26]		(0.19) [0.02, 1.54]		(0.91) [0.46, 1.82]		(1.00) [0.47, 2.14]

Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; GPA = grade point average.

*

Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed). ***Correlation is significant at the .001 level (two-tailed).

Sexual Victimization

In the univariate analysis, female students reported four times the amount of sexual victimization as male students. Seniors reported more sexual victimization when compared with all other class years. The students with the lowest GPA reported more sexual victimization at rates almost four times greater than those with higher GPAs (odds ratio [OR] = 3.72, 1.56-8.90). Students who drank less than one time per month were less likely to experience sexual victimization (OR = 0.40, 0.17, 0.97) than those students who drank more than five times per month. Gender, class year, GPA, and alcohol use remained robust predictors for the multivariate analysis. The only variable that appeared significant in the multivariate analysis that was suppressed in the univariate analysis was race. Caucasian students reported more than twice the amount of sexual victimization (OR = 2.57, 1.13, 5.82) compared with non-Caucasian individuals.

Physical Victimization

In the univariate analysis, females were less likely to be physically victimized than males (OR = 0.28, 0.13, 0.58). This association was confirmed in the multivariate analysis and no other variables were statistically significant.

Harassment Victimization

Freshmen and juniors reported less harassment than seniors in the univariate analysis. Involvement in a student organization reduced the odds of being victimized (OR = 0.56, 0.37, 0.85). Students who drank one to four times per month were more likely to experience harassment (OR = 1.81, 1.10, 2.97) than students who drank more than five times per month. Class year and student organization membership proved to be robust indicators in the multivariate analysis as well, even controlling for other socio-demographic variables.

Property Victimization

In the univariate analysis, certain characteristics provided more opportunities for property crimes. Freshmen and sophomores experienced less property victimization than seniors, as did students in Greek-letter organizations (OR = 0.46, 0.28, 0.76). Greek-letter organization membership was protective against property crimes. In addition, students with low GPAs were twice as likely to experience property crimes when compared with students with high GPAs (OR = 2.15, 1.04, 4.45).

Overall Crime Reporting

The overall rates of self-reported crime victimization drastically exceeded publicly available data reported in compliance with the Clery Act, albeit the sample years and questions differ slightly and prevent precise comparisons. Table 3 documents differences between the self-report and publicly available information. While the university public information (n=5,106) indicated 10 forcible sex offenses, 66 students self-reported (n=481) sexual victimization, with 13 reporting two or more instances. The definitions and categorizations in the self-report defined sexual victimization more broadly. Regarding burglary, there were nine more property crimes self-reported. Burglary was defined differently. Students reported more than 10 times the number of aggravated assaults in the self-report data than they did to security officers. Although the questions were worded slightly differently, the findings are worthy of reporting. Furthermore, the Clery Act report did not contain stalking or harassment, yet hundreds of students reported such victimization.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Self-Report Compared With Clery Act Data.

Victimization Type	University Official Reports (Includes Data from 2008 to 2010)	University Undergraduate Students Self-Report (Includes Data from 2007 to 2010) a
	n = 5,106 as of 2010	n = 481
Forcible sex offenses	10	66 (13 people experienced two or more instances)
Burglary	104	113 b (26 people experienced two or more instances)
Aggravated assault	4	50 (7 people experienced two or more instances)
Stalking	N/A	150 (41 people experienced two or more instances)
Harassment based on religion, race, sexual orientation, or gender	N/A	309 (91 people experienced two or more instances)

Note. N/A = not applicable.

a

Surveyed student population during 2010-2011 school year.

b

Self-report data surveyed for “something stolen from you of great value.”