Violent Victimization of Hispanic College Students

Abstract

This study explores nonfatal violent victimization of Hispanic college students using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey. It compares annual victimization rates characterizing Hispanic students to non-Hispanic students and similarly aged Hispanics not enrolled in college. Results suggest a dramatic decline in student violent victimization rates for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students as well as Hispanics not enrolled in college over the past several years. Differences in the rates of violent victimization among Hispanic college students are identified, including factors related to characteristics of the victim, offender, and criminal incident. Finally, results are discussed in terms of their implications on future research as well as campus policies and administration.

Keywords

campus crime college-student victimization hispanic victimization

Introduction

The study of campus crime and college-student violent victimization is an important social issue that has evolved over the past 50 years. Research in this area provides a better understanding of the nature and extent of student victimization, the correlates and causes of victimization of college students, and the effectiveness of responses to campus crime (Fisher & Sloan, 2007). While what we know about campus crime and college-student victimization has grown since Kirkpatrick and Kanin’s (1957) investigation of sexual aggressiveness in dating–courtship relationships among male college students, some vital issues have received virtually no attention from the scientific community. One underdeveloped area is our understanding of the nature and extent of Hispanic college-student victimization.

The majority of studies that focus on improving our understanding of issues related to college-student violent victimization and crime on college campuses rely on convenience samples from a single campus, use a limited number of schools, or provide anecdotal evidence (e.g., Gross, Winslett, Roberts, & Gohm, 2006; Henson & Stone, 1999; Nicholson, et al., 1998; Robinson & Mullen, 2001). As these studies indicate, the ability to produce victimization estimates for subsets of the student population (i.e., Hispanic college students) is difficult at best and often not possible. When data related to subsets of the student population are collected, victimization estimates produced are often unstable and not reported due to inadequate sample sizes. And while a handful of excellent national-level studies of college-student victimization are available (Barberet, Fisher, & Taylor, 2004; Fisher & Cullen, 1999; Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Fisher, Sloan, Cullen, & Lu, 1998), none focuses specifically on issues related to Hispanic college students.

That research devoted to violence on college campuses has largely neglected the experience of Hispanics is not surprising—though slowly changing, this has also been the case for much of the overall victimization literature. Given that Hispanics are the fastest growing and largest ethnic group in the United States, it is surprising that so much remains unknown about this population. While our understanding of college-student victimization is growing, more work is needed to better understand the issue of campus crime and how it affects particular populations of the campus community such as Hispanics.

Attention to Hispanic students is warranted. There are reasons to suspect that Hispanic college-student victimization experiences may differ from other groups based on findings that Hispanics’ interactions with the criminal justice system differ from other groups. First, it is widely agreed that rates of violent victimization differ based on the race/ethnicity of the victim. Hispanics are victims of homicide at rates greater than the general population (see e.g., Rennison, 2002). And Hispanics are nonfatally violently victimized at rates different from non-Hispanic groups. Among the general population of noninstitutionalized persons age 12 or older, Hispanics (15.6 per 1,000) are victims at rates greater than Asians (6.3 per 1,000) and lesser than American Indians (42.2 per 1,000; Truman, 2011). Reporting violence against Hispanics to the police differs from other race/Hispanic origin groups as well. While the overall rate at which violence against Hispanics is similar for the overall population (Truman, 2011), the predictors of reporting violence against Hispanic victims differs from groups (Rennison et al., in press). Findings indicate that gender, type of violence, and weapon presence are not significant predictors of police reporting for Hispanic juvenile victims though these are considered some primary significant predictors of reporting from other juveniles as well as the population in general. Hispanics’ interaction with law enforcement in terms of traffic stops is yet another way in which this groups’ experiences differ from other groups. Research indicates that Hispanics are searched in traffic stops at rates greater than non-Hispanic Whites (Durose & Smith, 2006; Eith & Durose, 2011). Further, research shows that Hispanic drivers are more likely than non-Hispanic Whites to receive a ticket when stopped by law enforcement (Durose & Smith, 2006; Eith & Durose, 2011).

These findings indicate that Hispanics’ experiences with the criminal justice system across the board often differ in important ways from other groups in the population. They do not indicate that Hispanics always fare worse, and they do not indicate that Hispanics consistently fare better than others. What extant research does indicate is that one cannot be certain Hispanic experiences are similar to the population at large. Whether and how Hispanic college victimization experiences differ from other race/Hispanic origin groups remains an important and open empirical question worthy of attention.

Not only are Hispanics the fastest growing segment of the population, Hispanic college students also represent the fastest growing group of minorities in many schools (Ryu, 2010). Yet, to date, no known large-scale, nationally representative, investigation into the nature and extent of Hispanic college-student victimization has been undertaken. In response to this gap in our understanding about Hispanic college victimization, the current study uses data collected from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NVCS), an ongoing, nationally representative victimization survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, to explore Hispanic college-student violent victimization and how it may differ from comparable victim groups. To accomplish our goal, the remainder of the article is organized in the following manner. First, we provide an overview of the literature on college-student victimization and violence experienced by the Hispanic population in general. We then discuss the reasons why scholarship is relatively devoid of information on Hispanic college-student victimization. Next, we identify the specific research questions addressed by this exploratory study. Then we offer details of the data and methodology used to conduct our investigation, which is followed by the results of our analysis. The article concludes with a discussion of the findings and their implications.

The Nature and Extent of College-Student Victimization

An extensive research literature exists on the prevalence and correlates of college-student victimization (Fisher & Sloan, 2007). Based on NCVS data collected from 1995 through 2004, college students between the ages of 18 and 24 experienced an estimated 4.6 million violent victimizations (Hart, 2007). These numbers translate into an average annual victimization rate of about 56.4 per 1,000 college students. Among the types of victimization, college students are far more likely to be victims of property crimes (e.g., personal theft, burglary, and motor vehicle theft) than violent crimes (Bromley & Fisher, 2002; Fisher et al., 1998; Fisher & Wilkes, 2003; Fox & Hellman, 1985; Henson & Stone, 1999; Siegel & Raymond, 1992; Sloan, 1992, 1994; Volkwein, Szelest, & Lizotte, 1995). For both violent and property crimes, however, the risks of victimization for college students in the 18–24 age group are significantly lower than for similarly aged nonstudents (Baum & Klaus, 2005; Hart 2003, 2007).

Previous research has applied various theoretical approaches to advance our understanding of correlates to college-student victimization, including lifestyle routine activity perspectives (Cass, 2007; Fisher et al., 1998; Fisher & Wilkes, 2003; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2006, 2007; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2000), deterrence/rational choice models (Bachman, Paternoster, & Ward, 1992), and place-based/organizational theories (Barton, Jensen, & Kaufman, 2010; Fisher & Nasar, 1992; Robinson & Mullen, 2001; Robinson & Roh, 2007). Many of the risk factors that have emerged from this literature include specific characteristics related to the offender, the victim, and the offense. These correlates of students’ risks of violence are similar to those observed among nonstudent populations. Specific group differences in these risks are also remarkably robust across different studies of campus crime. Similar to the general population, victims and offenders involved in college student violence are often similar in terms of their gender, race, age, and nature of their interpersonal relationships. Specifically, males are disproportionately represented as both victims and offenders in violent offenses against college students. Most of these offenses are violent acts by males against other males. College student violence is also typically intraracial, involves persons of similar age, and is often committed by offenders whom the victim does not know (Baum & Klaus, 2005; Hart, 2003, 2007; Hart & Miethe, 2011). The major exception to these patterns involves sexual victimizations or stalking where most victims are female who know their attacker (Belknap & Erez, 1995; Crowell & Burgess, 1996; Fisher et al., 2000, Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2002; Karjane, Fisher, & Cullen, 2005; Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2007).

Violent victimization is more likely when an attractive opportunity presents itself to a motivated offender, and risk of being caught is low. In other words, the convergence of an attractive target (i.e., victim) with a motivated offender, in the absence of capable guardians increases the likelihood of a violent victimization. Previous research indicates that the violence experienced by college students varies dramatically by certain offense characteristics that are related to these concepts. These include the type of violent crime, the location, time of day, and particular aspects of the social context in which the offense occurs. From a criminal opportunity perspective, these offense-related factors are important influences on student’s victimization because they increase the victim’s exposure to risky or dangerous situations, decrease their protection against attack, and affect their perceived attractiveness to motivated offenders (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Hart & Miethe, 2011; Miethe & Meier, 1990; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1998, 2000). Using findings such as those proposed here may be used to reduce the number of opportunities present for motivated offenders. And this information may be used to educate potential victims.

According to NCVS data, the most common type of violent victimization of college students involves simple assaults with no serious bodily injury to the victim. Conversely, rape and sexual assault is thought to be relatively less common, accounting for about 6% of all violence against students (Baum & Klaus, 2005; Hart, 2003, 2007; Hart & Miethe, 2011). Previous research also indicates that the risks of violent victimization for college students vary dramatically by place and time. In particular, nearly 90% of the violent crimes experienced by college students occurred away from school property (Baum & Klaus, 2005; Hart, 2003; Hart & Miethe, 2011). It has also been estimated that the rate of off campus violence is nearly 20 times greater than its on campus rate (Hart, 2007). Finally, a college student’s risk of violent victimization is far greater during nighttime than during daytime hours (Baum & Klaus, 2005; Fisher et al., 2000; Hart, 2003, 2007; Hart & Miethe, 2011). Although the literature is remarkably robust with information about college-student victimization in general, far less is known about Hispanic college-student victimization. This is surprising, given our understanding of the nature and extent of violence experienced among the general Hispanic population and a growing research interest in the causal mechanisms associated with Hispanic victimization.

Hispanic Victims of Violence

Hispanics have experienced a dramatic decline in violent crime in recent years. Between 1993 and 2000, for example, the overall violent crime rate among Hispanics declined 56% (Rennison, 2002). Today, the violent victimization rate among Hispanics is 15.6 incidents per 1,000 persons of age 12 or older. This annual rate translates to an estimated 559,000 crimes of violence, including more than 28,000 rapes/sexual assaults, nearly 100,000 robberies, more than 82,000 aggravated assaults, and more than 350,000 simple assaults (Truman, 2011). Despite this level of violence, the Hispanic violent victimization rate is significantly lower than the Black, non-Hispanic rate (20.8 per 1,000), the American Indian/Alaska Native rate (42.2 per 1,000), and the rate for those persons of two or more races (52.6 per 1,000; Truman, 2011). Although we have an improved grasp of the nature and extent of crimes against Hispanics, less is known about why Hispanics experience violence differently than other groups.

Those interested in explaining differences between levels of Hispanic victimization and levels of victimization experienced by other groups have focused on the situational context of Hispanic violence, community dynamics (i.e., macrosocial factors), and/or individual characteristics related to victimization risk (Dugan & Apel, 2003; Kposowa & Breault, 2005; Lauritsen & Heimer, 2010; McNulty & Bellair; 2003; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1997; Schreck, Stewart, & Fisher, 2006; Taylor, Esbensen, Peterson, & Freng, 2007). Recently, for example, Lauritsen and Heimer (2010) compared violent victimization rates for various race/ethnic groups produced from the NCVS to trends in the Index of Consumer Sentiment and found that Hispanics experience victimization differently during hard economic times than other race/ethnic groups. Their research suggests that this could be due to a greater number of Hispanics being employed in lower skilled jobs, which are often eliminated first and in greater proportions during times of economic hardship. However, in an examination of ethnic differences in adolescent violence, McNulty and Bellair (2003) recently demonstrated that structural disadvantage plays a less important role in explaining Hispanic youths’ involvement in fighting than family well-being. Finally, Kposowa and Breault (2005) used National Center for Health Statistics data to demonstrate that ethnicity is a leading factor in homicide victimization in the United States; but that the gap between White and minority homicide victimization risk is mediated by indicators of socioeconomic status, employment status, poverty, income, and education. Their findings affirmed research that suggests that differences in the likelihood of being violently victimized is more likely attributed to the city in which one lives, rather than the Hispanic origin of the victim (Taylor et al., 2007).

Despite our increasing awareness of the nature and extent of Hispanic victimization and how individual, lifestyle, and contextual factors explain victimization among the general Hispanic population, the literature is relatively silent on whether this knowledge can be applied to an important subset of the Hispanic population: Hispanic college students. The current study is a modest effort that begins to fill this gap in the literature.

Measuring Hispanic College-Student Victimization

According to figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2008, Hispanics comprised 12% of the full-time college student population. Given the relative infrequent occurrence of college-student victimization, it is clear that the underlying issue with generating stable estimates of Hispanic student victimization is that it requires large volumes of college-student victimization data. Since 1995, the NCVS has asked respondents whether they attended a college or university at the time of their survey.¹ Including this question as part of the standard NCVS battery of questions over the past decade and a half has produced a rich and robust source of information, which is used in the current study to examine nonfatal violence experienced by Hispanic college students.

Understanding the victimization experiences of Hispanic college students and how they compare to other groups (i.e., non-Hispanic students as well as similarly aged Hispanics who are not enrolled in college) is important for several reasons. First, information produced from this study provides a foundation from which future research can be developed to address questions such as whether and why certain differences between these groups exist. Similar to the way studies grew from the work of Kirkpatrick and Kanin (1957), information produced by the current investigation can guide researchers interested in focusing on particular aspects of Hispanic college-student victimization. Second, college and university administrators can use the information produced in the current study to better understand violence experienced by one of the fast growing demographic groups of the campus community (Ryu, 2010). With a more robust understanding of variations in college-student victimization by Hispanic origin, college and university administrators can develop improved strategies for fighting campus crime and violence. Third, the current study offers findings that can be used to aid in the development of evidence-based legislation. The passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Pub. L. No. 89-329), the Students-Right-To-Know and Campus Crime Reporting Act (20 U.S.C. 1092[f]), and the Campus Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights suggest that lawmakers are concerned about and willing to address campus safety and security issues. An exploratory investigation into the nature and extent of Hispanic college-student victimization can be used to enhance existing federal and state law. And finally, colleges and universities that receive federal funding are required to gather and report crime data in compliance with the Jeanne Clery Act.² Findings from the current study enables campus administrators and law enforcement personnel to compare their campus crime data—based on crimes known to police and university officials—to national rates for members of the Hispanic campus community.

Research Questions

Given the dearth of knowledge in this important area of criminal justice research, the present study seeks to provide an initial understanding of victimization of Hispanic college students at a national level. The study is guided by seven related research questions that focus on the rates and trends of violence victimization, as well as the role that victim, offender, and incident characteristics play in violence experienced by Hispanic college students. The research questions are:

On average, how much violent victimization do Hispanic college students experience?

How do victimization rates of violence against Hispanic college students compare to non-Hispanic college students, as well as similarly aged Hispanics who are not enrolled in college?

How have victimization rates of violence against Hispanic college students changed over time?

How do changes over time of annual victimization rates of violence against Hispanic college students compare to non-Hispanic college students and Hispanic noncollege students?

How do personal characteristics of Hispanic college-student victims of violence differ from non-Hispanic college-student victims? For example, does gender, age, or where students live matter in terms of experiencing violent crime?

How do offender characteristics differ between Hispanic and non-Hispanic college students? For example, is the victim–offender relationship, the extent to which alcohol and/or drugs are used, or the level of weapon use during a violent crime similar or different between Hispanic college-student victims when compared to non-Hispanic students?

How do the incident characteristics differ between Hispanic and non-Hispanic college students? For example, does where and when violence occurs differ between Hispanic and non-Hispanic college student? Does the extent to which injury results differ between Hispanic and non-Hispanic college students? And does the extent to which Hispanic and non-Hispanic college-student victims seek assistance from agencies that offer aid to victims of crime differ?

Before offering findings, a discussion of the data and methods used in the current study are presented.

Methodology

Data

This study is conducted using the NCVS, which is a national-level representative victimization survey that has collected information on the characteristics of crime incidents, crime victims, and victimization trends since the early 1970s. The NCVS uses a stratified, multistage, cluster sample that includes a rotating panel design. For selected households, the NCVS conducts interviews with respondents once every 6 months for a period of 3 years (Hubble, 1995). Household members eligible for interview are individuals aged 12 or older residing in the sampled household at the time of the survey. Interviews are conducted in person and over the phone (Rennison & Rand, 2007).

The NCVS collects demographic information such as age, gender, race, and Hispanic origin for each eligible household member during a respondent’s initial screening interview. The screening interview also determines whether an eligible household respondent was victimized during the 6-month reference period. For each violent crime, property crime, or property theft identified during the screening process, detailed incident-level information is collected. Some of the incident-level characteristics of an identified victimization include when and where the crime occurred, whether a weapon was used, whether the victim was injured, and whether the crime was reported to the police (Rennison & Rand, 2007). On average, from 1995 through 2005, approximately 99,800 households and 184,100 persons were interviewed annually for the survey. Response rates during this period range from 91% to 96% for households and from 84% to 94% for individuals.

The NCVS offers several benefits to the study of Hispanic college student violent victimization. Perhaps the greatest advantage offered by the NCVS is the large, nationally representative sample of victims—including Hispanic victims. In addition, the NCVS enables analyses of a variety of violent crime types including rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. An additional important advantage of the NCVS is that it includes a broad range of theoretically relevant correlates that can be included in the analyses that follow. Extant data used to study college victimization generally does not offer these important details. Finally, a key advantage of using NCVS data is that the survey was designed to provide an accounting of violence regardless of whether it was reported to the police. In other words, it includes information of violence that was and was not reported to the police or any other authority. Given evidence that Hispanic victims report violence to police in ways that differ from non-Hispanics, this is an especially important advantage (Baumer & Lauritsen, 2010; Hart & Rennison, 2003; Rennison, 2007, 2009, 2010; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1994).

Sample

The current study presents findings from a subset of NCVS data collected during the period 1995 through 2005.³ These victimizations are restricted only to those respondents who identified themselves as being between the ages of 18 and 24. In addition, the data are restricted to only nonfatal violent victimization which includes threatened, attempted, or completed rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.⁴ In some instance, “overall violence” is considered. This consists of all types of violence aggregated. In other instances, results regarding “serious violence” are presented. This type of violence includes only rape/sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Following the restriction of the data to violence against persons of age 18–24, the analyses below are based on 513,765 Hispanic student victimizations, 4,523,941 non-Hispanic college-student victimizations, 1,964,225 Hispanic nonstudent victimizations, and 11,856,119 non-Hispanic, noncollege student victimizations.⁵

Measures

Hispanic origin of the victim is one of two focal variables in this research. Two categories are utilized to identify the Hispanic origin of the victim: Hispanic (any race) and non-Hispanics (any race). This measure is generated based on a single question, which is coded in a binary fashion. A respondent is coded “Hispanic” if they self-describe as Spanish, Hispanic, Latino, Mexican-American, Chicano, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American (Spanish Countries) or some “other” Spanish origin. If a respondent indicates they “don’t know” their Hispanic origin, they are asked whether they have a parent or grandparent who is “Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino.” If they do, they are coded “Hispanic.” If a respondent describes themselves has having multiple ethnic origins and one is Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino, they are coded “Hispanic.” All others respondents are coded “non-Hispanic.”

The second focal variable is whether the victim was a college student. A respondent who notes that they are currently enrolled either full or part time⁶ in a college or university at the time of the NCVS interview is considered a college student. All other respondents are categorized as nonstudents.

The current study also considers several victim-, offender-, and incident-level correlates to college-student victimization. For example, victim’s gender is measured as the standard two-category variable: male and female; victim’s age is coded as a dichotomous variable in this analysis: 18–20 years compared to 21–24 years of age⁷; and residence identifies victims who live on campus versus off campus.

Offender characteristics included in the currently analysis include (1) the victim/offender relationship, (2) alcohol/drug use, and (3) the presence of a weapon. Each of the offender characteristic variables used is based on the victim’s perception. For example, victim/offender relationship is coded as a known offender,⁸ a stranger, or an offender whose relationship to the victim could not be determined (i.e., don’t know); perceived alcohol/drug use is coded as using, not using, or don’t know; and the presence of a weapon is coded as “Yes,” “No,” or “Don’t know.”

Finally, several empirically relevant incident characteristics are considered in this research. Comparisons are made regarding whether the violence occurred on or off campus (location). In addition, focus is given to the time the victimization occurred (i.e., during the daytime—6 a.m. to 6 p.m.—or evening—6 p.m. to 6 a.m.). Injury to the victim is examined using two categories: no injury or any injury. Whether the violence was reported to the police and whether the victim utilized victim’s assistance programs or services are also included in the analysis and are dichotomized as either “Yes” or “No.”

Analytic Technique

This research is conducted by comparing violent victimization estimates derived from the NCVS. Though a relatively simplistic analytic strategy, this approach requires special attention because NCVS estimates are subject to sampling error, as well as effects of being based on a complex sample survey. This means that estimation techniques that assume simple random sampling could underestimate the standard errors and result in incorrect inferences about statistical significance. Therefore, all comparisons of victimization estimates presented here are tested using formulae that take into account the complex sample of the NCVS. These tests use generalized variance function constant parameters to calculate variance estimates, standard errors, and confidence intervals. All differences between estimates are noted in the text. If a difference is not stated, this indicates that it is not a statistically significant difference.⁹ In addition, all estimates are calculated using the appropriate weights available on the data file (see Maston, 2010 as well as Rennison & Rand, 2007). The remaining sections offer the findings of the current investigation, a discussion of these results, and concluding remarks concerning future research in this area.

Results

Research Question 1: On average, how much violent victimization do hispanic college students experience?

Findings presented in Table 1 indicate that between 1995 and 2005, on average, Hispanic college students were victims of overall nonfatal violence at a rate of 51.7 victimizations per 1,000 Hispanic students. Disaggregated, this represents 4.2 rape/sexual assaults, 4.8 robberies, 13.2 aggravated assaults, and 29.6 simple assaults per 1,000 Hispanic students. As is routinely found in victimization research, simple assault is the most common form of violence experienced among Hispanic college students. Considering only serious violent victimization, Hispanic college students experienced 22.1 serious victimizations per 1,000 Hispanic students. While informative, it is difficult to fully appreciate the meaning of these victimization rates without a comparison with similarly situated groups. The next research question offers just this comparison.

Table 1.

Nonfatal Violent Victimization of College Students and Nonstudents by Hispanic Origin, 1995–2005

Victims’ age, 18–24	Violent crime	Rape/sexual assault	Robbery	Aggravated assault	Simple assault	Serious violent crime^a
College students
Hispanic
Rate per 1,000	51.7	4.2	4.8^b	13.2	29.6	22.1
Percentage change, 1995–2005	−64.4^c	–^d	50.2^e	−63.3	−80.6^c	−37.8^c
Non-Hispanic
Rate per 1,000	55.2	3.3	5.4	12.4	34.1	21.1
Percentage change, 1995–2005	−51.3^c	−87.2^c	−34.4	−32.7	−55.1^c	−42.5^c
Nonstudents
Hispanic
Rate per 1,000	49.5	1.6	8.8	12.9	26.2	23.3
Percentage change, 1995–2005	−63.3^c	9.8	−80.2^c,f	−67.0^c	−56.3^c	−70.2^c,f
Non-Hispanic
Rate per 1,000	74.3	4.2	8.1	16.9	45.2	29.2
Percentage change, 1995–2005	−35.4^c	−29.3	−33.7^g	−20.5	−40.9^c	−25.7^c

^aSerious violent crime includes rape/sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

^bThe difference between the Hispanic college students’ rate and Hispanic nonstudents’ rate is significant at the 90% significance level.

^cThe percentage change from 1995 to 2005 is at the 95% significant level.

^dNo rape/sexual assault victimizations reported by Hispanic college students in 2005.

^eThe difference between the rate change between the Hispanic college students’ rate and the Hispanic nonstudents’ rate is at the 95% significance level.

^fThe difference between the rate change in the Hispanic nonstudents’ rate and the Non-Hispanic, nonstudents’ rate is at the 90% significance level.

^gThe percentage change from 1995 to 2005 is at the 90% significant level.

Research Question 2: How do victimization rates of violence against Hispanic college students compare to non-Hispanic college students, as well as similarly aged non-Hispanics who are not enrolled in college?

A comparison of all victimization estimates between Hispanic college students and non-Hispanic college students, as well as a comparison of all victimization estimates between Hispanic college students and Hispanics not enrolled in college reveals few statistically significant differences. First comparing Hispanic and non-Hispanic college students, no significant differences are measured. In other words, from 1995 to 2005, Hispanic and non-Hispanic college students were victims of overall violence, rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault at statistically similar rates.

A comparison of victimization rates of Hispanic college students and Hispanic noncollege students indicates one statistically significant difference. Hispanic college students experience robbery at a rate significantly lower than Hispanic noncollege students (p < .05). Specifically, Hispanic college students were robbed at a rate of 4.8 per 1,000 compared to Hispanic noncollege students who experienced robbery at a rate of 8.8 per 1,000. No measurable differences in victimization rates of the other crimes were noted between these groups.

In sum, these statistics indicate that Hispanic origin is unrelated to violent victimization risk among college students; and it shows that a college environment reduces the risk of robbery among Hispanic youth. The next research question turns to how victimization rates have changed over time.

Research Question 3: How have victimization rates of violence against Hispanic college students changed over time?

Results presented in Table 1 also show that between 1995 and 2005, the rate of overall violence experienced by Hispanic college students dropped significantly (−64.4%; p < .05). This overall decline was the result of a significant decline in simple assault during this period (−80.6%; p < .05) and serious violence (−37.8%; p < .05). Other apparent changes in the average annual rates of Hispanic college-student victimization, between 1995 and 2005, were not statistically significant. While it is useful to understand how rates of violent victimization changed (or failed to change) for Hispanic college students, it is also important to understand how these changes compare to similarly situated groups. The following section addresses this topic.

Research Question 4: How do changes over time of annual victimization rates of violence against Hispanic college students compare to non-Hispanic college students and Hispanics not enrolled in college?

A comparison of change in violent victimization rates of Hispanic college students to non-Hispanic college students reveals no statistically significant differences. That is, the change in risk of violence between 1995 and 2005 did not differ based on the Hispanic origin of the college student. A comparison of Hispanic college and noncollege students reveals two slightly significant differences in rate change over time. First, Hispanic college students saw a slight rise in rates of robbery over the period compared to Hispanic nonstudents (+50.2% vs. −80.2%; p < .10). And second, Hispanic nonstudents experienced a slightly greater drop in serious violence than did Hispanic college students (−70.2% vs. −37.8%; p < .10). All other apparent differences in changes in victimization rates over time were not significant at either p < .05 or p < .10 level (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Nonfatal violent victimization of college students and nonstudents, by Hispanic origin 1995–2005. Rate of violent crime per 1,000 aged 18–24.

Research Question 5: How do personal characteristics of Hispanic college-student victims of violence differ from non-Hispanic college students?

Table 2 provides information on nonfatal violent victimization of Hispanic and non-Hispanic college students focusing on victim characteristics. Findings show few differences in rates of violent victimization between Hispanic and non-Hispanic college students. One difference that was measured was that male Hispanic college students were victims of robbery at slightly lower rates than their non-Hispanic counterparts (3.5 vs. 7.9 per 1,000; p < .10). Second, findings indicate that female Hispanic college students experienced aggravated assault at rates significantly lower than female non-Hispanics (1.6 vs. 7.1 per 1,000; p < .05).

Table 2.

Nonfatal Violent Victimization Rate per 1,000 College Students by Hispanic Origin and Victim Characteristics, 1995–2005

		Average annual rates per 1,000 students of age 18–24
Victims of violence	Population	Violent crime	Rape/sexual assault	Robbery	Aggravated assault	Simple assault	Serious violent crime^a
Hispanic college students	903,138	51.7	4.2	4.8	13.2	29.6	22.1
Gender
Male	411,410	74.9	3.3^b	3.5^b	27.1	40.9	33.9
Female	491,728	32.4	4.9^b	5.9^b	1.6^b	20.1	12.3
Age
18–20	482,689	50.5	5.3^b	3.8^b	16.4	25.0	25.6
21–24	420,449	53.1	2.8^b	5.9^b	9.5	34.8	18.2
Residence
Campus housing	57,741	29.6^b	0.0^b	0.0^b	11.2^b	18.4^b	11.2
Noncampus housing	840,595	53.5	4.5^b	5.1^b	13.4	30.5	23.0
Non-Hispanic college students	7,454,224	55.2	3.3	5.4	12.4	34.1	21.1
Gender
Male	3,615,465	70.9	0.8^b	7.9	18.1	44.1	26.8
Female	3,838,759	40.3	5.6	3.0	7.1	24.7	15.7
Age
18–20	3,817,884	61.8	3.7	6.7	14.2	37.2	24.6
21–24	3,636,339	48.2	2.8	4.1	10.6	30.8	17.4
Residence
Campus housing	1,243,074	22.6	1.1^b	1.4^b	3.7	16.4	6.2
Noncampus housing	6,183,782	62.0	3.7	6.2	14.2	37.8	24.2

^aSerious violent crime includes rape/sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

^bBased on 10 or fewer sample cases.

Findings also show only one difference between Hispanic and non-Hispanic students when focused on age. Specifically, rates of simple assault (25.0 vs. 37.2; p < .05) were significantly lower for 18- to 20-year-old Hispanic students than they were for 18- to 20-year-old non-Hispanic college students. No statistically significant differences in rates of violent victimization were measured between 21- and 24-year-old Hispanic college and noncollege students.

Finally, where a student lives has little influence on victimization rates between Hispanic and non-Hispanic college students. There is no statistical difference in rates of overall violent victimization, aggravated assault, simple assault, or simple assault between Hispanic and non-Hispanic students based on where they live. Two differences were noted however. First, non-Hispanic students living on campus were slightly more likely to be victims of rape/sexual assault compared to their Hispanic counterparts (1.1 and 0.0 per 1,000, respectively; p < .10). And second, non-Hispanic college students living on campus were significantly more likely to be robbed than were Hispanic college students living on campus (1.4 and 0.0 per 1,000, respectively; p < .05).

Research Question 6: How do offender characteristics differ between Hispanic and non-Hispanic college students?

A comparison of estimates presented in Table 3 indicates almost no differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic college students in terms of offender characteristics. Only two differences were measured. First, Hispanic college students were slightly more likely to report they did not know the victim/offender relationship than were non-Hispanic college students (6.7% vs. 3.1%, respectively; p < .10). And second, a slightly higher percentage of non-Hispanic college students were victimized on campus compared to Hispanic college students (6.8% vs. 3.7%, respectively; p < 0.10). Thus, other than the two noted differences, Hispanic and non-Hispanic students experienced violence in statistically similar ways.

Table 3.

Nonfatal Violent Victimization of College Students by Hispanic Origin and Offender Characteristics, 1995–2005

	Average annual number		Percentage of all violence
Offender characteristics	Hispanic	Non-Hispanic	Hispanic	Non-Hispanic
Relationship to victim
Known	13,183	159,908	28.2	38.9
Stranger	30,406	238,755	65.1	58.1
Don’t know	3,116^a	12,604	6.7^a	3.1
Perceived alcohol/drug use^b
Using	16,122	169,216	34.5	41.1
Not using	9,174	89,213	19.6	21.7
Don’t know	20,587	148,820	44.1	36.2
Missing data	823^a	4,019^a	1.8^a	1.0^a
Presence of weapon
Yes	14,119	110,159	30.2	26.8
No	29,834	269,056	63.9	65.4
Don’t know	2,753^a	32,052	5.9^a	7.8

Note. Detail may not add to 100% due to rounding or missing data.

^aBased on 10 or fewer sample cases.

^bAlcohol/drug use based on victim's perception of whether the offender was under the influence at the time of the incident.

Research Question 7: How do the incident characteristics differ between Hispanic and non-Hispanic college students?

Table 4 shows that from 1995 through 2005, almost all the violent victimizations experienced by Hispanic college students (96.3%) occurred while the student was away from campus. This is slightly greater than the violence experienced by non-Hispanic college students (93.2%; p < .10).

Table 4.

Nonfatal Violent Victimization of College Students by Hispanic Origin and Event Characteristics, 1995–2005

	Average annual number		Percentage of all violence
Event characteristics	Hispanic	Non-Hispanic	Hispanic	Non-Hispanic
Location
On campus	1,708^a	28,037	3.7^a	6.8
Off campus	44,998	383,230	96.3	93.2
Time of incident
Day (6 a.m.–6 p.m.)	14,350	102,984	32.8	27.0
Night (6 p.m.–6 a.m.)	28,466	265,413	65.0	69.6
Don’t know	962^a	9,894	2.2^a	2.6
Missing data	0^a	770^a	0.0^a	0.7^a
Victim injuries
No	31,922	307,993	68.3	74.9
Yes	14,784	103,274	31.7	25.1
Reported to the police
Yes	19,431	148,737	41.6	36.2
No	26,306	254,877	56.3	62.0
Don’t know	970^a	7,166	2.1^a	1.7^a
Missing data	0^a	488^a	0.0^a	0.1^a
Victim’s assistance sought
Yes	43,990	385,847	4.6	5.6
No	2,137^a	22,914	94.2^a	93.8
Don’t know	235^a	993^a	0.5^a	0.2^a
Missing data	343^a	1,515^a	0.7^a	0.4^a

Note. Detail may not add to 100% due to rounding or missing data.

^aBased on 10 or fewer sample cases.

Discussion and Conclusions

The purpose of this research was first to determine the nature and extent of violent victimization of Hispanic college students, using nationally represented data produced via the NCVS; and second to compare violent victimization against Hispanic students to similarly aged non-Hispanic students and Hispanics not enrolled in college, by focusing on theoretically relevant victim, offender, and incident level characteristics. Before a discussion of the findings is presented, limitations of the current study are addressed.

First, the NCVS data do not contain information on an exhaustive list of violence. A frequently noted critique is that the NCVS does not include information on homicide and as a result, this manuscript does not include homicide. We wish to point out that the influence of this exclusion is minimal on these findings, given the relative rarity of homicide (compared to nonfatal violence). In general, homicide makes up less than 0.01% of all violence in the United States (see e.g., Catalano, 2006). Further, we note that all victim surveys lack homicide information, given their methodology. We feel that even without homicide data, the NCVS offers a significant opportunity to complement and extend our understanding about violence against Hispanic college students. A second consideration that must be highlighted in this research is that in some instances, comparisons are made between estimates derived from small cell sizes. Any estimate that is based on 10 or fewer unweighted cases is clearly noted in the tables. Because significance is intimately related to sample size, it is important to remember that a nonfinding may result from the actual lack of a difference between estimates, or it may be based on inadequate sample size for a cell that does not allow the actual difference to be detected. Although these limitations may restrict some of the observations made about the nature and extent of violent crimes experienced by Hispanic college students, these problems do not limit our conclusions. For the type of research questions posed in this study, the national scope of these data collection, the large number of victimizations included in them, and their wide availability for secondary analysis contribute to the NCVS data’s unique value for studying Hispanic college-student victimization. Even with its limitations, there are no other known data for studying these types of incidents at the national level than what is produced by the NCVS.

Results from analyses based on the first four research questions indicate few differences in the groups compared. The differences that did emerge include the following. First, male Hispanic students experienced robbery at rates slightly lower than non-Hispanic males. Second, Hispanic college female students were victims of aggravated assault at rates significantly greater than their non-Hispanic counterparts. Third, Hispanic college students of age 18–20 were victims of simple assault at rates significantly lower than Hispanic college students of the same age. Fourth, non-Hispanic students living on campus were slightly more likely to be victims of rape/sexual assault compared to their Hispanic counterparts. And finally, non-Hispanic college students living on campus were significantly more likely to be robbed than were Hispanic college students living on campus.

Even fewer differences emerged when focuses on the final research questions regarding characteristics of the victimization. Findings related to the victim characteristics examined in the current study suggest that, first, non-Hispanic students living on campus were slightly more likely to be victims of rape/sexual assault compared to their Hispanic counterparts. Second, non-Hispanic college students living on campus were significantly more likely to robbed than were Hispanic college students living on campus. Third, Hispanic college students were slightly more likely to report they did not know the victim/offender relationship than were non-Hispanic college students. Fourth, a slightly higher percentage of non-Hispanic college students were victimized on campus compared to Hispanic college students. And finally, a slightly greater percentage of violence against Hispanic college students was committed by a stranger compared to non-Hispanic college students.

Findings from the current investigation also show that most violent crimes against Hispanic college students are committed by a stranger and by an unarmed offender. The patterns of victimization are similar to what is observed in the non-Hispanic student sample. Finally, most violence against Hispanic college students occurs off campus and at night. These crimes are not likely to result in injury to the victim, to be reported to the police, and they are not likely to result in the student victim seeking assistance from organizations or agencies designed to help them. It is noteworthy that none of these findings differ significantly from what is observed from non-Hispanic students. Said differently, patterns associated with violent crime events committed against college students are generally similar, regardless of students’ Hispanic origin.

In sum, with few exceptions, these findings indicate that the violence experienced by Hispanic college students “looks” remarkably similar to the violence experienced by non-Hispanic college students. And the violence that Hispanic nonstudents experience “looks” like that which non-Hispanic noncollege students are subjected to. These findings present several implications for prevention programs and policies associated with victimization in general, and college campuses specifically. First, these findings indicate that college and university administrators or lawmakers seeking to develop evidence-based legislation can focus on strategies for fighting campus crime and violence that do not need to take into account the Hispanic origin of the student, given the risks of these groups are statistically similar. Second, college and university administrators may operate with the knowledge that no differences in overall victimization rates between Hispanic and non-Hispanics should be measured on their campuses. Should differences in victimization rates be found on a particular campus, it indicates greater research should be undertaken to identify what about their specific campus has led to these discrepancies. Further, these findings indicate that existing federal and state law need not be enhanced to focus on the Hispanic origin of the student. Our findings also indicate that policies or educational practices that encourage police reporting and the use of victim services do not need to be based on the Hispanic origin of the student. Both Hispanic and non-Hispanic victim reporting of violence to the police as well as the utilization of victim services are similarly poor.

Results of the current study add to the scientific understanding of college-student victimization in general and of Hispanic college-student victimization specifically. Among the most insightful findings that can guide university policy, campus administration, and/or federal and state law is (1) where Hispanic student victimization most frequently occurs, (2) when it most often occurs, (3) Hispanic students’ reactions to nonfatal violent crime, and (4) that these patterns are generally no different than what is observed among non-Hispanic students. This means that existing policies and programs geared toward reducing campus crime should be applicable, despite the increasingly diverse student population.

Results from the current study provide insight into fastest growing demographic group on college campuses and their risk of violent victimization and offer guidance to college administrators, campus law enforcement officials, and federal and state lawmakers who desire to improve strategies, policies, and programs designed to make campuses safer for students. Results from the current study provide guidance for future research. First, as more data become available, future research should replicate the current study. This future work may offer additional differences that our work was unable to detect due to few cases in some of the cells considered. In addition, future research should focus on explaining some of the discrepancies uncovered in this research. For example, future research may want to focus on investigating the discrepancy in findings for the two age categories examined. Specifically, findings in this research indicates that younger Hispanic college students were victims of violence at rates higher than older students for some types of violence but not others. Why is this? Touched upon in the findings is that the rate of robbery against Hispanic college students has increased significantly between 1995 and 2005. Given that all other types of violence addressed here, as well as violence in general for other groups, has declined, why has robbery not followed this trend? The purpose of this article was not to address any particular type of violence on a year-to-year basis, nor to identify why changes occurred. Future research should consider these important questions. Finally, the way the victim, offender, and incident level characteristics interact to increase the probability of victimization among Hispanic college student is worthy of particular attention. That is, a greater understanding of the situational contexts of Hispanic college-student victimization is warranted, given recent literature demonstrating patterns of situational violence among the general college student population (Hart & Miethe, 2011). By looking more closely at the differences in the situational contexts for Hispanic college student violence by patterns associated with its location, future research may be able to more fully identify the specific elements of these situations that enable and constrain the nature of interpersonal violence within them.

Footnotes

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Bachman

Paternoster

Ward

(1992). The rationality of sexual offending: Testing a deterrence/rational choice conception of sexual assault. Law and Society Review, 26, 343–372.

Barton

M. S.

Jensen

B. L.

Kaufman

J. M.

(2010). Social disorganization theory and the college campus. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 245–254.

Barberet

Fisher

B. S.

Taylor

(2004). University student safety in East Midlands. London: Home Office.

Baum

Klaus

(2005). Violent victimization of college students, 1995-2002. (NCJ 20636). Washington, DC: USGPO.

Baumer

E. P.

Lauritsen

J. A.

(2010). Reporting crime to the police, 1973-2005: A multivariate analysis of long-term trends in the National Crime Survey (NCS) and National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Criminology, 48, 131–186.

Belknap

Erez

(1995). The victimization of women on college campuses: Courtship violence date rape, and sexual harassment. In Fisher

Sloan

(Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives (1st ed.). Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.

Bromley

M. L.

Fisher

B. S.

(2002). Campus policing and victim services. In Moriarty

(Ed.), Policing and victims. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cass

A. I.

(2007). Routine activities and sexual assault: An analysis of individual- and school-level factors. Violence and Victims, 27, 350–366.

Catalano

S. M.

(2006). Criminal victimization, 2005. (NCJ 214644). Washington, DC: USGPO.

10.

Cohen

L. E.

Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.

11.

Crowell

N. A.

Burgess

A. W.

(1996). Understanding violence against women. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

12.

Dugan

Apel

(2003). An exploratory study of the violent victimization of women: Race/ethnicity and situational context. Criminology, 41, 959–980.

13.

Durose

Smith

(2006). Characteristics of drivers stopped by police, 2002. (NCJ 211471). Washington, DC: USGPO.

14.

Eith

Durose

(2011). Contacts between police and the public, 2008. (NCJ 234599). Washington, DC: USGPO.

15.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

(1999). The extent and nature of violence against college women: Results from a national-level Study: Final report. (NCJ 179977). Washington, DC: USGPO.

16.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2000). Sexual victimization of college women. (NCJ 182369). Washington, DC: USGPO.

17.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2002). Being pursued: Stalking victimization in a national study of college women. Criminology and Public Policy, 1, 257–308.

18.

Fisher

B. S.

Nasar

J. L.

(1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features: Prospect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24, 35–65.

19.

Fisher

B. S.

Sloan

J. J.

(2007). Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.

20.

Fisher

B. S.

Sloan

J. J.

Cullen

F. T.

(1998). Crime in the ivory tower: The level and sources of student victimization. Criminology, 36, 671–710.

21.

Fisher

B. S.

Wilkes

A. R. P.

(2003). A tale of two ivory towers: A comparative analysis of victimization rates and risks between university students and the United States and England. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 526–545.

22.

Fox

J. A.

Hellman

D. A.

(1985). Location and other correlates of campus crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 13, 429–444.

23.

Gross

A. M.

Winslett

Roberts

Gohm

C. L.

(2006). Examination of sexual violence against college women. Violence Against Women, 12, 288–300.

24.

Hart

T. C.

(2003). Violent victimization of college students. (NCJ 196143). Washington, DC: USGPO.

25.

Hart

T. C.

(2007). Violent victimization of college students: Findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey. In Fisher

Sloan

(Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.

26.

Hart

T. C.

Miethe

T. D.

(2011). Violence against college students and its situational contexts: Prevalence, patterns, and policy implications. Victims and Offenders, 6, 157–180.

27.

Hart

T. C.

Rennison

C. M.

(2003). Reporting crime to the police, 1992-2001. (NCJ 195710). Washington, DC: USGPO.

28.

Henson

V. A.

Stone

W. E.

(1999). Campus crime: A victimization study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 295–307.

29.

Hubble

D. L.

(1995). The national crime victimization survey redesign: New questionnaire and procedures development and phase-in methodology. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Statistical Association. Orlando, FL.

30.

Karjane

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

(2005). Sexual assault on campus: What colleges and universities are doing about it. (NCJ 205521). Washington, DC: USGPO.

31.

Kirkpatrick

Kanin

(1957). Male sex aggression on a university campus. American Sociological Review, 22, 52–58.

32.

Kposowa

A. J.

Breault

(2005). Race, ethnicity and the risk of homicide victimization in the United States: Results from the NHIS-MCD. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 3, 21–46.

33.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

C. H.

Warner

T. D.

Fisher

B. S.

Martin

S. L.

(2007). The campus sexual assault (CSA) study: Final report. (NCJ 221153). Washington, DC: USGPO.

34.

Lauritsen

J. A.

Heimer

(2010). Violent victimization among males and economic conditions: The vulnerability of race and ethnic minorities. Criminology & Public Police, 9, 665–692.

35.

Maston

C. T.

(2010). Criminal victimization in the United States, 2007—Statistical tables. (NCJ 227669). Washington, DC: USGPO.

36.

McNulty

T. L.

Bellair

P. E.

(2003). Explaining racial and ethnic differences in serious adolescent violent behavior. Criminology, 41, 709–747.

37.

Miethe

T. D.

Meier

R. F.

(1990). Opportunity, choice, and criminal victimization: A test of a theoretical model. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27, 243–266.

38.

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

(1998). Predicting risk of larceny theft victimization: A routine activity analysis using refined lifestyle measures. Criminology, 36, 829–859.

39.

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

(1999). A routine activity theory explanation for women’s stalking victimization. Violence Against Women, 5, 43–62.

40.

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

. (2000). Comparing the lifestyles of victims, offenders and victim-offenders: A routine activity theory assessment of similarities and differences for criminal incident participants, Social Forces, 33(3), 339–362.

41.

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

(2006). Predicting risk of larceny theft victimization: A routine activity analysis using refined lifestyle measures. Criminology, 36, 829–858.

42.

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

(2007). The routine activities and criminal victimization of students: Lifestyle and related factors. In Fisher

Sloan

(Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Tomas.

43.

Nicholson

M. E.

Maney

D. W.

Blair

Wamboldt

P. M.

Mahoney

B. S.

Yaun

(1998). Trends in alcohol-related campus violence: Implications for prevention. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 43, 34–52.

44.

Rand

Catalano

(2007). Criminal victimization, 2006. (NCJ-219413). Washington, DC: USGPO.

45.

Rennison

C. M.

(2002). Hispanic victims of violent crime, 1993-2000. (NCJ-191208). Washington, DC: USGPO.

46.

Rennison

C. M.

(2007). Reporting to the police by Hispanic victims of violence. Violence and Victims, 22, 754–772.

47.

Rennison

C. M.

(2009). Hispanics and victimization. In Taylor

H. T.

Gabbidon

S. L.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of race and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

48.

Rennison

C. M.

(2010). An investigation into the structure underlying reporting violence to the police: A focus on Hispanic victims. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 390–399.

49.

Rennison

C. M.

Gover

Bosick

Dodge

. (2011). Reporting violent victimization to the police: A focus on race/Hispanic origin of the victim among adolescents. The Open Family Studies Journal, 4, (1-M6), 54–67.

50.

Rennison

C. M.

Rand

M. R.

(2007). Introduction to the national crime victimization survey. In Lynch

J. P.

Addington

L. A.

(Eds.), Understanding crime statistics: Revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and the UCR. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

51.

Robinson

M. B.

Mullen

K. L.

(2001). Crime on campus: A survey of space users. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal, 3, 33–46.

52.

Robinson

M. B.

Roh

(2007). Crime on campus: Spatial aspects of campus crime at a regional comprehensive university. In Fisher

Sloan

(Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Tomas.

53.

Ryu

(2010). Minorities in higher education: 24^th status report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

54.

Sampson

R. J.

Lauritsen

J. L.

(1994). Violent victimization and offending: Individual-, situational-, and community-level risk factors. In Reiss

A. J.

Roth

J. A.

(Eds.), Understanding and preventing violence: Social influences on violence (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: USGPO.

55.

Sampson

R. J.

Lauritsen

J. L.

(1997). Racial and ethnic disparities in crime and criminal justice in the United States. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 21, 311–374.

56.

Schreck

C. J.

Stewart

E. A.

Fisher

B. S.

(2006). Self-control, victimization, and their influence on risky lifestyles: A longitudinal analysis using panel data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 319–340.

57.

Siegel

D. G.

Raymond

C. H.

(1992). An ecological approach to violent campus crime. Journal of Security Administration, 15, 19–29.

58.

Sloan

J. J.

(1992). Campus crime and campus communities: An analysis of crimes known to campus police and security. Journal of Security Administration, 15, 31–47.

59.

Sloan

J. J.

(1994). The correlates of campus crime: An analysis of reported crimes on college and university campuses. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 51–61.

60.

Taylor

T. J.

Esbensen

F. A.

Peterson

Freng

(2007). Putting youth violent victimization into context: Sex, race/ethnicity, and community differences among a multisite sample of youths. Violence and Victims, 22, 702–720.

61.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

E. E.

(2000). Routine activities and vandalism: A theoretical and empirical study. Journal of Crime and Justice, 23, 81–110.

62.

Truman

J. L.

(2011). Criminal victimization, 2010. (NCJ-235508). Washington, DC: USGPO.

63.

Volkwein

J. F.

Szelest

B. P.

Lizotte

A. J.

(1995). The relationship of campus crime to campus and student characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 36, 647–670.