Cary Poole Dissertation 5-27-2014

A MIXED METHOD STUDY OF CAMPUS CRIME STATISTICS ON CAMPUS OF
CHOICE ON BAPTIST FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER
EDUCATION IN THE SOUTHWEST
by
Cary F. Poole
JEREMY DUTSCHKE, Ph.D., Faculty Chair
RODNEY GARRETT, Ph.D., Committee Member
NORMA JONES-JOHNSON, Ed.D., Committee Member
Adam Wright, Ph.D., Dean, Gary Cook Graduate School of Leadership
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
Dallas Baptist University
August 2013

ABSTRACT
The Clery Act has now been a federal law for 24 years, yet institutions of higher
education continue to struggle with compliance. This struggle for compliance manifests
itself in many ways, including lack of understanding of the policy and procedures
directed at the law as well as lack of funding to assist various university personnel in
complying with the law.
In this mixed method study, the researcher distributed the Campus Crime Survey,
developed by Dr. Steven Janosik of Virginia Tech, to four Baptist universities located in
the southwest region of the United States. Upon completion of the survey, the researcher
visit the four campuses and interviewed a minimum of eight students on each campus to
determine if the qualitative data matched the quantitative responses collected from the
Campus Crime survey.
The results of both the quantitative and qualitative portions of the study
demonstrate the information required to be collected by the Clery Act, largely is not
utilized by the students on these four specific campuses to assist in their decision of
college choice. The findings show for these four campuses, students are largely unaware
of the Clery Act and did not take the specific campus crime information into
consideration when choosing their respective campuses.

DEDICATION
To my campus colleagues: While we were not part of a formal cohort group, I
enjoyed the support of Sandy, Candace and especially Derik who encouraged each other
to keep going. I truly believe this association will last a lifetime as we stood in support of
each other.
To my professors: I thoroughly enjoyed the life and work experiences my
professors brought to the classroom. I was especially proud, particularly when speaking
to other doctorate students from other campuses, to brag on how many professors and
administrators at Dallas Baptist University had served as either presidents and or senior
level student affairs administrators.
To my committee members: Each member of my committee had their own
unique role in helping me shape and fine-tune the dissertation and in helping me succeed.
To Dr. Norma Jones-Johnson, I thank you for the summer class we had as we exchanged
ideas from the selected readings. To Dr. Rodney Garrett, I sincerely appreciated the lead
you provided on hiring a great DBU graduate, whom you highly recommended. To Dr.
Jeremy Dutschke, your patience and guidance was most thoroughly welcomed and
appreciated. I thank you for taking me under your wing and helping me see the “light at
the end of the tunnel.”
To my parents: My father, who did not have the opportunity for a higher
education, always encouraged me to go to college. He jokingly told his fellow railroad
workers that he sent his oldest off to college and he never left. The opportunity to go to
college led to a career of working with college students. My mother gave me the

opportunity and the encouragement to stay in college and had that “motherly” way of
both nurturing and motivating when my spirits were not the highest.
To Dr. Ellen “Eileen” Curtin: I was blessed to have a mentor and motivator on my
own campus that I could turn to for assistance on the qualitative portion of my study. I
thank Eileen for the countless hours she patiently spent in helping me learn how to code
material for this section of the study. Her Irish accent always got my attention when I
needed a bit of motivation.
To Dr. Steven Janosik who granted permission to utilize his Campus Crime
Survey as the primary means to collect the quantitative data for this study. Dr. Janosik’s
continued support as I visited with and corresponded with his was very much appreciated.
To my wife Carole; this simply could not have been accomplished without her
love and guidance during the entire doctoral process, but particularly during the
dissertation phase. She has spent too many hours to even begin to county as she provided
a second set of eyes on my papers over the last several years. I find her to be one of the
most loving, most intelligent and one of the wisest people I know and find myself very
fortunate to be married to her.
In conclusion, I thank everyone at Dallas Baptist University for the opportunity to
have grown professionally as well as spiritually. My time at Dallas Baptist University
has helped me both to develop and fine-tune my sense of self-discipline and
perseverance. From these collective experiences, I am often reminded of the following
verse: Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize?
Run in such a way as to get the prize. Corinthians: 9:24.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ix
LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
Overview of the Study ............................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem........................................................................................ 5
Purpose of the Study............................................................................................... 6
Significance of the Study........................................................................................ 7
Research Questions................................................................................................. 8
Delimitations and Limitations................................................................................. 9
Assumptions.......................................................................................................... 10
Definition of Terms............................................................................................... 11
Aggravated Assault................................................................................... 11
Arson......................................................................................................... 11
Burglary .................................................................................................... 11
Clery Act................................................................................................... 12
Criminal Homicide.................................................................................... 12
Crisis Management Team ......................................................................... 12
Dating Violence ........................................................................................ 12
Domestic Violence.................................................................................... 13
Hate Crimes............................................................................................... 13
Hazing....................................................................................................... 13

vi
Illegal Weapons Possession/Drug Law Violations/Liquor Law
Violations.................................................................................................. 14
Motor Vehicle Theft.................................................................................. 14
Negligent Manslaughter............................................................................ 14
North Central Texas.................................................................................. 14
On Campus................................................................................................ 14
Robbery..................................................................................................... 14
Clery Center for Security on Campus (CCSC)......................................... 15
Sexual Assault........................................................................................... 15
Sex Offenses ............................................................................................. 15
Sex Offense-Forcible ................................................................................ 15
Sex Offense-Non-Forcible ........................................................................ 16
Stalking ..................................................................................................... 16
Student Affairs .......................................................................................... 16
Organization of the Study......................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 18
Studies Related to Campus Law Enforcement...................................................... 24
Studies Related to Why Campuses Do Not Comply with the Clery Act .............. 32
Studies Related to Residence Life ........................................................................ 37
Study Related to Clery Act Compliance: Timely Warnings................................. 38
Studies Related to Student Behavior and Campus Judicial Affairs ...................... 41
Studies or Concerns Related to Campus Victimization........................................ 44
Study Concerning Parent’s Knowledge of the Clery Act ..................................... 50

vii
Studies Concerning Senior Affairs Professionals ................................................. 51
Campus Safety Within Student Conduct Offices.................................................. 54
Stalking on College Campuses ............................................................................. 56
Hazing on College Campuses ............................................................................... 60
Sex Crimes on Campus......................................................................................... 65
Campus SaVE Act ................................................................................................ 72
Campus Security Agents....................................................................................... 79
Students Forcing Compliance on Posting Crime Statistics................................... 81
Crime on Church-affiliated Private Institutions.................................................... 84
Emergence of Hate Crimes on Campus ................................................................ 86
Clery Act versus FERPA and other Federal Acts ................................................. 88
The Impact of the News Media on Campus Crime Reporting.............................. 96
Title IX Involvement with Campus Crime ......................................................... 102
Measures To Prevent Crime on Campus ............................................................ 105
Threat Assessment .............................................................................................. 111
Virginia Tech and the Aftermath ........................................................................ 115
Perceptions of the Clery Act and Campus Safety............................................... 117
Current Department of Education Enforcement Activity ................................... 126
Conclusion to the Literature Review .................................................................. 129
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 136
Introduction......................................................................................................... 136
Research Design.................................................................................................. 139
Target Population and Sample ............................................................................ 145

viii
Target Population.................................................................................... 145
Selection of Sample ................................................................................ 145
Instrumentation and Measures ............................................................................ 147
Role of the Researcher ........................................................................................ 150
Data Collection ................................................................................................... 151
Procedures and Data Analysis............................................................................. 153
Reliability and Validity....................................................................................... 159
Ethical Considerations ........................................................................................ 160
Limitations .......................................................................................................... 161
Data Storage and Integrity .................................................................................. 162
CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS .................................................. 164
Research Questions............................................................................................. 164
Reliability............................................................................................................ 165
Descriptive Statistics for the Sample .................................................................. 166
Descriptive Results for the Clery Act Related Items .......................................... 169
Research Hypotheses for Research Questions 1 through 4 ................................ 173
Quantitative Results ............................................................................................ 173
Research Question 1................................................................................ 173
Finding 1 ................................................................................................. 190

ix
Finding 2 ................................................................................................. 192
Finding 3 ................................................................................................. 193
Finding 4 ................................................................................................. 194
Finding 5 ................................................................................................. 195
Finding 6 ................................................................................................. 196
Finding 7 ................................................................................................. 197
Finding 8 ................................................................................................. 199
Finding 9 ................................................................................................. 200
Campus Visual Observations.................................................................. 202
Triangulation of Related Written Materials............................................ 206
Summary............................................................................................................. 209
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... 211
Introduction......................................................................................................... 211
Summary of Study .............................................................................................. 211
Summary of Findings and Interpretation of Results ........................................... 213
Observation 1 .......................................................................................... 224
Observation 2 .......................................................................................... 225
Observation 3 .......................................................................................... 226

x
Observation 4 .......................................................................................... 227
Observation 5 .......................................................................................... 228
Summary................................................................................................. 228
Generalizations.................................................................................................... 230
Limitations .......................................................................................................... 232
Implications......................................................................................................... 235
Recommendations............................................................................................... 237
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 243
APPENDIX A................................................................................................................. 266
APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................. 267
APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................. 271
APPENDIX D................................................................................................................. 274
APPENDIX E ................................................................................................................. 275
APPENDIX F.................................................................................................................. 276
APPENDIX G................................................................................................................. 279
APPENDIX H................................................................................................................. 281
APPENDIX I................................................................................................................... 282

xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Pie chart of college distributions for the sample of 979 ............................................167
2. Pie chart of respondents’ college classification as freshman, sophomore,
junior, senior, or graduate student..............................................................................168

xii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Frequencies for Number of Surveys Received from Each of the Four Campuses
Participating in the Survey .................................................................................... 166
2. Distribution of Sample by Gender ........................................................................ 167
3. Distribution of Students’ Classifications Within the Sample ............................... 168
4. Yes/No Items’ Frequencies ................................................................................... 170
5. Likert-type Items’ Frequencies ............................................................................. 171
6. Method for Receiving Campus Crime Report ...................................................... 172
7. Campus Crime Statistics Locations as Reported by Students About Their
Specific Campuses ................................................................................................ 173
8. Single Sample t Test Result for Number of Students Aware of Clery Act ........... 174
9. Frequencies for Hypothesis 1: Students’ Awareness of the Clery Act ................. 175
10. Single Sample t Test Results for Hypothesis 2 ..................................................... 176
11. Responses to Students’ Thoughts that These Materials and Programs Would
Change the Way They Protect Their Property ...................................................... 178
Change the Way They Protect Themselves .......................................................... 178
Change the Way They Move Around on Campus ................................................ 178
14. Responses to These Programs and Information Increasing Students’ Level of
Confidence in Campus Security or Local Police .................................................. 179

xiii
15. Responses to These Programs and Information Fostering Better Relations with
Campus Security/Police ........................................................................................ 179
16. Responses to These Programs and Information Increasing the Likelihood that
Students Would Report Crime to Either an Administrator or Security/Police ..... 180
17. Responses About Willingness to Attend a Campus Crime Prevention/Awareness
Program ................................................................................................................. 180
18. Single Sample t Test Results for Hypothesis 3 ..................................................... 183
19. Responses About Willingness to Modify Behavior Regarding Property Protection
due to Campus Crime Report ................................................................................ 184
20. Responses About Willingness to Modify Behavior Regarding Protection of Self due
to Campus Crime Report ...................................................................................... 184
21. Responses About Willingness to Modify Behavior Regarding Moving Around
Campus due to Campus Crime Report .................................................................. 185
22. Responses to Students’ Thoughts that the Campus Crime Report Would Change the
Way They Protect Their Property ......................................................................... 185
Way They Protect Themselves ............................................................................. 186
Way They Move Around on Campus ................................................................... 186
25. Single Sample t Test Result for Knowledge About Where to Find Clery Act
Material on Campus .............................................................................................. 188
26. Responses About Knowing How to Find Clery Act Material on Campus by School
................................................................................................................................ 188

xiv
27. Responses About Knowing Where to Find Clery Act Material on Campus by
School .................................................................................................................... 189
28. Crime Data Between the Four Study Sites (A, B, C, D) and 2 Comparison Sites (1,
2) for Calendar Year 2012 .................................................................................... 209

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Overview of the Study
Each fall semester, many first time freshmen students begin an annual rite of
passage as they arrive on the campus of their college of choice. In this American rite of
passage, many of the inbound freshmen may not be aware of a Federal law which was put
in place for their use in helping to make an informed college choice (Janosik & Gehring,
2001). This law, commonly referred to as the Clery Act, has had an impact on many of
the campus offices due to demands on data collection and public posting. Unknown is the
extent to which students utilize the data published by their colleges according to the
requirements of the Clery Act (Janosik & Gehring, 2001). The law was originally named
the Campus Security Act of 1990, Public Law 101-542; it was subsequently amended and
named The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policies and Campus Crime
Statistics Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1092 (f) (Clery Act).
Crime on American college campuses has a long history, dating back to the
beginning of higher education in America (Rudolph, 1961). Between 1800 and 1875,
students had rebelled or participated in riots at the following campuses: Miami University
of Ohio, Amherst, Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, Bowdoin, Dickinson, and DePauw as well
as at various other institutions (Gregory, 2001). The prospect of campus crime and
student conduct resulting in personal injury and property damage was not new to college
campuses, but the idea so disturbed Thomas Jefferson that he wrote in an 1822 memo to
Thomas Cooper the following:
The article of discipline is the most difficult in American Education. Premature
ideas of independence, too little repressed by parents, beget a spirit of

2
insubordination, which is the great obstacle to science to us and a principal cause
of its decay since the revolution. I look to it with dismay in our institution, as a
breaker ahead, which I am far from being confident we shall be able to weather.
(Gregory, 2001, p. 27)
While crime on college campuses is certainly not new, it has certainly reached the
attention of mainstream America with such incidents as the University of Texas tower
shooting and the Virginia Tech shooting (Hall, 1999; Greene & Greene, 2008). While
most college administrators are well versed on the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University (Virginia Tech) tragedy of April 2007 (Cornell, 2010), deadly campus
violence predates this event by over 40 years with the University of Texas shooting of
1966 (Greene & Greene, 2008). At Virginia Tech, 32 students and faculty were killed
and an additional 25 were wounded. At the University of Texas at Austin in 1966, 16
students, faculty, and staff were killed and an additional 32 were wounded (Hall, 1999, p.
364). When examining the mass shootings inflicted upon students, faculty, and staff at
both campuses by both of these gunmen, Hall (1999) termed the two killers as “spree
serial murderers” (p. 364).
Yet, it was the death of a single college student in a single incident of violence in
1986, which caused the federal government to force institutions of higher education into
being more transparent about crimes occurring on their campuses by publishing campus
crime statistics, which are viewable by the public. The enactment of the law was
championed by the parents of Jeanne Clery, a 19-year-old student who was assaulted,
tortured, and murdered in her residence hall room on campus at Lehigh University in
Pennsylvania (Wood, 1999). The attacker, a fellow Lehigh University student, Joseph

3
Henry, gained entry in an initial attempt to burglarize the room; however, Henry ended
up strangling Jeanne Clery with the unwound wire of a Slinky toy (Katel, 2011). The
Clerys vigorously championed the cause to pass legislation requiring greater disclosure of
campus crime statistics by institutions of higher education. In their lawsuit with Lehigh
University, the Clerys argued they would not have allowed their daughter to attend the
university had they known of the spike in campus crime. The Clerys later learned the
spike in campus crime at Lehigh University involved 38 violent crimes which had
occurred over the previous 3 years (Walton, 2002). The Clerys’ lobbying efforts resulted
in the creation of both state and federal legislation that required all higher educational
institutions to report on campus criminal activity based on the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s definitions for its Uniform Crime Reporting program.
Due to the lobbying efforts of the Clerys, Congress passed the Student-Right-to-
Know and Campus Security Act in 1990 (Public Law 101-542). The Clery Act, as it is
popularly known, was originally enacted by Congress and signed into law in 1990 by
President George H. W. Bush as the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990.
The original law required institutions of higher education to compile data on campus
crimes but was not specific about what crimes to include in reports. The law was quickly
modified in 1992 to require colleges to include the felonies of murder, sexual assault
(forcible and non-forcible), robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft
in the list of crimes to report (Public Law 101-325). Subsequent amendments were added
and the list expanded to include advising students, faculty, and staff in writing of recent
crimes committed, developing an emergency notification system for criminal activity,
and publicly posting crime statistics (Ward & Lee, 2005). Additional amendments

4
increased the list of required data collection to include drug and alcohol offenses, hate
crimes, and additional categories for sexual assault related offenses. With the passage of
the 1998 amendments, the law officially changed from the Student-Right-to-Know and
Campus Security Act to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and
Campus Crime Statistics Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-244).
Due to the Clery Act’s many amendments over the years, college administrators
have perceived immense confusion about what crimes to report and their degree of
accountability (Hartle, 2001). Today, adherence to the Clery Act is enforced by the U.S.
Department of Education, which has the responsibility of enforcing the following
components of the law (Clery Center for Security on Campus, 1987): (1) the publication
of an annual report disclosing campus security policies and statistics reporting the last 36
months of selected crimes, (2) the provision for timely warnings to the campus
community about crimes and criminals posing ongoing threats to students and employees,
(3) the maintenance of a public crime log, and (4) the protection of campus community
sexual assault victims’ certain basic rights.
With the conclusion of the modifications, the U.S. Department of Education now
has the ability to force compliance via two means. First, it can withhold federally
dispersed financial aid funds from institutions which accept such funding. Secondly, the
U.S. Department of Education can impose monetary fines at $27,500 per violation for
previous non-compliance violations (Herrmann, 2008). Effective October 2, 2012, the
Department of Education, citing inflation costs, raised the fine amount from $27,500 to
$35,000 (Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation, Federal Register 77:191).
In 1988, the Clery family settled their lawsuit with Lehigh University for a reported $2

5
million (Katel, 2011). Howard and Connie Clery have, since 1990, continued with their
lobbying efforts and established Security on Campus Inc., an organization dedicated to
advocating for public reporting on crimes committed on college campuses (Gregory,
2001). Clery Center for Security on Campus continues promoting the idea that crimes
are occurring on campuses with increased rates while being underreported by college
administrators more concerned with their colleges’ prestige than with their students’
safety.
Statement of the Problem
With the passage of the Clery Act in 1990, college administrators were charged
with data collection and information dissemination tasks that had not previously fallen
under their responsibility. An increasing number of researchers have examined various
facets of this law ranging from simple compliance, to how the law has impacted various
departments and entities on various campuses (Gregory & Janosik, 2003; Janosik, 2004;
Janosik & Gregory, 2003; Wood, 1999). Wood (1999), Gregory and Janosik (2003),
Janosik (2004), and Janosik and Gregory (2003) also included the effects of the law on
students’ behaviors, parents’ perceptions, and how campuses examined the usefulness
of gathering crime statistics and data.
Little information about whether students utilize campus crime logs in making
informed decisions has been collected. The choice of college based on campus crime
from the perspectives of students has not been fully examined. The Clery family has
maintained if they had known of Lehigh University’s crime rate, they would have
chosen another college for their daughter. However, could the same be said for students
of other families?

6
Given the original intent and purpose for the Clery Act, a gap exists in
understanding the extent to which students utilize the required crime statistics reports
today, twenty-two years later, in making their college choice and matriculation
decisions. According to Janosik (2004), a great majority of students remain unaware of
the Act and simply do not read the reports and do not utilize the available crime
information. In addition, as will be seen in the review of the literature, most of the
studies conducted have been quantitative in nature with data derived from surveys or
questionnaires.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether or not campus crime
influences the college choice by college students. The researcher explored whether or
not campus crime information was reviewed by students prior to choosing to attend a
specific college campus and after coming to the specific campus, whether or not a
particular incident triggered student’s reasons for becoming more familiar with campus
crime data. To fulfill the primary purpose of this study, the researcher gathered
information by two methods: distributing a survey to the undergraduate student body of
the participating private colleges and following up with personal interviews. The
interviews were conducted on a one-to-one basis in order to determine the degree to
which students actually utilized the mandated, published campus safety information in
making their college choices. The researcher examined, according to the students, how
they decided on their chosen college and to determine if campus crime statistics played
any role in their decisions. The researcher explored this decision of college choice from
a campus’ safety and its impact on college choice decisions.

7
Significance of the Study
This study will add to the body of knowledge through examining of the influence
of campus crime on how a student decides campus of choice. The major stakeholders
who can benefit from the results of this study are numerous and include students, parents,
faculty, staff, administrators required by federal law to compile and publish crime
statistics, and campuses’ visitors. Previously, researchers conducted quantitative research
and addressed the influence of the Clery Act within the following departments:
admissions, residence life, campus police, senior student affairs practitioners, and judicial
affairs (Gregory & Janosik, 2002, 2003, 2006; Janosik & Gehring, 2001; Janosik &
Gregory, 2003, 2009). The key issue driving this study was asked as follows: “How are
students utilizing the campus crime data?” By asking this question, the researcher had
the opportunity to determine if campus crime related issues and safety considerations
impacted the selection of college. Understanding whether or not students utilize this data
will allow institutions of higher education to modify existing recruiting techniques or
develop new techniques based on the research findings.
Through this study, the researcher will address a gap in the current literature by
gathering input directly from students. Whereas the majority of literature has been
directed at various campus departments and entities as it relates to campus crime, very
little study has been undertaken to address students’ college choice through posted and
published campus information. The researcher hopes to contribute to the body of
research on the Clery Act and on college selection and choice by understanding how, and
to what degree, and if college students utilize published campus crime data. The
researcher generated results that should be enlightening for student affairs practitioners

8
and college administrators as well as for campus’ constituents, including campus visitors,
students, faculty, and staff members.
Research Questions
The researcher gathered information and insights from college students to
determine if the reporting of campus crime statistics influenced their campus choice
decisions. This research focused on a mixed method approach utilizing a questionnaire
and selective interviewing of students regarding the influence of campus crime on the
selection of college choice (Baxter & Jack, 2008). The researcher, using the data
gathered on a minimum of three participating campuses, determined if campus crime
influenced the students’ decisions to choose their respective campuses. For
investigating the choice of college based on campus safety reports, the research
questions directing this mixed method research study were:
1. What proportion of college students surveyed will indicate that they are
aware of the Clery Act? How does this proportion compare to the
proportion of parents surveyed by Janosik (2002)?
2. What proportion of college students surveyed will indicate they use the
campus crime information they are provided? How does this compare to
parents results about and regarding their student’s use of provided campus
crime information as surveyed by Janosik (2002)?
3. Do students use the information required under the Clery Act to reduce their
safety risks as a result of Clery Act information? How does this proportion
compare to the proportion of parents surveyed by Janosik (2001)?

9
4. What proportion of college students surveyed will indicate that they know
where to find the Clery Act material on campus? How does this compare to
parents’ results about and regarding their student’s use of provided campus
5. What is the process students use to learn about the Clery Act, to access
relevant information regarding the law and modify behavior based on the
available information?
The research questions listed above allowed the researcher to investigate
quantitatively and qualitatively if college students utilize campus crime data for the
purpose of choice and matriculation decisions. By utilizing a mixed method approach
incorporating both quantitative and qualitative techniques, this research investigated
whether the data required by federal law to be published assisted students in making
informed decisions regarding college choice. Understanding whether students utilize this
information as part of the college choice process will be vital in understanding to what
extent students utilize the required educational programming directed at campus safety.
Delimitations and Limitations
A delimitation of the study was purposefully directing the investigation to a
minimum of three specific, private four-year colleges and universities. The selected
samples represented three campuses which have less than 13,000 students, are closely
aligned with the Baptist denomination, and located in the states of Texas and Oklahoma.
As a limitation, the sample did not include public four-year colleges, public two-year
colleges, or private two-year campuses.

10
One of the limitations of a study of this nature is that many campus crimes are
underreported and only “about 35% of violent victimizations against college students”
(Baum & Klaus, 2005, p. 6) are reported to campus authorities. The Clery Act also
defines crimes to mean those incidents which are reported by a victim, third party,
witness or even the perpetrator, to a campus authority (Carr, 2005). This in many ways
limits the usefulness of the Clery Act report because it neither gives a clear picture of
who the victim was, nor does it give a profile of the offender. While the Clery Act
requires colleges and universities to publish selected crime statistics, not all crimes are
required to be posted (Carr, 2005). Offenses such as vandalism, harassment, larceny,
theft and even threats are not required to be posted. And lastly a limitation on the law
itself, while the Clery Act requires colleges and universities to post their crime statistics,
the law does require these institutions to try to obtain data from local policies agencies;
however, the law in essence does not require these same agencies to comply with an
institution’s request (Carr, 2005).
Assumptions
The first assumption was that the three private four-year campuses comply with
the Clery Act’s requirements, though this compliance may vary in detail from campus to
campus. A second assumption was that the campuses make every effort to put this
information in front of its constituents, including currently enrolled students, parents and
other members of the campus community.

11
Definition of Terms
Aggravated Assault
An unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting
severe or aggravated bodily injury (Ward & Lee, 2005). This type of assault usually is
accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily
harm.
Arson
Any willful or malicious burning or attempt to burn, with or without intent to
defraud, a dwelling house, public building, motor vehicle or aircraft, personal property of
another (Ward & Lee, 2005).
Burglary
The unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or a theft (Ward & Lee,
2005). The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) (2004) Uniform Crime Reporting
Form (UCR) classified offenses locally known as Burglary (any degree); unlawful entry
with intent to commit a larceny or felony; breaking and entering with intent to commit a
larceny; housebreaking; safecracking; and all attempts at these offenses as Burglary.
Campus Crime
Campus Crime is defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform
Crime Reporting Program (2004) as any crime which falls under this reporting structure
and occurs on a college campus. Furthermore, the campus is defined as any building or
property owned or controlled by the institution and used by the institution in direct
support of, or in a manner related to, the institution's educational purposes, including
residence halls. And any building owned by the institution but controlled by another

12
person that is frequently used by students, and supports institutional purposes is included
in the definition.
Clery Act
For the simple purposes and clarity for this study, the Clery Act will reference in a
broad sense the Campus Safety Act and the amendments made to the act since its original
enactment date of 1990 (Clery Center for Security on Campus, 1987). The law was
named for Jeanne Clery who was murdered on the Lehigh University campus and whose
untimely death was championed by her parents to force both state and the federal
government to enact laws requiring institutions of higher education to disclose campus
crime statistics to the public (Clery Center for Security on Campus, 1987).
Criminal Homicide
This category under the Clery Act is separated into two sub-categories: Murder
and Non-Negligent Homicide (Ward & Lee, 2005). The definition is any death or willful
killing of one person by another caused by injuries received in a fight, argument, quarrel,
assault or commission of a crime.
Crisis Management Team
An umbrella group that prepares for and responds to significant events which
disrupt the normal operations of the organization (Zdziarski, Dunkel, & Rollo, 2007).
Dating Violence
Means violence committed by a person (a) who is or has been in a social
relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the victim; and (b) where the existence
of such a relationship shall be determined based on a consideration of the following
factors: (i) the length of the relationship; (ii) the type of relationship; and (iii) the
frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship (Baker &

13
Kraemer, 2013). The term “dating violence” was given a higher priority under the
reaffirmed Violence Against Women Act of 2013 (42 U.S. Code § 13925) and is now
listed as a category to be included on the Annual Security Report.
Domestic Violence
Includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or
former spouse of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common,
by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, by a
person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence
laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or
youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family
violence of the jurisdiction (Baker & Kraemer, 2013). The term “ Domestic Violence”
was given a higher priority under the reaffirmed Violence Against Women Act of 2013
(42 U.S. Code § 13925) and is now listed as a category to be included on the Annual
Security Report.
Hate Crimes
Any offense which involves bodily injury which manifests evidence that the
victim was intentionally selected because of the perpetrator’s bias based on the following
categories: race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin or disability
(Ward & Lee, 2005).
Hazing
Refers to any activity expected of someone joining a group (or to maintain full
status in a group) that humiliates, degrades or risks emotional and/or physical harm,
regardless of the person's willingness to participate (Hollmann, 2002).

14
Illegal Weapons Possession/Drug Law Violations/Liquor Law Violations
The Clery Act requires institutions to report arrests based on violations of local,
state and national law and not based on institutional policies (Ward & Lee, 2005). The
Clery Act requires institutions to both disclose the number of persons who are both
referred to for disciplinary action and those who are involved in a formal arrest.
Motor Vehicle Theft
The theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle (Ward & Lee, 2005).
Negligent Manslaughter
Any death caused by gross negligence (Ward & Lee, 2005).
North Central Texas
A geographic region generally perceived to include the “DFW Metroplex,” which
includes the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth and all immediate surrounding communities
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2003).
On Campus
Any building or property owned or controlled by an institution within the same
reasonably contiguous geographic area and used by the institution in direct support of, or
in a manner related to, the institution’s educational purposes, including residence halls
(Ward & Lee, 2005).
Robbery
The taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or
control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the
victim in fear (Ward & Lee, 2005).

15
Clery Center for Security on Campus (CCSC)
CCSC is a national non-profit campus security organization geared to the
prevention of college and university campus crime, and crime victim assistance (Clery
Center for Security on Campus, 1987). CCSC also provides educational programming to
instruct both students and administrators in the proper methods of campus crime
reporting.
Sexual Assault
Means an offense classified as a forcible or nonforcible sex offense under the
uniform crime reporting system of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the
Violence Against Women Act, which was renewed on March 7, 2013 by President
Obama (Baker & Kraemer, 2013).
Sex Offenses
For sex offenses only, definitions from the FBI’s National Incident-Based
Reporting System (NIBRS) Edition of the Universal Crime Reporting Handbook (UCR)
are used. These offenses are separated into two categories: forcible and non-forcible.
These terms are incorporated in the Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting (Ward &
Lee, 2005) which is the guidebook for Clery Act compliance and provides definitions,
examples and guidelines for crime statistics reporting.
Sex Offense-Forcible
Any sexual act directed against another person, forcibly and/or against that
person’s will; or not forcibly or against the person’s will where the victim is incapable of
giving consent (Ward & Lee, 2005).

16
Sex Offense-Non-Forcible
Incidents include unlawful, non-forcible sexual intercourse which would include
both incest and statutory rape (Ward & Lee, 2005). Sexual harassment, voyeurism and
indecent exposure are not reportable offenses under the Clery Act.
Stalking
A term commonly used to refer to unwanted, obsessive attention by individuals
directed to others. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment, intimidation and would
cause a reasonable person to (a) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others; or (b)
suffer substantial emotional distress (Baker & Kraemer, 2013). Often, the purpose of
stalking is to attempt to force a relationship with someone who is unwilling or otherwise
unavailable. Unlike other crimes, which usually involve one act, stalking is a series of
actions that occur over a period of time (Ward & Lee, 2005). The term “stalking” was
given a higher priority under the reaffirmed Violence Against Women Act of 2013 (42
U.S. Code § 13925) and is now listed as a category to be included on the Annual Security
Report.
Student Affairs
This term represents an area in the field of higher education that concentrates on
the development of the whole student; especially focusing on out-of-classroom
experiences on a college campus (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005). The
chief student affairs officer who oversees the Student Affairs office may have the title of
either Dean of Students or Vice President for Student Services (Jablonski, McClellen, &
Zdziarski, 2008).

17
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 provides background on the Clery Act and its impact on various
campus departments and a brief overview on how the Clery Act has been amended since
it was first signed into law. Chapter 2 includes a review of the existing literature on the
Clery Act and how researchers have studied the law as applied to higher education
stakeholders. With the prevailing literature being heavily slanted toward the quantitative
perspective, the chapter will also address the need for current research to look at a
qualitative approach to the central phenomenon of whether or not students utilize the
available data provided by institutions of higher education as part of the college choice
and matriculation process. Chapter 3 provides the nature of the study, purposeful
sampling technique, research design, and procedures. Chapter 4 is used to describe the
findings from the interviews. Chapter 5 is used to interpret the research findings and put
forth the researcher’s conclusions. In addition, the researcher proposes suggestions for
future studies and implications on how institutions of higher education can more fully
comply with Clery Act posting requirements and educational programming requirements.

18
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The issue of campus safety has been a concern for university administrators for
many years, particularly with the decline of in loco parentis during the 1960s (Griffin,
2006). Under the premise of in loco parentis, the university assumed responsibility for
the safety and security of its students. During the 1970s and 1980s, several independent
movements emerged as a result of in loco parentis for various reasons such as the
feminist movement and rape-law reform. However, the movement collectively began to
narrow its focus on the growing issue of campus crime (Fisher, Hartman, Cullen, &
Turner, 2002).
One area of concern for college administrators is the extent of crime on campuses.
The results of a study conducted by the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) of
the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics in 1995 and repeated again in
2000, showed campus crimes relatively low compared to non-campus violence (Carr,
2005). The NCVS studies showed 2.2 million students age 18 to 24 were enrolled as full-
time or part-time students in higher education. The NCVS studies showed 479,000
crimes of violence were directed at college students in the categories of sexual assault,
rape, robbery, aggravated assault and simple assault (Carr, 2005). One in four of these
crimes involved either a weapon or injury to the college victim. In these crimes, it was
estimated either drug use or the influence of alcohol was involved in 40% of the campus
crimes. An interesting fact found in the two studies showed college students were less
likely to report the crime against them than non-students.
In 1994, the Department of Education published its first report on campus crimes
(Walton, 2002); the overall rate of crime on college campus occurred at an incident rate

19
of 65 per 100,000 students. In a 1999 Department of Education report, data from 6,300
public and private institutions of higher education that 19% of crimes by and against
college students occurred while on campus, while 73% of these crimes occurred while the
student was off campus (Walton, 2002).
Two trends currently being observed on college campuses are the increase in
alcohol violations and the decrease in hate-crime related incidents (Dervarics, 2006). In
the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Crime Report (2010), the number of
students arrested for alcohol related offenses rose 10 percent between 2003 and 2004 to
more than 34,000 students. The National Crime Report consisted of data presented by
state with institutions presented in alphabetical order. In addition to the enrollment
numbers given for each institution, the following data statistics were presented: violent
crime, murder/non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault,
property crimes, burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft and arson (Federal Bureau of
Investigation, National Crime Report, 2010). In less serious crimes where an arrest was
not involved, a marked increase of 176,929 violations were reported; an increase of
12,000 from the previous year and an increase of 28,000 since 2002.
While alcohol related violations have significantly increased on college campuses,
hate crimes have decreased (Dervarics, 2006). In 2004, 20 aggravated hate related crimes
were reported, compared to 168 in 2002. The statistics for forcible sex offenses, which
were classified as hate crimes, dropped from 56 to 0 in the same 2-year period.
Under pressure from watchdog groups such as the Clery Center for Security on
Campus, the federal government began to force colleges and universities to not only
increase awareness of campus crime, but to keep statistics on crimes as they occur on

20
campus (Gregory & Janosik, 2006). The primary drive behind the government’s move
was the brutal sexual assault and murder of a Lehigh University student, Jeanne Clery,
whose assault took place in her residence hall room.
Jeanne Clery’s family was moved to action by founding the Clery Center for
Security on Campus, which in turn led to the landmark passage of state-level legislation
to address the issue of victimization on college campuses (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner,
2002). With Pennsylvania taking the lead, sixteen other states enacted laws related to
campus crime reporting requirements. Congress passed the federal Crime Awareness and
Campus Security Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-542), which allowed the federal
government to take the lead over states in mandating campus statistics be kept (Janosik &
Gregory, 2003). Title II of this Act is known as the Crime Awareness and Campus
Security Act of 1990, and has subsequently been amended and expanded from its original
intention. The purpose behind the legislation was two-fold (Janosik & Gregory, 2003).
First, it was hoped the law would provide information so prospective students and their
parents could view specific crime statistics and crime logs and make informed decisions
regarding choice of colleges. Second, by having access to informed information about a
specific campus, prospective students could make informed decisions regarding their
personal choice of college.
The Clery Act has had a major impact on college and university campuses. While
the Clery Act is acknowledged to have had an impact, the depth of that impact may not
be fully recognized. The intent here is to review literature directly related to the impact
of the Clery Act and its implementation on campus by various campus departments and
employees entrusted with compliance. As the law has evolved, with additional

21
requirements being added to the required reporting, so have institutions of higher
education responded by the means in which they respond to both perceived and real
threats to their community (Rund, 2002).
With 20 years of enforcement on the books, one question that is being asked of
college administrators is do crime statistics keep students safe? Lipka (2009) maintained
that many administrators are required to produce labor-intensive reports, but data are
lacking on whether or not the data are utilized by the intended audience, prospective
students, or their parents. Lipka (2009) compared two campuses relatively close in
proximity and in size by student enrollment. Lipka (2009) reported that the University of
New Orleans listed a single aggravated assault in 2007 while nearby Tulane University
reported 24. Other examples given by Lipka included the University of California at
Davis that reported 62 forcible-sex offences, while the other nine campuses reported
between 0 and 22. The University of California at Davis campus total exceeded the
entire nine other campuses combined. Would a prospective student or parent make a
decision to eliminate the University of California at Davis as a possible campus to
investigate for matriculation because of these numbers? Lipka reported that the
University of California at Davis may actually be the safer of the campuses because it has
implemented an aggressive program to encourage victims to come forward. The
University of California at Davis has a 30-year old campus wide initiative called
Violence Prevention Program which reached, through various programs and services,
22,000 out of 30,000 students enrolled.
Lipka (2009) also reported on the perceived confusion college administrators have
regarding the Clery Act. Campus officials have expressed concern and frustration over

22
the lack of published guidelines in the reporting history of the law. From 1990, when the
law went into effect, until 2005, the Department of Education did not publish guidelines
on how to comply with the Clery Act. In 2005 the Department of Education published
the Clery Act handbook after the Clery Center for Security on Campus, the 401c
watchdog group founded by the Clery family, was successful in lobbying Congress for
$750,000 to appropriate the funding to publish the handbook. At 216 pages, the
handbook still created some confusion due to the nature of the definitions contained
within the manuscript.
In order to strive for consistency, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE)
enlisted the assistance of Westat, which manages compliance of the Clery Act for the
Department of Education (Lipka, 2009). Westat, founded in 1963, is an employee-owned
company which provides research services to various governmental agencies, including
the DOE, and is based in Rockville, MD (Westat.com). Westat has developed a two-
prong approach for the DOE. First, a help desk has been opened to assist postsecondary
institutions in completing required reports. Second, Westat researches and prepares the
Campus Crime Statistics Handbook and conducts training sessions (Lipka, 2009).
Questions are numerous; from August to December of 2008, for example, Westat’s help
desk received 984 emails and 5,696 phone calls asking for clarification on how to
accurately submit a Clery Act report. Even with ample clarification from the Department
of Education, the department found since mid-1994 that 560 out of the approximately
6,000 colleges and universities (or roughly 9%) were found to be in violation of the Clery
Act (Gips, 2004).

23
While the Clery Act was written into law with the intent to assist both students
and parents in making a more informed decision on where to attend, most of the attention
has been directed at the student side of the issue. In What Families Think: Campus
Safety, Greene and Greene (2008) addressed the parents’ side of the issue by suggesting
that institutions of higher education be more diligent in providing information and data to
parents. Greene and Greene also noted that the issue of campus violence is being shaped
as a response to suicidal, homicidal and armed attackers. In their perspective, Greene and
Greene concluded this gives a very limited view on what takes place on a college campus
and encouraged colleges and universities to develop a long-range plan which should
consist of four components. The first component of the proposed long-range plan is to
make data available in the form of accurate data reported to the Department of Education
and to make this data easily accessible to parents and perspective students. The second
component of the long-range plan is to share resources. In this phase, the institution
promotes its resources on combating violence and makes crisis information available to
parents and students. In the third component, Greene and Greene suggested institutions
be realistic with parents. In this component, Greene and Greene suggested that
institutions share with parents what an institution can and cannot do to keep students safe.
The final component of the long-range plan as proposed by Greene and Greene is to
educate families on the risk students face on a college campus. This educational
component can range from the detrimental health risk of alcohol/drug use, to self-
inflicted harm such as suicide and anorexia to how to protect personal property such as
stereos, music players and other items college students bring to campus. The educational
component also includes a list of questions which parents should ask of an institution

24
regarding its particular crime statistic: are the residence halls safe, how safe is the
neighborhood, where do students hang out, what type of transportation is available to
students, and who monitors students’ activities?
Studies Related to Campus Law Enforcement
Violence on a college campus is a significant concern for campus police chiefs.
Much of that concern can be directed to weapons on campus, particularly firearm and
weapons related violence. Thompson, Price, Mrdjenovich, and Khubchandani (2009)
reported few studies have been conducted on violent events on college campuses, and
they do refer to an early study conducted by Leichliter & Presley conducted in 1998. The
Leichliter & Presley (1998) study was not only rare in that it was conducted, but rare in
the sense the researchers were some of the first to question college students regarding the
types of weapons they carried on campus. Leichliter & Presley, found 11% of male
students and 4% of female students reported carrying a gun, knife or club while on
campus. The study did not break out the percentages for the various types of weapons,
only the percentage of students who carried such items.
The Clery Act has impacted many offices on a college campus, but few have been
impacted as significantly as the Office of Campus Safety and the subsequent law
enforcement that takes place on a campus. Yet, little research has been directed at this
office that holds the responsibility and not only implements the provisions of the Clery
Act, but also compiles crime and safety statistics as required by the law (Janosik &
Gregory, 2003). Steven Janosik of Virginia Tech and Dennis Gregory of Old Dominion
University (2003) researched the impact of the law on this specific campus agency in a
quantitative study. In the study, the two researchers sought to fill a research gap in regard

25
to admissions procedures, student college choice decision-making, and student behavior.
Janosik and Gregory (2003) utilized the following questions to guide their research: How
has the Act changed the nature of law enforcement on campus?; How are institutions
distributing the mandated reports?; Has the Act had any impact on reducing crime?; Do
campus law enforcement officials perceive the Act to have influenced student behavior?;
And do they believe other campus administrators are hiding campus crime?
The methodology of the quantitative study involved corresponding with 944
senior campus law enforcement officials who were members of the International
Association for College Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA) and whose
institutions were covered by the Clery Act. A questionnaire was mailed to each of the
944 identified as the target population, with two email reminders sent 10 days apart. A
total of 371 IACLEA members returned the questionnaire for a response rate of 39%
(Janosik & Gregory, 2003).
The resulting demographic data found 42% worked at colleges or universities
with enrollments of 5,000 or fewer students, and 58% being from a large institution.
Sixty-two percent worked at state institutions and 38% were employed at private
institutions. In responding to the five major questions, the study found 57% of the
officers perceived the Clery Act had been either effective or very effective in improving
the campus crime reporting procedures. In regard to distributing the required Clery Act
data to the campus body, the study indicated private institutions were more likely to
distribute via campus mail, while state institutions were more likely to distribute
electronically. When asked if the Clery Act had helped to reduce crime, 70% of the
respondents reported crime had remained relatively constant since passage of the Act.

26
When asked if the Act had influenced campus behavior, only 10% responded
affirmatively that the information helped students change the way they protect
themselves or their personal property. Seventy-six percent of the respondents did not feel
the distributed materials allowed students to have any additional confidence in campus
police. In addressing whether or not the respondents perceived that campus
administrators were hiding campus crime, the response was an overwhelming 91.5% that
no such activities were taking place on their campus.
In another quantitative study, Griffith, Hueston, Wilson and Moyers (2004) from
Shippensburg University aimed to study a specific campus police department. The
purpose of the study was to conduct an assessment of student perceptions regarding
campus safety. The methodology involved sending out 2,400 surveys to students from
West Texas A&M University in Canyon, Texas. A total of 577 surveys were returned for
a return rate of 24% overall. In the results, 25% of the respondents said they were a
victim of a crime, and of that total, 81% reported the crime to the campus police. The
survey asked respondents to rate the campus police department on 10 dimensions:
concern, knowledge, solving your problem, putting you at ease, helpfulness, fairness,
response time, professional conduct, neatness of appearance and overall performance.
The items were rated on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being very good and 5 being very
bad. A series of true/false questions also addressed overall perception of campus safety.
The students had an overwhelming response to the perception of safety: 85% believed
West Texas A&M was much safer than other campuses. A slight majority of 55%
responded that there was an alcohol abuse problem on this specific campus, and 35%
believed there to be a significant drug abuse problem on campus as well. The majority,

27
86%, reported that the campus police department cared about them as individuals, and
88% felt comfortable with calling for emergency assistance.
In a comparison study, Peak, Barthe, and Garcia (2008) compared the findings of
a 2006 study with a similar study published in 1987. The earlier study was conducted
before the passage of the Clery Act in 1990. The purpose of the study was to examine
the effects of various change agents which have helped shape campus law enforcement
over the past twenty years. The original survey was conducted by Kenneth Peak in 1986
and involved a questionnaire containing 35 items and 75 variables. Of the 697
questionnaires mailed out, 564 were returned for a response rate of 82%. The new survey
was distributed to 672 agency members of the International Association of Campus Law
Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA). Unlike the original survey which was mailed,
the new survey was sent via email. Of the 672 agencies that received the survey, 229
respondents returned their survey for a 34% response rate.
The findings of the 2006 study (Peak et al. 2008) closely mirrored the 1986
sample: The new study showed the average number of students at the responding
agency’s campus was 10,300 with an average faculty of 584 and 1,181 staff members.
The original 1986 study showed an average campus size of 10,937, with 753 faculty and
1,247 staff. One interesting finding in the new study was an increase of 62% in use of the
term “police department,” and a decrease of 65% in use of the term “security office” or
“security department.” The new study showed a decrease of 3% of white males being the
chief; dropping from 87% to 84%, and a decrease of 10% of men on the force by
dropping from 97% to 87%.

28
The study showed a significant change in the sense of responsibilities once the
Clery Act was passed (Peak et al. 2008). Peak’s (1987) study showed the top five
ranking law enforcement activities to be: parking, crime prevention, investigations,
public events coordination and planning. The 2006 survey showed the top five ranking
law enforcement activities to be: investigations, crime prevention, parking, training and
Clery Act crime reporting.
The study also examined the manner in which the Clery Act has impacted current
campus policy operations (Peak et al. 2008). When queried about campus crime requests,
75% of the respondents indicated they had to fulfill one to three requests a month and
10% indicated they fulfilled four to six requests per month. The amount of time required
in completing the necessary reporting associated with the Clery Act also varied
considerably: 20% responded it took them an hour or less per month; 56% reported 1 to 5
hours per month; 11% reported 6 to 10 hours and 13% reported more than 10 hours per
month. No respondents indicated they represented an institution that had been fined for
non-compliance.
With firearms being used in the majority of college related suicides and
homicides, another study investigated police chiefs’ perceptions and practices to
determine if fire-arm related violence could be reduced (Thompson, Price, Mrdjenovich,
& Khubchandani, 2009). With campus violence on the minds of students, faculty, staff
and parents, yet little research has been conducted into the circumstances leading up to a
violent act. Campus police chiefs have a unique sense of responsibility to protect the
campus community, particularly in light of highly publicized events such as the Virginia
Tech shooting. Mindful of this, the researchers wanted to investigate the various

29
procedures implemented by police chiefs to reduce violence on their respective
campuses.
Thompson et al. (2009) developed a four page, 43-item questionnaire which was
distributed to the Directory of IACLEA members. The survey was designed to determine
practices and perceptions within American institutions of higher education; therefore,
individuals outside the United States were eliminated. The questionnaire was distributed
only to those who had the title of Chief of Police or Director of Campus Security. Of 600
questionnaires mailed to the campus police, 417 (70%) were returned between two
mailings. The demographics showed the predominance of males (89%) as being Chiefs
of Police. The questionnaire showed campus police forces to number, on average, 21
officers per campus, and the average size campus of the respondents was 10,764 students.
The average service length for the Chief of Police was found to be 21 years inclusive as a
police officer.
Respondents rated their level of agreement on a Likert-scale. The questions were
designed to assess three areas: opinions concerning the role various administrative groups
have, current practices at the respondent’s campus, and barriers that hinder
implementation of safety related practices. Sample questions ranged from “should
campus police be called and included when dealing with an active shooter on campus?”
to “has your campus police met with either local or state police to inform them of your
campus response policies?” The response rate to this letter had a response rate of 93% in
the strongly agree column and 7% in the agree column. A particular question addressed
the issue of whether a student who brought a firearm to campus should be expelled with
zero tolerance. Fifty-three percent of the chiefs of police strongly agreed with the

30
statement, 30% agreed with only 9% disagreeing and 2% strongly disagreeing. One
question asked “if students were allowed to carry concealed firearms on campus, would
this prevent some or all campus killings?” Only 2% responded with a strongly agree, 3%
with an agree statement, but 25% reported disagreeing with the prospect of allowing
students to have concealed firearms and 61% strongly disagreed.
A section of the questionnaire also addressed specific campus policies and
activities regarding firearms. In this section, the chiefs responded that 97% of college
campuses represented had policies that prohibited firearms. In a question that asked “if
an active shooter is identified on campus, does your campus have a means or policy to
notify the campus?” there was a 92% affirmative response. On the reverse side, the
respondents were asked if their faculty had undergone training to react to an active
shooter on campus; the respondents reported only 32% of campuses had such training.
The question that received the lowest percentage of agreement involved if faculty were
trained on identifying troubled or distressed students, how to inform and how to make
referrals; only 30% of the respondents agreed that faculty had so been trained.
The last section of the questionnaire asked Chiefs of Police their perceptions
regarding barriers on campus to firearm related safety and management. Forty-six
percent said firearms violence was not perceived as being a problem on campus. Twenty
percent responded that the administration did not perceive firearm violence as an
important issue on campus at this time. Twelve percent responded to apprehension over
stereotyping “at risk” students.
However, there were some disturbing results of the survey which showed nearly
one fourth (24%) of the police chiefs perceived their police officers were not adequately

31
trained to handle an active shooter on campus situation. A second perception is that 62%
of the police chiefs felt long-term financial support for countering firearm violence on
campus did not exist. The results of the survey appeared to support the belief that
firearm violence was increasing on campuses. When asked if a firearm related incident
had occurred within the last year, 25% responded affirmatively; when asked if a firearm
incident had occurred on their campus within the last five years, 35% responded
affirmatively (Thompson et al., 2009).
The Thompson et al. (2009) study found nearly a fourth of campus police officers
were perceived by their chiefs to not be adequately trained; a second study by Wada
(2007) examined the issue of perceived legitimacy of being a police officer. The study
was a mixed-method, two-phased study in which Wada (2007) interviewed campus
police officers at Washington State University for the qualitative phase of the study. The
campus police officer interviews were then used to develop the hypothesis regarding how
these officers felt the campus perceived them being “real” police officers. From these
interviews, two surveys were developed; the first measured student perceptions regarding
campus police and the other regarding perceptions directed at city police officers.
Surveys were sent to 593 undergraduate students to confirm perceptions regarding
campus police versus city police. The student surveys provided the quantitative portion of
the data to test the hypothesis which was developed in the qualitative phase (Wada,
2007). The results of the study indicated the students have a lower sense of legitimacy
for campus police when compared to city police. During the qualitative portion of the
study, the campus officers confirmed through their interviews they felt “marginalized”

32
and that the campus community views them more as security guards rather than the
certified and licensed police officers they are (Wada, 2007).
Studies Related to Why Campuses Do Not Comply with the Clery Act
Full compliance with the Clery Act can have many impediments as to why
institutions do not fully observe the law (Nachbar, 2009). However, with the law being
enforced for approximately 20 years, the Department of Education has increased not only
its diligence in forcing compliance but also the monetary fines associated with non-
compliance (Herrmann, 2008). Eastern Michigan University was fined a record amount
for failing to comply with various aspects of the Clery Act (Herrmann, 2008). In this
particular case, a student was found dead in her residence hall, yet the university failed to
send out a timely warning to the campus community, even though the death was
suspicious (Katel, 2011). Two months later when another student was charged with the
young woman’s sexual assault and murder, the University admitted that the crimes
occurred on campus.
The largest penalty on record was levied against Eastern Michigan University
with a fine of $357,500, representing 13 individual fines of $27,500 (Herrmann, 2008). In
addition to the fines levied, Eastern Michigan University president John Fallon, Safety
Director Cindy Hall and Vice President for Student Affairs James Vick were forced to
resign (Katel, 2011). The fines and resignations resulted in the fact that Eastern Michigan
University initially failed to issue a campus warning, which is a violation of the Clery Act
(Katel, 2011). The Department of Education (DOE) looked into four main violations:
failure to provide timely warnings; lack of administrative capability; lack of a timely
warning policy; and failure to maintain a campus crime log.

33
While the fine levied against Eastern Michigan University was the largest in the
history of the DOE’s enforcement, other smaller fines show a determined effort to
enforce the law. Three other institutions of higher education have recently come under
scrutiny by the Department of Education (Lipka, 2011). Since collaborating with the
FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services in October 2008, the Department of
Education has reviewed the crime statistics for 32 campuses, including the University of
Vermont, the University of Northern Iowa, and Washington State University (Lipka,
2011). The University of Vermont was cited for not reporting 20 anonymously reported
sex offenses filed by the University’s Women’s Center. Both the University of Vermont
and the University of Northern Iowa were cited for not having adequate policy statements
addressing the dissemination of “timely warnings” for reported crimes and for not
allowing accused students the opportunity to have an advocate in a sexual offense judicial
hearing (Lipka, 2011). The University of Northern Iowa was also cited for inaccurately
listing the number of alcohol violations which occurred on campus. The institution listed
the 40 infractions which occurred on the general campus, but failed to list the 367 which
occurred within the residence halls (Lipka, 2011).
Washington State University misclassified two forcible-sex offenses as well as
failed to provide to the campus community campus-safety policies (Lipka, 2011). All
three universities were awaiting word if they will be fined for these Clery Act violations.
However, in August 2011, the Department of Education (DOE) fined Washington State
University $82,500 for failing to disclose two sexual assaults in its 2007 Campus Crime
report (Keller, 2011). This particular fine stems from the DOE’s decision to conduct
random reviews of crime data and review campus safety procedures associated with the

34
Clery Act requirements. The two sexual assault cases involved a woman who reported to
campus police she had been sexually assaulted by an acquaintance of her husband
(Keller, 2011). This case was misclassified as a domestic violence dispute and not a
forcible sex offense. The university later acknowledged the mistake. The second
incident involved a student reporting a sexual assault in a campus residence hall (Keller,
2011). Upon investigation, a records manager later decided the case had no merit and
dismissed the accusations. A determination of this nature can only come from a law
enforcement official (Keller, 2011).
The reasons behind the failure to comply led McNeal (2007) to launch a study to
examine the main reasons behind an institution’s unwillingness to comply with the law.
McNeal utilized the members of IACLEA as the respondents in compliance related
survey. The online survey was distributed to members of IACLEA’s listserve. Of the
400 members who were sent the questionnaire, 221 returned the survey for a response
rate of 53%. The 20-item questionnaire was designed around a 5-point Likert scale. The
analysis showed six factors emerged as reasons possibly impacting compliance:
external/internal influences, clarity, structural issues/adequate funding, increased
compliance efforts, collecting crime statistics, and institutional support.
The analysis showed campus law enforcement administrators believed either the
lack of funding or lack of institutional support were key reasons for Clery Act non-
compliance. A significant number of respondents, 66%, reported that they either strongly
agree or agreed somewhat that institutional lack of support makes compliance difficult.
A total of 86% of the respondents either strongly agreed or agreed somewhat that the
instructions that describe what areas to report were vague. A total of 77% of the

35
respondents agreed that additional training directed at understanding the Clery Act would
increase compliance.
Two year institutions are not exempt from complying with the Clery Act
requirements (Callaway, Gehring, & Douthett, 2000). One particular requirement
mandates institutions provide every student and employee a summary of campus crime
statistics. In a study to determine compliance on the part of two-year institutions, a
sample was taken from a commercial list of 1,473 community colleges listed in the
United States. The community college population consisted of 501 (34%) private
institutions and 972 (66%) public institutions (Callaway et al. 2000). The private school
sample included church-affiliated, independent, and proprietary colleges.
The sample was derived by selecting every tenth mailing label obtained from the
commercial list. A total of 143 institutions located in 45 different states, Puerto Rico, and
the Marshall Islands were selected for the study. A postcard was mailed to the selected
institutions requesting admissions information. During the 6-week period of data
collecting, a total of 117 (81.8%) of the 143 institutions responded; only 26 (22.2%) of
the institutions provided material related to complying with the Clery Act (Callaway et al.
2000).
Public two-year colleges were classified as local, state, or state/local. These three
combined categories represented 90 (76.9%) of the 117 responding institutions (Callaway
et al. 2000). Of the reporting institutions, the state/local campuses represented 26
(22.2%) of the responding campuses, but only 4 (15.3%) provided required material. The
local only campuses represented 13 (11.1%) responses, with only 2 (7.6%) providing the
required material. Private schools represented 10 (8.5%) of the 117 institutions, and only

36
2 (7.6%) provided any required material. Church affiliated two-year campuses
represented 5 (4.3%) responses, with 0 (0.0%) private, church-affiliated campuses
providing the required material. Proprietary campuses represented 10 (8.5%) of the
responses, with only 2 (7.6%) providing the required information.
Callaway et al. (2000) concluded with several observations from their study.
First, only 6% of the collective respondents complied with the federal requirement to
provide campus crime information. Callaway et al. deduced that these institutions are
unaware of the change in the Clery Act or that the institutions were unwilling to comply
with the law due to prohibitive costs. The researchers noted that the printed material they
received from the two-year institutions could easily be adapted to comply with the
regulation. The researchers concluded that failure to comply could jeopardize all federal
student financial aid money if Congress concludes non-compliance is occurring on a
wide-scale basis or if failure to comply with the Clery Act placed institutions under
federal scrutiny in which all aspects of campuses’ operations and management can be
examined.
The federal government has begun to seriously examine the issue of Clery Act
compliance. In a 1997 General Accounting Office audit, 23 out of 25 institutions were
found not to be in compliance with Clery Act guidelines (Walton, 2002). The areas
which appear to be the least properly reported were the categories of rape and assault
(Walton, 2002). After this audit was submitted to Congress, actions were taken to
strengthen and revise the Campus Security Act of 1990, and the new amendments took
effect in 1998.

37
Studies Related to Residence Life
With the murder of Jeanne Clery occurring in her residence hall room at Lehigh
University, these specific facilities have been placed under a great deal of scrutiny.
Because one requirement of the Clery Act is to include residence hall crime statistics,
these facilities have attracted the specific interest of researchers. In a quantitative study,
Gregory and Janosik (2006) looked at senior residence life administrators and examined
their awareness of the Clery Act along with various other levels of knowledge and
compliance. The methodology of the study was to send surveys to 832 U.S. members of
the Association of College and University Housing Officers-International (ACUHO-I)
who were considered the member institutions’ senior residence life and student housing
officers. The survey was distributed via email, and after 2 weeks, a reminder email was
sent with a second reminder 10 days after the first. A total of three attempts were made
to solicit a completed survey.
The survey by Gregory and Janosik (2006) contained 33 items addressed by six
research questions: (1) Do senior residence life staff perceive students to be influenced by
crime statistics? (2) Are residence life officials and students aware of the Clery Act? (3)
Has the Clery Act had an impact on changing student perceptions? (4) Do senior
residence life professionals perceive their campuses being safe? (5) Do these
professionals perceive the Clery Act has reduced campus crime? (6) Do residence life
professionals believe other campus officials are hiding campus crime?
Of the 832 surveys Gregory and Janosik (2006) sent, a total of 335 respondents
returned their surveys for a 40% response rate. Regarding the first question addressing
whether students utilize data to make an informed choice, three quarters (75%) of the

38
respondents did not know an answer to the question. Only 9% believed the data had an
influence; however, 16% believed the information did not have any influence on a
student’s decision. When asked about whether they were aware of the Clery Act and its
requirements, the response rate was 98% to the affirmative. Eighty-five percent also
believed that students at their institutions were provided copies of or at least directions on
where to find the annual crime statistics.
Gregory and Janosik (2006) found, when asked if the Clery Act had changed a
student’s perception or behavior, particularly when protecting their personal property,
15% reported a positive change had occurred, 55% perceived no change had occurred,
and 27% indicated they did not know. When asked if the respondents believed their
campus to be safe, 97% believed their campus to be either safe or very safe. The
remaining 3% believed their campuses to be either unsafe or very unsafe. When asked
about whether the Clery Act had reduced crime, 48% responded they lacked enough
information to make an informed decision, 47% responded that they had not seen any
noticeable reduction in the crime rate, and only 5% indicated a noticeable drop in the
campus crime rate. The last research question in the study focused on whether housing
administrators believed other campus officials were hiding campus crime. Ninety-one
percent of the respondents reported their fellow campus administrators had been open in
discussing campus crime; 7% believed that administrators had not been open; and 2% did
not know.
Study Related to Clery Act Compliance: Timely Warnings
In addition to requiring campus crime statistics, the Clery Act also requires
institutions to notify the campus population of a crime or a serious threat (Jeanne Clery

39
Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act of 1998). In an
effort to research the Act’s effect at one particular campus, the University of California at
Los Angeles (UCLA), Greenstein (2003) conducted a two-part mixed method study. The
first part of the study included querying campus members who participated through
questionnaires and focus groups. The second part of the study involved distributing
questionnaires and interviews with national campus safety administrators and upper level
executives of UCLA. Approximately 100 students and university staff responded to
questionnaires. Faculty members of the UCLA campus did not participate.
Greenstein (2003) concluded that female students responded to timely warnings
much differently than male students, 75% to 26%, respectively. Results for female staff
reactions were much the same as the students with 93% of female staff reacting to
warnings as compared to only 38% for male staff. A second finding was the need to
avoid creating undue fear on campus. There was an interesting difference between the
group completing the questionnaire and the focus group. The group completing the
questionnaire commented timely warnings posted on bulletin boards have the potential to
cause undue fear on campus. The focus group acknowledged the significance of the
emotion “fear” in helping reinforce and sustain the importance of the message
(Greenstein, 2003). The third important finding was both the group completing the
questionnaire and the focus group which was interviewed preferred receiving campus
warnings at a 96% agreement rate.
The consequences of failing to respond to a campus-wide emergency could force
the DOE to intercede and levy fines (Weeks, 2011). In the case of the attack at Virginia
Tech that left 32 faculty, staff and students dead, the DOE cited the institution on two

40
counts: failure to give adequate notice to the campus community and failure to follow
their emergency polices (Weeks, 2011). In regards to the first count, the DOE noted in
this particular case, the shootings took place at two different locations and separated by a
time span of over two hours. When the first shooting occurred at 7:15 a.m., university
police responded to the incident, secured the scene and finally notified the campus at 9:26
a.m. that a shooter was on campus. The DOE maintained the 2-hour lapse was far too
long in responding since an assailant had not been apprehended, the weapon had not been
secured and the unidentified gunman posed an ongoing threat to the campus community
(Weeks, 2011). The DOE found this was of particular note because the three - hour time-
frame covered the time the majority of the institution’s students would either be on their
way to class or would already be on campus attending class. The university responded in
a 72-page report in response to the DOE’s charges once its own investigation was
completed (Weeks, 2011). In the report, the University responded that the Clery Act
provisions for campus-notification were vague and did not specify a specific time-frame
for action (Weeks, 2011). With the Virginia Tech attack occurring in 2007, the DOE did
modify and clarify the timely notification provisions of the Clery Act in 2008 (Weeks,
2011).
In reviewing the criticism received by Virginia Tech regarding responding in a
more timely manner, that very campus can be viewed as an example of how difficult it is
to develop a comprehensive warning system (Kennedy, 2007). With over 26,000
students, it is very unlikely that any one form of warning will reach the entire campus
community: some may be in classrooms, other napping, others in the library and others
out strolling across the campus. In a rush to create products to be comprehensive in

41
nature to alert campus communities, companies have developed multi-faceted approaches
(Kennedy, 2007). Many of the products can alert on multi-levels i.e., cell phones, office
phone, via text messages and via email (Kennedy, 2007). Communication is viewed as
the key element in alerting a campus to an imposing threat (Franzosa, 2009). Franzosa
(2009) also noted that this generation of college student is internet driven and will
attempt to search for a website first in order to find crucial information regarding an
incident, therefore, it is imperative that warning systems incorporate warnings on a
campus website. The Virginia Tech tragedy also shed light upon a current student culture
that has largely moved exclusively to mobile forms of communication and abandoned
land lines and prefer text over voice messages (Rasmussen & Johnson, 2008).
Studies Related to Student Behavior and Campus Judicial Affairs
Student behavior can be challenging on many levels; it can also be a source of
data collected for the Clery Act (Stoner, 2000). Student behavior on a college campus is
often dealt with by the judicial affairs office; thus, the areas of student behavior and risk
management are often closely associated (Sokolow, 2001). Two studies, both conducted
in 2003, looked at the area of effect of the Clery Act on both student behavior and on
judicial practices (Gregory & Janosik, 2003; Janosik & Gehring, 2003).
The first study researched student behavior and examined this issue on a national
basis by having 305 college administrators distribute 9,150 questionnaires to
undergraduate students (Janosik & Gehring, 2003). The quantitative study was designed
to assess students’ knowledge of the Clery Act and subsequent impact on their behavior.
The questionnaire included five research questions which addressed the following
concerns: (1) students’ awareness of the Campus Crime Awareness Act, (2) students’ use

42
of the information to make decisions about college, (3) students’ use of other forms of
crime information or programs to inform themselves about crime, (4) students’ access to
other information changed the way they protected themselves, and (5) likelihood that
information available increased reporting a crime.
The methodology included contacting 1,024 voting delegates from the National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). The organization provided a
mailing list of 998 voting members, of which 305 administrators agreed to participate for
a 30.6% participation rate. The administrators were asked to draw a random stratified
sample of 30 students from their institutions for inclusion in the study. The student
sample total was 9,150 participants. Of the 9,150 questionnaires sent to students, 3,866
or 42% were returned in what the researchers considered to be useable condition.
Women accounted for 59% of the respondents, compared to 41% men.
The results of the study showed that students were largely unaware of the Clery
Act. Only 27% of the respondents indicated they knew of the law’s existence. Less than
a quarter of the respondents, 24% said they were aware of their institution’s security
report. An equal number, 24%, said they had read the report. In regard to the Clery Act
being enacted as to assist in making an enrollment decision, only 8% said they were
influenced by their campus’ crime report. Based upon the resultant data from the survey,
Janosik and Gehring (2001) stated that the majority of college students remain unaware
of the Clery Act and even fewer students utilize the data to assist in making an informed
decision regarding college choices, both representing key elements as to why the Clery
Act was passed by Congress.

43
In addition to student behavior, the Clery Act has had a wide-spread impact on
campus judicial procedures (Carlson, 2004). Researchers and administrators were so
moved by the implications of the Clery Act that entire judicial procedures were often
changed, and subsequent manuals were developed to ease institutions through the
transition of adapting models which were more in tune with the Clery Act (Sokolow,
2001). However, the true impact and perception of this effect led researchers Gregory
and Janosik (2003) to initiate an additional study which examined the effectiveness of the
Clery Act as it pertained to members of the Association of Student Judicial Affairs
(ASJA). In the quantitative study, Gregory and Janosik surveyed 1,145 members of the
ASJA and reported a return rate of 36.9%. The following three questions guided the
survey: (1) Has the Clery Act changed the nature of student judicial practices? (2) Has
the Clery Act changed the relationship between campus law enforcement and judicial
affairs? And (3) has the Clery Act been effective in achieving its original purpose of
informing students and increasing crime awareness?
In regard to the questionnaire item addressing whether the Clery Act had changed
campus judicial practices, 30% of the respondents reported their case loads had increased.
Almost two thirds of the respondents, 63%, reported their case loads remained the same,
and only 4% reported a reduction in case loads. When asked if the Clery Act had
changed the relationship between campus law enforcement and judicial affairs, 50%
responded the law had brought the two entities closer together. However, 32% responded
the law had not brought their two respective departments closer together, and 17% were
unable to determine if the departments were working closer together.

44
When asked if the Clery Act had been effective in achieving one of its original
purposes of notification of campus crime, 99% of the respondents reported that their
campus was in compliance. When asked if their students were aware of the act, 51%
responded in an affirmative manner. However, 42% responded as unable to determine
their students’ awareness, and 7% suggested their students were not aware of the Clery
Act.
Studies or Concerns Related to Campus Victimization
While the Clery Act has had a profound impact on both the areas of Judicial
Affairs and student behavior, it has also led to research into the area of victimization on
college campuses (Wilcox, Jordan, & Pritchard, 2007). This area is of interest to
researchers because the researchers look not only at the crime committed, but also
examine consequences and effects of such crime on the victims. One of the intentions of
the Clery Act was to heighten social awareness of campus crime and to allow both
students and parents to make a choice of school selection based on available data. One
research study was conducted at a large land-grant institution in the southeastern United
States with a student body in excess of 25,000 students. In this particular study, Wilcox
et al. (2007) collected the data from a sample of 1,010 women who participated in a
telephone survey. The interviews were conducted by a professional interview team hired
by the firm of Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. and involved the use of computer
assisted telephone techniques. The university provided a list of 7,875 telephone numbers
of which a random sample of 1,010 female students was drawn. The overall cooperation
rate was 83.5%, with the average telephone interview lasting 17.5 minutes. The first
portion of the phone survey consisted of general questions directed at fear of crime on

45
campus and then moved to specific types of victimization, such as stalking, sexual abuse
or attack, physical abuse, or attack by either a known offender or a stranger.
The overall results showed 35.7% of the respondents had experiences where they
had been stalked, physically assaulted, or sexually assaulted while enrolled at this
particular campus. Of those responding they were the victims of campus crime, 24.9%
responded they were the victims of a single type of incident. Another 8.7% had
experienced two of the above listed crime categories, and 1.4% had experienced all three
categories. Wilcox et al. (2007) concluded fear among women to be higher than actual
campus crime statistics but also argued that the Clery Act may not be reaching its
intended goal on two accounts. First, Wilcox et al. (2007) suggested the Clery Act may
be more symbolic because certain crimes that are directed at college women, such as
stalking, are not considered part of the report. Secondly, the result showed students may
not be getting accurate information because crimes mostly directed at women come,
largely, from acquaintances sources; however, the Clery Act was initiated largely by
stranger-based, not acquaintance-related, crime statistics.
One of the original intents of the Clery Act was to educate both students and
parents. The review of the literature contained one topic review and two studies that
explored the role the Clery Act has had on perceptions. While the topic review by
Gregory and Janosik (2002) offered a general overview on the perceptions and
effectiveness of the Clery Act, they did list a quantitative study conducted by Janosik
(2001) on student behavior for which the data were collected in 1998. In this early
research on the topic, Janosik surveyed 1,465 students at three public colleges and
universities: a community college, a comprehensive college and a large research

46
university. Administrators on the three campuses were asked to randomly sample 500
students for inclusion in the study. Janosik revealed that at the time the survey was
conducted, 71% of the respondents were unaware of the law, and 94% indicated the law
did not influence their choice of colleges.
Prior to 1988, less than 4% of colleges publicly reported violent campus crime
statistics (McMahon, 2008). Violence, particularly sexual assault against women, has
become a prime concern of institutions of higher education. College campuses provide
unique challenges that complicate the issue of reporting, investigating, and prosecuting
sexual victimization cases (McMahon, 2008). Some of these issues involve the victim
possibly living on campus in close proximity to her attacker, attending the same classes,
and being able to have a chance meeting on campus. The issue of revictimization may
occur when friends of the attacker find out the victim may be pursing legal action through
the police or campus judicial board and then may try to persuade her to change her mind.
Victimization is one of the more difficult areas of violent crime to identify due to
the lack of reporting on the part of the victim (Thompson, Sitterle, Clay, & Kingree,
2007). College female students have lower rates of violence directed towards them, with
an average rate of 30 per 1000 violent encounters compared to 43 per 1000 for non-
college females (Thompson et al. 2007). However, it is believed that only half of all
victims of violent crime report their incident to the police and with college females, it is
estimated that only 2% of such incidents are reported to authorities.
Data derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) indicated
women to be less likely to report violence depending on the category; only 12% of sexual
assaults are likely to be reported, with the reporting rates aggravated assaults at 45% and

47
simple assaults at 30%. The low incident of sexual assaults is believed to come from the
general belief most women on campus are assaulted by intimates or acquaintances, and
they are less likely to report due to this circumstance.
With victimization fast becoming an area of concern for college administrators,
Thompson et al. (2007) developed a survey to determine the extent of victimization. The
survey collecting committee spent four days at a large, southeastern university and
contacted participants through flyers distributed around campus. The students were paid
$10.00 to complete the 30-minute survey. In all, 492 undergraduate female students
participated in the survey which represented approximately 8% of the 5,918 women
enrolled at the campus. The average age of the participants was 19.5 years of age, and
86% of the respondents were white.
In establishing the measures, the researchers utilized the Sexual Experiences
Survey (SES) to assess if the participant had experienced sexual victimization on the
campus (Thompson et al. 2007). The researchers classified women as having been
sexually victimized if any of the four types of victimizations in the SES were indicated.
The SES instrument had specific questions which addressed the four areas: completed
rape, attempted rape, sexual coercion which is listed a verbal pressure or misuse of
authority which led to intercourse and unwanted sexual contact. The respondents said
“yes” 28% of the time and “no” 72% of the time. Thompson et al. (2007) also measured
physical victimization utilizing a 12-item list taken from the Revised Conflict Tactics
Scales (CTS2). The scales asked respondents if they had experienced various types of
violence since being a student at this institution. The scales included but were not limited
to asking if items have been thrown at them, having their hair pulled, being slapped or

48
struck in the face, being beaten, being threatened with a gun or other weapon, or being
kicked or bitten. For purposes of the study, women were classified as being victims if
they answered yes to any of the 12 items on the CTS2 scales: 24% responded “yes” and
76% responded “no.”
The results of the study showed marked differences between sexual assault and
physical assault situations as to why an incident is considered important enough by the
victim to report the incident to authorities (Thompson et al. 2007). For sexual assault
cases, 37 respondents, or 27.6%, thought the incident would be viewed as their fault, and
53 respondents, or 39.6%, reported being too ashamed or embarrassed to report the
incident. One hundred seven, or 79.9%, respondents did not believe the incident to be a
sexual assault and was not serious enough to report.
For physical assault cases, only 9 respondents, or 8%, found the incident would be
viewed as their fault, and only 17 respondents, or 15%, reported being too ashamed or
embarrassed to report the incident (Thompson et al. 2007). An area of similar scores
between sexual assault and physical assault was the category of being scared of the
offender. Eleven, or 8.2%, sexual assault victims stated this was the reason for not
reporting. Nine, or 8.0%, physical assault victims listed this as the reason for not
reporting.
While college campuses are taking increasingly more proactive measures to report
campus crime, the actual occurrence of crime has decreased for both college students and
the general public (Baum & Klaus, 2005). The decrease in overall crime was especially
noticeable in the categories of robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault (Baum &
Klaus, 2005). Between 1995 and 2002, these rates between the college student

49
population have declined 54%, or 41 versus 88 per 1000 instances, and declined 45%, or
102 versus 56 per 1000 for the general public (Baum & Klaus, 2005). Baum and Klaus
(2005) utilized data collected by the Bureau of Justice’s National Crime Victimization
Survey and determined several key findings emerged from the data. The findings
included that male students had twice the likelihood of being a victim of overall violence
than female students with incident rate of 80 versus 43 per 1,000; white students had a
slightly higher rate of violent victimization than Black and much higher rates than other
races at 65 versus 52 and 37 per 1,000 incidents; Hispanic college students and
nonstudents had very similar incident rates; 58% of the victimization crimes were
committed by a stranger unknown to the victim and forty-one percent of offenders were
believed to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs when they committed the offense.
In determining the location of crime directed at college students, Baum and Klaus (2005)
showed this population was much more likely to be victimized off campus than on
campus, with 92.9% of incidents taking place off campus property.
Victimization data may be contradictory from study to study (Johnson & Kercher,
2009). In addition, the vast majority of research on victimization of college students has
focused on violent and personal crimes. In an attempt to research non-violent property
crimes, Johnson and Kercher (2009) conducted a study on seven public Texas university
campuses and focused on crimes such as motor vehicle theft, theft of other personal
items, burglary and vandalism. Johnson and Kercher (2009) acknowledged the decrease
in crime directed at college students but also found the decrease had plateaued and might
even be on the rise again since the time when the earlier research had been conducted.

50
Johnson and Kercher (2009) used an online survey which was sent to half of the
student body from the seven public institutions ranging in enrollments from 8,000 to
40,000 students. The Crime Victims Institute (CVI) obtained the email addresses from
the participating schools and included a cover letter explaining the purpose of the survey
and a link to where the survey could be obtained. In all, 3,894 surveys were returned in
which the researcher viewed as valid. The respondents were over-represented by
females with 64.6% as compared to 35.4% for males. Whites represented 77.7% of the
respondents as compared to 10.8% for Hispanics, 4.8% for Blacks, 2.1% for
Asian/Pacific Islanders with the remainder representing mixed race or “others” as listed
on the survey. In regard to housing arrangements, 63.2% said they lived in residence
halls and 36.8% responded they did not live in residence halls.
Johnson and Kercher (2009) showed the highest response group, 58.3% of the
respondents, reported something having been stolen from a public place. The lowest
incidence of crime involved the theft of a vehicle, motorcycle or bicycle with 13.2%
reporting being victim of this type of crime. Johnson and Kercher asked the respondents
to report whether they had committed victimization-related crimes. Regarding stealing
anything valued between $5 and $50, 52.2% of the respondents reported they had. In
addition, 37.6% reported they had either sold or helped to sell marijuana or hashish as a
student. When asked about knowingly buying or selling known stolen property, 30% of
the respondents responded in the affirmative.
Study Concerning Parent’s Knowledge of the Clery Act
A second aspect for the passage of the Clery Act was to allow both students and
parents an opportunity to review an institution’s campus crime statistics (Harshman,

51
Puro, & Wolff, 2001). It has been implied and insinuated by educational researchers that
some campuses have not always been forthcoming with campus crime data (Keels, 2004).
Janosik (2002) focused exclusively on the views of the parents as they applied to the
Clery Act and the campus safety in general. In this quantitative study, 435 parents from
one institution were surveyed regarding basic Clery Act information and knowledge
(Janosik, 2002). The following four questions guided Janosik’s research: (1) Are parents
aware of the Clery Act? (2) How do parents utilize the information that is provided? (3)
What do parents think about institutional strategies? and (4) What perceptions do parents
have regarding administrators who provide campus crime data? The study participants
were selected during their attendance at the institution’s summer orientation program.
Approximately 25% of the parents were aware of the Clery Act, and 40% remembered
receiving the information in the mail, of which 25% of the parents remembered reading
the material. When parents were asked if the material assisted in making an informed
decision about the college of choice, the responses ranged from a low of 3% and only to a
high of 11% as being aware of the Clery Act. The higher range of affirmative responses
correlated with families who reporting having an immediate family member who had
been a crime victim. Janosik’s primary conclusion was parents are no more aware of the
Clery Act than students.
Studies Concerning Senior Affairs Professionals
A more direct quantitative study was conducted by Janosik and Gregory (2009)
when they examined the views of senior student affairs officers (SSAO). In the study,
327 SSAOs responded to a questionnaire which focused on the effectiveness of the Clery
Act. The research questions centered around the following: (1) Were SSAOs familiar

52
with the Clery Act? (2) What perceptions did SSAOs have on students’ use of crime data
to protect their personal property? (3) What were reactions by SSAOs on their staff’s
strategies on informing the student body about crime issues? (4) What perceptions do
SSAOs have about their staffs and their administrative practices? and (5) Do these views
differ from SSAOs who work at various types and sectors of institutions? In an
overwhelming response, 98% of the SSAOs were aware of the Clery Act. In regard to
mandated reports, 85% of the SSAOs believed their students received the crime statistic
reports. Only 10% of the SSAOs believed their students utilized the data to make an
informed decision regarding choice of schools.
Janosik and Gregory (2009) found several differences between this study and
similar studies undertaken in research aimed at parents, students, law enforcement,
residence life professionals, and judicial officers. Janosik and Gregory found this body
was much more homogeneous as a group, and this homogeneity was derived from the
SSAOs long acquaintance with the Clery Act and long standing opportunity to consider
the professional consequences for non-compliance.
In a second study which was more inclusive of working practitioners in the field
student affairs, Kevin Colander (2006) looked at these professionals’ knowledge and
compliance with the Clery Act. The researcher drew upon a national sample of 14,000
possible participants by obtaining the membership roster of three leading professional
associations: the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), the
American College Personnel Association (ACPA) and American Association of
Community Colleges (AACC). The combined membership between the three

53
organizations exceeded 16,000 members, however, once duplicate records were removed
and incorrect email addresses were eliminated, the sample population was 12,390.
The instrument utilized by Colander (2006) was a fifty-three item survey which
was divided into eight sections: demographic information, perception of campus
violence, Clery Act awareness, Clery Act knowledge, formal training on the Clery Act,
campus disclosure of violence, impact of alcohol on sexual assault and violence
prevention programming as required by the Clery Act. A total of 1,347 of the surveys
were returned for a response rate of 12%. The researcher noted the overall number of
returned surveys was high, but the percentage could be viewed as a limiting factor.
In the demographic portion of the survey, the researcher found 59.5% of the
respondents were female; 40.3% were male and three transgender respondents
represented .2% of the sample. Four-year public institutions represented 60.6% of the
respondents; private, nonprofit represented 36.3% of the respondents and private for-
profits represented 3.1% of the returned surveys.
Colander’s (2006) findings found most student affairs professionals learned of the
Clery Act within the last six years of employment, most likely having done so in their
master’s program. Surprising facts of the study showed male respondents were more
likely to be aware of the Clery Act than their female counterparts. However, the study
also showed male student affairs practitioners were also more likely to have been in the
field than their female counterparts. One of the more disturbing findings of the study
centered on the overall limited knowledge of the Clery Act by student affairs
professionals at four-year institutions. The areas of student services which scored higher
on the survey are areas where these professionals are involved with the Clery Act more

54
often included the following offices: Campus Safety, Dean of Students Office, Judicial
Affairs, Enrollment Management and Women’s Centers. The areas which scored lower
on the survey were: Athletics, Disabled Student Services and Computer/Off-Campus
Services.
Colander’s (2006) conclusions include a sobering fact many student affairs
professionals are still fully aware of the Clery Act and compliance with the act. Colander
(2006) further concludes if the Clery Act was enacted to reduce crime, allow students to
make a more informed decision regarding college choice and raising student awareness,
then much work still needs to be done. This work centers on increasing both the
awareness and knowledge of the Clery Act by student affairs professionals.
Campus Safety Within Student Conduct Offices
In further review of the literature, additional researchers have begun to investigate
both the nature of and the classification of campus crime and violence. Rush, White,
Whiesel, Cooper, and Hight (2008) examined the safety issues in student conduct offices
around the country. When students demonstrate violence or commit crime on campuses,
student affairs administrators are most likely to be the college representative called to
meet with and determine what risks are involved in this particular incident (Rush et al.
2008). Rush et al. (2008) examined the organization, the safety policies, and the
procedures used by student conduct offices across the country.
Rush et al. (2008) examined the different acts of violence, particularly the
relationship between the individuals involved. The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) identified three types of occurrences. Type I indicates no direct
relationship between the attacker and the victim. This type of violence includes random

55
robberies and physical attacks. The debate on college campuses regarding this type of
category centers around whether or not a contractual relationship exists between the
institution and students, alumni, parents, and other members of the campus community.
Type II suggests some type of contractual relations between the victim and the assailant,
a category into which most student conduct cases would fall. Type III violence usually
involves a relationship; a former employee or a jilted romantic partner was the given
example. Student affairs professionals are in many cases called to intervene in these
types of cases, particularly if stalking and harassing behaviors were exhibited.
Along these lines, Rush et al. (2008) collected data from members of the
Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA) through a listserve.
Participants were asked if they were directly involved with the campus student conduct
system, and those not related were removed from the data analysis. A total of 328 valid
responses were utilized in the study. The final sample included 163 men (49.7%) and
165 women (50.3%). A sampling of the findings of the research demonstrates that the
college administrators, who are involved with adjudicating violent cases on campuses,
are often victims of perceived violence themselves. Forty-three percent of administrators
reported their personal safety had been threatened by students, parents, or colleagues.
Sixty-four percent of conduct officers considered legal consequences in response to their
personal defense. Twenty-four percent of conduct officers had a “personal signal” so
their staff could respond, and 31% had a personal safety plan at home due to the nature of
their work. Additional findings included 40% of administrators reported having multiple
exits from their offices, and 21% configured their offices to maximize their personal
safety. The conclusion of this study demonstrated that college conduct officers recognize

56
the potential or at least the possibility of violence being directed at them personally.
White, Rush, Whitesel & Cooper (2008) also indicated female administrators reported
higher levels of perceived threat than did their male counterparts.
Stalking on College Campuses
Stalking, according to the Model Antistalking Code of 1993, is “a course of
conduct directed at a specific person that involves repeated visual or physical proximity,
nonconsensual communication, or verbal, written or implied threats or a combination
thereof, that would cause a reasonable person fear” (National Criminal Justice
Association, 1993, p. 1). The Model Antistalking Code of 1993 serves as a model for
states needing to develop their own criminal code, yet a lack of consistency is found
among the states regarding the way that stalking is defined and criminalized (Campbell &
Longo, 2010). The largest area of confusion centers on what is perceived to be a serious
threat and the key element, the intent to “instill fear in a reasonable person (National
Center for Victims of Crime, 2004). While all 50 states currently have anti-stalking
legislation, the existing laws vary widely and are often modified as more information is
obtained and additional studies are conducted (Violence Against Women Office, 2001).
The act of stalking another human was criminalized in 1990 (Campbell & Longo,
2010), yet stalking remains an area that is not required to be reported on the annual crime
report submitted to the Department of Education by all institutions of higher education.
The act of stalking appears to be generally a youth or young adult oriented pattern of
behavior and is prevalent on college campuses (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2002). In an
attempt to identify the extent of stalking activity on campuses, Tjaden and Thoenness
(1998b) sampled 8,000 women and 8,000 men, respectively. Tjaden and Thoenness

57
(1998b) yielded an 8% for women and 2% for men yield rate for victimization by
stalking. Furthermore, Tjaden and Thoenness (1998a) showed nearly 8 out of 10 victims
of stalking were female and more than half of the victims were under the age of 30.
Mustaine and Tewksbury (1999) reported 11% of college students were victims of
stalking. In a third study, Fisher et al. (2002) surveyed 4,446 women at 223 colleges and
universities, and found that at more than 13% of the sample had been stalked during the
previous academic term. Two additional studies by Logan, Leukefeld, and Walker
(2000) and Spitzberg (2002) placed stalking as occurring to closer to 27% of the student
population. Even with studies reporting a range from 11% to 27% of this particular crime
occurring on campuses, this particular type of crime has not been required to be reported
by institutions of higher education to the Department of Education (Campbell & Longo,
2010).
The college campus in many ways unintentionally facilitates the act of stalking
due to the general trend of those who are stalked often have more education than the
general public (Campbell & Longo, 2010). This same population is more vulnerable to
stalking, because course schedules are published and distributed, thus allowing stalkers to
know the precise time and place where victims may turn up for class (Campbell &
Longo, 2010). The simple process of stalkers being enrolled as students in many ways
allows stalkers to access to campus directories, facilities, and buildings that many
members of the local community do not share equal access, thus making stalking on an
institution of higher education much easier to facilitate (Campbell & Longo, 2010).
The Phillips, Quirk, Rosenfeld, and O’Connor (2004) study found both men and
women could identify stalking behavior if presented with vignettes, but it was more

58
difficult for participants to identify stalking in the context of an intimate relationship. As
such, as few as 20% of stalking cases are brought to the attention of campus law
enforcement officials (Campbell & Longo, 2010). A common perception among college
students is that stalking is a personal or domestic matter and not a criminal issue
(Campbell & Longo, 2010). In results from a question posed in the National Violence
against Women Survey, victims gave three primary reasons for either refusing or failing
to report the encounter (Tjaden & Thoenness, 1998a). First, victims downplay the
incident and do not feel this particular type of stalking constitutes a reason for the police
to intervene. Secondly, victims do not think police officers could be of any assistance to
them in regard to the stalking issue. And thirdly, victims fear a sense of reprisal
occurring if the police do intervene with the stalker in the matter.
As the issue of stalking becomes more of a concern on college campuses, new
policies and procedures will be implemented to counter the problem. As these
procedures are developed to prevent stalkers from having access to their victims, alleged
stalkers have attempted to fight back in the courts. Three cases are of particular note
because they collectively illustrate the depth and determination educational institutions
are undergoing to provide protection for both students and employees on campus. On the
campus of Oregon State University, the institution closed its doors to an alleged stalker,
who then sued alleging his First Amendment liberties had been violated (Campbell &
Longo, 2010). In the case of Souders v. Lucero, court ruled against the stalker in favor of
the student by stating a ban order was issued “for the valid protection of students and not
for the conduct protected by the Constitution” (Souders v. Lucero, 1999). Specific

59
language in the case ruling made it clear that college campuses could and should regulate
behavior on campus with the following findings:
Souder’s argument—that he has a right to be on the OSU campus, regardless of
his conduct, because he is a member of the general public and the campus is open
to the public—goes too far. This cannot be the case. Whatever right he has to be
on campus must be balanced against the right of the University to exclude him.
The University may preserve such tranquility as the facilities’ central purpose
requires…Not only must a university have the power to foster an atmosphere and
conditions in which its educational mission can be carried out, it also has a duty to
protect its students by imposing reasonable regulations on the conduct of those
who wander onto campus. (Souders v. Lucero, 1999, pp. 13-14)
In the case of La Freniere v. Regions of the University of California (2006), a
student was expelled for allegedly stalking faculty members. The student claimed his
rights were violated when he was prevented from continuing his stalking practice
(Campbell & Longo, 2010). The court held:
La Freniere (the stalker) also makes no showing that the balance of hardships tips
sharply in his favor. According to University correspondence attached to his
filings, La Freniere was expelled after engaging in an alleged pattern of
‘aggressive behavior’ toward and ‘stalking’ of faculty members. Here, the
Regents’ interest in protecting University employees outweighs La Freniere’s
request for urgent relief, especially in light of his lengthy delay in filing this page.
(p. 12)

60
The third case, Danso v. University of Connecticut, concerned the judicial
practices of a judicial hearing board which heard and adjudicated a stalking case. In this
particular case, the Connecticut court (2007) was reluctant to interfere with the campus
judicial hearing board and held:
In sum, the court concludes that both the notice and hearing procedures employed
by UCONN with respect to the plaintiff’s suspension satisfied the minimum
requirements of procedural due process and that the plaintiff has failed to show
that he was substantially prejudiced by these procedures. Therefore, the plaintiff
has also failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of
this case. The motion for a temporary injunction is, therefore, denied. (p. 271)
With the aforementioned cases, the courts clearly allow institutions of higher
education to protect their students, faculty, and staff from stalking but also allow the
cases to be adjudicated with an institution’s own judicial board (Campbell & Longo,
2010). In addition to the cases supporting the higher educational attempts to combat
stalking, Campbell and Longo (2010) pointed out the sheer numbers of stalking cases
occurring on campuses. It is probably only a matter of time before the category of
stalking is added to the list of crimes required for reporting in the annual Clery Act report
(Campbell & Longo, 2010).
Hazing on College Campuses
Hazing is a ritual long thought associated with a college rite of passage associated
with Greek-letter societies. However, it is now known that various other groups are
involved with hazing which include, but are not limited to, the following campus
organizations: athletic teams, spirit groups, marching bands, military associated groups,

61
cult like groups, and various other groups drawn to college campuses (Hollmann, 2002).
In 1999, a national survey of intercollegiate athletes was conducted by Alfred University
(1999) along with the cooperation of the National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA). In the study’s findings, 79% of college athletes had experienced at least some
form of hazing in order to either join or participate on their respective teams. Of this
number, 60% said they would not report these incidents as hazing related incidents. In
addition, the report found 1 out of 5 athletes reported incidents which they deemed
unacceptable or potentially illegal.
While the misdemeanor crime of minor in possession of alcohol represents a
Clery Act category, acts of hazing are not required to be reported on the yearly report.
However, hazing is often associated with the consumption of alcohol (Hollmann, 2002).
As Hollmann (2002) reported, more deaths have occurred as a result of hazing and
alcohol in the 20 years since 1990 than in all the previous years reported combined.
Hollmann further reported that on one northeastern medium-sized public university, at
least 30% of the student body reported being hazed in some form or fashion. Yet, the
same report listed only 10% had reported the victimization to campus police, residence
life staff, or university personnel.
The connection between hazing and alcohol consumption is particularly
troublesome. Each issue is problematic alone, but when combined the two issues
represent even more potentially dangerous situations on college campuses (Hollmann,
2002). Hollmann (2002) found that 90% of hazing deaths can be attributed to extreme
alcohol consumption. Coupled with the sheer number of deaths associated with hazing
and alcohol consumption, many states have sought ways to hold the provider civilly

62
responsible for negligently providing alcohol to minors and intoxicated persons. In
addition, college campuses have seen a rise in alcohol abuse which has become more
common with women’s groups (Hollmann, 2002). Alfred University (1999) found
female athletes were more likely to be involved with excessive alcohol consumption
more than any other form of hazing. Hazing on college campuses has generalized
differences between historically Black and White groups (Hollmann, 2002). Historically,
deaths in Black groups have generally been because of beatings and deaths to extreme
physical endurance while deaths in White groups have generally centered on the
excessive consumption of alcohol.
Currently hazing is not required to be reported on the annual Clery Crime Report,
but a recent death has brought the subject to the national spotlight (Ward & Lee, 2011).
In November 2011, Robert Champion, drum major for Florida A&M’s Marching 100,
was beaten by fellow members of the band and subsequently died from his injuries
(Rogers, 2012). The death brought about the immediate firing of the long time band
director, Julian White and the ultimate expulsion of four students, and also threatened to
lead to the dismissal of Florida A&M University president, James H. Ammons as the case
was played out before the media (Rogers, 2012). Band Director Julian White fought for
months to be reinstated until an investigation revealed over 100 students participating in
the band were not actively enrolled in the university (Kallestad & Schneider, 2012) The
university eventually reversed the firing of the band director and reinstated the four
students, however, on March 29, 2012; State Attorney Lawson Lamar filed state criminal
charges against thirteen students for their role in the hazing death of Champion
(Schneider, 2012). Eleven of the thirteen will face hazing charges due to a plea-deal and

63
will face up to six years in jail; the other two will face manslaughter charges (Schneider,
2012). In the end, Florida A&M University president James Ammons stepped aside as
the victim’s parents sued the university (Kallestad & Schneider). The resignation by the
president was preceded by a no-confidence vote by the faculty in June 2012 and a
recommendation by Florida Governor Rick Scott that President Ammon be suspended
until a full investigation could be conducted (Kallestad & Schneider). On October 22,
2012, Brian Jones was the first of a dozen defendants who faced sentencing for the death
of Florida A&M drum major Robert Champion (Hightower, 2012). Hightower (2012)
reported Brian Jones was sentenced to six months community control which severely
restricts his limits to freedom and includes frequent check-ins with parole officials. In
addition, he must perform 200 hours of community service and serve another two years
of probation.
Fallout from Champion’s death continued when U.S. Representative Frederic
Wilson of Miami, FL., a long-time proponent of anti-hazing legislation, proposed such
legislation on a national level. While 44 states currently have anti-hazing statutes on
their books, Champion’s death illustrates the need for national action on the higher
education level (Rogers, 2012). Rogers (2012) proposes hazing within organizations is
not an individual act, rather a group act and as such, laws need to be revised from
focusing on individuals to focusing on punishing entire groups. Rogers (2012) further
proposes hazing be classified on the same level as both sexism and racism and deal with
the issue of hazing in much the same manner as these two topics. Rogers (2012) further
states that “the incentives to maintain the traditions are more enticing than the incentives
to eliminate it,” and this culture on college campuses must change.

64
Hazing can be a long established “tradition” on many campuses and elimination
of such activities can be difficult, if not impossible. A recent example at a private,
church-affiliated campus in North Georgia has recently brought to light the extent of the
deep-seated traditions when newly appointed president, Cathy Cox found herself in a
decades old debate regarding Greek letter society hazing (Baker, 2013). As a former
Georgia Secretary of State and gubernatorial candidate, Cox is accustomed to “politics,”
but a new law suit alleges she and members of her administration have long turned a
blind eye to horrific campus hazing allegations. As early as 1989, the student
newspapers, The Enotah Echo ran an expose on Greek letter hazing, including asking
faculty and staff their personal opinions regarding the open display of hazing (Heard &
James, 1989). In the article by Heard and James (1989) specific examples of hazing were
described by both faculty and students as having been witnessed in plain sight and taking
place on campus.
President Cox became embroiled in the long simmering hazing debate when an
undergraduate, former pledge, and two recently dismissed faculty members brought suit
against the campus for “reckless indifference” and allowing a “widespread and well-
known culture of abusive and sexually charged hazing” to exist on campus (Baker, 2013).
The terminated faculty members, Theresa Crapazano and Joseph Terry both sought as
faculty members to bring the issue of hazing to the forefront of discussion with the
ranking members of the administration, including the president and the vice president for
student affairs (Kruth, 2013). It is alleged in the lawsuit that the complaints fell on death
ears, including the cancellation of an article in The Enotah Echo, of which one of the
terminated professors served as faculty advisor. The lawsuit has moved outside the realm

65
of college hazing alone and now involves the difference between doing what is right such
as reporting the hazing cases; verses maintaining the college’s image at all costs (Kruth,
2013). At any rate, the lawsuit brings to light an issue which has simmered on the
campus for the past twenty-five years as the university administration has either at the
very least, turned its back on reported cases of hazing, or at the worst case level,
terminated faculty for reporting hazing cases (Baker, 2013).
Sex Crimes on Campus
Although sexual assault cases are required to be reported on the annual Clery
Report, many researchers feel the true numbers reported do not adequately represent the
scope and extent of the problem on college campuses (Lombardi, 2010). Lombardi
(2010) conducted a year-long investigation into sexual assault cases on college campuses
and concluded that as many as 1 out of 5 women are victims of either a rape or an
attempted sexual assault before graduation. Lombardi found many critics skeptical of
whether faculty, staff, and students should be involved in adjudicating such cases.
However, two federal laws, Title IX and the Clery Act, squarely place the burden on
campuses to not only report such crimes but also to offer key rights to victims involved in
assaults which occur on campus.
Lombardi (2010) researched the issue and subsequently developed a multi-phased
research project that began with the review of campus judicial processes. Then Lombardi
contacted both Security on Campus and the Victim Rights Law Center, both of which are
groups staffed by advocates and attorneys who help with the compliance process related
to Title IX and the Clery Act. Lombardi, next, took a stratified random sample of public
institutions from every region of the country. Of the 260 programs included in the

66
sample, 152 completed surveys were returned for a 58% response rate. The survey items
included not only how many students were processed through the respective campus
offices but also whether the survey team could interview the students who filed the
complaints. The team was able to interview 33 students and 50 experts familiar with
campus judicial systems. This group of expert interviewees included student affairs
administrators, hearing board members, attorneys, campus police officers, university
legal counsel, and researchers familiar with the subject matter of campus judicial boards.
When required, the research team obtained files directly from the 33 students interviewed
if the students had copies of their files. In other cases, the interviewing team obtained
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) waivers from the students in order
to obtain the files directly from the institution.
One of the primary findings of Lombardi’s (2010) study was that campus sexual
assaults remain largely a hidden crime on most campuses. Much of the “hidden crime”
aspect is attributed to the lack of a central clearinghouse on a national basis for sexual
assault cases to be reported and subsequently for the reports to be deposited. The
findings of the survey helped establish five databases: the first two established a national
database which listed institutional responses and 10 years of civil suits filed under Title
IX against colleges; a third database is administered by the Justice Department’s Office
on Violence against Women to track sexual assault proceedings; the fourth database is
related to the third and lists Office on Violence against Women’s tracking of grant
recipients’ progress; and the fifth database created from the research focused on the
overall survey results and included both on-campus and off-campus observations of cases
handled by the respective campuses. This database was compared to the actual Clery Act

67
report to determine if the “official record” was submitted to the Department of Education.
The comparison of the official report compared to the list compiled by practitioners in the
field demonstrated overwhelmingly that campus agencies and practitioners handled many
more cases than were reported on annual reports (Lombardi, 2010).
In addition to the above listed survey, Lombardi and Jones (2009) conducted
additional research in the area of sexual assault statistics. A survey of 152 crisis-services
programs or clinics which operate either on or near college campuses, asked for incident
numbers of the previous year. Fifty-eight of the 152 clinics responded with “hard
evidence.” A comparison of the school’s previous five-year Clery Act totals showed a
distinct difference between the official Clery report and the numbers reported by the
clinics with the clinics reporting overall a much higher number of incidents than did the
institutions. One specific incident reported in the research conducted by Lombardi and
Jones (2009) looked at the comparable numbers reported at Florida State University as a
specific case to bolster their argument of inconsistent reporting. The official Clery
Report listed 26 sexual offenses recorded from 2002 to 2006, while the campus victim
advocacy program listed 57 sexual assaults for the same time period.
The 1980s and 1990s saw a dramatic rise in the establishment of women’s centers
on college campuses across America. The staff at these facilities served as advocates for
students who had been assaulted (Janosik & Plummer, 2005). Previous studies examined
campus law enforcement, chief student affairs officers, residence life, and parental
knowledge of the Clery Act, but no study had been directed at this emerging professional
group of women’s center advisors and counselors (Janosik & Plummer, 2005). Janosik
and Plummer (2005) asked women’s center professionals about their knowledge and

68
views on campus crime prevention strategies, because the two researchers wanted to
assess the depth and breadth of knowledge held by these specialized professionals.
Janosik and Plummer (2005) identified 233 women’s centers from college
campuses across the United States by obtaining two large mailing lists from professionals
working in this area. The mailing list was compared to a listserve subscribed to by those
who either worked or served as a victim’s advocate in higher education. The two
combined lists identified a total of 431 potential participants. After testing of the list
serve’s email addresses and after removing duplicate names, the final sample was 344
possible participants.
The following three research questions guided the study (Janosik & Plummer,
2005):
1. How do advocates believe students use the campus crime information contained
in the required data collection?
2. What perceptions do advocates working in women’s centers have about college
administrators and their Clery-related administrative practices?
3. What are the perceptions and reactions of advocates to the strategies college
administrators use in conjunction with informing about campus crime?
A 29-item questionnaire was designed for the project, with 25 questions
addressing the group’s knowledge of the Clery Act and the perceived influence of the
Clery Act on personal operations. Of the 344 people who received the survey via email,
147 responded (a 47.2% response rate). All respondents (100%) indicated they worked
directly with sexual assault victims as a primary function of their responsibilities at their
respective college campuses. One hundred seven (72.8%) respondents indicated they

69
were employed at a state-supported institution, while 144 (98.0%) respondents
represented four-year institutions. A Cronbach’s Alpha model established a reliability
coefficient of .72.
In the area of believing that college administrators are truthful in presenting
campus crime issues, 97 (66%) of the respondents believed their administrators were
being candid in describing campus situations; however, 24 (16%) respondents believed
their administrators may have attempted to hide crime from their campus population.
Regarding the Clery Act related activities, 37 (25%) of the respondents believed the
required educational programming helped increase confident in campus law enforcement,
but only 5 (3%) respondents reported that the Clery Act had in fact lowered campus
crime rates. One of the more unusual revelations the study did demonstrate was that 65
(44%) of the respondents agreed that the Clery Act had forced campus law enforcement
agencies to improve campus crime reporting. A second alarming fact which emerged
from the study was the disclosure by 7% of the victim advocates as being unaware of the
Clery Act and its requirements. This same advocacy group responded with an 82%
response rate and believed students did read the campus crime reports. And lastly, the
study showed 50% of the respondents believed that Clery Act material did not influence
college students to change their behavior.
On the campus of Southern Methodist University, A Light of Day Project listed
interactive maps to report campus crime activity (Brioso, 2011). A side-note of the
reporting was the disclosure of a two-year increase in sexual assault cases. Karen Click,
director of the SMU Women’s Center reported the higher numbers could actually
represent a greater awareness due to educational efforts on the part of the campus

70
(Brioso, 2011). The director of the Women’s Center felt the university was utilizing its
resources to more adequately inform the general campus population of the need to report
sexual assault cases. On this particular campus, in 2007, there were three sexual assaults;
five occurred in 2008; and nine happened in 2009 (Brioso, 2011). Additional research
from the Clery Center Executive Director, Alison Kiss, supports the fact higher reported
numbers represent a campus culture where students report because they have knowledge
and confidence in the assistant they will receive from the institution (Gray, 2012).
Director Kiss also supported the creation of sexual assault response teams so efforts are
not duplicated, victims are not confused which leads to non-reporting of sexual violence
(Gray, 2012).
Required disclosure of campus crime reports can have large variances between
public and private institutions (LoMonte, 2014). In April, Nick Ochsner, a reporter for
the Elon University campus television news program, sued in court to have the crime
reports made public. The first ruling by the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled
against Ochsner, but the North Carolina Supreme Court granted Ochsner’s petition to
review the ruling. The central point in the case is private schools comply with the Clery
Act by giving a one sentence description of the required crime to report, but lack
providing the ‘what, where and when” (LoMonte, 2014).
The emergence of sexual assault response teams is increasing in numbers of
participating institutions of higher education because a lack of attention in this area sends
a message that such violence directed at women will be tolerated (Barry & Cell, 2009).
Barry and Cell (2009) state lack of funding should not drive the decision to implement

71
such a team, rather the need of specialized services centering on moral and academic
purpose.
By silencing inquiry, by discounting the seriousness of the problem, by
responding inconsistently to sexual violence cases, and by failing to
promulgate (or enforce) policies, the university fails in its most basic
mission: to provide a nourishing learning environment free from
intimidation and biases (Otten & Hotelling, 2009, p. 9).
Another limitation of the Clery Act is its application of crime data listed either as
occurring directly on or adjacent to campus (Ward & Lee, 2005). If the Clery Act was
indeed intended for students and parents to utilize in assisting to make an informed
decision regarding chose of college, Lombardi and Jones (2009) maintain a large
geographic focus is missing. As example given by Lombardi (2010), Florida State
University has 36,000 out of 42,000 students living in off-campus apartments located
within one block of the campus. Crime directed at these students would not normally be
included in the annual Clery Report for prospective students and parents. The campus
sexual assault advocacy group raised the comparison of on-campus versus off-campus
crime for a given year; there were nine sexual assault offenses on or near campus as
compared to 48 in off-campus housing. The question arises as to which set of statistics
are more valuable to a perspective student or parent: the on-campus or the off-campus
crime report?
In a related note, the campus newspaper at Southern Methodist University (SMU)
reported in its May 4, 2011 edition that some of the institution’s students believed they
resided in a war zone (Withers, 2011). In a nearby neighborhood located near the SMU

72
campus, a recent shoot-out in a popular student hamburger restaurant left many students
questioning the safety of the neighborhood and subsequently asking if the off-campus
crime could spill onto campus. With two non-students dead due to the drug related
violence, the police focused their attention on The Phoenix, a popular off-campus
residence for SMU students. Though the Dallas Police Department’s 2010 crime
summary reported a decrease of city crime of 10.2%, many SMU students reported being
easy victims of crime which would not be reported on the institution’s Clery Act annual
crime statistics log (Withers, 2011).
Campus SaVE Act
The inclusion of the Campus SaVE Act (SAVE) under section 304 of the re-
passage of the Violence Against Women’s Act (VAWA) has forced major changes in the
way colleges and universities conduct sexual assault hearings (Stratford, 2014). Under
guidelines originally issued in 2011, but clarified under passage of SAVE and VAWA
legislations, universities and colleges were ordered to use the lowest standard of proof, “a
preponderance of the evidence” rather than the higher level of evidence, “a clear and
convincing” standard in order to be in compliance with Title IX (Stratford, 2014).
The purposeful lowering of standards of guilt on campuses has met with many
opponents who feel the Department of Education, who championed the new standards,
has trampled on individual’s rights (Stratford, 2014). The new standards have presented
campuses with new challenges as young men, who view themselves as victims of accused
sexual assault, are now suing their host institutions as in the cases of suits directed at
Southern Methodist University (Repko, 2014), Auburn University (Taranto, 2013), the
University of Virginia (Svitek, 2014) Western Washington University (Pope, 2012) and

73
the University of the South (Grasgreen, 2011). While these cases are not inclusive of all
cases being filed they do represent a spectrum of types of lawsuits being filed to
challenge the new changes in the Clery Act.
The SMU case involves a complicated series of suit and counter-suit as each
student has sued each other and the institution (Repko, 2014). The case centers on an
alleged sexual assault which occurred in February 2012 resulting in accusations of sexual
assault by the female student towards the male student. The male student was
subsequently found guilty by a campus conduct board, but reversed its decision after the
male student appealed. The female sued SMU because she believes the institution failed
to have proper guidance during the disciplinary process and is suing for damages totaling
more than $1,000,000 (Repko, 2014). Her lawsuit is directed at both the male student
and SMU. The male student is counter-suing the female student and her parents for
$450,000 in damages due to defamation. The suit is currently in federal court because
the two students are from different states and because the monetary damages are of
differing amounts (Repko, 2014).
The Auburn University case involves a couple who had been dating for a period
of several months, but on June 29, 2012, the male student, Joshua Strange, was charged
with sexual assault (Taranto, 2013). The case was heard by both a grand jury and a
campus conduct board. On February 3, 2012, a grand jury handed up a “no bill,” which
meant there was insufficient evidence to move forward with a trial. However, Auburn
University expelled Joshua Strange after finding him responsible for committing sexual
assault (Taranto, 2013). Joshua Strange contends he was found guilty of a preponderance
of evidence, which is a lower standard of evidence. Strange further feels this standard

74
was utilized by the university because the institution felt threatened in having federal
funding withdrawn if it did not lower the standard by which students could be found
guilty in sexual assault cases.
A former female University of Virginia student has filed a lawsuit in federal court
hoping to strike down the SAVE Act (Svitek, 2014). In this particular case, the female
complainant believes the new laws require a higher burden of proof on alleged victims.
In the lawsuit, the student charged the University of Virginia with mishandling her
reported sexual assault when she felt the institution placed a very high burden of proof on
her to prove what occurred after she was drugged by a classmate. While the case is still
pending, many observers, including Daniel Carter, who works for the Clery Center for
Campus Violence, feel the new SAVE Act will actually make it easier for sexual assault
victims to win their cases before student conduct hearing boards (Svitek, 2014). Carter
also feels the new act will bring much needed change to campus communities because the
new message will be sexual assault will not be tolerated and that victims will be
supported by the new guidelines as outlined in the SAVE Act.
The University of Virginia has made immediate changes to its student conduct
process because of the impending litigation (Gardner & Pritchett, 2014). Previously, the
areas of dating violence, domestic violence and stalking were generally placed under the
Sexual Harassment definition on campus, however, now they are expected to be given
separate charge statuses. In addition, the university plans to hire a “Prevention
Coordinator,” whose position will help focus on prevention and educational
programming as outlined in the SAVE Act (Gardner & Pritchett, 2014).

75
The University of the South is the oldest of these cases where male students are
either suing or counter-suing and this case has been heard and finalized in a U.S. District
Court (Grasgreen, 2011). In this case, John Doe, a male student was accused of raping a
classmate in his residence hall room in August 2008. Doe was suing for $5,000,000 in
damages as he maintained the University of the South did not follow its own published
procedures concerning student conduct hearings. The hearing board found John Doe
guilty of the sexual assault case and gave him two options; he could take a one semester
suspension with the assault case being left on his record or he could take a two semester
suspension, reapply and have a clean record (Grasgreen, 2011). He chose the latter
option and did not re-enroll. The jury in the case found the university negligent and
awarded the former student $26,500 which is the refund price of the tuition for the
remainder of the year that the student was not able to complete. While the attorney for
John Doe was disappointed in the award amount, the attorney felt it was a victory for his
client because the institution was found negligent in not following its own student
conduct policies. While not a huge amount of financial victory, the case does illustrate
the complicated nature of conducting sexual assault hearings and even more meaningful
for the case, it may represent to what degree institutions may move to fall within
compliance of the Office of Civil Rights Dear Colleague Letter (Grasgreen, 2011). The
Dear Colleague Letter was the instrument used to distribute the “preponderance of
evidence” formula to institutions of higher education.
The Western Washington University case is unusual in that it occurred off
campus, yet the lower standard of “preponderance of evidence” allowed the victim to
begin the healing process (Pope, 2012). The local police were confronted with “he said,”

76
“she said,” and simply issued a restraining order to the assailant. However, the assailant
largely ignored the restraining order and even brushed up against the victim in the
university bookstore. After this incident, the victim reported the crime to the university
administration, which immediately sprang into action The university ruled in a student
conduct hearing that the assailant was responsible for the sexual assault by using the
lower standard of “preponderance of evidence” and based on the university’s
interpretation of Title IX policies, suspended the assailant until which the victim could
graduate (Pope, 2012). The university used the Title IX wording which states “forbids
sex-based discrimination that denies access to educational opportunities” (Pope, 2012).
The university applied this reasoning that a single sexual assault against a person can be
grounds to deny that person access to an educational opportunity.
In conjunction with the Violence Against Women Act of 2013 and the Campus
SaVE Act, the White House announced on April 28, 2014, the findings of a task force
assembled specifically to research and make recommendations regarding the issue of
sexual assault on college campuses (Anderson & Zezima, 2014). The 20-page report was
made public by Vice President Joe Biden who stated “colleges and universities can no
longer turn a blind eye or pretend rape and sexual assault doesn’t occur on their
campuses.” As a result of the task force’s findings, a website for support for sexual
assault victims will be launched and mandatory “climate surveys” will be distributed
through the student body (Anderson & Zezima, 2014). The climate surveys are designed
to give the administration an awareness regarding the issue of sexual assault. The task
force report also sought to promote “bystander intervention,” or getting witnesses to have
a more active role in stepping up to prevent sexual assault. And lastly, the report

77
suggests colleges and universities develop trained victims’ advocates who can provide
emergency and ongoing support for sexual assault victims.
Following the release of the findings from the White House Task Force, the
federal government published the recommendations in a booklet titled “Not Alone: The
First Report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault
(2014).” The task force spent three months gathering data and talking with thousands of
participants who either were sexual assault victims or who work in the field as counselors
or advocates. It was within this booklet that three main recommendations were outlined.
As previously mentioned, the idea of a campus climate survey was moved from a
suggestion to a recommendation to have the legislature or administrative options require
colleges and universities to conduct a survey in 2012 (Not Alone, 2014). The Justice
Department has partnered with Rutgers University’s Center on Violence Against Women
and Children to develop a sample of the survey so it could be distributed to other
universities as part of the mandated requirement to distribute. The second
recommendation was an elaboration on getting bystanders to intervene, but went further
by recommending changes in the culture, behavior, attitudes of men (Not Alone, 2014).
The third recommendation was directing college and universities to effectively respond
when a student is sexually assaulted (Not Alone, 2014).
The report did note the continuing challenges facing colleges to meet Title IX and
Clery Act requirements for compliance (Not Alone, 2014). The report further stated the
White House Task Force would work towards better coordination between different
departments, work towards common solutions and strive to clarify the various laws.

78
On May 1, 2014, for the first time, Department of Education published a list of
the colleges and universities who were under active investigation for Title IX and sexual
assault cases on campus (Anderson, 2014). The list contained the names of fifty-five
colleges and universities ranging from three Ivy League campuses to community
colleges. Also on the list included several prominent state institutions such as the
University of Virginia, University of California at Berkley, University of Michigan and
Michigan State University (Anderson, 2014). The Department of Education states this
was the first time a comprehensive list was published, but the list does not specifically
detail what crimes or violations the department is reviewing with each case. The
Department of Education also released the fact only nine of the fifty-five schools were
under investigation due to random compliance reviews (Westerholm, 2014); the majority
of the investigations originated from complaints from alumni or current students. The
department further identified how it begins an investigation and stated several factors
were taken into account such as statistical data, news reports and reports from community
organizations, advocacy groups as well as from parents whose child had been a victim of
sexual assault (Westerholm, 2014).
The Campus SaVE Act does contain conflicting definitions such as referring to
the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Universal Crime Reporting system (Elias,
2014). The difference in the definitions centers on the fact the FBI has chosen to drop
any reference to “forcible” sexual assault. Yet, the Clery Act continues to carry two
distinction categories of both “forcible” and “non-forcible” sexual assault.

79
Campus Security Agents
To gather the statistics which are included in the Annual Crime Report (ACR), the
information is collected from Campus Security Agents (CSA) (Pettegrew, 2014). One of
the complaints regarding non-compliance has centered on confusion as to who on a
campus constitutes a CSA (Pettegrew, 2014). After much refinement in the definition,
the Department of Education has determined the following are CSAs: campus security or
police force; others with security responsibility of monitoring campus property,
individuals and organizations who the campus sees as being responsible to have a crime
reported to and officials who have significant responsibility for student and campus
activities (Pettegrew, 2014). The last category would include all campus administrators
responsible for student housing, student discipline and campus judicial proceedings
including resident assistants. After further refinement of CSAs, coaches, athletic trainers
and student athletic trainers were included on the list (Ward & Lee, 2011). The four
largest areas of university personnel who are not considered a CSA include pastoral or
clergy, professional counselors, cafeteria staff and faculty who do not advise student
clubs or organizations (Ward & Lee, 2011). Institutions of higher education are
encouraged to include university personnel who have “significant responsibility for
students and campus activities (Fisher, Hartman, Cullen & Turner, 2002).”
Campuses are urged to review organizational charts on an annual basis to see
which positions currently meet the CSA definition and remove positions which are no
longer included (Pettegrew, 2014). Prior to and after the recent modification of the Clery
Act through the Campus SaVE Act, various campuses are organizing task forces to
review their current situation and determine if they are within compliance before a

80
Department of Education audit is conducted (Bardo, Gitau, Horvath, O’Guinn,
Robertson, & Nelson, 2012). As such, institutions have begun to solicit
recommendations from these task forces to address a variety of issues such as, but not
limited to short and long term goal setting in the areas of student housing, university and
community collaboration, communication and faculty/staff training (Bardo et al, 2012).
Southern Illinois University is one such institution which reviewed the suggestions of a
recent task force which utilized the findings of the Penn State University Freeh Report
(Bardo et al, 2012) (Freeh, 2012). The Southern Illinois University task force
investigated four areas which they reviewed in light of the Freeh Report (2012) compared
these areas to their own campus. In review, the task force looked at what constituted a
policy on campus and furthermore, who or what department should approve and or
review policies (Bardo, 2012). The task force also looked into the areas of lack of
consistent policy implementation and oversight suggested in its recommendations that all
students follow the same standards of conduct (Bardo, 2012). As detailed in the Freeh
Report (2012), several student athletes had their assault cases adjudicated by the
president in order to allow them to return to practice. As guidelines are developed and
distributed addressing the new changes under the Campus SaVE Act, more institutions of
higher education will charge committees and task forces to review not only policies and
procedures, but to be as transparent as possible and fully comply with the Campus SaVE
Act (New Requirements Imposed by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act,
2014).

81
Students Forcing Compliance on Posting Crime Statistics
In at least one instance, students, as part of a Light of Day project, banded
together to force an institution not only to disclose its required campus crime data but
also to point out deficiencies in the reporting. On the campus of Southern Methodist
University (SMU), located in Dallas, Texas, a group of local students conducted a review
of the last six years of campus crime data. First started in 2004, the initial group of six
students found the institution failed to issue crime alerts and did not inform the campus
body of at least four sexual assaults and rape cases which took place on campus (Schmitt,
2011). The student newspaper reported between the years of 2005 and 2006, there was a
333% increase in the number of women reporting sexual assaults on campus. It was only
after the Clery Act specifically required institutions of higher education to publicly report
such assaults in 2007 did the campus body learn of the assaults (Schmitt, 2011).
The group continued to monitor the campus crime data, and in 2011, the student
group reported finding two deficiencies in SMU’s crime reports as required by the Clery
Act (Schmitt, 2011). The group charged SMU to be deficient in two areas: not posting
the University’s policy on whistleblowers and not having a detailed description of the
suspect on campus broadcast sexual assault cases. In this particular case, the Clery Act
does not specifically require a whistleblowers policy to be posted, though many
universities have developed such policies (Schmitt, 2011). The university’s response to
the lack of a specific description of the alleged attackers in the sexual cases revolved
around arguing that many of these types of assault are committed by acquaintances and
campus law enforcement knows who the perpetrator is and for whom they are searching.

82
In another attempt to force compliance of the Clery Act and to make the SMU
campus more informed on local crime, the SMU Daily Mustang loaded interactive maps
(Brioso, 2011). These maps reported the last three years of crime statistics and included
where alcohol violations, forcible sexual offenses, drug cases, and fire alarms occurred.
The maps showed liquor law violations to have increased from 115 incidents in 2007 to
147 in 2009, representing an increase of 47% (Brioso, 2011).
In another example of campus newspaper investigation, reported lack of
compliance resulted in an investigation by the Department of Education and led to
accompanying fines (Ward & Peele, 2012). Student reporters, serving on the Texan
News Service, the Tarleton State University student newspapers, investigated the
authenticity and accuracy of the campus’ crime reports for 2003 to 2005 (Ward & Peele,
2012). According to the investigation by the student reporters, they found the university
had under reported the number of sex offenses, drug-law violations and burglaries
between the above listed years (Fisher, 2012). During the same time period, Fisher
(2012) noted 10 sex offenses as well as 29 of 60 burglaries were not listed on the annual
crime report.
On October 6, 2009, Tarleton State University was officially notified the
institution had been assessed a series of fines totaling $137,500 (Gust, 2009). Mary Gust
(2009), serving as Director of the Administrative Actions and Appeals Division of the
Department of Education, indicated an investigation had been conducted due to
complaints leveled by the campus newspaper. The Department of Education further
elaborated an investigation had been conducted on the campus of Tarleton State
University the week of April 21 through April 25, 2008 and focused on the crime

83
statistics for the calendar years 2005 and 2006. These years were outside the scope of
the investigation initially launched by the student newspaper which had centered on the
campus crime reports of 2003 to 2005 (Ward & Peele, 2012).
As the case made its way through appeals with the Department of Education,
additional revelations began to emerge regarding the lack of reporting on the part of the
Tarleton State University administration (Decision in the matter of Tarleton State
University, 2012). The Department of Education initially fined the university $137,500
total for the following fines and violations: $27,500 for each of three forcible sexual
offenses not reported; $27,500 for failure to include 35 burglaries, 22 drug arrests, one
robbery and one referral for drug law violations and another $27,500 for four burglaries
and six drug arrests not reported (Decision in the matter of Tarleton State University,
2012). Tarleton State University appealed the fines and was initially awarded a favorable
ruling by Chief Administrative Judge Ernest C. Canellos, who lowered the fine to
$27,500; stating the university’s quick response to remedy the situation and the
university’s lack of intent to produce a false and erroneous report (Ward & Peele, 2012).
The Department of Education appealed the lowered fine and had the decision reversed
and the fine was raised to $110,000, based on the fact Tarleton State University did not
challenge 70 violations of the Clery Act (Decision in the matter of Tarleton State
University, 2012).
The Tarleton case proved to be a turning point with the Department of Education
in the sense the failure on the part of the institution to report a single crime supported
reasoning behind a fine of $27,500 (Cariello, 2012). Cariello (2012) believes the
Tarleton case moved enforcement of the Clery Act from having to prove a “pattern and

84
practice,” which was generally grouped to a single violation. However, the Tarleton case
reinforced a strict interpretation of the meaning of “each violation,” thus establishing a
precedent if used in the future, the Department of Education, may issue even larger
monetary fines for Clery Act violations.
Crime on Church-affiliated Private Institutions
With the demise of in loco parentis doctrine, colleges and universities still assume
a large responsibility for ensuring that measures are in place to ensure a safe and secure
campus (Griffin, 2006). The courts have long upheld church-affiliated colleges to the
same standards as state-supported institutions in many cases and have not allowed the
“church status” to be an excuse for exclusion from responsibility as in the case of Howe
v. Olmert (Griffin, 2006). In this case which was upheld by an appellate court in 1983,
the court found the church-affiliated college had a duty to protect visitors from dangerous
pitfalls on its grounds (Griffin, 2006). The historic case continues to be used in cases of
negligence directed either at a corporation or at the primary person of responsibility
representing the entity (Griffin, 2006).
The review of literature related to crime on ether church-affiliated or private
institutions is rather limited. However, private institutions in general appear to be the
first colleges and universities to be fined under the Clery Act for irregularities in
reporting crime statistics (Carter, 2005). The Clery Center for Security on Campus, the
“watchdog group” for Clery Act compliance lists on their website, between the years of
2002-2005, seven private or church-affiliated institutions as being out of compliance with
the Clery Act, as compared to only two state-supported institutions (Clery Center for
Security on Campus, 1987). The list of private institutions included the Savannah

85
College of Art and Design, St. Mary’s College, Georgetown University, William
Patterson University, LaSalle University, Christian Brothers University, and Yale
University (Clery Center for Security on Campus, 1987). The first institution to be fined
was the private Mount St. Clare College, now Ashford University in Clinton, Iowa.
Ashford University (2011) was formerly a Catholic institution but is now a for-profit
private institution with 99% of its students attending online classes. The institution was
fined $25,000, but later settled for $15,000 after admitting it failed to properly document
on-campus crime reports (Carter, 2005).
The second institution fined under the Clery Act was Salem International
University for misrepresenting their campus crime statistics (Carter, 2005). The
institution was founded as Salem College by the Seventh Day Baptist Church but is now
owned and operated by a Singapore investment company (Salem International
University, 2011). This was the first case where the Clery Act reached a fine exceeding
six figures when the institution was fined $2,000,000 to be paid in five equal installments
of $400,000 (Kattner, 2005). The Department of Education had begun investigating the
university in 1999 for omitting crime statistics from its annual 1997-1999 crime report.
In responding to crime on campus, private institutions, including church-affiliated
campuses must adhere to federal laws in much the same fashion as state-supported
institutions (Reardon, 2005). Federal laws which must be taken into account when
dealing with various types of campus crime include the Clery Act (Jeanne Clery
Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act of 1998), the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Title IX of the Educational
Amendments to the Civil Rights Act and its regulations (Reardon, 2005). The myriad of

86
laws and regulations often force institutions of higher education to move slowly and to
appear to be indecisive on taking direct action.
In the case of sexual assault on a private or church-affiliated campus, the rights of
victims are the same as the rights of victims at a state-supported institution (Reardon,
2005). As such, an example would be Title IX’s charge to schools that they immediately
stop harassment and prevent recurrences while providing interim measures for protecting
victims both during an investigation and before a formal hearing has been scheduled to
address the charges (Reardon, 2005).
Emergence of Hate Crimes on Campus
The category of “hate crimes” was not one of the original categories required to
be reported on an annual basis, however, the issue is now being addressed as a required
category on the current Clery Act (Ward & Lee, 2005). While hate crimes can be
manifested in many different forms, one of the fastest emerging forms is hate crimes
directed at the Muslim population on college campuses (Ali & Bagheri, 2009). While
this area of hate crimes is not specific to church-affiliated campuses, it does pose a
unique possible problem in the sense Muslims in the future will be projected to be the
second largest religious faith group in the United States (Ali & Bagheri, 2009). The
question posed to administrators at church-affiliated institutions of higher education will
be how to balance the level of acceptance of Muslim students while holding tight to their
own tenets of faith.
While members of certain populations such as Muslim students are often targeted
based on religious differences, individuals and groups who live alternative life styles are
often targets as well. In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, it reported in 2012 a total of

87
1,470 hate crime incidents based on sexual orientation, of which 8.4% occurred on
college campuses, making such campuses the third most likely place for a hate crime of
this nature to occur (Burney, 2012). One of the most publicized cases involved the
suicide death of Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi, who jumped to his death
from the George Washington Bridge (Burney, 2012). Clementi had been video recorded
by his roommate while in a romantic relationship with another male student. The
recording was posted on the Internet and its release led to humiliation and subsequent
suicide by Clementi. In April, 2011, New Jersey passed one of the most thorough and
toughest laws against both bullying and harassment (Burney, 2012). This law required
colleges and universities to adopt anti-bullying polices, provide and distribute them to the
campus community and to provide training to campus as well.
Institutions of higher education have begun to examine internal policies and
procedures as they apply to alternative life-style groups. One such example of policy
revisions was begun at Rutgers University where Clementi attended. At Rutgers,
students can apply for gender-neutral residential housing where members of both sexes
live together, but can use bathrooms and showers which can be used by both men and
women (Burney, 2012).
Other examples of inclusion include the development and staffing of Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual & Transgender offices (Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld & Frazer, 2010).
While less than 8% of campuses have such offices, the trend is increasing as more and
more institutions of higher education adapt policies which are inclusive of students’
alternative life-styles, but also are compliant with a new Clery Act requirement to report
hate crimes (Rankin et al. 2010).

88
Hate crimes are sometimes combined with other crimes and while the category of
hate crimes is a required Clery Act report, sometimes the other associated crime such as
hazing is not required to be reported as in the case of FAMU drum major, Robert
Champion (Rogers, 2012). Champion’s death is being ruled a homicide by hazing, but
his parents feel his death may have in part been caused by him being gay (Schneider,
2012). Under current Clery Act requirements, the hate crime and the murder would be
listed under a campus’ annual report, but the act of hazing which led to the murder and
the hate crime due to the victim being gay, would not be required to be reported.
Clery Act versus FERPA and other Federal Acts
Administrators at institutions of higher education must balance the enforcement of
two federal laws, which at times contradict each other. These two laws are the Family
Educational Right to Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Clery Act (Rosenzweig, 2002). In
1974, Congressed enacted FERPA as a means to “help prevent the abuse and improper
disclosure” of a student’s educational files when a college or university would release
personal records without the student’s consent (Walton, 2002). The FERPA Act, which
Congress passed without the benefit of public hearings and feedback or committee
studies or reports, requires all institutions receiving federal funding to protect students’
records (Walton, 2002).
FERPA applies to all public and private institutions who receive funds from the
U.S. Department of Education (Rosenzweig, 2002). Even if an institution does not
directly receive funds, but has students who receive funds from various federal college
tuition assistance programs, it must also comply with FERPA regulations and
requirements (Rosenzweig, 2002). With the annual dispersement of $54 billion of tuition

89
assistance a year, the need to comply with FERPA is far reaching and pervasive in higher
education in the United States (Rosenzweig, 2002).
The primary conflict between the two federal laws is the disclosure of judicial
records (Walton, 2002). FERPA defines “education records as those records, files,
documents, and other materials, which contain information directly related to the student
and are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such
agency or institution (Walton, 2002).” While FERPA does not specifically mention
campus law enforcement or judicial records and documents, many watchdog groups feel
FERPA is being used to hide or protect student criminals (Gregory, 2001). This fear
stems from actions committed by college students which are criminal in nature but which
are being handled through campus judicial processes rather than criminal courts
(Gregory, 2001). Coupled with the fact campus judicial records as well as campus law
enforcement records are excluded, the watchdog groups feel the protection of these
students shield both the student and the institution from public exposure and criticism
(Gregory, 2001).
The Clery Act requires “timely warnings” to be issued on campuses if a perceived
threat or emergency can be ascertained (Meloy, 2012). Some administrators continue to
confuse enforcement of FERPA with the Clery Act, even though FERPA has a health and
safety exemption clause which reads in part “circumstance to determine whether
articulable and significant threat” can be directed at health and welfare of either a student
or others on campus (Meloy, 2012).
Several lawsuits in the 1990s saw the rise in requests by both campus and
professional journalists and reporters who wanted access to campus judicial records

90
(Gregory, 2001). While many in the press viewed the 1998 amendments as a victory to
access campus judicial and law enforcement records, the amendments did not mandate
the institution to comply with the request, rather “disclosure is permissive” under the
amendments (Walton, 2002). Two court cases in particular have established both broad
and narrow interpretations of FERPA (Rosenzweig, 2002). The first major test of
FERPA came in the form of Bauer v. Kincaid (1991), to determine whether Congress
intended FERPA to protect campus police departments’ records and files as part of the
“umbrella of campus records” (Rosenzweig, 2002). In this case, Bauer, who was the
student editor-in-chief of the Southwest Missouri State University student newspaper,
requested copies of specific incident reports as investigated by the campus police
(Rosenzweig, 2002). The university refused to release the reports, citing the files
contained the names of the involved students, and the institution argued that these files
were protected by FERPA. Under a very narrow interpretation of the law, the court
disagreed with the University and ordered the University to release the files to the student
newspaper (Rosenzweig, 2002). In the ruling, the court applied the narrow interpretation
on the basis that only records directly related to the academic mission of the university
were protected under FERPA (Rosenzweig, 2002).
A second case which built upon the Bauer v. Kincaid (1991) case was The Student
Press Law Center v. Alexander (1991) in which student journalists challenged the
Department of Education’s authority to withhold federal funding from institutions of
higher education releasing students’ personal information obtained from campus police
reports (Rosenzweig, 2002). The court ordered the Department of Education to cease
threatening to remove funding, but did not follow the same narrow interpretation as did

91
the court in Bauer v. Kincaid. Instead, the court found protection of the First Amendment
outweighed the government’s need to enforce FERPA (Rosenzweig, 2002).
In 1998, in order to end the contradictory nature of the two federal laws, Congress
amended both FERPA and the Clery Act (Gregory, 2001). Three major amendments
were enacted on FERPA which drew directly from the conflicts with the Clery Act
(Walton, 2002). The changes and modifications stipulated campus law enforcement
agencies records could no longer be protected under FERPA; parents of students found
responsible for campus alcohol and drug violations could be notified of the results of the
campus judicial processes (Gregory, 2001). The release of records to parents could occur
even if a student was not financially dependent upon their parents. Lastly, the results of
the student conduct hearings for students responsible for “crimes of violence” and non –
forcible sex offenses could be released to the public (Ramirez, 2009).
Clarification under the “crimes of violence” as listed under the U.S. Code allowed
institutions to release information to the general public, the media, the student body, or
others individuals or entities (Gregory, 2001). The 1998 amendment also now allowed
institutions to release the final dispositions of judicial hearings to the victims of campus
crime (Walton, 2002).
With the 1998 amendments of both federal laws, Gregory (2001), Rosenzweig
(2002), and Walton (2002), reported that institutions of higher education can balance the
requirements of both laws by developing four strategies. First, criminal offenses should
be reported in a timely manner utilizing formal reporting policies developed by the
institution and followed by the residence life staff, judicial staff and campus security and
or police. Second, judicial affairs officers should release anonymous reports on a regular

92
basis, and they should include the nature of the offenses and the sanctions issued against
the students involved. Third, the issuing of campus crime statistics satisfies the Campus
Security Act, but disclosure also helps to eliminate the belief by external forces that
campuses are hiding campus crime. Fourth, Congress expects FERPA to provide
protection on all educational records. By ensuring privacy of these records, it is hoped
victims can avoid experiencing any personal humiliation.
As with FERPA, the Clery Act has also been modified when found to be either in
conflict with or contradictory to other federal acts such as The Campus Sex Crimes
Prevention Act (CSCPA; Turrentine, Stites, Campos, & Henke, 2003). In October of
2002, Congress passed the CSCPA as a requirement that states inform institutions of
higher education of either the enrollment or the employment of a registered sex offender
(Turrentine et al. 2003). The CSCPA was an attempt to close loopholes in two previous
federal acts; first, Megan’s Law which was signed in 1996 and required law enforcement
agencies to give notice if a registered sex offender moves into a neighborhood
(Turrentine et al. 2003). Second, the CSCPA was to amend the Clery Act which required
institutions of higher education to post, among other requirements, campus crime
statistics (Turrentine et al. 2003). With the death of Jeanne Clery, her parents made it a
fundamental part of the Clery Act to include information on sexual assault as one of the
cornerstones for campus crime reporting (Gregory, 2001).
When signed into law, the CSCPA required sex offenders to register to their
respective state agency whenever they intend to enroll or to be employed at an institution
of higher education (Turrentine et al. 2003). States differ widely on definitions as well as
classifications of sexual assault and as such, the CSCPA has been challenged in both state

93
courts and before the U.S. Supreme Court (Turrentine et al., 2003). The ACLU (2001)
challenged Connecticut’s registration law because the watchdog agency argued the law
did not provide a means for sex offenders to prove they were no longer a threat to the
community. In March of 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6 to 3 vote to allow the
State of Alaska law requiring registration to be upheld and in a separate case, ruled the
State of Connecticut’s sex offender registration law to be constitutional (Turrentine et al.
2003).
In researching the scope of the problem with enforcement of CSCPA, Turrentine
et al. (2003) initiated a study to learn how many registered sex offenders live near and
work at college campuses across the United States. Turrentine et al. (2003) utilized
following three research questions to guide his study. First, how many sex offenders
reside within a 10-mile radius? Secondly, at selected institutions of higher education
included in the study, how many registered sex offenders are either enrolled or employed
at said institution? Third, based on population density of the surrounding community,
does this factor cause a difference in enrollment or employment at institutions of higher
education in the U.S.?
Sex offender registries which were posed by states and were searchable by zip
code were selected for the study (Turrentine et al. 2003). The Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement of Teaching’s (2000) list of institutions was utilized to determine the
types and classifications of different institutions and was organized by state by Carnegie
type. A doctoral granting institution was selected from each state because Turrentine et
al. (2003) found these institutions produced the greatest number of searchable online

94
directories. In all, 39 institutions representing 21 states and the District of Columbia
were included in the study.
Turrentine et al. (2003) found 12,482 sex offenders living within the designated
10-mile radius chosen to include in the study. In addition, the researchers found 78 exact
matches of registered sex offenders either enrolled or employed by the institutions, with a
possible 407 additional possible matches included in the study. Of the total 485
respondents, 47% were students enrolled at the colleges, and 26% were employees
employed on the campuses. The remaining 27% could not be determined as being
enrolled or employed from the published campus directories.
Turrentine et al. (2003) identified a large number of sex offenders residing near
college campuses. Furthermore, the authors showed each institution which participated
in the study to have an average of 240 sex offenders living within the 10-mile radius.
Even campuses located in either suburban or rural surroundings were found to have on
average, at least 10 registered six offenders within the chosen radius.
The Violence Against Women Act or VAWA, was originally written into law in
1994, but had little or no direct connection with the Clery Act (Barrios, 2013). However,
when the law came up for renewal in 2013, it addressed several areas which had not been
addressed in the original legislation and tied enforcement of the law to the Clery Act as
the legislation applied to college campuses (Barrios, 2013). The new revision of the law
addressed three areas which were not covered under the original law; Native American
tribal members, cyber-bullying and other areas of abuse which were not the focus of the
original VAWA (Barrios, 2013). Native Americans previously had little jurisdiction over
non-Indian domestic abusers, limiting their prosecution of non-Native Americans who

95
committed domestic related crimes against tribal members. Secondly, cyber-bullying
was not an issue in 1994 when the original law was passed. The third area was the
protection for men and members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender
community who suffered abuse from domestic violence, yet in the past had been offered
little or no protection on a federal level.
On March 7, 2013, President Obama signed into the reauthorization of the
Violence Against Women’s Act with direct requirements attached to the Clery Act
(Aryani, Baughman, McNeill, & Stio, 2013). The new requirements include provisions
for the Annual Security Report (ASR) to list domestic violence and stalking incidents
which occur on campus. The Hate Crime category was also expanded to include crimes
committed or motivated by a bias directed against a victim’s gender identity or national
origin (Aryani, et al., 2013). As a part of VAWA, two additional changes in the Clery
Act (Baker & Kraemer, 2013), were instituted. First, for written procedures addressing
educational programs which address the issue of domestic violence, dating violence,
sexual assault and stalking to be presented to all new incoming students and new
employees. Secondly, each college campus must develop step-by-step procedures to
investigate the reporting, investigation and conduct decisions regarding reports of
domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and dating violence on campus.
The re-signed VAWA authorized Congress to disperse $659 million a year over
five years to develop programs and initiatives aimed at improving criminal justice and
court systems response and protection towards women and victims of gender identify
(Lederman, 2013).

96
The revised VAWA also added four new definitions to the Annual Security
Report, which include defining Dating Violence, Domestic Violence, Stalking and
redefining Sexual Assault (Baker & Kraemer, 2013). An additional change in the Clery
Act Annual Security Report addresses the issue of Timely Warnings must withhold the
names of victims as this information is considered confidential and should not be
disclosed.
The association of the Violence Against Women Act and the Clery Act is not
immediately apparent on what additional resources will be needed by institutions of
higher education. The new requirements of the Clery Act do not commence until the
Spring, 2014 Annual Security Report (Aryani et al 2013) is due. It is during this ASR
that institutions must list their expanded crime categories to cover the new requirements
under VAWA, the new programs to combat domestic violence, sexual assault and
stalking.
The Impact of the News Media on Campus Crime Reporting
The recent sex scandal at Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) helped
illustrate the impact of News Media on posting of campus crime statistics as related to the
Clery Act (Johnson, 2011). Within the last two years, three cases, as reported by The
New York Times, have made wide-spread news in which the public has had the rare
opportunity to see university administrators brought before public opinion (Bernstein,
2011) These cases involved Arizona State University, Marquette University, and most
recently Penn State University.
When the Penn State story broke, one of the first angles reporters began to search
was the history of whether any of the previously reported cases against Coach Jerry

97
Sandusky were reported by Penn State university officials (Johnson, 2011). Coach
Sandusky had allegedly assaulted young boys for over a period of 15 years, and some of
the cases had allegedly been reported to campus police and campus administrators as
reported by The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Ove, 2011).
The Penn State case involving Coach Sandusky should have been resolved when
then graduate assistant student Mike McQueary observed sexual activity between the
coach and a minor in 2002 (Ove, 2011). McQueary then brought the incident to the
attention of Head Football Coach, Joe Paterno. Paterno in return then reported the
incident to his immediate superiors, Athletic Director Tim Curley and Vice President
Gary Schultz who directly supervised the Penn State Campus Police (Ove, 2011). It was
within this series of reports that a case of sexual assault on a minor should have been
filed under at least two requirements of the Clery Act: first for the sexual assault itself,
and second, as a duty to warn the campus community of a perceived threat (Johnson,
2011).
The reasons for the young boys to be on campus came from participating in The
Second Mile, a program aimed at troubled students and at-risk youths (O’Keeffe, 2011).
The Second Mile was founded in 1977 and has helped as many as 100,000 children
through campus and fund-raising projects (Begos & Scolforo, 2011). The Associated
Press reported the program raised $3.3 million in revenue during the 2008-2009 years
(Begos & Scolforo, 2011). The modus operandi for Coach Sandusky was to lavish both
attention and gifts on male children in need of both (Begos & Scolforo, 2011). The
Second Mile listed $288,000 for “other expenses” which may have been used by Coach

98
Sandusky to purchase the gifts which were given the children who craved the attention
(Begos & Scolforo, 2011).
A Grand Jury, along with the State Attorney General, has charged Coach Jerry
Sandusky with 40 abuse charges stemming from the alleged sexual assaults of at least
eight young boys, noting some of the assaults as occurring on university premises
(O’Keeffe, 2011). The case has elicited strong emotions and comments from various
individuals and groups, including S. Daniel Carter, Policy Director for the Clery Center
for Security on Campus, the watchdog group the Clery family founded after the death of
their daughter, Jeanne Clery. Mr. Carter was quoted as having said in direct relation to
this case that “there have been other Clery Act cases, but this would be precedent setting.
We have never seen a case like this” (Ove, 2011, p, 5). Other comments on this
particular case include comments from Arne Duncan, U.S. Education Secretary who said
university administrators “have legal and moral responsibilities to protect children and
young people from violence and abuse” (Ove, 2011, p. 22).
The Coach Jerry Sandusky case may have ramifications which far exceed the
scope for which the Clery Act was originally intended. In 1999, even though Coach
Sandusky was not currently on the payroll for Penn State University, he was invited to
the Alamo Bowl game in San Antonio, TX. At this game, he was in the company of a
minor child (Raley, 2011). While attending the game in Texas, the aforementioned
Grand Jury report describes a young boy who was assaulted and then threatened to be
sent home if he resisted Coach Sandusky’s advances (Raley, 2011). No other case
involving the Clery Act has involved crossing state lines while a crime was being
committed.

99
To fully investigate the accusations surrounding Coach Sandusky, Penn State
University’s Board of Trustees hired Louis Freeh, former director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation to conduct a full and independent investigation (Freeh, 2012). The
investigation was charged with identifying individuals at all levels who might have
played a role in either knowing of or covering up the sexual abuse of children committed
by Coach Sandusky. During Freeh’s investigation, 430 personal interviews were
conducted as well as 3.5 million pieces of pertinent email communications and or
documents were reviewed to determine the pertinent nature of the correspondence. In
addition, the university’s policies and procedures were reviewed.
The case brought to light a crime which is seldom identified on a college campus;
child sexual abuse (Levin, 2011). Levin reported (2011) that child sexual abuse is
severely underreported and many perpetrators are never reported either out of
embarrassment by the victim or the fact many people cannot phantom the scope of what
is possibly being discussed. Even though Levin noted Pennsylvania has a high threshold
in reporting child sexual abuse cases, Coach Sandusky was able to continue his sexual
assaults for a decade and a half.
Freeh’s (2012) report noted many of the same concerns reported by Levin (2011),
that Coach Sandusky had apparently been caught at least twice; once by a janitor and a
second time by an assistant football coach, yet no one moved the reporting of child sexual
abuse to the formal authorities for prosecution. Freeh’s report (2012) also noted Penn
State’s responsibility for the graduate football coach’s failure to report the sexual activity
is a violation of the Clery Act for two reasons. First, the failure to include such a
reporting in the annual campus crime statistics is a violation of the Clery Act. The second

100
violation was for not sending out a campus wide timely warning as per Clery Act
requirements. Freeh’s report goes further as it includes a chapter titled “Federal and state
child sexual abuse reporting requirements,” but specifically a subchapter is titled “The
University’s failure to implement the Clery Act,” which specifically lists the times, places
and incidents in which the university is at fault for not reporting the child sexual abuse
cases. The report further points out a reoccurrence of failure of “awareness and interest
in Clery Act compliance remained lacking throughout the University.”
As Freeh’s (2012) report began to be distributed, several “Constitutionalists” have
claimed the Clery Act to be illegal (Denniston, 2012). Two Supreme Court cases, U.S.
vs. Lopez in 1995 and U.S. v. Morrison in 2000, severely limited Congress’ power to
restrict or legislate based on interstate commerce (Denniston, 2012). The Lopez case
restricted guns within certain limits of schools and the Morrison case ruled the Violence
Against Women Act had gone too far in regulating domestic violence, which is a local
crime issue. Denniston (2012) believes in much the same way the Supreme Court struck
down the Lopez and modified the Morrison case, the Clery Act may be in danger since
the law threatens to withhold federal funding for non-compliance and or fine the
institution for violations.
A second recent sexual assault case to be the focus of national news attention
centered on Marquette University’s handling and subsequent response to two separate
alleged sexual assault cases as reported by The Journal Sentinel of Milwaukee, WI
(Walker, 2011). Both of the Marquette University cases involved athletes and occurred
in February and October of 2010. With the October 2010 case, one of the accused
athletes held a meeting with his coaches in order to determine what and when to report

101
the incident (Bernstein, 2011). During the meeting between the accused athlete and
coaches, a text was sent to the accuser asking if she had reported the incident to the
campus police (Walker, 2011).
In the February 2010 case, an athlete was accused of sexual assault which
allegedly took place in an on-campus residence hall (Walker, 2011). Although the
alleged assault was reported to campus police, the case was not forwarded to the local
Milwaukee police, and later the female assault victim reported the assault to the
Milwaukee police. Citing state law, the alleged crime should be reported to the local
police department as well in order to hasten the investigation and preserve evidence
(Bernstein, 2011). In both of these cases, the Milwaukee Police Department argued the
investigation was delayed because the reporting of the cases had been compromised due
to untimely reporting by Marquette University officials.
On November 10, 2011, The Journal Sentinel reported the U.S. Department of
Education formally informed Marquette University that a review of the University’s
sexual assault policy was being conducted (Walker, 2011). In addition to the federal
review of policies, the local Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm
criticized the way Marquette University addressed the two separate sexual assault cases
(Walker, 2011). In his criticism, Chisholm cited the fact that Marquette University’s
campus officers were not sworn law enforcement officers and therefore lacked the
training and authority to fully investigate a sexual assault case, further alluding to the fact
the local Milwaukee Police Department had full jurisdiction over the property of the
private, Catholic-church affiliated campus (Walker, 2011).

102
The mainstream media has also begun to advise parents and students of the
potential of crime statistics when evaluating college campuses. For example, U.S. News
and World Report (Picardo, 2012) recently ran an article titled “Consider Campus Crime
When Evaluating Colleges.” With this magazine’s considerable following, the author
mentioned the basics of the Clery Act and a brief history of the law, but bluntly cautioned
the readers about “believing everything on the internet,” because many institutions of
higher education promote the lack of crime, yet their numbers listed with the Department
of Education tell a much different story. Instead, the readers of the article were directed
to go to The Daily Beast.com, a site which employs a ranking system, i.e., murder is
ranked highest and has a 20 times value over a simple burglary case. The article does
find fault with The Daily Beast’s campus rankings because sexual assault is not one of
the categories which is ranked, yet the specific category is one of the primary categories
found on the Clery Act (Picardo, 2012). A second site was cited by the article,
NerdWallet.com, which does not rank the categories, but does simplify the Department of
Education’s own data. NerdWallet.com took into account every crime which occurred on
a campus, including both on-campus and off-campus property, and used each institution’s
2010 enrollment statistics to arrive at a per-capita crime rate statistic (Picardo, 2012).
Title IX Involvement with Campus Crime
The Arizona State University case was unique in that the victim eventually filed
and won a suit under a Title IX “hostile environment” case filed against a football player
as reported by Title IX.info, a watch group dedicated to enforcing Title IX legislation
(Munson, 2011). In 2004, a female student at Arizona State University (ASU) was
sexually assaulted in her residence hall room by a member of the football team

103
(Bernstein, 2011). The male student had a previous history of physically grabbing,
issuing threats and sexually harassing women on campus and was eventually suspended
from the university (Bernstein, 2011). The male student was later re-admitted at the
insistence of his coach. In 2006, the female student filed suit against the University, the
Board of Regents, head football coach Dirk Koetter and the alleged rapist, Darnel
Henderson (Munson, 2011).
The ASU case was unusual in the sense the victim’s settlement in court was
significant for three reasons (Munson, 2011). First, the University had to hire an expert
to review and reform all policies related to investigating sexual assault cases and
harassment. Second, the settlement in monetary funds was extremely large compared to
most other settled sexual assault cases; $850,000. Third, the settlement did not prevent
any public disclosures of the settlement which allowed the public and news media to have
full access to the court findings and the settlement.
News media’s access to the unsecured court documents showed ASU destroyed
Darnel Henderson’s previous misconduct records as well as deleted key emails related to
his misconduct (Munson, 2011). The court records further revealed Henderson was
investigated by campus police for assault, but it was a full 3 weeks before he was
interviewed. Though Henderson was found to be caught in a series of lies, the case was
forwarded to the Maricopa County authorities, where the local district attorney refused to
prosecute (Munson, 2011). The victim filed her lawsuit under the provisions of Title IX
with the assumption of equal access to higher education for all students (Munson, 2011).
The case centered on the fact that a student known to sexually harass women was living

104
on campus; therefore, the campus environment as a whole was hostile to women
(Bernstein, 2011).
During May 2013, students from four prominent universities and colleges, in
conjunction with women’s rights attorney, Gloria Alred, filed federal complaints against
their respective universities (Riddell, 2013). The student representatives, largely
consisting of sexual assault survivors, filed complaints against the University of Southern
California, Swarthmore College, Dartmouth College and the University of California at
Berkley. A sexual assault survivor who attended the University of Southern California
was told by the chief investigator of her case that “she should not expect them (the
university) to punish her rapist; rather their process was educative, not punitive.” Alred,
who is representing the students, said the complaints included both Title IX complainants
because the students alleged a hostile environment for women as well as complaints
under the Clery Act which requires accurate reporting of campus crime statistics (Riddell,
2013). After Alred’s allegations, Occidental College hired two former sex crimes
prosecutors to review the institution’s polices regarding sexual assault and develop new
policies moving forward (Winton, 2013). In addition to the review of policies, both the
University of Southern California and Occidental admitted to under reporting sexual
assault cases (Son & Felch, 2013). In the case of the University of Southern California,
the institution admitted to underreporting 13 cases between 2010 and 2011, bringing the
institution’s total of sexual cases to 39. Occidental College admitted to failing to include
24 reported sexual assaults to its total for the same time, bringing its total to 36 cases.

105
Measures To Prevent Crime on Campus
With the mandatory requirement of the Clery Act to report campus crimes, many
institutions of higher education are developing procedures and policies to minimize or
mitigate their risk (Hughes, White, & Hertz, 2008). While students and parents are
increasingly utilizing data supplied by campus crime logs to make informed decisions,
the Clery Act cannot serve as the primary and sole source of information (Karp, 2001).
In addition to the mandatory reporting, institutions of higher education find scandals
associated with campus crime to be expensive (Hughes, 2006). One sexual assault case
at the University of Colorado resulted in the cost of $7 million in investigation costs and
personnel firings with another estimated $48 million lost to corporate sponsorships and a
decline in subsequent enrollment associated with the scandal (Hughes, 2006). Hughes et
al. (2008) believed these costs did not take into account actual “soft” costs of the crime,
which included the institution’s good will and overall reputation within the local
community.
An example of another high profile scandal which involved campus crime and the
subsequent determined effort on the part of the administration to “cover up” the scandal
occurred on the campus of Eastern Michigan University in December of 2006 (Hughes et
al. 2010). In this particular incident, a college female was murdered in her residence hall
room, allegedly by a fellow student. Fearful of the fallout, the administration tried
initially to keep the negative publicity from escalating. It was eventually determined that
university administrators failed to properly disclose the information to both the public
and for the annual Clery Act report (Hughes et al. 2010). The Board of Trustees fired the
university’s president, vice president for student services, and chief of police.

106
One means now being employed on an ever increasing basis is the use of criminal
background checks (CBC) with students, faculty, and staff (Hughes et al. 2010). In one
study by Weinbach (2007), an online survey was conducted into the perceived
effectiveness of background checks. Weinbach showed that 83 colleges and universities
indicated conducting background checks, though the results of the study varied on which
population the CBCs were directed. In the study results, 27.7% of colleges stated they
conducted background checks on students before the students were allowed to enroll. In
addition, these institutions conducted background checks on staff 86.8% of the time and
on faculty 43% of the time. While the number of CBCs was being conducted on students
by institutions of higher education remains relatively low, it was reported in a 2004
survey that over 80% of U.S. businesses conducted CBCs on potential employees
(Hughes et al. 2010). Resistance is in part originating from the faculty side of the shop,
as the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has issued a statement
objecting to a blanket policy of CBCs on faculty (Hughes et al. 2008).
The AAUP has been insistent in resisting CBCs as a consistent part of the
application process of hiring faculty (Springer, 2003). Faculty concerns at the University
of Texas regarding privacy escalated to the point the institution observed faculty
recruiting efforts had been hindered (Springer, 2003). As a result of the backlash from
faculty, the university chose to revise its policy, and only candidates for “security
sensitive” underwent CBCs. The AAUP has argued CBCs are used for other reasons
than their intended purpose (Springer, 2003). As such, the AAUP argued an institution
could use information obtained through a CBC to disqualify a candidate even though the
discovered information may not be related to the individual’s ability to perform the job.

107
The AAUP advised through its written statement that three basic protections be afforded
with the first two including having the candidate notified of the need for the background
check and is notified in writing (Fields, 2005). And lastly, the AAUP advised that no
action be taken due to the disclosure of information on a background check until the
candidate has the opportunity to change, refute, or rebut the information disclosed in the
background check.
One high profile case occurred at Pennsylvania State University where Paul E.
Krueger, an engineering professor who had taught in his field for 15 years, including 4
years at his current university (Hughes, Keller, & Hertz, 2010). Krueger’s criminal
history surfaced when he applied for membership on a state-sanctioned committee. A
CBC discovered Krueger had been convicted of three murders in 1965 when he was a
teenager. Krueger had been sentenced to life in prison but was paroled in 1979. He
immediately resigned his position when news of his conviction was discovered but
questions remained as to how Penn State could have reacted if Krueger had not resigned.
This case generated wide-spread fears that other faculty could have been involved with
criminal histories that could include murder, sexual assault, and child molestation
(Hughes et al. 2010). Coupled with demands for more accountability and pending state
legislative efforts in Utah, Kentucky, Illinois, and North Carolina, more and more
institutions are implementing CBCs (Hughes et al. 2010). The issue will lie with
consistency in implementing the policies that involve including all members of the
institution’s academic population, including students, faculty, and staff (Hughes et al.
2008).

108
With the increase in numbers of international students coming to study at U.S.
universities, the implementation of CBCs on this group of students has increased, but the
practice is not without fault (Hughes et al. 2008). More than 620,000 international
students enrolled in U.S. colleges for the 2007-2008 academic years. This number
represented a 7% increase over the 2006-2007 academic year, even though increased
legislation and enhanced security measures would seem to have stemmed the surge
(Hughes et al. 2008). There has been a general assumption among university
administrators that most international students would have been through an extensive
CBC in their own country as well as undergone such a process by U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE; Hughes et al. 2008). In one high profile case, two
University of South Florida students, Ahmed Mohamed and Yousseh Megahed, were
stopped for a routine traffic stop (Hughes et al. 2008). During inspection of the vehicle,
police found pipe bombs in the back of the car. During the subsequent investigation,
federal records showed Mohamed had an arrest record in his native country of Egypt for
producing a video demonstrating how to build a remote-activated car bomb. Both
students had entered the U.S. through the normal visa processes. Mohamed later pled
guilty in June 2008 to providing material assistance to terrorists. The successful arrival
of the two in the U.S. and ability to provide material support for terrorists suggested the
presence of severe gaps in the use of CBCs with all international students.
In conjunction with CBCs, many universities have begun to implement web-based
incident reporting systems based on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, which is better
known as the Whistleblowers Act (Zuckerman, 2004). While the measure was initially
adopted for a business environment, this new platform allows institutions to provide a

109
means of ongoing risk mitigation (Hughes et al. 2008). One area on a college campus
that has been quick to embrace CBCs is the area of student housing (Hight & Raphael,
2004). This operation on a college campus generates a large amount of revenue for most
institutions, but it also exposes the institution to negligence. Negligence as defined by
Weiss (1991) is “the failure to exercise due care under circumstances where the legal
duty to care is owed another person or other people” (p. 6). Weiss (1991) further added
that “due care requires that all reasonable and legal steps must be taken to protect the
organization” (p. 6). With that in mind, most residence life departments require CBCs
for professional staff, paraprofessional staff, and all student employees (Hight & Raphael,
2004). With these staff members having access to master keys, money, and sensitive
student information, the need to minimize negligence is paramount. Hight and Raphael
(2004) reported that approximately 5% of job applicants who underwent CBCs were
found to have had a criminal record from the last 7 years. Coupled with the fact that
criminals’ backgrounds were being uncovered, it was also determined nearly 25% of
those undergoing CBCs had either misrepresented their education or work experiences on
their resumes.
In a 2011 case, the issue of juvenile records being included in a CBC search
surfaced when a Temple University student answered “no” to the admissions application
question of whether or not he had a criminal history (Jaschik, 2012). A juvenile court
had previously heard the applicant’s case in which he was charged with disseminating
child pornography. When the court offered to provide the information to Temple
University, the applicant objected. However, a Pennsylvania appeals court ruled under
current law, the university could be notified of the juvenile record (Jaschik, 2012). The

110
appeals court found aspects of the current law vague, but ruled the term “school,” which
juvenile records can be shared, could include colleges and universities in the in the
overall definition. The case poses to increase the number of applicants who will need to
disclose juvenile records and convictions, but it will force admissions staffs to consider
these additional documents before an admissions decision can be made.
In a qualitative study, White et al. (2008) researched the type of information
collected through web-based reporting systems, the nature of the inquiries, and the
credibility of the information collected. In the White et al. study, three goals were to be
researched. First, determine how the institution arrived at its decision for the selection of
software and how they planned to utilize the platform. Second, address how the
institution integrated the platform into campus operations. And third, list the advantages
and disadvantages of the software.
At the time of the research, White et al. (2008) determined 25 U.S. institutions of
higher education utilized reporting software, and of this number, White et al. (2008)
selected 14 institutions to represent a purposeful selection for the sample. Fifteen
questions were developed which White et al. thought would address the three goals and
prompt interviewees to provide additional information.
White et al. (2008) found that all of the interviewees saw significant advantages to
reporting software, but most interviewees thought their software systems were
underutilized. The two noted advantages of these systems were the following: (1) the
online accessibility compared to office hour related availability if a report needed to be
made and (2) the consistency of reports and the anonymity of those reporting. White et
al. (2008) concluded web-based reporting software programs are going to grow in

111
popularity, especially as controlling boards mitigate their risk. However, White et al.
(2008) also concluded that much additional research is needed to fully understand both
the advantages and disadvantages of this type of campus risk mitigation.
Threat Assessment
With the much publicized attacks by students on the campuses of University of
Arizona in 2002, at Virginia Tech in 2007 and Northern Illinois University 2008,
campuses have been rocked by the inability to anticipate and handle crises as they occur
(Cornell, 2010). As such, institutions of higher education have begun to develop
strategies and tactics to combat such behaviors before they become front page news
(Cornell, 2010).
One new strategy is to develop a campus-wide threat assessment team to
systematically identify and investigate perceived threats (Cornell, 2010). The term
“threat assessment” is a broad term meant to identify dangerous situations which could
come from either an individual or a group. The risk of homicide on campus is relatively
low compared to the overall general population but nonetheless is a concern. From 1997
through 2007, there were an average of 25.5 homicide deaths on college campuses with a
low of 9 in 2003 and a high of 64 in 2007 (Cornell, 2010). The 2007 year is viewed as an
anomaly due to the 30+ deaths occurring at Virginia Tech (Cornell, 2010). In response to
the Virginia Tech tragedy, the Virginia state legislative body passed a law mandating
each public institution of higher education in the state must develop a “threat assessment
team” (Cornell, 2010).
The creation of a campus-wide threat assessment team allows an institution to
provide consultation and assistance to other departments or offices on the campus when

112
dealing with possible dangerous situations (Swink, 2010). The team needs the ability to
identify, assess, and manage individuals who are brought to their attention. The various
components to the threat assessment team do not follow a particular formula. However,
there may be many departments and offices which often seem to represent the core
membership of such a team. These offices include campus security, student life,
counseling offices, legal affairs, and the campus public relations office (Swink, 2010). It
is the responsibility of the threat assessment team to sort out outlandish behavior, which
is often represented on a campus, and to discern truly dangerous behavior (Swink, 2010).
The team should have the responsibility to respond to threats coming from within the
institution from students, staff and faculty, but should also be able to determine threats
originating from members of the immediate community (Cornell, 2010). Cornell (2010)
suggested that the threat assessment team should develop a four-part response strategy in
order to determine threat assessment. First, the threat assessment team needs to identify
the threat and notify the team of any communication or threat to harm someone or
behavior suggesting violent intentions. Second, the team needs to evaluate the
seriousness of the threat and allow the team to gather relevant information and try to
resolve the case as a transient threat. If unsuccessful, move to the third step. In the third
step, the assessment team needs to intervene and take protective action and notify
potential victims. The assessment team also needs to involve law enforcement to conduct
an investigation and mental health assessment if appropriate. In the fourth stage, the
threat assessment team needs to monitor the safety plan and document the assessment and
intervention strategies utilized by the team. At this stage, the team needs to ensure
follow-up takes place and determine if the plan worked as developed. Step 1 involves

113
identifying threats. In this step, the team casts a wide net as to not overlook a potential
incident or threat. Any communication which implies or constitutes a threat needs to be
reviewed by the committee. Because the committee is looking at any broad threat,
Cornell (2010) suggested no automatic consequences should be associated with a threat
investigation unless the threat actually involves an illegal act, such as calling in a false
bomb threat. At this stage, essential key personnel who may initially be the people
coming across evidence of a threat, such as residence hall personnel, mental health
counselors, faculty advisors, and security members, must be trained to refer the case to
the threat assessment team. Step 2 involves the threat assessment team evaluating the
seriousness of the threat. The first task of the team is to gather as much information as
possible and assess the uniqueness and seriousness of the situation. This may range from
interviewing a few witnesses to conducting a formal investigation with the cooperation of
local law enforcement officers. It is at this stage Cornell (2010) identified 70% of threats
as being of a transient nature, meaning they would pass as expressions of feelings and
would not reflect a substantive intent to inflict injury or harm.
Step 3 is the intervention stage during which the primary goal of the threat
assessment team is to neutralize and reduce the risk of harm. If the team cannot easily
explain nor resolve the case, the case needs to be treated as a substantive threat and needs
further evaluation. Cornell (2010) classified 30% of threats as substantive, meaning the
threats had some risk to harm others. In the event the case involves mental health
professionals, the duty to warn potential victims activates and the team must
communicate the danger to the identified, potential victims (Cornell, 2010). Step 4
involves follow-up and re-evaluation of the effectiveness of the safety plan. With each

114
case, a follow-up on the plan is warranted to determine if all departments and individuals
responded in an appropriate fashion.
For the threat assessment team to be successful there must be a quality
implementation on campus that involves administrative support, campus-wide education
and cross-disciplinary teamwork (Cornell, 2010). The campus leadership must convey
support for the team and support the actions of the team. Faculty, students, and staff
members should be educated as to both the nature of the committee’s work and the
importance of directing those needing help to the committee. The threat assessment team
must be made up of various members representing various departments of the campus
community. These members must develop a deep level of trust and respect so they can
arrive at collaborative solutions to campus threats as efficiently as possible.
With the recent Penn State University case where several under age males were
sexually assaulted and several Clery Act violations occurred, the need for a specialized
compliance manager is emerging on college campuses (Gray, 2013). In one of the fastest
developing trends, Campus Safety magazine indicates 77% of respondents in a recent
survey indicated their institutions had a designated Clery Act compliance officer (Gray,
2013). With this rapidly developing trend, institutions have found the designated Clery
Act compliance officer must be undergoing constant training as the field is rapidly
developing as new requirements are added to the law. In addition, the compliance officer
must be constantly training the campus security authorities (CSA) as identified in the
Clery Act. As in the case of Penn State University, 3,000 CSAs have been identified
which range from Resident Assistants to athletic trainers to both sworn and non-sworn
security officers (Gray, 2013).

115
Another role of the Clery Act compliance officer is very close cooperation with
the campus Title IX Coordinator since there many similarities between the two laws
(Gray, 2013). It is suggested this cooperation is needed since the laws are similar, but do
have some contradictory requirements. For example, under the Clery Act, an institution
may be able to accept anonymous and confidential report, while Title IX requirements
may not have the ability to keep a report anonymous and confidential.
Virginia Tech and the Aftermath
Those employed in higher education generally shudder when the name “Virginia
Tech” is uttered because they know this event changed higher education forever in much
the same way September 11, 2001 changed the U.S. On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho
began a shooting which would end with the largest number of casualties on a college
campus (Kennedy, 2007). In a two-stage shooting rampage, Cho began by entering a
residence hall and shooting two students to death (Kennedy, 2007). Two hours later, he
entered a classroom building, chained the three entrances shut and preceded to fire 170
rounds of ammunition, killing another 30 students, faculty and staff members before
turning his gun on himself (Kennedy, 2007).
This tragedy has forced campus administrators to ask the basic question “is our
campus safe?” College and university leaders who did not begin to assess their campus
safety could even viewed as negligent or reckless for not heeding the warning given by
the events at Virginia Tech (Rasmussen & Johnson, 2008). With the national enrollment
at institutions of higher education at 17.5 million in 2005, murders on college campuses
occurred with the frequency of fewer than 10 students a year from 2001 to 2005
(Rasmussen & Johnson, 2008).

116
In the investigation which followed the shooting at Virginia Tech, it was
determined Seung-Hui Cho had exhibited signs of emotion distress, was treated for this
distress by the campus counseling office, but when directed toward further treatment,
Cho refused treatment (Franzosa, 2009). After refusal of treatment, the counseling office
did report Cho to the campus police department, noting his “writings” were disturbing to
the point an English professor removed him from her class, but taught him as an
individual student (Franzosa, 2009).
Several changes have occurred since the April 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech.
First, many campuses are making mental health services more easily accessible and are
actively marketing these services to their student bodies (Franzosa, 2009). However, one
of the major developments stemming from the Virginia Tech incident is how colleges and
universities respond to campus crises (Kennedy, 2010).
Virginia Tech, after a four year investigation, was assessed a fine of $55,000 for
two violations of the Clery Act (Hartle, 2011). The two violations included the first for
failing to issue a “timely warning” when the university took two hours to notify the
campus of an active shooter (Hartle, 2011). Since the entire incident initially appeared to
be a domestic issue between two students, the campus police waited two hours before
initiating the campus warning system (Kennedy, 2010). The second fine was assessed
for the university failing to follow its own policies and procedures when the chief of
police was investigating the first two deaths, but was responsible according to policies
and procedures in activating the campus warning system (Hartle, 2011). In this instance
since the chief of police was active in an investigation the campus communications office
issued the warning (Hartle, 2011). It was determined that Virginia Tech had failed to

117
follow “to the letter” policy statements which contained in the Annual Security Reported
(Elias, 2014).
To assess the national effect of the Virginia Tech incident, AIG/Lexington
Insurance Company and the Midwestern Higher Education Compact surveyed college
campuses to see if institutions of higher education had adjusted their policies and
practices since the campus shooting (Rasmussen & Johnson, 2008). All individuals who
were either student affairs officers or campus security officers listed in the 2006 edition
of the Higher Education Directory were forwarded the survey instrument (Rasmussen &
Johnson, 2008). A total of 331 institutional representatives are included in the survey
data.
The results of the survey showed an overwhelmingly large number of campuses,
87%, had conducted a review of security and safety procedures following the Virginia
Tech shooting (Rasmussen & Johnson, 2008). The survey showed 57% of the
respondents had a question on their undergraduate applications asking if the applicant had
been convicted of a felony (Rasmussen & Johnson, 2008). The survey also asked about
undergraduate background checks, with only 3% indicating they conducted such checks.
Another 15% indicated their institutions had considered background checks, but had
subsequently voted down the issue.
Perceptions of the Clery Act and Campus Safety
Researchers are beginning to examine perceptions of the Clery Act. The next two
studies represent two local attempts to determine specific student populations’ attitudes
towards campus safety. Some believe crime on college campuses remains lower than the
general public crime as in the fact off-campus victimization of a college student is 14

118
times greater to occur off campus than on campus (Examining the Extend of Campus
Crime, 2004). However, others believe a college campus is “ripe for the picking” due to
the greater concentration of high valued items such as motor vehicles, bikes, and
electronics (Santucci, Gable, & Rong, 2000). Coupled with this high concentration of
easily pawned and fenced items, the perceived lax and trusting lifestyles of college
students create a vulnerable atmosphere ripe for crime (Santucci et al. 2000).
At a large, state-supported Northeastern four-year university, a study was
conducted to determine the effectiveness of a safety brochure developed by the campus
police department (Santucci et al. 2000). For the study, a survey was developed to assess
behaviors and attitudes about campus safety. Four areas were to be defined: (1) physical
safety in residence halls, (2) physical safety on campus, (3) physical safety at parties, and
(4) safety of personal possessions. A total of 16 residence halls were selected for
participation, and 29 out of 53 Residence Assistants (RAs) were selected for the study. A
total of 970 surveys were distributed by the RAs, and 534 were returned for a 55% return
rate.
The findings of this localized study found upper-class women to have a lesser
sense of security in regard to safety than underclass women (Santucci et al. 2000).
However, Santucci et al. (2000) found upper-class women tended to walk alone at night
more often than underclass women and upper-class women in general tended not to
utilize the campus escort service as much as underclass women. Santucci et al. also
found men overall tended to view safety more positively than women on campus.
Women tended to perceive campus security more directly and identified walking alone

119
and security in residence halls as major concerns, and the security of laundry rooms were
of prime importance to them as a population.
As a direct result of the survey, RAs were instructed to create a safety and
security related bulletin board on each floor to display pertinent information (Santucci et
al. 2000). In addition, a self-defense workshop was hosted on campus. And last,
additional lighting was increased in areas identified by the study as being deficient or too
dark.
In a second study, Murphy, Arnold, Hansen, and Mertler (2001) looked at first-
year students’ perceptions of campus safety at a large public university in the Midwest.
The survey was designed to determine safety perceptions of first-year residential
students. The survey incorporated two questions from the First Year Student
Questionnaire, and 26 safety related areas were designed specifically for the study
(Murphy et al. 2001). A total of 1,084 surveys were mailed to the targeted population,
which represented approximately 25% of the first-year student body. The targeted
population was randomly selected from a list generated in the registrar’s office. A total
of 296 students responded to the survey and represented a 27% return rate (Murphy et al.
2001). Familiarity with the campus crime report as reported the student handbook was
acknowledged in the affirmative with only 31% stating they had read the material. Only
2% knew of the university’s responsibility to provide crime statistics to the campus.
In passing the Clery Act into law, Congress had hoped the published campus
crime statistics would help both students and their parents make more informed choices
for college attendance (Janosik, 2001). One of the interesting findings of this particular
local study was the category of family was listed last among groups which helped

120
formulate students’ opinions concerning campus safety and security (Murphy et al.
2001). This finding, at least on this particular campus, would negate the expense the
Clery Act imposes on all campuses to ensure campus crime statistics are utilized by both
perspective students and their parents (Murphy et al. 2001). Another major finding of the
study was that students communicate more effectively through peers, such as RAs and
other students holding positions of responsibility, than through reading printed material
found, for example, in student handbooks (Murphy et al. 2001). And last, Murphy et al.
(2001) demonstrated students also relied on campus media such as the university
newspaper to be informed of campus security related incidents and events.
Overall perceptions of the Clery Act can be viewed on a regular basis in the
Chronicle of Higher Education, a weekly paper directed at higher education (Gregory &
Janosik, 2002). Since the signing of the Clery Act into law in 1990, several articles have
addressed the issues of relevance about, how to comply with, and overall general issues
surrounding the federal law (Gregory & Janosik, 2002). The topic has become reported
with such frequency that a reporter, Sara Lipka, has been assigned to report exclusively
on the Clery Act and campus crime (Lipka, 2011).
Many of the Chronicle articles illustrate a deep mistrust between advocacy groups
and institutions of higher education. One such article included a particularly one-sided
chiding by Howard Clery, father of Jeanne Clery for whom the act was named, and co-
founder of the Clery Center for Security on Campus, the main watchdog agency
dedicated to forcing Clery Act compliance (Gregory & Janosik, 2002). Howard Clery
stated that universities are “more interested in [their] public image than the safety and
welfare of [their] students.”

121
However, the Chronicle of Higher Education has often balanced its reporting on
the Clery Act, in particular giving Terry Hartle, the Senior Vice President of the
American Council on Education (ACE), a forum in which Hartle called for a much more
simplified law (Gregory & Janosik, 2002). Gregory and Janosik (2002) reported Hartle
as stating the law “does little to improve safety on campuses or to influence student
behavior.” Among Hartle’s suggestions were the following: (1) Focus on violent crime
and not all crime categories; (2) Limit the number of persons on campus who are
responsible for reporting campus crime data; (3) Clarify and protect the privacy of
alleged crime victims; (4) Provide better support by the Department of Education to
institutions; and (5) Ensure proper training by federal auditors and train campus
administrators before introducing audits and punitive fines (Gregory & Janosik, 2002).
Gregory and Janosik (2002) listed suggestions to help guide both institutions of
higher education and the Department of Education. Their first recommendation was to
provide funding in order to assist institutions of higher education in data gathering, to
conduct the educational programming necessary to comply with the Clery Act, and to
fund the overall activities associated with total compliance with the law. Secondly, they
suggested the Office of Clery Act Compliance be created within the Department of
Education. The two researchers maintained that no current office exists in order to
standardize compliance or to minimize the confusion over several of the act’s
amendments. And lastly, Gregory and Janosik (2002) lamented that too little research
has been conducted on the Clery Act. The two researchers recommended a Center for the
Study of Campus Safety be created. This center would have a multitasked responsibility.
First, the center would offer financial support for research aimed specifically at campus

122
crime. Secondly, the center would serve as a repository for campus safety related
research data. Thirdly, the center could be the host site for summits in which new
research as well as new compliance information could be disseminated.
With the Clery Act having turned 20 years old in 2010, university administrators
were asked their initial thoughts on what the act had accomplished. Gwendolyn Dungy,
the executive director for the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
(NASPA) felt the Clery Act had involved more non-security related campus personnel
involved and trained in campus threat assessment measures (Herrmann, 2010). In
addition, Ms. Dungy also felt the Clery Act had fostered a sense of coordination and
cooperation between departments as campuses sought compliance with the act.
Studies concerning campus safety perceptions, particularly at two-year campuses,
are rare. However, Patton (2010) conducted an extensive review of campus safety
perceptions within the Virginia Community College System. The study’s goal was to
create a list of “best practices” based on the results of a mixed method study. Patton’s
(2010) study was a sequential explanatory mixed method design; a quantitative phase and
a qualitative phase. The research questions posed looked at the types of crimes
community students fear; does the level of fear of crime vary by student demographics;
do student perceptions differ from security verses police force; do perceptions vary due to
the rurality of a campus attended and do perceptions vary based on different areas of a
given campus. Every student who is admitted to the Virginia Community College System
(VCCS) is given an email account. A 56-item survey was developed to assess this
specific population’s perceptions of campus safety. The VCCS has a total of 23 separate
colleges on 40 campuses in which 163,376 students were enrolled. The survey was

123
distributed to each of the students enrolled and a total of 11,161 surveys were returned for
a response rate of 6.8%.
The demographic data generated by the study showed 8.173 (74%) of the
respondents were female and 2,822 (26%) were male. The full-time enrolled students
who were taking a minimum of 12 class hours accounted for 6,818 (61%) of the
respondents and part-time students accounted for 4,343 (39%) of the respondents.
The first research question looked at what crime community college students most
feared and thought they would be a victim of on campus. The results of the survey
showed these study participants felt they would be most likely a victim of a robbery than
any other type of violent crime. A total of 2,617, or 23% felt this would be the most
likely crime they would be involved in. The fear of having an automobile stolen was
second with 2,270, or 20.97% respondents listing this as a perception. Third on the list of
violent crime perceptions was the fear of Forcible Sexual Assault, with 1,144 or 10.57%
of respondents fear this type of crime.
Research question two examined if various demographic populations feared
campus crime at differing levels than other groups. This portion of the survey utilized a
10-point Likert scale with one representing the most safe a student could feel and ten
indicating the least safe. The 60 and over group felt the safest on campus with a Mean of
4.85, followed by the 18-21 age group with a Mean of 5.05. The group which felt the
least safe was the 22-24 age brackets with a Mean of 5.49, followed by the 25-29 age
group with a Mean of 5.34. In examining Race, Native Americans viewed themselves as
feeling the safest with a Mean of 4.82 with Asians feeling the least safe with a Mean of

124
5.52. Regarding gender, males felt overall safer on campus than females with a Mean of
5.14 compared to 5.24.
Research question three looked into whether a police force or a security force had
a positive impact on students’ perceptions of campus crime. The respondents were given
the choice of answering police department, security, and no police/security or unsure of
type of force on campus. The Mean different between the police department was 5.19
and the security department is 5.18; giving a slight edge to students with security as
feeling safer on campus. However, over a quarter of the students, 26.2% could not recall
if they had a police department or a security department.
Research question four examines rurality or urban location of a campus. The
study showed community college students felt a rural campus (M= 2.87, SD=1.02) to be
significantly safer than a suburban (M=3.05, SD=0.99) and an urban campus (M=2.29,
SD-1.09).
Research question five asked students if they felt different parts of the same
campus would be perceived as being safer than other areas. The researcher included ten
areas for the students to rate such as classrooms, hallways, student lounge, library,
parking lot, outdoor recreation area campus alcoves, restrooms, etc. The mean responses
varied from a low of 1.40 to 2.43. Science labs were perceived as being the safest
(M=1.40) with parking lots being viewed as the most unsafe (M=2.43).
The qualitative portion of the research conducted by Patton (2010) involved
identifying from the results of the survey, the campus perceived by the respondents as
being the safest and the most unsafe. Best practices of the campus perceived as being the
safest, were examined. This campus was located in a rural area and was one of the

125
smaller campuses within the system. Though simple, many of the best practices included
having a security guard in the parking lot during evening classes, an evening
administrator for students’ access and emergency phones scattered throughout the
campus.
The campus perceived as being the least safe was an urban campus and was one
of the larger campuses within the system. Many of the issues reflected in the survey were
apparent through the on-campus visit; no security guards or police were employed by the
campus and the campus suffered from insufficient funds to improve lighting around
buildings and parking lots.
A recent “2012 Opinion Survey Results” article conducted by Campus Safety
showed campus police officers believe to a high level that their respective campuses were
in full compliance with Clery Act regulations. A combined 93% of the respondents
stated “strongly agreed” or “agreed somewhat” that their respective campuses complied
with Clery Act regulations. Three percent of the participants responded “neither agree
nor disagree,” and the remaining 4% responded “disagreed somewhat” or “strongly
disagree.” The same survey also showed the officers ranked Clery Act compliance as
the fourth leading overall concern on campus with 31% of the respondents citing this
area. Emergency preparedness on campus was cited at 55%, appropriate staffing levels
at 49% and administrative apathy towards campus safety at 43% were the only issues
perceived to have a greater importance to campus police officers at institutions of higher
education. One would conclude from the survey that while officers currently feel their
respective campuses are in compliance, there is a major concern that Clery Act
compliance may not be taken as seriously from the rest of the campus administration.

126
Current Department of Education Enforcement Activity
Spring 2013 brought to light a flurry of activity from the Department of Education
in filing complaints against several prominent institutions of higher education as the
department stepped up enforcement of Clery Act violations (Riddell, 2013). As the four
prominent institutions were making national news, other institutions were dealing with
Clery Act violations of their own. On April 2, 2013, the University of Texas at Arlington
received notice from the Department of Education that the university was being
investigated and subsequently fined $82,500 (Juarez, 2013). The fine represented three
Clery Act violations from 2008. In the letter from the Department of Education, the
campus police department had improperly compiled, classified and disclosed crime
statistics from the 2008 Annual Crime Report. The three violations cited in the letter
included misclassifying a forcible sexual assault as a “simple assault,” in which a male
forcibly fondled a female student (Juarez, 2013). Forcible fondling is classified as a
subcategory of forcible sexual assault; therefore, the crime was under reported by the
campus. A second violation alleged a physical altercation between two roommates
should have been classified as an aggravated assault, but classified as an “assault of a
family member.” The third violation centered on evidence the university under reported
seven Liquor Law Violations, sixteen Drug Law Violations and four Weapons Law
Violations. The university is currently appealing the $82,500 fine.
On April 19, 2013, the Department of Education notified Yale University that a
fine of $165,000 was being assessed for under reporting Clery Act statistics from 2001
and 2002 (Stannard, 2013). The Department of Education began investigating Yale in
2004 when the July-August 2004 edition of the Yale Alumni Magazine ran an article

127
titled “Lux, Veritas and Sexual Trespass”, in which Yale Law school graduate Emily
Bazelon suggested Yale had under reported sex crime statistics (Fuchs, 2013). The
article highlighted the story of a sexual assault victim who reported her assault to the
campus harassment grievance board, though the case was never included in the campus
crime statistics (Fuchs, 2013).
The Department of Education utilized an unusual method for calculating the
$165,000 fine for Yale University. The university was fined the first $27,500 for each of
four forcible sexual assault cases which stemmed from under reporting in 2001 and 2002
(Stannard, 2013). The department also fined Yale for not properly delineating campus
property concerning seven offices which were housed in the Yale-New Haven Hospital,
which were used by campus medical personnel, but are perceived as being “faculty
offices.” The last $27,500 portion of the fine was the failure to include seven required
policy statements within the 2004 Annual Security Report.
As previously mentioned, the Department of Education is currently investigating
the following campuses for both Title IX and Clery Act violations: Dartmouth College,
Swarthmore College, the University of Southern California and the University of
California at Berkeley (Ellis, 2013). The Dartmouth case is a bit unusual in that the
students decided to focus more on a Clery Act complaint rather than a Title IX complaint
(Ellis, 2013). The Dartmouth students felt it would be easier to file a complaint under the
Clery Act rather than Title IX, because a Clery Act complaint also prevents the College
from taking any form of disciplinary action against the complainants which would
prevent the students from filing additional charges.

128
The University of California Berkley case involves nine students who filed
complaints with the Department of Education on May 22, 2013, alleging their university
violated federal regulations in mishandling sexual assault cases (Guzman, 2013). The
students felt compelled to file the complaints after which they tried for a year to get
university administrators to accommodate their concerns regarding personal safety. One
student filing a complaint was Sofie Karsek, who used her experiences as an example of
how victims were not notified of procedures nor informed of how their sexual assault
case investigations were being conducted (Guzman, 2013). In Karsek’s case, she was
sexually assaulted as a freshman by a student leader, who allegedly assaulted four other
of her peers. Her only communication about her compliant consisted of two emails; one
explained the case had been solved through “early resolution” and the second email
notified her seven months later that an investigation had been conducted. Her assailant
later graduated and therefore, exempted him any further disciplinary action on the part of
the institution.
Colleges and universities now have a new combined piece of legislation to assist
with sexual assault cases on their campuses (Kingkade, 2013). First introduced in 2010
by Senator Bob Casey (D-Pa) as the Campus Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act, the new
legislation was paired with the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act
(Kingkade, 2013). The new act requires universities and colleges to add categories to
the annual campus crime report in the areas of domestic violence, dating violence and
stalking/bullying for the first time. However, SaVE Act goes beyond simply reporting
and conducting a hearing on an alleged sexual assault, rather it requires institutions of

129
higher education to provide educational programming directed at prevention and
awareness to all new incoming students and campus employees (Kingkade, 2013).
The new legislation has brought with it some criticism, particularly from the
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) which maintains the lower
standard of proof removes safeguards for due process for the accused (Kingkade, 2013).
Robert Shibley, an attorney with FIRE maintains “other than a college campus, there is
no other place in America where a body can determine you’re guilty of rape, particularly
a body that is run by the government, based on a more-likely-than-not standard (Pope,
2012).” FIRE maintains the lower standard of proof, a preponderance of evidence,
should apply to a Title IX violation, but should not be the standard of proof in a sexual
assault case, but a much higher standard such as “clear and convincing” evidence (Pope,
2012).
Conclusion to the Literature Review
A review of current literature and studies regarding the Clery Act revealed two
individuals, Janosik and Gregory, were responsible for the majority of the research
published. The two have teamed up numerous times to conduct quantitative, survey, or
questionnaire, driven research. While the entities researched are diverse, such as parents
(Janosik, 2002), campus law enforcement (Janosik & Gregory, 2003), senior residence
life administrators (Gregory & Janosik, 2006), and chief student affairs officers (Janosik
& Gregory, 2009), the research published has primarily been quantitative and survey
driven. Each of the survey administrations lacked any personal contact with the
respondents, as the participants were often mailed the original questionnaires and
electronic versions were sent as reminders to participate.

130
Through their research, Janosik and Gregory have uncovered several trends;
administrators, campus law enforcement officials, and residence life professionals appear
to have a high level of working knowledge of the Clery Act. On the other hand, a
potentially troubling trend is that both parents and students have a low awareness of the
Clery Act and do not utilize the data to make informed decisions regarding colleges of
choice, both of which were two of the primary intents of the law (Janosik, 2002).
Whether the research was directed either to students, to parents, or to both groups, as
demonstrated through a variety of studies, the results of the study demonstrate a low
sense of familiarity with the Clery Act. This low familiarity rate ranged as low as 3% to
only as high as 11%, with the higher range of awareness coming from parents who had
either been a victim of crime or who knew a victim of crime.
The bulk of the available research comes primarily from two researchers (i.e.,
Janosik, 2002; Gregory & Janosik, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006; Janosik & Gregory, 2003,
2009) and with majority of their research occurring between 2002 and 2006, with one
recent study occurring in 2009. However, these researchers have planned to conduct no
additional research studies directed at the Clery Act in the near future. Personal
communication in the form of email and telephone conversations between Drs. Janosik
and Gregory and this researcher has indicated that both researchers believe a need exists
to conduct a study employing qualitative methods regarding student awareness of the
Clery Act.
In conclusion, many dimensions of the Clery Act, particularly its impact on
various campus departments have been studied and researched on a quantitative basis.
However, multiple opportunities to do qualitatively research the Clery Act exist. The

131
same departments surveyed quantitatively could be investigated in a qualitative manner.
As an example, the proposed mixed method study could provide a new, richer, in-depth
understanding of factors that help influence students perceptions of campus safety. With
an increasing sense of serving as a “watchdog,” the Department of Education is levying
large monetary fines to force compliance among the colleges and universities (Herrmann,
2008). In the academic Fall 2012 semester, an audit within the state of California alone
found six institutions of higher education had failed to comply with the Clery Act
(Ceasar, 2012). Of the six institutions cited within the audit, the following four agreed
they had failed to clarify their campus emergency response and evacuation procedures:
Academy of Art University in San Francisco, Cal Sate at Northridge, San Diego City
College and the University of the Pacific in Stockton. Two institutions cited, Laney
College and San Bernardino Valley College disagreed and vowed to cite evidence they
did not fail to comply.
Data generated by various research studies regarding the compliance of the Clery
Act has been deemed suspect over the years (Lombardi & Jones, 2009). In a 2002 survey
funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Lombardi and Jones (2009) found only 36.5%
of schools reported crime statistics in a manner fully consistent with the Clery Act.
A study employing qualitative methods may reveal the factors behind these
numbers or permit a difficult understanding of what the numbers truly are. The area of
sexual assault reporting has been one of the areas coming under increased scrutiny and
suspicion, particularly when data generated from practitioners from the field differs from
actual Clery Act numbers submitted to the Department of Education (Lombardi & Jones,
2009).

132
The literature review also demonstrated some emerging areas of concern as new
categories of campus crime. These areas are not covered by the Clery Act as crimes that
are currently required to be reported such as stalking, hazing and child sexual assault.
Stalking appears to be one of the fasting growing trends affecting college students, yet
cases are seldom reported and even more seldom investigated (Tjaden & Thoenness,
1998b). Hazing has been on college campuses for decades, but is not considered an
individual category under the Clery Act because it can take on many different
manifestations in its own right. For example, hazing is most often associated with
consumption of alcohol beverages and physical injury, both of which are separate
categories under the Clery Act. Currently, consumption of alcohol by a minor as well as
well as physical assault violations would be reported under the Clery Act reporting
requirements.
The Clery Act has clearly evolved over time since being written into law; the first
versions of the law emphasized the reporting of crimes which fell under the
murder/homicide, burglary/illegal entry, drug/alcohol abuse and sexual assault categories.
These categories defined the crimes committed against Jeanne Clery during her assault
and murder at Lehigh University. These basic four categories have not changed during
the evolution of the Clery Act; rather these categories continue to serve as the foundation
of the current law. In recent adaptations, hate crimes and arson and fire related issues
have been added. The real question may be in the future for the Clery Act as which
additional categories will be included. Two recent cases shed light on two possible
additions in the future; hazing on campus such as the Florida A&M band case and the
Jerry Sandusky child sexual assault case at Penn State University. While murder is

133
certainly one of the categories listed within the Clery Act, some higher education
administrators feel if a death is caused by hazing, then a separate category should exist
(Ward, 2012). This particular incident resulted in the forced retirement of the long-time
band director, but also resulted in the forced resignation of the university president as
parents of the victims filed law suits due to the victim’s hazing related death (Kallestad &
Schneider, 2012).
While the Clery Act was written into law as a primary tool for traditional students
to assist in the college selection process, the increase of online only students in relation to
campus crime needs to be researched as well. The literature review did not produce any
direct studies or research directly associated with how or if campus crime played any role
in their decision to select a particular college. However, the enrollment of traditional
students aged 24 or younger grew by 51% from 1970 to 2000; the enrollment of non-
traditional students grew three times this amount (Lake & Pushchak, 2007). With the
explosive growth of non-traditional students, coupled with the rising costs of higher
education, institutions are developing strategies to accommodate this rising population
(Lake & Pushchak, 2007). The “online only” student is also a very socially networked
individual; two-thirds of the global online population visits networking sites such as
Facebook, LinkedIn and MySpace (Henson, Reyns & Fisher, 2011). Social networking
online accounts for 10% of all time spent on the Internet (Henson, et al. 2011).
Campus administrators are seeing an increase in Internet or online related crimes
such as “cyberstalking” (Finn, 2004). With the emergence of both online only students
and the increased use of the Internet to commit crimes, laws will need to be adapted and
placed on the books. To determine if campus crime has affected this potentially growing

134
campus population within this study, Question 3 of the Campus Crime Survey has been
modified to include a category of “Online Only” student in addition to the traditional
“Residential” and “Commuter” categories.
However, the case which may bring about the biggest shift in Clery Act reporting
is the Penn State University child sexual abuse case (Freeh, 2012). The trial for Jerry
Sandusky brought forth forty-five convictions out of forty-five charges during the first
trial; with a second round of victims possibly moving forward (Drape, 2012). The
question now becomes, how many of the convictions are the result of activities which
occurred on the Penn State University campus, because these incidents will have to be
amended on the yearly campus crime report. With child sexual assault occurring on
campus with such a low frequency, one wonders to what degree reporting of such cases
will increase in the future (Levin, 2011).
While numbers and figures provide insight into college crime and safety on
campus, understanding the in-depth perceptions of stakeholders (parents, students,
faculty, and staff) a mixed method study can further illuminate the impact of this law on
campus safety in general. The facts and figures generated by the quantitative research
do not always reveal the true human feelings and emotions when a parent leaves their
child on a college campus away from home for the first time. Given the minimal
number of available qualitative and mixed method research studies regarding the area of
campus crime, a mixed method study using several campuses will provide useful
quantitative data and students’ perceptions regarding campus crime generated by the
qualitative phase of the research. Data generated from this study could facilitate greater
compliance by participating colleges and universities.

135
In light of the evidence presented in the Literature Review, the need for the
following research questions to be answered remains:
proportion of parents surveyed by Janosik (2002)? Research Hypothesis
1: Twenty-five percent or less of students are aware of the Clery act.
3. Do students use the information required under the Clery Act to reduce
their safety risks as a result of Clery Act information? How does this
proportion compare to the proportion of parents surveyed by Janosik
(2001)? Research Hypothesis 2: Fifty percent or less of students are not
aware of required educational programming as mandated by the Clery Act.
where to find the Clery Act material on campus?
available information? Research Hypothesis 4: Forty percent or less of
students do know where to find the Clery Act material on campus.

136
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of the study was to investigate whether or not campus crime
influences the school of choice by college students. The researcher determined whether
or not campus crime information was reviewed by students prior to choosing to attend a
specific college campus and after coming to the specific campus, and whether or not
subsequent led to a student becoming more familiar with available campus crime data.
To fulfill the primary purpose of this study, the researcher gathered information by two
methods: first by distributing a survey to the undergraduate student body on private,
Baptist church affiliated colleges and universities in Texas and Oklahoma who have
agreed to participate; and secondly, by following up with personal interviews on the
participating campuses. The interviews were conducted on a one-to-one basis in order to
determine the degree to which students actually utilized the mandated, published campus
safety information in making their college choices. The researcher examined, according
to the students, how they decided on their chosen college and if campus crime statistics
played any role in their decisions.
While the incidence rate of crime on a college campus is relatively low compared
to the general public, when crime does occur, the consequences can be devastating to
both the students and their parents (Rund, 2002). To help both students and parents make
an informed choice of college or university, Congress passed the Student-Right-to-Know
and Campus Security Act (Clery Act) in 1990 (Public Law 101-542). The intent of the
law was to allow prospective students and parents to have access to crime data compiled
by each college and university who received federal financial aid funding through the

137
Department of Education. By the 1980s, institutions of higher education were being
viewed more as “dangerous places” than “academic ivory towers” as both students and
parents filed an ever increasing number of civil lawsuits directed against institutions of
higher education (Griffin, 2006). Although campus crime occurs at rates less than the
general population, sources in addition to Clery Act data should be taken into account
when making decisions regarding selection of choice and judging how relatively safe a
campus can be (Janosik, 2003). These additional resources include, but are not limited
to, neighborhood crime statistics compiled by local law enforcement agencies and federal
and state crime related statistics. As additional data are collected concerning campus
crime, university administrators look to the courts and their legal counsels to not only
determine institutional liability, but also how to develop strategies which minimize
exposure to lawsuits (Griffin, 2006). This study researched whether or not students
utilized the data collected, which is mandated due to the Clery Act, in making an
informed decision regarding choice of college by investigating the following:

138
In chapter two, it was shown that the majority of past studies related to the impact of
the Clery Act have been primarily quantitative in nature, and very few qualitative studies
have been conducted (e.g. Janosik, 2002; Gregory, 2001; Gregory & Janosik, 2002, 2003,
2004; Janosik & Gehring, 2001; Janosik & Gregory, 2003, 2009). As the family of
Jeanne Clery has long maintained, if the family had collectively known of the burglary,
sexual assaults, and drug/alcohol related incidents which took place prior to Jeanne’s
arrival at Lehigh University, another choice of college would have been made. From the
beginning of the Clerys drive to have legislation force institutions of higher education
disclose their crime statistics, the family feels other families should not have to suffer
from the loss of a child as they had to endure (Clery Center for Security on Campus,
1987).
In this study, the researcher hoped to determine to what extent, if any, undergraduate
students at the participating institutions utilize the data collected under the Clery Act to
assist in making a more informed decision regarding college choice, as was the original
intent of the law. With many of the previous studies being directed primarily at

139
quantitative data as well as being directed towards non-student entities, this study
differed from previous studies by involving undergraduate students and incorporating
personal interviews. Utilizing a mixed method approach, quantitative data was obtained
by the distribution of the Campus Crime Survey as well as soliciting the feedback and
input of students through one-on-interviews in the form of qualitative data.
The Clery Act (Clery Center for Security on Campus) requires each institution in the
United States receiving federal financial aid to publicly list crime data in the form of an
annual report and to have a crime log accessible to the public. Additional requirements
include educational programming directed at campus security related issues and assisting
students in modifying personal behaviors. Research questions 1 through 4 quantitatively
explore the extent of personal knowledge a student has of the Clery Act as well as where
the data can be obtained and how to access the required posted material. In addition,
research questions 1 through 4 seek to determine if a student has participated in any of
the required educational programming and if students have modified any behavior based
on the required programming. Research question 5 qualitatively explores if, and to what
degree, students utilized the Clery Act data to assist in determining their college of
choice, on how students access the required posted material, and if the required programs
modified their behaviors.
Research Design
A mixed method approach was chosen for this research project because it
combines the best properties of both quantitative research, which brings precise
measurements and outcomes, and the qualitative portion, which allows the researcher to
interact with the participants and examine the context of interviews (Lodico, Spaulding,

140
& Voegtle, 2006). The mixed method study also allows for the better understanding of a
research problem by utilizing the strengths found in both quantitative and qualitative
research (Seclosky & Denison, 2012). The case study research design was followed for
ensuring the data represent the participating colleges and universities (Glesne, 2006).
To answer the research questions, this study used a mixed method design and
followed a sequential explanatory strategy (Creswell, 2009). In an explanatory sequential
strategy, the collection and analysis of quantitative data occurs in the first phase, and
qualitative data gathering and analysis follows in a second phase. The qualitative
findings build upon the results of the data analysis of the quantitative first phase resulting
in a separate, yet connected research design. The researcher did not know the specific
survey results of the individual student, but did know the collective results from each
specific campus participating in the study. The qualitative portion of the research design
was explanatory and aims to explain or elaborate on the quantitative results; the second
dataset built on the results of the first dataset (Seclosky & Denison, 2012). The
qualitative results can help emphasize (Lodico et al. 2006) and refine the data collected
from the quantitative portion of the research (Creswell, 2008).
The sequential explanatory approach incorporated a non-experimental survey,
which Kumar (2005) stated is the design best suited for examining the prevalence of an
issue or attitude. Creswell (2009) believed survey research is the preferred data
collection method based on its ease of use, convenience, and economy in distribution.
Electronic surveys were utilized to collect data on students’ opinions about campus safety
and whether or not campus crime and safety influenced their decision about their college
choice. For this study, the survey was distributed by the local campus technology

141
department to the entire undergraduate student body; including residential, commuter and
online students.
This research surveyed students enrolled at selected private, Baptist-affiliated,
four-year colleges located in Texas and Oklahoma. In selecting the participating
institutions in the study, it was assumed each student at these institutions had a campus
email account. The purpose of the Campus Crime Survey was explained to the deans of
students and permission was be secured in writing to conduct the study on their
respective campuses.
The subsequent qualitative second phase portion of the mixed method design
involved one-on-one interviews with each of eight students from the participating
campuses. The reason eight participants from each campus were selected is in a
sequential explanatory strategy, the numbers of participants are limited since the
researcher is attempting to identify if certain factors are significant or insignificant to the
participants (Ivankova, Creswell, & Stick, 2006, p. 8). In addition, if the nature of the
topic is obvious and clear, then fewer participants are needed for the research (Morse,
2000). The deans of students from each of the participating campuses served as the
“gatekeepers” and selected the students to be as representative of the student population
as possible. In qualitative research, it is recognized that some participants may have a
more thorough understanding of the research questions, and as such, the dean of students
might tend to select those with more insight and understanding of campus crime
(Marshall, 1996).
The deans of students were asked to select a male and a female from each of the
four undergraduate classes, for a total of eight students from each participating campus.

142
Differences may be found between the classifications, i.e., freshmen may have been most
recently exposed to the Clery Act data at either orientations or having received the
information from the admissions department, while upper classmen may have either
personally experienced campus crime or know a victim of campus crime. The dean of
students on each of the selected campuses requested only students who had previously
completed the Campus Crime Survey participate in the interviews. With this research
utilizing a mixed, explanatory sequential strategy methodology, the students participating
in the qualitative one-on-one interviews must have previously completed the quantitative
portion of the research design by completing the Campus Crime Survey. The dean of
students relied on the student truly revealing when asked, that they had previously
completed the Campus Crime Survey.
The qualitative portion of this study involved using semi-structured interviews to
understand the effects of campus crime on college selection of choice for students (see
Appendix C). The researcher observed whether the study produces similar results in
differences as they appear in themes and patterns between the undergraduate populations
from the various participating campuses (Creswell, 2008, p. 476). Each campus was
viewed as a separate and unique study, yet the findings from each campus were compared
to each other to determine if themes or patterns emerged between campuses. In
accordance with qualitative research methodology, the researcher was the primary
instrument for data collection in the qualitative portion of the study (McMillan, 2004).
The strength of the qualitative methodology for this investigation was the ability to
interview participants on their campuses and to observe the students during the

143
interviews, bringing the researcher into close contact with the participants (Lodico et al.
2006).
The mixed method approach to this project allowed for balancing the quantitative
data generated through surveys and the qualitative data generated through the open-ended
questions used in the interviews, providing the spoken “word” of students who
participated in the research (Creswell, 2008, p. 552). Miles and Huberman (1994) said
when a researcher combines both quantitative and qualitative data, a “very powerful mix”
(p. 42) is derived from the research results. By combining the results of the Campus
Crime Survey developed by Steven Janosik (2002) and the student interview data, a
clearer picture was formed as to whether or not students utilize campus crime data to
make an informed decision regarding college choice. The qualitative questions were
open-ended questions and reflected personal opinions that cannot be directly measured by
the Campus Crime Survey. For example, feelings, concerns, or if parental issues were
discussed between student and parent and to what degree did parental influence affect
college selection (see Appendix B).
The Campus Crime Survey was reviewed and used as the general basis for
developing the qualitative semi-structured questions to be utilized for the one-on-one
interviews. Questions 1 and 2 are basic demographic questions in which the researcher
asks the participant to tell where they have lived in the past and the participants’ social,
academic, and crime related experiences at their college up until this point. Questions 3
through 7 ask about choice of college, the degree to which the participant’s parents were
involved with the decision, and whether the institution has met their expectations relating
to social, academic, and crime related experiences up until this point. Questions 8

144
through 15 reference knowledge of campus crime and whether or not the participant has
been impacted by crime or knows of anyone who might have been impacted. This series
of questions also asks if the participant knows where required Clery Act related materials
are posted and can be obtained by the student. The semi-structured questions were
reviewed by colleagues (see Appendix H) in the field of student affairs or higher
education administration in a field test to determine appropriateness to the subject matter.
The suggestions ranged from the questions appearing to be “too rigid,” from one reviewer
to another that reiterated the point of allowing students the flexibility to elaborate on their
responses. Suggestions derived from input from these reviewers were incorporated into
the semi-structured questions. One suggestion incorporated into the semi-structured
questions was to group the questions into three subgroupings; life history and basic
demographic data, college choice, and other factors influencing college choice. Another
suggestion was to keep the interview to 45-55 minutes in length. This suggestion
involved keeping the student engaged and participatory for the interview and not to cause
the student to become bored with the interview experience. Question 5 asks “what
characteristics do you like about your current campus,” and Question 9 asks “is there
anything you dislike about this campus” was also suggested by the reviewers. These two
questions were suggested because they represent the maximum range of opinions and
comments in which students will have about their respective campuses. In addition,
Steven Janosik, who originally developed the Campus Crime Survey, also was allowed to
review the questions and chose not to provide any additional input.

145
Target Population and Sample
The survey was distributed to the undergraduate student body, including
commuter, residential and online students by the respective campus technology offices.
Nine campuses were identified as possible sites to solicit participants in the study as they
represent the combined Baptist college and university campuses in the states of Texas
and Oklahoma who are accredited by Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
(SACS). Each student within the participating campuses is automatically issued a
university assigned email address account upon being accepted for admissions. Only the
email addresses issued by the participating institution and ending in “.edu” will be
accepted for the study.
Target Population
All Baptist four-year universities and colleges within the states of Texas and
Oklahoma, which are regionally accredited, were invited to participate (see Appendix I).
The total number of possible participating institutions includes eight within the state of
Texas and one from the state of Oklahoma for a total of nine. A minimum of three
institutions (i.e., 33% of the institutions) need to participate in the study to ensure the data
will represent a case study design (Seawright & Gerring, 2008).
Selection of Sample
The participants for this study were the undergraduate student bodies, including
commuter, residential and online students, of the above mentioned campuses that have
chosen to participate. Students under the age of 18 were excluded from the study. The
Campus Crime Survey included as the first question a “yes” or “no” response as to
whether or not the participant is 18 years of age or older. If participant responds “no,”
the participant is directed to the end of the survey and thanked for their assistance and

146
participation. Inquiries regarding participation in this study were sent to the vice
presidents of student affairs or dean of students seeking permission to allow the
institution to participate. All nine regionally four-year Baptist accredited institutions
within the states of Texas and Oklahoma were invited to participate in the research study.
The total number of students attending the combined nine campuses is approximately
28,300. As the population of students on any given participating campus exceeds 2,000,
then acquiring approximately 322 surveys per campus will be ideal according to the
survey research formula provided by Krejcie and Morgan (1970), which is still in use
today. Krejcie and Morgan (1970) developed a table which was used to determine if a
cross representation of the population has participated in the research.
Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) recommended using a power analysis program to
determine the necessary sample size, regardless of statistical test. Because each of the
nine campuses can be considered similar to an independent variable in this study and
Salkind (2011) recommended a minimum of 15 cases per variable, a minimum of total
sample size needed among all nine campuses was 135. Additionally, the statistical power
analysis conducted via G*Power 3.1 indicated that a total survey sample size of 197
surveys would yield a power of 99% for this study. The acceptable sample size range for
each campus was 15 to 322, and the total sample size range for the combined nine
campuses was 135 to 2,898, with the power attaining 99% when the total sample size
becomes 197 completed surveys.
The campuses are being referred in “vague” references for the dissertation
proposal defense phase only in order to establish the scope and populations of the
participating institutions. Once the research was completed and the dissertation was

147
submitted to the committee for approval, the campuses prefer to be “cloaked” in
anonymity, and all direct references were removed. The campuses are designated as site
A, site B, etc., based on the order in which they agree to participate and will include all
institutions which participate in the study. A minimum of three participating institutions
will be needed to complete the study.
Instrumentation and Measures
The instrument utilized for the quantitative portion of the study was the Campus
Crime Survey (see Appendix B), a questionnaire developed by Dr. Steven M. Janosik
(2002), associate professor and program leader and department chair of the Educational
Leadership and Policy Studies at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech).
Permission was granted by Janosik to utilize the questionnaire in this study (see
Appendix A). Janosik developed the questionnaire over several years of researching the
general topic of campus crime and the enforcement of the Clery Act. The survey has
been utilized by Janosik specifically to address familiarity with the Clery Act with
specialized groups on campuses, such as judicial affairs leaders (Gregory & Janosik
2003); senior residence life administrators (Gregory & Janosik, 2006); parent’s views on
the Clery Act (Janosik, 2002); campus security (Janosik & Gehring, 2001); senior student
affairs officers (Janosik & Gregory, 2009); and campus law enforcement (Janosik &
Gregory, 2003). In personal correspondence in the form of telephone calls and emails
between the researcher, and both Steven Janosik and Dennis Gregory, an associate of
Janosik, both researchers acknowledged that the survey has not been employed to gauge
the same degree of concern regarding campus crime by students. When Janosik and
Gregory were researching the various entities, professional organizations such as the

148
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) and the International
Association of College Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA) issued grants and
funding to the two researchers to specifically identify various entities to be surveyed. At
the time, these professional organizations were not interested in student opinions. Both
Janosik and Gregory encouraged the researcher to conduct this specific research project
in order to determine if student opinions are similar to those of professional groups and
parents. The survey utilized in this study most closely matched the survey Dr. Janosik
used in his surveying of parent’s knowledge of the Clery Act (2004); the only difference
being the word “parent” was substituted for the word “student.”
The Campus Crime Survey utilized for this research was designed by Dr. Steven
Janosik and is comprised of 27 questions, consisting of three distinctive grouping of
questions. Questions 1 through 4 address demographics such and asks if the participant
is 18 or older, gender, classification, and residential, commuter and online only students.
Questions 5 through 19 ask about knowledge of the Clery Act, knowledge of the campus
crime statistics, and about campus educational programming. These questions are
answered with either a “yes,” “no,” or an “unsure” response. Questions 20 through 25
utilize a five-point Likert scale and the questions can be answered as follows; strongly
agree, agree, neutral, slightly disagree and strongly disagree. Question 26 asks a student
if they remember where they received their crime report and gives six possible answers.
Question 27 is a yes/no question asking if a student would know where to find their
campus crime statistics. These questions inquire of the student whether or not knowledge
of the Clery Act or participating in campus programs directed at campus crime

149
prevention, helped modify their behavior to protect themselves and their personal
property more effectively.
The semi-structured questions utilized for the qualitative portion of the study were
developed by the researched based on feed-back from colleagues. A panel of colleagues
reviewed the questions for the purpose of clarity and thoroughness prior to the interviews
(see Appendix H). The panel was also asked to identify any bias in the questions so this
could be eliminated. The questions used for the open-ended interviews were developed
by reviewing the original language of the Clery Act, which was written into law to allow
students and parents to make a more informed choice of college based upon available
campus crime statistics. Based on feedback from the colleagues, changes were made to
the semi-structured question list which was developed by the researcher. Suggestions
included organizing the semi-structured questions into three subcategories or groupings;
life history and basic demographic data, choice of college and other factors influencing
college of choice. This specific grouping of questions allowed the respondent to go from
specific responses to more general responses as the interview progressed. Another
suggestion was to keep the interview to 45 to 55 minutes as to not inconvenience and lose
the engagement of the student. Questions 4 and 9 were suggested by reviewers as to
determine if students would verbalize a range of opinions regarding the specific “likes”
and “dislikes” about their college of choice. Another suggestion was to include the
“prompt” to give examples if a student answers in the affirmative if they knew either
about the Clery Act or knew where to find material related to the law.

150
Role of the Researcher
The researcher’s extensive career to date has been closely affiliated with college
life and campuses in general. As a college student, the researcher lived on campus in
either a residence hall or a fraternity house as an undergraduate student. The researcher’s
current role as a dean of students at a private university provides the background for
which the researcher can serve as a qualitative researcher. This background compliments
the researcher’s ability to understand and to negotiate his way through this research
project due to his career-related emersion into college campus culture and his knowledge
of campus practices and protocols. The researcher’s various roles, both past and present,
guided the researcher’s observations and interpretations from the interviews conducted on
the three college campuses.
The researcher’s past experiences have allowed him to associate with college
students, faculty, staff, and parents on many levels. Early in the researcher’s career, the
researcher lived in the residence halls and regularly ate meals with the residents, which
allowed observation of student behaviors on a participant level. As his experiences grew
and he gained both responsibilities and titles, he began to network within additional
circles of influence and became less of a participant within student culture and more of an
observer of student behavior. The additional, more professional circles of influence
included faculty, department heads, academic deans, senior-level administrators, and
even various members of the campus governing body. As his experience and authority
increased, so did his confidence and ability to navigate college campuses and
environments successfully. The interviewer must, among other skills, be a good listener,
be adaptive and flexible in gathering data, be sensitive to unexpected developments in the

151
interviewing process, and have a good knowledge base of the issue being studied, and in
this specific case, the Clery Act (Yin, 2003). These learned skills were essential when
the researcher began his research on the campuses from which he drew observations and
data. These experiences and skills allowed for successful negotiation of entry into
various aspects of the participating campuses and communication with and synthesis of
the cultures of these campuses.
Data Collection
Using SurveyMonkey, the Campus Crime Survey link was distributed to the
entire undergraduate student body of the participating campuses utilizing only the
university issued email addresses by each respective campus’ technology department.
Five days later, the same survey was sent to students who did not respond in the original
round. After another five days, a third and final round of the survey was distributed to
unresponsive students in order to maximize the number of completed surveys obtained.
The survey instrument prohibits a student using utilizing the same email address from
participating in the survey a second time, and combined with the understanding only
officially issued email addresses will be utilized, thus eliminating any duplication of
responses from the same individual.
The Campus Crime Survey included a statement regarding the purpose of the
study, an estimated time requirement, any anticipated risks associated with taking the
survey, the benefits which might occur from the data collected and an agreement to
participate (see Appendix B). The agreement asked that the participant be 18 years of
age or older, that they have read the information and agree to participate, that participants
are free to withdraw at any time, and they give their voluntary consent to participate.

152
Each of the participating deans of students conducted purposeful sampling when
asked to comply with two requests when selecting their respective students for the
qualitative phase of the research. First, the students selected need to have completed the
electronic survey and second, the composition of the eight participating students would
be represented by a male and a female participant from each of the four undergraduate
classes. The dean of students inquired of the selected students to ensure the participating
students had previously taken the Campus Crime Survey. A message contained in the
opening instructions also directed the student who wishes to continue with the study to
volunteer with the dean of students’ office (see Appendix B). In addition, any student
wanting to participate in the interview process was encouraged by the dean of students to
complete the Campus Crime Survey before participating in the interviewing process. The
researcher anticipated the dean of students at the selected campuses would serve as
“gatekeepers” to each of the respective campuses and make students available to the
researcher. The access to campus included the survey distribution which involved the
quantitative portion of the research and on-campus, one-on-one interviews, which
involved the qualitative phase of the research.
Each student interview was expected to last approximately 45 to 55 minutes and
to be flexible enough to allow for follow-up questions based on the student’s responses.
The interview consisted of semi-structured questions; however, the script was modified
as the interview progressed to allow the student flexibility to elaborate on areas they felt
pertinent to the semi-structured question (see Appendix C). All interviews were audio
recorded on a hand-held digital recorder. The researcher was able to reflect on
developing trends or themes emerging from the interviews by asking follow-up questions

153
during the initial interview and employing open-ended questions, probing, and reflection
techniques (Glesne, 2006). The dean of students at each of the respective institutions
provided a quiet, private room where the interviews took place. The Adult Consent Form
(see Appendix G) as well as the nature of the research was explained to each student
volunteer at the beginning of each interview, signed by the interviewer and the student
will be able to terminate the interview at any time.
For this mixed method, sequential explanatory research design, the researcher
organized the quantitative data collected and then conducted quantitative data analysis for
the first phase (Creswell, 2009). The second phase will consisted of qualitative data
collection and analysis. The mixed method design enabled the researcher to conduct data
analysis with triangulation between sources of data. The triangulation included various
analytical techniques in data gathering such as the results of survey, the interviews, and
review of campus data filed with the Department of Education and continued literature
review as the research progresses (McMillan, 2004). Reviews of campus crime statistics
filed with the Department of Education by each institution’s Clery Act data were
compared with the results of the Campus Crime Survey and the one-on-one interviews.
As such, quantitative and qualitative methods can be combined for preserving the breadth
of understanding on the quantitative side and the depth of understanding on the
qualitative side (Sandelowski, 2000).
Procedures and Data Analysis
For the quantitative phase of the research study, the Campus Crime Survey was
administered to the undergraduate populations of the private, church-affiliated campuses
selected for participation (Creswell, 2008). The Campus Crime Survey provided a

154
numeric or quantitative description of the campuses’ undergraduate students’ opinions,
perceptions, or attitudes (Creswell, 2009). The data was entered into SPSS 19.0 and
descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages were calculated. All
hypotheses for Research Questions 1 through 4 will test using the apriori a < .05,
meaning the confidence level will be 95%. Quantitative analyses will be utilized for
Research Questions 1 through 4, and Research Question 5 will require qualitative
analysis.
The research questions which will be examined during this study are:

155
(RQ1) What proportion of college students surveyed will indicate that they know that
the Clery Act is? How does this proportion compare to the proportion of parents
surveyed by Janosik (2002)?
Research Hypothesis 1: Twenty-five percent or less of students are aware of
the Clery act.
RQ1 was answered by testing Research Hypothesis 1 using the single sample
t-test and the chi-square (χ2) test to determine if there are statistically
significant differences for the distributions of students’ awareness of the Clery
Act (Triola,2007). The t-test allowed for testing the total sample of students
from all schools, and the χ2 test was used to determine if the numbers of
students who are aware of the Clery Act are statistically uniform with or
different from the 25% figure reported in previous research between the
surveyed campuses. The Cramer’s V test will represent a post hoc analysis if
χ2 is significant and will be used to address the magnitude and direction of any
differences in the distributions.
(RQ2) What proportion of college students surveyed will indicate they use the
campus crime information they are provided? How does this compare to parents
results about and regarding their student’s use of provided campus crime information
as surveyed by Janosik (2002)?
Research Hypothesis 2: Fifty percent or less of students are not aware of

156
required educational programming as mandated by the Clery Act.
RQ2 was answered by testing Research Hypotheses 2 using independent
samples t-test and the chi-square (χ2) test to determine if there are statistically
significant differences for the distributions of students’ awareness of
educational programming mandated by the Clery Act (Triola, 2007). The t-
test allowed for testing the total sample of students from all schools, the χ2 test
was used to determine if the numbers of students who are aware of the Clery
Act programming requirements are statistically uniform with or different from
the 50% figure reported in previous research between the surveyed campuses.
The Cramer’s V test will represent a post hoc analysis if χ2 is significant and
will be used to address the magnitude and direction of any differences in the
distributions.
(RQ3) Do students use the information required under the Clery Act to reduce their
safety risks as a result of Clery Act information? How does this proportion compare
to the proportion of parents surveyed by Janosik (2002)?
Research Hypothesis 3:
RQ3 was answered by testing Research Hypothesis 3 using the single sample
t-test and the chi-square (χ2) test to determine if there are statistically
significant differences for the distributions of students who modify their
behavior due to knowledge of the Clery Act (Triola, 2007). The t-test allowed
for testing the total sample of students from all schools, and the χ2 test will be
used to determine if the numbers of students who students who modify their
behavior due to knowledge of the Clery Act are statistically uniform with or

157
different from the 25% figure reported in previous research between the
surveyed campuses. The Cramer’s V test will represent a post hoc analysis if
χ2 is significant and will be used to address the magnitude and direction of any
differences in the distributions.
(RQ4) What proportion of college students surveyed will indicate that they know
Research Hypothesis 4: Forty percent or less of students do know where to
find the Clery Act material on campus.
Research Hypothesis 4 required the single sample t-test and the chi-square (χ2)
test to determine if there are statistically significant differences for the
distributions of students and parents who know where to find Clery Act
material on campus and those who do not (Triola, 2007). The t-test allowed
for testing the total sample of students from all schools, and the χ2 test will be
used to determine if the numbers of students who know where to find Clery
Act material on campus are statistically uniform with or different from the
40% figure reported in previous research between the surveyed campuses.
The Cramer’s V test will represent a post hoc analysis if χ2 is significant and
will be used to address the magnitude and direction of any differences in the
distributions.
(RQ5) What is the process students use to learn about the Clery Act, to access
relevant information regarding the law and modify behavior based on the available
information?
In the qualitative portion of the study, each interview was transcribed into

158
a text-based data file utilizing NVIVO 10. Qualitative analysis was
conducted to answer Research Question 5 (RQ5) using NVIVO 10. The
researcher used the data transcripts to develop codes for the content
provided by the participants. Open coding was used initially where the
researcher read the transcripts line by line and identified categories and
subcategories (Creswell, 2008). The researcher searched for themes and
similarities among the participants. Later, axial coding was utilized as
themes emerged and analytic files were developed to organize the
concepts and enable the concepts to become more abstract (Creswell,
2008). The strength of the qualitative method was the opportunity to
study the participants on their home campuses and to use observation
techniques which bring the researcher into close contact with the
participants (Lodico et al. 2006). All interviews were transcribed
manually. All field notes were be manually transcribed. The researcher
utilized the computer program NVIVO 9 to store, chunk, code, and
retrieve data.
The mixed method design enabled the researcher to conduct data analysis with
triangulation between sources of data. The triangulation included various analytical
techniques in data gathering such as the results of the Campus Crime Survey, the
personal one-on-one interviews, review of campus data filed with the Department of
Education, and continued literature review as the research progresses (McMillan, 2004).
In addition, the researcher utilizef ancillary institutional data such as the institution’s
posted previous campus crime reports filed with the Department of Education and to see

159
if any other pertinent information can be obtained from local law enforcement agencies
such as community watch and neighborhood related sites. The researcher also verified
the availability and the accessibility of campus crime data in the student handbook or
other pertinent information which can be found on the institution’s website.
Reliability and Validity
Reliability for the Campus Crime Survey, using a Cronbach Alpha, has ranged
from .73 (Janosik, 2002) from studies directed at student behavior and perspectives from
the field, to .76 when researching campus judicial practices (Gregory & Janosik, 2003).
Cronbach Alpha scores can range from 0 to 1.0 with scores in the .70 range considered
stable and consistent, thus, indicating reliability (Creswell, 2008). Therefore, the
previous versions of the Campus Crime Survey are statistically reliable.
There are three types of validity: content validity, criterion-related validity, and
construct validity (Creswell, 2008). Content validity refers to how representative a
question is; does the question represent all of the possibilities of questions within the area
being researched. Criterion-related validity focuses on two measurements: whether the
scores of an instrument are a good predictor for outcome and how well the instrument can
predict a future outcome. Construct validity is the third form of validity and determines
if the scores of an instrument are useful, meaningful, and significant, and if the scores
have a purpose. The Campus Crime Survey has been utilized by Dr. Janosik and
colleagues on numerous occasions and by various groups (Gregory & Janosik, 2002,
2003, 2006, Janosik, 2002, Janosik & Gregory, 2003, 2009, Janosik & Plummer, 2005).
These groups include, but are not limited to campus chiefs of police, chief student affairs
officers, chief residence life officers, parents, assault victims’ advocates, and campus

160
judicial affairs officers. In addition, Dr. Janosik has sent the Campus Crime Survey to
various individuals for their feedback to ensure the survey has both content validity and
construct validity.
Ethical Considerations
In order to safeguard the rights of the participants, the researcher gained approval
from the Committee for the Protection of Human Participants as outlined by the
Protection of Human Participants policies established by Dallas Baptist University prior
to contacting the participants. The researcher completed the protection of human
participant’s research training as offered by Dallas Baptist University (see Appendix G).
The individual participants as well as the sites where the interviews will take place were
assured of confidentiality and all names were concealed as pseudonyms to provide
anonymity to all participants and participating institutions.
The risks to the participating students were considered minimal. The entire
traditional undergraduate population of the participating campuses was the target
population; those not wishing to participate simply did not complete the survey. The
risks were considered minimal for those participating in the qualitative portion of the
research, as these participants were instructed they may quit the interview at any point if
they felt uncomfortable or did not wish to continue.
The identities of the participants are protected by pseudonyms and each of the
participating campuses are referred to simply as Site A, Site B, and Site C, etc., in the
final report. Respondents are guaranteed confidentiality and the researcher is not able to
individually identify the survey respondents. Demographic information is reported
simply as gender, ethnicity, classification, commuter, residential or online student status.

161
Limitations
Several factors of this mixed method research were considered limitations to the
study. The first limitation was the frequency college students check their email; the
completion of the Campus Crime Survey was wholly dependent on students checking
email and completing the survey within the two-week block of time the survey link was
open. The researcher’s personal career experiences as a dean of students may have been
viewed as a limitation. The dean of student’s position on many campuses serves as the
“chief student conduct officer,” or has the student conduct officer report to the dean of
students, in which the dean of students now serves as part of the appeal process.
Therefore, the dean of student’s position may not be viewed in a positive light by some
undergraduate students who have previously experienced a conduct hearing. Students
having been disciplined by a dean of students on one of the participating campus may not
honestly reflect their opinions to the researcher during the interview process, or they may
have allowed their previous interaction with their respective dean of students to influence
their opinions and responses to the researcher.
As Sekaran (2000) reported, participants taking surveys are not always willing to
complete a survey, thus creating a limitation for the study. In addition, surveys may yield
a potentially low response rate. Since researchers cannot control the conditions in which
the respondents complete the survey, questions may be misinterpreted by the
respondents, therefore creating another limitation for the study.
An additional limitation was the unfamiliarity a student may have had with the
instrument itself. While very popular with educators, this application of Survey Monkey
may have been new to the responding college students.

162
In addition, the participating institution’s dean of students may have different
roles and functions than the researcher, even though there may be a perceived similarity
of positions and responsibilities. In addition, total confidentiality cannot be guaranteed
since the participating dean of students know two items about participating students; the
fact they must have completed the Campus Crime Survey before being considered for the
personal interviews, and the fact they were selected for the qualitative portion of the
study. Once the student was selected for the interviews, anonymity could not be
guaranteed since at least two individuals, the dean of students from the host institution
and the researcher, knew who completed the survey and who then will be interviewed.
This may have been viewed as a limitation if students insist on strict anonymity and must
be informed of this limitation during the selection process. As such, any student who
insisted on strict anonymity must have been allowed to withdraw from participation in
the interviews. The fact students selected to participate in the interviewing process, or
Phase 2, may have been viewed as a limitation since this selection process eliminate the
portion of the student body that did not complete the Campus Crime Survey.
Data Storage and Integrity
Electronic copies of the interviews are stored on the researcher’s home computer
and are password protected so access will be limited to the researcher only. In addition,
the raw data collected from the field is contained on an external data storage drive (e.g.,
thumb drive) in order to transfer electronically filed data to the home computer. The
thumb drive is password protected. The documents and data files will be stored for 7
years and then will be deleted from the memory of both the computer and thumb drive.

163
Summary
This chapter outlined the procedures and design of this study. A research design
was described allowing for a thorough investigation of perceptions among students at
regionally accredited, private, Baptist-affiliated campuses in the states of Texas and
Oklahoma. The attributes of the study’s design were presented along with documentation
of the instrument development and validity through various studies. This chapter
included a description of the study’s purpose, the research design and methods, research
questions, study participants, and the data analysis.

164
CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS
influences the college choice by students. The researcher explored whether or not
campus crime information was reviewed by students prior to choosing to attend a specific
college campus, and after coming to the specific campus, whether or not a particular
incident triggered students’ reasons for becoming more familiar with campus crime data.
This research incorporated a mixed method design that included a questionnaire and
interviews with students regarding the influence of campus crime on the selection of
college choice (Baxter & Jack, 2008).
To fulfill the primary purpose of this study, the researcher gathered information on
four campuses by distributing an online survey to the undergraduate student body of four
private, church-affiliated campuses selected for participation (Creswell, 2008).
Interviews were conducted on a one-to-one basis in order to determine the degree to
which students actually utilized the mandated, published campus safety information in
making their college choices. The researcher examined, based on one-on-one interviews
with the students, how they arrived at their choice of college and if campus crime
statistics played any role in their decisions. The researcher further explored each
campus’ campus crime data, which was filed with the Department of Education, to
explore if there were any major discrepancies between what the students reported and
what each institution reported.
Research Questions
For investigating the choice of college based on campus safety reports, the research
questions were:

165
Quantitative analyses were utilized for Research Questions 1 through 4, and Research
Question 5 required qualitative analysis.
Reliability
Data were entered into SPSS 19.0 and descriptive statistics, including frequencies
and percentages, were calculated. Prior to conducting any tests of hypotheses on the
current data set, the Cronbach’s Alpha was used to test the data’s reliability. This data

166
set’s Cronbach’s Alpha of .746 fell well within the reliability range of .73 to .76 that was
previously reported (Gregory & Janosik, 2003; Janosik, 2002). The data were judged to
be reliable since Cronbach’s Alpha scores can range from 0 to 1.0 and .70 is considered
stable and consistent, thus, indicating reliability (Creswell, 2008).
Descriptive Statistics for the Sample
The sample was large as described by S. M. Janosik (personal communication,
February 12, 2014) with 979 respondents over 18 years of age. The demographic tables
and figures in this section display the frequencies for the sample’s demographic variables
and classifications. Four campuses (Sites 1 through 4) participated in the survey, but the
results were not evenly distributed between the four sites as documented in Table 1. Site
1 was represented by 7% of the sample, and Site 4 was 18% of the sample. Site 2 had the
largest representation at 42% of the sample, and Site 3 represented 33% of the sample of
979 respondents.
Table 1
Frequencies for Number of Surveys Received from Each of the Four Campuses
Participating in the Survey
Site n %
1 69 7.0
2 176 18.0
3 323 33.0
4 411 42.0
Total 979 100.0
Figure 1 displays the pie chart of the distribution of surveys from the four
campuses. School 4 produced the largest number of respondents and represented the

167
majority of the sample at 42% or 411. School 3 was 33% of the sample, and Schools 1
and 2 trailed at 7% and 18%, respectively. A chi-square test revealed this distribution
between the four sites was not uniform [ χ2 (3, 979) = 281.05, p = .0000001].
Figure 1. Pie chart of college distributions for the sample of 979.
Table 2 shows the gender frequencies for the sample. The sample was
predominately female (67%). Males were 33% of respondents.
Table 2
Distribution of Sample by Gender
Gender Variable n %
Female 656 67.0
Male 323 33.0
Total 979 100.0
Table 3 displays the frequencies for the students’ classifications as freshman,
sophomore, junior, senior, and graduate level. While 36% of the respondents were
freshmen, the classifications were not evenly distributed [χ2 (4, 979) = 242.17, p =
18%
42%
33%
7%

168
.0000001]. Sophomores were 16.7% of the sample with juniors at 17.6%, seniors at
24.1%, and graduate students at 5.6% of the sample.
Table 3
Distribution of Students’ Classifications Within the Sample
Participants’ Classifications n %
Freshman 352 36.0
Sophomore 164 16.7
Junior 172 17.6
Senior 236 24.1
Graduate Student 55 5.6
Total 979 100.0
Of the participating students, residential or on-campus students comprised the
majority of the respondents at 65.7%. Off-campus or commuters represented second
largest group with 32.3%, and online students comprised 2% of the total sample.
Figure 2 presents a pie chart of respondents’ residences.
Figure 2. Pie chart of respondents’ campus status as commuter, online, or residential.

169
Descriptive Results for the Clery Act Related Items
The Campus Crime Survey was reviewed and used as the general basis for
developing the qualitative, semi-structured questions to be utilized for the one-on-one
interviews. Survey questions 1 and 2 solicited basic demographic information about the
participants, where the students lived in the past and the participants’ social, academic,
and crime related experiences at their college up until the point of completing the survey.
Survey questions 3 through 7 inquired about respondents’ choice of college, the degree to
which parents were involved with the decision, and whether the institution met
expectations relating to social, academic, and crime related experiences up until the point
of completing the survey. Survey questions 8 through 15 addressed students’ knowledge
of campus crime and whether or not the participants had been impacted by crime or knew
of anyone who might have been impacted by crime on campus.
For the items regarding student awareness of the Clery Act, only 6% (n = 63)
reported any awareness of it. Out of 979 respondents, 80% (n = 783) said they had not
heard of it and 14% (n = 133) were unsure. Regarding a sibling who attended college
ahead of the respondents, 41% (n = 401) reported having an older sibling who attended
college. Only 35% (n = 344) reported having an immediate family member who had
experienced a crime.
Tables 4, 5, and 6 show the frequencies for the campus crime summary and
reported items for yes/no responses, Likert-type frequencies and the method in which the
student reported having received their campus crime report. Even though 68% of
students claimed to read campus flyers, only 15% reported reading the campus crime
summary as noted in Table 4. The largest response to the question of receiving the

170
material was 47.6% of the students stated they had not received the material, yet it is a
requirement of the Clery Act to have this material distributed to the campus community,
including incoming freshmen and transfers. It might be with the volume of material
received during recruitment, the material was simply overlooked by the students. With
one of the prime objectives of the Clery Act is to help make a more informed decision
regarding college of choice, only 5.6% of the students stated the campus crime summary
influenced their decisions in any manner. However, the majority of the students, 81.9%,
stated the campus crime summary did not influence their decision. A minority of
students agreed with all of the items described in Table 5. Table 6 shows the variety of
methods through which students reported receiving campus crime information.
Table 4
Yes/No Items’ Frequencies
Yes
% (n)
No
% (n)
Unsure
% (n)
Received campus crime summary in the student Admissions Packet 28.0
(274)
47.6
(466)
24.4
(239)
Read the campus crime summary 14.9
(146)
73.6
(720)
11.5
(113)
Campus crime summary influenced thinking aboutenrolling 5.6 (55) 81.9
(802)
12.5
(122)
Discussed campuscrime with parents when decidingon college ofchoice 14.9
(146)
82.1
(804)
3.0
(29)
Received college’s annualcampus crime report 6.0 (59) 86.1
(843)
7.9
(77)
Read college’s annualcampus crime report 5.2 (51) 89.7
(878)
5.1
(50)
Parent would read orhave read college’s annualcampus crime report 36.9
(361)
44.4
(435)
18.7
(183)
Annualcampuscrime report would change theway property was protected 58.2
(570)
25.9
(253)
15.9
(156)
Annualcampuscrime report would change way ofprotectingself 59.4
(582)
26.8
(262)
13.8
(135)
Annualcampuscrime report would change movementaround campus 45.6
(446)
40.5
(397)
13.9
(136)
Read flyers,posters,news articles,oremails regarding campus safety 68.3
(669)
26.6
(260)
5.1
(50)
Would attend a campuscrime prevention/awareness program 26.4
(259)
41.2
(403)
32.4
(317)

171
Table 5
Likert-type Items’ Frequencies
Item
Strongly
Disagree
% (n)
Slightly
Disagree
% (n)
Neutral
% (n)
Agree
% (n)
Strongly
Agree
% (n)
These materials and program would
change the way of protecting property
8.7 (85) 48.4 (474) 33.8 (331) 7.0 (68) 2.1 (21)
These materials and program would
change the way of protecting self
10.4
(102)
47.6 (466) 31.1 (305) 8.2 (80) 2.7 (26)
These programs or materials would change
ways of moving around campus
8.4 (82) 38.1 (373) 35.8 (351) 12.7 (124) 5.0 (49)
These programs and information increase
level of confidence
12.5
(122)
41.0 (401) 38.7 (379) 5.7 (56) 2.1 (2.1)
These programs and information have
fostered better relations with campus
security/police
8.2 (80) 34.8 (341) 49.4 (483) 5.5 (54) 2.1 (21)
These programs increase the likelihood of
reporting a crime to either an administrator
or security/police
14.9
(146)
47.6 (466) 31.8 (311) 4.0 (39) 1.7 (17)
In Table 6, the majority of students (79.6%) reported they did not remember
receiving any materials related to the Clery Act or their campus’ crime report. However,
some students reported receiving the material from two or more sources and these
multiple sources are reported in Table 6 as additional entries.

172
Table 6
Method for Receiving Campus Crime Report
Method n %
Campus Mail 29 3.0
U.S. Mail 8 .8
Internet Web Site 24 2.5
Electronic Mail 35 3.6
In Admissions Packet 79 8.1
Do Not Remember Receiving Material 780 79.6
Email & Admissions 1 .1
Campus Mail, Internet, & Email 1 .1
Campus Mail, US Mail 1 .1
Campus Mail, US Mail, & Admissions Packet 1 .1
Internet, Email, & Admissions 2 .2
Electronic Mail & Admissions Packet 3 .3
Internet & Admissions Packet 4 .4
US Mail & Admissions 1 .1
Email & School Paper 1 .1
Campus Mail & Admissions Packet 3 .3
Campus Mail, US Mail, Electronic Mail, & Admissions Packet 1 .1
Campus Mail & Electronic Mail 2 .2
Campus Mail & Internet Website 1 .1
Campus Mail, Electronic Mail, & Admissions Packet 1 .1
Campus Mail, Admissions Packet, & Do Not Remember Receiving Material 1 .1
Finally, only 80 students reported knowing where to find the college’s campus
crime statistics (See Table 7). A majority of the sample (53%) did not know where to
find the statistics. Another 38% were unsure about whether or not they knew where to
find the campus crime statistics. For the 80 students who reported knowing where to find
the statistics, 64 of them provided information about where their college campus crime
statistics could be found. Table 7 documents these locations’ frequencies.

173
Table 7
Campus Crime Statistics Locations as Reported by Students About Their Specific
Campuses
Location n %
School Website/Internet 38 59.3
Campus Police/Security Offices 11 17.2
Other On Campus Office 6 9.4
Email 4 6.2
Regular Mail 1 1.6
Parent 1 1.6
Off Campus Location 1 1.6
Admissions Packet 2 3.1
Total 64 100.0
Research Hypotheses for Research Questions 1 through 4
All hypotheses for Research Questions 1 through 4 were tested using the apriori
α < .05, meaning the confidence level was 95%.
Quantitative Results
ResearchQuestion 1
Research Question 1: What proportion of college students surveyed will indicate
that they know what the Clery Act is? How does this proportion compare to the twenty-
six percent proportion of parents surveyed by Janosik (2002)? Research Question 1 was
answered by testing Research Hypothesis 1: Twenty-six percent or less of students are
aware of the Clery act.

174
The single sample t-test allowed for testing the total sample of students from all
schools to determine if the percent of students aware of the Clery Act was statistically
uniform with or different from the 26% figure reported in previous research. Table 8
shows the statistically significant t- test result, including the degrees of freedom, p value,
and effect size. The 6.4% awareness of the Clery Act (difference of 18.6%, += 11.01,
p<.0001) was indeed smaller than the estimated 25% awareness. The null hypothesis of
no difference from 26% was rejected, and the research hypothesis was retained: Less
than 26% of the sample was aware of the Clery Act. The effect size of .848 was large.
Table 8
Single Sample t Test Result for Number of Students Aware of Clery Act
t df p M Difference d
11.01 978 .000 18.6 .848
Table 9 displays the results for chi-square (χ2) test used to determine if the
numbers of students aware of the Clery Act were statistically uniform between the
surveyed campuses. Chi-square (χ2 [6, 979] = 18.4, p = .005) as was the Cramer’s V of
.097 with p = .005. The effect size was a very small value (less than .10; Cohen, 1988)
that indicated no practical significance for comparing responses between the four sites.

175
Table 9
Frequencies for Hypothesis 1: Students’ Awareness of the Clery Act
n
Aware Status Total n (%) Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 χ2
Yes 63 (6.4) 3 20 14 26 18.40*
No 783 (80.0) 54 128 280 321
Unsure 133 (13.6) 11 30 31 61
Total 979 (100) 68 178 325 408
Note. df = 6. * p = .005 indicated statistical significance. Cramer’s V = .097, p = .005.
In conclusion, the students on the four sites reported being aware of the Clery Act
at 6.4%, which is significantly lower than the 26% as reported by Janosik (2002). The
null hypothesis of no difference from 26% was rejected, and the research hypothesis was
retained: Less than 26% of the sample was aware of the Clery Act.
ResearchQuestion 2
Research Question 2 asked: what proportion of college students surveyed will
indicate they use the campus crime information they are provided? How does this
compare to parents results about and regarding their student’s use of provided campus
crime information as surveyed by Janosik (2002)? Research Question 2 was answered by
testing Research Hypotheses 2: Fifty-one percent or less of students are not aware of
required educational programming as mandated by the Clery Act.
Research Hypothesis 2 required using the single sample t-test to determine if there
were statistically significant differences for the distributions of students’ awareness of
educational programming mandated by the Clery Act. The t-test allowed for testing the
total sample of students from all schools to determine if the numbers of students aware of
the Clery Act programming requirements were statistically different from the 51% figure

176
reported in previous research. As represented in Table 10, each variable in the table
yielded statistical significance, and the null hypothesis was rejected. Additionally, each
variable demonstrated a large effect.
As a partial requirement for compliance with the Clery Act, campus programming
must be directed at the issue of campus crime (Ward & Lee, 2011). The following
statistics examine whether or not students would attend such programming. The item
regarding attending a campus crime prevention/awareness program yielded a t of 8.774 (p
< .0001) with a medium effect size of .631 for the 26.4% who would attend a program.
The item regarding these programs and information increasing level of confidence in
campus security or local police yielded a t of 20.782 (p < .0001) with a large effect size
of 1.412 for the 7.9% who agreed these programs increase their confidence in campus
security or campus police. The item regarding these programs and information fostering
better relations with campus security or local police yielded a t of 20.977 (p < .0001) with
a large effect size of 1.426 for the 7.7% who agreed they feel the programs have fostered
better relations..
Table 10
Single Sample t Test Results for Hypothesis 2
Survey Item t p
%
Difference d
Would you attend a campus crime prevention/awareness
program? 8.774 .000 23.6 .631
Do these programs and information increase your level of
confidence in yourcampus security or local police? 20.782 .000 42.1 1.412
Do you feel these programs and information have
fostered better relations with campus security/police? 20.977 .000 42.3 1.426
Note. df for all t tests is 978.

177
Tables 11 through 16 provide the frequencies for response choices for the
student’s responses. The nature of the items indicated ordinal and chi-square was
appropriate. The statistic W = √ 𝜒2 / N was used to estimate effect sizes for the single
distribution chi-square tests (NCSS Statistical Software, 2012). As seen in the tables, the
chi-square shows for each distribution of answers for each item represented in Tables 11
through 16 that the distributions for answers were not uniform. For example, the Table
11 chi-square of 790.8 (p < .0001) clearly indicates that students were most likely to
respond slightly agree (48.4%) and neutral (33.8%) about the programs changing the way
they protect their property. The results seen in Tables 12 through 16 show similarly non-
uniform distributions for the other five items representing this research question.
The effect size for the distribution of students’ thoughts that the materials and
programs would change the way they protect their property was large, W = .899 (See
Table 11). The effect size for the distribution of students’ thoughts that the materials and
programs would change the way they protect themselves was large, W = .842 (See Table
12). The effect size for the distribution of students’ thoughts that the materials and
programs would change the way they move around campus was large, W = .705 (See
Table 13). The effect size for the distribution of students’ thoughts that the programs and
information increased their confidence in campus security or local police was large, W =
.827 (See Table 14).

178
Table 11
Responses to Students’ Thoughts that These Materials and Programs Would Change the
Way They Protect Their Property
n % χ2
Strongly Disagree 85 8.7 790.8
Slightly Disagree 474 48.4
Neutral 331 33.8
Agree 68 6.9
Strongly Agree 21 2.1
Total 979 100.0
Note. df = 4. W = .899. *p < .0001 is statistically significant.
Table 12
Way They Protect Themselves
n % χ2
Neutral 305 31.2
Agree 80 8.2
Total 979 100.0
Note. df = 4. W = .842. *p < .0001 is statistically significant.
Table 13
Way They Move Around on Campus
n % χ2
Neutral 351 35.9
Agree 124 12.7
Total 979 100.0
Note. df = 4. W = .705. * p < .0001 is statistically significant.

179
Table 14
Responses to These Programs and Information Increasing Students’ Level of Confidence
in Campus Security or Local Police
n % χ2
Neutral 379 38.7
Agree 56 5.7
Total 979 100.0
Note. df = 4. * p < .0001 is statistically significant. W = .827.
The effect size for the distribution of students’ thoughts that the programs and
information fostered better relations with campus security and police was large, W = .935
(See Table 15). The effect size for the distribution of students’ thoughts that the
programs and information increased the likelihood that students would report crime to
either an administrator or campus security and police was large, W = .871 (See Table 16).
Table 15
Responses to These Programs and Information Fostering Better Relations with Campus
Security/Police
n % χ2
Neutral 483 49.3
Agree 54 5.5
Total 979 100.0

180
Table 16
Responses to These Programs and Information Increasing the Likelihood that Students
Would Report Crime to Either an Administrator or Security/Police
n % χ2
Neutral 311 31.8
Agree 39 4.0
Total 979 100.0
Table 17 displays the results for the chi-square tests used to determine if the
students’ responses were statistically uniform with or different between the surveyed
campuses regarding willingness to attend a campus crime prevention/awareness program.
Chi-square (χ2 [6, 979] = 17.88, p = .007) was statistically significant, but the Cramer’s V
of .096, p = .007, yielded a very small effect size (less than .10; Cohen, 1988) that
indicated no practical significance for comparing responses between the four sites.
Table 17
Responses About Willingness to Attend a Campus Crime Prevention/Awareness Program
n
Aware Status Total n (%) Site A Site B Site C Site D χ2
Yes 259 (26.5) 16 59 97 87 17.88*
No 403 (41.2) 33 65 139 166
Unsure 317 (32.4) 19 54 89 155
Total 979 (100.0) 68 178 325 408
Note. df = 6. * p = .007 indicated statistical significance. Cramer’s V = .096, p = .007.

181
In conclusion, the numbers of students who knew where to find Clery Act
programming requirements were statistically different from the 51% figure reported in
previous research by Janosik (2002). Tables 10-17 demonstrated the significances of the
tests, and the null hypothesis, which stated fifty-one percent or less of students are not
aware of required educational programming as mandated by the Clery Act, was rejected.
In Janosik’s previous study regarding parents (2002), 67% of parents responded that their
student would read material associated with a media campaign as compared to only 9%
of students who either strongly agree or agreed that these materials would influence their
behaviors. In the parents survey (Janosik, 2002), 55% of parents felt such materials and
programs would influence how a student protected their personal property as compared to
only 10.9% of students who either agreed or strongly agreed these programs would
influence how they protected their property. The 2002 study directed at parents asked the
participants if they felt materials and programs would change the way their student
protected themselves and 51% agreed such programs would influence their students’
behavior. However, the current study showed only 10.9% agreed or strongly agreed such
programs would change their behaviors in which they would protect themselves. With
each question asked in the Campus Crime Survey, the parents’ responses were much
higher than the students’ responses.
ResearchQuestion 3
Research Question 3 asked: do students use the information required under the
Clery Act to reduce their safety risks as a result of Clery Act information? How does this
proportion compare to the proportion of parents surveyed by Janosik (2002)? Research
Question 3 was answered by testing Research Hypothesis 3: 25% of students or less
would modify their behavior based on attending a Clery Act required programming.

182
The t-test allowed for testing the total sample of students from all schools to
determine if the number of students who modify their behavior due to knowledge of the
Clery Act was statistically uniform with or different from the 25% figure reported in
previous research. As seen in Table 18, all three items used to answer this research
question demonstrated statistical significance, and all three showed large effect sizes.
The item regarding the annual campus crime report changing the way students
protected property yielded a t of 12.153 (p < .0001) with a large effect size of 1.76. The
item regarding the annual campus crime report changing the way students protected
themselves yielded a t of 12.493 (p < .0001) with a large effect size of 1.78. The item
regarding the annual campus crime report changing the way students moved around on
campus yielded a t of 8.048 (p < .0001) with a large effect size of 2.03.
The null hypothesis of 25% percent of students not modifying their behavior was
rejected. The research hypothesis was also rejected because the prediction of 25% or less
would modify behavior was not found. In fact, 58% of students agreed that knowledge of
the Clery Act report would change the way they protect property, 59% agreed the report
knowledge would change the way they protect themselves, and 46% agreed that report
knowledge would change the way they move around on campus.

183
Table 18
Single Sample t Test Results for Hypothesis 3
Survey Item t p % Difference d
Do you think the annual campus crime
report would change the way you protect
your property?
12.153 <.000 33.0
.876
(large)
report would change the way you protect
yourself?
12.493 <.000 34.0
.902
(large)
report will change the way you move
around campus?
8.048 <.000 6.0
.574
(medium)
Note. df for all t tests is 978.
Following the single sample t tests yielding statistical significance, the chi-square
test was used to determine if the numbers of students who modify their behavior due to
knowledge of the Clery Act were statistically uniform with or different from the 25%
figure reported in previous research between the surveyed campuses. The chi-square was
used to test the distribution for the cross tabulation between the responses for each of the
four sites (Tables 19-21). Table 19 shows the cross tabulation chi-square (χ2 [6, 979] =
3.43, p = .7537) was not statistically significant and indicated no practical significance
for comparing responses between the four sites.

184
Table 19
Responses About Willingness to Modify Behavior Regarding Property Protection due to
Campus Crime Report
n
Yes 570 (58.2) 39 114 185 232 3.43a
No 253 (25.8) 18 40 89 106
Unsure 156 (15.9) 11 24 51 70
Total 979 (100.0) 68 178 325 408
Note. df = 6. a p = .753 is not statistically significant. Cramer’s V = .059, p = .753.
Tables 20 and 21 display the results for the cross tabulation chi-square tests
between the responses for each of the four sites regarding the willingness to change or
modify behavior. The tables demonstrate the distributional uniformity between four
campuses where each response was one of three choices. As shown in Table 19, none of
the distributions between campuses tested in Tables 20 and 21 between the four sites was
statistically different from uniform for any of the three tables of data.
Table 20
Responses About Willingness to Modify Behavior Regarding Protection of Self due to
Campus Crime Report
n
Yes 582 (59.4) 41 111 200 230 6.02a
No 262 (26.8) 17 48 87 110
Unsure 135 (13.8) 10 19 38 68
Total 979 (100.0) 68 178 325 408

185
Table 21
Responses About Willingness to Modify Behavior Regarding Moving Around Campus due
to Campus Crime Report
n
Yes 446 (45.6) 27 86 152 181 3.96a
No 397 (40.6) 30 69 135 163
Unsure 136 (13.9) 11 23 38 64
Total 979 (100.0) 68 178 325 408
Tables 22, 23, and 24 display distributions for the whole sample’s response items
about changing the way they protect property and themselves and move about on campus.
The sample’s response distributions for the items detailed in the tables were statistically
significant and not representative of uniform distributions. Chi-square (χ2 [2, 979] =
287.33, p < .0001) for students’ thoughts that the campus crime report would change the
way they protect their property was statistically significant; the effect size was medium,
W = .541 (See Table 22).
Table 22
Responses to Students’ Thoughts that the Campus Crime Report Would Change the Way
They Protect Their Property
n % χ2
Yes 570 58.2 287.33*
No 253 25.8
Unsure 156 15.9
Total 979 100.0

186
Chi-square (χ2 [2, 979] = 325.17, p < .0001) for students’ thoughts that the
campus crime report would change the way they protect themselves was statistically
significant; the effect size was medium, W = .576 (See Table 23). Chi-square (χ2 [2, 979]
= 170.2, p < .0001) for students’ thoughts that the campus crime report would change the
way they move around on campus was statistically significant; the effect size was
medium, W = .417 (See Table 24).
Table 23
They Protect Themselves
n % χ2
Yes 582 59.4 325.17*
No 262 26.8
Unsure 135 13.8
Total 979 100.0
Table 24
They Move Around on Campus
n % χ2
Yes 446 45.6 170.20*
No 397 40.6
Unsure 136 13.9
Total 979 100.0

187
In summary, the null hypothesis of 25% percent of students not modifying their
behavior was rejected. The research hypothesis was also rejected because the prediction
of 25% or less would modify behavior was not found. In fact, the percentages of students
agreeing the Clery Act report would help modify their behaviors was significantly higher;
58% of students agreed that knowledge of the Clery Act report would change the way
they protect property, 59% agreed the report knowledge would change the way they
protect themselves, and 46% agreed that report knowledge would change the way they
move around on campus.
ResearchQuestion 4
Research Question 4 asked: what proportion of college students surveyed will
indicate that they know where to find the Clery Act material on campus? How does this
proportion compare to the proportion of parents surveyed by Janosik (2002)?
Research Question 4 was answered by testing Research Hypothesis 4: Forty percent or
less of students know where to find the Clery Act material on campus.
The single sample t-test allowed for testing the total sample of students from all
schools (See Table 25). The t-test was statistically significant indicating that the percent
of students who knew where to find the Clery Act material on campus was different from
40%. The percent of students in the sample who knew where to find Clery Act
information was 8.2%. The item yielded a t of 16.089 (p < .0001) with a large effect size
of 1.138. As a result, the research hypothesis failed to reject: Less than 40% of students
know where to find Clery Act information on campus.

188
Table 25
Single Sample t Test Result for Knowledge About Where to Find Clery Act Material on
Campus
t df p % Difference d
16.089 974 .000 31.8 1.138
Table 26
Responses About Knowing How to Find Clery Act Material on Campus by School
n
Aware Status Total n (%) Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 χ2
Yes 80 (8.2) 3 15 37 25 11.87a
No 527 (54.1) 35 89 182 221
Unsure 368 (37.7) 30 73 106 159
Total 975 (100.0) 68 177 325 405
Note. df = 6. a No statistical significance due to p = .065. Cramer’s V = .078, p = .065.
The chi-square test was used to determine if the numbers of students knowing
where to find Clery Act material on campus were statistically uniform between the
surveyed campuses (See Table 26). The Cramer’s V test represented a post hoc analysis
if chi-square was statistically significant and to address the magnitude and direction of
any differences in the distributions. However, the chi-square test was not statistically
significant (χ2 [6, 975] = 11.87, p > .05), and the Cramer’s V was not statistically
significant (V = .078, p = .065).
Participants were also asked, if they indicated knowing how to find Clery Act
information, where they could find Clery Act information about their campuses. Sixty-
four students indicated knowing where to find this information as seen in the frequencies
reported in Table 27. In summary, while the percent of students in the sample who knew

189
where to find Clery Act information was 8.2%, which is significantly lower than the mark
of 40%.
However, since the hypothesis read “40% or lower,” the research hypothesis was
accepted.
Table 27
Responses About Knowing Where to Find Clery Act Material on Campus by School
n (% of Total)
Location Total Site A Site B Site C Site D
School Website/
Internet 38 (59.4) 1 (2.6) 10 (26.3) 15 (39.5) 12 (31.6)
Campus Police/
Security Office 11 (17.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 10 (90.9) 1 (9.1)
Other Campus Office
6 (9.4) 0 (0.0) 2 (33.3) 3 (50.0) 1 (16.7)
Email
4 (6.3) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (50.0) 2 (50.0)
Regular Mail
1 (1.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (100.0)
Parent
1 (1.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (100.0)
Off Campus Location
1 (1.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (100.0)
Admissions Packet
2 (3.1) 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0)
Total n
64 (100.0) 2 12 31 19
ResearchQuestion 5
Research Question 5 asked: what is the process students use to learn about the
Clery Act, to access relevant information regarding the law and modify behavior based
on the available information?
This final research question addressed the codes and themes attained through the
analysis of the personal interviews. This qualitative data assisting in collaborating or
contradicting the data gathered from the Campus Crime Survey results. All interviews

190
were transcribed manually. The researcher utilized the computer program NVIVO 10
and Microsoft Word to store, chunk, code, and retrieve data. The mixed method design
enabled triangulation via the results of the Campus Crime Survey, the personal one-on-
one interviews, review of campus data filed with the Department of Education, and
continued literature review as the research progressed (McMillan, 2004).
Open coding was used initially to allow the researcher to read the transcripts line
by line and identify categories and subcategories (Creswell, 2008). The researcher
searched for themes and similarities among the participants. Later, axial coding was
utilized as themes emerged, and analytic files were developed to organize the concepts
(Creswell, 2008). A total of 35 students were interviewed between the four sites: eight
on Site A; eight on Site B; nine on Site C, and 10 on Site D. Before each interview
began, the researcher and participant reviewed the Adult Consent Form (See Appendix
G) and signed consent was given by the participant before the interview proceeded. The
interview was guided by a set of semi-structured questions (See Appendix C), but the
researcher could also ask additional questions if a particular response from a participant
indicated the need for follow up about additional information or the opportunity to attain
pertinent information not requested in the original semi-structured question list.
Finding 1
During the interviews, all students were asked to what degree their parents
assisted in their selection or choice of colleges. The majority of participants responded
their parents had minor, if any role, in the actual final college selection. Many students
stated their parents helped them visit various campuses as the final choice was narrowed
down, but when prodded to give a response which included minimum involvement,
medium involvement and major involvement in the section of choice, many participants

191
responded the choice was their choice alone, though many admitted their parents assisted
in prayer after a decision was made. Examples of their responses when asked if parents
played a role in the college choice are many.
Participant A-1 said, “No really, I guess they know when I like something and
that I feel comfortable that I’m making the right decision, they’re going to support me
through whatever.”
Participant B-6 responded:
They really just left it up to me. They came with me for a visit and just approved,
and they trusted my judgment. And with my brother, they had to walk him
through everything. But I was a more motivated child, so I just kind of took care
of everything.
Participant C-6 echoed:
They (parents) have always just tried to teach me to make my own decisions.
Obviously, they are paying for my education, so they got to have a little bit of
input. But they really let me make my own decision. I think that they’ve been
very pleased with it.
Participant D-3 added:
They’ve always encouraged me to go to school. But a lot of their encouragement
was very much working hard in high school, get a job and start saving and to get
money for school. So of the schools that I applied to and scholarships to and
scholarships to, this one had a very good options for scholarships, grants and so
overall, their influence was more along the line of something that wasn’t too

192
expensive, but also somewhere that I could be cultivated into a woman not just a
party campus or a big school.
Finding 2
During the one-on-one interviews, the participants were asked why they chose the
particular college and what the deciding factor was in their final choice. Many of the
responses centered on the campus being “God-centered,” a “calling” to be on the campus,
or that the college was “Christ-like.” In other cases, the students chose their campuses
due to the recommendation of a pastor or minister or relatives who had attended and were
very satisfied with their experiences at the respective campuses.
The students also talked about a connection with their faculty and that their choice
of college was an extension of home for many of them. The next four statements
comprise examples of responses from the participants responding to the question of how
they made their college of choice. Participant A-2 said:
My pastor recommended here, so that way I didn’t have to build relationships
over there at (state university) and then come over here and then have to build
entirely new relationships. I guess another thing that brought me here was the
Christian environment, people that I can relate to. Because of that feeling, I refer
to this place as my second home.
Participant C-7 said, “This was actually the only college application I filled out for. I
have family that lives in (location of town) and my mom and dad both graduated from
here.” Participant B-1 exemplified the finding:
I chose (name of school) because I wanted to go to a Christian university and
(name of school) had just the sense of everybody mattered whenever I visited

193
there many times. I knew that God was just calling me here. I couldn’t resist in
coming.
Participant D-7 offered an opposing viewpoint about the choice: I chose this campus out
of whim. I had applied to other schools in [name of state], but none of them worked out.
It just seemed the Lord had opened the door.
Finding 3
During the interviewing process, the students were asked about their general
knowledge of the Clery Act or the Campus Security Act. Even in this qualitative section
of the study, 32 out of 35 of the interviewed students had no working knowledge of the
Clery Act. This observation occurred after each of the interviewed students had taken the
Campus Crime Survey just a few weeks prior to their interviews.
The two students who did respond in the affirmative in knowing about the Clery
Act were from the same campus (Site B) and represented back-to-back interviews, in
which they said they conducted additional research due to the interview generated by the
survey. Participant B-2, a male, gave a more clinical definition which is offered below.
However, Participant B-3, a female, gave a more humanistic definition to the law and
explained to the researcher during the interview that it was named after a young lady who
had been “raped” and murdered in her dorm room. In many instances, the respondents
stated the law sounded familiar, but they could not explain context in which they had
heard about the law, nor could they describe any particulars about the law.
The first two quotations were made by two respondents who did not know
anything about the Clery Act. Participant A-4 said, “I didn’t really know much about the
act. And I remember from the questions from before, I never was, or don’t believe I ever
read any of the Crime Act here, so….” Participant D-4 echoed this lack of knowledge:

194
I don’t know anything about the act. But every time that I think of something
crime, I remember talking to my counselor again, and that here we have a lot of
police and everything here, and we don’t really need it.
The following two quotations were made by the only two interviewees who had a
working knowledge of the law. Participant B-2 responded, “Yes, I know what the Clery
Act is. It’s about all schools that take government money having to report crime statistics
so that people can make better informed decisions.” Participant B-3 provided details
about her understanding:
I don’t know a lot about it, but I remember—I feel like it was in conjunction with
a student who was raped and murdered, I want to say, in her dorm, and that it
requires universities to publish something about the crimes that happen on their
campus. Because there was a big deal awhile back about the fact that universities
aren’t very forthcoming sometimes with the crimes that are happening there.
Finding 4
While responding to the question concerning knowledge of campus crimes
specific to their campuses, many of the respondents had to be prompted as to what
constituted categories of campus crime. For example, they were informed that under the
Clery Act, under-aged alcohol consumption and all drug violations were classified as
liquor and drug violations and had to be reported by campus administrators. Once this
was explained, some respondents were able to recall violations, primarily those who lived
on campus in residence halls. Many respondents could relate to either friends or even
themselves being involved with minor crimes, but most downplayed the importance or
the severity of crime on their campuses.

195
The following examples of responses were provided by the students when asked
about specific campus crime violations. Participant A-2 said, “No, I don’t know of any
other students having any problems. Of course, they never mentioned it either. The RAs
do their job quite well. They make sure nothing ever gets out of hand.” Participant C-7
related the following:
Being an RA, I have known some people, yes, that have been affected by the
alcohol related ones (incidents). I caught a couple of people. The people that
haven’t been affected, I feel like—I don’t feel like there’s much crime going on. I
mean last year, there was some people breaking into their cars at night and kind of
took some things, but it wasn’t a huge issue and it stopped very quickly.
Participant B-6 provided an example of personal experience with crime:
I know that there has been some [crime] since I was an RA last year, and we had
two students, male students, who did some drugs that were laced with something.
But I personally was stolen from my freshman year. My roommate stole my debit
card, and I saw a charge on my account and didn’t know where it was from.
Participant D-7 spoke about crime in relation to property protection:
I personally do know some people that have been affected by campus crime. And
a lot of it is also due to the lack that we don’t always take the steps to be
protective with our things. And so that instance, that was the case; some money
was stolen from her room. But the person hadn’t locked their room. Therefore, I
feel like that could have been prevented, obviously if they had locked their door.
Finding 5
When the respondents were asked about campus programming directed at
preventing or lowing campus crime, the researcher found one of the lowest levels of

196
response from the interviewees. As one of the requirements under the Clery Act, each
campus is required to conduct educational programming to educate students regarding
personal and property protection. Even when given specific examples which could be
found on bulletin boards on their specific campuses or after being given examples which
are popular and conducted around the country, most students could not give any
examples of specific programming efforts on their campuses. Of the 35 students
interviewed among the four sites, only one student could convey a specific example of
on-campus programming directed toward campus safety. This was Participant D-3 who
said:
The past couple of years we’ve had a women’s self-defense class that one of the
dorm directors has kind of helped coordinate which I have not been able to go just
because of work. I have heard a lot of positive reviews about it. And it’s kind of
taken as a joke and a fun time, but at the same time, I think it’s a very important
thing to have.
Three samples of the responses by students who had no knowledge of campus
programming follow. Participant A-1 said succinctly, “No, I haven’t seen any.”
Participant C-6 reported, “I honestly don’t think that I’ve ever been notified of any sort of
thing like that.” Participant B-7 referred to event-type programming in the following
response: “I have not (attended any programming).”
Finding 6
When asked about how important was written information regarding choice of
campuses, the respondents largely reported this information had little or no impact on
their college choice decision. It appeared that few if any of the interview participants had

197
viewed written information regarding the Clery Act while making their campus choice.
Four participants’ responses are provided for clarity. Participant A-6 stated:
Campus security and crime was not a thought at all when I was looking at
colleges. Maybe some of that has to do with, even though this is a Christian
college, I knew that there are—there are going to be non-Christians here.
Participant C-8 reported, “I can’t really say that it was important. I know that’s a bad
thing, but it wasn’t something that ever really jumped out to me. My decision was more
based on how I felt here.” Participant D-6 added, “I wouldn’t say it’s not important. But
I didn’t really think about it.” Finally, Participant B-5 added detail to the response:
I didn’t consider it because I had been so familiar with the campus and that I
wasn’t much of a troublemaker when I was younger anyway. So I didn’t really
think about campus crime. But until my junior year and this year, I’ve actually
been more perceptive of campus crime in that, say, drug use.
Finding 7
During each interview, the participant was asked if he/she were confident the
campus would provide notification about active crime situations. In addition, each
participant was asked a follow-up question regarding whether or not the campus had an
early warning system. Most students recognized their campuses for having an early-
warning system for tornadoes and weather-related events, but none of the participants
could remember an instance when the campus activated the early warning system in
reference to a campus crime related event. At Site D, some of the students remembered
the dean of students warning the campus of a couple of people peddling perfume and
fragrances out of a van, but this warning was perceived by the students as being about a
non-authorized solicitation on campus and not as a campus crime related event. Four

198
examples of responses from the participants in regard to the campus being up-front and
warning the campus community about crime through a campus-wide warning system are
provided next.
Participant A-7 provided a favorable toward the campus response:
I think they’re very good about that. The text system, they have a text system that
goes out especially when, for example, tornadoes would come through, when
there’s an emergency. There was also a time I believe two years ago that I was
here that there were reports of a suspicious person driving around campus.
Participant B-6 was aware of an alert system but did not have specific
understanding of how it functioned and said, “We do have the texting system. I
don’t think, though, that we’ve ever been notified officially by Student Life or
anything. But it’s such a small campus, it gets around really quick. So we’re
really aware in that sense.” Participant C-4 reported specifics about the campus
alert program:
Yeah, they do that. We have [campus name] Alert program which is just a text
message service, and you sign up for that as a freshman. And so if there’s ever
severe weather or anything, like, probably a lockdown. We’ve never had it
happen, but if there was a lockdown, I’m sure that they would send it out over
[campus name] Alert because it goes to everyone’s phone.
Participant D-6 provided an answer that suggested confusion about the campus
alert system as follows:
I think they have an alert system for like tornadoes and stuff. I’m not sure if they
have an alert system for like, crime. I think it’s only on e-mail. I don’t think we

199
should like send out little things every day obviously, but when something like a
tornado that’s really serious. But there’s also relational, like crimes.
Finding 8
One of the questions posed to the participants during the one-on-one interviews
was for the interviewee to tell the researcher where written information regarding the
Clery Act could be found on campus. Specifically, the participants were asked what
departments on campus might have the information or where they would search in order
to find the information. In much the same fashion as the quantitative findings where only
5.2% of students acknowledged reading the Clery Act related printed materials, the
majority of interviewed students did not know to what office to direct either themselves
or a visitor to find written crime reporting material specific to their campuses. The
participants reasoned that several choices of offices could be sources, such as Student
Life Office, Housing Office, and Campus Security or Police. In several cases, the
participants provided simple “I don’t know” response. A sample of the responses about
knowing where written information regarding campus crime could be located on campus
follows:
Participant A-8 reasoned thought this guess:
It should be in the “Green Book,” where all of our, where tickets and parking
violations are found. We’re required to know everything that’s in there. It’s more
dealing with campus safety. I think it has other things in there as well.
Participant B-3 responded with “No” about knowing where to send someone to
find written information, but also said,
I could probably point you in the direction of perhaps the Admissions office or a
section on the website that might have some information regarding that. But in

200
general, I couldn’t tell you any crime statistics about [name of school] or where
you could find such information.
Participant C-7 logically provided: “Probably the police station.” When the researcher
prodded how about the student handbook, the participant responded “I don’t know. I’ve
never looked at the Student Handbook before.” Participant D-8 echoed this logic, but
seemed unaware of the correct nomenclature for the campus: “I believe we would have to
go to the, I think they call it the police department now.”
Finding 9
This finding involves the students’ knowledge of whether their respective
campuses have security forces or university police departments. The question was added
to the semi-structured question list after the researcher visited the first campus and could
not make a determination on his own whether or not the campus was being patrolled by a
school contracted security force, campus police force, or the local city police force as the
primary means of crime prevention. The question proved to have very mixed results
from the students who responded to the question.
It was determined Site A was patrolled by a part-time security guard who was
partly seen in a four-wheel golf cart or an older model security vehicle. Site B appeared
to be patrolled by university police, whose presence was quite noticeable around campus.
Site C had just reorganized out of a security force and into a university police department.
The responses from the Site C students were understandably mixed-up about knowing
whether or not the campus had security or police. Site D provided a mixture of both
departments. The Site D security force patrolled the perimeters and interiors of the
residence halls, and university police had overall jurisdiction on the campus. Below is
one example response for each of the four sites as given by the students.

201
Participant A-1:
I’ve seen like a cop car drive around sometimes during the day. And people said
that there’s one that drives around at night, kind of just making sure that the only
cars that are here they know them, that alerts them that’s it’s a student’s car.
When prompted by the researcher if Participant A-1 had a preference of a security force
over a police force, the students said, “I guess I don’t have a preference as long as they do
their job and protect us like they’re supposed to.”
Participant B-8 said, “I believe it’s now a police department.” The researcher
explained the difference between an unarmed or in some cases, an armed security officer
and an licensed police officer. Participant B-8 replied, “I think it changed. Yes, then it is
the campus police.”
Participant C-7 responded with “campus police.” When the researcher prompted
Participant C-7 to explain the concise answer, the student said,
They’re very active. They’re not just—I always think of a security as a mall cop
kind of person who kind of just cruises around and says, “Hey, stop doing that.”
Campus police, if you call them, they’ll be there and they’ll be ready to act. I
know that a lot of them were like real police officers in the city or town so they
know how to handle certain things and what not to handle.
Participant D-7 said with accuracy:
We do have both. We have RFOS which come into the dormitories at 11:00
o’clock at night and stay until 7:00 a.m. in the morning. Their job is to patrol the
dormitory and make sure the students behave. And if I’m not mistaken, they have
to have some type of police background.

202
Participant D-7’s information was verified by the research with the dean of students. At
Site D, a bridge program exists between the hall monitors and those who want to
complete a local police academy’s program to be considered for vacant university police
positions.
Campus Visual Observations
To facilitate the interviewing of the participants for the study, the researcher spent
a minimum of a day and a half on each of the four campuses. The on-site visit provided
the ability to walk around campus between interviews, to drive through surrounding
neighborhoods, and to observe the actions of each campus’ campus security or police
officers.
Site A observations. The presence of security on Site A represented the least
amount of observations and presence of the four sites. The researcher never saw the
presence of a human with a four-wheel drive cart labeled “security.” Students referred to
having a campus police officer, but when pressed to describe whether or not he wore a
sidearm, Participant A-4 spoke similarly to his campus peers and replied:
I don’t necessarily know. I know that there’s a cars that drive around. So I’m
going to guess police officers because they do have specific cars. But, I’ve never
actually seen them, the people themselves. I’ve seen the cars, but not the people.
So I don’t know about the armed or anything.
In interviewing the Site A students, the majority of interviewed students could not
tell the researcher where the security office was located on campus. The researcher
eventually found a nonparticipating senior who could provide directions to the
maintenance facility in which the office was located. The researcher then noted that no
office hours were posted.

203
Other observations on Site A included seeing a limited number of emergency
telephone stanchions with attached blue lights designed to activate during an emergency.
The emergency phones observed seemed to be concentrated around the female residence
halls. The campus boundaries were delineated by the placement of two metal signs once
a visitor reached the campus property. The signs read as follows: “You are entering the
campus of [name of campus]. Security Notice: This campus is protected by 24-hour video
surveillance.” The second sign provided the following text: “Drugs, Alcohol, and
Weapons are prohibited on campus.” The signs represented the only border delineation
between the campus and the local neighborhood, which appeared to be well kept and
orderly even though the homes appeared to be 40 to 50 years in age.
Site B observations. This site was well illuminated and appeared well kept with
well-groomed grounds. A university-owned sports utility vehicle was labeled as
representing campus police and actively patrolled the campus during the day. The police
presence was increased by additional vehicle patrols and walking officer patrols during
the evening hours. During the interviewing process, the majority of the students from
Site B knew the location of the campus police department and generally knew the campus
was patrolled by armed police officers. The campus also had a variety of emergency
telephone and light stanchions strategically placed across campus.
The one negative aspect of the campus was apparent in both the interviews and
researcher’s observations. The portion of the athletic fields that are detached from the
main campus may be accessed by walking through a lower income neighborhood, which
the students referred to as “the hood.” Participant B-9 spoke at length about this lower
income area when he stated,

204
If you’re asking me if I think the campus is safe, then I do think it’s safe and not
because I say this in a bad way, not to downplay or talk down at all about the
safety here, but I just think that this area in general is just a safe place. It’s a little
hood over there. It’s kind of ghetto. That’s where I live in that little
neighborhood, but I know it’s not.
Site C observations. Site C appeared to have an attractive campus once a visitor
drove up into the campus proper; however, the campus is located in a lower income
neighborhood. In addition, the rear border of the campus backs up to a railroad yard, so
overall impressions regarding safety and security can be influenced by initial
observations. Site C also represented the institution that recently moved from a security
force to a university police force. The researcher’s initial observation regarding the
campus included noting it was unusually dark in some areas, and this observation was
confirmed during some of the interviews. In particular, Participant C-6 described in
detail her concerns:
I feel like they have good amount of lighting, but I would say maybe a little more
lighting just because when it’s dark, you feel a little less safe, and just even
walking through the middle of campus. It used to be really dark and shaded, and
so you couldn’t see who was sitting on a bench or whatever.
Site C represented the only campus where at least two female study participants
described an unsafe area on campus. Participant C-3 described her past experiences in
the following comment:
I’ll say my sophomore year I was definitely made uncomfortable when I lived in
the residence halls because there was a group of freshmen. I don’t mean to be

205
stereotypical, but they were all football plays who would congregate out of [name
of residence hall] at night. And you would go up in the front, and you would be
surrounded on both sides by this group of football players who said some rather
colorful remarks. That, as a girl, made me uncomfortable.
Participant C-6 added to these concerns when she stated:
There are some areas on campus where there are a large collection of students that
hang out at night. And it’s intimidating as a girl to walk through those areas
where there’s a lot of guys congregated, and it doesn’t matter what race.
Site D observations. Site D had the most recognizable university police
department among the four sites. The police unit was located in a former residential
home that identified the building as housing “University Police” in large prominent
letters appearing across the front of the building. In addition, the researcher observed
several sport utility vehicles marked as University Police and actively patrolling the
campus. In addition, local municipal police cars were observed patrolling the campus as
well. Site D also had a secondary level of coverage referred to as “Dorm Security” and a
vehicle belonging to this group was visible on campus.
The campus “blended” into a residential neighborhood on one side of the campus,
and no fencing to separate the campus from the neighborhood was visible. Adequate
lighting was a frequent comment from many of the students, and Participant D-5
responded, “Sometimes it’s dark. So that’s just an example of what someone said. If I
could improve something, I would want more lighting. There is a perception the new
apartments may need some new lighting.” Participant D-7 elaborated on the safeness of
the campus, but felt the surrounding community might not be as safe when she replied,

206
“This campus is a very safe campus. The city isn’t necessarily one of the safest.”
Participant D-8 added the following about the difference between perceived safety on the
campus and the local community:
I think it’s a really safe campus considering that I mean the site that we’re at is
not necessarily known as an extremely safe town, but at the same time, it’s not I
guess a dangerous town. It’s not to say that we don’t intermingle with the
outside. I don’t think really the outside affects us much.
Triangulation of Related Written Materials
After the campus visits, the researcher reviewed the current material each
respective institution has on file regarding the Clery Act with the Department of
Education. In addition, each respective campus’ written materials, such as its student
handbook, were reviewed to determine the extent to which the university distributed
materials to the students and community.
Site A. The student handbook referenced the Clery Act but directed readers to a
federal website which in turn is the Department of Education’s Clery Act site for
additional information. During the campus visit dates, the researcher attempted to
demonstrate to a participant where to find campus specific crime data, but the federal
government was fiscally and physically closed in what was labeled by Congress and the
news outlets as a “shutdown.” The federal website simply read “Unable to download due
to Federal government partial shutdown.” This federal government condition, in effect,
rendered any access to the Clery Act database as inoperative until the federal government
reopened. In addition, no other references to either the Clery Act or Campus Crime
statistics in the student handbook were found at this site.

207
Site B. The Campus Crime statistics were not located in the student handbook;
however, by searching the campus website, the data were found. By using the campus
website’s search engine, the researcher located the “Campus Safety Report,” which was
compiled by the university police. According to the Clery Act, the immediate 3 years of
data must be reported, but Site B’s report only showed the most current year’s data.
Site C. The student handbook referenced the Clery Act by stating the following:
Annual Crime Statistics are available to all current students, employees of [name
of university] upon request, to any applicant for enrollment or employment.
Information is provided pursuant to the disclosure requirements of the Crime
Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990 and the Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act Amendments of 1989.
However, the student handbook did not direct the readers to a specific office or
designated personnel to obtain the report. The student handbook did reference the Clery
Act on page 59 of the current volume; however, the subchapter labeled “Safety and
Security Information; Clery Act-Crime Prevention and Security Report” did not actually
contain the report. Rather, the section listed the state of Texas’ website for registered sex
offenders and explained in detail what should be contained in the nonexistent report.
Site D. In searching for Clery Act in the online student handbook, the researcher
was directed to a link for the university police website. The Campus Crime Statistics
were labeled, and the immediate 3 past years of data were displayed with all relevant
categories being listed once the website was retrieved.
All Four Sites. To verify each site was in compliance with the Clery’s Act
requirement to post the immediately previous 3 years’ worth of data, the researcher went

208
to the Department of Education’s Clery Act website and reviewed each campus’ data.
All four campuses were in compliance with the law as data were filed for each campus
for the immediate past 3 years. However, the Department of Education did have a
stipulation listed with each site that stated that following: “The crime data reported by the
institutions have not been subjected to independent verifications by the U.S. Department
of Education. Therefore, the Department cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data
reported here.” This caveat suggested that none of the four sites has been visited by the
Department of Education to verify the posted information. For contrast, Table 28 lists
comparable data from the four sites and two miscellaneous comparison campuses that are
also private and church-affiliated and located in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
Table 28 included only calendar year 2012 crime data because data for calendar
years 2010 and 2011 showed similar frequencies. The sites’ data were combined as
criminal offenses for the main campuses plus other campuses, if multiple campuses
existed for any site. Compared to Site 1, the Sites A, B, C, and D reported less crime.
However, it must be noted that Sites A, B, C, and D were located in smaller communities
than Sites 1 and 2, which were located in a large metropolitan area and as a result might
be more likely to experience higher frequencies for crimes on campus.

209
Table 28
Crime Data Between the Four Study Sites (A, B, C, D) and 2 Comparison Sites (1, 2) for
Calendar Year 2012
Crime Category Site A Site B Site C Site D
Comparison
Site 1
Comparison
Site 2
Murder 0 0 0 0 0 0
Negligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sex Offenses-Forcible 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sex Offenses-Non-Forcible 0 0 0 0 0 0
Robbery 0 0 0 0 1 0
Aggravated Assault 0 0 2 0 1 0
Burglary 19 6 4 2 13 5
Motor Vehicle Theft 3 0 0 0 1 1
Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0
Weapons 0 0 0 0 0 0
Drug Abuse 4 1 5 0 7 1
Liquor Law Violations 3 7 9 0 14 6
Summary
While the number of responses varied widely from the four campuses sampled,
the results were generally the same between the campuses. Largely, students are not
aware of the Clery Act and seldom, if ever, utilize the available reports to make a more
informed decision about college choice as far as comparing campus crime rates between
campuses is concerned. As evidenced by the data generated by the Campus Crime
Survey for the quantitative portion of the study as well as by the information obtained

210
from the interviews for the qualitative portion, both sets of data showed the college
students to have little knowledge or awareness of the Clery Act.
The findings of students on these four select campuses who demonstrate little
knowledge or awareness of the Clery Act may become more alarming in the future with
the recent passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 2013 (Kingkade, 2013). If
campuses, for whatever reasons, are not in compliance with both distributing campus
crime data and educating their student body, these campuses will find it even more
difficult under VAWA which mandates additional levels of education and compliance.
Under VAWA, for the first time, both the Clery Act and Title IX are officially linked
together (Westerholm, 2014).
Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the findings with regard to future research and
practical applications for enhanced professional research and practices. It also includes
suggestions for institutions as well as the Department of Education for promoting and
marketing the value of the Clery Act to future college students.

211
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
influences the college choice. The researcher explored whether or not campus crime
information was reviewed by students prior to choosing to attend a specific college
campus and after coming to the specific campus and whether or not a particular incident
triggered student’s reasons for becoming more familiar with campus crime data. To
fulfill the primary purpose of this study, the researcher gathered information by two
methods: distributing a survey to the undergraduate student body of the participating
private colleges and conducting 35 personal follow-up interviews with students at their
campuses. The interviews were conducted on a one-to-one basis in order to determine
the degree to which students actually utilized the mandated, published campus safety
information in making their college choices. The researcher examined, according to the
students, how they decided on their chosen college and determined if campus crime
statistics played any role in their decisions. The researcher explored the decision of
college choice from a campus safety perspective.
Summary of Study
A mixed method research design was utilized to conduct this study allowing the
researcher to build on the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative research. A
sequential explanatory method was utilized to allow the researcher to gather quantitative
data to determine the use of the Clery Act in assisting with making a decision regarding
college choice and following up with qualitative interviews on each campus to determine
if the written data derived from students completing the Campus Crime Survey matched

212
the data derived from the one-on-one on-campus interviews with students (Creswell,
2008).
The instrument utilized for the quantitative portion of the study was the Campus
Crime Survey (see Appendix B), a questionnaire developed by Dr. Steven M. Janosik
(2003), associate professor and chair of the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies
Department at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (a.k.a., Virginia Tech). Permission was
granted by Janosik to utilize the questionnaire in this study (see Appendix A). The
Campus Crime Survey consisted of 27 questions and was completed by each student in
approximately 10 to 15 minutes. Survey Questions 1 through 4 addressed demographics
of age, gender, classification, and enrollment status as residential, commuter, or online
only. Survey Questions 5 through 19 asked about knowledge of the Clery Act, campus
crime statistics, and campus educational programming. These questions were answered
with either a “yes,” “no,” or an “unsure” response. Questions 20 through 25 utilized a 5-
point Likert scale, and the questions were answered as “strongly agree,” “agree,”
“neutral,” “slightly disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” Question 26 asked if the students
remembered where they received their campus crime report through six possible options.
Question 27 required a “yes” or “no” response asking students if they would know where
to find their campus crime statistics.
Janosik developed the questionnaire over several years of researching the general
topic of campus crime and the enforcement of the Clery Act. The survey has been
utilized by Janosik specifically to address familiarity with the Clery Act with specialized
groups on campuses, such as judicial affairs leaders (Gregory & Janosik 2003); senior
residence life administrators (Gregory & Janosik, 2006); parent’s views on the Clery Act

213
(Janosik, 2002); campus security (Janosik & Gehring, 2001); senior student affairs
officers (Janosik & Gregory, 2009); and campus law enforcement (Janosik & Gregory,
2003). For the current study, a total of 979 respondents over 18 years of age completed
the Campus Crime Survey.
The qualitative portion of this study involved using semi-structured interviews to
understand the effects of campus crime on college selection of choice for students (see
Appendix C). The researcher observed whether the interviews produced similar results in
themes and patterns between the students of the four participating undergraduate
campuses (Creswell, 2008). Each campus was viewed as a separate and unique study, yet
the findings from each campus were compared against each other to determine if themes
or patterns emerge between campuses.
Summary of Findings and Interpretation of Results
ResearchQuestion 1
What proportion of college students surveyed will indicate that they are aware of
the Clery Act? How does this proportion compare to the proportion of parents surveyed
by Janosik (2002)? The data revealed 80% (n = 783) of the students had not heard of the
Clery Act, and another 14% (n = 133) were unsure of the law. Only 6% (n = 63) of
students who completed surveys had any awareness of the law. For comparing the Clery
Act awareness by parents to that by students, the percentage of parents aware of the Clery
Act in 2004 for Janosik was 26%. The sample data revealed both parents and students
appear to be largely unaware of the Clery Act, showing 1 in 4 parents are aware while 1
in 16.66 students are aware of the law. These numbers pose reason for concern about the
effectiveness of the law since combined 94% of students either did not know about or

214
were unsure of the law as compared to a combined percentage of parents at 74% not
knowing about the law (Janosik, 2002).
These numbers may be viewed as both troubling and disturbing in light of the
current direction the Department of Education seems to be headed as far as compliance to
the Clery Act is concerned with the recent reauthorization of the Violence Against
Women Act of 2013 (New Requirements Imposed by the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act, 2014). This recent reauthorization has increased the number of
categories which specific crimes must be reported, but also has strengthened the
educational requirements which institutions of higher education must conduct before the
entire campus including students, faculty and staff (Not Alone, 2014). While Herrmann
(2008) reported the Department of Education has not only increased the number of cases
it is investigating for lack of Clery Act compliance, but it is aggressively issuing fines in
ever increasing amounts to campuses which fail to comply. This trend has continued as
the current administration released for the first time, a comprehensive list of fifty-five
campuses which were currently being investigated (Anderson, 2014). Examples range
from three Ivy League schools such as Harvard, Yale and Dartmouth who are currently
under investigation to many top-ranked state schools such as the University of North
Carolina, the University of California at Berkley and both Michigan State and the
University of Michigan (Anderson, 2014). The data gathered in this study show that only
approximately 7% of students who responded were aware of the Clery Act.
The simple fact is students on the campuses included in this study are largely
unfamiliar with the Clery Act. McNeal (2007) found the two biggest reasons campuses
failed to comply with the law were the lack of funding on the part of the campuses and

215
lack of institutional support to adequately report the crime data. This study (McNeal,
2007) also showed institutions would not be able to achieve compliance unless actions
were taken to aid institutions in implementing the Clery Act. McNeal’s study (2007) also
found 66% of the respondents felt the lack of institutional support kept their campuses
from fully complying with the law, while 86% of the respondents felt the instructions on
how to comply were too vague. However, the biggest key to obtaining awareness to the
Clery Act could be demonstrated in McNeal’s study (2007) when 77% of the respondents
felt additional training on a national level was needed in order for campuses to become
complaint. This point becomes even more urgent and relevant with the recent
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act of 2013 and the Campus SaVE Act
where new categories of reporting are added and a direct educational campaign is
required of each campus (Stratford, 2014). Coupled with more aggressive investigations
by the Department of Education and the requirement for an educational campaign, the
four campuses involved in this study will be challenged to comply with the new
requirements.
ResearchQuestion 2
What proportion of college students surveyed will indicate they use the campus
crime information they are provided? How does this compare to parents’ results about
and regarding their student’s use of provided campus crime information as surveyed by
Janosik (2002)? When the participants in the study were asked about knowing how to
find Clery Act material on campus, the overwhelming response was negative. Only 80
students out of 975, or 8.2% of students, who completed the survey could identify where
to find Clery Act programming material. There were 527 (54.1%) no responses, and 368

216
(37.7%) were unsure about where to find the required material responses, for a total of
91.8% either not knowing or unsure about where to find the material.
Out of the 450 parents Janosik (2004) asked about remembering if the campus
crime summary was in their students’ admission packets, 41% responded with “yes,” and
59% responded with “no.” The parents were asked if they remembered reading the
information to which 25% responded with “yes,” and 75% responded with “no.” When
asked if the parents remembered receiving the institution’s annual campus crime report,
22% responded with “yes,” and 78% responded with “no.” When asked if they
remembered reading the annual campus crime report, 15% responded with “yes,” and
85% responded with “no.”
Janosik (2002) asked parents if they felt their children would remember, study,
and learn from the campus crime report. When asked if a parent thought their student
would read the annual crime report, 35% said “yes” they would, and 50% said “no” they
would not, but 15% were unsure of their students’ decisions. When asked if the annual
crime report would change the way their students protected their property, 58% said
“yes” they would, while 13% responded “no they would not”, and 29% did not know
what their students would do. When asked if the annual report would change the way
their students moved around the campus, 52% said “yes” it would, but 17% responded
“no” it would not, and 31% did not know. When asked if their students would read
flyers, posters, news articles, or email alerts regarding campus crime, 68% of parents
responded as “yes,” with 11% as “no,” and 21% not knowing how their child would
respond.

217
When Janosik (2002) asked parents if they felt their students would attend campus
crime prevention/awareness programs, 19% said “yes” they would, while 43% responded
“no,” and 38% did not know. When asked if materials and programs would change the
way students protected their personal property, 55% of parents responded “yes” they
would, and just 11% responded “no;” however, one-third were unsure. The parents were
asked if these materials and programs would change the way their students protected
themselves, and 51% of parents responded with “yes,” 13% with “no,” and 36% with
“unsure” or “do not know.” When asked if these materials and programs would change
the way their students moved around campus, 51% of parents responded “yes,” 14% said
“no,” and 35% were unsure.
The data between the 2002 Janosik survey and the current survey of students
demonstrated a large gap in the findings between students and parents. When asked if
programming would affect how students protect their personal property, the only 9% of
979 students in this study responded as “agreeing” or “strongly agreeing.” However,
Janosik’s results for the parent survey showed a majority of 58% of the parents felt
programming could positively affect the means in which students protected their personal
property, with only 13% saying “no” and 29% not knowing how their child would
respond.
When asked in the current study if programming would positively impact how
students took care of themselves, 10.9% of the students responded with “agree” or
“strongly agree.” Fifty-one percent of Janosik’s parent participants felt programming
would positively impact their child, even though 13% said “no” and 36% did not know if
programming would make an impact. The difference between the current student

218
survey’s results and the 2002 Janosik parent results regarding moving around campus
were also very different. Only 17.7% of students either “agreed” or “strongly agreed”
that programming could modify their behaviors. In 2004, 52% of the surveyed parents
reported that programming would have a far greater impact on modifying their students’
behaviors in relation to how their students moved around on campus, even though just
17% felt it would have no impact and 31% did not know how it would affect their
students. With each question asked in the Campus Crime Survey, the parents’ responses
were much higher in general than the students’ responses. Again, these disparities
between studies pose reasons for concern about the effectiveness of the law as it applies
to the four campuses included in this study.
With the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and
the SaVE Act, in the very near future, institutions will be forced to educate new students
and employees of preventive educational programs (New Requirements Imposed by the
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, 2014). It is hoped the four campuses
which participated in the study would immediately implement the required programming
measures which in return would increase the percentages of students who are familiar
with the Clery Act.
ResearchQuestion 3
Do students use the information required under the Clery Act to reduce their
safety risks as a result of Clery Act information? How does this proportion compare to
the proportion of parents surveyed by Janosik (2002)? Research Question 3 was a multi-
faceted question addressing if students thought the annual campus crime report would
change the methods by which they protected their personal property, how they protected
themselves, and how they would change their movement around campus. When asked if

219
the annual campus crime report would change the way students protected their personal
property, 58.2% (n = 570) responded with “yes,” 25.8% (n = 253) responded with “no,”
and 15.9% (n = 156) responded with “unsure.” When asked if the campus crime report
would change the way students protected themselves, 59.4% (n = 582) responded with
“yes,” 26.8% (n = 262) responded with “no,” and 13.8% (n = 135) responded as
“unsure.” When the participants were asked if the annual campus crime report would
change how they moved about campus, 45.6% (n = 446) responded with “yes,” 40.6% (n
= 397) responded with “no,” and 13.9% (n = 136) as “unsure.”
In comparing data between the current study and Janosik’s (2002) parent study,
when parents were asked if the annual crime report would change the way their students
protected personal property, 58% (n = 252) of parents responded with “yes,” yet 13% (n
= 58) responded with “no” and 29% (n = 125) with “unsure.” When Janosik asked
parents if the annual report would change how their students protected themselves, a
majority of parents (53%) responded with “yes;” 17% responded with “no;” and 30%
reported being “unsure” how the report would impact their student. When asked if the
annual report would change the way their students moved around campus, 52% said
“yes,” and just 17% said “no,” even though nearly 1 out of 3 parents (31%) did not know
how it would impact their children’s movements on campus. These disparities continue
between studies and pose reasons for concern about the effectiveness of the law.
In reviewing the study results from the four campuses, the responses were very
similar between the two questions regarding whether or not campus crime data influenced
students to protect themselves and or their property. In the study, 58.2% to 59.4% of the
respondents stated campus crime data would positively influence how they protected

220
themselves and or their personal property. The study also showed 25.8% to 26.8% of the
respondents stated the data would not influence how their protected their property and
themselves and 13.8% to 15.9% responded they were unsure if campus crime data would
influence how they protected their personal property or how they protected themselves.
ResearchQuestion 4
What proportion of college students surveyed will indicate that they know where
to find the Clery Act material on campus? When students were asked if they could
identify where on campus to find campus crime statistics, only 8.1% (n = 80) responded
affirmatively. The vast majority, 91%, of the students either responded with “no” (53%,
n = 519) or “unsure” (38%, n = 373).
Of the 80 students who did know where to find the statistics, 64 provided
information about where they could obtain campus crime statistics (See Table 4 in
Chapter 4 regarding these location frequencies). When asked about receiving the campus
crime summary through the student admissions packet, 28% (n = 274) responded with
“yes,” 48% (n = 466) responded with not receiving it, and one-quarter or 24% (n = 239)
responded as “unsure.” When asked if they remembered receiving a copy of the campus
crime statistics, 6% (n = 59) of students said “yes,” 8% (n = 77) said they were “unsure,”
but an overwhelming majority of students at 90% (n = 843) responded with “no.” When
students were asked if they had read their respective campus’ crime report, only 5% (n =
51) responded affirmatively; 89.7% (n = 878) responded that they had not read it; and
only 5% (n = 50) were unsure if they had read the material. This suggests that among the
59 students who remembered receiving the campus crime information, 86% read the
report. The percent of students who read the report out of those who remembered
receiving indicates reason for hope when assured of receipt, a student is likely to read the

221
material. With the large percentage of students responding that they did read the material
if they received it, institutions must make it a primary initiative to ensure students receive
the material. This can be accomplished by a multi-faceted campaign to include, but not
necessarily need to be limited to the following suggestions: material presented at summer
orientations, material distributed with admissions materials, a separate email campaign
for all new students, inclusion on several portions of the campus website, inclusion in the
freshmen success classes popular on many campuses, and easy access to written copies
which can be distributed from various campus offices.
Janosik (2002) asked parents if they remembered receiving the institution’s
annual crime report. Approximately 1 in 5 parents, or 22% (n = 95), responded
affirmatively and 78% (n = 340) responded negatively. When parents were asked if they
remembered reading the institution’s annual crime report, 15% reported they had read the
report, and 85% responded that they had not read the report. When the parents were
asked if they felt their students would read the institution’s report, 35% thought they
would, 50% said they would not, and 15% said they did not know if their child would
read the report. In this case, the percent of students who actually received and read the
report matched with the parents’ reports. This result indicates reason for hope when
circumstances assure students attain the information.
With both students and parents in overwhelming numbers stating they do not
remember receiving the campus crime data, all institutions need to orchestrate a better job
of distributing the campus crime material. As mentioned previously in how to get the
material out to students, the material must be distributed to parents in a much more
organized fashion. Reviewing the original intent of the Clery Act, it was through the

222
distribution of campus crime data that students and parents could make a better informed
decision regarding college choice (Fisher, Hartman, Cullen, & Turner, 2002).
ResearchQuestion 5
What is the process students use to learn about the Clery Act, to access relevant
information regarding the law and modify behavior based on the available information?
Of the 979 students who completed the Campus Crime Survey, the majority of students,
80% (n = 779), did not remember receiving the material. Of the students who did
remember receiving the material, 8% (n = 79) believed they received the material in their
admissions packets. The next highest percentage of students who remembered how they
received the campus crime material reported that it came through their campus’ electronic
mail, but this frequency was only 4% (n = 35) of the total sample. The third most
frequent location identified by students taking the Campus Crime Survey was through on-
campus campus mail (3%, n = 29). The fourth and final significant site identified by 24
students (2.5% of the total sample) involved receiving the campus crime material via
their respective campus websites.
The on-campus interviews for the qualitative portion of the study attained much
the same findings as the quantitative aspect of the study. The students had very vague
ideas, if any, regarding the Clery Act. Most of the 35 interviewed students could not
describe to the researcher where to find campus information regarding campus crime.
Listed below are partial samples of responses from students who knew where to find
written material or whether or not the material might have led to them modifying their
actions to protect themselves, their property, or how they moved about their campuses.
Participant A-2 said, “Best I could tell you is probably the website.” (On this
campus, the Clery Act data was linked directly back to the Department of Education’s

223
shutdown at the time website due to the interview date coinciding with a federal budget
stalemate and the Fall 2013 shutdown of the federal government). When the same
participant was asked about attending educational programming aimed at modifying the
above listed behaviors, the response was “things like that, probably, nothing, no kind of
event that I’ve been to.”
Participant B-3 was asked where to find written material regarding campus crime
on campus. This participant responded:
I would probably point you in the direction of perhaps at the Admissions office,
or a section on the website that might have some information regarding that. But
in general, I couldn’t tell you any crime statistics about [name of university] or
where you could find such information.
When asked about programming, which would modify behavior regarding campus crime,
Participant B-3 said, “Every year the new executive teams of all the campus
organizations are required to attend a risk management training session where we learned
how to handle issues if you encounter people bringing alcohol or drugs to an event.”
When Participant C-7 was asked where to find the campus crime statistics,
Participant C-7 responded with “the police station.” When asked if material could be
found in the student handbook, Participant C-7 said, “I don’t know. I have never looked
at the student handbook before.” When asked about educational programming designed
to modify behavior, Participant C-7 argued that RA training applied: “As an RA, we are
required to go to an open shooter training or something like that, where you learn about
active shooters on campus.” However, Participant C-7 admitted that the active shooter
training stopped at the RA level and was not open to the campus as a whole.

224
Participant D-7 was asked where to find campus crime information and responded
as follows:
I want to say more than likely obviously the student handbook which is where we
have our rules and stuff like that. Also the residence life office, I feel like it
would give us that information alongside the dean’s office, possibly the
academics office and alongside campus security.
When asked about programming to modify behaviors, Participant D-7 responded, “We
just went over what steps we need to take as far as dealing with crime [in the role of an
RA]. I’ve taken a self-defense course because of rising campus crime.”
Observation 1
The majority of the interviewed participants did not utilize the Clery Act in their
decision regarding college choice (See Table 4). In Table 4, only 28% of the respondents
remembered receiving the material, of which only 5.6% said the material influenced
either decision to attend that particular campus. With all four sites being directly related
to a specific religious denomination, the majority of the students interviewed were
attending due to a calling to be at a “God-centered” or a “Christ-centered” campus. The
specter of campus crime was not a motivating topic or theme when they selected their
campuses of choice. Rather, the interviewees responded to the call drawing them to a
specific campus. The “family-like” atmosphere was what retained them on their
respective campuses. Even after arriving on campus, when asked if students were aware
of any crimes being committed on campus, the most common references were to lower-
level Clery Act violations, such as Liquor Law and Drug Law violations, with under-aged
alcohol use being by far the more common violation discussed by the participants.

225
Other factors such as closeness to home, the ability to obtain large scholarships,
family and friends who previously attended the campus, and the reputation of the
institution weighed much more for the participants of this study than any information
provided because of the Clery Act. The student participants reported the information
provided due to the Clery Act played almost no role in their decisions regarding college
choice.
Furthermore, parents in Janosik’s (2002) original survey did not utilize the Clery
Act related crime information when considering college choices for their children. Even
when asked if their students would read the institution’s annual crime report, the majority
(64%) of parents admitted their students would not. Only 36% of parents thought their
students would, and 14% said they did not know what their children would do.
Observation 2
One outcome of the qualitative portion of the study was learning about the lack
of parental input into the overall college selection process. One of the key reasons for
Jeanne Clery’s family to start a grassroots movement, which eventually led to the passage
of the Clery Act, was so both students and parents could be more informed regarding
campus crime statistics. However, the parents of the students participating in this study
had only a minor role in the ultimate college choice decision, if any. Many of the
interview participants made comments indicating their parents “raised them to make their
own decisions” or “were thrilled with my choice.” Parents were involved in the actual
selection of college decision according to the interview participants only on a minimal
level. The quantitative survey data showed only 6% (n = 55) of the students responded
that the campus crime statistics influenced their choice of college, while 82 % (n = 802)
responded that they did not use the information in their college choice decision.

226
Observation 3
The overall general knowledge of the Clery Act is far below what should be
known about a federal law (See Table 4, p. 165). Of the quantitative survey data, only
28% (n = 274) of the students acknowledged receiving the report in their student
admissions packets, 6% (n = 59) acknowledged receiving the report, and only 5% (n =
51) acknowledged reading the report. For the qualitative portion of the study, only three
students out of the 35 interviewed, or less than 10%, could give reasonable definitions of
the law. All of the interviewees admitted the Campus Crime Survey in which they had
participated for this study served as the only reason for their piqued interest and action to
“Google” the Clery Act and gain a better understanding of the law. It was during this
Internet search that two of the three students read the basic definition and description of
the law. However, it should be noted that the administration of the Campus Crime
Survey was what prompted the students to search for additional material related to the
law. The third student was a non-traditional student who had been previously employed
by the campus police department, and only through her employment was she aware of the
Clery Act and requirements to collect campus crime data.
Janosik (2002) showed that parental knowledge of the federal law was not very
high with only 26% stating they knew about the law. Only 41% of Janosik’s parent
sample remembered receiving the information in the admissions packet, and 25%
remembered reading the material. Even though the parent participants in 2002 resulted in
a higher percentage of reading and remembering the campus crime statistics, in the
current study, the parents were viewed as having a minor role in the decision making
effort regarding college choice. The finding suggests that Clery Act education and
programming have been directed at the wrong population of people. With the

227
reauthorization of the Violence Against Woman Act of 2013, one of the new
requirements is to educate students and campus employees on sexual violence (New
Requirements Imposed by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, 2014).
The reauthorization of the Act addresses multiple issues, however, education, students
and other members of the campus community and parents are not included specifically in
the requirements. The law specifically lists the requirements that students and new
employees must be offered “primary prevention and awareness programs ((New
Requirements Imposed by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, 2014). It
is generally believed through interpretation of law that programming requirements cannot
be met by a passive campaign such as placing a pamphlet or brochure in the hands of a
student. Rather face-to-face lectures and other engaging programs must be put in place to
become fully compliant with the law.
Observation 4
The participants from all four sites acknowledged having some form of an early
warning or alert system for severe weather or hazard conditions (See Finding 7, p. 192).
These early warning or alert systems could consist of sending an alert message to an
email account, to a cell number, a home number or could be a combination of all of the
above listed types of communications. However, none of the campuses distributed crime
information via this system. One of the requirements of the Clery Act is the ability to
warn or alert the campus community about incidents as they develop. Based on the
students interviewed, none at any of the four campuses had received such alerts via the
campus alert system. It may be argued that the campuses addressed the need for such as
system after these students were enrolled, and these students’ experiences predated any
current system. Nonetheless, campuses should annually remind students to enroll in an

228
alert system, and as a precaution, test the alert system or perform a drill with the system
as it pertains to campus crime alerts.
Observation 5
One of the key components of the Clery Act is the incorporation of educational
programming to help modify students’ behaviors to better protect themselves, their
property, how they move around campus, and their confidence (See Finding 5, p. 191).
In this particular study, this part of the Clery Act was demonstrated as missing its
intended targets. Only 80 students out of the 979 surveyed for the quantitative portion of
the study shared any idea about where to find the campus crime material. Those 80
students listed 21 different locations or variations of locations for finding the material.
On the qualitative side of data collection, the 35 interviewees’ answers were different for
each interview. For example, the answers included the following variations: “the dean’s
office,” the “campus security/police department,” the academic dean’s office,” and “I
don’t know.” With the wide range and spectrum of responses, the researcher could only
surmise the students were trying to give a “best guess,” but had little direct knowledge as
to where the material could be found. While some of the answers were indeed correct as
they related to the respective campuses, personal observation of the students seemed to
indicate they were guessing and few had concrete reasoning behind their answers.
Summary
Both the quantitative and qualitative portions of the study revealed very low
knowledge, comprehension, and understanding of the initiatives for the Clery Act. This
study was conducted using students as mirrors, in many ways, to the parents of by
Janosik’s (2002) original study. However, the numbers for knowledge of and use of the
Clery Act in this study were much lower for the students than for the parents of Janosik’s

229
survey. Even the frequency for parents’ assumptions in 2004 that their children would
utilize campus crime data was much higher than the actual behaviors reported by the
current study’s student participants in 2013.
One of the original intents of the Clery Act was to provide information so parents
and students could utilize the information together to make a more informed decision
regarding college choice. While no quantitative question specifically asked about
parental involvement in the decision making process, one qualitative question on the
semi-structured question list did address parental involvement. It was during this portion
of the study that the researcher became aware of how minor a role parents played in their
students’ decisions about college choice.
Another implication in this study is the overall lack of knowledge by the student
populations regarding the Clery Act. In Janosik and Gregory’s (2003) study directed at
members of the International Association of College Law Enforcement Administrators,
of the officers perceived the Clery Act had been either effective or very effective in
improving the campus crime reporting procedures. Yet, the findings in this particular
study show only 6.9% of the students on four combined campuses were aware of the
Clery Act.
When Gregory and Janosik (2006) asked senior residence hall directors their
thoughts on the Clery Act, the researchers found the responses to go in conflicting
directions. The residence life officials responded that 98% were aware of the law, yet felt
only 9% of students would say the law had influenced their decision of college choice. In
a similar study conducted the same year, Janosik and Gehring (2003) asked members of
the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) to survey 30

230
students on campuses. The results showed only 27% students on these campuses were
aware of the law.
Generalizations
The mission, the structure, size, and residential component of all four sites are
different; therefore, generalizations should be made cautiously. The quantitative data is
only applicable to these select campuses and the qualitative data is only transferrable to
these four campuses involved in the study. Results may be generalized to like-minded
institutions of the same size and Christ-centered focus since many of the participants
specifically mentioned this as a reason for attending their respective institution. The
results of this study may provide a foundation upon which other institutions can build,
particularly in trying to develop any information campaign to meet the Clery Act
requirements.
While crime has a long history on American college campuses (Rudolph, 1961), it
has only been a relatively recent development where media has brought this issue to the
family television set (Cornell, 2010). As such, efforts have been made to educate high
school students and their parents about the possibility of crime striking college-aged
children on the college campus and away from home (Wood, 1999). The best known of
these attempts to provide individual campus crime data came from the Clery Act
(Walton, 2002), which was named after a freshmen student, Jeanne Clery, who was
sexually assaulted and murdered in her residence hall room at a private university.
Both the quantitative and qualitative portions of this study show the Clery Act is
little understood and little utilized by most college students on these selected four
campuses. The quantitative data generated a percentage of knowledge of the Clery Act

231
that was under 10%, and the one-on-one interviews demonstrated a similar number for
the participants who had heard of the law or knew anything substantive about the law.
The interviewing process identified three participants between the four participating
campuses and of the three, two decided to research the topic after responding the
quantitative part of the study’s Campus Crime Survey. Of the three, one participant was
a non-traditional student who had worked as a campus police dispatcher and was aware
of the law. Therefore, without the bias of being curious as in the case of two of the
participants or having employment in a law enforcement field, it was possible that all 35
interview participants would have shared a 100% lack of knowledge about the Clery Act.
It would appear that both formal and informal training is needed on campuses in
order to disseminate campus crime information to campus communities and to make
these communities more aware of the Clery Act. Because the respondents lacked
understanding and information, the issue of campus safety and crime deserves far more
study than it has received, especially in light of the campus shootings and crimes that
have made national headlines in the last five years. Discussions regarding campus safety
and campus crime are needed as incidents, such as those at the University of Texas,
Virginia Tech, and University of Northern Illinois, continue to occur more frequently.
While the above mentioned incidents are considered rare, college and university
administrators must recognize that they have, beyond any legal responsibility, a higher
moral responsibility to reduce campus crime and facilitate student safety. This effort can
be accomplished partly though educational programming designed to make students more
aware and partly through the dissemination of campus crime material through an
organized and coordinated campaign.

232
Limitations
There were several limitations to this study. The first was from the fact all four
campuses from which participants were drawn represented the same religious
denomination. In addition, each of the campuses ware located in a semi-rural setting and
enrolled 2,200 students or less.
The scope of this study is clearly limited because it focuses on campuses within
one geographic region of the United States. The findings are therefore, strictly
generalizable to four campuses which are four-year, private higher education institutions
located in the southwest.
A limitation would be the validity and accuracy in which institutions report
campus crime statistics. The literature review clearly demonstrated many campuses did
not comply with the Clery Act, including the two main reasons; failure to understand the
policies and underfunding for the departments tasked with the job of compiling the
campus crime statistics. It is documented that many categories of crimes, such as sexual
assault, are under reported by the victim, so the entire picture of what is occurring on a
campus cannot be entirely identified (Not Alone, 2014).
A limitation of this study is the Clery Act itself. The usefulness of the Clery Act
is limited because it does not allow a perspective student or parent to accurately assess
campus crime by knowing precisely who was victimized by the crime, nor providing a
clear profile of the offender. The Clery Act offers more description of geography of
where crimes occur, for example, in the residence halls or on off-campus property owned
by the campus. The Clery Act does not differentiate if the crime was committed by a
student or by others not affiliated with the host institution.

233
Other limitations could be placed on the cooperation of the student body to
participate in both the online survey and the on-campus interviews. In one instance, the
researcher was warned that the student body was subjected to too many online surveys
and the response rate could suffer. This particular campus did have the lowest turnout for
the online survey and became the most difficult campus from which to collect the eight
interviews. Two trips had to be made to collect all eight interviews due to the campus’
excessive interview no-show rate.
A limitation occurred if the potential participants on the campus perceived the
researcher as an outsider and unknown person. Many of the participants, as the
researcher later found out, did not know what they had agreed to, so they held natural
hesitation about opening up to an off-campus stranger. Even though the researcher was
introduced as working at a similar private, church-affiliated institution, the participants
could have been biased in some cases based on their own unpleasant experiences with the
respective person holding a comparable title on the campus. Since the researcher held the
same title as the person who was hosting the researcher, it was interesting to note the
reaction to students who might have visited their dean of students based on being
summoned for a discipline related issue. Comments from the participants once told my
title and rank ranged from “that’s cool,” or “I know Dean (name of campus dean) from a
positive exchange to “oh, you’re one of those kinds of guys.”
A limitation was the dependence on a “gate keeper” such as the dean of students
when it quickly became apparent this individual on each of the four campuses could not
totally guarantee a male and female representative from each of the four undergraduate
classes. Since this study was viewed as purely voluntary and lacked any compensation,

234
the respective deans of students simply chose to find any eight students who would agree
to participate in an interview. At each of the four sites, more than eight students had to
be signed up in order to overcome the no show rates which was an average of 50% on
each campus.
Another limitation was the selection of those chosen to participate in the
qualitative portion of the study. The responsibility to select students to participate
generally fell to the dean of students or his/her appointee. With that in mind, the Dean of
Students tended to select students who were very involved with student activities and
campus organizations. While there is nothing particularly wrong in this sense, it did
make for a biased representation of the student body. It was also noted the dean of
students on these campuses tended to take a “personal” interest in making sure “their”
students showed up and were willing to particulate. It should also be noted that it was in
many cases difficult to get more than eight students to participate on each of the four
campuses. As noted, it took two trips to fill the quota of eight interviews on one particular
campus. In discussing the interview pool of students, it was also noted the dean of
students could not find the ideal mix of students as originally proposed: a male and
female from each undergraduate class for a total of eight students. In reality, the dean of
students had to present to the researcher who they could talk into participating and the
results tended to be more upperclassmen than freshman.
Lastly, the responses given in the one-on-one interviews could have been biased.
The majority of the respondents did not know anything regarding the Clery Act, yet many
gave what they felt were reasonable responses to the questions. In many cases,

235
particularly with upperclassmen, these students did not remember what materials they
had received from their campuses when they were freshmen.
Implications
The greatest implication of this study follows from the lack of knowledge and
utilization of the federal Clery Act. Both the quantitative and qualitative data
demonstrated a very low knowledge of and the utilization of the data collected by
campuses on an annual basis for compliance with the Clery Act. It would appear from
the four sites at which this study was conducted, the data are used only on a bare minimal
basis.
Large numbers of respondents were not aware of the Clery Act or the written
material required of the law. In addition, very few of the respondents in 2013 and few
parents in Janosik’s (2002) study remembered receiving or reading the campus crime
material. Only 6% of students reported any awareness of the law, and parents fared only
slightly better in 2004 when asked if they remembered receiving the material at 22%.
Part of the lack of awareness may be the lack of a consistent department or
personnel designated on a campus to collect and disseminate the information. The Clery
Act does not designate who or what office is responsible for the collection and
dissemination of campus crime information. The law only dictates that it must be done
on an annual basis. In looking at the responses given by the 979 participants of this
study, from the 80 students responding that they knew where to find the information, 21
different offices or personnel were identified as the location of the information.
Another implication from the degree of effort necessary to collect this information
is its ineffective utilization. On these four campuses, it appears that few students utilize

236
the data. This implication relates to the need for campuses to reach out to the population
needing the information rather than doing what they are currently doing to disseminate it
and re-double their current efforts. Institutions need to develop a campaign to
disseminate campus crime information required by the Clery Act. In consideration of
Site A’s reliance on directing prospective students to the Department of Education’s
website, institutions need to include the Clery Act information in the admissions office
packets before students are admitted and attend new student summer orientation
programs. As part of selling the campus, sharing what office is designated for providing
this information in written copy as specified by the law may actually improve perceptions
of the campus to parents and students who may not otherwise considered it. In addition,
institutions can ensure compliance by placing the immediate past three years’ worth of
crime data within their student handbooks which can be handed out in hardcopy form and
made readily available in PDF form online. In addition, the student handbook can be
linked to information provided by the websites of the offices of student life, residence
life, and campus security/police, respectively. The more opportunities an institution uses
for publicizing its crime data, the greater the overall use by the campus community.
In this study, one of the areas that appeared to be very minimally represented was
the educational programming required under the Clery Act. These programs are designed
to assist students’ abilities to modify behavior to better protect themselves, their property,
and how they move about the campus. With very few exceptions, the participants in the
qualitative portion of the study did not remember any programs being offered to them.
The few who did participate in a program or who could remember a program being
conducted were generally student employees of the residence life, or dormitory, staff who

237
should have a higher level of campus knowledge. This student-worker level training does
little for average students who remain largely ignorant of campus safety programming.
Additionally, the question should be asked if the current finding is a national trend, norm,
or phenomenon nationally. Institutions must make campus safety a higher priority by
budgeting for it and definitively assigning responsibility for campus crime data collection
and dissemination. Educational programming can be used very easily to disseminate
campus crime information as well as help any achieve 100% compliance with the intent
and regulations of the Clery Act.
Recommendations
In order to continue to advance this area of knowledge, the following ideas and
suggestions for future research are recommended. Because this study involved
examining the knowledge and use of the Clery Act on private, church-affiliated
campuses, a future study of the students’ knowledge at other institutional types is needed.
For example, community colleges with multiple campuses could be the population of a
study such as the Dallas County Community College system or the Tarrant College
system since both have multiple campuses. Large, flagship universities or regional state
universities could serve as two other potential populations from which to draw a sample.
If the study is replicated, it would be suggested students be compensated with a
small token gift card for the qualitative portion of the study. This was the most difficult
area to get students to participate and on one previously reported campus, the researcher
had to return twice to acquire the necessary minimum number of students to participate.
A small token gift card may solve this problem.

238
With many institutions being fined for non-compliance with the Clery Act, a
study could be conducted on a campus that has been fined recently to see if any greater
awareness of the Clery Act by students has been developed due to the publicity generated
by a non-compliance citation. Include as part of the investigation and follow-up, a
requirement that a recently fined institution must survey their student body to determine
the level of recognition of the Clery Act by the student body.
A study with both students and parents as participants at the same campus is
necessary to overcome the limitations of attempting to examine 2013 students’
knowledge versus parents’ knowledge in 2002. The parental portion of the survey could
be captured during the summer orientation programs as was Janosik’s original survey of
parents. The student portion of the survey could be completed the following fall
semester.
The following ideas are directed at Congress and other federal governmental
departments to assist with Clery Act compliance. In helping students and parents
evaluate data between different institutions, the Department of Education may need to
include other types of data on the Campus Crime Reports so accurate comparisons can be
made. In Table 26 (p. 192), the four test sites are compared to two campuses. Site 1 has
slightly high levels of alcohol and drug violations, yet it represents a campus with a much
smaller residential component than the other five campuses. In this comparison, this
campus would indicate a much higher incident of violations per number of on-campus
residents, which would be more pertinent in determining if the campus is a viable choice
based on the number of crime violations. Including the number of residents who reside
on campus could assist students and parents in making a more complete comparison

239
between campuses. Another example of comparison might be using increments of 1000
students, i.e., per 1000 students per violation may make comparisons between institutions
easier for parents and students to decipher. In a similar fashion, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation utilizes the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) to report
on 57 data elements, many of which are covered by the Clery Act (UCR Statistics, U.S.
Department of Justice). Under the NIBRS reporting system, crimes are listed under the
various categories per 100,000 inhabitants. While this number is much too large to be for
colleges and universities, the simple fact that a data base does exist and covers many of
the same crimes as required to be reported by the Clery Act, seems a logical means to
incorporate the national data for inclusion in the decision making process regarding
college of choice.
Add Hazing as a reportable crime on the Annual Campus Report. As Hollmann
(2002) has reported that on some campuses as many as 1 in 5 athletes had been hazed and
on particular northeastern campus, 30% of the study body had been hazed. Hazing has
long been associated as a rite of passage on the American college campus, therefore, it
should be listed as a reportable offense so both parents and students can compare campus
hazing rates.
Require each campus to appoint a Clery Act director. While 77% of campuses
have designated a Clery Act director, there is currently no requirement for such (Gray,
2013). With the many changes of the Clery Act since 1990, there clearly needs to be one
person to shepherd campuses through the changes and have the authority on campus to
require various departments to produce the necessary data in a timely manner. In this
study, none of the four participating campuses had a stand-alone Clery Act director,

240
rather the responsibility for collecting the campus crime material was divided up among
several administrators.
Standardize where Clery Act material should be posted and maintained. Out of the 80 of
979 students responding that they knew where to find the information, 21 different
offices or personnel were identified as the location of the information. With the
percentage of students knowing where to find the material so low, there is confusion as to
which departments might have the information.
As more and more additional requirements are associated with the Clery Act, the
federal government may want to research developing grants to initiate compliance. In
McNeal’s study (2007), two of the biggest reasons colleges didn’t comply with the Clery
Act was lack of funding and lack of administrative support which could also be tied back
to overall lack of funding. If a grant program could be developed, it might alleviate the
lack of administrative support as determined in McNeal’s (2007) study.
The following ideas and suggestions are directed at institutions of higher
education. The results of this study clearly show, particularly on the four campuses
involved with the study, that much is needed to familiarize these student bodies about the
Clery Act. In Janosik’s parent study (2002), the participants reported being aware of the
Clery Act much more often than the students involved in this study. However, in
interviewing the students for the study, it became apparent to the researcher that parental
influence or preference of choice had little or no impact on the final decision of college
choice. It is suggested that the limited funds available be directed at the student body and
not necessarily towards the parents since the role of parents in helping to select the
campus of choice is limited.

241
With the recent reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act of 2013
(VAWA), institutions of higher education will face ever increasing demands by the
Department of Education to comply with the Clery Act. However, the recent
reauthorization of VAWA brought with it non-funding as far as compensating institutions
for compliance to the law. With ever decreasing funding from federal, state and private
sources, institutions will find an increasing burden placed on them to meet the
requirements of the law. Coupled with the decreased funding from various sources, and
facing ever increasing aggressive investigations from the Department of Education,
institutions of higher education will have to divert resources towards compliance. Lack
of compliance can impact a campus on many levels; first the offending campus faces not
only faces the $35,000 per incident fine (Ward & Lee, 2005), but also the stigma of being
brought before the face of both national and local media (Stannard, 2013). As both large,
elite campuses (Stannard, 2013) and small relatively unknowns (Carter, 2005) have found
out, a Clery Act investigation can be a detriment to recruiting and alumni contributions.
As such, if faced with the lack of funding for compliance, institutions have little choice
but to fully comply with the Clery Act. It was the death of a young coed freshman whose
parents made it a personal mission to keep other families from going through the ordeal
they went through. After 24 years and several modifications, the Clery Act has withstood
the passage of time and for the first time, a presidential administration has made it a high
priority to force compliance (Meloy, 2012).
The recent reauthorization of the VAWA and the inclusion of the Campus SaVE
Act coupled with the Clery Act, institutions of higher education must increase their
programming efforts. Under VAWA, institutions are required to provide “ongoing

242
prevention and awareness campaigns for students and faculty” regarding the area of
sexual violence ((New Requirements Imposed by the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act, 2014). The new regulations describe an institution’s responsibility
as being more than just handing out brochures and pamphlets on the issue of sexual
assault. Rather, the educational campaign is described as being a “face-to-face”
presentation such as lectures or planned events where information is disseminated. This
can be easily accomplished during orientation or at information sessions at the
commencement of each semester. The Clery Act material can be covered as well as the
new requirements under VAWA.
Summary
The researcher hopes higher education administrators may review this study to
assist them in understanding how the Clery Act is utilized, or in many cases,
underutilized. It is this researcher’s hope that legislative bodies on both the national and
state level will look at how to educate campuses on better reporting methods and
procedures. The researcher also hopes this study will allow researchers to look at the
issue of campus crime through multiple lenses, and by doing so, a more accurate
understanding of the Clery Act can be achieved. And lastly, the researcher hopes this
study contributes to a fuller understanding, at least on these four selected campuses, how
these administrators can come fully complaint with the Clery Act.

243
REFERENCES
2012 Opinion Survey Results. (2012). Campus Safety, 20(8), 6-16.
Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation. (2012, October 2). Federal
Register, 77(191), 60047.
Alfred University. (1999). Executive summary. Retrieved from
http://www.alfred.edu/hs_hazing/docs/hazing__study.pdf
Ali, S. R., & Bagheri, E. (2009). Practical suggestion to accommodate the needs of
Muslim students on campus. New Directions for Student Services, 125, 47-54.
Anderson, N. (2014, May 1). 55 colleges under Title IX investigation for their handling
of sex assault claims. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/federal-government-releases-list-
of-55-colleges-universities-under-title-ix-investigations-over-handling-of-sexual-
violence/2014/05/01/e0a74810-d13b-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html
Anderson, N. & Zezima, K. (2014, April 28). White House issues report on steps to
prevent sexual assaults on college campuses. The Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/white-house-issues-report-on-
steps-to-prevent-sexual-assault-at-college-campuses/2014/04/28/0ebf1e22-cf1f-
11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html
Aryani, H., Baughman, M., McNeill, O., & Stio, A. (2013). Violence Against Women
Act of 2031 Creates New Clery Act Compliance Obligations. JD Supra Law
News. Retrieved from http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/violence-against-
women-act-of-2013-creat-55631/
Ashford University. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.ashford.edu

244
Baker, K. (2013). Naked sweethearts and mud crawls: a small college’s big hazing
problem. Jezebel. Retrieved from http://jezebel.com/naked-sweethearts-and-mud-
crawls-small-college-has-big-485060397
Baker, N., & Kraemer, H. (2013). VAWRA-Clery Act. Educational & Institutional
Insurance Administrators, Inc. Chicago, IL.
Barry, D. & Cell, P. (2009). Campus sexual assault response teams: program
development and operational management. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research
Institute.
Bardo, A., Gitau, P., Horvath, A., O’Guinn, P., Robertson, S., & Nelson, P. (2012).
Chancellor Campus Life and Safety Task Force Report and Recommendations.
Southern Illinois University, 2012, August 17. Retrieved from
http://www.chancellor.siu.edu/reports/index.html
Bauer v. Kincaid, 759 F. Supp. 575 (1991).
Baum, K., & Klaus, P. (2005). Violent victimization of college students, 1995-2002.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.
Retrieved from http://www.nova/edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/baxter.pdf
Begos, K., & Scolforo, M. (2011, November 13). Charity’s role is questioned. Dallas
Morning News, 4A.
Bernstein, N. (2011, November 12). On campus, a law enforcement system itself. New
York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/us/on-college-

245
campuses-athletes-often-get-off-easy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Brioso, C. (2011). Campus crime: 2-year increase in sexual assaults could reflect more
awareness of rape and will to report it, expert say. SMU Daily Mustang. Retrieved
from http://www.smudailymustang.com/?p=41298
Burney, M. (2012). Standing up to bullies. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50-53.
Callaway, R., Gehring, D., & Douthett, T. (2000). Two-year college compliance with the
notice requirement of the campus security act. Community College Journal of
Research & Practice, 24(3), 181-191.
Campbell, J., & Longo, P. (2010). Stalking on campus: Ensuring security with rights and
liberties. College Student Journal, 44(2), 309-324. Retrieved from Professional
Development Collection database.
Cariello, D. (2013). Recent Clery Act decision greatly increases school exposure for
violations. Education Industry Reporter. Retrieved from
http://www.educationindustryreporter.com/2012/08/recent-clery-act-decision-
greatly-increases-school-exposure-for-violations/
Carlson, C. (2004). DOE ruling helps public crack into campus courts. Quill, 92(7), 21.
Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Carnegie Foundations for the Advancement of Teaching. (2000). List of institutions by
Carnegie classifications, control and state. Retrieved from
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/Classiifcation/CIHE2000/PartIfiles/partI/htm
Carr, J. (2005). American College Health Association campus violence white paper.
Baltimore, MD: American College Health Association.
Carter, S. D. (2005). Clery Center for Security on Campus co-founders praise imposition

246
of six figure fine against Salem International University for failing to report
campus crimes. Retrieved from
http://www.securityoncampus.org/index.php?option=com_
content&view=article&id=163
Ceasar, S. (2012, October 16). Six colleges failed to comply with Clery Act, audit finds.
The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/20/state-audit-finds-colleges-failed-
to-comply-with-clery-act.html
Colander, K. (2006). Towards greater campus safety: An examination of student affairs
administrators’ knowledge of and compliance with the Clery Act. (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI
3233789)
Cornell, D. (2010). Threat assessment in college settings. Change, 42(1), 8-15. Retrieved
from http://www.changemag.org/se/util/display_mod.cfm?MODULE=/se-
server/mod/modules/s
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Danso v. University of Connecticut, 50 Conn. Supp 256; 919 A.2d 1100 (2007).
Decision in the matter of Tarleton State University, Docket No. 06-56-SF (Dep’t of
Education, Sep. 23, 2010.

247
Denniston, L. (2012). Constitution check: Does Congress have the authority to require
universities to monitor campus crimes? Constitutional Daily. Retrieved from
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/07/constitution-check-does-congress-have-
the-authority-to-require-universities-to-monitor-campus-crimes/
Dervarics, C. (2006). Crime creeping higher on campuses. Diverse: Issues in Higher
Education, 23(20), 12-13.
Drape, J. (2012, June 22). Sandusky guilty of sexual abuse of 10 young boys. The New
York Times. Al. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/sports/
ncaafootball/jerry-sandusky-convicted-of-sexually-abusing-boys.html?
pagewanted=all
Elias, J. (2014). Harnessing big data for Clery Act compliance. Campus Safety, 22(2), 1-
3.
Ellis, L. (2013). Students, alumni file Clery Act complaint. The Dartmouth. Retrieved
from http://thedartmouth.com/2013/05/23/news/clery/
Examining the extent of campus crime. (2004). Perspective, 19(2), 8.
Family Educational Rights to Privacy Act of 1972 (FERPA) (20 U.S.C.§1232g; 34 CFR,
Part 99).
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2004). Uniform crime reporting program. Clarksburg,
WV: Author. Retrieved from www.fbi.gov/ucr/handbook/ucrhandbook04.pdf
Fields, C. (2005). Potpourri: Background checks. Change, 37(4), 6-7.
Finn, J. (2004). A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 19, 468-483.
Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F., & Turner, M. (2002). Being pursued: Stalking victimization in a

248
national study of college women. Criminology and Public Policy, 1(2), 257-308.
Fisher, B. S., Hartman, J. L., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2002). Making campuses
safer for students: The Clery Act as a symbolic legal reform. Stetson Law Review,
32, 61-89.
Fisher, J. (2012). Unreported campus crime: the Clery Act. Jim Fisher True Crime.
Retrieved 6-7-2012 from
http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.com/2012/05/unreported-campus-crime-cler-
act.html
Franzosa, A. (2009). Insecure? New England Journal of Higher Education, 23(3), 20-
21.
Freeh, L. (2012). Report of the special investigative counsel regarding the actions of the
Pennsylvania State University related to the child sexual abuse committed by
Gerald A. Sandusky. Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP. Retrieved from
http://progress.psu.edu/the-freeh-report
Fuchs, E. (2013). Yale University gets Clery Act fine. The Business Insider. Retrieved
from http://www.businessinsider.com/yale-university-gets-clery-act-fine-2013-5
Gardner, M. & Pritchett, S. (2014). University to confront Clery Act police change:
Eramo expects final federal regulations in November. The Cavalier Daily, April
3, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2014/04/clery-act-
policy-change
Gips, M. A. (2004). Many colleges not seeing Clery. Security Management, 48(9), 16.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.

249
Grasgreen, A. (2011). New scrutiny for sexual assault cases. Inside Higher Education,
September 6, 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/09/06/new-scruitiny-sex-assault-cases
Gray, R. (2012). Clery Center: Incident reporting has improved but could be better.
Campus Security, September 4, 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.campussafetymagazine.com/Channel/University-
Security/Articles/2012/09/Clery-Center-Incident-Reporting-Has-Improved-but-
Could-Be-Better.aspx
Gray, R. (2013). The role of a Clery compliance manager. Campus Security, December
12, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.campussafetymagazine.com/article/the-role-
of-a-clery-compliance-manager/clery
Greene, H., & Greene, M. (2008). What families think: Campus safety: Take a more
comprehensive perspective in informing families about your college’s
environment, programs and policies. University Business, 2(4), 54-56.
Greenstein, N. (2003). Timely warnings: Alerting and protecting the campus community.
Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 33(6), 11-15.
Gregory, D. E. (2001). Crime on campus: Compliance, liability and safety. Campus Law
Enforcement Journal, 31(4), 27-32.
Gregory, D. E., & Janosik S. M. (2002). The Clery Act: How effective is it? Perceptions
from the field—The current state of the research and recommendations for
improvement. Stetson Law Review, 32(1), 7-59.
Gregory, D. E., & Janosik, S. M. (2003). The effect of the Clery Act on campus judicial
practices. Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 763-778.

250
Gregory, D. E., & Janosik, S.M. (2006). The views of senior residence life and housing
administrators on the Clery Act and campus safety. Journal of College and
University Student Housing, 34(1), 50-57.
Griffin, O. R. (2006). Confronting the evolving safety and security challenge at colleges
and universities. Pierce Law Review, 5(3). Retrieved from
http://www.piercelaw.edu/assets/pdf/pierce-;aw-review-vol05-no3-griffin.pdf
Griffith, J. D., Hueston, H., Wilson, E., & Moyers, C. L. (2004). Satisfaction with
campus police services. College Student Journal, 38(1), 150-156.
Gust, M. E. (2009, October 6). [Letter to F. Dominic Doltavio]. (OPE-ID 00363100).
Department of Education Administrative Actions and Appeals Division.
Guzman, A. (2013). Students file charges against campus alleging mishandling of sexual
assaults. The Daily Californian. Retrieved from
http://www.dailycal.org/2013/05/23/sexual-assault/
Hall, H. (1999). Lethal violence: A sourcebook on fatal domestic, acquaintance and
stranger violence. Kamuela, HI: Pacific Institute for the Study of Conflict and
Aggression.
Harshman, E., Puro, S., & Wolff, L. A. (2001, November). The Clery Act: Freedom of
information at what cost to students. About Campus, 13-18.
Hartle, T. (2001). Toward a better law on campus crime. Chronicle of Higher Education,
47(18), B10.
Hartle, T. (2011). A Federal outrage against Virginia Tech. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 57(32), A31.
Heard, N. & James, H. (1989). Faculty, administration give views on hazing practices.

251
The Enotah Echo. 66(3), p. 1.
Herrmann, M. (2008). Clery Act fine sets a precedent. University Business, 11(2), 14.
Retrieved from Professional Development Collection database.
Herrmann, M. (2010). Clery act turns 20. University Business, 13(10), 12.
Hight, D. L., & Raphael, A. (2004). Should housing departments conduct criminal
background checks? Journal of College and University Student Housing, 3(1), 10-
15.
Hightower, K. (2012, October). 1st defendant sentenced in FAMU hazing case.
Associated Press. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/1st-defendant-
sentenced-famu-hazing-case-191621839.html
Hollmann, B. B. (2002). Hazing: Hidden campus crime. New Directions for Student
Services, 99, 11-23.
Howe v. Ohmart, 33 N.E. 466 (Ind., App. Ct., (1893).
Hughes, S. (2006, April). What is the cost of scandal to your organization? Do
background checks work to reduce occurrence of scandal? Paper presented at
CUPA-HR Southern Regional Meeting, Atlanta, GA.
Hughes, S, White, R., & Hertz, G. T. (2008). A new technique for mitigating risk on US
college campuses. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(3),
309-318.
Hughes, S., Keller, E., & Hertz, G. T. (2010). Homeland security initiatives and
background checks in higher education. New Directions for Students Services,
146, 62.
Ivankova, N., Creswell, J., & Stick, S. (2006). Using mixed-method sequential

252
explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Practices, 18(3), 3-20.
Jablonski, M., McClellen, G., & Zdziarski, E. (2008). In search of safer communities:
Emerging practices for student affairs in addressing campus violence. New
Directions for Student Services, S1, 1-38. doi:10.1002/ss.300
Janosik, S. M. (2001). The impact of the Campus Crime Awareness Act of 1998 on
student decision-making. NASPA Journal, 38(3), 348-350.
Janosik, S. M. (2002). Parents’ views on the Clery Act and campus safety. Journal of
College Student Development, 45(1), 43-55.
Janosik, S. M., & Gehring, D. D. (2001). The impact of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of
Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act on college student
behavior. Educational Policy Institute of Virginia Tech Policy Paper, 10, 1-20.
Janosik, S. M., & Gregory, D. E. (2003). The Clery Act and its influence on campus law
enforcement practices. NASPA Journal, 41(1), 180-197.
Janosik, S. M., & Gregory, D. E. (2009). The Clery Act; campus safety, and the
perceptions of senior student affairs officers. NASPA Journal, 46(2), 208-227.
Janosik, S. M., & Plummer, E. (2005). The Clery Act, campus safety and the views of
assault victim advocates. College Student Affairs Journal, 25(1), 116-130.
Janosik, S. M. (Personnel Communication, February 12, 2014).
Jaschik, S. (2012). Juvenile records and admissions. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/new/2012/09/20/pennsylvania-court-says-
juvenile-authorites-can-report-actions-colleges
Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Security Policy and
Campus Crime Statistics Act of 1998. (20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)).

253
Johnson, J. (2011, November 9). Did Penn State official violate the Clery Act?
Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/
Johnson, M., & Kercher, G. (2009). Property victimization of college students.
Huntsville, TX: Crime Victims Institute, Criminal Justice Center, Sam Houston
State University.
Juarez, L. (2013). UTA could be fined for Clery Act violations. The Shorthorn.
Retrieved from http://www.theshorthorn.com/news/uta-could-be-fined-for-clery-
act-violations/article_10fa8940-ad44-11e2-b361-001a4bcf6878.html
Kallestad, B., & Schneider, M. (2012, July 11,). FAMU still dealing with fallout from
hazing death as president resigns, victim’s parents sue. The Washington Post.
Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com
Karp, H. (2001). How safe is your kid at college? Reader’s Digest, 82-89.
Katel, P. (2011). Crime on campus. CQ Researcher, 21(5), 97-120.
Kattner, K. (2005). Education Department Imposes First 6-figure Clery Fine. National
On-Campus Report, 33(10), 5. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.txwes.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=a9h&AN=17060554&site=ehost-live
Keels, C. L. (2004). The best-kept secret: Crime on campus. Black Issues in Higher
Education, 24, 20-27.
Keller, J. (2011). Washington State U. fined $82,500 for violating campus safety rules.
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/128776/
Kennedy, M. (2007). Crisis on campus. American School and University, 79(10), 18-25.

254
Kennedy, M. (2010). Safe AND Secure. American School & University, 82(11), 16-23.
Kingkade, T. (2013). Campus SaVE Act depends on reauthorization of Violence Against
Women Act. The Huffington Post, February 19, 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.huingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/campus-save-act-
vawa_n_2640048.html
Krejcie, R. & Morgan, D. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
Kruth, S. (2013). Young Harris College accused of reckless indifference and retaliation
for its attempts to suppress hazing details. The Fire. Retrieved from
http://thefire.org/article/15735.html
Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., Whitt, E., & Associates. (2005). Student success in college:
Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kumar, R. (2005). Research methodology: A step-by-step beginner’s guide. Frenchs
Forest, NSW: Pearson.
La Freniere v. Regents of the University of California. (2006). U.S. District, LEXIS
60733 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2006).
Lake, E. & Pushchak, A. (2007). Better allocating university resources to create on-line
learning environments for non-traditional students in underserved rural areas.
Innovations in Higher Education, 31, 215-225.
Lederman, J. (2013). Obama signs Violence Against Woman Act. Huffington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07obama-violence-
against-womenact_n_28301.
Levin, A. (2011). Penn State scandal draws attention to child sexual abuse. Psychiatric

255
News, 46(24), 14-16. Retrieved from
http://journals.psychiatryonline.org/newsarticle.aspx?articled=181079
Lipka, S. (2009). Do crime statistics keep students safe? Chronicle of Higher Education,
55(21), A1-A17. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/In-Campus-Crime-
Reports-Th/300581
Lipka, S. (2011). Spot checks find crime-reporting violations at three universities.
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Spot-
Checks-Find/127565/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medi
Lodico, M., Spaulding, D., & Voegtle, K (2006). Methods in educational research: From
theory to practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Logan, T., Leukefeld, & Walker, B. (2000). Stalking as a variant of intimate violence:
Implications from a young adult sample. Violence & Victims, 15, 91-111.
Lombardi, K. (2010). Sex crimes on campus: yearlong investigation finds failures of the
justice system. IRE Journal, 33(3), 23-25.
Lombardi, K., & Jones, K. (2009). Campus sexual assault statistics don’t add up.
Washington, DC: Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved from
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/campus_assault/articles/entry/1841/
LoMonte, F. (2012). Bring campus crime reports outs into the open. Chronicle of
Higher Education, 59(4), 12. Retrieved from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.library.edub.edu:2048/ehost/delivery?sid=88fc16a1-
88cc-4115-b
Marshall, M. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522-
525.

256
McMahon, P. P. (2008). Sexual violence on the college campus: A template for
compliance with Federal policy. Journal of American College Health, 57(3), 361-
366.
McMillan, J. (2004). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer. Boston,
MA: Pearson Education.
McNeal, L. R. (2007). Clery Act: Road to compliance. Journal of Personnel Evaluation
in Education, 19(3-4), 105-113.
Meloy, A. (2012). Legal watch: crisis on campus: what you need to know for compliance.
Presidency, 1-3. Retrieved from
http:web.a.ebscohost.com.library.dbu.edu:2048/ehost/delivery?sid=88fc16a1-
88cc-4115-b
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Morse, J. (2000). Determining sample size. Qualitative Health Research, 10(1), 3-5.
Murphy, R. K., Arnold, W. H., Hansen, K. E., & Mertler, C. A. (2001). The effects of the
Campus Security Act on the perceptions of safety and safety behaviors of first-
year students. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 29(2), 31-35.
Munson, L. (2011). Arizona rape case settled. Title IX. Retrieved from
http:www.titleix.infor/Resources/News-Articles/Arizona-State-Rape-Case-
Settled.aspx
Mustaine, E., & Tewskbury, R. (1999). A routine activity theory explanation of women’s
stalking victimizations. Violence Against Women, 5(1), 43-63.
Nachbar, S. (2009). Some thoughts on the Clery Act and campus safety. American

257
Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/
107632
National Center for Victims of Crime. (2004). Stalking. Washington, DC: United States
Government Printing Office.
National Criminal Justice Association. (1993). Project to develop a model antistalking
code for the states. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
NCSS Statistical Software. (2012). Chapter 133: Chi-square effect size calculator.
Retrieved from http://ncss.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/themes/ncss/
pdf/Procedures/NCSS/Chi-Square_Effect_Size_Calculator.pdf
New requirements imposed by the Violence Against Women reauthorization act, (2014).
American Council of Education. April 1, 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/VAWA-Summary.pdf
Not Alone, (2014). The first report of the White House Task Force to protect Students
from Sexual Abuse. Retrieved from www.NotAlone.gov
O’Keeffe, M. (2011, November 10). Penn State sex abuse scandal made federal case;
U.S. Department of Education announces it will investigate university. New York
Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/penn-
state-sex-abuse-scandal-made-federal-c
Otten, A. & Hotelling, K. (2009). Sexual violence on campus: Policies, programs and
perspectives. New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.
Ove, T. (2011, November 11). Penn State scandal: School might have broken federal law.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved from
http:www.therepublic.com/view/story/fbcpsu-federalla

258
Patton, R. (2010). Student perceptions of campus safety within the Virginia Community
College System. Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest database.
(Publication No. 3442173).
Peak, K. (1987). Campus policing in America: The state of the art. Police Chief, 54(6),
22-24.
Peak, K., Barthe, E., & Garcia, A. (2008). Campus policing in America: A twenty-year
perspective. Police Quarterly, 11(2), 239-260.
Pettegrew, H. (2014). Who are the Campus Security Authorities at your college?
Campus Security, 22(2), 52.
Phillips, L., Quirk, R., Rosenfeld, B., & O’Connor, M. (2004). Is it stalking? Perceptions
of stalking among college undergraduates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(1),
73-96.
Picardo, A. (2012). Consider campus crime when evaluating colleges. U.S. News &
World Report, October 4, 2012. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/consider-
campus-crime-evaluating-colleges-152157273.html
Pope, J. (2012). Title IX transforming how colleges respond to sexual assault cases.
Community College Week, May 14, 2012.
Public Law 42 U.S. Code § 13925
Public Law 101-325.
Public Law 101-542.
Public Law 105-244.
Raley, A. (2011, November 20). Texas police inquiring about former Penn State coach.
CBS Houston. Retrieved from http://cbslocal.com/2011/11/10/texas-police-

259
inquiring-about-former-penn-state-coach
Ramirez, C. (2009). FERPA: A clear and simple: The college professional’s guide to
compliance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rankin, S., Weber, G., Blumenfeld, W., & Frazer, S. (2010). 2010 State of Higher
Education for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender People. Charlotte, NC:
Campus Pride.
Rasmussen, C. & Johnson, G. (2008). The ripple effect of Virginia Tech: Assessing the
nationwide impact on campus safety and security policy and practice.
Midwestern Higher Education Company, 1-29.
Reardon, K. M. (2005). Acquaintance rape at private colleges and universities: Providing
for victim’s educational and civil rights. Suffolk University Law Review, 38(395),
395-413.
Repko, M. (2014). SMU student who reported on-campus rape sues school and alleged
attacker. Dallas Morning News, March 7, 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.dallasnewscom/news/community-news/park-
cities/headlines/20140307-smu-student
Riddell, R. (2013). Complaints filed against four colleges over rapes, including
Swarthmore College. Associated Press. Retrieved from
http://ewallstreeter.com/complaints-filed-against-colleges-over-rapes-including-
swarthmore-college-7054/
Rogers, I. (2012). Spreading the blame; ending hazing and constructing anew. Diverse:
Issues in Higher Education, 28(25), 18.
Rosenzweig, E. (2002). Please don’t tell: The question of confidentially in student

260
disciplinary records under FERPA and the Crime Awareness and Campus
Security Act. Emory Law Journal, 51(1), 447-479.
Rudolph, F. (1961). The American college and university: A history. New York, NY:
Random House.
Rund, J. A. (2002, Fall). The changing context of campus safety. New Directions for
Student Services, 99, 3-10.
Rush, S. B., White, J. D., Whitesel, M. A., Cooper, D. L., & Hight, D. L. (2009). Safety in
student conduct offices: Practice and perceptions. Unpublished manuscript.
Sandelowski, M. (2000). Focus on research methods: Combining qualitative and
quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method
studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 23, 246-256.
Salem International University. (2011). About us. Retrieved from
http://www.salemu.edu/index/about-siu
Salkind, N. J. (2011). Statistics for people who think they hate statistics (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Santucci, K. B., Gable, R. K., & Rong, Y. (2000). Student attitudes and behaviors
regarding campus safety. Journal of College and University Student Housing,
28(2), 12-18.
Schmitt, K. (2011, May 11). SMU improves in alerting students’ campus crime. SMU
Daily Mustang. Retrieved from
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_localdallas/20110511/ts_localdall/smu-improves-i
Schneider, M. (2012). 13 charged in hazing death of FAMU band member. Associated
Press. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/13-charged-hazing-death-famu-
band-member-182053041.html

261
Seclosky, C. & Denison, B. (2012). Handbook on measurement, assessment, and
evaluation in higher education. Routledge Publishing: New York, NY.
Clery Center for Security on Campus (1987). Home. Retrieved from
http://www.securityoncampus.org
Sekaran, U. (2000). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. (3rd ed.).
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Sokolow, B. A. (2001). Comprehensive sexual misconduct judicial procedures. Malvern,
PA: National Center for Higher Education Risk Management (NCHERM).
Song, J. & Felch, J. (2013). USC, Occidental Underreported Sexual Assaults. Los
Angeles Times. Retrieved from http//www.latimes.com/local/la-me-college-
assaults-20131008,0,2021235.story.
Souders v. Lucerno, 196 F. 3d 1040 (1999).
Springer, A. D. (2003). Legal watch-background checks: When the past isn’t past.
Academe Online. Washington, DC: American Association of University
Professors. Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/
2003/MA/Col?LW.htm
Spitzberg, B. H. (2002). The tactical topography of stalking victimization and
management. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 3(4), 261-288.
Stannard, E. (2013). Yale faces $165,000 fine after university ‘fails to report’ four sex
offenses. New Haven Register. Retrieved from
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2013/05/15/news/new_haven/doc519432bb4c
088617319488.txt
Stratford, M. (2014). Standards of evidence. Inside Higher Education.February 25,

262
2014. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/25/federal-
campus-safety-rules-reignite-debate
Stoner, E. (2000). Reviewing your student discipline policy: A project worth the
investment. Chevy Chase, MD: United Educators.
Student Press Law Center v. Alexander, 778 F. Supp. 1227 (D. D. C. 1991).
Svitek, P. (2014). Former U-Va. Student seeks to block new U.S. law on campuses’
handling of sexual assaults. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/former-u-va-student seeks-to-block-new-
federal-law
Swink, D. (2010). Preventing campus attacks: University threat assessment teams.
Psychology Today. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/threat-
management/201001/preventing-campus-att
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2017). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Taranto, J. (2013). Under pressure from the Obama administration, a university tramples
the rights of the accused. , The Wall Street Journal, December 6, 2013. Retrieved
from
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303615304579157900127
017212
Thompson, A., Price, J. H., Mrdjenovich, A. J., & Khubchandani, J. (2009). Reducing
firearm-related violence on college campuses: Police chiefs’ perceptions and
practices. Journal of American College Health, 58(3), 247-254.
Thompson, M., Sitterle, D., Clay, G., & Kingree, J. (2007). Reasons for not reporting

263
victimizations to the police: Do they vary for physical or sexual incidents. Journal
of American College Health, 55(5), 277-282.
Tjaden, P., & Thoenness, N. (1998a). Prevalence, incidence and consequences of
violence against women: Findings from the national violence against women
survey. Washington, DC: United States Printing Office.
Tjaden, P., & Thoenness, N. (1998b). Stalking in America: Findings from the national
violence against women survey. Washington, DC: United States Printing Office.
Triola, M. (2007). Elementary statistics using Excel (3rd ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson
Education.
Turrentine, C., Stites, P., Campos, M., & Henke, P. (2003). The Campus Sex Crimes
Prevention Act: What student affairs professionals need to know? College
Students Affairs Journal, 22(2), 150-166.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2003).
Violence Against Women Office. (2001). Stalking and domestic violence. Rockville,
MD: National Criminal Justice Reference Services.
Wada, J. (2007). Betwix and between: The perceived legitimacy of campus police.
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text
Database. (Publication No. AAT3277070).
Walker, D. (2011, November 10). U.S. reviewing Marquette response to sex assault
reports. Journal Sentinel. Retrieved from http:www.jsonline.com/news/
Milwaukee/us-reviewing-Marquette-response-to-sex-assau
Walton, T. (2002). Protecting student privacy: Reporting campus crimes as an alternative
to disclosing student disciplinary records. Indiana Law Journal, 77(1), 143-166.

264
Ward, A., & Peele, T. (2012). Campus crime still doesn’t match Clery report. Texan
News. Retrieved from http://www.tarleton.edu/texannews/news/news/campus-
crime-still-doesnt-match-clery-report.html
Ward, D., & Lee, J. (2005). The handbook for campus crime reporting. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education.
Ward, D., & Lee, J. (2011). The handbook for campus crime reporting. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education.
Weeks, K. M. (2011). Virginia Tech and Clery Act violations. Lex Collegii: A Legal
Newsletter for Independent Higher Education, 34(4), 7-8.
Weinbach, J. (2007). The admissions price. Wall Street Journal, 249(80), W1-W10.
Weiss, D. (1991). How to avoid negligent hiring law suits. Getting Results for the Hands-
On Manager, 36(6), 6-7.
Westerholm, R. (2014, May 2). Education Department insists list of Title IX
investigations are not random. University Herald. Retrieved from
http://www.universityherald.com/articles/9223/20140502/education-department-
insists-list-of-title-ix-investigations-are-not-random.htm
White, J. D., Rush, B., Whitesel, M., & Cooper, D. L. (2008, May). Judicial program
safety practices: Purposeful advancement of knowledge and skills. Presented at
the American College Personnel Association Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Wilcox, P., Jordan, C., & Pritchard, A. J. (2007). A multidimensional examination of
campus safety: victimization, perceptions of danger; worry about crime, and
precautionary behavior among college women in the Post-Clery era. Crime &
Delinquency, 53(2), 219-254.

265
Winton, R. (2013). Sexual Assault Policies Under Fire at Occidental College. Los
Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/18/local/la-
me-ln-sexual-assault-policies-under-fire-at-occidental-college-20130418
Withers, A. (2011). Dallas crime declining, but some students’ neighborhoods still can
turn dangerous. SMU Daily Mustang. Retrieved from
http://www.smudailymustang.com/?p=41296
Wood, R. (1999). Is campus crime rampant? Journal of College and University Student
Housing, 28(2), 7-14.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zdziarski, E. L., Dunkel, N. W., & Rollo, J. M. (2007). Campus crisis management: A
comprehensive guide to planning, prevention, response, and recovery. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Zuckerman, J. (2004). Whistle-blower protection programs for associations. Association
Management, 56(6), 13.

266
APPENDIX A
PERMISSION LETTER FROM DR. STEPHEN JANOSIK

267
APPENDIX B
Campus Crime Survey
(If the respondent answers ‘no’ to this question, they will be exited
from the survey and thanked for their participation.)

271
APPENDIX C
SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR STUDENTS FOR THE
QUALITATIVE SECOND PHASE OF DATA COLLECTION
Each interview will take approximately 45-50 minutes. The first minutes of the interview
will consist of basic questions designed to put the interviewee at ease and to establish
rapport for the session. The researcher will emphasis the interview will consist of simply
asking questions with answers involving the interviewees opinions and thoughts, with no
right or wrong answers for the semi-structured questions.
Life history and basic demographic material (basic demographic questions)
1) Please share some background information about yourself; where were you born,
different places you have lived, and other basic information.
2) What have been your general experiences so far at this campus?
Choice of College
3) Can you tell me why you chose this particular college?
4) What role did your parents have in helping you select this campus?
5) What characteristics do you like about this campus and why?
6) Tell me about the single biggest reason that you have chosen to remain at this
institution?
7) Have your experiences lived up to your expectations?
Other Factors Influencing Choice (Questions 8 through 15 addresses Research
Questions 1 through 5).

272
8) Do you know about the Campus Crime Act? If yes, please share with me briefly
what you know about the Act? If no, does the name or title bring to your mind
any memories or thoughts?
9) Is there anything you dislike or are there any concerns about this campus, if so,
please explain? If you have dislikes or have concerns, please share them with me.
If you do not have concerns or dislikes, why do you feel that is?
10) How important was written information regarding campus crime in influencing
your college of choice? If this was important, why was it important? If this was
not important, please tell me why it was not important to you?
11) Would you tell me where you could find written information regarding campus
crime?
12) Do you know of students on this campus who have been affected by campus
crime or have concerns regarding campus crime? If yes, please give examples. If
no, why do you think they haven’t been affected by campus crime?
13) Do you feel this campus is upfront with notifying the campus community of
crime related issues? If yes, please provide examples. If no, why do you think
this is?
14) What educational programs have you attended which were directed at campus
crime? If you attended education programs, please tell me about them and the
topics they addressed. If you chose not to attend, could you tell me why you
chose not to attend?
15) If you could improve or comment on any aspect of campus safety and crime,
what would that be?

273
16) Do you have campus security or campus police on this campus? If campus
security, please tell me why you think this. If university police, please tell me
why you think this.

274
APPENDIX D
PERMISSION LETTER FROM SITE A

275
APPENDIX E
PERMISSION LETTER FROM SITE B

276
APPENDIX F
PERMISSION LETTER FROM SITE C

279
APPENDIX G
ADULT INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR PERSONAL INTERVIEWS
Purpose ofthe Study
You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by Cary Poole, doctoral
candidate at Dallas Baptist University as a partial requirement for the Educational Doctorate
program at Dallas Baptist University. You have been identified by your dean of students as a
possible participant as a college student attending a private, church-affiliated college or university
located in Texas and Oklahoma. The purpose of the study is to examine the degree of knowledge
college students would have pertaining to campus crime, specifically a student’s knowledge of a
federallaw named the Clery Act. This study will contribute to the researcher’s completion of a
directed research study under the supervision of Dr. Jeremy Dutschke,Director of Ph.D. in
Leadership Studies, Professor of Higher Education and Leadership Studies, Gary Cook Graduate
School of Leadership, Dallas Baptist University, 3000 Mountain Creek Parkway, Dallas, TX
75211.
Research Procedures
If you should decide to participate in this research study,you will be asked to sign the consent
form once all your questions have been answered to your satisfaction. This study will consist of
one primary interview. This phase will include answering a series of open-ended questions
pertaining to campus crime and related areas. The interview will be audio recorded so the
researcher can look for trends that develop over the interviews.
Time Required
The time required to participate will be 45-55 minutes for the interview.
Risks
The researcher does not perceive more than minimal risks involved in this study. The participants
may quit the study at any time.
Benefits
There are no direct benefits to this study for you, but we hope the experience will help you
become more aware of a Federal Law named the Clery Act and to become more familiar with
your campus’ efforts to lower campus crime.
Confidentiality
The transcripts and results of this study will be coded in such a way that the participant’s identity
and campus selection will not be attached to the final form of this study. Since three campuses
are participating in the study, the campus will be referred to simply as Site A,Site B and Site C
and participants will be numbered from 1-8 to maintain anonymity. The researcher retains the
rights to use and publish non-identifiable data. All data will be stored in a secure location for
seven years,and upon the expiration of the time period, the data will be destroyed.
Participation and Withdrawal
Your participation is entirely voluntary. You are free to choose not to participate. Should you
choose to participate, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind.
Questions about the Study
If you have questions or concerns during the time of your participation in this study or after its
completion, or if you would like to receive copy of the results, please contact the following:

280
Researcher
Cary F. Poole,
Doctoral Candidate
4525 Sandra Lynn Dr.
Flower Mound, TX 75022
817-531-4872 (w)
972-536-6652 (h)
carypoole@yahoo.com
cpoole@txwes.edu
Advisor
Dr. Jeremy Dutschke,
Director, Ph.D. in Leadership Studies Program,
Professor of Higher Education and Leadership Studies
Gary Cook Graduate School of Leadership
3000 Mountain Creek Parkway
Dallas, TX 75211
214-333-5595
jeremy@dbu.edu
Questions about Your Rights as a Research Subject
Dr. Suzanne Kavli,
Professor of Research and Leadership
3000 Mountain Creek Parkway,
Dallas, TX 75211
214-333-5381
suek@dbu.edu
Giving of Consent
I have read this consent form and I understand what is being requested of myself as a participant
in this study. I freely consent to participate. I have been given satisfactory answers to my
questions. The researcher provided me with a copy of this form. I certify that I am at least 18
years of age.
___I give my consent to being audio taped during the interview____ (participant’s initials)
_____________________________Printed Name of Participant
_____________________________Signature of Participant____________(Date)
_____________________________Signature of Researcher____________(Date)

281
APPENDIX H
Student Affairs and Higher Education Professionals who
have reviewed the Semi-Structured Questions
Dr. Aileen Curtin, Ph.D.—Department Head, Doctorate of Education, Texas Wesleyan
University, Fort Worth, TX.
“No yes or no answers for the semi-structured questions.”
“Always be prepared to allow the student to elaborate and possibly take you a
different direction than you anticipated.”
Dr. Craig Goforth, Ed.D.—Assistant Vice President for Student Enrollment (former Dean
of Students and Chief of Police), Mars Hill College, NC.
“Question 13 may be too pointed for a president to accept.”
Dr. Deborrah Herbert, Dean of Students, California Maritime Academy, Vallejo, CA.
“Questions appear too rigid to allow for feed-back from students—allow the
students more flexibility in answering.”
Dr. William Malloy, Ph.D.—Retired student affairs professional, formerly Vice President
of Students Affairs, Navarro College, Corsicana, TX.
No comments
Mr. Ray Rapp, Dean of Continuing Education (retired), Mars Hill College, Mars Hill, NC
No comments

282
APPENDIX I
Sample Solicitation Letter for Research Participation
Date
Dr. <lastname>,
Vice President/Dean of Students
<university name>
<street address or P.O. Box>
<city, state> <zip code>
Dear Dr. <Vice President/Dean of Students >
I am a doctoral student at DallasBaptistUniversity and ampreparingto defend my dissertation proposal.
I am formally requestingpermission for your institution <university name> to be a part of my research
project. I feel this research projectmay be of particularinterestto your institution becausethe focus is
on the Clery Act and if students utilizethe required material and publicly posted data to assistthem in
makingan informed decision regardingcollegeof choice. I am askingeach of the nine Baptistcolleges
and universities within the states of Texas and Oklahoma to participatein this research project.
The methodology of my project would involvetwo parts;the firstwould be to distributevia electronic
means, a 27-question survey through Survey Monkey. I would hope to be ableto distributethe survey a
total of three times over two weeks in order to maximize participation. Secondly,I would likethe
opportunity to visityour campus and interview up to eight undergraduate students in which the interview
would not exceed 50 minutes in length. This Campus Crime Survey was developed by Dr. Steven Janosik,
a leadingresearcher in the field of campus crime and the Clery Act. Dr. Janosik surveyed several campus
related populations such as chiefs of police,chief student affairsofficer,parents and chief housing
officers. However, the survey was never administered to a student body to assess their understandingof
the Clery Act and or of campus crimein general.
I would liketo offer two $50.00 gift cards to be randomly drawn from those who participatein the
Campus Crime Survey. I feel the format of the research will bea minimal inconvenienceon the student
body because the students are free to not participatein either the survey or the interviews. The survey
itself is only 27 questions and takes approximately 10-15 minutes to complete and the one-on-one
interviews will take no longer than 50 minutes each.
In exchange for your permission and that of your campus Institutional ReviewBoard, I would be willingto
tailor a shortsummary of the results of the survey and interviews for your institution. I believe the
material would be of high interest to your campus police/security,your recruitingteam and your
retention team. This summary will beable to give the various aforementioned groups on campus an
idea of any concerns or perceptions you students may have about campus crimeand its connection to
your students collegeof choice.
Sincerely,
Cary F. Poole,
Dean of Students,
Texas Wesleyan University
Ft. Worth, TX 76105
817-531-4872
carypoole@yahoo.com

Cary Poole Dissertation 5-27-2014

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to Cary Poole Dissertation 5-27-2014 (11)

Cary Poole Dissertation 5-27-2014