University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A comparison of community college and university student affairs administrators' knowledge of the Clery Act

(USC Thesis Other)

A comparison of community college and university student affairs administrators' knowledge of the Clery Act

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content NOTE TO USERS This reproduction is the best copy available. ® UMI Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A COMPARISON OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS’ KNOWLEDGE OF THE CLERY ACT by Juli Soden A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION May 2006 Copyright 2006 Juli Soden Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3233823 Copyright 2006 by Soden, Juli All rights reserved. INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 3233823 Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my grandparents, Aline and H. I. Soden, for instilling in me the values of hard work, perseverance and a good attitude, and for stressing the value of education. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation could not have been possible without the support and assistance of my dissertation committee members: Dr. Melora Sundt, Dr. Ron Astor, and Dr. Joel Colbert. Thanks also to my research partner, friend and colleague, Kevin Colaner. I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Jennifer Martin for her trusted friendship and for the many inspiring and thought-provoking discussions over the years. Finally, special thanks to Michele Selander for her companionship and encouragement, and for helping me keep a sense of humor throughout this process. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION.................................................................................................. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................ vii ABSTRACT...................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY............................................ 1 Background of the Problem.................................................................. 1 History of the Clery Act........................................................................ 4 The Clery Bill and Amendments.......................................................... 7 Student Affairs Administrators and the Profession............................... 7 Background of Community Colleges.................................................... 8 Statement of the Problem...................................................................... 9 Purpose of the Study............................................................................. 12 Research Questions............................................................................... 12 Importance of the Study........................................................................ 13 Summary of the Methodology.............................................................. 14 Limitations............................................................................................ 16 Assumptions.......................................................................................... 17 Definition of Terms............................................................................... 18 Organization of the Study..................................................................... 22 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................... 24 Introduction........................................................................................... 24 Crime in the United States.................................................................... 25 Campus Crime....................................................................................... 26 Understanding the Community College System and Campus Characteristics......................................................................... 28 Enrollment Trends................................................................................. 29 History of the Clery Act........................................................................ 35 Crime Reporting and Campus Reporting Authorities........................... 37 Research on the Clery Act..................................................................... 41 The Profession of Student Affairs: Foundational Beliefs and Standards........................................................................................ 45 The Future of the Profession................................................................. 46 How Student Affairs Administrators’ Responsibilities Intersect with the Clery Act.................................................................. 47 Using a Gap Analysis Framework........................................................ 48 Conclusion............................................................................................ 49 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY................................................................ 51 Introduction........................................................................................... 51 Research Design.................................................................................... 51 Research Method................................................................................... 52 Population............................................................................................. 52 Sample................................................................................................... 53 Instrumentation..................................................................................... 55 Validity and Reliability......................................................................... 58 Data Collection...................................................................................... 59 Data Analysis........................................................................................ 60 Ethical Considerations.......................................................................... 62 Limitations............................................................................................ 62 Summary............................................................................................... 63 CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS..................................................................................... 64 Introduction........................................................................................... 64 Characteristics of Respondents and Excluded Data.............................. 64 Figure 1: Administrative Level by Institution....................................... 71 Results Related to Perceptions of Violence and Awareness of The Clery Act........................................................................................ 72 Results Related to Awareness of the Clery Act and Crime Reporting.. 72 Results Related to Crime Statistics....................................................... 74 Results Related to Campus Notification and Perceptions that Officials Hide Crime............................................................................. 76 Results Related to FERPA.................................................................... 78 Results Related to Hate Crimes, Crime Logs and Crime Convictions.. 79 Results Related to Compliance: Private Institutions............................ 81 Results Related to Compliance: Two-Year Institutions........................ 81 Results Regarding Respondents’ Experiences with Training About the Clery Act.............................................................................. 83 Results Regarding Respondents’ Preferences for Training About the Clery Act.............................................................................. 84 Where Did Student Affairs Administrators Learn about the Clery Act?............................................................................................. 85 Findings of Chi-Square Tests for Statistically Significant Differences Between Respondents from 2-year and 4-year Institutions Regarding the Variables.......................................................................................... 85 Summary............................................................................................... 87 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vi CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE............................................ 89 Overview of the Problem...................................................................... 89 Purpose of the Study............................................................................. 90 Summary of Findings Related to the Research Questions.................... 90 Crime Reporting and Crime Statistics................................................... 92 Campus Notification of Crimes and Perceptions of Attempts to Hide Crimes...................................................................................... 92 FERPA and FERPA Violations............................................................ 94 Hate Crimes, Crime Logs and Convictions.......................................... 94 Institutions Included in the Clery Act................................................... 95 Findings Related to Training................................................................. 95 Key Findings of the Study.................................................................... 96 Limitations of the Study........................................................................ 97 Recommendations for Improving Professional Practices..................... 98 Recommendations for Future Research.................................................... 101 REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 104 APPENDICES..................................................................................................... 113 Appendix A: Reportable Criminal Offenses Under the Clery Legislation................................................................................................. 114 Appendix B: Invitation to Participate in the Study.............................. 120 Appendix C: Informed Consent Statement.............................................. 122 Appendix D: Survey Instrument............................................................... 127 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Community College Characteristics............................................... 31 Table 2: Clery Act Legislative History Summary......................................... 38 Table 3: The Clery Act Report Card............................................................ 43 Table 4: Institution Classification................................................................ 67 Table 5: Gender of Respondents.................................................................. 68 Table 6: Gender and Administrative Level.................................................. 69 Table 7: Job Type by Institution.................................................................. 70 Table 8: Years of Experience in Student Affairs and Gender...................... 71 Table 9: Awareness of the Clery Act and Knowledge Questions Regarding Crime Reporting............................................................ 73 Table 10. Level of Awareness of the Clery Act.............................................. 75 Table 11: Knowledge Questions Regarding Crime Statistics......................... 75 Table 12: Knowledge Questions Regarding Crime Notification and Perceptions about Hiding Crime..................................................... 76 Table 13: What Officials Hide Crimes that Occur on Campus...................... 77 Table 14: Awareness of FERPA and Knowledge Question about FERPA 79 Table 15: Knowledge Question about the Clery A ct..................................... 80 Table 16: Do Private Institutions Have to Comply With the Clery Act? 82 Table 17: Do Two-Year Institutions Have to Comply With the Clery Act?.... 82 Table 18: Student Affairs Administrators and Training Regarding the Clery Act......................................................................................... 83 Table 19: Preferred Type of Training............................................................. 84 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. viii Table 20: Where did Student Affairs Administrators Learn About the Clery Act?....................................................................................... 86 Table 21: Chi-Square Tests for Statistical Significance between Two-Year Respondents and Four-Year Respondents Regarding Knowledge of the Clery A ct........................................................... 87 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT After an extensive grassroots advocacy campaign by Connie and Howard Clery, parents of murdered college student Jeanne Clery, the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act became law in 1990. Known as the Clery Act, it is the most significant legislation addressing campus safety to date. Under the Act, student affairs professionals are considered campus crime reporting authorities and therefore play an important role in implementation of this legislation. Previous Clery Act research has included examinations of legislative issues and implementation of the Act at 4-year institutions, but no studies focused on 2-year institutions. This study assesses community college student affairs administrators’ knowledge of the Act. Since 2-year institutions are the fastest growing sector of postsecondary education in the United States, determining what student affairs administrators know about the Clery Act has important implications for institutional compliance with the legislation, accuracy in crime statistics and student safety. Two research questions guided the study: (a) To what degree are community college student affairs administrators knowledgeable about the Clery Act?, and (b) How does knowledge of the Clery Act differ between student affairs administrators at community colleges and those at four-year institutions? A study of student affairs administrators at 2-year and 4-year institutions across the country revealed that most student affairs administrators at two-year institutions were aware of the Clery Act, but Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. few were knowledgeable about specifics of the legislation. Regarding knowledge of the legislation, there was little difference between student affairs administrators at 2- year institutions and those at 4-year institutions. Study results indicate that training is urgently needed for professionals at both 2-year and 4-year institutions across the country. Understanding the extent of the legislation is the first step toward improved student affairs practices regarding crime reporting. Increased accuracy in crime statistics will provide a better understanding of the nature and extent of campus crime and allow students and campus constituents to make informed choices about their safety; a primary objective of the Clerys’ initial advocacy for campus safety legislation Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY Background o f the Problem As undergraduate enrollment across the nation climbs, colleges are grappling with the most effective ways to ensure student safety while on campus (Wirt, Rooney, Choy, Provasnick, Sen, & Tobin, 2004). Over the past decade, college enrollment has increased steadily, with over 16 million students enrolled in postsecondary institutions in 2005 (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2005). Although national statistics indicate that violent crime in the United States has declined in this time frame, reaching the lowest recorded numbers in 2003, college students were victimized in astonishing numbers (National Crime Victimization Survey, 2005). In its report, Violent Victimization o f College Students, the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicated that from 1995 to 2000, over 500,000 students were victims of violent crimes each year (Hart, 2003). This is particularly disconcerting because colleges are often thought of as safe havens where young people go to focus on their studies. Well over half of all undergraduates are between the ages of 18 and 24 (NCES, 2005). At this age, students may be naive about the dangers of campus crime and especially vulnerable to victimization. For most traditional college students (high school students directly matriculating after graduation) college is the “next step” in growing up and becoming independent, between living at home and living on their own (Perlman, 1998). However, this important milestone in youth development is not always an easy Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. transition (Flannigan, Schulenber, & Fuligni, 1993). Adjusting to newfound independence and the responsibilities that come with autonomy is difficult for some students (Anderson & Fleming, 1986). To ease their transition, colleges provide administrative departments and systems designed to support and help guide students in their academic and social growth. The well being of students is important to institutions. Upon enrollment, students and institutions enter a mutually beneficial relationship. Perlman (1998) states that colleges have a stake in contributing to students’ physical, emotional, ethical and intellectual growth and seek to help students become successful, contributing members of the campus community and society. To facilitate this progression, campuses provide student services and programs designed to promote a positive and supportive environment with sound developmental experiences for students. It is within the realm of student service departments to promote diversity, offer specialized resource centers for women and/or men, and provide awareness and prevention of violence on campus (Garland & Grace, 1994). Employed in student services departments such as these are trained student service professionals who aid students in reaching their full potential and educational goals. As part of their responsibilities, student affairs administrators must also work to create safe campuses. A challenge of creating safe campuses is determining the extent of crime that occurs. Complexities in campus safety legislation and crime reporting make this difficult to assess. Under the legislation commonly known as the Clery Act, student affairs administrators at 2-year and 4-year institutions are considered campus crime reporting Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 authorities (Carter, 2005). However, there is little research to indicate that community college student affairs administrators know and comply with the law. This study will examine what community college student affairs administrators know about the Clery Act and whether they differ from their 4-year counterparts in knowledge and compliance with the Act. This study will be conducted in collaboration with other researchers. A companion study conducted by a fellow doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California will focus on student affairs administrators at 4-year institutions. That study will provide information that assists in developing comparisons between administrators from 2-year institutions and those at 4-year institutions. Together, these studies will shed new light on the important role that student affairs administrators have in creating safe campuses and providing critical services to help students have a successful college experience. A third study, also conducted by another doctoral student at the University of Southern California, will examine student affairs administrators’ awareness and perceptions about sexual violence, knowledge of and experience with sexual assault prevention programming on campuses and perceptions about the role of alcohol in sexual violence on college campuses. Student affairs professionals strive to create environments conducive to students’ educational and personal growth, where the university becomes the student’s new home. College admissions publications make welcoming invitations with appealing statements and enticing presentations of campus life that attract students and reassure parents. From the time students are admitted, student affairs administrators Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 provide services such as advising, programming, activities and guidance so that students feel supported and connected to the university (Brawer, 1996). Hence, campuses offer a certain illusion of safety and the presumption of security for students. “It is tempting to think of college campuses as safe havens from violence that exists in society at large. Both students and student affairs professionals may hold to this belief’ (Turrentine, Stites, Campos, & Jenke, 2003, p. 164). However, the reality is that campuses are simply a microcosm of society and as such, reflect both the positive and negative aspects of American communities (Rund, 2002). Clearly, violent crime is one such negative reality of our society and thus, our community college and university campuses. History o f the Clery Act In 1986, parents Connie and Howard Clery sent their daughter, Jeanne Ann Clery to college at Lehigh University. Lehigh University is a small (fewer that 5,000 undergraduate students) coeducational, nondenominational, private university located in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Bethlehem is an idyllic, tree-lined city of 75,000, known for its rich colonial and industrial history (City of Bethlehem, n.d.). At the northern edge of Bethlehem, Lehigh University is situated on 1,600 acres, with the main campus on the wooded slope of South Mountain. Half of the campus is preserved as open space, producing a picturesque setting for college students. Freshmen students are guaranteed housing in one of three university residence halls, each maintained with a “homelike” setting. Each residence hall is Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 staffed by “talented and supportive people who can help (students) with any problem they might have, day or night” (Breimer, n.d.). Like most parents of college-age students, Connie and Howard Clery likely had the common parent trepidation about Jeanne leaving home. They most likely worried, “Would she be able to handle the academic load? Would she be homesick? How would she manage living on her own in a new environment?” These are typical concerns of parents who send their children off to college, the symbolic new beginning of their lives (Brody, 1986). With normal doubts and concerns, mixed with optimism for the future, the last thing parents need to worry about is whether or not their children will be safe from crime. It is likely that the Clerys were reassured by the fact that Jeanne would be among other new students, in a residence hall with support systems and staff to supervise the students. It was unimaginable that this “homelike” residence hall could be the place her life would end. On April 5, 1986, Jeanne Ann Clery was sleeping in her dormitory room when another Lehigh student, Joseph Henry, entered her room and brutally tortured, raped, sodomized and murdered her (Clery & Clery, n.d.). Henry did not know Jeanne and had entered the residence hall through propped-open doors with the intent to burglarize students’ rooms. The investigation of Jeanne’s murder revealed that prior to her death there had been 181 student complaints about the propped-open doors. Also, in the 3 years prior to her death, there had been 38 violent crimes reported to Lehigh University officials, but none of these crimes were made public knowledge (Clery & Clery, n.d.). Lehigh Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 University students and their parents were unaware that crimes were occurring on the campus. Understandably, this was upsetting to Connie and Howard Clery. They were even more disturbed to learn that this was happening on other campuses across the nation. Universities were under no obligation to inform students (prospective or current) and campus community members about crimes committed on their campuses (Clery & Clery, n.d.). The Clery’s filed suit against Lehigh University for negligence, bringing national attention to Jeanne’s murder and the issue of campus safety. According to Connie and Howard Clery, what Jeanne did not know and what they did not know as parents of a college student, killed her (Clery & Clery, 2001). Their motivation to create change through public awareness is evident in their engraved memorial to Jeanne, “Lest we forget the meaning of her death, that we must protect one another, so that her life will not have been in vain” (Clery & Clery, n.d.). In 1987, the Clerys founded Security on Campus, Inc., a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization “dedicated to safe campuses for college and university students” (About Security on Campus, Inc., n.d.). Through advocacy and grass-roots political action, Security on Campus, Inc. successfully promoted legislation requiring colleges and universities nationwide to publish campus crime reports. The Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act was signed into law by President George Bush (Public Law 101-542). The bill, renamed the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, mandates that all colleges and universities receiving federal funds report Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 campus crimes and provide information about security procedures (Public Law 101- 244). The Clery Bill and Amendments Since the Clery Act’s inception, there have been an additional five legislative actions expanding and amending the bill with regard to issues of campus crime awareness and security measures. Further detail about the Act and amendments will be provided in chapter 2. As a result of the Clery Act and its crime reporting requirements, the role of student affairs administrators, those charged with providing student services at most colleges and universities, has expanded to include reporting crimes. Student Affairs Administrators and the Profession Student affairs professionals have chosen a career in which they seek to make a difference in the lives of others through work in community colleges, small liberal arts colleges or universities. In general, the profession and its various functional areas can be segmented into two tracks: (a) those that are counseling and advising oriented, and (b) those that are administrative and management oriented (Love, 2003). Historically, these “tracks” originated with the advising and counseling personnel movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Love, 2003). As institutions grew in size and complexity, the increased number of campuses, departmental functions and enrollments necessitated an increase in administrative and management functions to meet student needs (Love, 2003). Every kind of higher education institution, for-profit and not, employs student affairs professionals, including private liberal arts colleges, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. public colleges and universities, tribal colleges, women’s colleges, historically black colleges and community colleges. Background o f Community Colleges Community colleges are the fastest growing higher education arena, with 1,157 campuses across the country. This includes 979 public institutions, 148 private institutions and 30 tribal colleges, with that number increasing to a total of 1,600 when branch campuses are included (Community College Fact Sheet, n.d.). The tradition of providing education to all, at close-to-home facilities began nearly 100 years ago, when Joliet Junior College opened its doors. Since that time, the tradition of offering publicly funded education to all students, regardless of heritage, previous academic experience or socioeconomic status has prompted the growth and increased enrollment of community colleges (Historical Information, n.d.). Currently, there are over 11 million students enrolled at community colleges across the nation. Over half of community college students are women and the average age is 29 years. More than 60% of community college students attend part-time and commute to campus (Community College Fact Sheet, n.d.). As in 4-year institutions, community college student affairs personnel are charged with creating an educational environment that is safe and conducive to academic and social growth. Consequently, they are the campus officials likely to have the most contact hours with students. Because of frequent and direct contact with students and the nature of their jobs, student affairs administrators are also quite likely to be the officials that students go to for help or to resolve problems, such as when a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 crime has occurred. It is highly possible that a student will tell a residence hall administrator or a women’s center director that he or she has been a victim of a crime. According to the Clery Act, student affairs administrators are considered campus crime reporting authorities. When a student affairs administrator learns of a crime, that administrator must notify the institution’s Clery compliance coordinator so that the crime is published in their annual crime report. However, it is unclear to what extent student affairs administrators are aware of the Clery legislation and their professional responsibility for fulfilling it. Additionally, the majority of research on the Clery Act has focused on legal issues about the law, rather than the role of reporters. Studies that have researched issues regarding reporting have focused on either campus law enforcement or personnel at 4-year institutions. Because of this, and because community colleges have unique characteristics which may affect perceptions of campus safety (such as a high population of part-time or commuter students) it is unclear if student affairs administrators on community college campuses differ from administrators on 4-year campuses in their knowledge of the Clery Act. Statement o f the Problem Crime on campus is a problem at community colleges and 4-year institutions across the nation. Federal legislation known as the Clery Act resulted from advocacy efforts to require campuses to reveal statistics of crimes occurring on campus. Over the past decade, amendments to the Clery Act and new legislation surrounding the issue of campus safety have emerged. All campuses participating in federal student aid programs are required to report crimes that occur on campus, notify campus Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. constituents and make crime statistics available to current and prospective students and campus community members (Turrentine et al., 2003). Crime statistics collected from higher education institutions across the country are published in databases such as the National Crime Victims Survey and The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports Program (UCR), thus making more information available to the public. While the Clery Act has made great strides in bringing awareness to the issue of campus safety, there are complexities of the law that likely contribute to an under reporting of crimes on colleges campuses. Specifically, while student affairs administrators are mandated to report campus crimes they become aware of, there are no federal requirements about professional development or training programs regarding implementation of the law. Therefore, the extent to which student affairs administrators are knowledgeable about these mandated responsibilities is uncertain. There is relatively little published research to determine the extent to which student affairs administrators know the law and understand compliance requirements. Additionally, previous research has focused on 4-year institutions. Community colleges have a distinctly different mission from 4-year institutions. Two-year college campuses also have characteristics unique from 4-year universities that may contribute to misguided perceptions of campus safety. For example, because many community colleges are predominantly nonresidential, student affairs administrators might perceive their campuses to be safer than their residential, 4-year counterparts. The National Center for Education Statistics (1997) reported that institutions with housing Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11 were more likely to report both violent and property crimes than were institutions without housing. Because most community colleges do not have campus housing, student affairs administrators may believe that their campus does not have a crime problem. Consequently, they may not see a need for professional development or training regarding the Clery Act. Without intending to neglect their legal responsibilities, student affairs administrators at community colleges may not be fully complying with the Clery Act. Community colleges are bound by the same campus crime awareness legislation as residential, 4-year universities with traditional undergraduate populations. Therefore, student affairs professionals at both 2-year and 4-year institutions have the same reporting mandates. According to the Clery Act, campus officials must report and publish campus crime statistics, inform current and prospective students and employees about crime, notify the campus of threats to safety and keep an accurate, up-to-date record of the nature and frequency of crimes occurring on campus (Bromley, 1999). While the intent of the Clery Act is clear, actual implementation at institutions is somewhat unclear and thus the reported statistics may not accurately reflect campus safety. A lack of knowledge of Clery Act requirements and false perceptions of safety could lead to under-reporting of crimes. This, in turn, would lead to the publishing of incorrect campus crime statistics, which would be problematic because (a) it would create an environment in which the spirit and intention of the Clery Act to provide an accurate view of campus safety is not fulfilled; (b) perceived campus safety due to a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12 lack of reporting could cause students and/or staff to have a false sense of security when, in fact, they may be at risk for victimization; and (c) crime awareness and prevention programs and services may not be implemented due to perceptions that these efforts are not urgently needed. Purpose o f the Study The purpose of this study is to determine the extent to which community college student affairs administrators are aware of and knowledgeable about the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security and Campus Crime Statistics Act. Additionally, the study will provide information about how student affairs administrators at 2-year institutions differ from those at 4-year institutions in the extent and accuracy of their knowledge about the Clery Act and its legislative mandates. Research Questions Two research questions were developed to guide this study: 1. To what degree are community college student affairs administrators knowledgeable about the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security and Campus Crime Statistics Act? 2. How does knowledge of the Clery Act differ between student affairs administrators at community colleges and student affairs administrators at 4-year institutions? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13 These research questions are the basis for the data collection, analysis and subsequent discussion of the data. For each question, detailed information and analysis is presented in the conclusions and recommendations of the study. Importance o f the Study This study is important to constituents of both community colleges and 4-year universities. Campus safety is a concern not only for students, both prospective and enrolled, but also for the staff and faculty. Accurate reporting and crime statistics are important in order to have a true picture of the nature of crimes and frequency that they occur on a given campus. Since student affairs administrators hold service positions with typically high contact hours with students, it is likely that they will be made aware of crimes and victimization on campus. This study will provide information about student affairs administrators’ knowledge of the Clery Act. There has been little research in this area and findings will be important additions to the literature. Most published research on the Clery Act has focused on issues related to the legislation and has not addressed student affairs administrators’ general knowledge of the Clery Act. To date, no published studies have assessed community college student affairs administrators’ knowledge of the Clery Act. Since student affairs professionals are mandated campus crime reporters, it is important to measure their knowledge of the legislation. Additionally, non- compliance with the Clery Act could jeopardize an institution’s eligibility to participate in federal student aid programs. This study will provide important information about whether or not student affairs professionals need to learn more Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. about the Clery Act. Additionally, it will identify any differences in knowledge of the Clery Act between student affairs professionals from community colleges and those at four-year institutions. Descriptive distribution patterns will determine if there are patterns regarding student affairs administrators’ knowledge of the Clery Act. This information can be used to determine if professional development programs should be conducted through student affairs associations such as the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) and/or the American College Personnel Association (ACPA). AACC is the professional association that serves community college administrators while NASPA and ACPA primarily serve professionals working at 4- year institutions. The primary purpose of the Clery Act is to reduce campus crime through awareness and prevention (About Security on Campus, n.d.). If mandated reporters do not fully understand their duties, then it is possible that crimes may occur but not be reported, which places students and campus constituents at risk. As Connie and Howard Clery claim, “What they don’t know, could kill them” (Clery & Clery, 2001). Ultimately, the study will contribute to a better understanding of the accuracy of campus crime statistics reported in compliance with the Clery Act at both community colleges and 4-year universities. Summary o f Methodology The population for the study is student affairs professionals who belong to one of three professional associations: AACC, NASPA and ACPA. Together, membership Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 in these associations includes over 15,000 student affairs professionals representative of community colleges and universities across the nation. Because this study focuses on administrators at community colleges, all 1,084 student services professionals who are members of AACC will be included. To provide information about professionals from 4-year institutions, all members with e-mail addresses listed in the ACPA and NASPA directories will be included. An e-mail will introduce the study and invite administrators to contribute to the student affairs profession field of knowledge by completing a web-based survey. To minimize the possibility of participants being annoyed by receiving an unsolicited e-mail, participants will receive only one e-mail about the study. It will explain the future benefits of the study and invite them to participate by simply clicking on the link provided in the e-mail. The survey will collect demographic and descriptive information about participants and the institutions with which they are professionally affiliated. It will also collect information about the extent of student affairs administrators’ knowledge of the Clery Act legislation and about compliance issues. The survey consists of questions from previous studies by Janosik (2001) and Janosik and Gregory (2003) combined with questions from a Clery Act web-based training program jointly conducted by the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) and the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (LACLEA). Original questions were also constructed for this study. Prior to administering the survey, all of the survey questions were reviewed by student affairs administrators from a private research institution, a state Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 university and a public community college in order to ensure content validity. Based on feedback from the participants of this pilot test, a few survey questions and answer options were modified to improve clarity. The final version of the survey was linked to the introductory e-mail through survey management software called SurveyMonkey and sent to all participants. Study participants were asked to complete the web-based survey within 4 weeks. Results were collected through SurveyMonkey and standard descriptive statistics were used to record data about the independent variables. Frequency distributions and cross tabulations were used to assess responses for the independent variables. Analysis of the data identified differences between factors such as (a) institutional type, (b) administrative function, (c) length of time in the profession, (d) gender, (e) formal training about the Clery Act, and (f) overall knowledge of the Act. Limitations There are three limitations of the study. First, the sample population included members of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) and the American College Personnel Association (ACPA). These associations may not be representative of all student affairs professionals. Like any profession, there are some in the field who choose not to join professional organizations. Those who do join organizations such as NASPA, AACC and ACPA are most likely professionals who seek to improve their knowledge, skills and professional practices. The fact that they are engaged professionals suggests that they may be more knowledgeable than those who do not Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17 participate in professional associations. Also, it is likely that NASPA and ACPA memberships will be composed of more professionals from 4-year institutions than from community colleges. Second, the response rate of the study may be affected by characteristics of particular populations (i.e., community college vs. respondents from 4-year institutions, male vs. female respondents, senior vs. new professional respondents, etc.). Lastly, the subjective nature of reporting crimes on individual and institutional levels must be considered. Some victims simply do not report crimes. On an institutional level, variations in interpretations of reporting mandates and definitions of crimes may cause discrepancies between actual crimes and reported crimes. Therefore, it is impossible for databases cited in this study, Crime in the United States (FBI, 2002) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (U. S. Bureau of Statistics, 2003), to accurately reflect the number and nature of crimes that actually occur. Assumptions Several assumptions underlie this research. First is the assumption that these research questions have not been answered in previous studies, which makes this study an important addition to the literature about the Clery Act. While much has been published about the Clery Act, there is a lack of research regarding community college student affairs administrators’ knowledge, perceptions and practices related to Clery Act legislation. Second, the study assumes that respondents were honest and forthcoming in their responses. Third, the study assumes that results were collected and analyzed with appropriate research protocols and statistical methods. Finally, the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 researcher assumes that the findings of this study can be generalized to a wide range of student affairs professionals and institutions. Definition o f Terms Throughout this document, several acronyms and industry-specific terms will be used repeatedly. Following are definitions of these terms as they pertain to this study. Definitions of crimes covered in the Clery Act legislation are included in Appendix A of the dissertation. AACC The American Association of Community Colleges is a professional association dedicated to national and international advocacy and recognition for community colleges. Membership primarily consists of individuals who work in 2- year institutions. In this study, only those AACC members who serve in a student services department (just over 1,000) are included. ACPA The American College Personnel Association is a professional association dedicated to the professional development of student affairs administrators. Member ship consists primarily of professionals who work in 4-year institutions. The majority of ACPA’s over 8,000 members are either new or mid-level professionals. Campus Climate Campus climate refers to the perceived level of safety and security felt by members of the campus community. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19 Campus Security Authority As defined by Section 668.46 of the Clery Act, campus security authorities are: 1. Members of an institution’s campus police force or safety and security department. 2. Individuals with responsibility for campus security who are not part of campus police or security departments, including persons responsible for monitoring entrances to campus property. 3. Persons or organizations specified by an institution’s security policy as an individual or organization to which students and employees should report criminal activities. 4. Any official of an institution who has significant responsibility for student and campus activities, including, but not limited to, student housing, student discipline and campus judicial proceedings. Exceptions to this definition include pastoral or professional counselors working in their official capacity. Career Level For the purpose of this study, career levels were identified in three categories. 1. New professionals are those with less than 5 years of professional work experience in higher education. 2. Mid-level professionals refer to those working in student affairs between 5-15 years. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20 3. Senior-level professionals refer to administrators with over 15 years of professional work experience, and who primarily serve in senior level, administrative positions. Clery Act For the purpose of this study, all references to the Clery Act, unless specifically stated differently in the immediate text, refer to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act in its entirety, with all subsequent amendments to date. Community Colleges For the purpose of this study, the term community college includes all 2-year higher education institutions, including not-for-profit and for-profit public and private institutions. 4-year Institutions For the purpose of this study, this refers to all public and private higher education institutions that offer baccalaureate degrees and/or graduate and professional degrees. IACLEA The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators is a professional association that provides educational resources, professional development and advocacy to members of the campus law enforcement and safety community. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 Law Enforcement Agents Law enforcement agents refer to local, state, federal or campus sworn police officers who possess arrest authority. NACUBO The National Association of College and University Business Officers is a professional association that serves over 2,500 higher education institutions. The organization membership primarily consists of chief administrative officers and business and financial officers. NASPA The National Association of Student Personnel Administrators is a professional association serving over 1,200 institutions. With more than 8,000 members, this professional association provides professional development, resources and advocacy for student affairs educators and administrators. Membership consists primarily of professionals who work in 4-year institutions. Nontraditional Student A nontraditional student is one who is enrolled in college part-time, who did not matriculate to college directly after graduating from high school, and is typically above the age of 25 (Horn, 1996). Part-time Student Part-time students refer to those students, either degree-seeking or non-degree seeking, who are not enrolled at full-time status at educational institutions. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22 Student Affairs Administrator The term student affairs administrator refers to a higher education administrator who is responsible for providing student services and who is dedicated to supporting the academic and personal development of students through a broad spectrum of academic, student life and campus activities, resources and services. Traditional Student A student who completes high school, enrolls in college and depends upon parents for financial support is considered a traditional student (Horn, 1996). Organization o f the Dissertation Chapter 1 introduces the issue of violence on college campuses and discusses why it is a prominent concern for college administrators, students, the legislature and the general public. A brief profile of the Clery Act describes how federal legislation emerged after the murder of college student Jeanne Clery. The chapter illustrates how the role of student affairs professionals has been expanded by the legislation and details concerns about accuracy in crime reporting and compliance with the law. The purpose and methodology of the study are explained, as well as how findings will contribute to the literature about the Clery Act and the student affairs profession. Chapter 2 provides an historical framework for the Clery Act and its subsequent legislative amendments. A more detailed look at the scholarly research related to the Clery Act describes how legislative mandates affect the student affairs profession. Since the study centers on the Clery Act and student affairs administrators at community colleges, literature about the history and mission of the community Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 college system is discussed. Chapter 2 also introduces gap analysis as the framework for analyzing data and drawing conclusions about the research questions. Chapter 3 outlines the research methodology for the study. It describes the study population and sample, as well as how the study will be conducted. The study design, instrumentation, data collection and data analysis are described. Chapter 4 presents the significant findings of the study and an analysis of the data as it relates to each research question. Chapter 5 summarizes the study. Conclusions about the study are described and implications for student affairs administrators and constituents of higher education are discussed. Recommendations for future research are also included in this section of the dissertation. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction This study investigates community college student affairs administrators’ knowledge of important campus safety legislation. To understand why this is a concern for educators, there are several relevant issues to consider. First, it is essential to look at the broader issue of crime in the United States. How are statistics collected and what do they show about the nature of crime across the country? Second, what does research show about campus violence? Do campus crime statistics reflect the same trends as national crime statistics? Since this study focuses on student affairs professionals who work at community colleges, it is necessary to understand the unique environment of the 2-year college system. Examining the history, mission and goals of the community college system will provide an environmental context for understanding the roles and responsibilities of student affairs professionals. Finally, it is essential to discuss the Clery Act. The history of the Clery Act provides a backdrop for understanding the intent and purpose of this landmark campus safety legislation. A review of the Act’s original goals and progression of subsequent amendments describes its expanded impact on higher education. The Clery Act has been the most significant campus safety legislation passed to date. Its crime reporting mandates have expanded the role of student affairs administrators at both 2-year and 4-year institutions. Analysis of literature surrounding the legislation reveals the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 absence of research on this particular issue and demonstrates the relevance and future contributions of the study. Crime in the United States Understanding the nature and extent of crime and victimization is essential in improving safety measures and crime reduction efforts. Characteristics about crimes occurring in the United States are collected by government agencies and published in two reports. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (2000) annual publication, Crime in the United States provides data on the volume and frequency of crimes reported to local law enforcement agencies. For this report, local agencies use the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports Program Crime Index. The goals of the Uniform Crime Reports are (a) to “enhance the quantity, quality and timeliness of crime statistical data collected by the law enforcement community; and (b) to improve the methodology for compiling, analyzing, auditing, and publishing collected crime data” (National Incident-Based Reporting System, 2000, p. 1). The Crime Index consists of what are considered the most serious violent crimes and the most commonly occurring property crimes (Janosik & Gregory, 2002). Violent crimes included are: (a) homicide, (b) forcible rape, (c) nonnegligent manslaughter, (d) aggravated assault, and (e) robbery. Property crimes included in the Index are motor vehicle theft, larceny-theft and burglary (FBI, 2004b). The other significant national data source for crime statistics is the National Crime Victimization Survey (FBI, 2003), which collects data from a nationally representative sample of households across the United States. As the nation’s principal Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26 source of information on criminal victimization, the Survey collects and reports the rate of occurrence, characteristics and consequences of victimization in the United States (U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003). Together, Crime in the United States and the National Crime Victimization Survey offer a wealth of information about crime and victimization in communities across the country. Recent reports from both indicate that overall crime in the United States is declining (FBI, 2002/2003). According to the FBI, violent crime decreased 33.4% from 1994 to 2003, most recently falling 3.9% from 2002 to 2003. Property crime also declined significantly; falling 23% from 1994 to 2003 (FBI, 2004b). Campus Crime While the Uniform Crime Reports and the National Crime Victimization Survey do not specifically identify crimes occurring on university campuses, research suggests that campus crime reflects that of institutions’ surrounding cities (Smith, 1995). The idea of paralleling community and campus crime rates is supported by evidence of falling crime rates at universities. Like statistics reported in the Uniform Crime Reports and National Crime Victimization Survey crime databases, the Violent Victimization of College Students Report (Baum & Klaus, 2005), indicates that violent crime is declining on college campuses. The report, which summarized crimes occurring between 1995 and 2002, indicates college students were victims of approximately 479,000 crimes annually (Baum & Klaus, 2005). Prior to this, the number of crimes against students was estimated to be 526,000 annually (Hart, 2003). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27 Several crime studies have identified the majority of crimes against students as property crimes. According to a national sample of students, property crimes significantly outnumbered violent crimes on college campuses (Fisher, Sloan, Cullen & Chunmeng, 1998). This echoed previous research by Bromley (1992), Sloan (1994), and Stormer and Senarath (1992), finding that the overwhelming majority of crimes occurring on campuses and reported to police were theft and property related offenses. Despite the fact that evidence suggests that most campus crimes are property offenses, there is still ample reason for concern. Studies indicate that women are particularly at risk for victimization. Over 8 million women attend college annually (NCES, 2005). According the Sexual Victimization of College Women study, 2.8% of college women will be victims of a completed and/or attempted rape in any given academic year, (Fisher et al., 2000). Similar studies by Koss, Gidycz, and Wisniewski (1987) report that 15%-20% of college women and 5-15% of college men experienced forcible sexual intercourse (Fisher et al., 2000). Even more alarming are projections of under-reporting of crimes. Studies by Baum and Klaus (2005) propose that all campus crimes are underreported and suggest that only 35% of violent crimes against students were reported to police. Prior research by Sloan, Fisher, and Cullen (1997) indicated that under-reporting has been a recurring concern. In their 1997 study of nearly 3,500 students at 12 institutions, Sloan et al. found that only 25% of crimes were reported to law enforcement or other campus authorities. These researchersx)ffer evidence that the problem of campus Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 crime is much more prevalent than statistics show. Another concern about campus crime statistics is that most research has focused on 4-year institutions (Bromley, 1999). Research regarding 2-year institutions is in Bromley’s words, “conspicuously absent” (Bromley, 1999, p. 12). Given the size of the community college system and the number of students who attend 2-year institutions across the country, this is cause for concern. Understanding the Community College System and Campus Characteristics Community colleges originated in the early 20th century and now, according the American Association of Community Colleges (n.d.) represents the largest and fastest growing sector of higher education. Each year, the nearly 1,100 community colleges across the United States serve over 11 million credit and noncredit students (About AACC, n.d.). Historically, the mission of the community college was to offer access to higher education for people who may have no other educational opportunities available (Phillippe & Patton, 2000). Clearly, community colleges today are vastly different from those first fledgling institutions. However, the mission of access for all students remains much the same. The community college tradition of open admissions makes educational opportunities available to students with a wide range of skills and academic preparation (Schuck & Larson, 2000). Community colleges provide opportunities for reentering or first-time nontraditional students, young or old, wealthy or financially disadvantaged and dislocated workers (Vaughan, 1999). Slightly over 10% of all Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 students attending 2-year institutions come from homes where English is not the native language and over half are first-generation college students (Phillippe & Patton, 2000). Community colleges are also a common choice for individuals who might not yet be academically prepared for 4-year institutions and need remedial courses (Jolley & McNamee, 2003). Enrollment Trends Over the past decade enrollment at community colleges remained fairly steady, showing a slight increase in overall enrollment numbers. A 1995-1996 study by the Department of Education showed that community colleges nationwide enrolled 5.7 million credit students and 5 million noncredit students in 1992. At the time, that accounted for 44% of all undergraduates and 49% of first-time freshmen. Of these, 58% were women and 47% of were students of color. The average age of students was 29. The average annual tuition and fees was $1,114 at public community colleges, compared to $2,543 at 4-year colleges (U. S. Dept, of Education, 1995/1996). More recent studies indicate that this picture of community colleges is still much the same. Horn, Peter and Rooney (2002) found that in 1999-2000, community colleges enrolled 42% of all undergraduates. While the percentage of all undergraduates attending 2-year colleges may have declined by 2% from 1996 to 1999, the total number of students attending 2-year institutions has continually increased over the years. In 2005, the American Association of Community Colleges reported that enrollment increased from 10.7 million in the 1995-1996 report to 11.6 million students (Trends & Statistics, n.d.). The following information profiles the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30 most recent enrollment and characteristics of community college students and faculty (Table 1). Continued high enrollment at community colleges can be attributed to characteristics that distinguish 2-year institutions from their 4-year counterparts in three areas: (a) the focus on teaching rather than research; (b) opportunities for all students; and (c) academic options for job skills and training. For faculty at community colleges, the emphasis is on teaching. They do not face the rigorous research and publishing demands typically required in many 4-year institutions. Faculty are recognized for good teaching and are often hired based on strong pedagogical skills (Schuck & Larson, 2000). Students at community colleges enjoy the benefits of good teaching and small class sizes (Schuck & Larson, 2000). It is difficult to paint a picture of a typical community college student because community colleges serve such a diverse population of students (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1998). Unlike 4-year institutions that mostly enroll traditional freshmen, 2- year colleges draw students from a wide range of personal, ethnic and financial backgrounds (Kim, 2002). More non-traditional students (those over the traditional 18 to 22 age bracket) enroll in community colleges. Nontraditional students are more likely to enroll in occupational programs than their younger peers, who typically enroll in academic courses. The older age group brings with them unique student challenges such as balancing children, jobs and financial responsibilities. These conflicting life and time factors account for the high number of part-time students at community colleges. Half of all community college students work full-time and over 80% work Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 Table 1: Community College Characteristics Number o f community colleges Public institutions: 979 Private institutions: 148 Tribal institutions: 30 Total: 1,157__________ Enrollment 11.6 million students 6.6 million credit 5 million noncredit 46% of all U. S. undergraduates 45% of first-time freshmen 58% women; 42% men 62% part time; 38% full time (full time = 12 + credit hours) Student profile 47% of Black undergraduate students 56% of Hispanic 48% of Asian/Pacific Islander 57% of Native American Average student age 29 years Students receiving financial aid Any aid: 37.8% Federal Grants: 17.2% State aid: 10.2% Federal loans: 7.0% Percentage offederal financial aid Pell Grants: 35.0% Campus-based aid: 9.8% Stafford Loans: Subsidized: 5.4% Unsubsidized: 4.4% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 Table 1 (continued). Tuition and fees $2,076 average annual tuition at public community colleges Degrees and certificates annually More than 490,000 associate degrees Nearly 235,000 2-year certificates Source. Community College Fact Sheet (n.d.) part-time (Schuck & Larson, 2000). The majority of students are commuter students and do not reside on campus (Kim, 2002). Nationally, enrollment by students of color is over 30% (Schuck & Larson, 2000). Ethnic and cultural diversity is wide ranging at community colleges because each campus primarily serves its local community (Schuck & Larson, 2000). Consequently, campus ethnic and cultural diversity often varies by demographics of the community served. Students attend community colleges for a variety of reasons, including personal improvement and career preparation (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). According to a study by Voorhees and Zhou (2000), 66.4% of community college students attend with the intention to either complete a certificate or degree or transfer to a 4-year institution (p. 3). Twenty-one percent attend in order to acquire or improve job skills and 12% enroll to pursue personal interests. Community college classes (typically general education courses) are also available to students who want to get a jump on their college progression and take advantage of dual enrollment while still in high school (Schuck & Larson, 2000). For students with disabilities, community colleges Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 are the most common entry point to higher education. More students with disabilities choose community colleges than any other post secondary education option (Henderson, 1998). Grubb (1999) suggests that lower fees and open-access admissions policies make community colleges a plausible opportunity for students who might face barriers (i.e., poor grades in high school or other academic skill deficiencies, financial hardship and/or limited English language skills) to attending 4-year institutions. Fusch (1996) attributes community college open admissions policies with providing opportunities for individuals who might not otherwise have attended college. According to Bryant (2001), open admissions are “a central function of the community college” (p. 78). This feature of access for all students is the community college system’s primary purpose: to provide a wide range of students with access to education (Rendon, 2000). The mission of community service is evidenced not only by the low-cost, easily accessible education at community colleges, but also in the type of academic programs offered (Jolley & McNamee, 2003). Through cooperation with federal and state agencies and private industries, community colleges provide retraining to dislocated workers and prepare skilled workers for impacted or newly developing industries (Jolley & McNamee, 2003). After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, community colleges moved to the forefront of training for homeland security preparedness (Gamble, 2004). In Iowa, an agroterrorism preparedness training center was established at Kirkwood Community College (Barth, 2004). Monroe Community College in Rochester, NY, created a Homeland Security Management Institute on its Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 Rochester campus and Owens Community College in Ohio, is home to a Fire and Police Training Center for Professional Development and Homeland Security (Barth, 2004). New educational centers such as these are housed at 2-year institutions across the nation because community colleges offer existing programs for “first-responders” and the ability to provide short-term, skills-focused education programs to serve the community (Gamble, 2004). Approximately 85% of “first-responders” including EMTs, law enforcement officers, fire fighters and over half of new nurses receive training from community colleges (Homeland Security, n.d.). As community colleges keep pace with changing workforce demands, Gerald (1998) predicts enrollment will increase approximately ten percent from 1996 through 2008 (Gerald, 1998). Reasons for such growth include the growing number of part- time students, the accessibility of campuses in communities, low fees and tuition and the availability of financial aid (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). If predicted enrollment trends materialize, well over 12 million students, with over half female, will attend community colleges nationwide. Increased enrollments have implications for the safety and security of students. With such a large volume of students on community college campuses nationwide, it is predictable that crimes will occur. Bromley (1999) wrote that crime surely occurs on community college campuses as it does at 4-year institutions. Concern for safety and liability for the security of students is a consideration for two-year and four-year institutions alike. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35 Prior to passage of the Clery Act, the country’s most prominent campus safety legislation, two court decisions related to campus safety were decided with community colleges as defendants. The Jesik v. Maricopa Community College (1980) and Peterson v. San Francisco Community College District (1984) cases were important legal decisions regarding an institution’s responsibility to provide reasonable protective security for students and staff (Bromley, 1999). In 1990, the high profile campus safety ruling, the Student Right-to-Know and Campus Safety Act of 1990 was passed. The Act and its subsequent amendments are most commonly known as simply the Clery Act (Public Law 101-542). History o f the Clery Act After their daughter’s death at the hands of fellow Lehigh University student Joseph Henry, Connie and Howard Clery formed Security on Campus Inc., an advocacy organization for campus safety. During the investigation of Jeanne Clery’s death, her parents were shocked to learn that 38 violent crimes had occurred on the Lehigh University campus and yet university officials had not warned students about possible dangers (Clery & Clery, n.d.). They filed suit against the university and used the proceeds to form Security on Campus, the not-for-profit organization that has been on the forefront of campus security reform. Advocacy efforts by the Clerys and media attention on the issue of student safety resulted in changes to the state law in Lehigh University’s home state of Pennsylvania. Then, the Clerys joined families of other campus crime victims to push for legislative action. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 The Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-542), signed into law by President George Bush, was the first legislation to address the issue (Janosik & Gehring, 2003). This Act mandates colleges and universities to prepare, publish and distribute an annual security report to all current students and employees, and to any applicant for enrollment or employment upon request (Fisher et al., 2000). All colleges and universities participating in federal student aid programs must comply with the Act. Failure to do so will result in fines and/or jeopardizing an institution’s eligibility for federal student aid programs (Janosik & Gregory, 2002). Title II of the Act is the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990. Since inception, the legislation has been amended several times to broaden its scope and provide reporting mandates (Janosik & Gehring, 2003). Renamed the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act in 1998, it is most well-known as simply the Clery Act. The main purposes of the Clery Act are: 1. To improve campus crime reporting by requiring colleges and universities to report campus crime data in a more consistent manner, 2. To help prospective students and parents make informed decisions regarding the safety of colleges and universities they might attend, 3. To improve campus safety programs, 4. To improve campus police policies and procedures, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 5. To heighten student awareness in order to improve their safety related behaviors, 6. To help eliminate the perception that institutional officials purposely hide incidents of crime to avoid negative publicity, and 7. To reduce crime on campus (Gregory & Janosik, 2003). The following table provides a more formal summary of legislative action concerning the initial law and the amendments since inception (Table 2). Crime Reporting and Campus Reporting Authorities According to the law, every institution must disclose statistics for crimes that occur on the campus and on adjacent areas specified by the law. Examples of adjacent areas included in the Clery Act are unobstructed public areas immediately adjacent to the campus, non-campus facilities such as Greek housing and satellite classrooms. To provide a detailed picture of how and where crimes occur, all crimes must be categorized by the areas where they occur, such as on campus, in residential facilities, noncampus buildings or on public property such as sidewalks. Clery Act reporting authorities are campus police or security, local law enforcement agencies and school officials who have "significant responsibility for student and campus activities" (Public Law 101-542). Professional mental health and religious counselors are exempt from reporting obligations. Like the Uniform Crime Reports Crime Index, Clery Act crimes are reported in 7 major categories: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38 Table 2. Clery Act Legislative History Summary Clery act legislative history summary 1990 Public Law: 101-542 101s t Congress Student Right-To-know and Campus Security Act Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990, Title II Pertaining to Title II: Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act— Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require: 1. All institutions of higher education receiving federal student aid funds to prepare, publish, and distribute campus security policies and campus crime statistics on an annual basis to the Department of Education as well as to all students, faculty and staff, and to any applicants for employment or admission who request such information; 2. Institutions to inform the campus community in a timely and visible manner about serious crimes that have occurred on campus; and, 3. That crime statistics be compiled in accordance with the definitions used in the uniform crime reporting (UCR) system. a. Amended the General Education Provisions Act to allow postsecondary education institutions to disclose the results of disciplinary proceedings to the victim of violent crimes adjudicated by the institution. b. Branch campuses and other administrative divisions not reasonably contiguous to the main campus can submit a separate crime statistic report. 1991 102n d Congress Section 10 of Public Law: 102-26 Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991 Changed the Campus Security Act and Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990 by: 1. Changing the reporting period from school year to calendar year; and, 2. Changing the initial collection of statistics from September 1, 1991 to August 1, 1991. 1992 102n d Congress Section 486 (c) of Public Law: 102-325 Higher Education Amendments of 1992 Amended the Higher Education Act to require, under conditions for eligibility for federal grants, that institutions: 1. Have written policies that prohibit all forms of sexual offenses; and, 2. Disclose the outcome of campus police investigations or campus disciplinary proceedings to victims of sexual offenses. a. Amended the General Education Provisions Act to exclude from the definition of educational records relating to FERPA compliance, any records maintained by a law enforcement unit of the educational agency or institution that were created by the law enforcement unit. b. Specified the dates of initial data collection and dissemination requirements. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39 Table 2 (continued). Clery act legislative history 1998 Section 486 (e) of Public Law 105-244 105th Congress Higher Education Amendments of 1998 Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act 1. Renamed the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990 in memory of Jeanne Clery. 2. Amended the 1965 Higher Education Act to expand the categories of crimes to be reported as part of institutional annual Campus Crime Statistics Reports. 3. Expanded the geographic reporting requirements of institutions to include on-campus; off- campus; and university housing. 4. Required a more detailed break down of hate-crimes. 5. Required institutions to create, maintain and make public daily crime logs. 2000 Section 1601 of Public Law 106-386 106th Congress Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act 1. Amended the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act to require sex offenders to provide notice to institutions of higher education where they become employed or enrolled. 2. Amended the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act to require institutions to inform the campus community about where and how to access the sex offenders registry in their state. 3. Amended the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 to allow institutions to release sex offender information without fear of breaching privacy laws. 2003 Public Law 108-7 108th Congress Joint Resolution making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003 Included $750,000.00 to provide all Title IV institutions eligible for funding with a handbook that provides detailed instructions on complying with the Clery Act, specifically in regard to campus crime statistics reporting. Source. Clery Act History (n.d.) 1. Criminal homicide broken down by: a. Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter b. Negligent manslaughter; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40 2. Sex Offenses broken down by a. Forcible sex offenses (includes rape) b. Nonforcible sex offenses; 3. Robbery; 4. Aggravated assault; 5. Burglary; 6. Motor vehicle theft; and 7. Arson Liquor, drug, and/or weapons violations must be reported if they result in an arrest or disciplinary referral. The 1998 amendment to the Act requires that reports indicate if crime incidents or any crimes involving bodily injury were classified as hate crimes (Clery Act History, n.d.). Despite its obviously good intentions, questions remain about the effectiveness of the Clery Act in achieving its intended objectives. Researchers, Janosik and Gregory (2003) conclude that despite conflicted views about the legislation, it has at least brought the issue of campus safety to the forefront of media and legislative attention. In turn, increased media attention has facilitated the public’s awareness of campus crime over that past 10 years. According to Bromley (1999), a variety of media provide extensive national coverage of serious campus crimes. USA Today, the New York Times, the Chronicle of Higher Education and Law Enforcement News have all highlighted campus crimes and reporting procedures in the aftermath of Jeanne Clery’s death (Bromley, 1999). In some respects, it seems the Clery Act is at Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41 least achieving the goal of increased public awareness of campus safety issues. However, what the media depicts may not be a true picture of what campus crime is like. Despite the fact that the majority of campus crimes are property related, media coverage of violent campus crimes has been extensive. This type of sensationalized coverage has helped shatter the image of colleges and universities as safe havens (Bromley, 1999). Research on the Clery Act Clery Act researchers have studied the effectiveness of the legislation since its inception. Previous studies focused on the effects of the Clery Act with regard to student behavior and the effects of the legislation on campus judicial practices. Janosik and Gehring (2003) carried out a large scale national study, seeking more comprehensive data about student behavior related to campus safety. First, they ascertained students’ level of awareness of the Clery Act. Then, they examined whether or not awareness of the Clery Act had an impact on students’ behavior about how they protected themselves and their property while on campus. The study had a student sample of 9,150 with a 42% response rate. Of these, over half of the respondents were women. Overall, nearly 90% of respondents reported feeling safe on campus. However, less than 30% of students were even aware of the Clery legislation and less that 25% had even read their institution’s annual crime report. Less than 10% used the Clery Act campus crime reporting information to make a decision about attending a particular college or university. (Janosik & Gehring, 2003). These findings were somewhat dismal considering a key purpose of the Clery Act is to provide Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42 knowledge and awareness of campus crime in an effort to better protect students. The study provided evidence that the Clery Act is not having its intended effect on students. Jansosik & Gehring (2003) concluded that efforts focused on reporting might be better spent developing services and programs that actually have an impact on students. In another study, Janosik and Gregory (2003) examined the effects of the Clery Act on campus judicial officers to learn if the Clery Act had an impact on campus administrators’ behaviors. They conducted a survey of approximately 1,100 members of the Association for Student Judicial Affairs (AS JA), which includes mostly campus judicial officers and senior level student affairs administrators with responsibility for judicial affairs. Key findings of the study were that: (a) nearly all respondents (99%) were aware of the Act; (b) half reported that the Act improved working relationships with campus police; (c) 96% reported that they did not believe campus officials sought to hide crimes that occurred on campus; and (d) 30% indicated that their work load had increased after the Clery Act, suggesting an increase in crime reporting. Perhaps the most striking finding of the study was that only 2% of respondents felt the Clery Act was linked to campus crime reduction. Considering these findings Janosik and Gregory concluded that the Clery Act, with its emphasis on crime reporting is not effective in reducing campus crime. To ensure that the Clery Act actually protects students by reducing crimes, they recommend modifying the legislation to more strongly address crime prevention rather than crime reporting (Janosik & Gregory, 2003). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This conclusion is supported by findings from a study of campus law enforcement officers. In this study, Janosik and Gregory (2003) found that over half (57%) of senior law enforcement officers believed that the Clery Act improved campus crime reporting, but had little effect on reducing crime. Of the 944 administrators surveyed, 90% said that it had little to do with crime rates and only 10% felt that the Clery Act influenced student behaviors. Again, Janosik and Gregory argued that their studies proved that the Clery Act as it is written, is not achieving its purpose of reducing campus crimes. In 2004, Gregory gave the Clery Act a failing grade in reducing campus crime. In his summary of research on the Clery Act, Gregory created the following Report Card to measure the extent to which the Clery Act has met its primary goals (Gregory, 2004). Table 3: The Clery Act Report Card Purpose Score To improve campus crime reporting by forcing colleges and universities to report campus crime data in a more consistent manner. P To allow prospective students and their parents to make informed decisions about the relative safety of institutions to which they are considering applying for admissions. F To improve campus safety programs. P- To improve campus police procedures and policies. P- To raise student awareness of crime and thus change their safety related behaviors. F To eliminate the perceived hiding of campus crime by institutional officials. IN To reduce campus crime. F Source. (Gregory, 2004, p. 8) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44 Gregory based these scores on combined results from studies of campus law enforcement officers, judicial officers, parents and victim advocates. Similarly, researchers Fisher, Hartman, Cullen, and Turner (2002) found that the effectiveness of the Clery Act is questionable. They contend that a considerable problem with the Act is the difficulty in complying. Fisher et al. identified two primary reasons for this. First, there is confusion about crime reporting because the Clery Act does not include larceny, the most commonly occurring campus crime. The Uniform Crime Index includes larceny and therefore, law enforcement agencies must report it. The Clery Act does not include larceny and therefore campus crime statistics do not reflect accurate crime statistics. Because of this, they contend that accurate reporting of crime is confusing, as is understanding the complexities of the different crime databases (Fisher et al.). It is difficult for crime reporting authorities at colleges and universities, students and parents to get a true picture of campus crime. The second reason compliance is problematic is that it is difficult to understand the intersection between the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Clery Act (Rosenzweig, 2002). Commonly known as the Buckley Amendment, FERPA is designed to protect students’ privacy rights (Rosenzweig, 2002). Both FERPA and the Clery Act were designed to provide protection to students. However, Fisher et al. (2002) contend that the intersection of the two federal mandates makes it confusing for those charged with compliance. Gregory and Janosik (2002) concur, finding that crime reporting under the Clery Act is not easily understood and there are problems with implementation. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 Despite the complex, unclear reporting requirements, the federal government requires compliance. Institutions that do not comply risk steep fines and eligibility for continued participation in federal student aid programs. As the campus crime legislation evolves, with the most recent legislative amendment to the Clery Act taking place in 2003, the role of student affairs administrators as mandated reporting authorities, is becoming more complex. The Profession o f Student Affairs: Foundational Beliefs and Standards Student affairs professionals are educational service providers who work to make the student experience positive and to ensure that the campus environment is conducive to students’ personal, academic and social growth and development. This includes creating a pluralistic, collaborative, inclusive and safe campus environment (Love, 2003). Typically, departments aligned under the student affairs umbrella include: (a) admissions, (b) financial aid, (c) residence life, (d) new student orientation, (e) judicial affairs, (f) gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender services, (g) disabled student services, (h) international services, (i) veterans services, (j) graduate student services, (k) counseling centers, (1) advising centers, (m) career planning and placement centers, (n) alumni relations, and (o) other support or service programs provided for students (Love, 2003). In general, student affairs professionals work outside the classroom and provide a wide variety of services such as counseling, advising, program development, coordination and management, financial management, training, planning, assessment Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46 and teaching (Kellogg, 1999). As a result, student affairs professionals spend a great deal of time in “contact hours” or “face-time” providing direct services to students. The core beliefs and objectives of the student affairs profession can be captured in a few key publications that document the emerging complexities of the field. These include: Student Personnel Point of View, published in 1937 by the American Council on Education, Student Development in Tomorrow’s Higher Education: A Return to the Academy (1972), the COSPA statement (1975; A Perspective on Student Affairs (1986); The Student Learning Imperative (1993) and the Principles of Good Practice for Student Affairs (1998). The foundation of the profession is a dedication to contributing to the development of the student as a whole person. Core values of the profession include: helping students reach their full potential, accepting and appreciating individual difference, lifelong learning, freedom of expression with civility, civic education, pluralism and multiculturalism, and ethical practices that contribute to the betterment of society (Love, 2003). Although the core values of the profession remain the same, recent research and developmental theory has expanded the awareness of professional roles and responsibilities of student affairs administrators (Love, 2003). The Future o f the Profession As the profession has grown, professional organizations have emerged to provide resources, training, professional standards, and collegiality for student affairs professionals. The National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), the American College Personnel Association (ACPA) and the American Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 Association of Community Colleges (AACC) are among the most active and reputable of these organizations. As an emerging profession, the field of student affairs is continually evolving in an effort to meet the changing needs of students and to reflect transformations in society. The needs of college students of today are vastly different from those of students attending college 100 years ago or even 50 years ago. Changes in student needs, societal concerns, the economy and political agendas all influence student affairs work and professional practices (Love, 2003). New legislation has recently reshaped the role of student affairs professionals regarding compliance with the Clery Act, the focus of this study. How Student Affairs Administrators ’ Responsibilities Intersect with the Clery Act The Clery Act has had an impact on the student affairs profession because student affairs professionals have legal obligations under the Act. If student affairs professionals are not aware of or knowledgeable about the legislative mandates, they will not be able to comply with Clery legislation. Noncompliance could lead to severe consequences for students, staff and institutions. Failure to report crimes could cause students and staff to be more susceptible to crime because of a false sense of security on campus. Institutions found to be out of compliance with the Clery Act risk substantial fines and loss of eligibility to participate in federal programs. In their research on human performance and organizational effectiveness, Clark and Estes (2002) state that, “Everyone in the organization needs to know exactly what work goals they must accomplish to support the achievement of the organization’s most Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48 important goals” (p. 38). Clearly, there are important consequences tied to student affairs officers’ accurate performance in meeting the legislative guidelines. Using a Gap Analysis Framework Essentially, this study seeks to identify information about student affairs personnel’s performance related to the Clery Act. Therefore, it is appropriate to approach the data using a performance framework. Clark and Estes (2002) conclude that identifying the cause of a gap is essential to closing performance gaps. They identify three key factors that influence performance: (a) people’s knowledge and skills, (b) motivation to achieve the goal, and (c) organizational barriers that impede performance. Using the analogy of an automobile, Clark and Estes (2002) explain how these three factors work together in human performance. Knowledge is our engine and transmission system. Motivation is what energizes the system-fuel and the charge in our batteries. Organizational factors are the current road conditions that can make it easier or more difficult to get to your intended destination, (p. 43) All three of these elements must be aligned in order for someone to achieve performance goals. This study will apply the Clark and Estes (2002) framework for gap analysis, but will only focus on the knowledge component. The goal will be to determine if student affairs administrators have sufficient knowledge to accurately comply with the Clery Act. Clark and Estes (2002) contend that the first step in gap analysis is to find out what the people who do the work actually know. Once that information is available, it Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 is then possible to improve performance or redirect efforts in order to accomplish a goal. Often, people are unaware of or reluctant to disclose their lack of knowledge (Clark & Estes, 2002). Gap analysis can help determine whether people “know how (and when, what, why, where and who)” to achieve goals (p. 44). Uncovering potential knowledge gaps related to the Clery Act could yield important findings that will benefit the student affairs profession. There are three additional reasons that the gap analysis framework is best suited for this study. First, student affairs administrators are considered reporting authorities by the law. If there are significant gaps in knowledge of the Clery legislation and crimes go unreported, it could impact the safety of students and staff on college and university campuses. Second, if student affairs administrators do not know the law, they cannot fulfill reporting mandates. Noncompliance by student affairs professionals could lead to the federal government imposing severe penalties on institutions that fail to meet the mandates. Third, the study will identify trends and patterns in student affairs administrators’ personal and institutional characteristics and knowledge of the law. This will be useful in determining where professional development and training efforts should be focused. Clearly, student affairs administrators’ accurate performance in meeting the legislative guidelines is a high stakes issue. Conclusion The 1986 residence hall murder of Jeanne Clery brought the issue of campus safety to the nation’s attention and was the instigating factor for campus crime Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 legislation. Nearly 20 years later, colleges and universities across the country still face concerns about student safety. Despite the fact that college crime rates are lower than the nation’s average crime rates, statistics still provide a frightening picture of violence in what used to be considered safe havens for students. Student affairs administrators have the daunting responsibility of creating campus environments conducive to academic and personal growth for students. Student safety certainly falls within this realm of responsibilities. Passage of the Clery Act actually broadens the role of student affairs administrators to include crime reporting. It is essential that student affairs administrators know the Clery Act and understand how to comply in order for the full intent of the legislation to be realized. This study will determine the extent to which community college student affairs administrators are aware of and knowledgeable about the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security and Campus Crime Statistics Act. Because different people can have very different perceptions, knowledge and skills, despite having the same work goals, gap analysis will bring to light any relationships between administrators’ demographic characteristics and knowledge of the Act. The study will also provide information about how student affairs admini strators at 2-year institutions differ from those at 4-year institutions in the extent and accuracy of their knowledge about the Clery Act and its legislative mandates. Data gathered from the study will reveal whether student affairs administrators have sufficient knowledge of the Clery Act to fulfill their obligations as reporting authorities. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine the extent of community college student affairs professionals’ knowledge of the Clery Act and how administrators from 2-year colleges differed from their 4-year counterparts in knowledge of the Clery Act. The following two research questions guided the study: 1. To what degree are community college student affairs administrators knowledgeable about the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security and Campus Crime Statistics Act? 2. How does knowledge of the Clery Act differ between student affairs administrators at community colleges and student affairs administrators at 4-year institutions? The research design was a quantitative, nonexperimental study. A web-based survey was used to collect information regarding respondents’ characteristics, perceptions of campus safety and knowledge of the Clery Act. Research Design McMillan (2000) identified nonexperimental research as descriptive, correlational, comparative and causal comparative. The focus of this study was to explore and describe the relatively unknown area of community college student affairs administrators’ knowledge of and perceptions about the Clery Act. As such, the appropriate design was descriptive research. As Maxwell (2004) indicated, the benefit Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 of using this type of research is that it allows a researcher to examine trends and relationships in order to improve predications about behavior. The study identified community college student affairs professionals’ level of knowledge about the Clery Act and how this differed from student affairs administrators at 4-year institutions. Study findings led to suggestions for future professional development programs to improve student affairs practices and create safer campuses. Research Method Survey research was used in the study for three reasons: (a) ease of collecting appropriate data about the population, (b) timely turnaround and (c) cost efficiency. Using a survey allowed for accurate information about a large population to be collected from a small, representative sample (McMillian, 2000). Because the population of student affairs professionals across the country is large and because this study’s ultimate goal was to improve practices of the profession, survey research was the most practical method of gathering data for analysis. Also, given the short time frame and limited funding for the study, survey research was ideal. According to Creswell (2003), survey research is practical in both design and timely turnaround of data collection. Population The target population for the study was student affairs professionals employed at 2-year and 4-year higher education institutions across the United States. A delimiting variable was participation in at least one of three prominent student affairs professional associations: the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC); Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 the American College Personnel Association (ACPA); and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). These organizations were selected for the study because they provide reputable information, research, professional development and advocacy networks for student affairs professionals. Sample Membership in ACPA and NASPA is open to student affairs administrators or faculty members (including retired “Emeritus” members) at higher education institutions. NASPA boasts an “extensive network of more than 8,500 student affairs professionals, including over 3,000 senior decision-makers at the director level and above” (About NASPA, n.d.). Similarly, ACPA has nearly 8,000 members from approximately 1,500 private and public institutions from across the United States and internationally (About ACPA, n.d.). ACPA members include entry-level to senior- level student affairs professionals, faculty and even students enrolled in higher education graduate programs (About ACPA, n.d.). AACC serves members from 2-year institutions and has a roster with representation from approximately 95% of community colleges across the nation (Community College Fact Sheet, n.d.). The number of student services members in AACC is just over 1,000. Although this is significantly smaller than NASPA and ACPA student affairs memberships, AACC is the most prominent association for community college professionals and is thus likely to generate important, relevant findings. Therefore, all members of AACC who work in student services were included in the study (« = 1,084). These individuals were identified by their listing in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 the Student Services category of the AACC Membership Directory. In addition, all members of NASPA and ACPA were targeted for the study. As with AACC members, participants were identified through the membership directories of each association. Together, the student services professionals from AACC, NASPA and ACPA gave the study a total sample size of 13,474. Although NASPA and ACPA predomin ately consist of members from 4-year institutions, both are inclusive of student affairs officers employed at 2-year institutions. However, this was expected to be a significantly smaller portion each association’s total membership. Still, prior to developing the database of study participants from the three associations, membership rosters were cross-checked to prevent an individual with dual membership from receiving multiple surveys. From the combined databases of the three associations, a sample size of 13,474 was used for the study. Each participant received an e-mail that introduced the study and explained the purpose and procedures for participation (Appendix A). The study’s overall benefit and contribution to the student affairs profession was highlighted in the introductory e-mail in order to encourage responses. An option to decline participation was included and participants could request to be removed from the study database. The introductory e-mail explained that respondents would remain anonymous and responses would be confidential. A hyperlink indicating consent-to-participate was electronically linked to the survey. Participants who clicked the link were automatically connected to the survey, which they completed online. The online survey and responses were managed by SurveyMonkey, a web-based survey Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 management company. Throughout the survey, participants had the option to skip questions they chose not to answer. At any point, participants could have chosen to quit and exit the survey. Instrumentation A 53 item web-based survey (Appendix B) was used to collect data. Using a questionnaire was the appropriate choice for this type of study for the following reasons. 1. Surveys can reach a large sample population dispersed over a wide geographical area (McMillan, 2000). 2. Respondents can answer survey questions at their convenience (Neuman, 1997). 3. Respondents can be assured complete anonymity and thus be more likely to report negative or controversial information (Babbie, 2001). 4. Questionnaires eliminate the problem of ‘interviewer bias’ (Babbie, 2001). 5. Face-to-face, telephone or mail-out surveys would be too time consuming and costly. The survey consisted of the following sections: (a) demographic information, (b) perception of campus violence and awareness of the Clery Act, (c) knowledge of the Clery Act, (d) formal training regarding the Clery Act, (e) perceptions about campus crime disclosure, and (f) campus violence prevention programming. Questions were designed to elicit the following information from respondents: (a) personal Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 descriptors, (b) institutional characteristics, and (c) student affairs administrators’ level of knowledge and accuracy of knowledge about the Clery Act. Demographic questions collected information about respondents’ personal characteristics such as gender, length of time in the profession and administrative level. Questions about institutions identified characteristics about the particular campus at which a respondent was employed. Questions about the Clery Act collected data about respondents’ knowledge of the Act and the accuracy of their knowledge pertaining to the purpose, mandates and amendments of the Act. The training section questions identified how, when and through what source respondents received training regarding the Clery Act. Questions regarding perceptions about campus safety and disclosure of campus crimes were also included in the survey and data analysis. Of the 53 questions on the survey, 52 questions were closed-ended. One open- ended question at the conclusion of the survey gave participants an opportunity to provide more personalized and detailed information. In all questions, factors such as the presentation, content and length were considered in an effort to positively impact respondents’ attitude toward the survey and increase the response rate. The questions were asked in a practical, straight-forward manner so that respondents would not feel as if their competency was being challenged. Ideally, this reduced apprehension and helped respondents feel comfortable about completing the survey. Collectively, these efforts were designed to facilitate participants’ completion of the survey and improve the response rate. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 Lastly, the survey included questions to be analyzed in two additional research studies. The first of these focused on student affairs administrators at 4-year institutions. This study assessed the extent and accuracy of student affairs administrators’ knowledge of the Clery Act. Additionally, the study assessed how student affairs administrators learned of the Act. The second research study focused on the Clery Act with regard to campus sexual violence awareness and prevention programs. It analyzed responses to the survey questions about participants’ familiarity with campus efforts to address sexual assault security issues that are required by the Clery Act. In each of these two companion studies, questions on the survey were analyzed by other researchers. Specifically, questions 37 through 52 related to sexual assault awareness and prevention programming. Responses to these questions were not analyzed in this study and were deleted from the data prior to analysis. Thus, only data relevant to this study was described and explored in analysis. The credibility and academic nature of the study was established by using an e-mail address from University of Southern California. As discussed previously, the introductory e-mail (Appendix A) explained that the research was intended to benefit the student affairs profession. Researchers for all three studies were identified, as were their professional affiliations with the University of Southern California. Each researcher’s contact information was provided in the event that a participant wanted to verify the authenticity of the study. The introductory e-mail also connected participants to the survey’s web address and explained that the survey would only take approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. The fact that the survey was fairly short Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58 and took less than a half hour to complete probably contributed to participants’ choice to complete the survey. Validity and Reliability As indicated by Sommer & Sommer. (1997), the validity of questionnaires, or the degree to which they generate credible information, is typically lower than in other research methods such as observations or interviews. To ensure that the questions produced credible information, the content and structure of the survey was based on previous Clery Act research. With permission, questions from Clery Act researchers were used (Janosik, 2001; Janosik & Gehring, 2003; Janosik & Gregory, 2003). Questions regarding knowledge of the Clery Act were designed to assess respondents’ knowledge of the main goals of the Clery Act and the subsequent amendments. The content of these questions corresponded with information presented in Clery Act training programs offered jointly by AICLEA and NACUBO. The clarity and content of the survey were pilot tested by 20 student affairs administrators from several different institutions. They provided feedback about questions which they felt were vague. Using their feedback, modifications were made to help ensure the validity of the survey. Concerns about reliability were addressed by simply using the survey method research design. Using survey research increased reliability because all participants received the same e-mail and instructions. They simply checked a box to indicate their answer, thus reducing the possibility of researcher value judgments or biases. Because a web-based survey was used, participants received the e-mail on the same day and all Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59 had four weeks to complete it. According to McMillan (2000), establishing standard conditions such as these should have enhanced reliability. Despite these efforts, it was expected that reliability in this study would be somewhat lower than in other types of studies. Since this was a study of groups, a lower reliability rate (than that of studies of individuals) was tolerable (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). Data Collection Participants were selected from the membership rosters of NASPA, ACPA and AACC, organizations within the student affairs industry. The study sample included members from these organizations because many student affairs professionals are considered crime reporting authorities under the Clery Act. The combined membership of these organizations also represented the diversity of the student affairs profession, providing further justification for their selection. The relatively large membership of these organizations increased the likelihood that appropriate respondents of varying personal characteristics were reached. Participants’ e-mail addresses were obtained from each association’s membership directory and a study database was created. Student affairs professionals who did not list an e-mail address in their respective association’s directory were excluded from the study. Once the database was created, membership names in the categories of “faculty,” “emeritus,” “student,” or “affiliate” were eliminated from the study. The edited database was then combined and screened for duplicate e-mail addresses, since it was possible that some student affairs professionals belonged to more than one association. When this occurred, duplicates were deleted so that Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 participants did not receive multiple e-mails. All student services members with e-mail addresses (n - 1,084) of AACC were included in the study. All members of NASPA and ACPA with e-mail addresses were included, creating a total of 13,474 participants for the study. An e-mail that introduced the study and invited participation was mailed to participants on November 7, 2005. The e-mail directed participants to the hyperlink that connected them to the online survey. Participants were assured that their responses would remain anonymous and confidential. Finally, participants were asked to complete the survey within four weeks. Data Analysis The desired response rate for this study was twenty-five to thirty percent. According to Neuman (1997), an adequate response rate is a researcher’s judgment call based on the population, practical limitations and topic of the study. Response rates from similar surveys by Clery researchers Janosik, Gehring and Gregory were in the 30th percentile (Janosik, 2001; Janosik, & Gehring, 2003; Janosik & Gregory, 2003). Using this as a guide, a yield of at least 1,000 responses was expected. According to Babbie (2001), an adequate response rate for analysis may be 50%. However, with surveys, Neuman (1997) acknowledges that response rates are commonly between 10% and 50%. Given that this study was not sponsored by a professional organization, and student affairs administrators were not compensated for their time, results near the anticipated response rate, with at least 1,000 surveys returned, will be deemed satisfactory. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61 Using a web-based survey allowed for rapid, up-to-date data collection. Responses were collected weekly and descriptive statistics were used to analyze data. Survey questions gathered information about the following: personal characteristics of respondents, characteristics about the institution at which respondents were employed, and respondents’ awareness of the Clery Act, formal training regarding the Clery Act and knowledge of the Clery Act. There were six questions seeking personal demographic characteristics about respondents and three seeking institutional demographics. Information gathered from these was compared to responses from thirteen questions that measured respondents’ knowledge of the Clery Act. Descriptive statistics and response frequencies for questions were calculated. Chi-square tests were conducted to determine if there were significant differences in knowledge of the Clery Act between student affairs administrators at 2- year institutions and those at 4-year institutions. According to Pallant (2005), chi- square tests are appropriate for use with data measured on nominal scales, such as in this study. Pallant (2005) states that the chi-square test for independence is ideal for determining if two categorical variables are related. This nonparametric technique compares the “frequency of cases found in the various categories of one variable across the different categories of another variable” (Pallant, 2005, p. 287). Therefore, chi-square tests for independence were used to determine if there were significant differences between student affairs administrators at 2-year institutions and those at 4- year institutions. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62 Ethical Considerations This research study was undertaken in accordance with the research guidelines of the University of Southern California (USC). It was approved by the USC Institutional Review Board for Research on Human Subjects (IRB). Although no sensitive information was collected in this study, there was an initial concern that respondents might think that certain answers reflected (positively or negatively) on their employer or personal professional practices. To alleviate this concern, respondents were guaranteed confidentiality and the researcher was not able to individually identify the survey respondents. Guaranteeing confidentiality for respondents was an important feature of the study and probably increased the likelihood that respondents were honest. Participation in the research was entirely voluntary and consent was implied when participants choose to respond to the survey. Limitations Despite the advantages of using a web-based survey for this study, there were limitations that must be acknowledged. First, as indicated by Sekaran (2000) participants are not always willing to complete and return surveys. Consequently, a problem with using the survey was a potentially low response rate. Second, since researchers could not control the conditions under which respondents completed the survey, questions could have been misinterpreted. Finally, as sometimes happens in survey research, questions may have been answered by someone other than the targeted respondents (Neuman, 1997). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 There were two limitations of the study related to the participants. First, participants of the study were members of professional associations, and thus, it was not a true random sampling of student affairs professionals. Secondly, membership in AACC was much smaller than in ACPA and NASPA. Consequently, fewer responses were expected from student affairs administrators at 2-year institutions than from those at 4-year institutions. Summary Campus safety is an important issue for student affairs administrators at both 2-year and 4-year institutions across the country. To date, the Clery Act has been the most significant national legislation addressing the problem of campus safety and crime awareness. This relatively new legislation expanded the role of student affairs professionals to include campus crime reporting. This study provided important research that illuminated what student affairs professionals know about the Clery Act. It also provided descriptive information about how their personal characteristics correlated with accurate knowledge of this campus safety legislation. Additionally, the study provided the first research in the field that identified differences in the level of awareness and knowledge of the Clery Act between student affairs administrators at 2- year institutions and student affairs administrators at 4-year institutions. Greater knowledge and understanding around these issues will provide the basis for future efforts to improve professional practices, accuracy in campus crime reporting and crime prevention measures on campuses across the nation. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF DATA AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS Introduction In this chapter, information collected in the study is discussed as it relates to the research questions of the study. Participants’ individual characteristics including gender, years of experience in the student affairs profession, job function and administrative level are reported. The extent of participants’ awareness and knowledge of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act) is described. Responses from student affairs administrators at 2-year institutions are compared to responses from those working in 4-year institutions. Before the results are discussed, a description of how the study was conducted and data collected is provided. Characteristics o f Respondents and Excluded Data The web-based survey was emailed to participants, but over 1,000 emails were returned due to invalid addresses. For the 12,390 participants who received it, the survey was open for four weeks and generated 1,803 responses. Data were collected in SurveyMonlcey and then imported into an Excel database. Incomplete responses and records of respondents who began, but did not to complete the survey were deleted; thereby eliminating 288 cases. Eight cases were deleted because participants identified themselves as faculty, bringing the number of complete responses to 1,507. Reviewing responses also revealed that three survey questions had clearly been interpreted (and answered) differently by respondents. For example, question 3 asked Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 participants to write the enrollment of their institution, but did not specify how to derive and report the enrollment figure (i.e., undergraduate only or both graduate and undergraduate, reported in whole numbers, by thousands, rounded, etc.). The responses to this question were so varied that it was impossible to determine how each respondent interpreted the question. Therefore, this question was deleted from the database and responses were not included in analysis. Question 6 asked that respondents identified their primary job function. An open-ended response option was offered for respondents whose job function was not listed as an option. However, since open-ended responses were not analyzed in this study, all open-ended responses were assigned the numeric code 32, the category labeled “other job function.” Then, all open-ended responses were deleted. Only job functions that were listed as answer choices in the survey and given numeric codes for data analysis (i.e., admissions, housing, student life, other, etc.) were analyzed. Survey question 28 asked “If a student tells a student affairs administrator about the theft of a backpack from the university library, does that administrator have to report that as a campus crime?” This question was deleted because participants raised concerns about the intent of the question. If the backpack was left unattended, it would have been a crime of larceny and therefore, not a reportable offense under the Clery Act. However, if the backpack had been taken through burglary of the library or as part of an assault against a student, it would have been a reportable offense. Study participants indicated (through the open-ended response section of the survey) that they had difficulty determining the intent of the question and thus how to answer in a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 6 way that would accurately reflect their knowledge of the law. Consequently, it was determined that the question had been poorly constructed. Because of the question’s ambiguity, responses could not be considered valid so the question and responses were deleted. Finally, questions 37-52 were deleted because they did not relate to this study, but were analyzed by another researcher. After reviewing the data, 1,507 complete, usable responses from student affairs administrators at both 2-year and 4-year institutions remained and were imported into SPSS for analysis. Overall, this represented a 12.17% response rate from the sample. While lower than anticipated, this was within the response rates that Neuman (1997) considered common for surveys. Of the 1,507 responses, the majority of respondents (89.4%) were student affairs administrators from 4-year institutions. Given the significantly larger number in the sample (11,306 participants from 4-year institutions and 1,084 participants from 2- year colleges), this was not surprising. Of the 1,507 responses, 160 respondents identified as affiliated with community colleges (14.76% of the 1,084 represented in the study sample) and 1,347 respondents were affiliated with 4-year institutions (10.87% of the 11,306 represented in the study sample). While the overall response rate was lower than desired, response rates for the two targeted segments of the study population were similar. Considering Neuman’s (1997) assessment that response rates are a researcher’s judgment call, these response rates were deemed adequate for Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 generalizing results from a preliminary study of both groups to the larger population of student affairs administrators at 2-year and 4-year institutions. All respondents described their institutions as either public or private and 2- year or 4-year. The majority of respondents (54.1%) worked in public, 4-year institutions and the fewest respondents (1.2%) were from 2-year private institutions. The following table (Table 4) provides the breakdown of respondents by institutional classification. Table 4. Institution Classification Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Valid 2-year public 142 9.4 9.4 9.4 2-year private 18 1.2 1.2 10.6 4-year public 816 54.1 54.1 64.8 4-year private 531 35.2 35.2 100.0 Total 1,507 100.0 100.0 A higher percentage (62.8%, n = 946) of all respondents were female. Males represented 37% in - 558) of all respondents. Three transgender individuals (all from 4-year institutions) completed the survey, representing .2% of the sample. Other than the transgender respondents, the fewest respondents (n= 15) were males from 2-year institutions. The most respondents were females from 4-year institutions. The higher percentage of female respondents reflected the same percentage (62%) of female membership in NASPA, indicating that the sample was representative of the student affairs population (NASPA, e-mail February 9, 2006). While ACPA and AACC did not report gender percentages, it is assumed that their membership is similar. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68 Unexpectedly, 90.6% of respondents from 2-year institutions were female. It was assumed that the percentages of male and female respondents at 2-year institutions would be similar to the response rates of males and females from 4-year institutions. The chart (Table 5) below shows the number and percentage of respondents, categorized by gender and institutional classification. Table 5: Gender o f Respondents 2-year vs. 4-year Institutions Frequency Percent 2-year Female 145 90.6 Male 15 9.4 Transgender 0 0 Total 160 100.0 4-year Female 801 59.5 Male 543 40.3 Transgender 3 .2 Total 1,347 100.0 The differences in gender and administrative level between respondents from 2-year institutions and their 4-year counterparts were compared in Table 6. The pattern of responses from female and from male respondents in entry-level and mid-level positions at 2-year institutions was similar to the pattern from males and females in those positions at 4-year institutions. Although females made-up nearly 60% of respondents from 4-year institutions, there were considerably more males than females in senior-level positions. When considering job function, response rates across job categories were similar for respondents from 2-year and 4-year institutions. In both institutional Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 Table 6: Gender and Administrative Level Administrative level 2-year vs. 4-year institutions Entry level Mid level Director or manager level Senior student affairs officer Total 2-year Gender Female 53 46 31 14 144 Male 4 4 5 2 15 Transgender 0 0 0 0 0 Total 57 50 36 16 159 4-year Gender Female 292 262 183 58 795 Male 141 153 149 94 537 Transgender 3 0 0 0 3 Total 436 415 332 152 1,335 categories, the most respondents were from Residential Life/Housing Services. The fewest respondents were from Athletics, Financial Aid, and Commuter Services/Off- Campus Housing. Respondents from Dean of Student Services Offices were nearly equal with 12.6% from 2-year and 12.1% from 4-year institutions. Table 7 shows the representation of respondents in various job functions at 2-year and 4-year institutions. Respondents represented a diverse sample of entry-level and senior student affairs administrators, ranging from those with five or fewer years of work experience to those with more than 30 years in the field of student affairs. Gender representation at each level of experience was not surprising, except for the unexpected lack of male respondents with over 11 years of experience from 2-year institutions. Most respondents from both 2-year (49.4%) and 4-year institutions (41.6%) reported their work experience as entry-level, with 0-5 years in the profession. Mid-level professionals, those with 6-10 years of work experience, represented the next Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 Table 7. Job Type by Institution Type of institution 2-year 4-year Total Job Academic advising 8 71 79 Admissions 3 17 20 Assessment & research 1 24 25 Athletics 0 2 2 Campus safety 1 24 25 Career services 7 57 64 Student Union 1 18 19 Community services/service learning 2 15 17 Commuter services 2 2 4 Counseling & psychological services 4 18 22 Dean of Students Office 20 160 180 Dining services 1 23 24 Disability Support Services 1 5 6 Enrollment Management 0 27 27 Financial Aid 1 0 1 Fundraising or development 3 12 15 Graduate Student Services 5 26 31 Greek Affairs 1 11 12 Health Services 1 8 9 International Student Services 1 24 25 Judicial Affairs 2 17 19 Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender 2 15 17 services Multicultural student services 1 30 31 Orientation and new student programs 1 5 6 Residence life & housing 53 368 421 Registration services 16 81 97 Student activities 1 17 18 Women’s center 10 159 169 Other 10 84 94 Total 159 1,320 1,479 largest segment of respondents. As shown in the following table (Table 8), the fewest respondents were those with over 30 years of experience. Overall, the results yielded a sufficient distribution in respondents’ experience levels from new professionals to senior professionals within both 2-year and 4-year institutions. When these responses were represented in a bar chart (Figure 1), it clearly Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71 Table 8. Years o f Experience in Student Affairs and Gender Gender 2-year vs. 4-year institutions Female Male Transgender Total 2-year Experience 0-5 years 49.7% 46.7% 49.4% in student affairs 6-10 years 27.6% 53.3% 30.0% 11-20 years 15.9% 14.4% 21-30 years 6.2% 5.6% Over 30 years .7% .6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 4-year Experience 0-5 years 47.1% 33.1% 100.0% 41.6% in student affairs 6-10 years 22.2% 19.7% 21.2% 11-20 years 18.4% 23.6% 20.4% 21-30 years 10.4% 16.4% 12.8% Over 30 years 2.0% 7.2% 4.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 500 400 3 00 200 1 00 c = 3 5 o Type o f In s titu tio n Figure 1. Administrative Level by Institution Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 illustrated the similar distribution pattern of responses from student affairs administrators at 2-year and 4-year institutions. Results Related to Perceptions o f Violence and Awareness o f the Clery Act Participants’ perceptions of the problem of campus violence were nearly identical between student affairs administrators at 2-year institutions and those at 4-year institutions. Participants were consistent in their perception that violence was not a significant problem on their campuses. Sixty-seven percent of respondents from both 2-year and 4-year institutions reported that violence was a small or very small problem on their campuses. Only 3.8% of respondents from 2-year institutions and 4.2% from 4-year institutions considered violence a significant problem on their campuses. Results Related to Awareness o f the Clery Act and Crime Reporting Participants were asked if they were aware of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act. They were also asked three questions regarding the Clery Act and requirements for crime reporting: Do you consider yourself a crime reporter? Do you know how to report a campus crime specifically for Clery Act compliance? Have you ever reported a campus crime for the purpose of complying with any regulation? The following discussion and Table 9 provide a comparison between participants’ responses to these questions regarding awareness of the Clery Act and crime reporting. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 Table 9. Awareness o f the Clery Act and Knowledge Questions Regarding Crime Reporting Institution Aware of the Know they are Know how to Have reported a classification Clery Act crime reporters report a crime crime 2-year 85.0% 61.3% 47.5% 52.8% 4-year 83.3% 53.5% 49.4% 48.6% Responses revealed that 85% of professionals from 2-year institutions and 83.3% of those from 4-year institutions reported being aware of the Clery Act. While this percentage was high, the fact that at least 15% of student affairs professionals at 2-year and 4-year institutions did not know about the Clery Act was disconcerting, particularly because this legislation both addresses student and staff safety and includes severe consequences for an institution’s non-compliance. Furthermore, although over 80% of all respondents reported that they were aware of the law, only 61.3% of student affairs administrators at 2-year institutions and 53.5% from 4-year institutions considered themselves crime reporters. The Clery Act specifies student affairs professionals with “significant responsibility for student and campus activities” as crime reporting authorities (Public Law 101-542). This study included only student affairs professionals who worked in positions where they would satisfy that criteria. Thus, all respondents should have indicated that they are campus crime reporters. Only 47.5% of professionals at 2-year institutions and 49.4% at 4-year institutions knew how to report a campus crime. This indicated that they are not knowledgeable about the crime reporting requirements of the law. Additionally, only Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 52.8% of student affairs professionals from 2-year institutions and 48.6% from 4-year institutions had ever reported a crime for the purposes of complying with the Clery Act. While most student affairs administrators from both 2-year and 4-year institutions reported being familiar with the Clery Act, only 30.3% of respondents from 2-year and 31.8% from 4-year institutions reported that they knew the specifics of the Act and its amendments. To rate their level of awareness of the Clery Act, respondents were given the choices: (a) not at all aware of it, (b) have heard of it, but do not know the details, (c) somewhat familiar with the Act, (d) very familiar with the Act and its amendments, and (e) extremely knowledgeable about the Act and use it daily. Further evidence that student affairs administrators were not fully aware of the Act was the fact that 10.6% of respondents from 2-year and 9.2% from 4-year institutions reported having only a vague awareness (answer choice B) of the Act. Seven percent of administrators from 2-year institutions and 5.4% from 4-year institutions used the Clery Act on a regular basis (answer choice E). Over 200 respondents chose not to answer this question. Table 10 reflects these dismal findings regarding awareness and knowledge-levels among student affairs administrators at both 2-year and 4-year institutions. Results Related to Crime Statistics In addition to a general lack of awareness of the law, student affairs administrators at both 2-year and 4-year institutions demonstrated insufficient knowledge of key components of the legislation. Tables 11,12 and 13 provide Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 Table 10. Level ofAwareness o f the Clery Act 2-year vs. 4-year institutions Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent 2-year Valid Not aware 4 2.5 2.8 2.8 Vague awareness 15 9.4 10.6 13.4 Familiar with Act 70 43.8 49.3 62.7 Know the Act & 43 26.9 30.3 93.0 amendments Use the Act daily 10 6.3 7.0 100.0 Total 142 88.8 100.0 Missing System 18 11.3 Total 160 100.0 4-year Valid Not aware 34 2.5 2.9 2.9 Vague awareness 106 7.9 9.2 12.1 Familiar with Act 586 43.5 50.7 62.9 Know the Act & 367 27.2 31.8 94.6 amendments Use the Act daily 62 4.6 5.4 100.0 Total 1,155 85.7 100.0 Missing System 192 14.3 Total 1,347 100.0 Table 11. Knowledge Questions Regarding Crime Statistics 2-year institutions 4-year institutions Yes No Don’t know Yes No Don’t know Are crime statistics public 85% 0 15.0% 90.9% .4% 8.7% Know how to access crime statistics 81.9% 18.1% N/A 84.2% 15.4% N/A evidence that a significant percentage of student affairs administrators were not knowledgeable about intent of the initial legislation, as well as the subsequent amendments. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76 Table 12. Knowledge Questions Regarding Crime Notification and Perceptions about Hiding Crime 2-year institutions 4-year institutions Yes No Don’t know Yes No Don’t know Campus notification after 71.9% 15.6% 11.3% 67.3% 17.6% 13.6% a cnme occurs Does anyone try to hide campus crime 5.6% 70.6% 23.8% 4.5% 74.8% 20.3% Most student affairs administrators knew that their institutions’ crime statistics were public information, a key component of the Clery Act legislation (Table 11). Fifteen percent of professionals from 2-year institutions and 8.7% of those from 4-year institutions reported that they did not know if their institutions’ crime statistics were available to the public. Over 80% of student affairs administrators from 2-year and 4-year institutions reported that they knew how to access their institutions’ crime statistics (Table 11). Although this was a high percentage, the fact that more than 15% of student affairs administrators from both 2-year and 4-year institutions did not know how to find their campus crime statistics was surprising. Results Related to Campus Notification and Perceptions that Officials Hide Crime As shown in Table 12, 71.9% of respondents from 2-year institutions and 67.3% from 4-year institutions indicated that their employers complied with the Clery Act by providing timely notification to the campus community after a crime occurred. Less than 6% of student affairs professionals at both 2-year and 4-year institutions believed Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77 Table 13. What Officials Hide Crimes that Occur on Campus 2-year vs. 4-year institutions Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent 2-year Valid Presidents 4 2.5 7.7 7.7 Public affairs/develop ment officers 1 .6 1.9 9.6 Campus police officers 2 1.3 3.8 13.5 Deans of Students 1 .6 1.9 15.4 Admissions Officers 2 1.3 3.8 19.2 Does not believe anyone hides crime 42 26.3 80.8 100.0 Missing Total Total System 52 108 106 32.5 67.5 100.0 100.0 4-year Valid Presidents 17 1.3 3.1 3.1 Public affairs/develop ment officers 17 1.3 3.1 6.2 Campus police officers 10 .7 1.8 8.1 Deans of Students 16 1.2 2.9 11.0 Admissions Officers 11 .8 2.0 13.0 Does not believe anyone hides crime 474 35.2 87.0 100.0 Missing Total Total System 545 802 1,347 40.5 59.5 100.0 100.0 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78 that officials on their campuses tried to keep the nature and extent of campus crime from becoming public information (Table 12). A significant percentage of student affairs administrators from both 2-year (23.8%) and 4-year (20.3%) institutions reported that they did not know if officials at their respective institutions attempted to hide crimes that occurred on campus. When asked what officials were most likely to hide crime, responses from 2- year and 4-year professionals were similar (Table 13). The majority of respondents indicated that they did not believe anyone tried to conceal occurrences of crimes on their campuses. Although by small percentages, presidents, deans of students and admissions officers were reported as officials considered responsible for concealing information about campus crimes. As Table 13 depicts, over half of respondents from both 2-year and 4-year institutions declined to answer this question. Results Related to FERPA In addition to the previously discussed finding regarding campus crime and crime notification, respondents were asked three questions related to the Family Educational Right to Privacy Act (FERPA). The Clery Act and FERPA intersect around the issue of disclosing the outcome of student sexual assault disciplinary hearings and students’ right to privacy regarding campus law enforcement records. Nearly all respondents from both 2-year institutions (98.7%) and 4-year institutions (98.4%) were aware of FERPA (Table 14). When asked about disclosing the outcome of a sexual assault student disciplinary hearing to the victim, 62.5% of respondents from 2-year institutions and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 14. Awareness o f FERPA and Knowledge Question about FERPA 79 2-year institutions 4-year institutions Yes No Yes No Aware of FERPA FERPA violation 98.7% 20.6% 1.3% 62.5% 98.4% 25.9% 1.6% 53.3% 53.3% from 4-year institutions knew that it is not a violation of the Clery Act. Unfortunately, 20.6% of student affairs administrators from 2-year and 25.9% from 4- year institutions incorrectly believed that this was a violation of the Act. Results Related to Hate Crimes, Crime Logs and Crime Convictions Student affairs administrators at both 2-year and 4-year institutions were not well-informed about other issues related to campus crime and students’ rights. Three questions were asked to gauge this: Are hate crimes included in the Clery Act legislation? Are universities required by law to make campus crime logs open to the general public? Does someone have to be convicted of a crime before it is reported under the Clery Act? Responses to these questions are outlined in Table 15, which follows the summary below. Only 51.9% of respondents from 2-year institutions and 55.7% of respondents from 4-year institutions knew that hate crimes are included in the Clery Act legislation. Forty percent of student affairs administrators from 2-year institutions and 36% of those from 4-year institutions reported that they did not know whether hate crimes were included in the Clery Act. Another 8.1% of administrators from 2-year Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 15. Knowledge Questions about Clery Act 80 2-year Institutions 4-year Institutions Yes No Don’t know Yes No Don’t know Are hate crimes included 51.9% 8.1% 40.0% 55.7% 7.6% 36.0% Do institutions have to make crime logs public 73.8% 6.9% 19.4% 75.1% 7.0% 17.9% Is a conviction required .6% 72.5% 26.9% 2.9% 71.2% 25.8% institutions and 7.6% of their 4-year counterparts answered incorrectly, believing that hate crimes are not included in the Clery Act. Since this was one of the most recent changes to the law, this indicates that there is a need for additional training and professional development. With regard to crime logs, 73.8% of student affairs administrators at 2-year institutions and 75.1% from 4-year institutions correctly reported that institutions are required to make crime logs available to the public (Table 15). Dismally, 19.4% of respondents from 2-year institutions and 17.9% from 4-year institutions did not know this important requirement of the Clery Act. A small percentage (6.9% from 2-year and 7% from 4-year institutions) incorrectly answered that question, believing that campus crime logs are not available to the public. When asked about convictions, 72.5% of respondents from 2-year institutions and 71.2% from 4-year institutions correctly indicated that convictions are not required for a crime to be included in Clery Act crime reports (Table 15). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 Disturbingly, 27.5% of student affairs administrators from 2-year institutions and 28.7% from 4-year institutions did not know the answer or incorrectly answered this question, indicating a significant lack of knowledge among professionals who are considered crime reporting authorities under the legislation. Results Related to Compliance: Private Institutions Finally, participants were asked two questions to determine their knowledge of the scope of the Clery Act. The first of these was: Does the Clery Act legislation apply to private higher education institutions? A much higher percentage of respondents from 2-year institutions (81.9%) than from 4-year institutions (67%) knew that the Clery Act applied to both private and public institutions. As Table 16 shows, a significant percentage of respondents from both 2-year (18.1%) and 4-year (33%) institutions did not know the answer, or incorrectly answered this question. Results Related to Compliance: Two-Year Institutions The second question about the scope of the Clery Act was: Do 2-year institutions have to comply with the Clery Act? Responses to this question (Table 17) made it clear that respondents’ knowledge about scope of the Clery Act was limited. Over a third of respondents from both 2-year (38.8%) and 4-year (34.2%) institutions did not know the answer to this question. This was surprising because 2-year institutions face the same consequences for non-compliance as do 4-year institutions. Since 38.8% of 2-year student affairs professionals did not know whether the legislation applied to them, it raised concern about their institutions’ compliance with the law and accuracy of institutional crime statistics. No respondents from 2-year Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 Table 16. Do Private Institutions Have to Comply With the Clery Act? 2-year vs. 4-year institutions Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent 2-year Valid Yes 131 81.9 81.9 81.9 No 4 2.5 2.5 84.4 Don’t know 25 15.6 15.6 100.0 Total 160 100.0 100.0 Missing System Total 4-year Valid Yes 892 66.2 67.0 67.0 No 54 4.0 4.1 71.1 Don’t know 385 28.6 28.9 100.0 Total 1,331 98.8 100.0 Missing System 16 1.2 Total 1,347 100.0 Table 17. Do 2-year Institutions Have to Comply with the Clery Act? 2-year vs. 4-year institutions Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent 2-year Valid Yes 98 61.3 61.3 61.3 No 0 0 0 0 Don’t know 62 38.8 38.8 100.0 Total 160 100.0 0.0 0.0 Missing System Total 4-year Valid Yes 864 64.1 65.1 65.1 No 3 .2 .2 65.3 Don’t know 461 34.2 34.7 100.0 Total 1,328 98.6 100.0 Missing System 19 1.4 Total 1,347 100.0 institutions and only three respondents from 4-year institutions answered the question incorrectly. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83 Results Regarding Respondents' Experiences with Training About the Clery Act Study participants were asked whether they had received training regarding the Clery Act, if they felt they needed more training, and whether or not they perceived that their colleagues needed training about the Act. As Table 18 depicts, a lack of training appeared to be the cause for student affairs administrators’ poor performance on the knowledge assessment questions. Only 10.7% of student affairs administrators from 2-year institutions and 11.4% from 4-year institutions reported that they had received sufficient training about the Clery Act. Notably, 57.2% of student affairs administrators from 2-year and 59.9% from 4- year institutions indicated that they needed significant training regarding the Act. Another 32.1% from 2-year institutions and 28.7% from 4-year institutions indicated that they needed a refresher course regarding the Act. Table 18. Student Affairs Administrators and Training Regarding the Clery Act Perceptions about the need for training 2-year institutions 4-year institutions Believe they have sufficient training 10.7% 11.4% Believe they need a refresher course 32.1% 28.7% Need significant training 57.2% 59.9% Believe colleagues have sufficient training 5.7% 4.3% Believe colleagues need a refresher course 14.0% 17.2% Believe colleagues need significant training 80.3% 78.5% In addition to reporting their need for training, 80.3% of respondents from 2-year institutions and 78.5% from 4-year institutions also believed that their Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 colleagues needed significant training about the Clery Act. Only 5.7% of respondents from 2-year institutions and 4.3% from 4-year institutions believed that their colleagues had received sufficient training regarding the Act. Table 18 provides a summary of responses regarding the level of training received and the reported need for additional training. Results Regarding Respondents' Preferences for Training about the Clery Act Clearly, student affairs professionals felt that there was a considerable need for training regarding the Clery Act. When given options about the types of training professionals would utilize, preferences for training options were similar between respondents from 2-year institutions and those from 4-year institutions (see Table 19). Student affairs administrators from both 2-year and 4-year institutions chose on- campus workshops and web-based trainings as their preferred training formats. Similarly, they reported their least preferred formats were compliance manuals or campus safety audits. Table 19. Preferred Type of Training Preferred Type of Training on the Clery Act 2-year institutions 4-year institutions On-campus workshop 78.1% 72.4% Online training 48.1% 55.2% Professional conference 25.6% 24.9% Compliance manual 23.1% 24.3% On-campus safety audit 10.6% 12.4% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 Where Did Student Affairs Administrators Learn About the Clery Act? Though the majority of respondents did not consider themselves sufficiently knowledgeable about the Clery Act, over 80% (as previously reported in Table 9) reported at least having an awareness of the Act. When student affairs administrators were asked where they learned about the Clery Act (Table 20), 49.2% of respondents from 2-year institutions and 40.7% from 4-year institutions reported that it was through their masters-level graduate programs. Professional conferences were identified by 33.8% of respondents from 2-year institutions and 35.6% from 4-year institutions as the second most common method of learning about the Clery Act. Findings o f Chi-Square Tests for Statistically Significant Differences between Respondents from 2-year and 4-year Institutions Regarding the Variables The Pearson chi-square test for independence requires that in order to be statistically significant, the value must be .05 or smaller, with no violations of minimum expected cell frequency (Pallant, 2005). Conducting chi-square tests on the variables revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between student affairs administrators at 2-year institutions and those at 4-year institutions with regard to: perceptions of violence on campus, awareness of the Clery Act, perceptions that campus officials attempt to hide crime, and knowledge questions about the Clery Act. The only statistically significant finding indicated by chi-square tests was regarding private institutions and the Clery Act. When asked if the Clery Act applied to private institutions, 81.9% of 2-year respondents and 67% of respondents from Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86 4-year institutions responded correctly. The chi-square test found a significance level Table 20. Where Did Student Affairs Administrators Learn About the Clery Act? 2-year vs. 4-year institutions Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent 2-year Valid Graduate 64 40.0 49.2 49.2 School (Masters) Graduate 3 1.9 2.3 51.5 School (Doctorate) Professiona 1 44 27.5 33.8 85.4 1 conference Campus in- 19 11.9 14.6 100.00 service Total 130 81.3 100.0 Missing System 30 18.8 Total 160 100.0 4-year Valid Graduate 428 31.8 40.7 40.7 School (Masters) Graduate 29 2.2 2.8 43.4 School (Doctorate) Professiona 1 375 27.8 35.6 79.1 1 conference Campus in- 220 16.3 20.9 100.0 service Total 1,052 78.1 100.0 Missing System 295 21.9 Total 1,347 100.0 of .001 between the groups, indicating a statistically significant finding. Table 21 indicates the outcomes of chi-square tests conducted to identify relationships between 2-year and 4-year respondents and study variables related to knowledge of the Clery Act. Keeping in mind Pallant’s (2005) instruction that chi-square results must be .05 or lower to be significant, it was clear that the differences between respondents were Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 not statistically significant. As shown in Table 21, the results of chi-square tests for these variables were all above .05 and thus, not statistically significant. Table 21. Chi-Square Tests fo r Statistical Significance between 2-year Respondents and 4-year Respondents Regarding Knowledge o f the Clery Act Are aware of the Clery Act .680 Do campus officials try to hide crimes Know they are considered crime reporters .067 that occur Know FERPA violations related to victims’ rights .452 .087 Know how to report a crime for Are hate crimes included in the Clery .543 Clery Act compliance .816 Act Have reported a crime for Must institutions make crime logs .902 compliance with a regulation .311 public Know how to access their campus crime statistics .377 Is a conviction required for a crime to be reported .234 Is there campus notification after a crime occurs .513 Do 2-year institutions have to comply with Clery .511 Summary Although the overall the response rate to the survey was lower than expected, the total yield of 1,507 responses was considered adequate for identifying important information about the research questions. It was satisfying to see that the percentage of 2-year respondents to the sample was similar to the percentage of 4-year respondents to the sample. Other than the overall response rates, the demographics of respondents were not surprising. In both groups, more females than males responded. This was expected given the gender representation of the student affairs profession. Of respondents from both 2-year and 4-year institutions, most respondents worked in public rather than private institutions. The pattern of respondents at Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88 different administrative levels from both groups was nearly identical, reflecting an even dispersion of entry-level, mid-level and senior level administrators between the groups. Additionally, respondents working in various jobs or administrative departments were almost equally distributed between those from 2-year and those from 4-year institutions. The high percentage of respondents from Residence Life/Housing Services at 4-year institutions was expected since housing services are prevalent on 4-year campuses. There were no significant differences in perceptions of violence on campus between student affairs administrators at 2-year and 4-year institutions. The majority of all respondents believed that violence was a small problem. There was less than a 2% difference in awareness of the Clery Act between the two groups. When asked questions that tested their knowledge of the Clery Act, there was less than a 10% (and often less than a 5%) difference in responses from student affairs administrators at 2-year institutions and those at 4-year institutions. Both groups clearly indicated that they and their colleagues needed training about the Clery Act. Responses from both groups indicated that training is critically needed regarding issues of institutional compliance with the Clery Act and regarding the inclusion of hate crimes in the Act. Finally, both groups identified similar preferences for the type of training they would find most useful. The following chapter will provide additional discussion of these findings, suggestions for future research and implications for improving professional practices. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE Overview o f the Problem Each year, violent and nonviolent crimes occur on 2-year and 4-year college campuses across the nation, causing student safety to be an important concern for college administrators, parents and students. In 1990, the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act became the most comprehensive federal legislation to address the issue of violence on college campuses. The Clery Act became law as a result of advocacy efforts initiated by the parents of slain college student Jeanne Clery. The Act’s primary purpose is to make campus crime statistics public so that students across the country can make informed decisions about college choice and their safety while on campus. All educational institutions that participant in federal student aid programs are required to comply with the Clery Act. According to the Act, campus officials must inform the campus community and the public about crime, keep records of crime statistics, and implement safety awareness and crime prevention efforts. Non-compliance with the Act can lead to steep fines or possibly an institution’s loss of eligibility for federal student aid programs. Therefore, in addition to a sincere concern for student safety, campuses have a compelling fiduciary reason for complying with the law. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90 The Clery Act specifies those with significant student contact hours to be crime reporting authorities (Public Law 101-542). Therefore, student affairs administrators should know the law and how to comply with it. However, the extent that student affairs administrators were aware of the Clery legislation and their professional responsibilities for complying with it were unknown. Additionally, previous research on the Clery Act primarily dealt with legal issues rather than the role of campus crime reporters. Of the few studies examining the issue of crime reporting, none researched personnel at 2-year institutions. Therefore, this study provided important insights about student affairs administrators from 2-year institutions and their knowledge of the Clery Act. Purpose o f the Study The purpose of the study was to determine the extent to which community college student affairs administrators were aware of and knowledgeable about the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security and Campus Crime Statistics Act. Additionally, the study sought information about how student affairs administrators at 2-year institutions differed from those at 4-year institutions in the extent and accuracy of their knowledge of the Clery Act and its legislative mandates. Summary o f Findings Related to the Research Questions At first glance, the study’s findings seemed positive because 85% of student affairs administrators from 2-year institutions reported that they were aware of the Clery Act. Similarly, 83.3% of respondents from 4-year institutions reported that they were aware of the Act. However, when administrators were asked to rate their level of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 awareness, only 49.3% of professionals from 2-year and 50.7% from 4-year institutions considered themselves familiar with the Act. Merely 30.3% of respondents from 2-year institutions and 31.8% of those from 4-year institutions reported knowing both the Act and its amendments. Clearly, there was little difference in how student affairs administrators from 2-year institutions and those from 4-year institutions rated their awareness of the Act. Unfortunately, this indicated that a sizeable percentage of student affairs administrators were not well informed about the Clery Act. Disturbingly, 15% of student affairs administrators at 2-year and 16.7% at 4-year institutions reported that they were not even aware of the Act. It is shocking that at least 15% of professionals currently working in student affairs did not even know about this important campus safety legislation. Study participants were drawn from associations that conscientious professionals join to further educate themselves. If administrators who have the personal ethics to join professional associations and care enough about research in the profession that they would answer a survey did not know about the Act, it is likely that there is a larger pool of student affairs personnel who also do not know about the Clery Act. This is certainly cause for concern and indicates that efforts to increase awareness are urgently needed. Following are discussions of study results that support the conclusion that training about the Clery Act is needed at both 2-year and 4-year institutions across the country. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92 Crime Reporting and Crime Statistics Nearly 40% of student affairs administrators from 2-year institutions did not know that they were campus crime reporting authorities under the Clery Act. Less than half (47.5%) knew how to report a crime specifically for compliance with the Act. Considering that so many community college student affairs administrators did not consider themselves crime reporters and nearly half did not know how to report a crime, it was not surprising that only 52.8% had ever reported a crime. Additionally, 15% of community college student affairs administrators did not know that their institutions’ crime statistics were public information. Only 18.9% of 2-year respondents knew how to access crime statistics. In each of these questions, there was less than a 10% difference in responses between student affairs professionals from 2- year institutions and those from 4-year institutions. These study results indicated that training at the local institutional level is needed so that student affairs professionals know how to access crime statistics and can accurately report campus crimes at their institutions. If student affairs administrators are aware that crime statistics are public information and know how to access these statistics, they might become better informed about the true picture of crime and student safety on their campuses. Campus Notification o f Crimes and Perceptions o f Attempts to Hide Crimes Sixteen percent of student affairs administrators at 2-year institutions reported that their campus officials did not provide timely notification of crime occurrences to the campus community. Six percent of community college respondents believed that Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 officials on their campuses attempted to conceal incidents of crime from the public. When asked what officials they thought concealed crimes, respondents identified campus presidents, deans of students and public affairs/development officers as those most likely to do so. Regarding campus notification after a crime and the belief that officials might try to conceal crimes, there was less than a 5% difference in responses between administrators from 2-year institutions and those from 4-year institutions. Interestingly, respondents from both 2-year and 4-year institutions identified presidents, deans of students and public affairs/development officers as those most likely to conceal crime. The intent of the Clery Act legislation was to make campus crime information public so that students and campus constituents could make informed choices about their safety. Sixteen percent of community college student affairs professionals and 17% of respondents from 4-year institutions did not think their campuses conducted timely notification after crimes occurred. Additionally, 6% of respondents from 2-year institutions and 5% from 4-year institutions perceived that campus officials attempted to hide crimes that occurred on campus. These findings cause concern for two reasons. First, failing to provide timely notification of crimes and concealing crimes are violations of the Clery Act. Institutions could be fined or lose eligibility to participate in federal student aid programs for noncompliance. Secondly, and importantly, concealing information about campus crime has serious implications for the safety of students, faculty and staff. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 FERPA and FERPA Violations Nearly all respondents (99% from 2-year institutions and 98% from 4-year institutions) were aware of FERPA. However, 21% of respondents from 2-year institutions and 26% from 4-year institutions incorrectly thought that it is a violation of FERPA for a student affairs administrator to reveal the outcome of a sexual assault disciplinary hearing to the victim. Considering the sensitive nature of a sexual assault disciplinary hearing, it is unfortunate that so many student affairs professionals were not aware of legalities regarding a victim’s right to know the outcome. Training about this issue is clearly needed in order for student affairs administrators to provide assistance to victims who want to know the outcomes of disciplinary hearings. Hate Crimes, Crime Logs and Convictions Forty percent of student affairs administrators from 2-year institutions did not know whether hate crimes were included in the Clery Act. Eight percent incorrectly answered that hate crimes were not included in the Act. Additionally, 26.3% did not know that institutions were required to make crime logs public and 27.5% did not know that a conviction is not required for a crime to be reported under the Clery Act. There was less than a 10% difference between responses to each of these questions by student affairs administrators at 2-year institutions and their 4-year counterparts. The significance of these study results is that these questions were asked to test respondents’ knowledge of the Clery Act. The results indicated that a large portion of student affairs administrators at both 2-year and 4-year institutions did not know the extent of the law. Of particular concern was the fact that many student affairs Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 administrators did not know that hate crimes are included in the Act. This raised the concern that campus crime statistics may not accurately reflect the number of incidents that occur. Institutions Included in the Clery Act Eighteen percent of student affairs administrators from 2-year institutions and 33% from 4-year institutions did not know that private institutions are required to comply with the Clery Act. Only 61% of student affairs administrators at 2-year institutions knew that community colleges were included in the legislation. It is appalling that 39% of community college professionals did not know that the Clery Act applied to their institutions. Responses to this question from student affairs administrators at 4-year institutions were nearly identical. Sixty-five percent of respondents from 4-year institutions knew that 2-year institutions were included the Act, while 35% did not know that the legislation included community colleges. These findings call into question the accuracy of campus crime statistics at public and private, 2-year and 4-year institutions. Student affairs professionals should be made aware of the fact that the Clery Act applies to 2-year and 4-year, as well as public and private institutions in order to improve compliance, crime reporting and campus safety measures. Findings Related to Training Regarding training about the Clery Act, 57% of student affairs administrators from 2-year institutions reported that they needed significant training. Interestingly, 80% of 2-year respondents reported that their colleagues needed significant training Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 about the Act. Only 11% of 2-year respondents believed they had received sufficient training. Merely 6% believed their colleagues had received sufficient training regarding the Clery Act. In all questions regarding the need for training about the Clery Act, responses by student affairs administrators from 2-year institutions differed from their 4-year counterparts by less than five percent. Chi-square tests revealed that there were no statistically significant differences in responses about training between respondents from 2-year institutions and those from 4-year institutions. With regard to the type of training preferred, most student affairs professionals at both 2-year and 4-year institutions preferred either an on-campus workshop or an on-line training program. Ranking their preferences for training formats, they next preferred a professional conference, a compliance manual and lastly, a campus safety audit. Student affairs administrators from 2-year institutions ranked their preferences for training the same as those from 4-year institutions. Key Findings o f the Study The study produced three key findings regarding awareness and knowledge of the Clery Act among student affairs administrators from 2-year institutions and those from 4-year institutions. 1. Most student affairs administrators at 2-year institutions are aware of the Clery Act, but few are knowledgeable about requirements of the legislation. 2. There is little difference in knowledge of the Clery Act between student affairs administrators at 2-year institutions and those at 4-year institutions. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97 3. Student affairs administrators at 2-year and 4-year institutions believe they and their colleagues need training regarding the Clery Act. Limitations o f the Study Limitations of the study dealt with the sample and the survey instrument. First, only members of professional associations were selected for the study. Though this convenience sample made it easy to identify participants, it may have biased the study. Participants who join professional organizations are more likely to pursue professional development and thus be more knowledgeable about industry issues than those who do not. Another limitation of the sample was the low number of community college student affairs administrators in the study. While AACC is the most prominent association representing 2-year institutions, there were only 1,084 student affairs administrators in the membership directory. In contrast, there were 12,390 student affairs administrators from 4-year institutions included in the sample because they were in the directories of NASPA and ACPA. Though the response rates for each group (10.6% of 2-year and 10.87% of 4-year administrators) were about the same, conclusions about responses from those at 2-year institutions were drawn from a much smaller number of respondents. Though the response rate to the survey could be considered be considered a limitation, the sizeable number of responses (1,507) still provided considerable data for analysis. With regard to the survey, length and clarity were limiting factors. Since many participants began the study, but quit before finishing, it was assumed that the survey Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98 was too long. Despite the fact that the survey was pilot-tested to improve validity, some questions were problematic. As discussed in Chapter Three, two questions about the Clery Act were eliminated because participants were unclear about the intent of the questions and thus, how to appropriately answer them. If these had been more clearly constructed, additional data about specific points of Clery Act legislation would have been collected from respondents. Recommendations for Improving Professional Practices The extent of crime on college campuses is more prevalent than studies show due to under-reporting. Baum and Klaus (2005) and Sloan, Fisher, and Cullen (1997) suggested that all campus crimes, including violent and nonviolent offenses, were under-reported. Additionally, most campus crime research has focused on 4-year institutions, leaving data about crime at 2-year institutions noticeably absent (Bromley, 1999). Given that the community college system represents the largest and fastest growing sector of higher education, this is cause for concern. The findings of this study provide data about factors that likely contribute to inaccurate and missing campus crime statistics. Despite their predominately nonresidential campuses and high population of nontraditional students, community colleges are obligated to follow the Clery Act legislation, just as are residential, 4-year universities with traditional undergraduate populations. Thus, student affairs professionals at both 2-year and 4-year institutions are considered campus crime reporting authorities under the Clery Act. The anticipated finding of this study was that administrators at 2-year institutions would Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 differ in knowledge of the Clery Act from administrators at 4-year institutions. This was hypothesized because of the fact that there are typically more residence life/housing options at 4-year institutions and the National Center for Education Statistics (1997) reported that institutions with housing were more likely to report both violent and property crimes than were institutions without housing. Since this study found that there was little difference in knowledge of the Clery Act between the two groups, it suggests that knowledge deficiencies regarding the Act are due to a lack of training rather than institution type. The results of this study clearly indicate that professional development is urgently needed for student affairs administrators at both 2-year and 4-year institutions across the country. If student affairs administrators who are campus crime reporting authorities do not fully know the law and their responsibilities, then it is likely that some campus crimes go unreported and campus statistics do not provide an accurate picture of the nature and extent of crime. Efforts to address this problem through educating student affairs administrators should begin immediately. Following are recommendations for improving awareness and knowledge of the Clery Act through efforts by local institutions, professional associations and the federal government. Considering that at least 15% of student affairs administrators at 2-year and 4- year institutions were not aware of the Clery Act, efforts should be made to address this through human resource departments. The Clery Act requires that information about campus crime statistics and how to access those statistics be made available to all employees. Therefore, human resource departments should improve how they Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100 disseminate this information. Typically, new hires are inundated with paperwork, brochures and documents related to campus facilities, resources and policies for employment. Information about the Clery Act is likely to be lost or overlooked. Efforts should be made to make campus safety issues and Clery Act compliance a more visible, participatory part of hiring procedures. Additionally, management at institutions should extend their educational efforts about the Clery Act to include not just new hires, but all student affairs administrators. This would address the need for training of personnel who may not be new to the profession, but may be new to a position where they would become a reporting authority. Over 70% of respondents from both 2-year and 4-year institutions indicated that they would most likely utilize a campus in-service program to learn about the Act. Therefore, in-service programs should be developed to address the Clery Act legislation and provide information and policies specific to each institution. Student affairs professionals could then gain a broad understanding of the legislation and learn practical information (i.e., how to report a crime or campus boundaries included for compliance) to effectively fulfill their responsibilities as crime reporting authorities at their particular institutions. Only 33.8% of student affairs professionals from 2-year institutions and 35.6% from 4-year institutions cited professional associations as a knowledge source for the Clery Act. The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education develops standards for the student affairs profession (CAS standards). This organization should expand the CAS standards to include suggestions for minimum Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 coverage of the Clery Act in graduate program curricula. Additionally, AACC, ACPA, NASPA and other reputable student affairs associations should include more workshops or programs about the Clery Act in their professional development activities. These programs should be offered annually so that student affairs administrators can stay abreast amendments to the legislation and new professionals can be introduced to the Clery Act and their responsibilities under the law. Finally, these organizations should publish more information in their professional journals and on their websites. Lastly, the federal government should take a more active role in educating student affairs professionals and the public about the Clery Act. Since the Clery Act is federal legislation, the government should conduct efforts to increase national awareness and to further assist institutions with compliance and implementation of the law. For example, an annually administered web-based tutorial similar to the FERPA tutorial could be developed to assist institutions with training and educate more student affairs administrators about the Clery Act. Recommendations for Future Research Despite the limitations of this study, the results have important implications for future research studies. This study addressed the issue of accuracy in crime statistics by assessing student affairs professionals’ knowledge of the Clery Act. Although the study sample of professionals from 2-year institutions was much smaller than the sample from 4-year institutions, it provided the first research on community college student affairs administrators’ knowledge of the Clery Act. Further research might Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 broaden the AACC sample to include all individual members or members from other functional areas such as academic affairs, athletics, continuing education and human resources. Also, other associations that serve community college professionals could be included in future research in order to increase the sample and data returned. Future research could also compare community college districts across the country to see if there are differences in factors such as size and location that influence student affairs professionals’ knowledge of the Clery Act. Such studies would generate a more in- depth look at knowledge of the Clery Act within the community college arena. The study revealed that most student affairs professionals learned about the Clery Act through graduate programs. Future research assessing graduate programs could provide essential information about curricula related to campus safety issues and the Clery Act. Assessing information provided to graduate students about to enter the student affairs profession might reveal areas where content about the Clery Act could be enriched to better educate future professionals. Since over half of all study respondents felt they needed additional training about the Act, and most were new professionals with less than five years in the field, improving graduate programs would be beneficial. Future qualitative studies could provide in-depth analysis of student affairs administrators’ perceptions of campus safety at 2-year and 4-year institutions to determine if these attitudes and beliefs affect their inclination to learn about the Clery Act. Research could address institutional type (i.e. urban vs. rural, public vs. private, smaller vs. larger) to provide more information about how institution type correlates Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 with knowledge of specific aspects of the Clery Act. Understanding how student affairs administrators view campus crime and their roles as crime reporting authorities would shed light on how to focus professional development efforts at both the national and local campus levels. This study provided a valuable assessment of student affairs professionals’ knowledge of the Clery Act. Understanding the extent of the Clery Act is important in order for student affairs professionals to fully comply with the legislation and improve accuracy in crime reporting. Although some student affairs professionals may find the law cumbersome to understand and comply with, it is still the law and institutions have a stake in appropriate compliance. Improving compliance and accuracy in crime statistics will lead to a better understanding of the nature and extent of crime on individual campuses. With this knowledge, campus officials can then enact programs and services to effectively address safety issues for their campus constituents. Finally, publishing accurate crime statistics will allow prospective students and parents, as well as members of campus communities to make informed choices about their safety; a primary objective of Connie and Howard Clery’s initial advocacy for campus safety legislation. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. REFERENCES Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 REFERENCES About Security on Campus. (n.d.). Retrieved May 10, 2005, from http://securityoncampus. org/aboutsoc/index. htrnl About AACC. (n.d.). Retrieved June 30, 2005, from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/ Template, cfin ?sectin = AboutAA CC American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). (2005). Retrieved April 20, 2005, from http://www.aacc.nche.edu. American College Personnel Association and National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (1997). Principles ofgood practice for student affairs. Washington, DC: Author. American College Personnel Association. (1994a). The student learning imperative: Implications for student affairs. Washington, DC: Author. American Council on Education. (1994). The student personnel point of view. In A. L. Rentz (Ed.), Student affairs: A profession’ s heritage (pp. 108-123). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Anderson, S. A., & Fleming, W. M. (1986). Late adolescents’ home-leaving strategies: Predicting ego identity and college adjustment. Adolescence 82: 453-459. Babbie, E. (2001). Practice o f social research. 9th Ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,Thomson Learning. Barth, R. (2004). Iowa college to train responders for agroterrorism: $3.2 million grant from Department of Homeland Security funds program to protect food supply. Community College Times, September 28. Baum, K., & Klaus, P. (2005, January). Violent Victimization o f College Students, 1995-2002. (NCJ Publication No. 206836). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Brawer, F. (1996). A retention-attrition in the nineties. ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges, ED393510. Breimer, O. (n.d.). Housing. Retrieved May 10, 2005, from http://www.3Jehigh.edu/ studentlife/slhousing. asp Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 Brody, M. (1986). Separation: High school to college. ERIC Clearinghouse, ED279936. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of College Admission Counselors (42nd, Washington, DC, October 5-8,1986). Bromley, M. L. (1992). Campus and community response rate comparisons: A statewide study. Journal o f Security Administration, 15(2), 49-64. Bromley, M. L. (1999). Community college crime: An exploratory review. Journal o f Security Administration. 22(2). Brown, R. D. (1972). Student development in tomorrow’ s higher education: A return to the academy (Student personnel series No. 16). Washington, DC: American Personnel and Guidance Association. Bryant, A. (2001). Community students: Recent findings & trends. Community College Review, College Review, 29, 3. Carter, D. S. Covering crime on college campuses. Retrieved May 3, 2005, from http ://www.securityoncampus City of Bethlehem. (n.d.). Retrieved on July 10, 2005, from www.bethlehem.org Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press. Clery Act History, (n.d.). Retrieved July 15, 2005, from http ://www.securityoncampus. org/congress. cleryhistory. html Clery, H., & Clery, C. (n.d.). What Jeanne didn’ t know. Retrieved July 2, 2005, from http ://www.security oncampus. org/aboutsoc/didntknow.html Clery, H., & Clery, C. (2001). What Jeanne didn’t know. Retrieved March 30, 2005, from http://campussafety.org/aboutsoc/didn ’ tknow.html Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1996). The American community college (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Community College Fact Sheet, (n.d.). Retrieved May 10, 2005, from http://www. aacc. nche. edu/content/navigationMenu/AboutCommunityColleges/ Fast_Factsl/Fast_Facts. him Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107 Council of Student Personnel Associations [COPSA]. (1975). Student development services in postsecondary education. In A. L. Rentz (Ed.), Student affairs: A profession’ s heritage (pp. 428-437. Landham, MD: University Press of America. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2002). Crime in the United States (CIUS). Washington, DC. Retrieved July 10,2005, from http://www.Jbi.gov/uc/rucrquest.htm. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2002). Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR). Washington, DC. Retrieved July 10, 2005, from http://www.fbi.gOv/uc/r ucrquest.htm. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2004). Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook. Washington, DC. Website: www.Jbi.gov/urc/ucr.htm Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2004). Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). Retrieved May 10, 2005, from http://www.fbi.gov Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The Sexual Victimization of College Women. (NCJRS Publication No. 182369). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Criminal Justice Reference Service. 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, 61-90. Fisher, B., Sloan, J., Cullen, F., & Chunmeng, L. (1998). Crime in the ivory tower: The level and sources of student victimization. Criminology, 36(3), 671-710. Flannigan, C., Schulenberg, J., & Fuligni, A. (1993). Residential setting and parent- adolescent relationships during the college years. J. Youth Adolescent, 22(2), 171-189. Fusch, G. E. (1996). The community college o f the 21st century. British Columbia: Canada. (ERIC Reproduction Sercie Document No. Ed 417 771). Gamble, C. (2004, September 28). Community colleges develop programs and strategies. Community College Times. http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/ ContentGroups/Headline_News/March_2006/AACC_l st_Responders_web.pdf Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108 Garland, P. H., & Grace, T. W. (1994). New perspectives for student affairs professionals: Evolving realities, responsibilities and roles. ERIC Digest. ED370507. Gerald, D. E. (1998). Chapter 2: Higher education enrollment. National Center for Education Statistics: Projections o f Education Statistics to 2008. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved July 10, 2005, from http://uces.ed.gov/pubs/pj2008/p98c02/htm Gregory, D. E. (2004, June). Campus safety and the research about the Clery act: Is the act achieving its goals? Paper presented at the 2004IACLEA Conference, Ottawa, Canada. 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(7), 20-42. Grubb, N. (1999). Honored but Invisible. New York: Routledge. Hart, T. C. (2003). Violent Victimization of College Students, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Historical Information. (n.d.). Retrieved May 10, 2005, from http://www. aacc. nche. edu/content/NavigationMenu/AboutCommunity Colleges/ HistoricalInformation/Historical_Information.htm Henderson, C. (1998). College freshmen with disabilities: A statistical profile. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. Homeland Security, (n.d.). Retrieved July 12, 2005, from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/ Content/NavigationMenu/Hotlssues/HomelandSecurity/HomelandSecurity, htm Horn, L. (1996). Nontraditional undergraduates: Trends in enrollment from 1986 to 1992 and persistence and attainment among 1989-1992 beginning postsecondary students (NCES 97-578), U. S. Department of Education (NCES). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Horn, L., Peter, K., & Rooney, K. (2002). Profile of Undergraduates in U. S. Postsecondary Institutions: 1999-2000 (NCES 2002-168). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109 Janosik, S. M. (2001). The impact of the crime awareness act on student behavior. NASPA Journal, 38(3), 348-360. Janosik, S. M. (2004). Parents’ views on the Clery act and campus safety. Journal o f College Student Development, 45(1), 43-56. Janosik, S. M., & Gehring, D. D. (2003). The impact of the Clery campus crime disclosure act on student behavior. Journal o f College Student Development, 44{ 1), 81-91. Janosik, S. M., & Gregory, D. (2003). The Clery act and its influence on campus law enforcement practices. NASPA Journal, 41(1), 182-199. Janosik, S.M., & Gregory, D. (2002, Summer). The Clery act and the views of campus law enforcement officers. Educational Policy Institute o f Virginia Tech., Number 12. Janosik, S. M., & Gregory, D. E. (2003). Crime on Virginia’ s college and university campuses: Annual report, 2002. Educational Policy Institute of Virginia Tech. Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, Pub. L. No. 105-224, S 486 (e), (1998). Jolley, T., & McNamee, K. (2003, June/July). Holding one hundred hands: Helping dislocated workers become successful college students. Community College Journal. Retrieved June 2005, from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/ Template, cfm ?Section — EconomicDevelopment&template=/ContentManageme nt/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=10958&InterestCategoryID=189&Name= Economic%2FWorkforce%20Development&ComingFrom=InterestDisplay Kellogg, K. (1999). Collaboration: Student affairs and academic affairs working together to promote student learning. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. ED432940. Kim, K. A. (2002). Exploring the meaning of “nontraditional” at the community college. Community College Review, 30(1). Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology 55, 64-170. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110 Love, P. (2003). Considering a career in student affairs. Published on the ACPA website. Retrieved July 10, 2005, from www.myacpa.org/cl2/career.htm Maxwell, N. (2004). Data matters: Conceptual statistics for a random world. Emeryville, CA: Key College Publishing. McMillan, J.H. (2000). Educational Research. Fundamentals for the Consumer, 3rd Ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. MacMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in Education: A conceptual introduction (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). (1987). A perspective on student affairs. Washington, DC: Author. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1997). Campus crime and security at postsecondary institutions. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Education Research and Improvement. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2005). The condition o f education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Education Research and Improvement. National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBS). Volume 1; Data Collection Guidelines. Prepared by U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Program. August 2000. Neuman, W. L. (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Boston. Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual. (2n d Ed.). New York, NY: Open University Press. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1998). Studying college students in the 21s t century: Meeting new challenges. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 151-165. Perlman, J. R. (1998). Depressive vulnerability in college-aged females: Relation to separation-individuation. (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59,1376. Phillippe, K., & Patton M., (2000). National profile o f community colleges: Trends and statistics (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Community College Press. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ill Public Law 105-244. (1998). Higher Education Amendments Act of 1998. Rendon, L. (2000). Fulfilling the promise of access and opportunity: Collaborative community colleges for the 21s t century. New expeditions: Charting the second century of community colleges, (Issues Paper No.3). Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED440670.) Rosenzweig, E. (2002, Winter). Please don’t tell: The question of confidentiality in student disciplinary records under FERPA and the crime awareness and security act. Emory Law Journal, 57(1), 447 [Law Module]. Rund, J. A. (2002). The changing context of campus safety. New Directions for Student Services, 99, 3-9. Schuck, J., & Larson, J. (2000). Community Colleges and Universal Design. University of Minnesota. Security On Campus. (2005). Retrieved May 20, 2005 from http://www. campussafety. org. Sekaran, U. (2000). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Sloan, J. J. (1994). The correlates of campus crime: An analysis of reported crimes on college and university campuses. Journal o f Criminal Justice, 22(1), 51-61. Sloan, J. J., Fisher, B. S., & Cullen, F. T. (1997). Assessing the student right-to-know and campus security act of 1990: An analysis of the victim reporting practices of college and university students. Crime and Delinquency, 43(2), 148-168. Smith, M. C. (1995). Vexations victims of campus Crime. In B. S. Fisher & J. S. Sloan (Eds.), Campus Crime: Legal, Social and Policy Perspectives. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Sommer, B., & Sommer, R. (1997). A practical guide to behavioral research. (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Stormer, D. E., & Senarath, D. T. (1992). The truth about campus crime: An analysis of campus crime reports for three years in Pennsylvania. The Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 22(4), 28-32. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112 Trends & Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved July 1, 2005, from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/ Content/NavigationMenu/AboutCommunityColleges/Trends_and_Statistics /Trends_and_Statistics.htm Turrentine, C. G., Stites, P. T., Campos, M. G. T., & Henke, P.A. (2003). The campus sex crimes prevention act: What student affairs professionals need to know. The College Student Affairs Journal, (22)2. U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved May 10, 2005, from http:///www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm#summary. U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Violent Victimization o f College Students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. U. S. Department of Education. (2005, February 15). The incidence o f crime on the campuses o f U.S. postsecondary education institutions. Retrieved January 18, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/security). U. S. Department of Education. (1995-1996). Pocket Profiles o f Community Colleges: Trends and Statistics, 1995-1996. ED 379 036. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997, March). Campus Crime: Difficulties Meeting Federal Reporting Requirements. Congressional Report B-276054. Health, Education and Human Services Division. Washington, D.C. Vaughn, G. (1999). The community college story. Washington, D.C.: Community College Press. Voorhees, R. A., & Zhou, D. (2000). Intentions and goals at the community college: Associating student perceptions and demographics. Community College Journal o f Research and Practice, 24 (3), 219-232. Wirt, J., Rooney, P., Choy, S., Provasnik, S., Sen, A., & Tobin, R. (2004). The condition o f education. National Center for Education Statistics. NCES2004077. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113 APPENDICES Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX A REPORTABLE CRIMINAL OFFENSES UNDER THE CLERY LEGISLATION Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 Reportable Criminal Offenses Under the Clery Legislation Following are definitions of crimes as provided by the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook. Definitions of sex offenses are provided by the National Incident-Based Reporting System Edition of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. All definitions provided are consistent with the Clery Act legislation. Arson Any willful or malicious burning or attempt to bum, with or without intent to defraud, a dwelling house, public building, motor vehicle or aircraft, personal property of another, etc. Criminal Homicide-Manslaughter by Negligence The killing of another person through gross negligence. Criminal Homicide-Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter The willful (non-negligent) killing of one human being by another. 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. Aggravated Assault An unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. (It is not necessary that injury result from an aggravated assault when a gun, knife, or other Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116 weapon is used which could and probably would result in serious personal injury if the crime were successfully completed.) Burglary The unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or a theft. For reporting purposes this definition includes: unlawful entry with intent to commit a larceny or felony; breaking and entering with intent to commit a larceny; housebreaking; safecracking; and all attempts to commit any of the aforementioned. Motor Vehicle Theft The attempted theft of a motor vehicle or theft where automobiles are taken by persons who do not have lawful access even though the vehicles are later abandoned. This includes joyriding. Weapon Law Violations The violation of laws or ordinances dealing with weapon offenses, regulatory in nature, such as: manufacture, sale, or possession of deadly weapons; carrying deadly weapons, concealed or openly; furnishing deadly weapons to minors; aliens possessing deadly weapons; and all attempts to commit any of the aforementioned. Drug Abuse Violations Violations of State and local laws relating to the unlawful possession, sale, use, growing, manufacturing, and making of narcotic drugs. The relevant substances include: opium or cocaine and their derivatives (morphine, heroin, codeine); marijuana; synthetic narcotics; and dangerous nonnarcotic drugs. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117 Liquor Law Violations The violation of laws or ordinances prohibiting: the manufacture, sale, transporting, furnishing, possessing of intoxicating liquor; maintaining unlawful drinking places; bootlegging; operating a still; furnishing liquor to a minor or intemperate person; using a vehicle for illegal transportation of liquor; drinking on a train or public conveyance; and all attempts to commit any of the aforementioned. Driving under the influence and public drunkenness are not included in this definition. Definition of Terms for Sex Offenses The following are sex offenses, as defined by the National Incident-Based Reporting System Edition of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Sex Offenses-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. Forcible Rape The carnal knowledge of a 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 because of his/her youth or because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity. Forcible Sodomy Oral or anal sexual intercourse with another person, forcibly and/or against that person's will; or not forcibly against the person’s will where the victim is incapable of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118 giving consent because of his/her youth or because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity. Sexual Assault with An Object The use of an object or instrument to unlawfully penetrate, however slightly, the genital or anal opening of the body of 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 because of his/her youth or because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity. Forcible Fondling The touching of the private body parts of another person for the purpose of sexual gratification, 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 because of his/her youth or because of his/her temporary or permanent mental incapacity. Sex Offenses-Nonforcible Unlawful, nonforcible sexual intercourse. Incest Nonforcible sexual intercourse between persons related to each other, within the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by law. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119 Statutory Rape Nonforcible sexual intercourse with a person below the statutory age of consent. Source. Federal Register, April 29, 1994, Vol. 59, No. 82; Federal Register, November 1, 1999, Vol. 64, No. 210. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX B INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121 November 7, 2005 Dear Colleague: You have been selected to participate in a nation-wide research project studying campus safety issues. This is the largest study of its kind, seeking responses from a wide cross-section of student affairs professionals. Safety is an issue of vital importance on campuses across the country and student affairs professionals are often the point of contact for many students. This study is designed to gather information about student affairs professionals’ understanding, perceptions and behaviors regarding campus safety issues and the legislation that governs our actions. Your participation is vital to helping us achieve a broad cross- section of responses. Whether you are new to the profession or a senior leader in the field, your participation will help add to the literature and improve practice. Your participation in this study is completely anonymous and voluntary. This research study has the approval of the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Research Studies (USC UPIRB #UP-05- 00197). Completion of the survey should take less than 20 minutes. To participate in this study, please access the survey instrument at http://www.survevmonkev. com/ s.asp?u=142971433837. You will be asked to complete a standard consent form prior to taking the survey. Please complete the survey by December 2, 2005. If you have any questions regarding this research project, please contact the research team members at the contact information listed below. Thank you for willingness to share your experiences and feedback with us and for contributing to the betterment of our profession. Sincerely, Irina Bordiujevici Kevin Colaner Juli Soden Phone: 213-740-2157 Phone: 213-821-2214 Phone: 213-740-4928 E-mail: bordiuje@usc.edu E-mail: colaner@usc.edu E-mail: jsoden@usc.edu Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX C INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 Informed Consent Statement C am pus V iolence Survey 1. Campus Violence Survey - Participant Information Sheet *#\c -v ' a . A • x&a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 t jideqaxte ^ni$W j' 1 eAt aieurill b e entirely Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126 , v - '4 s f i £ £ ! Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX D SURVEY INSTRUMENT Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128 Survey Instrument C am pus V iolence Survey Kxit this survey » V ' , A 3 J 5 years or f c s s g t - * * r * j f e * - 9 * t < » - ' ! i u f * " 1 * ^ 6-lO-years * “ **- . V ‘ *I I I ^ il-20 yeats v - .CV'* v » c . * * • * ■ » * y « » * & , * ■ f i 4 ^-v im '4 * tr l& v X # ' t* in* •- • j£ ? •:vfe * > .? ■ * *: f e . . J g | J \ ^ - > 5 ; \ 9 |i S $ 'r -V ' . - ‘I? -V'S 3*% 4#* ^» M o reO »B '3 flS i® v ' '4' ' 3|= v i C 1 , » * r- * .;*.*■ v y t * . * ■ '- * t ■ r-^/NS^-'-v1" » • % > * 4 * » < > 3 * * f v * J p % ? • ei^= ‘ - S 'W ‘ ■ * ' 'X - *. 1 ■ * - ' - 3.WH«tfs 5. WJut J T tJrban jjpi fc* y 4 V % t ^sSie8 * ♦ * ■':• - y/> ■ " ‘V ii" ■ • ” ' r££*«» 1 & ' f ■ v e j * * * ■ * * * ' 'i * r 1 < c v * , ;«■ - i » : ' . J ? 4 ’* r « 4 w . ^ ; : ^ : - v * - ; - n C * •• T ' • . ■ v U V - --•jf . - ’ w * / . ■ ■ » f c \ ***■ 6.v^»kfr*r select oaty one)’ jw a o f k £ ^ t) t ■ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129 •_ " " " ' '' y '^Z > jS B " 1 V’" ^ > ? 1 > V .* ■ 5 ' ! . * , ' « ^ - V - • -f'- a t-V * . i'- v _ ; . -; 3 C - 5 W r ^ * »*'.%?*’ * : H -;■:* < 3 * * * ' r : f ~ ‘ ^ } - < s , ’ v T v * « *■ * * * ■ ^ w i H . ' ' ■ -."*- J - '• ..: • . • V > ■.' ; ,. '‘ •mm % , * * ! « * 5 ^ V- *r G nftsf& a*:." - j f S f g - - . • ’■ * :- v « ? i 5 . . : " .t :■"-: 2 , \ .r^;;:;i^^^^ «eatt»<Sw*fter? -. ' >i* •$*»& ' > ..f 4 e % ~ % : > \_ .* " -’ S S f& ’ ■ ! : - ; < _ . ' » * * ^ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130 -f" JudicalAffairs ^ *»' ■ r Leadcr^HpP^t^itK, i ■ V* . * " k * a * f c f " Le s bian* G f c j s , B^j^vandTrW tefejv^O ^BT^ S tu ^ ^ i|fc r y ^ » jf» r 1 t - ry ■ w - - i , « , # ■ •.•<• . * . £ ; * r i $ $ r ~ ) Recreation and Fitness Programs i . r 'Religious Pn^^amsandServiced ‘f ' - c* r.vv ... • ^-^Sr • • ' • y / • '/ * . ” * 5 * * r 5 a « ( r : v * '. • % * * * • •*.?.St1 -1 ,%vv r * R«g^tfaHfla'I^M » >. £*-■ * » . '- '. * ■ y^\/ . '1 Residence l i f t e d flousii^g ' ’ i '*&/’ . * V‘ * '* J '. ' ; ■ r - r«— : " - v : ' : r .3- ^ ^ % v ' . - * ' ’ * ' 'h&f < . ' »- 1 ' . « L ^ T ' 1 *:'. ■ $ ’* ‘' . * " * - - • * ' s ‘ -■ / ' * ' ' “ ■ * A 3&'> • P Women's Centers m I * 3 f ‘ * *‘-4 .-3 * . * v .' ' , ^ X > . « * ■ . ’ r ” * ' * \ ' trN _ i „ l ■ ' l C * * ,' j» 'S’ 1 ■ % « ; * -.-'-hw i ' - i & S I 1 '¥ I - i § ^ ' ' ' < ■ ' S' - . . ^ & ? ■ i'. ' ' ‘v ■ i ^ . * O IN'. . - ’ • '.' ■ ? ' , if; ijfj t * ^ & f B * * & t • * fv » r- ‘ ' s « V i. • ■ f 4 » _ ' J*V A * * v jf s £ - *Xr-' < « 5 » i.. .'rv v .* » . - . 2 S & L - . --'. , 4 - M f e . '* - ? , * . r v % ^ 1 ”. ^ ^ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131 immmm * £ V v < * ^ U - st i s > * ' " X< fa flh iirtm lhTiffin rr i1 riMnfiiiwfyjiffwilfriiirifmirin ^ A w ry snrwl^p^k^xjrntiCat al) * T * ' - ■ r.. * - ■ - ‘%^ r * ~ V y '' '# * - '* % ; /, - . ^ Ma r i nim terel * * , - ■ ’ /» ' '-0*r ■ * * < ■ * • • • - . ir ^ J . ;5^sl'«v“ ~ ^ Large ’ ' 'i r ' •v * -'> ? « .< 5 r,"'.-& - A , v,c . ‘ .V -, “ -^ J ' T^VV1 V .1 * - * * ' t a'tj * j* d & tS & b M ■ ' ■ - \£ V'r V f Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133 v ] * : - ^ Graduate-School (doctorate) * " ' i * , " V , * - * 5 P roW w al CoofcreBte ^-C am pus t£-servtee program- ‘ s H & ,» A'&'-Vft’ ir :C i ■ * I • * * 1 * * j g : : .- w t r ^ .S p e c s i!S e ra ii^ iil^ l^ fe ' 7 ’ ' - - * -‘ ' * - & Ot her (pr<age^peqi y][ F l . ' # . :««, %$&.;■ ■ ■ ' “*’ *r v- "# * f * " * * ’ vifT ” ' ? f. V. s ,- < 2 ■ > 1 " . W \ 13. tto yo^consid*^e>«M ^«. ■ - v;.-^ ” v ‘ *. * -*,. V ijf- ’ - * . *J Is .ts ' - - V ' • N o--; 15. 0 o V I j .T f e j g t e t V f i Q I m » j ^ , ■ - > > ■ - ; Yes . X - - l No . rnmmssmmmm H ' - * ■ ' v # * * N s * * . ■ ’ . X > " ' . ' - h*:-v i£v? 7 / -“ • V t? 1 & . y -> v < iV T * , $ = • ‘ * 'V ^ sjh f5 - f'iict eon|iJ^ce? • * ■ i ‘* . s i - ? * 4 -'I -t ,» , 'c Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134 ^ Did not receiA training ^ •*' - : "L , • < - • M .' 1 * ■ > ~ < 1 “ .'Tji £ ^ ' v ^ ,Jf R^veduBmfiH^d^caMng ^ ' * \ 1 % Js& * • * ■ {' *•' - £ ► » *1-’ ^ p ,d.i ■ - -•v Rcceivied'sufiM^tEnniBgr ' 4. F .^ " : - V Z ? . • C - f c * - l > » ■ „ j * ■ ‘ . - . v < -y * “ ' . •* t ' . “d - v^nV « , - . A i * .Jfi**..'' kry Act l«gist«^H^„ v 3 « - ) * U < - / „ * - - »*■ * - * **.. ’• * * • 17. To w iut d egra do jg a fceliev o ^ tf -w \- - Jrvji_s * . /Vs•,* ^ Not at oil, t an eo n fS ^ ln ^ T o M w id ^ e" .J A refresher course ^oidd Ije useful ; •' - *,.. . * Som&trai ni ngyfl >nMbehestfrfol . ^ - » #* w . /* - ’ , * u* * - • * ■ , A * » « % '* . ' > 1 * -; - *■ ■ ’ * 4 “ . . ' ‘ * rfelU r V * „ * ! .■fa.'— ■- 1 V ' ? -S. ' ^ • ■ ? ’ W * ** 5 * *',t - r " * »W?|^ - * * ■ i* * .* » •¥' ^ s r l j M z ! -; 'l i f e jrf.s-i* V * ■ “ ■**?-»-..». *'~ii * * “ ',*V'\ ■ . -■' ' -.* * -'^ t i f f e d no tariaafcp^ jsed' , .. S ’tfr ? B ir'. $ & £ $ £ * > ■ * * ? -4 V A * " - ; r j ‘ = * _ T ' ^ a F ^ . / * '■ V . ' ; ' \ : S Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. H i A T \ & $ r * * i \ j J s 135 (atyO urW itlitioii need f A . r - ^ : ' . • s f e i a d B N ' * • v b » i— * * • * K * ' - >-t » - . 1 '• . ^ ? * i M f c ^ - ■ " - . * ■ '* 19.y^**r«Biflg f^On-Hae y p t ft’W * r I - * - * * * * ‘ » > • " • ■ - -■ * -"" I V * * &>’ » & » ' *.jfef". V ’* ' *^ ■ - • ‘ 1S 1/ «: jf * r - « a * Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ^Preddestfc , % ‘ \ - n i ” . • > ' * ! , 1 ™ s : * * » & . ■ r .^ : h -,r*» * v .- - - 1 s '. ^ ynpy’ is f * * S f * % s 'd S # * - o f C ' ■ * * “ ‘ ■ £ 1 5 * 1 " A ’’ * ■ /» J h / * 1 . *f •S 2 ' ^ ’ - i f : • ’ W & § - ■ h S * * * * » - i„ V * * s * f 4 < * - * i 5 # X n 4 r ' .3 A ,! **; J* t r -? 3 A. t; i ,! J N o ( A p p B e ^ |» ^ 25. Are yoa - - , « r - . ' - * r ,.*L v y ' Y e ® / ^ s ^Ma- iS sR *S W l * ‘ r f - §f!Mr L ^ ' -. I N - ■ '* y r « i , „ & w £zy-$! . _. n 26. Doyontiurtiw* EEEPA i ont«H ie«f*! ............... & L i* £ 'y s, V?s * ^ y * £ P , - * $ » ■ £ > »~ 1 - * ? . . ,N0 * v 'tr* ‘ > M S * onak&vdisclose Ae' * • T Yes if?* . . “ ll&Jt 4 . .*'• t > , ,f* |g L < * > A ' ' • . ‘ t* ’ ■ ’:J a*- - t f 5. S t U ± * ' ' ‘ ^ + ' " f e - * *X * * ■ ' « • * ^ ^ j?<^|r * “ ” » * “ ' V * i T * ’ f c * » 4 r * 27.Be ■ A , Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139 ; > * * * - .‘. i f T - 'i | sa^sl^ftc , . i , . v . - * • ( , _ , •' P * a person i^ > ^ i^ d w ^ the is v a u lted ^h r'-.& eftof a "' All are wport abi © ctfijaes ; ' ■ - 4 ; ‘ As’ ^ T T ^ , * 4 1 v— * - * : > - fr S h ■ * . v V » ” < V * > ' - * - ~ r\ ^ > 4 ’ " s - 1 - * - ■ > * - i , * 3 ¥ i t ■ ~ I . " * f c * * ; » * ■ . - * tf ■ * ' - , *v ■ J * & * < * "S f ’ . - „*,’ .* f j? 4 * * - * * . * < * - * v£ *\ s „ " * & « ? f “ j' S r. 3 I .I ^ < l u e d ^ A ^ f e g ^ S ^ ^ r t t pijv«l»^lier^ -*;’ ■ ; ■ «* A! * ■ ' - ' ” ji.H ' ^t &mS&SSi RM f* • * "*" * "•■’ *% • V Vs * r : S-»"-"t$^ - ~ f ;* je 32. Af ip wn i ve Et Hf e * I^ m f £>^g^»£ f^s^«gfc>c*lii|^il9^opw ^b'tbe^aenii ptffilic? ^ tton’ t Know " *•;•«*’•»' ■ i j i - * • & & , + • ■ • A i " '> n' T ^ f f f fi ,,,^ ,,, lijj-f 1 “ • • ' • * ' " * " ‘ • '^ H js S i^ . : .^ A : .?> •..- . ’ * T 2 S ^ i ^ ¥ ; % Y* ‘i - • ” i' t. . 1 .’- 4l»'H -3„ K g y ~ - ' • . . . . • -?JK► r>'5*S»!-* r>6>. *#:.„ t ^ . ; J . , - ? ? •i ' !* , . - v f e * * ■ # * = * - , s ■ ■ # - - . ,;1 ' • - » • . . -v* ‘ ‘4 •'• ^ V '* * Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141 * • V ,? » ; r* m p i m a _... -ZW-l, * i'* , ? . * 3 m m ^ m - , ; : ... l ^ p l 37. Tq what Quite EffectfW ^ Somewhat Effective J> Not Effective ft * * ■ » '■“ ■ « ' . ' ** ^v; -- 1 - , •., ^r ' ' t f j. ? ? ' •*-*»■'-=■ 1 Jv 38. In the fart1 artw iif f i r'fta r^ a w ; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142 39.TOJ » ’ ^G really . ‘ cnuy „ ,, t& m.''* - -* "v. . " ' . * 'L. 11 ifrf^ _ * . . ^..^..-J^’. . _ . 7. • * * - ”J- v 'J^ V ‘ -tj" ' : & ~3§& , -"F „ * fC s ► r S P lIw ,,,^ , -.-^ .* * \ & ~ > - s ' ' & < ? , : * r - i :mmt Not atall * % n z y m - ~ - , - . j* , - . »OT - • ^ * < a f < '® . • ■ w v . '».’ > * - • • ' f - * r . *d«Sta!*£ **• MSS « * sap r * „ --t4 " . k - ” ^ ';- ” . •" • ^ :r *',^i ’ • . ; '■ » -, - i V ■ ' '-v ; P M e d fe c a ^ B ^ (i^ ^ lk 8 ^ 4 6 e * , -------- ^ ton& ences, pitrd^,^fe^»er& ]| I „ ■sc! * • -., *2&S3: . _ P S df-*fiaeac^< 4iM^i< 6 tom ' ^ V ^ -jS 1 ” * ‘ -" i ', ’ i,’' r M wonly vicrf^^m «t|pA <iia*«W !p»,, ,, ,;.* / ; t* * fc fr 3v**> 'T g ~ 1 7 ' ‘ T * - ^ - v S T a , ^ ~ P M a r t and wof o enA T < &enc^p p eva p fi?fl t f j r r t k^t e p# ~ 4‘ P & * 9 >* ^ s s s p r j tS^'"xr H f S l S88pSt|feJ0 ** r<; i M i « .^. -f ;^->t ‘ 5 \ : |S |' '*-4 • t _ .- '3 -f ■ i M s r f t f i l f t K R /fufiiSSM X fiiS: Isigjfiff: - * ' l ■ * • -i-e P Edc jqa t io na l - r r1^’ ?r“« » A .« • ’ * : « > £ * • ' h. ■' - m; - * * m C . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143 -* . • ' • v 6 ' . . V ‘ - * -t & M - • ' * * * ‘ ' j r i 1 r - , j ^ y : •'"'; £ | ; - | i • , r None that fl^ v e seen *:'j£.K 'f;* V ^ • ' ■ ' ^ v 3 * ' ' V - * V » - 1 , -i‘-‘- r- t .. r • * ? # ■ M edian C O D N R S W e ^ newsletter^ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 144 "w ith < f m e r j n u m & e r s* - Theater felkrw-up'di^^ibaS,' Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ‘ i “ U ; ■ ' /• /*' v x P Di sttftuxdons ofpnHnstfional -rb a% ieif e li fe fe ejjnetgency ^ bracelets, key ‘ * * • \ \ ^ * - ’ ' V * > ^ r Educati onal video setMgfi s-with foBotf*t^djseus»or» wallet cards, t-shitts,^ r , + * t m < , • * s ** > M f V ? ' y '^ 't* t V * ^ * •, , » I Inf ormati onal ta$es St jatfe Hc events - ' _ ; ’ »5v .stf* g *, '* ' * * T * * ■ P Theater prod»^cos w f^ f6flow -^ ^ V ^ < W ^ * JN ^tS' ~ _ - - ’ V i “ b • * '* ~ '. ’ I ’ ' '-’ - "” |t > * t * * < » - i J', r • * » 'V . * ■ * ' « • * — % 4 'V * > ' - ■ » * **•* » * ■ # * 1 • '* ' * - * jr * t I liisig g lfe F p ^ ai f ; » ;■ * > ■ - ^ ■/ P " Clothesline projects- . ^ P * None thafcl bnveseen * ‘ " ? "3 w '- 3 H S S » » * • ■ ' ! , ,, & O***;' - - 7 > “ v vjV W ?»'f - ->-*■«* & ip*rw f*s& - ■ ‘ .’ j .' - /• ■ :? ■ '. J~ J£r ,s: J ' '* v ,. , j * * * , /■ : 'Av.V. ■ .;'€ -s. . ' * » s > « - ■ ■ '{ • • '* » * , * • p * I V * a 3 & s f xS h »*w < * ^ * ■ * H ie fell' campns. owing qwai$ies4^CM K f o tieft on ? ^ ■ * * * * # ^ “ * ? * r r e * ‘ , 1 ' < f - r > » ' * -r- * » /v « I* Jf ^ Agree ^.Nevnal -J.'^ • V tv S p I ' J -•'. #* j; * ' f' •? ** t & f k r ; > r ' v t ' - 1(S« t * < » * v » ■ * r ' ■ ^ SfrdogIyI?isagree ., > 1 . '": * i'- t. • r* < ■ ,'lr Jdi?>" V* J .y -^ ' j t f j 4 ' ^ .''SfrSF&b-**1 !' V - '• • -3s~ t Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146 disagree _ ” ^ * - ' ; Stwi^y !* )$ « ? ' '£ i M k . J T . „T *? . ...& 1 1 .1 .__ **. . „ . - Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147 46.<€ampp» assault prevention. A Strongly A g»c ^ ’ ' j * ' 3 k '■ < J l * * * ^ JFD isag * 6 6 ■ ’ ^ .;... .^ * .Jt, .* • • _ t 1 . j g tr o n g iy O * ^ ^ ^.*pi . r * v . • * £ ' . 1 $ $ . . * r \ ... .'4 - l ~ •••S ' ' «jf-. •■ " .-:•..- «■;•.»•*"•*■• -•*' * ‘ tS‘M - ■ r - - *:. * t f t 47.9kt^t|d* ~ - • - v - ' ^ W - ‘ ■' * ^ * * ■ . AtfB-' r - v * * » * » <-*<■*- ■ « ■ /tsagttfe ---; .jt- • v * • ; ■ < * ^cT ? ■ * * < % ji Strongly thsagrw.. . * * V.K-' - - ' "*\ 4' . > ,v 5 * - • 48. The m at ‘*«f.’ - j£ - * ■ % » VO * W » * y ) ■tit* . - < ■ “ 'i. f*" Teach www^pwt to f i . . i ? - * » * * W ’i V ' • * » . -r*. < 5 •' * l urki ng A - • ^ * . , e > V * £ ■ 4 ’ - * is M ^ ■ j 'g g d ^ j ■ * *“ * » ’■ '» . i-* * . i f c n a v-a y*^issi< ■ * . . < ; ■ ■ V or' mannef 7 - * v 4f,■ * ■ ■ > # y -?r r Teach wOmei r about t fif c j % r^j^on to sexual assault r . . .. , ■ * V ., ! -i£ T " , * ■ * , ^ p j r f “*'?each m h $ & r f * 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 'StroagiyAgsee T~ Agree ^ ■ - > ; * * ’* > • . . v pr?fin - -• . ? * -. ,*» * v*. , * v > * 'ir f ilte r '* '- , , t*V . . . .'-} W v r ' < - F f r f > .:-Kr: % - jiv • -•••-••; ; - • ' v~2t-• • ■ ■ . < l - • • ^ # . 3^ - # - * .&&&£ P Disagree _ " ' 'V '-T jp fc S t £ f r W ^ l ' v € & ? ' ** «. ^ x **. * ** - a^ier.wt.v< ■ » ■ > * • _ r.. * < t4xv.i* . jr *' *-* ^ * \. * ' v . ‘ ”; * ' 'j' A'Pt* - _ . *- !. . . ’ / h .3j ..’ ,^s ^ i S * * •. S ^ « * « _ » «■ «*- > * ** .£* f « «£* * ■ > + + * s " ■ * -S *’• « * * • ' C !»■•»** :# v * ? 4t # 4 W r f : ;::i4 ' - , _ } W * - “ > - - ; r , • ^ -* 5 . * ; .- f-.'+'S &&<' ' -■ '* ' ■ > ’ . * •'V - ■ '• * ■ = ' * t ‘ * i»r “ -' 4 ''' - * + j ' ' -K !**{%''•' 'S f -’ » -W * • ~ - r 1 • - T '. v , , * , '. '* '■ £* - ‘ i- * > * * 4 s ^ ^ 4 4 ' -:ft v . ^ */t' ?' -« ■ -ir# , ^ ,i5 ‘ i i x»v’-'' + • 5 1 ^ V f* l ^ ^ t , it u|akei»|t^ffls|dt‘ t M ’ < ■ ‘ 'r » * " * ' 'c 6 «' v i t # r ’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149 • ;■ }* y ■ ■ i * - '52. W hatfeyan^ m fer? ” * ‘-V p ^ X ;? ' ■ c s * £ ■ ■ r a * totnuv. '-1 -i'; 53. J£yo£ ■ „ ' ' i- i -~ ’ - f j l Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Factors influencing academic success of Chinese international students in Los Angeles community colleges

PDF

Community college students and achievement in mathematics: Predictors of success

PDF

Fulfilling the mission to serve the underserved: A case study of a private, Catholic, urban college's two -year program

PDF

Evaluating the California Community Colleges Registry

PDF

Asian American leaders in higher education: Career aspirations in student affairs

PDF

Elementary teacher perceptions of school violence: Safe school elements and responsibility.

PDF

Asian students in community colleges: A study of intersecting effects of student characteristics, construct models of retention, social reproduction and resulting variables as applied to the stud...

PDF

Assessment of nursing college students' learning styles in Taiwan using the Myers -Briggs Type Indicator

PDF

Academic success and student-parents in the Los Angeles Community College District

PDF

Course-taking patterns of Latina community college students: On the transfer path

PDF

China's critical educational access demand and United States higher education distance learning curriculum: An answer?

PDF

A study of the Navy College Program for Afloat College Education: Implications for teaching and learning among nontraditional college students

PDF

Community college English courses: The road less traveled by community college students

PDF

Assessment of Taiwanese business students' learning styles using the Myers -Briggs Type Indicator

PDF

Academic and social adjustment of Korean "parachute kids" in Southern California

PDF

Examining the factors that predict the academic success of minority students in the remedial mathematics pipeline in an urban community college

PDF

An exploration of project -based learning in two California charter schools

PDF

A study of the profile and leadership traits of vice presidents of instruction in the California community college system

PDF

Community college students: The effect of parenthood and selected variables on degree -seeking aspirations

PDF

A case study of a principal's transformation of a high poverty urban school

Asset Metadata

Creator Soden, Juli (author)

Core Title A comparison of community college and university student affairs administrators' knowledge of the Clery Act

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, administration,education, community college,Education, higher,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Astor, Ron (committee member), Colbert, Joel (committee member), Sundt, Melora (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-429596

Unique identifier UC11341341

Identifier 3233823.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-429596 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3233823.pdf

Dmrecord 429596

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Soden, Juli

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA