VICTIMIZATION AND FEAR OF CRIME AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS By Maxwell Thomas Manz A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Criminal Justice – Master of Science 2022 ABSTRACT VICTIMIZATION AND FEAR OF CRIME AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS By Maxwell Thomas Manz This study examined the association between demographic characteristics such as race, sexual orientation, and gender identity and the experience of victimization and fear of crime on a college campus among a sample of undergraduate college students. Using a combination of random and purposive sampling techniques, a sample of 312 students from a large midwestern university provided information on their victimization experiences and feelings of safety while on campus. Bivariate measures of association suggested the student victimization prevalence rate was statistically significantly different based on gender identity and sexual orientation but not race. Fear of victimization was only statistically significantly different when looking at gender identity but not sexual orientation or race. Multivariable models, which controlled for time on campus and other demographic characteristics found that being a cisgender women increased the odds of having been victimized, as was having spent more time in college. After controlling for a host of demographic characteristics, fear of crime was higher for cisgender women and those that report a non-binary identity than it was for cisgender males, and those that were victimized on campus previously reported higher fear than those that reported no prior victimization. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................................4 VICTIMZATION ................................................................................................................4 Gender Binary and Victimization ............................................................................5 Race and Victimization ............................................................................................5 LGBTQIA+ People and Victimization .....................................................................7 FEAR OF CRIME................................................................................................................9 Gender Binary and Fear of Crime .........................................................................10 Race and Fear of Crime .........................................................................................11 LGBTQIA+ People and Fear of Crime .................................................................12 CURRENT STUDY...........................................................................................................15 METHODS ...................................................................................................................................18 OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................18 PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT ....................................................................................19 DATA COLLECTION ......................................................................................................20 MEASUREMENT .............................................................................................................20 DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................21 RESULTS .....................................................................................................................................23 BIVARIATE ANALYSIS: VICTIMIZATION .................................................................24 BIVARIATE ANALYSIS: FEAR OF CRIME .................................................................26 REGRESSION ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................27 DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................................................30 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................35 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................37 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................38 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Demographic Information of Participants ...................................................................... 23 Table 2. Bivariate Contingency Table Analysis of Victimization Prevalence ............................. 25 Table 3. Bivariate T-Tests and Analysis of Variance ................................................................... 26 Table 4. Binary Logistic Regression for Victimization ................................................................ 28 Table 5. Ordinary Least Squares Regression for Fear of Crime Scores ....................................... 29 iv INTRODUCTION There are many studies of college students’ fear of crime (Boateng & Adjekum-Boateng, 2017; Diagle et al., 2021; Fisher & May, 2009), but most do not consider the implications of diversity in gender identity in shaping fear among students. Because of this weakness, we lack an understanding of how students from diverse social or gender backgrounds feel while at college compared to their heteronormative counterparts. This means that we do not know whether people involved with the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual, and other (LGBTQIA+) community report levels of fear of victimization that are comparable to straight cisgender students. Researchers have tended to focus on the binary description of differences between sexes, male or female (Callanan & Teasdale, 2009; Fisher, 1995; and Nellis, 2009). This view ignores how several identity-based characteristics may influence fear of crime in tandem with one another. Thus, many previous studies cannot speak to the combined influence of identity characteristics. Instead of looking at how an individual’s identity might be intersectional, studies focus upon participants’ “key” characteristics in isolation, such as sex, gender, or race/ethnicity. The literature is clear on how women report higher levels of fear of crime than men, so the main effect of sex is robust (Ferraro, 1996; Fisher, 1995; Fisher et al., 1998). We even see that race has an impact of fear of crime, in that people who are not white report higher levels of fear, on average (Parker, 1988). But we do not know as much about gender identity and other components of an individual’s demographic profile. Concepts of identity are important when looking at educational communities, such as college and universities, because students’ safety impacts how well students perform academically, meaning if a student is scared or anxious to go to class or access university resources (e.g., library, student center), then they are less likely to 1 succeed (Lacoe, 2020). This might mean that students from diverse backgrounds are more likely to dropout or skip class compared to straight white students, leading to systematically reduced educational outcomes. We see a similar trend in the literature regarding victimization. While victimization of college students based on biological sex has been studied extensively (Fisher et al., 1998; Fisher & May, 2009; Gardella et al., 2015), less attention has been given to individuals from diverse social or gender backgrounds. Again, studies have tended to focus on one key descriptor such as sex or race. While studies that focus on college students and gender identity are lacking, there is research to suggest that high school students involved with the LGBTQIA+ community are at an increased risk of bullying and victimization compared to heterosexual cisgender students (Grinshteyn et al., 2021). This study is designed to bring multiple components of an individual’s identity into the analysis when trying to understand how complex layers of an individual’s identity relate to fear of crime and their risk of victimization. Since this study focuses on two concepts, victimization and fear of crime, two bodies of literature are relevant. By looking at victimization and fear of crime separately, we can gain a better understanding of how college students feel while on campus in terms of their perceived risk and worry about victimization while on campus. This approach will inform university officials about how students from diverse backgrounds feel on campus and about what differences there might be between groups of students with regards to their risk of victimization. This information can provide a foundation for how students at the university under study feel while on campus. Furthering our understanding of how students feel currently and what can be done for future research. This information could also be used guide policies and practices to help university administrators create a more inclusive campus for 2 students from diverse backgrounds so that everyone feels a similar level of fear, instead of certain groups being more fearful. 3 LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of this study is to examine the differences in victimization and fear of crime experiences between people of diverse demographic and identity backgrounds. This means that we need to examine the literature of victimization and fear of crime through the lens of distinct groups, including biological sex, racial identity, and LGBTQIA+ identity. For the purposes of this study, those who are not heterosexual and cisgender are considered to be members of the LGBTQIA+ community. Because the literatures on victimization and fear are largely distinct from one another, the literature review is separated into two sections, beginning with victimization, and then reviewing what is known about the fear of crime associated with individuals based on their disparate identities. VICTIMIZATION Victimization can cover a broad category of offenses. In the current study, victimization is defined as being the target of a crime. This body of research is varied and has broad categories depending on the type of victimization. For reference, the U.S. Department of Justice (2005) reports that college students are victimized violently at a rate of 61 out of every 1,000 students during their college career. A study by Sloan (1994) examined the most frequent crimes committed on college campuses across 494 universities in the United States. Sloan used campus crime figures that were available starting in 1992, because beginning in that year colleges and universities were required to report their crime rates to receive federal funding. This requirement to disclose campus crime figures was implemented because of growing debates around college campuses and their security after Jeanne Cleary, a 19-year-old college student, was raped and murdered on a college campus. These discussions resulted in the Campus Security Act of 1990, also known as the Clery Act (Fisher et al., 2002). By using these crime reports from various post- 4 secondary education institutions, Sloan found that burglary/theft was the most common offense reported (64% of all reported crimes), followed by vandalism (18.8%), then illegal drugs and alcohol use (11.3%), and finally violent offenses (5.9%). This study would suggest that violent crimes on college campuses are relatively infrequent, or rare events. Gender Binary and Victimization An interesting finding in the field is that men are more likely to be victims of physical crime even though they are more likely to report lower fear of crime than women (Ferraro, 1996). This would suggest that type of offense matters when looking at victimization based on group identity. Fisher et al. (1998) conducted a study looking at women in college and based on their results, would suggest that one in five women will experience sexual assault during their college education. Jennings et al. used a convenience sample of 564 undergraduate students and asked them, through questionnaires, if they had been victims of crimes. Overall, they found that men were more likely to experience most types of crime compared to women (Jennings et al., 2007). But when considering gendered differences, we see that women were twice as likely to report being sexually assaulted compared to men (Fisher et al., 1998; Jennings et al., 2007). This would suggest that sexual assault is an important offense to examine when understanding the victimization of women whereas other violent offenses might apply more to men. Race and Victimization Victimization experiences of people based on racial identity vary depending on the racial identity in question and offense type. Research has shown that racial minorities are at a greater risk of violent victimization than their white counterparts (Catalano, 2005; Rand, 2009). When looking at college students and their victimization based on race, we see that minority students are disproportionately victimized compared to white students. According to the U.S. Department 5 of Justice (2005), Black students were at an increased risk of assault compared to other racial groups. A study from 2020 (Daigle et al., 2020) looked at the victimization of U.S. based college students compared to Canadian college students. Diagle et al. (2020) surveyed students in the U.S. and Canada about their experiences while at college. Their sample was composed of 97,602 U.S. college students (39% of which were not white) and 22,730 Canadian college students (26% of which were not white). They asked questions regarding participants drinking behaviors, risk- taking behaviors, as well as what types of victimization experiences they had while controlling for school, country, and individual characteristics. They found that U.S. students who reported being Black were more likely to be victimized than white students, and white students were more likely to report being victimized than Asian or Latino students (Diagle et al., 2020). This would suggest that like previous research, Black students are at an increased risk of violent victimization compared to the rest of the student populations (Catalano, 2005; Diagle et al., 2020; Like-Haislip and Miofsky, 2011; Rand, 2009). When comparing the rate of victimization between U.S. and Canadian students, they found that regardless of individual characteristics, Canadian students were at a higher risk of being victimized than U.S. students (Diagle et al., 2020). Studying race and ethnicity is difficult given that there are many contextual factors associated with victimization and race or ethnicity (Like-Haislip and Miofsky, 2011). An example of this was documented using the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Like- Haislip and Miofsky (2011) examined how routine activities influenced the experiences of victimization by race, ethnicity, and gender in the United States. Like-Haislip and Miofsky (2011) found that use of public transportation increased the risk of victimization for both Black 6 and Hispanic women and how residential instability increased the risk of victimization for Black men. While this study did not focus on college students, it demonstrates the potential mechanisms through which people from minority communities are exposed to and might impact their risk of victimization. The issue of differential experiences with victimization across racial groups is difficult to examine because of other variables typically associated with victimization experiences such as socioeconomic status and residential stability (Like-Haislip and Miofsky, 2011). Variables such as low socioeconomic status and low residential stability have been shown to increase someone’s likelihood of being victimized (Tillyer & Walter, 2019). This would suggest that variables associated with race and ethnicity could be acting as mediating variables. Variables such as location, income, and sex or gender of the individual adds a layer of complexity when trying to understand victimization. While men are more likely to be victims of violent offenses, the chances of victimization might be higher or lower depending on an individual’s race and the associated contextual factors known to increase or decrease the odds of victimization. LGBTQIA+ People and Victimization The readily availability of research on the victimization of LGBTQIA+ college students is lacking. With increased recognition of sexual and gender diversity in society, research has yet to catch up when examining the threat of victimization faced by these groups on college campuses. By using a sample of 107 high school and middle school students, Hillard et al. (2014) were able to examine how students who were nongender conforming were bullied and harassed compared to gender conforming students. In their sample, 56 out of 107 students identified as not straight and 3 out of 107 students were transgender. Hillard et al. (2014) found 7 that high school students who were not straight were at a statistically significantly higher risk of victimization compared to straight high school students. Duncan (1990) examined LGBTQIA+ student experiences of sexual assault on college campuses. Duncan compared heterosexual and gay men to heterosexual women and lesbian women. Duncan (1990) found that non-heterosexual individuals were at the greatest risk of victimization compared to heterosexual students. The differences in victimization were such that heterosexual men had a one in 25 chance of being victimized whereas gay men had a one in 10 chance of being sexually victimized. When looking at women, heterosexual women had about a one in five chance of being victimized and lesbian woman had a three in 10 chance of being sexually victimized (Duncan, 1990). Another study from 2016 looked at how sexual minority students report victimization on a university campus. Johnson et al. (2016) collected data through a national survey and gathered information from university students about their victimization experiences and their gender identities. The sample was composed of 28,402 individuals across the United States. Most participants were white (69.7%), female (64.1%), and heterosexual (94.0%). The total number of participants that fit into the LGBTQIA+ community was 1,805, or 6.36% of the total sample. Johnson et al. (2016) used this data to examine the likelihood of being sexually victimized depending on LGBTQIA+ status and found that LGBTQIA+ students were more likely to be sexually victimized across all types of offenses compared to heterosexual students. When looking at gender identity, Johnson et al. (2016) also reported that transgender individuals were most likely to report an experience of sexual assault, followed by female respondents, and then males, who were the least likely to report. 8 Most studies that examine how LGBTQIA+ community members experience victimization focus on sexual victimization including sexual assault, sexual harassment, and intimate partner violence. Beaulieu et al. (2017) surveyed 1,881 college students across the United States. Their sample was mostly white with only 6% being composed of LGBTQIA+ community members. They found that, like previous research, students who are non-heterosexual and transgender are at an increased risk of sexual victimization (Beaulieu et al., 2017). This finding is mirrored in other work that examines how non-heteronormative students are at an increased risk of victimization compared to heteronormative students (Rothman et al., 2011; Todahl et al., 2009). When looking at victimization experiences, we see that several variables can impact someone’s likelihood of being victimized. We see that sex, gender identity, and race are key factors but there are also variables associated with these labels that can impact someone’s victimization experiences. When looking at victimization, we also see the impact of direct and vicarious victimization on fear of crime. Those who have experienced some form of victimization, depending on the offense, have increased rates of fear of crime (Calhoun et al., 1982). Given the relationship between victimization, including both direct experiences of victimization and vicarious victimization (i.e., the stories people hear about victimization experiences) and fear, we see that victimization directly impacts someone’s fear of crime. This next section focuses on fear of crime because of how victimization can influence fear of crime. FEAR OF CRIME Ferraro and LaGrange (1995) defined fear of crime as “an emotional response of dread or anxiety to crime or symbols that a person associates with crime” (pp. 4). Looking at how fear is defined helps frame how distinct groups will experience it. Fear of crime is something that 9 changes by age, over time, and depends on an individual’s identity (Ferraro, 1995). This means that people’s level of fear will change depending on how old they are, and these differences can be seen with between group comparisons. Overall, we see that the association between fear and age is generally curvilinear, with a low point around age 20 and then goes higher as someone ages. Importantly, the magnitude of differences across demographic groups in measured fear is dependent on how fear is operationalized (Ferraro, 1995) and whether measures focus on the fear or anxiety of crime globally versus how someone fears specific types of victimization. The main research question for this paper is how identity impacts fear of crime across gender identity, racial groups, and sexual orientation. Gender Binary and Fear of Crime Research on the differences between cisgender men and cisgender women dominate the literature on fear of crime on college campuses (Callanan & Teasdale, 2009; Fisher et al., 1998). This emphasis is further placed on women because of their higher rates of fear compared to men. Past research has demonstrated that women are more fearful of crime than men across various situations (Callanan & Teasdale, 2009; Fisher & May, 2009; Reid & Konrad, 2004). Safety concerns among women on college campuses has received more attention in the media due to the work of Fisher et al. (1995) regarding rape and the influence it has on fear of crime while at college. Fisher et al. (1995, 2009) argue that because of rape, women on college campuses are inherently more fearful than men. This is referred to as the shadow of sexual assault. The shadow of sexual assault is the idea that because any interpersonal offense could lead to sexual assault. No matter the situation imagined, women tend to worry about the threat of harm caused by sexual assault, leading women to report higher levels of fear of crime across all offense types 10 (Ferraro, 1996). If this is true, like previous research would suggest, then the differences between men and women may not be as large when controlling for the fear of sexual assault. Callanan and Teasdale (2009) tried to explain the variation in fear of crime between men and women by using a sample of participants from the state of California. One group was asked four questions relating to fear of crime while the other was asked eight questions to gauge how several factors associated with certain offenses, such as physical assault or sexual assault, impacted fear of crime. Callanan and Teasdale (2009) found that differences between men and women were explained when looking at references to physical assault, resulting in women being more fearful. Differences between men and women in terms of fear of crime could be attributed to several factors, a couple of common notions is that men may underreport their fear of crime or that women might be more cognizant of the risks associated with their location and the potential chances of victimization. This supports the notion that sexual assault is a contributing factor as to why women might report higher overall levels of fear of crime compared to men (Callanan and Teasdale, 2009; Ferraro, 1996). Race and Fear of Crime Fear of crime based on racial group can vary depending on the community of interest and the type of fear that is being examined. Universities can be an interesting examination of this when considering how student populations can be representative of a given location or highly skewed to one racial group. Depending on the university, the racial makeup of its student body can vary from historically Black colleges and universities, where the racial makeup is mostly Black, to state universities where non-white racial groups make up less than half of the total student population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). Keeping this in mind helps frame how the 11 results from a study might be transferable to the surrounding location or generalizable to the population of college students. Boateng and Adjekum-Boateng (2017) examined how students from non-white backgrounds felt regarding their fear of crime while on campus by collecting data from a public institution in the northwestern United States of America in 2012. They used a convenience sample and had students respond to questionnaires about how fearful they were in various situations. They asked students four questions regarding emotional responses and feelings of security to specific situations, including walking around while on campus during the day and night, as well as how worried they are of being attacked on and off campus. These scores were compiled and compared to see if fear of crime varied based on whether students were white or not. Their results showed that non-white students were more likely to report being fearful than their white-counterparts when being alone, leaving campus, and of being attacked (Boateng & Adjekum-Boateng, 2017). This sentiment is mirrored in other work done when looking at fear of crime among non- white students. A study by Kaminski et al. (2010) examined how university students felt after a shooting took place on another campus. The sample was composed of mostly white students (70%) and asked questions about specific types of situations students might experience. Kaminski et al. (2010) found that non-white students were more likely to report higher levels of fear than white students. They also found that non-white students were more afraid of being targeted for violent offenses relative to white students. LGBTQIA+ People and Fear of Crime With the legalization of gay marriage and the political activism of people like Harvey Milk (the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California), we have seen that 12 members of the LGBTQIA+ community have been gaining more recognition in society. The LGBTQIA+ community is composed of several identities that do not fit into a heterosexual and cisgender norm. If someone is not straight and cisgender, then they are considered to be a part of the LGBTQIA+ community. When looking at sexual identities, in particular, we see that in the general population sexual minority members are more likely to report higher levels of fear of crime than straight men but report similar levels of fear compared straight women (Meyer & Grollman, 2014). While society might be in the process of recognizing people from different gender identities and sexual minorities as equally deserving of civil rights, research on such individuals is limited. Historically, sex and gender have been treated as the same thing (Diamond, 2002). However, sex refers to an individual’s biological anatomy while gender refers to how someone identifies in society. For the purposes of this paper, we operationalize LGBTQIA+ involvement as someone who is not heterosexual or cisgender. This means that someone who is straight and identifies with the gender they were assigned at birth will not be included in the LGBTQIA+ portion of the sample. Research has examined how the LGBTQIA+ community as a whole, with limited specificity, might be fearful compared to non-community members. There are many identities that encompass the LGBTQIA+ community meaning that results can vary depending on which subsection is being examined. While we may assume that lesbian woman and gay men report similar levels, this might not be the case. But overall, we see that researchers simply refer to participants as either non-straight, gay, lesbian, or bi when examine this issue (Daigle et al., 2021; Franco, 2021; Grinshteyn et al., 2021; Rothman et al., 2011). Franco (2021) examined the fear of LGBTQIA+ youths through interviews about how they felt while in high school. From these interviews, Franco (2021) found that students were 13 verbally assaulted by their classmates and were scared to go to school because of how they were treated. Diagle et al. (2021) compared U.S. students to Canadian students across various group characteristics including race, sexuality, and gender identity, as well as year in school to see what differences there were between students across these contexts based on involvement with the LGBTQIA+ community. While this study collected information on LGBTQIA+ involvement, it only categorized involvement as heterosexual or not and gender as cisgender or transgender. Diagle et al. (2021) found that students who were non-heterosexual or transgender were associated with higher levels of fear of crime than being both heterosexual and cisgender, respectively, in both the U.S. and Canada. A more comprehensive study by Grinshteyn et al. (2021) looked directly at the association between LGBTQIA+ identification and fear of bullying on and off campus, depression, and rates of anxiety. This study looked at the fear of bullying and harassment students might experience while at college. While they used the term bullying, their definition was closely related to how Ferraro (1995) defined fear of crime. Grinshteyn et al. (2021) stated that bullying is defined as the intent to harm, intimidate, or coerce, and can manifest in verbal, physical, or electronic formats based on previous literature (Lund & Ross, 2017). Their sample included roughly 1400 participants from a U.S. university, of which 2% were transgender and 14% reported being gay, lesbian, or bisexual. This sample allowed for a better comparison between students based on their demographic information. Grinshteyn et al. (2021) found that students that were either transgender or that identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual were more likely to report higher levels of fear of being bullied compared to straight cisgender students. 14 CURRENT STUDY When looking at the available research, there is a wide amount of variability in how fear of crime and victimization is studied. What this previous literature shows is that identity is a complicated topic. Understanding the intersectionality of an individual’s identity can help us to understand how someone might feel while on a college campus and helps frame how we can understand the results from this study. We see this explicitly when women who are Black are at an increased risk of sexual assault compared to white women, when white women are already at increased risk of sexual assault compared to their white male counterparts (Diagle et al., 2020). A limitation in this area of study is the lack of specificity seen with regards to racial groups in combination with other important identities. An individual’s identity can be composed of multiple aspects ranging from their family’s racial background, their gender identity, gender expression, and related variables. The available research, however, is lacking with regards to how fear of crime of racial minorities are examined while on college campuses. Fear of crime scholars have historically reported students as either white or non-white in their analysis (Boateng & Adjekum-Boateng, 2017; Ferraro, 1996; Kaminski et al., 2010; McConnell, 1997). This limitation might be due to the relatively small response rates from minority racial groups, or the lack of attention given to how groups might differ. These differences in student population can lead to further complications when trying to compare how students of color feel while on campus across universities and across various offenses. While there are difficulties in recruiting racial minority students, researchers have been able to measure fear of crime and compare it between racial groups by using purposive stratified sampling (Teddlie & Yu, 2007). By knowing the racial distribution of the university under study, we would be able to know what proportions 15 of our sample would compose each racial group of interest and use targeted sampling strategies to ensure representation across racial groups. We see this issue again when looking at LGBTQIA+ students. While there seems to be a trend in the literature, with LGBTQIA+ students reporting higher levels of fear of crime, there is limited available data upon which to draw such conclusions (Diagle et al., 2021; Franco, 2021; Grinshteyn et al., 2021). This is a similar issue to what we see when looking at students from diverse racial backgrounds. The lack of data could be due to the lack of responses from individuals within these gender and sexual minority identities or it could be due to researchers not looking at this issue as thoroughly as they have when examining the differences between men and women. Targeting specific student organizations on campus can improve our response rates from these groups of interest. This will help increase the number of responses we receive across identity groups for the analyses. After accounting for who the sample will be comprised of, we will run various statistical test to see what the sample might look like with regards to fear of crime scores and victimization based on identity. Reporting the victimization prevalence will help us understand what might frame the scores for fear of crime. The quantitative scores of students’ survey answers about fear of crime will illustrate how students feel on campus as it relates to their various identities. Collecting this type of data at the same time can also help gain a better understanding of what fear of crime looks like for students and the context around those scores to try and create a more comprehensive understanding behind students and their fear of crime. By doing this, we will be able to see how the results compare to the research hypotheses. We hypothesize that cisgender males will report higher rates of victimization than cisgender woman and other gender identities. We also hypothesize that racial minorities will report higher rates of victimization than white 16 students will. And we predict that students who are not straight (LGBTQIA+) will report higher rates of victimization than straight students will. We hypothesize that women, regardless of other identities, will report higher levels of fear of crime. We also expect to find that students in racial minority groups will report higher levels of fear than white students on campus. And finally, we are anticipating that students from sexual minority groups will report higher levels of fear of crime than straight, cisgender students. 17 METHODS OVERVIEW This study used a sample of students from a large Midwestern university to see how fear of crime and victimization experiences on campus might differ based on group identities involving gender and sexual identity, as well as race. The university under study has a student population with diverse backgrounds making up their nearly 40,000 undergraduate enrollees. When looking at sex and race, we see that just over 50% of the undergraduate student population are women and about one-quarter of undergraduates are students of color1. By using an online survey, we can gain a better understanding of students’ fear of crime and their victimization experiences on campus. This survey has two main components, the first focuses on fear of crime while the other addresses any victimization experiences participants may have experienced since coming to college. The survey started by collecting demographic information on all participants and using that data to generate comparison groups for the quantitative analysis. The quantitative aspect focused on how students feel in various situations while on campus. A total score was computed from questions on the survey to represent their general fear of crime while on campus. Collecting data on an individual’s identity helped reveal differences in how students experience fear of crime and victimization based on their identity. After answering questions relating to their fear of crime, students were asked about their victimization experiences. If they reported that they have experienced some form of victimization, participants were then prompted to answer questions regarding those specific 1 Student population figures are intentionally left vague to protect the identity of the institution under study. 18 instances. Only students with victimization experiences were allowed to answer the questions relating to the situational characteristics of those incidents. For the purposes of this thesis, the victimization prevalence based on an individual’s identity was the focus. Prevalence was compared across gender identity, racial identity, and sexual identity to see if there were similarities or differences between groups with regards to rate of victimization. We also examined the association between victimization and fear to see what kind of influence one has on the other. PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT This study used an online survey through the Qualtrics platform, meaning it was relatively easy to administer to students since students are expected to have constant internet access while on campus. A purposive stratified sampling technique was used in this study because of how diverse the student sample was intended to be (Imbens & Lancaster, 1996). By requesting a random list of 4,000 students’ emails from the registrar, we generated the sample portion that accounted for the heterosexual and cisgender white population. By emailing specific clubs on campus that relate to group identities (i.e., the Gender and Sexuality resource center and Black Student Alliance) we hoped to improve response rates from the minority groups of interest. For the purposes of this paper, the emphasis was placed on African American students to represent students of color since they represent the largest portion of non-white students, but we collected data from students with various racial backgrounds. With this approach there was the chance of oversampling. Students may participant in multiple student organizations relating to identity, so it was emphasized not to take the survey multiple times. Participants received a unique link for the survey through their specific club emails or the random list of students provided by the registrar’s office. This means that students 19 in multiple organization might have received the same survey but were informed not to take the survey more than once. There was still the possibility of someone getting an email from both the random list of students’ emails and club association, but that risk was negligible based on the size of the student body. One of the concerns for this sample was representativeness. By using the available enrollment data, we estimated that students from minority racial groups make up about a quarter of domestic students. By using that same report, the female population is just over half the student body. There were no available datasets on students that identify as part of the LGBTQIA+ community meaning we could not make claims of representativeness based on their overall composition in the student body. The limited available data on these students suggested trying to gain as many respondents from these groups of interest as possible. DATA COLLECTION An online survey using Qualtrics made it easy for the data to be stored and exported to SPSS for analysis. The survey was anonymous meaning that no identifiable information was collected. All participants answered questions regarding their fear of crime and those who reported experiencing a victimization incident were asked questions regarding those experiences. MEASUREMENT The demographic variables were collected using a scale developed by the Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals (2015). These questions asked how individuals identify their sexual orientation including: Straight (heterosexual), Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Pansexual, Asexual, Demisexual, Queer, Same-gender loving, Prefer not to answer, and a space to self-identify. Gender identity was a multiple-choice option that allowed participants to click which option best described themselves including options: Cisgender Man, Cisgender Woman, 20 Transgender Man, Transgender Woman, and Non-binary/Other. Along with these questions regarding gender and sexual orientation, we asked students about their age, race, and year in school. The questions pertaining to fear and victimization were drawn from work done Williams et al. (2000) and McConnell (1997). The questions regarding feelings of safety examined how students felt in various situations on or near campus. Students were presented statements including: I feel safe while in class, I feel safe while in night class, I feel safe walking around campus alone during the day, and I feel safe while walking around campus alone during the night. These questions were on a 7-point Likert scale asking participants to rate how much they agreed with these statements, 1 being completely disagree and 7 being completely agree. These answers were then reverse coded so that higher scores would mean more fearful and lower scores would be less fearful. After being reverse coded, responses were compiled to generate a fear of crime score. The Cronbach’s Alpha for the questions of interest was .809, suggesting there was a high consistency between these questions. DATA ANALYSIS Student responses for the fear of crime questions were compiled to create a general fear of crime score. These scores were then compared across identity groups. These questions were based on prior research with the aim of addressing specific groups of interest with a focus on the gender differences in fear of crime (Callanan & Teasdale, 2009; William et al., 2000). The quantitative fear of crime component enabled me to examine the feelings of students on campus across gender, sexual, and racial identity groups. The planned analysis for this study included a t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. The t-test was used to compare participants based on sexual orientation and fear of 21 crime. The ANOVA was used to compare how students felt based on their various identities including race and gender identity for fear of crime. The OLS regression analysis was used to compare how these factors impacted a student’s fear of crime while holding certain variables constant to isolate the strength and association between the variables of interest. The victimization experiences were compared by using a chi-square test of association to see whether prevalence is conditioned by gender identity, sexual orientation, or race. Including victimization in the OLS regression would also allow us to see how victimization impacts fear of crime. A logistic regression was also conducted to see what variables might have impacted a student’s odds of being victimized. 22 RESULTS This study has a sample of 312 respondents from a large midwestern college campus (meaning the response rate was roughly 8%), whose surveys were collected during the Spring 2022 semester. This sample is composed of individuals who reported demographic details, including their: sex/gender identity (Cisgender Man, Cisgender Woman, Transgender Man, Transgender Woman, and Other), race (White, African American, Asian, Latinx, Indigenous, or Other), their sexual orientation (Heterosexual [straight], Homosexual [gay], Other), and their age (in years). The sample has 171 Cisgender women, 112 Cisgender men, 3 Transgender men, 1 Transgender woman, and 24 Non-binary/Other respondents. For the purposes of statistical testing, participants were grouped as Cisgender Men, Cisgender Women, with all other participants being placed in the Non-binary/Other category for gender identity. The median age of participants was 20, most respondents were first-year students (44%), and participants described themselves as White (69%), African American (7%), Asian (13%), Latinx (4%), Indigenous (1%), and Other (6%). For the purposes of statistical testing, participants were grouped as either Asian, Black, White, or Other due to lack of responses from various minority groups. Sexual orientation was recorded as heterosexual (straight) and LGBTQIA+ (non- straight). Below is Table 1, which shows the demographic information for this study. Table 1. Demographic Information of Participants n (%) Total 312 (100%) Sex & Gender Cisgender Men 112 (36%) Cisgender Women 171 (55%) Non-Binary/Other 28 (9%) Sexual Orientation 23 Table 1 (cont’d) Heterosexual (straight) 246 (79%) LBGTQIA+ (non-straight) 66 (21%) Race White 213 (69%) African American 22 (7%) Asian 41 (13%) Other 34 (11%) Year in School First Year 138 (44%) Second Year 79 (25%) Third Year 51 (16%) Fourth Year 42 (14%) Fifth Year and Beyond 2 (1%) Victimization Status No previous victimization 243 (78%) Previously victimized 69 (22%) Age (in years) Mean (SD) 20 (2.39) Range 18-44 *Due to participants not responding to every question, some of the demographic subsets might not total 312. BIVARIATE ANALYSIS: VICTIMIZATION Findings for the bivariate analysis of victimization and demographic variables are presented in Table 2. I hypothesized that cisgender men would be more likely to report victimization than would cisgender women and non-gender conforming students. The findings indicate that the opposite is true—non-gender conforming students (n=28; 35.7%) were more likely to report victimization than cisgender women (n = 171; 26.3%), who were more likely to 24 report victimization than men (n = 112; 11.6%). A two-way chi-square test found a statically significant relationship between gender identity and whether a person is victimized (χ2 (2) = 12.03, p = .002, and Cramer’s V= .197), in the reverse direction, not supporting the hypothesis. Table 2. Bivariate Contingency Table Analysis of Victimization Prevalence Independent Variables Non-victims (%) Victims (%) χ2 value Gender Identity 12.03** Cisgender Men 99 (88.4%) 13 (11.6%) Cisgender Women 126 (73.7%) 45 (26.3%) Non-Binary/Other 18 (64.3%) 10 (35.7%) Sexual Orientation 4.58** Heterosexual (straight) 198 (80.5%) 48 (19.5%) LGTBTQIA+ (non- 45 (68.2%) 21 (31.8%) straight) Race 4.74 Asian 37 (90.2%) 4 (9.8%) Black 16 (72.7%) 6 (27.3) White 164 (77.0%) 49 (23.0) Other 26 (72.2%) 10 (22.1%) *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 Next, I hypothesized that students who are LGBTQIA+ (i.e., non-straight) will be more likely to report victimization than heterosexual (straight) students. Contingency table analysis indicates that non-straight students (n=66; 31.8%) were more likely to have experienced some form of victimization compared to straight students (n=246; 19.5%). A two-way chi-square found a statistically significant difference between sexual orientation and whether someone is victimized (χ2 (1) = 4.58, p = .032, and Cramer’s V= .121), supporting this hypothesis. Finally, I hypothesize that racial minority members are more likely to report victimization than white students. Comparison of group prevalence rates indicates that White 25 students (n=213, 23.0%) reported having been victimized at similar rates as Asian students (n=41, 9.8%), Black students (n=22, 27.3%), and Other racial group students (n=36, 27.8%). A two-way chi-square test found no statistically significant relationship between racial minority status and whether a person is victimized (χ2 (3) = 4.74, p = .192, and Cramer’s V= .123), so the hypothesis is not supported. BIVARIATE ANALYSIS: FEAR OF CRIME Findings for the bivariate analysis of fear of crime and demographic variables are presented in Table 3. I hypothesized that cisgender women students will report higher levels of fear of crime than cisgender men students, and that individuals who identify outside of the gender binary would also experience higher levels of fear than cisgender men. A one-way ANOVA found an overall relationship between gender identity and fear of crime, F (2, 306) = 32.20, p < .001, and η2 = .174, supporting the hypothesis. Post hoc Tukey analyses indicated that cisgender woman (n = 171) report greater fear of crime (M= 3.18, SD = 1.12) than cisgender men (n = 110, M = 2.16, SD = 1.11) but do not have greater fear than students who identify outside of the gender binary (n = 28, M = 3.39, SD = 1.03). Furthermore, students who identify outside the gender binary reported statistically significantly greater fear than cisgender men. Table 3. Bivariate T-Tests and Analysis of Variance Independent Variables Fear of Crime (Mean) t/F Gender Identity 32.20*** Cisgender Men 2.16 Cisgender Women 3.18 Non-binary 3.39 Sexual Orientation -1.94 Heterosexual (straight) 2.77 LBGTQIA+ (non-straight) 3.10 26 Table 3 (cont’d) Race .915 Asian 2.91 Black 2.88 Table 3 (cont’d) White 2.78 Other 3.13 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 I hypothesized that students who are LGBTQIA+ (non-straight) will report higher levels of fear than heterosexual (straight) students. An independent-samples t-test found no statistically significant difference between these two groups, t (308) = -1.94, p = .053, and Cohen’s d = -.271, which did not support my hypothesis that non-straight students (n = 65) would report higher levels of fear of crime (M = 3.10, SD = 1.13) than straight students (n = 245; M = 2.77, SD = 1.23). I hypothesized that racial minority students would report higher levels of fear of crime compared to white students. A one-way ANOVA found no overall relationship between racial identity and fear of crime, F (3, 306) = .915, p = .434, and η2 = .009, meaning it does not support the hypothesis. Post hoc Tukey analyses indicated that Asian students (n = 41) reported similar fear of crime (M = 2.91, SD = 1.22) to Black students (n = 22, M= 2.88, SD = 1.30), White students (n = 211, M = 2.78. SD = 1.19) and Others (n = 36, M = 3.13, SD = 1.26). There were no statistical differences between any of the groups based on race. REGRESSION ANALYSIS I ran a logistic regression to test the association of various demographic variables as they may or may not relate to someone being victimized and are presented in Table 4. The logistic 27 regression found that being a Cisgender Woman, a Third year or Fourth year and above student were statistically significantly related to an individual’s odds of being victimized. Being a cisgender woman increases the odds of victimization by 2.187 as compared to cisgender men. Being a third-year student increases the odds of victimization by 3.354 as compared to first year students. And being a fourth year or above student increases the odds of victimization by 4.174 as compared to first year students. Table 4. Binary Logistic Regression for Victimization Independent Variables B S.E. Exp (B) Cisgender Women 0.782 0.357 2.187* Non-Binary 1.029 0.609 2.799 Second Year 0.462 0.425 1.587 Third Year 1.180 0.535 3.254* Fourth Year and Above 1.429 0.673 4.174* Asian -0.810 0.571 0.445 Black 0.518 0.536 1.679 Other 0.274 0.460 1.316 Non-straight 0.436 0.399 1.546 Age -0.205 0.177 0.814 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 I ran a regression to see what demographic variables, including: gender identity, sexual orientation, race, and year in school, and if someone had been previously victimized might impact respondent fear of crime. Results are presented below in Table 5. The overall model found that there were significant predictors for fear of crime based upon demographic variables, f (12, 277) = 8.389, p < .001, r2 = .267. Statistically significant predictors for fear of crime included being a cisgender woman, being non-binary, and having experienced victimization previously. Specifically, cisgender women report feeling more fearful than cisgender men, with a 28 fear of crime score 1.042 points higher than cisgender men. Nonbinary respondents report a fear of crime score 1.219 points higher than cisgender men. And finally, experiencing a prior victimization increases the respondents’ fear score by .506. Table 5. Ordinary Least Squares Regression for Fear of Crime Scores Independent Variables b S.E. β Cisgender Women 1.042 .138 .429*** Non-Binary 1.219 .283 .289*** Second Year .258 .164 .093 Third Year -.040 .190 -.012 Fourth Year -.349 .222 -.099 Fifth Year -1.605 1.093 -.078 Asian .369 .193 .102 Black -.072 .246 -.016 Other .101 .210 .026 Non-straight .029 .183 .010 Been previously victimized .506 .155 .176*** Age .023 .033 .043 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 29 DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of victimization and fear of crime among students from gender, sexual, and racial minority groups on a large midwestern college campus and to bring greater representation among these understudied groups. By targeting student groups directly, we would expect greater representation from groups that have been previously understudied. Doing this helped us answer the research questions regarding students based on gender, sexual orientation, and race as these variables relate to victimization prevalence and fear of crime. When looking at the results, we first discussed victimization experiences on campus before discussing fear of crime. The hypothesis regarding victimization prevalence was supported for sexual orientation but not supported when regarding gender identity and race. When we look at the original hypothesis for gender identify, it was thought that cisgender men would report the highest prevalence for victimization across categories. But when looking at the results, the opposite is true. Students who are cisgender women and non-binary report higher victimization prevalence than cisgender men. This could be due to several factors. One factor might be the focus of this survey on sex-based offenses such as sexual assault and sexual harassment. When looking at various other victimology studies (Fisher et al., 1998; Gardella et al., 2015; Jennings et al., 2007), we see that a focus on one offense is typical and when multiple offenses are compared, sexual based offenses are grouped and reported simply as sexual assault. It could be that since this study focuses more on sex-based criminal offenses that students who are cisgender women and non-binary had a greater chance to report these experiences whereas other surveys do not afford that opportunity. Men are overall less likely to experience sexual 30 offenses so it might be that because those crimes were of greater number in the current study, they would be less likely to experience victimization overall in this study. Both gender identity and sexual orientation had a small impact on the chances of a student being victimized, as evidenced by the small effect size associated with each variable. This research, like projects before, suffers from a lack of responses from gender and sexual minority members. While I was able to connect with certain on-campus student organizations regarding participation among gender and sexual minority students, the responses from those groups did not lead to a large number of respondents representing their membership. There could be many reasons why the response rates from these particular groups of interest might be lower than expected. It is possible that students in these organizations did not approve of this survey and the questions or thought that it was not supported by their organization due to the phrasing of the questions or the sensitive nature of the survey. It is also possible that participants from these groups simply are not at an increased risk of victimization compared to others as what might have been previously conceived. So, to increase responses from students in these gender and sexual minority groups, approaching them in person might yield better results and form more trust between researcher and participant than what was done through the recruitment in this study. While race was not statistically significantly related to victimization prevalence, the effect size for that variable, Cramer’s V = .123 (df = 3), was similar to the effect size for sexual orientation, Cramer’s V = .121 (df = 1). This would suggest that both variables of interest here have a small impact on victimization prevalence. To gain a better understanding of how victimization prevalence might look depending on race, more targeted recruitment should be implemented like what was discussed when addressing the gender and sexual minorities. While I 31 was unsuccessful in communicating with student groups dedicated to racial minorities on campus, a more collaborative approach might yield more representative data. The results from this study would suggest that more efforts be made to help students from these diverse backgrounds to ensure their safety while on campus. These students from diverse backgrounds seem to be at an increased risk of victimization compared to straight, cisgender male students. This could mean that students are informed on orientation day of ways to reduce their likelihood of being victimized or making the presence of students from diverse backgrounds seen more on campus. When looking at fear of crime, we observe that the only groups that were statistically significantly different from each other were the groups regarding gender identity. Sexual orientation and race were not observed to have statistically significant differences between groups. Similar to victimization prevalence, groups were more similar when comparing effect size. We see that gender identify, η2 = .174, has a large effect size and sexual orientation, Cohen’s d = .271, has a small to medium effect size. Race, however, was not statistically significant and had a negligible effect size, η2 = .009. While some of these effect sizes are similar, they only explain so much when examining fear of crime. Each demographic variable contributes a different amount overall to how students experience fear of crime. When looking at the overall distribution of participants to what the university published in their enrollment report, we see that white students are closely represented whereas students of color are under-represented when looking at specific races. Students from these minority racial groups are not well represented in this study because roughly 15% of students on campus are African American but these students only account for roughly 7% of participants in this study. When using the enrollment report as a reference, we would expect that roughly 60% of 32 participants would be female, which is similar to the percentage in this sample (55%). So, while the gender binary might be “represented,” we cannot make claims about how other gender identities or sexual orientations might be represented. The university does not publish information on students from gender and sexual minorities so we cannot make any claims of how this sample might represent students from these groups. The results from this section would suggest that students from more diverse backgrounds might experience greater levels of fear compared to straight white male students. This might mean that students from these diverse backgrounds are in need of more specialized programs that help explain how college can be a safe and fun experience while making them aware of what potential dangers there might be. When comparing just the mean scores across all groups, we see that there is a limited range for how students feel. The overall mean level of fear reported in this sample was 2.84, which equates to them selecting slightly agreeing (3) over agreeing (2) with the statements, “I feel safe” in various situations. While students from gender and sexual minorities might be more fearful, it is only a difference of 1 point on a 7-point scale and equates to an answer of participants slightly agreeing with a statement instead of agreeing with it, meaning that they overall feel safe while on campus. Or they feel more safe than not while on campus when looking at the questions of interest. From a university perspective, we could work more at trying to equalize students and their fear of crime across gender identity. This could be done by providing more assistance services to students from these diverse backgrounds who only slightly agree with feeling safe while on campus. While some college campuses provide late night ride sharing services to reduce the threat of victimization, some students might not feel comfortable with these because they have not been approved by certain student groups or might bring unease when looking at 33 who might be in the driver’s seat. It might be beneficial to have university officials, such as officers or resident assistants, be available to walk with students at night or provide short distance rides when they feel unsafe like some other research has suggested (Letarte, 2013). The results from the logistic regression would suggest that students who are victimized tend to be cisgender women and third year or above. This aligns with what previous research has established in that cisgender women are at an increased risk of danger while at college. When looking at how year in school might impact a student’s odds of being victimized, it should be understandable that the more time someone is exposed to certain areas, the odds of them being victimized increases. When looking at what variables are statistically significant when predicting fear of crime, we see that being either a cisgender woman or non-binary increases individual’s fear of crime as does having previously been victimized. Seeing that gender identity is a predictor of fear of crime would suggest that more efforts be made at addressing specific concerns students with these identities might have. For example, cisgender women are an increased risk of sexual assault and keeping the shadow of sexual assault in mind might explain why cisgender women are more fearful. To address this, universities could provide more targeted programs at preventing sexual assault or helping students be more aware of what situations could lead to sexual assault. There is no clear answer, and these issues are difficult to address seeing that these are the general concerns in the literature. When looking at previous victimization as a predictor of fear, we would assume that people who have experienced offenses before would be more nervous about experiencing them again or more aware of the risks associated with certain activities or locations. When thinking about what can be done to reduce the fear of these individuals, we would expect psychology 34 research to be beneficial. We would expect to see various forms of therapy to help students reduce their fear and have a better understanding of what happened as well as what coping mechanisms might be helpful for them. LIMITATIONS There were a number of limitations in this study that are consistent with prior research in this area. For example, the sample is not representative of the actual student body; that is, a majority of participants were white, cisgender women. When looking at the enrollment report from the university, we would expect that white participants would be about 68% of the sample and that students of color would be more represented with regards to various minority racial groups. The enrollment report suggests that 15% of the sample should be African American, but the current sample was closer to 7%, suggesting that African American students might be under- represented. When looking at Asian participants and the Other category, we also see issues of representation. The Asian sample in this study was 11% whereas the enrollment report would suggest that about 7% of students on campus are Asian, this might mean that Asian participants are over-represented. The Other category in this study was used to group participants from groups that did not have a sizeable sub-sample. The biggest group impacted by this was Hispanic students. When looking at the enrollment report, Hispanic students make up roughly 7% of the student population. This group could not be compared in this sample due to lack of responses. This means that an entire racial group is unrepresented when trying to understand their fear of crime on campus or their victimization experiences. As highlighted previously, it should be noted that research like this might be more successful with a collaborative approach. While I was able to make contact with certain student groups focused on gender and sexual identity, I was unable to contact groups focused on race. To 35 remedy this issue in the future, I will make more targeted efforts to work with these groups. By either attending public group meetings, participants from these groups might be more willing to engage with a researcher who engages directly with them. Instead of contacting executive board for student organizations, I can present my case for research like this and work with these group members more directly. I can present my By getting these groups more involved in the research at an earlier stage it may produce more buy-in to the project. If participants view themselves as stakeholders in the project, it could improve overall response rates from individuals in these groups of interest. Another limitation to this study is the generalizability. As this relates to representativeness, we cannot apply what was found here to the university at large. When looking at the motivations for why students might take this survey, we can look at the literature. Participants might be motivated because they have experienced victimization on campus or have the completely opposite reaction thinking that the university is safe so why would anyone ask these kinds of questions. We cannot make any claims as to why students felt motivated for taking this survey so that might be why there was limited variability when looking at the demographic variables. Another limitation of this study is that we did not collect information on students and their performance in classes. So unfortunately, we cannot say if the students who have been victims have been negatively impacted in or out of the classroom and we cannot say if their fear has impacted them as well. This could mean that students who have been victimized are more likely to drop out of school or they are not supported enough to continue their education. It could also mean that students who are fearful do not perform as well as other non-fearful students or might not engage in extracurricular activities like other students might. 36 CONCLUSION While limited sample sizes across gender, sex and race minority groups may have limited the ability to detect statistical differences across victimization and fear, we were able to find differences in which we would expect in some instances, such as gender identity, and not in others, such as race. The limitations previously discussed would lead us to believe that a greater effort should be placed on recruiting students from diverse gender and racial backgrounds to better understand how students feel while on campus and the difference in victimization prevenances. By working with student organizations associated with these groups, we can build a better foundation of trust that would benefit both researchers and participants. 37 REFERENCES 38 REFERENCES Beaulieu, M., Dunton, C., Williams, L. M., & Porter, J. L. (2017). The Impact of Sexual Orientation on College Student Victimization: An Examination of Sexual Minority and Non-Sexual Minority Student Populations. Psychology, 8, 1728-1747. Boateng, F.D. & Adjekum-Boateng, N.S. (2017). Differential perceptions of fear of crime among college students: The race factor. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 15(2), 138- 159. DOI: 10.1080/15377938.2017.1310683 Calhoun, K.S., Atkenson, B.M., & Resick, P.A. (1986). A longitudinal examination of fear reactions in victims of rape. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(6), 655-661. Callanan, V.J., & Teasdale, B. (2009). An exploration of gender differences in measurement of fear of crime. Feminist Criminology, 4(4), 359–376. Catalano, S. M. (2005). Criminal victimization, 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals. (April, 2015). Suggested Best Practices for Asking Sexual Orientation and Gender on College Applications. Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals website. https://www.lgbtcampus.org/assets/docs/suggested%20best%20practices%20for%2 0asking%20sexual%20orientation%20and%20gender%20on%20college%20applic ations.pdf Daigle, L.E., Hancock, K., Chafin, T.C., & Azimi, A. (2021). U.S. and Canadian students’ fear of crime: A comparative investigation of fear of crime and its correlates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 1-32. Daigle, L. E., Johnson, L. M., Azimi, A. M., & Hancock, K. P. (2020). Does college matter? Exploring college-level factors related to victimization risk for US and Canadian college students. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 00(0), 1-35. Diamond, M. (2002). Sex and gender are different: Sexual identity and gender identity are different. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7(3), 320-334. Duncan, D.F. (1990). Prevalence of sexual victimization among heterosexual and gay/lesbian university students. Psychological Reports, 66(1), 65-66. Ferraro, K.F. (1995) Fear of Crime: Interpreting Victimization Risk. State University of New York Press, New York. 39 Ferraro, K.F. (1996). Women's fear of victimization: Shadow of sexual assault? Social Forces, 75(2):667-690 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 L. Rev., 32, 61. Fisher, B.S. & May, D. (2009). College students’ crime-related fears on campus: Are fear-provoking cues gendered? Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25(3), 300-321. Fisher, B.S., Sloan, J.J., Cullen, F.T., & Lu, C. (1998). Crime in the Ivory Tower: The level and sources of student victimization. Criminology, 36(3), 671-710. Franco, D. (2021). Creating safe schools for LGBTQIA+ displaced migrant youth: A journey towards anti-oppressive pedagogy. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(2), 228-239. Gardella, J. H., Nichols-Hadeed, C. A., Mastrocinque, J. M., Stone, J. T., Coates, C. A., Sly, C. J., & Cerulli, C. (2015). Beyond Clery Act statistics: A closer look at college victimization based on self-report data. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(4), 640- 658. Grinshteyn, E.G., Whaley, R., & Couture, M.C. (2021). Fear of bullying and its effects on mental health among college students: An emerging public health issue. Journal of School Violence, 1-16. DOI: 10.1080/15388220.2021.1979018 Hillard, P., Love, L., Franks, H.M., Laris, B.A., Coyle, K.K. (2014). They were only joking: Efforts to decrease LGBTQ bullying and harassment in Seattle Public Schools. Journal of School Health, 84(1), 1-9. Imbens, G.W., & Lancaster, T. (1996). Efficient estimation and stratified sampling. Journal of Econometrics, 74(2), 289-318. Iwamasa, G.Y., and Smith, S.K. (1996). Ethnic diversity in behavioral psychology: A review of the literature. Behavior Modification, 20(1), 45-59. Jennings, W.G., Gover, A.R., & Pudrzynska, D. (2007). Are institutions of higher learning safe? A descriptive study of campus safety issues and self-reported campus victimization among male and female students. Journal of Criminal justice Education, 18(2), 191-208. Johnson, L.M., Matthews, T.L., & Napper, S.L. (2016). Sexual orientation and sexual victimization among U.S. college students. The Social Science Journal, 53, 174-183. Kaminski, R.J., Koons-Witt, B.A., Thompson, N.S., 7 Weiss, D. (2010). The impacts of the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shootings on fear of crime on campus. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(1), 88-98. 40 Lacoe, J. (2020) Too scared to learn? The academic consequences of feeling unsafe in the Classroom. Urban Education, 55(10), 1385-1418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916674059 Letarte, C. M. (2013). Keepers of the Night: The Dangerously Important Role of Resident Assistants on College and University Campuses, Kentucky Journal of Higher Education Policy and Practice, 2(2), Article 4. Like-Haislip, T. Z., & Miofsky, K. T. (2011). Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Violent Victimization. Race and Justice, 1(3), 254–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368711409059 Lund, E. M., & Ross, S. W. (2017). Bullying perpetration, victimization, and demographic differences in college students: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 18(3), 348–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015620818 McConnell, E.H. (1997). Fear of crime on campus: A study of a Southern University. Journal of Security Administration, 20(2), 22-46. Meyer, D., & Grollman, E. A. (2014). Sexual orientation and fear at night: Gender differences among sexual minorities and heterosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(4), 453–470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2013.834212 Michigan State University. (2021). Enrollment Report for the Board of Trustees. https://opb.msu.edu/functions/institution/documents/FallEnrollment.pdf Nellis, A.M. (2009). Gender differences in fear of terrorism. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25(3), 322-340. Parker, K.D. (1988). Black-White Differences in Perceptions of Fear of Crime. The Journal of Social Psychology, 128(4), 487-494, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1988.9713768 Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 258-284. Rand, M. (2009). Criminal victimization, 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Reid, L.W., & Konrad, M. (2004). The gender gap in fear: Assessing the interactive effects of gender and perceived risk on fear of crime. Sociological Spectrum, 23(4), 399-425. Rothman, E. F., Exner, D., & Baughman, A. L. (2011). The prevalence of sexual assault against people who identify as Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual in the United States: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 12(2), 55-66. Sloan, J.J. (1994). The correlates of campus crime: An analysis of reported crimes on college and university campuses. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(1), 51-61. 41 Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed Methods Sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806292430 Todahl, J. L., Linville, D., Amy, Wheeler, J., & Gau, J. (2009). Sexual assault support services and community systems: Understanding critical issues and needs in the LGBTQ Community. Violence against Women, 15(8), 952-976. Tillyer, M.S., & Walter, R.J. (2019). Low-income housing and crime: The influence of housing development and neighborhood characteristics. Crime and Delinquency, 65(7), 969-993. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128718794185 U.S. Census Bureau (2018). More Than 76 Million Students Enrolled in U.S. Schools, Census Bureau Reports. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press- releases/2018/school- enrollment.html#:~:text=Of%20just%20the%20current%20undergraduate,black%2C%20 and%2011.2%20percent%20Asian. U.S. Department of Justice. (2005). Violent victimization of college students, 1995-2002. (NCJ 206836) U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Williams, F.P., McShane, M.D., & Akers, R.L., (2000). Worry about victimization: An alternative and reliable measure for fear of crime. Western Criminology Review 2(2). [Online]. Available: http://www.westerncriminology.org/documents/WCR/v02n2/williams/williams.html 42