Social Issues and Justice

vixen1004

09CH_Collica_Crime_2e.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help > Social Issues and Justice

257

9Crime in Schools and the Workplace

Ed Andrieski/Associated Press

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to

• Discuss the nature and extent of crime at primary and secondary schools, including effects of such crime and methods and policies to address them.

• Discuss the nature and extent of crime at college and universities, including effects of such crime and methods and policies to address them.

• Discuss the nature and extent of crime in the workplace, including effects of such crime and methods and policies to address them.

• Explain why crimes occur at schools and in the workplace.

258

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime

On April 20, 1999, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris killed 12 students and one teacher at Columbine High School in Jefferson County, Colorado, before killing themselves. Although the attack occurred at a public high school, it was not typical of school shootings elsewhere in the nation. Indeed, their intention was to kill everyone at the school, including law enforcement officers, first responders, and parents by detonating bombs rigged in their cars.

According to the most definitive account of the attacks, both boys participated in and planned for the assault but for vastly different reasons (Cullen, 2009). One was an angry young man who hated his classmates as well as many other people in the world that appeared in his “hit list.” The other boy was clinically depressed and wanted to die. The boys purchased guns, knives, and explosives online and meticulously planned their attacks, even setting off bombs elsewhere for practice.

Their plan was to detonate a bomb in the cafeteria after first period, when more than 500 students would be present. The boys hid in their cars, armed with guns and additional explosives. They hoped to kill anyone who had survived the initial blast when they ran from the front entrance of the school. Their final act was supposed to end with the boys crashing their car, packed with explosives, into first responders, killing themselves in the process.

Fortunately, their largest propane bombs failed to go off, but the boys used their guns—as well as Molotov cocktails—to kill classmates in the cafeteria and library. After 49 minutes and 188 rounds of ammunition, 13 people lay dead and 24 more were wounded.

9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime Though the Columbine High School massacre shocked the nation, such crime is actually rare in schools. In fact, given the number of students, teachers, and other personnel in schools on any given day, it is quite astounding how few violent episodes there are. To track violence in schools, each year, the United States Department of Justice and United States Department of Education publish Indicators of School Crime and Safety. This report presents data from various sources, including the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the Youth Risk Behavior Survey from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as well as the Schools and Staffing Survey and School Survey on Crime and Safety from the National Center on Education Statistics (NCES). These data allow us to gain great insight into both the nature and extent of deaths, violent crime, property crime, student victimization, and teacher victimization that occurs at schools.

The data also show the prevalence of bullying, cyberbullying, gang activity, drug use, and hate crimes occurring at schools, as well as the effects of these offenses on students, teachers, communities, and society. Each of these terms is defined in this chapter. Table 9.1 shows the extent of various nonfatal crimes that occurred at American schools in 2017 as well as homicides and suicides that occurred at schools during the 2015–2016 school year (the latest years for which NCES data is available).

259

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime

School Crime Is Rare Table 9.1 makes several points about school crime in America. First, crime is actually quite rare given the number of students and teachers on school campuses and the amount of time they spend there. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2019c), there were about 55.6 million students expected to attend elementary and secondary schools during the 2019–2020 school year. If students go to school for 9 months of the year, 5 days a week, and for about 7 hours each day, each student spends a total of about 1,400 hours in school per year. Given this, it is surprising that there is not more crime at schools, which hold at any time millions of young people in the phase of their lives when they are most likely to commit street crime because of their age (see Chapter 5).

However, these numbers show only crimes reported or discovered by schools. Many crimes, including minor crimes, but also even some serious crimes, remain undetected because they go unreported. Thus, the prevalence of school crime is likely greater than reflected in these data. Second, most crimes that occur on school campuses are nonviolent in nature, especially when you consider minor crimes not shown in the table (e.g., vandalism). And even of the violent crimes, most are not serious in nature, meaning they do not generally lead to bodily injury.

The data on school crime show an interesting paradox. For example, most deaths of young people through murder and suicide do not occur at school. Of the 1,478 homicides of children ages 5–18 years during the 2015–2016 school year, only 18 occurred at school (NCES, 2018a).

Table 9.1: Extent of crimes at American schools

Total nonfatal victimizations (2017, ages 12–18 years) 827,000

Thefts* 306,000

Violence* 410,000

Serious violence* 111,000

Total fatal victimizations (2015–2016, ages 5–18) 37

Homicides 30

of students 18

Suicides 7

of students 3

*Rounded to the nearest 1,000.

Source: From “Table 228.25. Number of nonfatal victimizations against students ages 12–18 and rate of victimization per 1,000 students, by type of victimization, location, and selected student characteristics: 2017” in Digest of Education Statistics, National Center for Education Statistics, 2018 (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_228.25.asp) and “Table 228.10. School-associated violent deaths of all persons, homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18 at school, and total homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18, by type of violent death: 1992–93 through 2015–16” in Digest of Education Statistics, National Center for Educational Statistics, 2018 (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_228.10.asp).

260

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime

Further, of the 1,941 suicides of the same age group, only 3 occurred at school. This means roughly 1% of murders and fewer than 1% of suicides occurred at school.

However, the rate of victimization of students for theft and violence for students was higher at school overall (33 victimizations per 1,000 students) than away from school (20 victimiza- tions per 1,000 students) (NCES, 2018b). This is likely because students spend more hours (while awake) at school per week than they do away from school. And time spent at school is time spent around lots of other young people—the very people most likely to commit street crime. That is, there is simply more opportunity for children to commit and to be victimized by crimes at school than away from school.

Overall student victimization rates both at and away from school have been steadily declining since 1992 (see Figure 9.1). Similarly, victimization by gender and race decreased between 2001 and 2017, with a 3% drop for male and female students, as well as for Black and His- panic students. White students reported a 4% decrease in victimization during this same period (NCES, 2018c).

Figure 9.1: Rate of victimization per 1,000 students at school and away from school, 1992–2017

Since the early 1990s, the number of reported criminal victimizations at schools and away from schools has decreased.

Note: Due to a sample increase and redesign in 2016, victimization estimates among youth in 2016 were not comparable to estimates for other years.

Based on data from “Table 228.20. Number of nonfatal victimizations against students ages 12–18 and rate of victimization per 1,000 students, by type of victimization and location: 1992 through 2017” in Digest of Education Statistics by National Center for Education Statistics, 2018 (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_228.20.asp).

100

120

140

160

180

200

‘92 ‘93 ‘94 ‘95 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘17

At school Away from school

Note: Due to a smaple increase and redesign in 2016, victimization estimates among youth in 2016 were not comparable to estimates for other years.

261

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime

Media reports of school crime tend to create misconceptions of a danger that is actually quite small for the overwhelming majority of school users. For example, coverage of the mass mur- der over two decades ago at Columbine High School, discussed at the beginning of the chapter, was so widespread and intense that many parents were afraid to let their kids go to school and some simply refused to let their children attend (Robinson, 2011). Online sources such as the National Center for Victims of Violent Crime (2008) contribute to the misconceptions by making claims such as this: “Our nation’s schools, once a protected haven for learning and growth, are no longer safe for teachers or students in many of our nation’s communities.” In fact, schools are quite safe.

Even some of the data from the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education (Musu et al, 2019) make it seem like school crime is worse than it really is. For example, it was reported that during the 2015–2016 school year, 69% of public schools recorded one or more violent incidents, and about 39% reported at least one act of theft. This suggests crime occurs at nearly all schools. Yet, only 16% reported serious violent incidents, meaning a crime like sexual assault, physical attack, or robbery.

Further, in 2017, only 2.2% of students ages 12–18 years reported being victimized by any crime at school, including 1.5% who reported theft victimization and .7% who reported violent victimization (Musu et al., 2019). In other words, nearly all students are not victimized by crime at school.

About 1 in 5 students reports being offered, sold, or given drugs (Musu et al, 2019), but these are only high school students, so drugs are actually not this prevalent in all schools (drugs are far less prevalent at elementary schools). One in 10 students in 2017 reported gangs were present in their high school, a dramatic drop from 1 in 5 students who reported that gangs were present in their schools in 2001 (Musu et al, 2019).

About 23% of students reported seeing hate-related graffiti at school in 2017, and about 6% were victims of hate-related words at school. As we will discuss in the next section, bullying of all kinds impacts about 20% of students ages 12–18 (Musu et al, 2019).

Bullying Bullying includes being made fun of, called names, insulted, the subject of rumors, pushed, shoved, tripped, spit on, threatened with harm, excluded from activities on purpose, forced by others to do things you don’t want to do, and having one’s property destroyed by others on purpose. According to the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education (Musu et al, 2019), in 2017 13% of students ages 12–18 reported being made fun of, called names, or insulted; 13% were the subject of rumors; 6% were victimized by cyberbullying (also known as electronic bullying); 5% were pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on; 5% were excluded from activities on purpose; 4% were threatened with harm; 2% were forced to do things they did not want to do; and 1% had property destroyed on purpose.

Of the students reporting being bullied in 2017, about 31% said they were bullied on 1 day during the school year, 19% were victims of bullying on 2 days, 30% were bullied on 3 to 10 days, and 20% reported being bullied on more than 10 days in the school year (Musu et al, 2019). Some students (4%) reported they had been bullied two to ten times in a single day during the school year.

262

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime

For students ages 12–18, bullying is more common among female students (24%) than among male students (17%). Specifically, female students are more likely to report some forms of bullying than male students, including being the subject of rumors, being made fun of, called names, or insulted, and being excluded from activities on purpose (the reason for this is explained later in the chapter). Bullying is also more common among Black students, White students, and students of two or more races (all 23%) than among Hispanic students (16%) and Asian students (7%) (Musu et al, 2019). Among high school students, 33% of gay, lesbian, or bisexual students and 34% of transgender students reported being bullied on school property (CDC, n.d.; Johns et al, 2019). The largest portion of bullying is reported to occur in hallways or stairways (43%), followed by inside classrooms (42%) or inside the cafeteria (27%) (Musu et al, 2019).

Bullying is more common among middle school students than among high school students. In high school, people are more mature and have learned (through experience and education) that many previously perceived differences between races are smaller and less consequential than first imagined. The higher rate in middle schools likely has to do with human develop- ment; it is during these years that young people begin to establish their own identities, find new peer groups, and separate themselves from people different than them. Regardless of when or where bullying happens, the negative effects on youth are significant (see Figure 9.2).

Figure 9.2: Effects of bullying on students ages 12–18

From Indicators of school crime and safety: 2018 by L. Musu, A. Zhang, K. Wang, J. Zhang & B. A. Oudekerk, 2019, National Center for Education Statistics (https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019047.pdf ).

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

59.2

21.4

19.4

60.5

12.7

26.8

67.7

13.6

18.6

77.8

8.4

13.7 0%

School work

Not at all

Aspect of life affected

Relationships with friends or family

Feeling about oneself

Physical health

Not very much Somewhat or a lot

263

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime

About 15% of students in grades 9–12 reported being cyberbullied in 2017. Incidents of cyberbullying were most commonly reported by gay, lesbian, or bisexual students (27%), female students (20%), White students (17%), and students of two or more races (16%) (Musu et al, 2019). Such incidents included being sent hurtful information on the Internet, being the subject of harassing text messages, instant messages, or e-mails, being the subject of an online rumor, and being excluded online.

As for hate words, students reported being targets of hate-related words that referred to race (2.8%), ethnicity (1.7%), gender (1%), sexual orientation (0.8%), religion (.7%), and disability (0.7%). Overall, this reflects a 50% decrease in the number of hate-related word victimizations from those reported in 2011 (Musu et al, 2019).

Another form of bullying is sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is commonly defined as unwelcome sexual advances, verbal comments, physical touching, and even offensive remarks about one’s gender (United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2012). Although we commonly think of sexual harassment as something that occurs in the work- place, it also occurs at schools.

Approximately 48% of students in grades 7–12 have been sexually harassed at school, with girls reporting higher rates of sexual harassment than boys (56% versus 40%, respectively) (Hill & Kearl, 2011). Harassment in school is both verbal and physical. Some girls report hav- ing to protect their private areas while walking through the hallways, as otherwise they leave themselves vulnerable to “grabbing” by boys passing by. For gays and lesbians, the problem is even more pervasive, with at least 70% reporting sexual harassment at school (Parker-Pope, 2008). Sexual harassment in schools is illegal under Title IX of the 1972 Education Act. This law applies to all school settings, including colleges and universities.

Other problems occur at school, some of which are criminal and others serious social prob- lems. Table 9.2 shows the percentage of schools that reported serious social problems occur- ring at their schools at least once a week during the 2015–2016 school year.

Table 9.2: Percentage of public schools reporting selected social problems occurring at least once a week, 2015–2016

Cyberbullying among students 12.0%

Student bullying 11.9%

Student acts of disrespect of teachers other than verbal abuse 10.3%

Student verbal abuse of teachers 4.8%

Widespread disorder in classrooms 2.3%

Student racial/ethnic tension 1.7%

Student sexual harassment of other students 1.0%

Student harassment of other students based on sexual orientation or gender identity .6%

Source: Indicators of school crime and safety: 2018, by L. Musu, A. Zhang, K. Wang, J. Zhang, & B. A. Oudekerk, 2019, National Center for Education Statistics (https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019047.pdf ).

264

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime

According to the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education (Musu et al, 2019), crimes are more prevalent at high schools and middle schools than elementary schools. Rural schools are slightly less likely than city and suburban schools to report criminal activity, and city schools have the highest rates of serious violent crime (although they have the low- est rates of bullying). Data show that there is a positive relationship between school size and crime, meaning that as schools get larger, they host more crime. Since city schools tend to be larger, this increased opportunity for victimization likely explains their higher rates of crime.

The same kind of relationship is found between racial composition of schools and poverty and schools; as a school is home to higher rates of racial minorities and students that receive free or reduced-price lunch, the percentage of schools that report crimes on campus is higher. This is consistent with predictions made by social disorganization theory (Wynne & Joo, 2011).

Deaths at School Much research goes into studying school-associated violent deaths, which is not surprising given that crimes that produce death are viewed as the most serious crimes in America (Piquero, Carmichael, & Piquero, 2008; Stylianou, 2003).

Yet, as shown earlier, there were only 37 homicides at schools in the 2015–2016 school year, including 18 murders of students, plus 3 student suicides. Given the nearly 56.2 million stu- dents in elementary and secondary schools during this time, there was only one death result- ing from homicide or suicide of a student for about every 2.7 million students enrolled.

In spite of this fact, whenever a death occurs at school, it makes national news and is gener- ally linked to all other previous school deaths. School shootings are especially widely covered in the news (Newman & Fox, 2009) and helped establish a moral panic over the crime in the United States (Burns & Crawford, 1999). A moral panic occurs when the fear of or reaction to a crime is greater than the threat that crime actually poses; oftentimes, policies are created and implemented in response to a moral panic that are mostly unnecessary and can even make things worse (Robinson, 2011).

For many, the 1999 Columbine massacre may seem to be the first mass school shooting in American history, but in fact, mass school shootings date back to the 18th century. As shown in Figure 9.3, however, school shootings have increased both in frequency and severity over the last five decades. This increase has been met with an increase in concern over school safety. According to one study from the Associated Press and the National Opinion Research Center (AP-NORC, 2019), 67% percent of Americans feel that schools and colleges are less safe today than they were 20 years ago.

265

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime

However, it must be acknowledged that not every school shooting is considered an act of targeted school violence. Targeted school violence is defined as any school shooting or other violent attack where the school or a particular target at the school is selected prior to the attack, such as the attacks at Columbine High School (Vosskuil et al., 2002). There were at least 41 targeted violence incidents between 2008 and 2017 (National Threat Assessment Center, 2019).

A Study of Targeted Attacks A study of 41 incidents of lethal targeted violence at U.S. schools from January 2008 through December 2017 discovered several major potentially useful findings for preventing serious violent acts at schools (National Threat Assessment Center, 2019). First, such attacks are rarely impulsive and instead tend to be planned in advance. In 51% of cases, attackers dis- played planning behaviors beyond stating their intent to carry out an attack. In 41% of cases, planning began within one to six months prior to the attack.

Figure 9.3: Number of K–12 school shootings resulting in death or injury, 1970–2019

Based on data from K–12 school shooting database, by D. Riedman, D. & D. O’Neill, 2020, Center for Homeland Defense and Security (https://www.chds.us/ssdb/dataset/).

400

450

500

300

350

200

250

100

150

0 1970–79 1980–89 1990–99 2000–09 2010–19

Shootings w/ injuries or deaths

Killed (total) Students or other children killed

Injured (total)

266

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime

Given the advanced planning, motivation of those who carried out school attacks is important. According to the study, retaliation was a primary motive of 61% of attackers. Most often, retaliation was related to bullying by the attacker’s peers (46%). Other primary motiva- tions included a desire to kill (17%), suicide or despera- tion (7%), trying to achieve fame or notoriety (5%), and psychotic symptoms (5%). These findings are consistent with rational choice theory, which posits that criminal- ity is motivated by potential gain including emotional gain such as a sense of satisfaction or increased atten- tion (Lab, 2010).

Also related to motivation, nearly all (94%) of the attack- ers had experienced stressors in the six months prior to the attack, with 51% experiencing a stressor within two days of the attack. Although 91% were found to exhibit symptoms of at least one psychological, behavioral, or developmental disorder, only 40% had received a men- tal health diagnosis prior to their attacks. Most com- monly, the stressors experienced were family-related (91%) or some form of bullying (80%). These findings support general strain theory, which suggests that crim- inality is caused by emotional adjustment to negative life experiences (Agnew, 2005).

Attacks were primarily carried out using firearms (61%), although knives were used in 39% of cases. What’s more, of those who used firearms, 76% acquired them from a parent or other close relative’s home. In fact, 77% of school attackers had a known history of using weapons, including 71% who had experience using guns. Despite research demonstrating that hav- ing a firearm in the house makes it easier to defend oneself from potential criminal attacks, research has also shown that having guns in the household significantly increases the chance of a household member using firearms to commit a violent act (Loft, 2010).

Most attackers caused concern in others due to their behaviors prior to the attacks. In 80% of cases, another person (e.g., a school official, parent, teacher, fellow student, or other) was concerned by the behavior of a future school attacker. However, although 89% of attackers had been seen displaying behaviors that should have been met with an immediate response, 66% of those cases were not reported.

MarkCoffeyPhoto/iStock/Getty Images Plus The majority of targeted violence in schools is planned at least two days in advance.

267

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime

Only 17% of the attackers had been arrested for or charged with violent offenses prior to their attacks, and 31% had any history of arrest. However, 51% had a history of violence that did not result in police contact. These findings are consistent with the tenets of basic crime prevention—the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Still, most of the attackers did not commit any serious act of violence prior to their targeted attack.

Other people generally knew about the attacks before they occurred. In 77% of cases, at least one person knew the attacker was thinking about or planning the attacks. In 77% of those cases, it was a peer who knew and in 14% it was an adult. Unfortunately, in most of these cases, no one came forward to tell of their concerns for a wide variety of reasons.

While there is no profile of the typical school attacker, the study found that 83% of the attack- ers were male, 63% were White, and 34% of such attacks occurred in suburban communi- ties. The age of the attackers ranged from 12 to 18 years. The attackers differed in terms of academic performance (although most of them were doing well in school). In terms of social relationships, most had at least one friend, 11% were in a romantic relationship, and nearly three-quarters participated in extracurricular activities. The degree of disciplinary problems in school varied, although 71% had received disciplinary action at some point in the 5 years before their attacks. Finally, 57% of attackers displayed some form of change in behavior or appearance prior to the attack. Many of these findings are inconsistent with social control theories, which would not expect serious criminality among children closely bonded to their peers, schools, and recreational activities.

Of all the attacks studied by the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Education, the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was the most lethal, claiming the lives of 26 people. Yet, the 2007 mass killings at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) remains the most lethal school shooting in the United States to date. Since this attack occurred at a college campus, it is discussed later in the chapter.

Teacher Victimization Teachers are also occasionally victimized by crime at school. For example, in the 2015–2016 school year, 10% of public-school teachers reported being threatened with injury by a stu- dent at school in the past year (Musu et al, 2019). Rates of threats were highest among male teachers, Black teachers, and elementary school teachers.

Further, 6% of teachers reported being physically attacked by a student in the previous year. Rates of student attacks of teachers were highest among female teachers and among elemen- tary teachers in public schools. This is likely because younger students are least capable of exercising self-control and because female teachers are sometimes perceived by aggressors as less capable of protecting themselves.

268

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime

In a survey of 4,735 teachers in 48 states, rates of teacher victimization surfaced as a great concern among educators (McMahon et al., 2011). In that study, approximately 50% of all teachers experienced one form of harassment, 33% experienced property offenses, and 25% reported a physical attack. Harassment included obscene remarks and gestures and threaten- ing remarks.

Theft and damage to property were the most common property offenses reported by teach- ers. In terms of physical altercations, teachers reported having objects thrown at them and being physically attacked. Teachers were also victimized by colleagues (18.9%) and parents (10.6%). Victimization rates were similar across race but differed according to gender. Male teachers reported slightly more victimization than female teachers.

Impact of Specific Factors on School Crime Researchers study several factors to aid in understanding—and preventing—crime in schools. Rates of crime vary across a number of student characteristics, including by sex, age, race/ethnicity, and urbanicity. Males are more likely overall to be victims of nonfatal crime at school than females (37 versus 28 victims per 1,000 students, respectively), although both are equally likely to be victims of theft at school (about 12 per 1,000 students for both males and females) (Musu et al, 2019). By age group, students ages 12–14 are more likely overall to experience nonfatal victimization (38 victims per 1,000 students) and are significantly more likely to experience violent victimization (27 victimizations per 1,000 students) than stu- dents ages 15–18 (28 nonfatal and 14 violent victimizations per 1,000 students).

Figure 9.4 shows how the percentages of criminal victimization at school vary by factors such as sex, age, race/ethnicity, and city size (i.e., urbanicity).

As shown in Figure 9.4, the percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native students who reported victimization (11.1%) was higher than that for students of all other recorded races and ethnicities combined. And rural schools had the lowest percentage of reported school crime.

Away from schools, the gap between male and female rates of victimization is smaller than it is for victimization at school; there are 9 fewer victimizations per 1,000 students for females at school but only 6 fewer for females away from school. Interestingly, away from school, 15–18 year olds have higher rates of victimization than 12–14 year olds (23 versus 17 victim- izations per 1,000). Although the report found no significant differences in rates of victimiza- tion at school based on race/ethnicity, White students were more likely than Black students to be victimized off campus (25 versus 13 per 1,000, respectively).

269

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime

Figure 9.4: Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported criminal victimization at school during the previous 6 months, by selected student and school characteristics, 2017

From Indicators of school crime and safety: 2018 by L. Musu, A. Zhang, K. Wang, J. Zhang & B. A. Oudekerk, 2019, National Center for Education Statistics (https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019047.pdf ).

Total

Male Female

White Black

Hispanic Asian

6th 7th 8th 9th

10th 11th 12th

Urban

Rural Sector

Percent

Public Private

Suburban

American Indian/Alaska Native

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

2.2

2.6

11.1

1.8

100.0

Student or school characteristic

Sex

Race/ethnicity

Grade

Urbanicity

! Interpret data with caution. The coef�icient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.

‡ Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coef�icient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater.

‡

2.2 2.6

2.0

3.1

2.6 1.8

2.7 2.7

1.4 1.4

2.7

2.3

2.1 1.6

2.1

270

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime

It is likely that victimization risk on and off campus does not match due to conditions unique to the school environment. That is, males and younger students are more at risk of criminal victimization than other students for reasons unique to the school rather than due to demo- graphic factors. Unfortunately, not enough is known about this issue to draw firm conclusions.

Trends in School Crime In spite of popular belief, crime at school is generally down. In fact, all forms of crime at school are down since the 1990s, including thefts, violent victimizations, serious violent victimiza- tions, and even murder. Figure 9.5 depicts trends in all nonfatal crimes, including thefts, vio- lent acts, and acts of serious violence since the early 1990s.

Figure 9.5: Trends in school crime, 1992–2017

The overall total rate of school crime victimizations has fluctuated but decreased over time. A high rate of incidents (194 per 1,000 students) was reported in 1993 and a low of approximately 33 victimizations per 1,000 students was reported in 2017.

Note: Due to a sample increase and redesign in 2016, victimization estimates among youth in 2016 were not comparable to estimates for other years.

Based on data from “Table 228.20. Number of nonfatal victimizations against students ages 12–18 and rate of victimization per 1,000 students, by type of victimization and location: 1992–2017” in Digest of Education Statistics, by National Center for Education Statistics, 2018 (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_228.20.asp).

200

180

160

140

120

100

0 ‘92 ‘93 ‘94

Total Theft All violent Serious violent

‘95 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘17

271

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime

Figure 9.6 depicts trends in the number of homicides and suicides at schools since the early 1990s. Both forms of death at school are down since the 1990s, especially murder.

Figure 9.6: Trends in homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18 at school, 1992–93 through 2015–16

The 1990s had higher numbers of reported homicides in schools. There were peaks of over 30 homicides in the 2006–2007 and 2012–2013 school years, but overall the number of homicides per year were typically lower between 2000 and 2016. However, there was an increase in number of suicides at schools between 2000 and 2015.

Note: Due to a sample increase and redesign in 2016, victimization estimates among youth in 2016 were not comparable to estimates for other years.

Based on data from “Table 228.10. School-associated violent deaths of all persons, homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18 at school, and total homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18, by type of violent death: 1992–93 through 2015–16” in Digest of Education Statistics, by National Center for Education Statistics, 2018 (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables /dt18_228.10.asp).

‘9 2–

’9 3

‘9 3–

’9 4

‘9 4–

’9 5

‘9 5–

’9 6

‘9 6–

’9 7

‘9 7–

’9 8

‘9 8–

’9 9

‘9 9–

’0 0

‘0 0–

’0 1

‘0 1–

’0 2

‘0 2–

’0 3

‘0 3–

’0 4

‘0 4–

’0 5

‘0 5–

’0 6

‘0 6–

’0 7

‘0 7–

’0 8

‘0 8–

’0 9

‘0 9–

’1 0

‘1 0–

’1 1

‘1 1–

’1 2

‘1 2–

’1 3

‘1 3–

’1 4

‘1 4–

’1 5

‘1 5–

’1 6

N u

m b

e r

o f

d e a th

Homicides at school Suicides at school

No one knows for sure why school crime is less common today than it was in the 1990s, but the best answer to the question of why crime is down in schools is that it is down for the same reasons that crime is down in America. Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Morgan & Oudekerk, 2019) show that property crimes and violent crimes have declined since the 1990s. Criminologists claim that criminal justice did have something to do with the declines (e.g, more police on the streets, more effective problem-solving policing, more probationers and prisoners) but also find that most of the declines in crime are attributable to factors outside of criminal justice (e.g., an improved economy, aging population) (Walker, 2010; Zimring, 2008).

272

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime

Outcomes of School Crime and Misbehavior According to the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education (Musu et al, 2019), school crime impacts individuals on school campuses, but it also has effects on sur- rounding communities, as well as society at large. School crime leads to injury (and occasion- ally death) of students and teachers as well as property loss, and it interferes with the health and educational success of students. Other outcomes include increases in student drop-out rates, teacher turnover, early retirements, and interruptions of learning (Crews et al. 2008).

Students also occasionally report feeling afraid of crime. In 2017, about 4% of students reported being afraid of attack or harm, versus just under 3% who feared attack or harm away from school. Further, 6% of students reported avoiding school activities or classes at school out of fear of attack (Musu et al, 2019).

Fear of crime was higher among female students than male students and highest among stu- dents of color. It was also highest in urban and public schools. Students of these schools were also more likely to report avoiding certain places at school. This is logical given that, in gen- eral, criminal victimization is more common among these groups and in these schools.

Fear of crime within the school setting has a detrimental effect on children. It can affect academic performance and socialization. It can also cause anxiety, depression, sleeping or eating disorders, nightmares, and in severe cases, suicidal ideations. Students may feign illness or be truant to avoid school. In extreme cases, students may even drop out of school. Students also avoid certain areas of schools where bullying is most likely to occur.

Victims of school crime also suffer academically and may remain hungry because they are afraid to go to the cafeteria, or they will be consistently late for class to avoid the crowded hallways in between classes. Physical illness, such as urinary tract infections, can develop from fear of using the bathroom during school hours. Such students will also be unlikely to partake in extracurricular activities. As a result, their entire school experience will be a disap- pointing one, riddled with anxiety and fear. This does not provide a conducive atmosphere for learning, and it will not produce an enthusiastic learner.

Other students, in an attempt to defend themselves, bring weapons such as guns, knives, box cutters, mace, or brass knuckles to school. Bringing a gun to school may make a student feel safer, but the consequences can be devastating. Another student or teacher could be shot or killed, or the student who brought the weapon could be expelled and arrested. Finally, the more schools have to police students, the less time they have to teach students.

Teachers also report that misbehavior, student tardiness, and class cutting interferes with their teaching. For example, in the 2015–2016 school year, 38% of teachers reported this. Such problems were higher in secondary schools than elementary schools (48% versus 32%, respectively), and in larger and city schools. Larger schools provide both greater anonymity and opportunity, both of which will logically produce more behavioral problems in school (Musu et al, 2019).

273

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime

Responding to School Crime Schools across the country deal with crime and disorder at school in a wide variety of ways. Figure 9.7 shows the kinds of activities and policies pursued by schools to respond to these social problems.

Figure 9.7: Percentage of schools that used selected safety and security measures to respond to crime on campus, 2015–2016

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent

From Indicators of school crime and safety: 2018 by L. Musu, A. Zhang, K. Wang, J. Zhang & B. A. Oudekerk, 2019, National Center for Education Statistics (https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019047.pdf ).

0.0

95.6 94.4

89.6

73.2 88.6

73.2

94.2

68.4 60.6

46.5 70.0

55.0

62.3 41.5

25.4 19.5

12.0

2.9 13.0

16.2

2.0! 7.1 10.6

5.9

20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Controlled access to buildings during school hours

Security cameras used to monitor the school

Required faculty and staff to wear badges or picture IDs

Required students to wear uniforms

Required students to wear badges or picture IDs

Random metal detector checks

Random dog sniffs to check for drugs

Enforced a strict dress code

Primary Middle Percent

Safety and Security Measure

High school

As shown in Figure 9.7, schools in 2015–2016 most commonly controlled access to schools during business hours to prevent crime on campus. A vast majority of schools also used secu- rity cameras to monitor the premises and more than half of schools required staff and faculty to wear identification badges (Musu et al, 2019). Some schools used random metal detec- tor checks or dog sniffs to prevent weapon possession and drug use by students. Just over 25% of elementary schools required students to wear uniforms, and that number decreases as students age. As a whole, more than half of schools (53%) enforced a strict dress code.

274

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime

Schools nearly universally limit access to social networking sites, cell phones, and text mes- sage devices. This not only helps reduce distractions from and interruptions of class but also likely helps reduce the incidence of cyberbullying on campus.

The most common strategies used at schools are consistent with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and situational crime prevention. Both are measures aimed at reducing opportunities for crime by altering the environment in ways to make crime less likely to occur (Lab, 2010).

Implementing more security officers and cameras are two strategies used in the attempt to decrease school-based victimization. The logic is that, if capable guardians are present, the opportunity to victimize will be decreased. Security cameras and adult presence in the hallways are meant to deter would-be rule breakers. Yet, they probably have little value in deterring serious criminals such as school shooters (whose attacks have unfortunately been caught on school cameras). Security cameras as well as locker checks (reported by 48% of students) have raised issues of privacy on campus.

Web Field Trip: To Arm or Not to Arm?

A recent trend of increased presence of armed security personnel on school campuses has been controversial. According to the NCES (2018d), nearly 43% of public schools in 2015–16 had sworn law enforcement officers who routinely carried a firearm present on campus at least once a week. Some schools are even considering arming teachers in classrooms in an attempt to thwart classroom violence and targeted shootings.

Read the Violence Policy Center’s argument against arming teachers at http://www.ncdsv .org/images/VPC_Arm-teachers-the-facts-argue-against-it.pdf, and then read an article from the San Diego Union Tribune in support of this idea at https://www.sandiegouniontribune .com/opinion/commentary/sd-oe-guns-schools-teachers-20180228-story.html.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. Which position, allowing guns in schools or preventing them, did you find most persua-

sive? Why? 2. Does hiring armed security or allowing school staff to carry guns guarantee that school

shootings will be reduced? 3. What methods aside from providing security and teachers with firearms could be

employed to reduce school shootings?

Interestingly, only 7% of all public schools required students to wear badges or picture IDs. As a general rule, the larger the student population, the more intense the number and impact of security measures (Musu et al, 2019).

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/VPC_Arm-teachers-the-facts-argue-against-it.pdf

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sd-oe-guns-schools-teachers-20180228-story.html

275

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime

Crime prevention at schools also entails broader efforts such as counseling and school-based therapy for children with personal problems and/or who have shown warning signs for aggressive or violent behavior, as well as antibullying programs that seek to diminish the pos- sibility that children will one day seek revenge for negative treatment at the hands of other students (Prout & Brown, 2007).

Since certain factors are associated with school-based violence, all school administrators and faculty should receive training on how to identify risk factors. Schools need to implement pol- icy and procedural guidelines to help faculty handle high-risk students. Most kids who com- mit school-based homicides will exhibit leakage, which refers to the student’s intentional or unintentional admission of their violence. This may include a discussion of fantasies, dreams, feelings, or attitudes; thoughts can also be expressed through artwork.

Law enforcement and school officials must work collectively. There should be ongoing com- munication between the two and a written policy codifying their agreement to work together on violence prevention. Ongoing assessments of violence and bullying should be conducted by law enforcement and school administrators. In order for this relationship to be effective, law enforcement must have a strong presence within the schools and develop relationships with faculty and students.

Web Field Trip: Student Privacy

Privacy rights in the United States become a complicated issue when a minor is involved. The rights to free speech, free press, free association, and freedom from unwarranted search and seizure are points of contention between students and school administrators and have been for decades. A student is also likely to have less privacy rights when it comes to personal infor- mation, which may be given without their permission to a parent or legal guardian.

To learn more about students’ rights, visit the website of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Its page, “Student Privacy,” provides a thorough summary of the issues as well as some of the latest developments in the law related to this issue: http://epic.org/privacy/student/. Also see how the U.S. Constitution pertains to the issue of student rights: http://www.us constitution.net/consttop_stud.html.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. What rights do students maintain at schools? Which do they sacrifice? How and why? 2. What differences do you see between secondary schools and colleges and universities? 3. Do you think reform is needed, or are students’ rights a good balance?

http://epic.org/privacy/student/

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_stud.html

276

Section 9.2 Nature and Extent of Crime at Colleges and Universities

Prevention programs, such as conflict resolution (the process of negotiation and compro- mise between two conflicting parties), D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), G.R.E.A.T. (Gang Resistance Education and Training), and school-based resource officers (police officers assigned to work within the school setting), help to develop strong relationships with faculty and students and can serve as a primary step to threat assessments.

In response to bullying, the National Department of Health and Human Services implemented an antibullying campaign in 2004, and many schools have implemented anti-bullying preven- tion programming. The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, a national model, is designed for elementary and middle school children. It aims to reduce and prevent bullying in the school environment. This program was found to decrease bullying and other antisocial behaviors, such as vandalism and truancy (Pereznietto, Harper, Clench, & Coarasa, 2010).

Schools should have clearly established guidelines for what behavior constitutes bullying and how such behavior will be handled by school officials. Parents and teachers should be edu- cated on how to recognize signs of bullying. In cases of cyberbullying, teens should be encour- aged to talk to their parents and should never disclose their Internet password information. Harassing messages, via e-mail or text, can be blocked. And computers should be stored in a common area so parents can keep track of their children’s Internet use.

9.2 Nature and Extent of Crime at Colleges and Universities Minor and serious crimes also occur with some frequency at colleges and universities. Although these are also educational institutions, colleges and universities are distinct from elementary, middle, and high schools in several ways. First, the former typically are located across a much larger area and are comprised of many more buildings. Second, students at colleges and universities tend to have contact with far more people on a daily basis and are under far less control by superiors such as teachers and administrators. Third, colleges and universities are not only educational institutions but also serve as a residential environment during a time where significant developmental life transitions occur (Drysdale et al., 2010). It is generally recognized that there are thus more opportunities for crime to occur at colleges and universities. Yet, just as in secondary schools, serious crime is actually rare at colleges and universities.

277

Section 9.2 Nature and Extent of Crime at Colleges and Universities

College and University Crime Is Rare Figure 9.8 shows the number of “serious” crimes reported by colleges and universities in the United States in 2017.

Figure 9.8: Crimes at colleges and universities, 2017

Based on data from “Table 329.10. On-campus crimes, arrests, and referrals for disciplinary action at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by location of incident, control and level of institution, and type of incident: Selected years, 2001 through 2017” in Digest of Education Statistics, by National Center for Education Statistics, 2018 (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables /dt19_329.10.asp?current=yes).

11,500

500 1,000 1,500 2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

3,500

4,500

5,500

6,500

7,500

8,500

9,500

10,500

2,500

0 MurderArsonRobberyAggravated

assault Motor vehicle

theft

Forcible sex offense

Burglary

278

Section 9.2 Nature and Extent of Crime at Colleges and Universities

To provide some context for these numbers, it is important to consider the number of educa- tional institutions and the students they enroll. In the Fall of 2017, there were nearly 20 mil- lion students enrolled in colleges and universities in the United States. Another 3.9 million people were employed as faculty and staff in these colleges and universities that year (NCES, 2018e). Thus, nearly 24 million people spent time at colleges and universities, meaning about 7% of all people in the United States in 2017 were employed by or attending postsecondary education.

Given these numbers, it is clear that serious crimes are actually quite rare at colleges and universities. As noted earlier in the section on crimes at schools, however, it is imperative to understand that these numbers reflect only crimes reported to or discovered by univer- sity police. Many crimes, including especially minor crimes but also including most rapes, go unreported to the police. Thus, the prevalence of college and university crime is much greater than reflected in these data.

As in the case of attacks against secondary schools, the rarest of these are also referred to as targeted violence, or acts of campus crime that are aimed at harming a particular person or people.

Directed Assaults In a report released in 2010 (Drysdale et al), the U.S. Secret Service focused on a more specific form of targeted violence—directed assaults, defined as an attack that employed or had the ability to employ lethal force, committed against a specific person or someone who matched that person’s victim profile, and who was chosen prior to the initiation of the assault or at the time of the attack based on similarities to the intended victim.

Data from 1900 to 2008 show that there were only 272 such incidents in the United States, ranging from domestic violence all the way to murder (Drysdale et al, 2010). Acts such as hazing, pranks, crimes committed for material gain, murder-for-hire plans, low-level assaults, gang- and drug-related violence, spontaneous assaults between strangers, and incidents generated by ideological disagreements were excluded. Of all the attacks, 73% were attacks where offenders targeted a specifically named person or people, and in 79% of those cases, the targeted person was the only one harmed. Thus, rare violent attacks at colleges and uni- versities such as the massacre at Virginia Tech in 2007 almost never occur.

279

Section 9.2 Nature and Extent of Crime at Colleges and Universities

Case Study: Virginia Tech

Twenty-three-year-old Seung-Hui Cho, a student at Vir- ginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (known as Virginia Tech) in Blacksburg, Virginia, killed 32 people on April 16, 2007. Cho’s killing spree began at 7:15 a.m. when he shot a female student in her dorm and shot the dorm’s resident advisor. Two hours and 30 minutes later, Cho entered a lecture hall building and killed 30 people (25 students and 5 faculty members) and wounded 17 more. Some of the wounded were shot through direct gunfire while others were wounded in their attempt to escape from the building. At the end of the killing spree, Cho shot himself in the head.

During the 2 hour and 30 minute break between killing the female dorm student and entering the lecture hall, Cho went to the post office to mail a package to the NBC news station in New York City. NBC received the package 2 days after the murders, which contained pictures and videos of Cho with his weapons. In the video he rambled about “rich brats” and complained about being picked on. He claimed he was the defender of the weak and referenced the two shooters in the Columbine High School shooting.

Cho was born on January 18, 1984, in South Korea and immigrated to the United States with his parents at the age of eight. Cho was a quiet kid who was bullied by others. He remained a loner at Virginia Tech and liked to write gruesome stories, plays, and poems. One professor had him removed from her class for causing disturbances and even described Cho as the bully. He was caught photographing the legs and knees of female students in the class. Other faculty members were also concerned about him, and one professor encouraged him to seek counsel- ing. Still, Cho was accused of stalking two female students in 2005. In the same year, he made suicidal statements to his roommate, which resulted in his short stay at a psychiatric facility. He was released with instructions to seek out-patient therapy.

Later, Cho was upset that his book proposal was rejected and by the negative reactions of many of his professors to his work. He was also angry about the apparent disparity in income levels among the students. Cho was from a hardworking family that managed a dry-cleaning business. He struggled with money while he witnessed his other classmates, many from afflu- ent families, “wasting” their money. He was also anxiety ridden over graduation, which was a few weeks away. Cho was an average student with average grades and no employment history.

He bought his first handgun 5 weeks before the attack and a second one closer to the time of the attack. Police found evidence in his dorm room that showed he was planning the attack for quite a while (Nizza, 2007).

Critical Thinking Questions 1. Recall the information you read about targeted attacks earlier in this chapter. Did

Seung-Hui Cho’s motivations and experiences seem in-line with the National Threat Assessment Center’s findings on targeted attackers?

2. What, if anything, might have been done to help prevent the attacks at Virginia Tech?

Thomas B. Shea/Contributor/WireImage /Getty Images

In the largest mass killing on an American college campus, Seung-Hui Cho opened fire at Virginia Tech where he killed 32 people and injured 17 others before killing himself on April 16, 2007.

280

Section 9.2 Nature and Extent of Crime at Colleges and Universities

Sexual Assault According to a study for the Association of American Universities (Cantor et al, 2020), 13% of university students reported at least one instance of nonconsensual sexual contact since enrolling in school. Female undergraduate students reported the highest rates of sexual assault at 26%, followed by students who identified as transgender, nonbinary/genderqueer, gender questioning, or who did not list a gender (TGQN) at 23%, and finally male students at 7%. Nearly all of the female and TGQN students who participated in the study reported their offender was male. Among male victims, about two-thirds reported their offender was female and one-third reported their offender was male.

As noted in Chapter 6, rape and sexual assault are some of the most underreported violent crimes in the nation. This holds true at post-secondary institutions as well; female students contacted a program or resource for just under 30% of rape incidents and male students did so for only about 18%. TGQN students were more likely to contact a program or resource, reaching out in nearly 43% of cases. The most common reasons students gave for not contact- ing official sources or programs include not feeling the incident was serious enough to report; feeling embarrassed, ashamed, or not emotionally able to report; not wanting to get the per- petrator in trouble; and not thinking the resources could help them (Cantor et al, 2020).

In addition to low levels of victim-initiated reporting, there has been scrutiny in recent years of universities’ reporting practices. While legislation such as the Clery Act and Title IX require educational institutions to report and resolve incidents of sexual harassment and sexual vio- lence, some studies suggest that college campuses have failed to accurately report such data (AAUW, 2018; Yung, 2015). According to one study, of the 11,000 higher educational institu- tions receiving federal financial aid in 2016, 77% reported that there were no incidents of any type of sexual assault on their campuses that year (AAUW, 2018).

Impact of Specific Factors on College and University Crime Most perpetrators of college and university crime were in their 20s and were known in some way to their victims due to current or past relationships. For example, 34% of attacks were related to intimate relationships, and another 10% were due to refusing advances of the attacker or being obsessed with the target. Another 14% were in retaliation of a specific action (Drysdale et al, 2010). These kinds of attacks really have nothing to do with colleges and universities but instead suggest that violent actions on campuses are generally motivated by the same kinds of factors that generate violence off campus.

Another 10% were categorized as being in response to academic stress or failure, and 10% resulted from sexual violence by a stranger. Virtually no attackers were not affiliated in some way with the college or university (almost all were current or former students or employ- ees), and more than 90% of attackers were males. More than half of the time (54%), firearms were used.

281

Section 9.2 Nature and Extent of Crime at Colleges and Universities

According to the report, these acts are rarely impulsive and instead usually thought out and/ or planned in advance, although attackers rarely directed threats toward their targets prior to their attacks. However, in about 29% of the cases, offenders either engaged in stalking or harassing behaviors, verbal or written threats, or other physically aggressive acts toward the offender (Drysdale et al, 2010). Finally, there is no reliable profile of the campus attacker, although almost all were men.

When colleges and universities report the crimes that occur within their jurisdictions, they are required to report whether the crimes occurred on or off campus. The data show that, generally speaking, the following crimes tend to occur on public property at or near the cam- puses: murder, aggravated assault, and motor vehicle theft. Meanwhile, the largest portion of robbery occurs on campus but not in residence halls. Finally, the following crimes tend to occur on campus and, in particular, in residence halls: burglary, forcible sex offenses, and arson. Also, cases of weapons possession, liquor law violations, and illegal drug possession tend to occur in residence halls (NCES, 2019d). Explanations for these findings are offered later in the chapter.

The outcomes of campus and university crime are similar to those of school crimes. Thank- fully, the most serious of them (e.g., death and serious injury) are rare. Yet, students and other users of campus spaces are often injured physically and financially by crime. As a result, they often suffer from fear of crime and increased perceptions of criminal victimization. Studies confirm these outcomes as well as the fact that students do report avoiding areas of campuses they perceive to be dangerous (Robinson & Roh, 2012).

The Party Subculture Student lifestyle promotes certain types of criminal victimization, including sexual assaults induced by heavy alcohol consumption as part of the party subculture at many colleges and universities (Robinson & Roh, 2012). Given the large number of young people that congregate on college and university campuses, that socializing is very important to people in early adulthood, and that most of them are away from home for the first time, it is not surprising that college students often drink alcohol in heavy amounts as part of their new independence.

Alcohol has the most significant impact on campus crime (Robinson & Scherlen, 2007), where alcohol use promotes aggressive acts such as assault and rape (Giancola, 2002). Alco- hol impairs the regions of the brain responsible for planning, forethought, and self-control. Thus, when young people drink, they often make poor decisions that promote both offending and victimization. In a majority (69%) of sexual victimization cases on college and univer- sity campuses, the offender had consumed alcohol, and in 43% of cases the victim had been drinking alcohol. Similarly, the vast majority (90%) of acquaintance rapes involved alcohol (Hattersly-Gray, 2018). Given this reality, it is important for college and university adminis- trators to address alcohol use and promote responsible use at all times for those who drink.

282

Section 9.2 Nature and Extent of Crime at Colleges and Universities

The good news is that colleges and universities are promoting alcohol abstinence (at some campuses) or responsible alcohol use (at most campuses). This often includes learning per- sonal limits or tolerance of alcohol, encouraging students to drink only with people they know and can trust, social norm campaigns where students learn that most students actually do not drink in large amounts, teaching students about the relationship between alcohol and aggres- sive behavior, and even encouraging students to seek other forms of entertainment. Some of these approaches are addressed later in the chapter.

Responding to Campus and University Crime Before 1990, college administrators did not willingly disclose campus crime statistics to the public. They were also reluctant to submit such information to law enforcement. Crime statis- tics could deter potential students from applying and damage the college’s reputation. How- ever, in 1990 Congress passed the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act, known today as the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act or the Clery Act. It requires colleges and universities that receive federal financial aid to report crime statistics and to make such statistics readily available to the public.

This act was originally part of the Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act of 1990. In 1998, it was renamed the Clery Act after a 19-year-old college freshman, Jeanne Clery, who was raped and murdered in her dorm by another student in 1986. The Clery Act has several regulations: (1) policy disclosure, (2) records collection and retention, and (3) information dissemination. Under the Clery Act, colleges and universities collect and report annual crime statistics and then make them available to the public, along with safety and security proce- dures and programs being used to protect campus users.

Information required by this Act is excluded under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA). Crime statistics are not considered educational records; therefore, they are subject to disclosure. Information regarding the outcome of campus disciplinary proceed- ings is not a FERPA violation. The U.S. Department of Education is responsible for collecting this data.

The Clery Act and the national campaign by Jeanne Clery’s parents made other significant changes to how colleges respond to criminal activity. One example is the hiring of campus security officers with law enforcement backgrounds because they tend to be more profes- sional than private security guards. Almost 90% of large campuses have sworn police officers (Peterson, 2011).

283

Section 9.2 Nature and Extent of Crime at Colleges and Universities

Case Study: The Jeanne Clery Story

Jeanne Clery was a 19-year-old freshman student attending Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. On April 5, 1986, Jeanne was raped and murdered in her college dorm by a student that she did not know. It was 6:00 a.m., and the perpetrator, Josoph Henry, entered her room with the intent to steal after he had been drinking all night. He entered the dorm through three unlocked and partially open doors. The doors were propped open with boxes from other students. None of the doors was properly guarded or secured. Jeanne woke up during the burglary, and Henry raped and strangled her. Henry was later apprehended by police and ultimately was convicted of murder on April 5, 1986, and sentenced to death.

The university was reportedly aware of complaints from students about unsecured doors in the same dorm, but university officials failed to act on any of the complaints. They also failed to provide any information regarding campus security or crime statistics. In the 3 years prior to Jeanne’s murder, 38 violent crimes were committed on Lehigh’s campus; none of the students or their parents were made aware of this information. Jeanne’s parents were very unhappy with how the university handled this matter. They sued the school for $25 million, and the case was settled for an undisclosed amount.

Jeanne’s parents used the money to support their campaign to get Congress to pass a crime disclosure law to help ensure the safety of all college students. They started at the state level but were able to wage a national campaign that resulted in the successful passage of the Clery Act. They also created a nonprofit organization, Security on Campus (now called the Clery Center), which is committed to preventing violence on college campuses and helping college victims from around the country (Peterson, 2011).

Marianne Barcellona/Contributor/The LIFE Images Collection/Getty Images

The rape and murder of college student Jeanne Clery inspired The Jeanne Clery Act, which requires colleges and universities to disclose campus crime statistics and security policies.

CPTED and situational crime prevention are also extremely common at colleges and univer- sity campuses. Recall that these are approaches aimed at reducing opportunities for crime through means such as increasing the ability of potential witnesses to see offenders and for people to protect their own property.

For example, most campuses rely heavily upon the use of security cameras and most have implemented card access to buildings. Doors must remain secured, and those students with- out a card will not be permitted to enter. A security guard or resident monitor may sit in the front entrance to sign guests in and out of the building, especially after hours. Campuses have installed more lighting and more frequent patrol. In addition, call boxes are available on most campuses. If students witness an emergency, they can call campus police/security from these boxes, stationed strategically around the campus.

284

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime

Some campuses provide their resident students with cell phones with the number of campus security preprogrammed into the phone. Most colleges have also implemented campus alert systems following the fatal shootings at Virginia Tech. Students can sign up to receive emer- gency alerts via phone, text, and/or e-mail. Finally, there are more education centers to help students learn how to protect themselves and more counseling services available for those that are victims of crime.

Colleges and universities also routinely and regularly provide crime prevention advice and programs aimed at individual people such as students. Students usually receive information about protecting themselves from certain situations after being admitted to the school, after arriving on campus, and also throughout their studies. Given the link between alcohol and aggression noted earlier, this information usually includes alcohol-related information.

9.3 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), within the United States Department of Labor (2012), offers the broad definition of workplace violence as “any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site.” This includes any act from serious crimes like murder to simple threats of violence or even verbal abuse.

The NCVS defines workplace violence a bit differently. Its definition of workplace violence is “nonfatal violence (rape/sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault) against employed persons age 16 or older that occurred while they were at work or on duty” (and attempted crimes are also included) (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012d). Given that its defi- nition includes only serious acts of violence, the extent of workplace violence in the NCVS appears much smaller according to this source. NCVS defines workplace homicide as a “homicide of employed victims age 16 or older who were killed while at work or on duty” (excluding deaths by accidents) (Harrell, 2011, p. 2).

Finally, NCVS also defines nonworkplace violence as “nonfatal violence (rape/sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault) against employed persons age 16 or older that occurred while they were not at work or on duty” (and attempted crimes are also included) (Harrell, 2011, p. 2).

285

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime

Workplace Crime Is Rare According to OSHA (2012), nearly 2 million American workers indicate that they are victims of workplace violence every year, and much more goes unreported. Of these, the smallest por- tion is homicide. According to the National Safety Council (2019), there were 20,790 nonfatal workplace injuries and 453 workplace homicides in 2018 as a result of assault.

Data from the NCVS (Harrell, 2011) show that about 572,000 nonfatal violent crimes occurred against people 16 years or older at work in 2009, and of these only about half were reported to the police. These data suggest that workplace violence makes up about 15% of all nonfatal violent crime that occurred in the United States against people 16 years and older in the United States during these years. Thus, 85% of nonfatal violent crime occurs away from work.

To provide some perspective, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012) reports that in March 2011, there were about 153.3 million employed people in the United States. Assuming victim- ization at work remained relatively constant since 2009–2010, this means that somewhere between 0.4% and 1.3% of workers were victimized by workplace violence, depending on whether you use the NCVS or OSHA definition. Thus, crime at work is even more rare than crime at school.

Some types of workplace crime are more common. Examples include white-collar and cor- porate crimes (discussed in Chapter 3 as well as later in this chapter). It is also important to recall that these data reflect only crimes reported to or discovered by the police. Thus, the prevalence of workplace crime is greater than reflected in these data.

Table 9.3 shows the number of fatal incidents at work caused by intentional injury in 2018. Note that deaths can result from assaults and violent acts without being classified as homi- cides. Typically, the distinction is the presence or absence of intent on the part of the offender.

Table 9.3: Intentional fatal workplace injuries, 2018

Deaths caused by . . .

Total intentional injuries 757

Homicides 453

Shooting 351

Stabbing 44

Self-inflicted injury 304

Source: “Table 2. Fatal occupational injuries for selected events or exposures, 2011–2018” in Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, by Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019. (https://www.bls .gov/news.release/cfoi.t02.htm).

286

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime

Bullying or harassment in the workplace is another form of workplace crime. A 2017 study found that 19% of employees have personally experienced bullying on the job while another 19% have witnessed it (Namie, 2017). Sexual harassment is another form of bullying on the job. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, n.d.) received 7,514 charges alleging sexual harassment in 2019. About 38% of women and 13% of men report having been sexually harassed at their workplace (Stop Street Harassment, 2018).

In the Field: An Expert Discusses LGBTQ Bullying in Schools and the Workplace

Is bullying or harassment of LGBTQ individuals in schools or workplaces an issue? How might organizations such as the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center respond to or help individu- als who are victims in such cases?

Bullying and harassment of LGBTQ individuals is com- monplace in schools and the workplace. The L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center works to ensure LGBTQ equality through outreach, education, and advocacy. Individuals who have been victims of bullying, harassment, and other forms of discrimination can find assistance through our Anti- Violence Project. We provide legal consultations, attor- ney referrals, restraining order preparation, assistance with crime victim compensation, and advocacy within the criminal justice system.

We frequently receive requests from employers to pro- vide LGBTQ sensitivity trainings, and sometimes these requests are part of an employer’s efforts to resolve con- flicts between employees. In some instances, the train- ings have been requested because an employee came out as transgender, and the employer wanted to learn how to create a trans-affirmative work environment.

We have also assisted students from middle school up to college age with issues around school bullying, and in one instance we were sought out for our expertise by the Los Angeles Police Department during an investigation of anti-LGBTQ bullying in a local private high school. In that particular case, the parents of the victim were unaware of their daughter’s sexual orien- tation, and school administrators planned to have a meeting with the parents and “out” their child to them, against her will. Through an LAPD detective, we were able to convince admin- istrators that outing the student to her parents without her consent would most likely have a severe psychological impact on her and could potentially create devastating upheaval in her life. We have seen many instances where youth have come out, or have been “outted,” to their parents, who in turn reject their children and kick them out of the home. Not having the vic- tim’s consent and not knowing how the parents would respond could lead to similar results.

Courtesy of Jake Finney Jake Finney, former manager of the Anti-Violence Project for the Los Angeles LGBT Center in Los Angeles, California.

287

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime

The Most Dangerous Occupations According to NCVS data from 2005–2009 (Harrell, 2011), the highest overall rates of nonfatal workplace violence occurred among those in law enforcement (47.7 victimizations per 1,000 employed persons). This can thus be considered the most dangerous form of work when it comes to likelihood of workplace violence, as shown in Figure 9.9.

Figure 9.9: Rates of workplace violence, 2005–2009

Based on data from Workplace violence, 1993–2009, by E. Harrell, 2011, Bureau of Justice Statistics (https://www.bjs.gov /content/pub/pdf/wv09.pdf ).

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Law enforcement

Mental health

Transportation

R a

te p

e r

1 ,0

0 0

e m

p lo

y e

d p

e rs

o n

Retail sales

Teaching

Medical

Within each of the occupational categories shown in Figure 9.9, some professionals have higher than average violence victimization rates at work, including bartenders (79.9 vic- timizations per 1,000 employed people), law enforcement officers (77.8 victimizations per 1,000), teachers at technical/industrial schools (54.9 victimizations per 1,000), mental health professionals who provide custodial care (37.6 victimizations per 1,000), and gas sta- tion attendants (30.2 victimizations per 1,000) (Harrell, 2011).

288

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2019a), the largest percentage of workplace homicides in 2018 occurred in service work (33.1%), followed by sales and office work (22.7%) (see Table 9.4). The least-affected occupations were those involved in professional and related work (7.3%).

Possible reasons why these jobs are more dangerous are examined later in the chapter.

Table 9.4: Workplace homicides, 2018

Occupation Percent of workplace homicide

victims age 16 or older

Management, business, and financial 10.2%

Professional and related (e.g. computer/mathematical, architecture/ engineering, life/physical/social sciences, community/social services, legal, education, art/design/entertainment/media, healthcare)

7.3%

Service (e.g. health support, protective service, food preparation and serving, building and grounds cleaning and maintenance)

33.1%

Sales and office 22.7%

Natural resources, construction, and maintenance 12.1%

Production, transportation, and material moving 13.2%

Source: “Table A-6. Fatal occupational injuries resulting from transportation incidents and homicides by occupation, all United States, 2018” in Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, by Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019 (https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi /cftb0327.htm#cfoi_at_a6.f.2).

Impact of Specific Factors on Workplace Crime Workplace violence is in some ways different than violence away from work. For example, nonfatal workplace violence is more likely than nonworkplace violence to be committed by strangers (53% against males and 41% against females) (Harrell, 2011). Recall from earlier discussions in the book that most violent crimes nationally are committed between people who know each other. At work, about 26% of violence against men and 32% of violence against women is committed by people who have a work-based relationship (see Table 9.5).

289

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime

Although most violence at work stems from crimes such as robberies by people not associ- ated with the particular workplace, violence committed by a current or former employee or customer at work usually follows some triggering event where a person says he or she has been treated unfairly, disciplined, or denied something perceived to be deserved (e.g., a raise or promotion). Thus, these triggering events can also be understood as risk factors for future criminal acts. So too can certain characteristics of those who commit the acts. These include things like a history of violent behavior, past criminal behavior, negative personality traits (e.g., anger, unhappiness), negative experiences in the past, and substance abuse.

Table 9.5: Workplace violence by gender

Victim/offender relationship

Percent of workplace violence

Male Female

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Intimate partner 0.8 1.7

Other relatives 0.6 0.7

Well-known/casual acquaintances 11.7 18.9

Work relationships 25.5% 31.7%

Customer/client 3.9 6.5

Patient 1.5 6.0

Current or former—

Supervisor 1.2 3.3

Employee 2.6 1.7

Co-worker 16.3 14.3

Do not know relationship 8.5% 6.1%

Stranger 52.9% 40.9%

Source: Workplace violence, 1993–2009, by Harrell, E., Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011 (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub /pdf/wv09.pdf ).

Rates of violence for men and women are greater at work than away from work. At work the rate is 5.9 per 1,000 people ages 16 years and older for males, versus 4.1 for females; and away from work it is 17.2 for males versus 15.5 for females. Still, a large majority of workplace violence is committed against males (63%) (Harrell, 2011).

290

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime

Table 9.6 shows rates of nonfatal violence at and away from work from 2005 to 2009 (the latest years for which data is available) by gender, race, age, marital status, and annual house- hold income. Notice that the rate of victimization at work is higher for Whites than it is for Blacks/African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos, whereas away from work it is higher for Blacks/African Americans than for Hispanics/Latinos and Whites. However, both at and away from work, American Indians experience the highest rates of nonfatal violent victimization.

Table 9.6: Rates of nonfatal violent victimization at and away from work, by demographic factors, 2005–2009

Victim characteristic

Rate of nonfatal violence per 1.000 employed persons age 16 or older in—

Workplace Nonworkplace

Total 5.1 16.4

Sex

Male 5.9 17.2

Female 4.1 15.5

Race/Hispanic origin

White 5.7 15.3

Black/African American 4.1 20.4

Hispanic/Latino 3.0 18.0

American Indian 13.0 33.9

Asian/Pacific Islander 3.6 8.2

Two or more races 7.8 60.3

Age

16–19 years old 3.2 46.9

20–24 6.9 36.0

25–34 6.9 19.5

35–49 4.9 12.4

50–64 3.9 7.4

65 or older 1.7 3.0

(continued on next page)

291

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime

Another difference between workplace violence and violence away from work is that away from work, 16–19 year olds have the highest rates of violent victimization, but at work it is people ages 20–34 years. Finally, the relationship between income and violent victimization is different at and away from work. Away from work, people making less than $7,500 have the highest rates of victimization, but at work it is people making less than $15,000 that have the highest rates of victimization. Possible reasons for these variations are examined later in the chapter.

Victim characteristic

Rate of nonfatal violence per 1.000 employed persons age 16 or older in—

Workplace Nonworkplace

Marital status

Never married 6.2 29.3

Married 4.3 7.2

Widowed 5.1 7.6

Divorced or separated 6.4 29.2

Annual household income

Less than $7,500 2.8 55.7

$7,500 t $14,999 7.2 39.8

$15,000 to $24,999 6.2 26.2

$25,000 to $34,999 5.2 23.1

$35,000 to $49.999 4.9 17.5

$50,000 to $74,999 7.0 11.6

$75,000 or more 4.4 9.8

Unknown 4.3 15.8

Source: Workplace violence, 1993–2009, by Harrell, E., Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011 (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub /pdf/wv09.pdf ).

Table 9.6: Rates of nonfatal victimization at and away from work, by demographic factors, 2005–2009 (continued)

292

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime

Table 9.7 shows workplace homicides by demographic factors. The overwhelming majority of workplace homicide victims are male (82.3%). Less than half are White (47.5%), whereas African Americans (21.4%) and Hispanics (18.5%) are overrepresented as victims of homi- cide given their portion of the U.S. population. In terms of age, people are most likely to be killed at work in their mid-20s to early 50s (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019b).

Table 9.7: Workplace homicides by demographic characteristics, 2018

Victim characteristic Percent of workplace homicide

victims age 16 or older

Total 100.0%

Sex

Male 82.3%

Female 17.7

Age

16–19 years old 2.9%

20–24 6.2

25–34 23.0

35–44 21.6

45–54 21.4

55–64 16.6

65 or older 8.4

Race/Hispanic origin

White 47.5%

Black/African American 21.4

Hispanic/Latino 18.5

American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.7

Asian 9.3

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.7

Other or race not reported 1.8

Source: “Workplace homicides by selected characteristics, 2011–2018” in TED: The Economics Daily, by Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2019 (https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2018/there-were-500 -workplace-homicides-in-the-united-states-in-2016.htm).

293

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime

Trends in Workplace Crime Figure 9.10 depicts trends in nonfatal workplace violence at work from 1993 to 2009 (the latest year for which data is available), with a break in the data in 2006 due to a methodological change in the NCVS.

Figure 9.10: Workplace and nonworkplace nonfatal violence against people 16 years and older who are employed and unemployed

The overall number of nonfatal violence incidents that occurred either at work or not at work has decreased since 1993.

Based on data from Workplace violence, 1993–2019, by E. Harrell, 2011, Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/ content/pub/pdf/wv09.pdf ).

0 ‘93 ‘94 ‘95 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09

Nonworkplace violence

R a te

p e r

1 ,0

0 0 p

e rs

o n

s a

g e 1

6 o

r o

ld e r

Violence against person not employed

Workplace violence

294

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime

Figure 9.11 depicts trends in workplace homicides from 1993 to 2009. Homicides at work declined alongside homicides in general in the United States since the early 1990s.

Figure 9.11: Workplace homicides, 1993–2018

The number of workplace homicides has decreased since 1993. This trend aligns with the decrease in all homicides since the early 1990s.

Based on data from Census of fatal occupational injuries – current and revised data, by Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d. (https:// www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm)

800

900

1,000

1,100

700

600

500

400 ‘93 ‘94 ‘95 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18

These data show that the rate of workplace violence declined in the 1990s, as did the number of workplace homicides. As with declines in crime at schools, the decline in workplace crime is attributable mostly to economic and social changes occurring in broader society.

The outcomes of workplace crime are similar to those of school crime and campus and uni- versity crime. Again, the most serious of these outcomes (e.g., death and serious injury) are very rare. Yet, workers are often injured physically and financially by crime. As a result, they often suffer from fear of crime and increased perceptions of criminal victimization. Finally, workplace crime obviously obstructs productivity of employees and businesses.

295

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime

White-Collar and Corporate Crime Although street crime at work is rare, other types of crime at work are far more common, such as white-collar crime and corporate crime. White-collar crime is a crime committed by an employee against the business for which the employee works. Corporate crime includes illegal acts of corporations against shareholders, customers, and citizens (Robinson & Mur- phy, 2009).

An example of white-collar crime is an employee embezzling money from his employer. Embezzlement is a form of theft that occurs after a person has rightful possession of prop- erty. For example, if an employee has legal access to the money of a business and then steals it, this is embezzlement. Embezzlement involves theft by misappropriating money or property.

An example of corporate crime is a company committing fraud against consumers. Fraud is also a form of theft, but it occurs when the taking of property is done through deceit or trick- ery. For example, if a company legally sells a product by making knowingly false claims about the product, that is a form of fraud called false advertising. Another example of fraud is an automotive repair company charging a customer for unnecessary repairs.

Direct harms caused by white-collar and corporate crimes are enormous and dwarf all losses caused by street crime (Reiman & Leighton, 2009). In terms of property loss, white-collar and corporate crimes cost hundreds of billions of dollars in losses every year (Robinson & Murphy, 2009). In terms of physical damage, more people are injured and killed by acts of corporations than by all street criminals every year. Things like defective products, tobacco, hospital error, occupational disease and injury, and so on, injure tens of millions and kill hun- dreds of thousands of people every year (Friedrichs, 2006).

Some of these acts are legal (e.g., tobacco) or not intended to produce death (e.g., defective products), yet they are still often committed with culpability. This means that corporations can be held accountable for the behaviors that produce death or injury to their employees or customers because they either acted recklessly (i.e., acting without regard for life or prop- erty), negligently (i.e., failing to do something required of them), or knowingly (i.e., acting with the knowledge that an outcome is likely to occur). When a corporation acts culpably and people are injured or die as a result, we can rightly call such behavior criminal (Reiman & Leighton, 2009), and in these cases, crime prevention means preventing corporations from killing or injuring their own employees or customers. A modern example of such cases can be seen in the actions of doctors and corporate personnel who, recklessly and without medical necessity, prescribed and marketed opioids throughout the early 2000s and 2010s, contribut- ing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

No one knows for sure whether these crimes are increasing, but events such as the mas- sive fraud on Wall Street and in the banking industry, which caused a major economic reces- sion, suggest the problem has grown in significance. Scholars agree that fraud is widespread and endemic in corporate America. That is, some view corporate crime as normal or to be expected given the focus of large corporations on profit above all else (Bakan, 2005; Robin- son & Murphy, 2009). The long list of recent white-collar-crime investigations on the FBI’s “What We Investigate” webpage seems to support this view (https://www.f bi.gov/investi gate/white-collar-crime/news). In spite of this, these crimes generally are less enforced and prosecuted than common street crimes, probably because when people think of crime, they tend to think of street crime.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/news

296

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime

Responding to Crime at Work OSHA provides recommendations for employees and employers to take in reducing instances of workplace violence, such as better employee safety training, increased lighting, better security procedures, and an alarm system. Implementation of policy and procedures, keeping in contact with workers while out in the field, and making sure that workers are never alone can decrease victimization. Employees should learn how to recognize and diffuse potential violence, and they should know the steps to follow (i.e., whom to contact) should a violent episode occur.

If conflict occurs in the workplace, it is the employer’s duty to resolve the conflict as fairly and as objectively as possible. Failing to provide employees with a safe and secure working environment leaves employers wide open for civil litigation. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) programs are a means for solving conflict and can provide a remedy before disputes become unmanageable. A neutral third party, such as a trained mediator, can preclude or deescalate a violent situation between two workers or even two students. The mediator can help to alleviate feelings of anger by clearing up misunderstandings and help the parties to reach an amicable compromise.

Web Field Trip: White-Collar Crime

White-collar and corporate crime are common but often considered less serious than street crime. This perception is due, in part, to the fact that perpetrators of white-collar crime often get lighter sentences, are able to post bail to avoid jail time, and if forced to serve time attend nicer “club fed” prisons or may serve time under house arrest.

There are more than 20 types of white-collar crimes and schemes. While you’ve probably heard of a Ponzi scheme, bank fraud, and blackmail, you might be unfamiliar with some of the others. Read about the types of white-collar crime and the schemes here: http://www .ckfraud.org/whitecollar.html. Then read about some of the people behind these crimes: http://www.businessinsider.com/white-collar-criminals-in-jail-2009-7#edwin-edwards-1. Next, visit the New York Time’s “White-collar Watch” site at https://www.nytimes.com /column/white-collar-watch.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. How many of these types of crimes or schemes have you experienced in your own life?

How many can you remember seeing in the media? 2. Do you think penalties for white-collar criminals should be harsher? 3. What types of white-collar and corporate crimes are happening this month in America? 4. What harms do they cause for the American public and world community?

http://www.ckfraud.org/whitecollar.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/white-collar-criminals-in-jail-2009-7#edwin-edwards-1

https://www.nytimes.com/column/white-collar-watch

297

Section 9.4 Explanations for School and Workplace Crime

ADR can be used as an alternative to court litigation or agency adjudications, or to help dis- puting parties resolve a problem that they cannot resolve on their own. Some ADR processes include facilitation (helping each party to express their issue in a respectable and safe environ- ment), mediation (helping each party to reach a compromise), and ombudsperson programs (a person in the agency who listens to grievances confidentially and recommends solutions).

An Employee Assistance Program (EAP) is another alternative. This program is offered to employees as part of their benefits package. Trained counselors help employees cope with work or family-related problems. Such services are free and confidential. However, if the worker discloses information regarding abuse to a minor, the elderly, or the disabled, or expresses a desire to inflict harm on self or others, EAP counselors are required to report such information to the proper authorities. EAP can assist with drug and alcohol problems, stress, anxiety, depression, anger, relationship issues, parenting, grief, elder-care, workplace issues, self-improvement, management issues, or mental health issues. Referrals are pro- vided as needed, and supervisors should encourage employees to seek EAP assistance when warranted.

Finally, as in the case of schools and colleges and universities, CPTED and situational crime prevention are practiced at most workplaces. Common measures include locks, alarms, video surveillance systems, and so forth, aimed at discouraging would-be offenders from commit- ting crimes at particular places.

9.4 Explanations for School and Workplace Crime This chapter has discussed that criminality and criminal victimization (at the street level) are fairly rare at schools, colleges and universities, and workplaces. Yet, it is more likely to occur at certain times and places as well as against certain types of people. Some important ques- tions emerged in the context of this review. The following section offers potential explana- tions for special considerations of school and workplace crime.

Why Is Crime in Schools and Workplaces Rare? School crime is rare for the same major reasons that crime at colleges and universities and workplaces is rare. First, serious criminal victimization is rare in larger U.S. society, meaning the vast majority of people in society will not be victimized by serious street crime. This is true at schools, as well.

Second, the same social control mechanisms that act to deter crime from colleges and univer- sities and workplaces are very strong at schools. For example, the primary agent of socializa- tion and self-control is families, parents in particular. Although parents are often absent from school, they are sometimes there serving in various capacities, as in the case of parents active in Parent-Teacher Associations and those who volunteer at schools (Berns, 2012).

298

Section 9.4 Explanations for School and Workplace Crime

Beyond this, teachers and school administrators act as parents to children while the children are in school. One of the primary responsibilities of these adults is to help socialize children by teaching and enforcing rules at the school. Often, the rules at school are similar if not iden- tical to those of the home—listen, follow directions, be respectful, control your behavior, and so forth.

Teachers and school administrators controlling behavior of children amounts to informal social control, which is the most important and effective form of crime prevention. Infor- mal social control is the control of behavior through normal, nongovernmental mechanisms such as the family (Chriss, 2007). Given that children at school are almost always under the supervision of adults acting as social control agents, it is not surprising that crime at school is relatively rare.

Why Are Female Students More Likely to Be Bullied Than Male Students? Recall that data from schools show that female students are actually more likely than male students to be victims of bullying as well cyberbullying. Why is this? Female students are more likely to be bullied in part because of the manner in which young females relate to each other. Their aggression does not tend to be based on physical acts like young males but instead tends to be relational in nature, meaning it uses negative emotions in the context of relationships (Keenan, 2007).

Relational aggression occurs when people use emotion and manipulation to harm others rather than physical violence, and it usually involves methods such as spreading rumors about someone, or excluding or ostracizing them. Relational aggression is common at schools (Sullivan, Farrell, & Kliewer, 2006) and may help us understand why children sometimes feel unsafe at schools and end up carrying weapons for protection (Goldstein, Young, & Boyd, 2008).

Since relational aggression is most common among girls, it is logical to see more bullying against girls (usually committed by other girls). At the same time, we should expect more physical aggression (e.g., fights, assaults) by male students. This is due both to biology and socialization. For example, boys (especially adolescent boys) have higher levels of testoster- one, which is associated with higher levels of aggression. They are simultaneously social- ized to handle problems with aggressive means (Robinson & Beaver, 2009). That is, the best explanation for young male aggression is a biosocial account that considers both biological and social reasons for behavior.

Why Do Crimes Occur at Particular Places at College and University Campuses? Recall that certain places at college and university campuses are more prone to crime. Data show that murder, aggravated assault, and motor vehicle theft tend to occur on public property at or near college and university campuses. Such crimes are much rarer within student

299

Section 9.4 Explanations for School and Workplace Crime

residences and other buildings (such as classrooms). Also, data show that the largest portion of robbery occurs on campus but not in residence halls. For example, robbery occurs against students walking to their cars at night or traveling to social gathering spots. Meanwhile, crimes like burglary, forcible sex offenses, and arson usually occur in residence halls, as for incidents of weapons possession, liquor law violations, and illegal drug possession.

Why is this? The simplest explanations are based on opportunity. That is, these crimes occur most where there are most opportunities for them to occur. Theories such as lifestyle exposure theory and routine activity theory predict that the convergence of motivated offenders, suitable targets for crime, and an inability or unwillingness of people to guard those targets, increase the odds of criminality (Clarke & Felson, 2004). Thus, crime occurs on campuses where there are more potential offenders and victims together and no one capable or willing to intervene.

The nature of sexual assault on college campuses exemplifies this reality. Studies show that as many as one in five college females will be sexually assaulted while in college, although most of these are not reported to the police. When college women and men congregate together, especially when both have been using alcohol, sexual assault is a possible outcome. Lifestyle exposure theory focuses on the daily and nightly behaviors of potential victims and offenders and concludes that the way to prevent sexual assault on campus is to change the lifestyles of potential offenders and victims, for example, by encouraging them to drink less alcohol and to change the way they think about appropriate and inappropriate male behavior. Routine activity theory focuses on the activity patterns that result from these lifestyles and concludes that the way to prevent sexual assault on campus is to increase guardianship of potential vic- tims, for example, by advising people to drink only with people they know and to watch out for each other especially when others have been drinking (Burgess, 2007; Coker et al., 2011; Gidycz et al., 2011; Palmer et al., 2010).

Why Are Some Jobs More Dangerous Than Others? What many of the more dangerous jobs have in common is that they are each associated with working with certain types of people. For example, bartenders serve alcohol, often in large amounts, and thus bartenders are more likely to interact with intoxicated people. Alcohol use is associated with aggression and criminality. Police officers, security guards, and cor- rectional personnel deal with lawbreakers and rule breakers, and thus their risk of criminal victimization is significantly higher. Mental health professionals provide services to unstable people who under certain circumstances are more likely to become violent. Meanwhile, gas station attendants often exchange cash and work alone, sometimes in isolated and rural areas. Since the vast majority of workplace homicides are committed by robbers and other criminal assailants, people who work in these conditions are more likely to be victimized.

These findings are also consistent with predictions made by lifestyle exposure and routine activity theories. Stated simply, there are more opportunities for offending against people who work face-to-face with other people, especially when alcohol is being served or the cli- entele includes criminal offenders. General strain theory also is helpful for understanding workplace crimes because aggression at work is often the result of negative emotions stem- ming from bad experiences with fellow employees or customers.

300

Section 9.4 Explanations for School and Workplace Crime

Why Do Demographic Patterns of Victimization at Work Differ From Those Away From Work? Recall that data from schools show that traditional associations between demographic factors and criminal victimization don’t always hold up when it comes to crime at work. For example, workplace violence is more likely to be committed by strangers whereas nonworkplace vio- lence is more likely to be committed by people who know each other. Further, the rate of vic- timization at work is higher for Whites than most minority groups, whereas away from work, the rate of victimization is higher for African Americans and Hispanics than Whites. Addition- ally, people ages 20–34 years have the highest rates of victimization at work, whereas away from work, it is 16–19 year olds. Finally, people making less than $7,500 have the highest rates of victimization away from work, whereas at work it is people making less than $15,000 that have the highest rates of victimization.

Why? The answers to these questions also rest heavily on lifestyle exposure and routine activity theories. That is, opportunity explains these outcomes fairly well. As one example, Whites in their 20s and 30s are employed in the most dangerous jobs at higher rates than other demographic groups. The more one is exposed to dangerous jobs the more likely one is to be victimized.

Using the Sociological Lens: The Cyberbully Criminal

When should bullying be viewed as a crime?

When Tyler Clementi and Dharun Ravi entered Rutgers University as freshmen in the fall of 2010, neither could have imagined that before the end of the semester, their names would become forever linked to a landmark cyber- bullying case. The story of how Ravi ostensibly cyber- bullied Clementi into taking his own life has become a key focal point of numerous social and criminal issues, including society’s enduring homophobia, the usefulness of hate crime legislation, the demise of privacy, and, most prominently, whether bullying can or should be viewed as a crime.

As new roommates, Ravi and Clementi barely took time to get to know each other and operated on a variety of assumptions and stereotypes. Clementi observed that Ravi’s family was “sooo Indian first gen americanish,” and seemed likely to own a Dunkin’ Donuts. Ravi, meanwhile, lamented to a friend, “[EXPLETIVE] MY LIFE / He’s gay,” upon find- ing out his new roommate had cautiously come out just days before the start of the semes- ter (quoted in Parker, 2012). During the mismatched pair’s short time together, Ravi—whose communications with friends reveal disgust for gay people, along with amusement that Clementi was using their shared room for sexual encounters with a man he met on a gay website—secretly taped his roommate’s intimate encounters and gossiped about him over Twitter. Although Ravi never actually posted any videos or pictures of Clementi online, he vio- lated his roommate’s privacy, and Clementi complained to friends that he was afraid and was

Mel Evans/Associated Press Dharun Ravi’s 30-day jail sentence aroused debates over whether his punishment was too lenient or severe.

(continued on next page)

301

Section 9.4 Explanations for School and Workplace Crime

contemplating moving out. One night, he asked Ravi to leave their room so he could be alone with a partner, leading Ravi to write cruel, exposing statements about Clementi online. Days later, Clementi jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge.

Immediately, the case became a lightning rod of controversy, with debate swirling over how much responsibility Ravi bore for Clementi’s suicide, what exact factors prompted Clementi to kill himself, and to what extent someone may be prosecuted for bullying that leads to suicide. Ravi was eventually charged with 15 counts related to bias intimidation (a hate crime) and violation of privacy, and on March 16, 2012, was convicted of all of them. Because he was con- victed of a hate crime, he could have been sentenced to as much as 10 years in prison and been deported to India. On May 21, however, Judge Glenn Berman sentenced Ravi to 30 days in jail, a $10,000 fine, 3 years probation, and 300 hours of community service.

Reactions to Ravi’s relatively light sentencing were emotional and mixed, as the following perspectives reflect. All raise critical and fundamental questions about the criminal nature of cyberbullying and how society should prosecute and punish such cases going forward.

Thirty Days Is Not Enough Steven Goldstein is one of many in the gay community who were disappointed by the lenient sentence Dharun Ravi received for cyberbullying Tyler Clementi. Goldstein points out that Ravi targeted Clementi not out of general mean-spiritedness but specifically because he was reviled by Clementi’s homosexual identity. The facts of the case, as Goldstein reads them, are that Ravi tried to intimidate Clementi on the basis of his identity—that constitutes a hate crime, which Goldstein says is and should be punishable with a more meaningful sentence. Thirty days is not long enough for justice to be served, nor for Ravi to truly repent for driving a sweet, shy, and talented young man to suicide. Goldstein thinks in sentencing Ravi lightly, society lost an opportunity to take a firm stand against cyberbullying and hate.

“Steven Goldstein: Garden State Equality Responds to Rave Sentence,” by Steven Goldstein, Baristanet, May 22, 2012 (https://baristanet.com/2012/05/steve-goldstein-garden-state -equality-responds-ravi-sentence/).

Light Sentence Was Just Right Judge Glenn Berman struck the right balance in sentencing Dharun Ravi to 30 days in jail, argues Jay Michaelson in the following perspective. He weighs the various factors of the case and concludes a guilty verdict with a light sentence is the perfect balance of punishment in this difficult-to-prove and emotional case.

Michaelson suggests a harsher sentence would have likely generated an unproductive back- lash against the gay community and would also fail to address the rampant and widespread homophobia in American society that Ravi participated in but did not invent. Interestingly, prominent voices in the gay community agree, and several argued that Ravi should receive a light sentence because of this. “Ravi may have been the last person who made [Clementi] feel unsafe and abused and worthless, but he couldn’t have been the first,” said Dan Savage, founder of the It Gets Better project. “The rush to pin all the responsibility on Ravi and then wash our hands and walk away means we’re not going to learn the lessons of these kids” (quoted in Zernike, 2012, paras 16-17). Slate columnist J. Bryan Lowder agrees that Ravi is

Using the Sociological Lens: The Cyberbully Criminal (continued)

(continued on next page)

https://baristanet.com/2012/05/steve-goldstein-garden-state-equality-responds-ravi-sentence/

302

Section 9.4 Explanations for School and Workplace Crime

more a product of his homophobic society than he is an instigator of it. “We can’t lock the bully up, because the bully is in all of us,” said Lowder as he advocated for leniency for Ravi. “To pin the whole weight of our culture of homophobia on Ravi and to think that sending him a mes- sage is going to fix all that is misguided” (quoted in Zernike, 2012, paras 18 & 20).

“30-Day Sentence for Dharun Ravi in Rutgers Spying Case Is Right,” by Jay Michaelson, Daily Beast, May 21, 2012 (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/21/30-day-sentence -for-dharun-ravi-in-rutgers-spying-case-is-right.html).

Thirty Days Is Too Harsh Even 30 days is too long a sentence for Dharun Ravi, argues Ross Kaminsky in the following perspective. Kaminsky does not deny that Tyler Clementi’s death was tragic and that Dharun Ravi acted shamefully, but firmly believes it is wrong, even dangerous, to make being mean a prosecutable crime. Kaminsky points out that no one will ever really know what caused Clem- enti to jump to his death—the world has blamed Ravi, but it is likely that issues with his par- ents, a history of depression, and other factors played into Clementi’s decision to end his life, a choice which Kaminsky says Clementi ultimately bears responsibility for. Kaminsky thinks it is sad enough that one man’s life was destroyed by this experience; sentencing Ravi only destroys a second. With little evidence that Ravi’s sentence will deter future acts of homopho- bia, cyberbullying, or hate crimes, Kaminsky concludes that Ravi’s punishment was too steep.

“Nobody Pushed Tyler Clementi,” by Ross Kaminsky, American Spectator, May 23, 2012 (https://spectator.org/nobody-pushed-tyler-clementi/).

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions 1. In your opinion, is incarceration an appropriate punishment for cyberbullying? Why or

why not? 2. Ross Kaminsky equates hate crime with “thought crime.” Explain what you think he

means by this and whether or not you agree. 3. What deterrent effect, if any, do you think Dharun Ravi’s sentence will have on

cyberbullying? 4. To what extent do you think a person can be blamed for another person’s suicide? To

what extent do you think they should be able to be punished under the law? 5. Do you think Dharun Ravi’s sentence was just? Explain your reasoning.

Using the Sociological Lens: The Cyberbully Criminal (continued)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/21/30-day-sentence-for-dharun-ravi-in-rutgers-spying-case-is-right.html

https://spectator.org/nobody-pushed-tyler-clementi/

303

Chapter Summary

Chapter Summary Young people spend an enormous amount of their lives during childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood in their schools, colleges, and universities. And virtually everyone holds a job at some point in their lives, many enjoying the benefits of lifelong careers. Thus, understanding crime at schools, colleges and universities, and the workplace is of great importance.

Luckily, serious crime is quite rare at schools, colleges and universities, and workplaces. That is, there is very little murder, rape, robbery, and assault at these places. Yet, occasionally these crimes do occur, along with crimes like harassment and bullying. More common at schools and colleges and universities are acts of theft, vandalism, and even burglary.

At work, the most common offenses are white-collar and corporate crimes. White-collar crime, in fact, causes more physical and financial damage than serious street crimes. Instead, what is more newsworthy are the least common of all crimes, crimes like murder by current or former employees.

School officials, college and university administrators, and workplace managers have all designed and implemented crime prevention policies to reduce the possibility of crime occurring on their watch. These efforts pay off but are not as effective at preventing those rare directed assaults or other incidents like hazing that can lead to devastating consequences.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions 1. Asian American students experience lower rates of bullying and being bullied than

students of other races and ethnicities. Given this, what conclusions might you draw about Asian Americans, Asian American families, or Asian American communities?

2. In 77% of violent, targeted school attacks, at least one person knew someone was conceiving of or planning an attack. In most cases, though, no one came forward with this information. Why do you think this is?

3. What are some significant differences between on-campus crime and crime in the general population?

4. Explain how workplace violence differs from violence that takes place away from work.

304

Chapter Summary

Key Terms bullying Being made fun of, called names, insulted, the subject of rumors, pushed, shoved, tripped, spit on, threatened with harm, excluded from activities on purpose, forced by others to do things you don’t want to do, as well as having one’s property destroyed by others on purpose.

Clery Act A law that requires colleges and universities that receive federal financial aid to report crime statistics and to make such statistics readily available to the public.

directed assault An attack that employs or has the ability to employ lethal force, committed against a specific person or someone who matches that person’s victim profile, and who was chosen prior to the initiation of the assault or at the time of the attack based on similarities to the intended victim.

embezzlement A form of theft that occurs after a person has rightful possession of property; involves theft by misappropriating money or property.

informal social control The control of behavior through nongovernmental mechanisms such as the family.

leakage A student’s intentional or unintentional admission of violence to come.

moral panic When the fear of or reaction to a crime is greater than the threat it actually poses, and policies are created and implemented that are mostly unnecessary and can even make things worse.

nonworkplace violence Nonfatal violence (including attempted crimes) against employed persons age 16 or older that occurred while they were not at work or on duty.

relational aggression The use of emotion and manipulation to harm others; usually involves methods such as spreading rumors about, excluding, or ostracizing someone.

sexual harassment Unwelcome sexual advances, verbal comments, physical touching, and even offensive remarks about one’s gender.

targeted school violence School shootings and other violent attacks where the school or a particular target at the school is selected prior to the attack.

workplace homicide Homicide of employees age 16 or older who were killed while at work or on duty (excluding deaths by accidents).

workplace violence Any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site.