SOC 305 Crime & Society week 5 finial paper

Ed A

nd rie

sk i/A

P fil

e

Learning Objectives

• Explore the nature and extent of crime at schools and workplaces.

• Examine the effects of crime in schools and workplaces.

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

• Analyze policy implications for victims of school and workplace crime.

Crime in Schools and the Workplace

9

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 257 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime CHAPTER 9

On April 20, 1999, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris killed 12 students and one teacher at Col- umbine 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 else- where 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, 2010). 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 addi- tional 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 them- selves 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 actu-ally rare in schools. In fact, given the number of students, teachers, and other per-sonnel 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 (2011) publish Indicators of School Crime and Safety. This report presents data from various sources, including the National Crime Vic- timization Survey (NCVS), the Youth Risk Behavior Survey from the U.S. Centers for Dis- ease 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, vio- lent 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, teach- ers, communities, and society. Each of these terms is defined in this chapter. Table 9.1 shows the extent of various crimes that occurred at American schools in the 2009–2010 school year, the latest year for which data are available. Also included are suicides that occurred at schools.

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 258 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime CHAPTER 9

Table 9.1: Extent of crimes at American schools, July 1, 2009–June 30, 2010

Total victimizations (ages 12–18 years)

828,000

Thefts 470,000

Violence 359,000

Serious violence 41,900

Murders 25

of students 17

Suicides 5

Source: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012002.pdf

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 (2012a), there were about 49.2 million students enrolled in schools in the 2009–2010 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. Going back 1 year earlier to the 2008–2009 school year, of the 1,579 murders of children ages 5–18 years, only 15 occurred at school. Further, of the 1,544 suicides of the same age group, only 7 occurred at school. This means less than 1% of murders and suicides occurred at school, as shown in Figure 9.1.

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 259 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime CHAPTER 9

Figure 9.1: Murders and suicides at and away from schools

Based on data from the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012002.pdf

For youths ages 5–18, most instances of suicide and homicide occurred away from school for 2008–2009. For murders, only 17 of the total 1,579 incidents occurred at school. For suicides, only 7 of the total 1,344 occurred at school.

Yet, the rate of victimization of students for theft and violence for students was higher at school overall (32 victimizations per 1,000 students) than away from school (26 victimiza- tions per 1,000 students). This is likely because students spend more hours (while awake) at school per week around other young people 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.

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 murder 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 communi- ties.” In fact, schools are quite safe.

Even some of the data from the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Edu- cation (2011) make it seem like school crime is worse than it really is. For example, it is reported that during the 2009–2010 school year, 74% of schools reported one or more vio- lent crimes, and about 44% reported at least one act of theft. This suggests crime occurs at nearly all schools. Yet, only 16% reported an act of a serious violent crime, meaning a crime like murder, aggravated assault, or robbery.

Further, only 4% of students ages 12–18 years report being victimized by any crime at school, including 3% who report theft victimization and 1% who report violent victimiza- tion. In other words, nearly all students are not victimized by crime at school.

Away from school

At school

Away from school

At school

m m

Murder Suicide

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 260 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime CHAPTER 9

Table 9.2 shows the percentage of students who reported criminal victimization at schools in the 2009–2010 school year. The table also depicts the percentage of schools that had officials report crimes from the same school year.

Table 9.2: Prevalence of crimes at schools, July 1, 2009–June 30, 2010 Reported by students:

Criminal victimization 4%

Theft 3%

Violence 1%

Threatened or injured with weapon 8%

Saw hate-related graffiti at school 29%

Targets of hate words at school 9%

Bullied at school 28%

Cyberbullied at school 6%

Drugs offered, sold, or given (9–12 graders) 23%

Gang presence at schools 20%

Involved in school fight 11%

Carried a weapon at school (9–12 graders) 6%

Used marijuana on school property 5%

Drank alcohol on school property 4%

Reported by schools:

Violent victimization 74%

Physical attack/fight 71%

Serious violence 16%

Rape/attempt 0.5%

Sexual battery 2.3%

Physical attack with weapon 3.9%

Threat of attack with weapon 7.7%

Robbery with weapon 0.2%

Robbery without weapon 4.4%

Vandalism 46%

Thefts 44%

Possession of knife/sharp object 40%

Distribution/possession/use of illegal drugs 25%

Bullying on daily/weekly basis 23%

Gang activity at school 16%

Distribution/possession/use of alcohol 14%

Widespread disorder on daily/weekly basis 9%

Cyberbullying on daily/weekly basis 8%

Possession of firearm/explosive 5%

Disrespect of teachers at least once a week 3%

Source: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012002.pdf

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 261 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime CHAPTER 9

Table 9.2 shows that crime is relatively rare at schools. Notice how rare serious crimes are on school campuses, according to school administrators. Less than 1% of schools report that a rape or attempted rape occurred on campus, and only about 2% report a sexual battery. Further, less than 4% of schools report a physical attack with a weapon, and less than 10% report a threat of attack with a weapon. Less than 5% of schools report robberies.

About 1 in 4 students (23%) reports being offered, sold, or given drugs, but these are only high school students, so drugs are actually not this prevalent in all schools (because drugs are far less prevalent at elementary schools). Drug use on campus is also extremely rare. One in 5 students (20%) reports that gangs are present in their schools, and about 1 in 10 (11%) report they were involved in a school fight on school grounds. Yet, only 6% of high school students report carrying a weapon at school.

Nearly 1 in 3 students (29%) reports seeing hate-related graffiti at school, and about 1 in 10 (9%) are victims of hate words at school. Further, bullying also impacted about 1 in 3 students (28%). Bullying includes being made fun of, called names, insulted, the subject of rumors, pushed, shoved, tripped, spit on, threatened with harm, excluded from activi- ties on purpose, forced by others to do things you don’t want to do, and having one’s property destroyed by others on purpose. And 6% report being victimized by cyberbul- lying, the willful and repeated harm through the use of computers, cell phones, or other electronic devices.

Bullying

According to the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education (2011), 18.8% of students in the 2009–2010 school year were made fun of, called names, or insulted; 16.5% were the subject of rumors; 9% were pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on; 5.7% were threatened with harm; 4.7% were excluded from activities on purpose; 3.6% were forced to do things they did not want to do; and 3.3% had property destroyed on purpose.

Bullying is equally common among races and ethnicities (with the exception of Asians who have lower rates of bullying victimization) and is higher in middle schools than high schools. 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. Bullying is also higher in public schools than pri- vate schools and is slightly higher in rural schools than urban and suburban schools. The largest portion of bullying is reported to occur in hallways or stairways, followed by inside classrooms or outside on school grounds.

The higher rate in middle schools likely has to do with human development; it is dur- ing these years that young people begin to establish their own identities, find new peer groups, and separate themselves from people different than them. Higher rates in public and rural schools likely reflect greater opportunity for bullying, as does the fact that bul- lying is more common in places without adult supervision.

Interestingly, female students are more likely to report some forms of bullying than male students, including being the subject of rumors and being excluded from activities on purpose. The reason for this is explained later in the chapter.

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 262 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime CHAPTER 9

Cyberbullying in the 2009–2010 school year included being sent hurtful information on the Internet (2%), being the subject of harassing text messages (3%), being the subject of harassing instant messages (1.8%), being the subject of harassing e-mails (1.3%), and being excluded online (0.9%). Consistent with some other forms of bullying, female students are more likely to report cyberbullying than male students.

Fortunately, only a small percentage of students report being victims of bullying and cyberbullying every day (6.3%). Higher percentages report being victims once or twice a year (67.2%), once or twice a month (18.7%), or once or twice a week (7.8%).

As for hate words, students were more likely to report being targets of hate-related words that referred to race (4.6%), ethnicity (2.8%), gender (1.8%), religion (1.7%), disability (0.8%), and sexual orientation (0.6%). Clearly many would consider this a form of bullying.

Another form of bullying is sexual harassment, and it receives a lot of attention by school officials. Sexual harassment is commonly defined as being the victim of unwelcome sexual advances, verbal comments, physical touching, and even offensive remarks about one’s gender (United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2012). We commonly think of sexual harassment as something that occurs in work, yet it also occurs at schools.

Girls report slightly higher rates of sexual harassment than boys. Approximately 35% of students have been sexually harassed at school (Parker-Pope, 2008). Harassment in school is both verbal and physical. Some girls report having to protect their private areas while walking through the hallways, as otherwise they leave themselves vulnerable to “grab- bing” 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 problems. Table 9.3 shows the percentage of schools that reported serious social problems occurring at their schools at least once a week during the 2009–2010 school year.

Table 9.3: Other social problems reported as occurring at least once a week at schools, 2009–2010

Student bullying 23.1%

Student acts of disrespect other than abuse 8.6%

Student verbal harassment of teachers 4.8%

Student sexual harassment 3.2%

Student racial/ethnic tension 2.8%

Widespread disorder in classrooms 2.5%

Source: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012002.pdf

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 263 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime CHAPTER 9

As shown in Table 9.3, school administrators also report that bullying occurs at schools, along with other acts such as teacher harassment and abuse, sexual harassment, and so forth. Yet, these acts as well as racial/ethnic tension and disorder are thankfully rare.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education (2011), 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. The higher rate of crime at city schools conflicts with the lower rates of bullying that are reported there. Yet, since city schools tend to be larger, it is also increased opportunity for victimization at larger, city schools that likely explains its higher rates of crime. Data show that there is a positive relationship between school size and crime, meaning that as schools get larger, they host more 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 disorganiza- tion theory (Wynne & Joo, 2011).

Deaths at School

Much research goes into studying school-associated violent deaths, defined as homi- cides, suicides, or deaths resulting from a legal intervention by a law enforcement officer that occur on the campus of a school. The attention paid to these acts 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 25 murders at schools in the 2009–2010 school year, including 17 murders of students, plus 5 suicides. Another 3 deaths were classified as stemming from legal interventions (i.e., when a person is killed by a law enforcement offi- cer). Given the 49.2 million students in schools, there was only one death resulting from homicide or suicide of a student for about every 1.6 million students enrolled, meaning the odds of a student dying at school from these means in 2009–2010 were roughly one in 1.6 million.

In spite of this fact, whenever a death occurs at school, it makes national news and is gen- erally 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 a crime is blown out of proportion to the threat it actually poses, and policies are created and imple- mented that are mostly unnecessary and can even make things worse (Robinson, 2011).

The 1999 Columbine massacre is of course the most thought of school shooting in Ameri- can history and has led to several copycat cases in other states (Larkin, 2009). The Colum- bine attack is one of only a very small number of acts of targeted violence at U.S. schools. Targeted violence is defined as school shootings and other violent attacks where the school or a particular target at the school is selected prior to the attack (Vosskuil et al., 2002).

A study of such attacks committed by current or former students found 37 incidents of lethal targeted violence at U.S. schools (committed with weapons such as guns or

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 264 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime CHAPTER 9

knives) from December 1974 through May 2000, or about one and a half attacks per year. The purpose of the study, conducted by the U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education, was to try to identify information that could be used to prevent future attacks (Vosskuil et al., 2002).

A Study of Targeted Attacks A study of 37 incidents of lethal targeted violence at U.S. schools from December 1974 through May 2000 discovered several major potentially useful findings for preventing serious violent acts at schools. First, such attacks are rarely impulsive and instead tend to be planned in advance. In 95% of cases, attackers decided to harm someone prior to their attack, and attacks were planned in 93% of cases. In most cases (69%), planning lasted at least 2 days.

Given the advanced planning, motivation of those who carried out school attacks is impor- tant. According to the study, revenge was the motivation of 61% of attackers. Other motivations included trying to solve a problem (34%), suicide or desperation (27%), and trying to get recognition or attention from others (24%). These findings are consistent with rational choice theory, which pos- its that criminality is motivated by potential gain including emotional gain such as a sense of satis- faction or increased attention (Lab, 2010).

Also related to motivation, nearly all (98%) of the attackers had suffered significant losses prior to the attacks, had trouble coping with them (83%), and many either considered or attempted suicide. In spite of this, only about 34% had ever received a mental health evaluation, and even fewer (17%) were diagnosed with any mental health or behavioral disorder. Most commonly, the significant loss was a loss of status or a personal failure (66%) or the loss of a loved one or romantic relationship (51%). These findings support general strain theory, which suggests that criminality is caused by emotional adjustment to negative life experiences involving loss (Agnew, 2005).

In addition, and related to motivation, most (71%) of the attackers had felt bullied or per- secuted by others prior to the attacks, and in some cases the negative behaviors directed at them were severe and ongoing. A full 81% of attackers had a grievance against their victim or someone else. This is also consistent with general strain theory.

Furthermore, although most attackers acted alone, many were still influenced by other people. For example, in 44% of cases, attackers were encouraged or dared by others to carry out the attacks or assisted in some other way. This is consistent with social learning theory, which posits that crime is learned as a result of interactions with other people such as friends (Akers, 2010).

SW Productions/Photodisc/Getty Images

The majority of targeted violence in schools is planned at least 2 days in advance.

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 265 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.1 Nature and Extent of School Crime CHAPTER 9

Related to this, most of the attackers (59%) expressed an interest in violent media, includ- ing movies, video games, books, and so on. Yet, many kids enjoy violence in the media and only a tiny fraction of them ever go on to commit any act of serious violence. If violent media influenced these attacks, it too would be supportive of social learning theory.

What’s more, most of the attackers had access to weapons prior to their attacks. In fact, 63% of school attackers had a known history of using weapons, including 59% who had experience using guns. Despite research demonstrating that having 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 mem- ber using firearms to commit a violent act (Loft, 2010).

Yet, most attackers did cause concern in others due to their behaviors prior to the attacks. In 93% 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, and in 88% at least one adult was concerned. In 76% of cases, at least three people were concerned. In some of the cases, efforts were made to get help for children showing warning signs of potential dangerous behavior, but in many other cases, no efforts were made at all.

Those harmed by school attackers tended not to be threatened by their attackers prior to their violent acts. Only 17% of attackers directly threatened their victims prior to actually engaging in the violent acts.

Only 31% of the attackers were known to have committed prior violent acts prior to their attacks, and 27% had any history of arrest. 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 81% of cases, at least one person knew the attacker was thinking about or planning the attacks, and in 93% of the cases, it was a friend, classmate, or sibling who knew. In 59% of cases, more than one such person knew, and in many cases, other students were so confident something was going to happen they made efforts to be absent or present from an attack site so as to either avoid it or witness it (and even film it!). Unfortunately, in most of these cases, no one came forward to tell of their concerns for a wide variety of reasons.

Finally, there is no useful profile of the typical school attacker, although 100% of the attack- ers studied in the report were boys, 76% were White, and almost all such attacks occurred in rural areas. For example, the age of the attackers ranged from 11 to 21 years. Further, the attackers came from various family situations (although 63% came from two-parent families). They also differed in terms of academic performance (although most of them were doing well in school). In terms of social relationships, most had friends, socialized with others, or participated in organized social activities. Further, degree of disciplinary problems in school varied (although 63% had never been in trouble at school). Finally, there were generally no signs of changes in academic performance, friendship patterns, or similar changes in attackers prior to the attacks. All of these findings are inconsistent with social control theories, which would not expect serious criminality among children closely bonded to their parents, schools, and recreational activities.

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 266 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.2 Impact of Specific Factors on School Crime CHAPTER 9

Of all the attacks studied by the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Education, the 1999 Columbine killings were the most lethal. Yet, the 2007 mass killings at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) would surpass the death toll of the Columbine killings. 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 2007–2008 school year, 7.5% of teachers reported being threatened with injury by a student at school in the past year. Rates of threats were highest in city schools, among male teachers, Black teachers, secondary school teachers (as opposed to elementary teachers), and in public schools (as opposed to private schools).

Further, 4% of teachers reported being physically attacked by a student in the previous year. Rates of student attacks of teachers were also highest in city schools and among Black teachers in public schools. Yet, physical attacks were highest in elementary schools, and female teachers were slightly more likely than male teachers to be attacked. 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.

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 threatening remarks.

Theft and damage to property were the most common property offenses reported by teachers. 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.

9.2 Impact of Specific Factors on School Crime

Researchers study several factors to aid in understanding—and preventing—crime in schools. Sex seems to have little impact on overall victimization, whereas 12- to 14-year-old students have higher victimization rates than 15- to 18-year-old students. This means criminal victimization is more common in middle schools than high schools.

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

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 267 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.2 Impact of Specific Factors on School Crime CHAPTER 9

Table 9.4: Victimization rates (per 1,000 students) at school, by demographic factors and city size

Total Theft Violent Serious violent

Sex

Male 33 19 14 3

Female 32 17 14 4

Age

12–14 36 18 18 4

15–18 29 19 11 3

Race/Ethnicity

White 29 17 12 3

Black 44 23 21 8

Hispanic 27 21 16 2

Urbanicity

Urban 33 15 18 5

Suburban 35 21 14 3

Rural 23 16 7 2

Source: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012002.pdf

Blacks also have higher rates of victimization than Whites or Hispanics. And rural schools have the lowest rates of school crime. These findings are quite interesting because, away from schools, males have higher rates of victimization than females (29 versus 22 per 1,000) and are significantly more likely to be victimized by violent crime (14 versus 8 per 1,000). Also, away from school, 15–18 year olds have higher rates of victimization than 12–14 year olds (31 versus 20 per 1,000) and are significantly more likely to be victimized by theft (19 versus 10 per 1,000). Black victimization off campus is the only form of victim- ization that matches what is found on campus, as Blacks have higher rates than Whites or Hispanics of victimization (37 versus 24 and 23 per 1,000, respectively).

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

At the school level, racial and ethnic tensions were more common in middle schools than elementary or high schools, as were acts of sexual harassment of other students. Ver- bal abuse of teachers and other acts of disrespect are higher in high schools. The largest schools and city schools also have the highest incidence of these social problems. This is

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 268 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.2 Impact of Specific Factors on School Crime CHAPTER 9

consistent with the suggestion earlier that there is greater opportunity for these problems at these schools. For example, middle schools, larger schools, and city schools bring in more students, often from more racially and ethnically diverse populations. More people means more potential offenders and more potential victims. And these people are at the age where hormones are raging, the brain is still developing, and thus biology often pro- motes aggressive responses to disputes between people who disagree about things or even bump into each other in the hallways.

Trends in School Crime

In spite of popular belief, crime at school is generally down. Figure 9.2 shows that crime rates have trended downward since the 1990s, both at school and away from school.

Figure 9.2: Trends in criminal victimization at and away from schools

Based on data from the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012002.pdf

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

In fact, all forms of crime at school and away from school are down since the 1990s, includ- ing thefts, violent victimizations, serious violent victimizations, and even murder. Figure 9.3 depicts trends in all crimes, thefts, violent acts, and acts of serious violence since the early 1990s.

200

150

100

50

0

1992 1995 2000 2005 2010

At school

Away from school

Year

Rate per 1,000

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 269 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.2 Impact of Specific Factors on School Crime CHAPTER 9

Figure 9.3: Trends in school crime

Based on data from the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012002.pdf

The overall total number of school crimes has fluctuated but decreased over time. A high number of incidents (160) were reported in 1992 and a low of approximately 30 incidents reported in 2010.

Figure 9.4 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.

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 (2012d) show that property crimes and violent crimes have declined since the 1970s and 1990s, respectively. Criminologists claim that criminal justice did have something to do with the declines (e.g, more police on the streets, more effective problem-solving polic- ing, 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 popu- lation) (Walker, 2010; Zimring, 2008).

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

19 92

19 93

19 94

19 95

19 96

19 97

19 98

19 99

20 00

20 01

20 02

20 03

20 04

20 05

20 06

20 07

20 08

20 09

20 10

Total

Theft

Violence

Serious violence

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 270 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.2 Impact of Specific Factors on School Crime CHAPTER 9

Figure 9.4: Trends in homicide and suicide at school

Based on data from the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012002.pdf

The 1990s had higher numbers of reported homicides in schools. There was a peak of over 30 homicides in the 2006–2007 school year, but overall there were fewer homicides between 2000 and 2010. However, there was an increase in number of suicides at schools between 2000 and 2010.

Outcomes of School Crime and Misbehavior

According to the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education (2011), school crime impacts individuals on school campuses, but it also has effects on surround- ing 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, Crews, & Turner, 2008).

Students also occasionally report feeling afraid of crime. In the 2009–2010 school term, about 4% of students reported being afraid of crime at school, versus 3% who feared crim- inal victimization away from school. Further, 4% of students reported avoiding a place at school out of fear of attack, and 2% avoided a school activity.

Fear of crime was higher among female students than male students and highest among students of color. It is 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 general, criminal victimization is more common among these groups and in these schools.

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

19 92

–9 3

19 93

–9 4

19 94

–9 5

19 95

–9 6

19 96

–9 7

19 97

–9 8

19 98

–9 9

19 99

–0 0

20 00

–0 1

20 01

–0 2

20 02

–0 3

20 03

–0 4

20 04

–0 5

20 05

–0 6

20 06

–0 7

20 07

–0 8

20 08

–0 9

20 09

–1 0

Homicides at schools

Suicides at schools

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 271 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.2 Impact of Specific Factors on School Crime CHAPTER 9

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 disappointing 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 stu- dent 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 2007–2008 school year, 31.5% of teachers reported this. Such problems were higher in secondary schools than elementary schools (46% versus 26%, respectively), and in public schools than private schools (34% versus 18%, respec- tively). They are also more common in larger and city schools. Larger schools provide both greater anonymity and opportunity, both of which will logically produce more behavioral problems in school (U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education, 2011).

Responding to School Crime

Schools across the country deal with crime and disorder at school in a wide variety of ways. Table 9.5 shows the kinds of activities and policies pursued by schools to respond to these social problems.

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 272 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.2 Impact of Specific Factors on School Crime CHAPTER 9

Table 9.5: Responses by schools to crime on campus, 2009–2010

Reported by schools

Controlled access to buildings during school hours 92%

Closed campus during lunch 72%

Controlled access to grounds during school hours 46%

Used metal detectors 1.4%

Drug tested athletes 6%

Drug tested students in extracurricular activities 4.6%

Drug tested other students 3%

Required visitors to sign in 99%

Required faculty/staff to wear ID badges 63%

Required students to wear ID badges 7%

Enforced a student dress code 57%

Required uniforms for students 19%

Limit access to social networking sites 93%

Prohibit cell phones and texting 91%

Provide telephones in most classrooms 74%

Used two-way radios 73%

Used electronic notification system for emergency 63%

Used security cameras to monitor school 61%

Had anonymous threat reporting system 36%

Used random dog sniffs for drugs 23%

Used random sweeps for contraband 12%

Required clear book bags or banned them 5.5%

Reported by students

Had code of student conduct 96%

Required visitors to sign in 94%

Adult supervision in hallway 91%

Used security cameras 70%

Had security guard or assigned police officer 68%

Locked doors during the day 64%

Had locker checks 54%

Required to wear badges of picture ID 23%

Used metal detectors 11%

Source: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012002.pdf

As shown in Table 9.5, the most commonly pursued strategies by schools to prevent crime on campus are requiring visitors to sign in (99%) and controlling access of outsiders to buildings (92%), the lunch room (72%), and school grounds (46%). Almost no schools use metal detectors or drug test students to prevent weapon possession and drug use by stu- dents. Only about one in five schools (19%) requires students to wear uniforms, and few

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 273 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.2 Impact of Specific Factors on School Crime CHAPTER 9

schools require students to have photo IDs or badges. Yet more than half of schools (57%) enforce a dress code.

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

Schools obviously rely heavily on technology in the case of an emergency (e.g., school shooting), including telephones in classrooms (74%), two-way radios (73%), and elec- tronic notification systems (63%). These devices will not prevent school crimes but do assist officials with alerting school users of emergencies as well as first responders who arrive to schools after an incident.

The most common strategies used at schools are thus consistent with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and situational crime prevention. Both are mea- sures 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 ways to decrease school-based victimization. The logic is that, if capable guardians are present, the opportunity to vic- timize 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 seri- ous criminals such as school shooters (whose attacks have unfortunately been caught on school cameras). Security cameras as well as locker checks (reported by 54% of students at schools) have raised issues of privacy on campus.

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 stu- dent is also likely to have less privacy rights when it comes to personal information, 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.usconstitution.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?

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 274 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Crime at Colleges and Universities CHAPTER 9

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 possibility 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 administra- tors and faculty should receive training on how to identify risk factors. Schools need to implement policy and procedural guidelines to help faculty handle high-risk students. Most kids who commit 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 communication 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.

Prevention programs, such as conflict resolution (the process of negotiation and com- promise 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 rela- tionships 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 imple- mented an antibullying campaign in 2004, and many schools have implemented anti- bullying prevention 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.

In recent studies, this program was found to decrease bullying and other antisocial behav- iors, 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 educated 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 informa- tion. 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.

9.3 Nature and Extent of Crime at Colleges and Universities

Minor and serious crimes also occur with some frequency at colleges and universi-ties. Although these are also educational institutions, colleges and universities are distinct from elementary, middle, and high schools in several ways. First, the

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 275 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Crime at Colleges and Universities CHAPTER 9

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 (U.S. Secret Service, 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 quite rare at colleges and universities.

College and University Crime Is Rare

Table 9.6 shows the number of “serious” crimes reported by colleges in universities in the United States from 2007 through 2009.

Table 9.6: Crimes at colleges and universities, 2007–2009

2007 2008 2009

Murder 66 52 31

Arson 955 820 741

Forcible sex offense 3,478 3,270 3,284

Robbery 4,956 4,450 4,649

Aggravated assault 5,213 4,827 4,981

Motor vehicle theft 8,735 7,344 7,287

Burglary 32,961 31,953 26,281

Source: http://ope.ed.gov/security/

To provide some context for these numbers, it is important to consider the number of edu- cational institutions and the students they enroll. In 2009, there were about 4,400 colleges and universities in the United States (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012b). These schools enrolled 20.4 million students in 2009 (National Center for Education Sta- tistics, 2012d). Another 3.7 million people were employed as faculty and staff in these colleges and universities that year (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012c). Thus, more than 24 million people spent time at colleges and universities, meaning about 7% of all people in the United States are somehow tied to postsecondary education.

Given these numbers, it is clear that serious crimes are actually quite rare at colleges and universities. Further, the least harmful crimes are the most common, and the most harm- ful are the rarest. Having said this, as noted earlier in the section on crimes at schools, it is imperative to understand that these numbers reflect only crimes reported to or discovered by university 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.

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 276 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Crime at Colleges and Universities CHAPTER 9

Directed Assaults 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, com- mitted 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 (Drysdale, Modzeleski, & Simons, 2010).

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, Modzeleski, & Simons, 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 universities such as the massacre at Virginia Tech almost never occur.

Case Study: Virginia Tech Twenty-three-year-old Seung-Hui Cho, a student at Virginia Tech (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) 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 stu- dent 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 pho- tographing 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 counseling. Still, Cho was accused of stalking two female students in 2005. In the same year, he made suicidal statements to his room- mate, which resulted in his short stay at a psychiatric facility. He was released with instructions to seek out-patient therapy.

Thomas B. Shea/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.

(continued)

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 277 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Crime at Colleges and Universities CHAPTER 9

Hazing Bullying is not uncommon on college campuses and can take the place of threats, cyber- bullying, or hazing. Hazing often involves harassment or abuse or even violence in the form of a ritual, typically of initiation into a group, club, or team. In some cases, the results may be deadly.

Hazing is often brushed off as a prank, but it sometimes involves abusive and dangerous behaviors such as alcohol/drug consumption, sleep deprivation, humiliation, or sex acts. It can be a required initiation ritual to joining a group or a club. In a national study conducted on hazing, 55% of students that joined or attempted to join col- lege organizations and clubs experienced hazing (Allan & Madden, 2008). In more than 50% of hazing incidents, a pic- ture of the victim was posted on the web. College students were unlikely to report hazing rituals to college administrators.

The devastating effects of hazing were evident in the case of Robert Hampton Jr. at Florida A&M University in Tallahassee. Hampton was a member of the university’s famed march- ing band and died from injuries he sustained from a beating by fellow band members in

Case Study: Virginia Tech (continued) were also concerned about him, and one professor encouraged him to seek counseling. 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 affluent families, “wasting” their money. He was also anxiety ridden over graduation, which was a few weeks away. Cho was an aver- age 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).

Stephen Dunn/Getty Images

Hazing is often encouraged among college athletes as a way to embarrass younger players.

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 278 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Crime at Colleges and Universities CHAPTER 9

a hazing incident while walking from the front to the back of a bus. Eleven band mem- bers have been charged in this case as well as with some additional hazing crimes that occurred among band members.

Trends in College and University Crime

The report, “Campus Attacks: Targeted Violence Affecting Institutions of Higher Learn- ing,” shows that targeted assaults increased over the past 20 years (Drysdale, Modzeleski, & Simons, 2010). Yet, the increases are due almost entirely to increased enrollments, as shown in Figure 9.5.

Figure 9.5: Trends in incidents of directed assaults and student enrollment

Based on data from the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Department of Education, and the FBI. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/campus-attacks.pdf

A correlation exists between the increase in college enrollment rates and the number of directed assaults reported. Numbers in both enrollments and directed assaults have increased between 1909 and 2009.

Most of these events occurred in residences (28%), campus grounds or parking lots (27%), and administrative or academic buildings (26%). Specifically, they were most likely to occur in dorms or apartments (30%), offices (14%), and instructional areas (13%). These are the places where campus users are most present and thus opportunities are greatest for such assaults.

Fall Enrollment

20,000

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

N u

m b

e r

o f

In c

id e

n ts

S tu

d e

n ts

E n

ro ll

e d

i n

T h

o u

s a

n d

s

Students enrolled

Incidents

1909 1919 1929 1939 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2009

1900s 1910s 1920s

1930s

1940s

1950s

1960s

1970s

1980s

1990s

2000s

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 279 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Crime at Colleges and Universities CHAPTER 9

Impact of Specific Factors on College and University Crime

As for offenders, most offenders 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. These kinds of attacks really have nothing to do with colleges and universities but instead sug- gest 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 employees), and more than 90% of attackers were males. More than half of the time (54%), firearms were used.

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 tar- gets 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 aggres- sive acts toward the offender. Finally, there is no reliable profile of the campus attacker, although almost all were men.

Before 1998, college administrators did not willingly disclose campus crime statistics to the public. They were also reluctant to submit such information to law enforcement. Crime statistics could deter potential students from applying and damage the college’s reputation. Congress passed the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act of 1998, known as 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 Higher Education Act of 1990, called 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 was raped and murdered in her dorm by another student. 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 then report annual crime statistics and then make them avail- able to the public, along with safety and security procedures 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 proceedings is not a FERPA violation. The U.S. Department of Education is responsible for collecting this data.

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 280 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Crime at Colleges and Universities CHAPTER 9

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 campuses: murder, aggravated assault, and motor vehicle theft. Meanwhile, the larg- est 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. 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 victim- ization. Studies confirm these outcomes as well as the fact that students do report avoid- ing areas of campuses they perceive to be dangerous (Robinson & Roh, 2012).

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 dur- ing 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 cam- pus; none of the students or their parents were made aware of this information. Jeanne’s parents were very unhappy with how the univer- sity 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 national campaign. As a result, they lobbied Con- gress 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 non-for-profit agency, “Security on Campus, Inc.,” which is commit- ted to preventing violence on college campuses and helping college victims from around the country (Peterson, 2011).

Time & Life Pictures/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.

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 281 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.3 Nature and Extent of Crime at Colleges and Universities CHAPTER 9

The Party Subculture Although crime is rare on campus, it is also true that the student lifestyle promotes cer- tain 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 the 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). Alcohol impairs the regions of the brain responsible for planning, forethought, and self-control. Thus, when young people drink, they often make poor decisions that pro- mote both offending and victimization. In a majority of sexual assault cases on college and university campuses, either the offender or victim, or both, were drinking alcohol (Cole, 2006). Given this reality, it is important for college and university administrators to address alcohol use and promote responsible use at all times for those who drink.

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 personal 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 aggressive 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

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).

CPTED and situational crime prevention are also extremely common at colleges and uni- versity campuses. Recall that these are approaches aimed at reducing opportunities for crime by making crime less risky 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 without 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.

Some campuses provide their resident students with cell phones with the number of campus security preprogrammed into the phone. Most colleges have also implemented

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 282 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.4 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime CHAPTER 9

campus alert systems following the fatal shootings at Virginia Tech. Students can sign up to receive emergency alerts via phone, text, and/or e-mail. Finally, there are more educa- tion centers to help students learn how to protect themselves and more counseling ser- vices 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.

9.4 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 threaten- ing 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 definition 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).

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).

Workplace Crime Is Rare

According to OSHA (2012), nearly 2 million American workers indicate that they are vic- tims of workplace violence every year, and much more goes unreported. Of these, the smallest portion is homicide. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), there were only 506 workplace homicides in 2010 (which are part of the total of 4,547 fatal workplace injuries recorded in 2010).

Data from the NCVS 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 vio- lent 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.

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 283 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.4 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime CHAPTER 9

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 victimization 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 corporate crimes. These are discussed later in the 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 9.7 shows the number of fatal incidents at work caused by crime in 2010. Note that deaths can result from assaults and violent acts without being classified as homicides. Typically, the distinction is the presence or absence of intent on the part of the offender.

Table 9.7: Fatal workplace crimes, 2010

Deaths caused by . . .

Assaults and violent acts 808

Homicides 506

Shooting 401

Stabbing 34

Self-inflicted injury 258

Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t01.htm

Table 9.8 shows the rate of violence victimization at and away from work. The data show that between 2005 and 2009, 5.1 per 1,000 people ages 16 years and older were victimized by violence at work, versus 16.4 per 1,000 people away from work and 16.6 per 1,000 peo- ple not employed. This means only 0.5% of people ages 16 years and older are victimized by violent crime at work, 1.6% of people are victimized by violence away from work, and 1.7% of people who are unemployed are victimized by violence. Serious violent crime is even rarer. Finally, the table shows that the largest portion of nonfatal violence is simple assault (78% at work, 62% away from work, and 61% among those not employed).

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 284 7/5/13 4:22 PM

Section 9.4 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime CHAPTER 9

Table 9.8: Rates of workplace and nonworkplace violence, 2005–2009

Average annual rate of violence per 1,000 persons age 16 or older in —

Percent of nonfatal violence in —

Type of crime Workplacea Nonwork‑ placeb

Not employedc

Workplacea Nonwork‑ placeb

Not employedc

Total 5.1 16.4 16.6 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Serious violent crime

1.1 6.3 6.5 22.2 38.5 38.8

Rape/sexual assault

0.1 0.6 1.0 2.3 3.8 6.0

Robbery 0.2 2.3 2.2 3.1 14.0 13.3

Aggravated assault

0.9 3.4 3.2 16.8 20.7 19.4

Simple assault 4.0 10.1 10.2 77.8 61.5 61.2

Note: Serious violent crime includes rape/sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Details do not sum to total due to rounding. Includes 2006 data. See Methodology.

aWorkplace violence occurs against an employed person age 16 or older while at work or on duty. bNonworkplace violence occurs against an employed person age 16 or older while not at work or on duty. cViolence against persons not employed occurs against a person age 16 or older who did not have a job at the time of the crime.

Source: National Crime Victimization Survey.

Source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/wv09.pdf

Case Study: Going Postal On August 20, 1986, postal carrier Patrick Sherrill killed 14 of his fellow postal coworkers. Sherrill was a disgruntled employee who came back to seek revenge against coworkers at the post office. He blamed man- agement for his work-related problems and was antisocial with no real friends. He served time in the U.S. Marines and the Oklahoma Air National Guard where he developed a strong attraction to weapons; he also was a small arms expert.

Sherill faced formal disciplinary action by his supervisors several times and threatened to seek revenge against them. After the last scolding by his supervisor on August 19, Sherill came armed to work the follow- ing day with three semiautomatic pistols. He shot his supervisor, killed 14 of his coworkers, wounded 6 of his coworkers, and then turned the gun on himself. As a result of this attack, the term going postal became commonplace in the vernacular about workplace crime, although attacks by postal carriers are actually quite rare.

David Longstreath/Associated Press

The 1986 shooting spree by postal worker Patrick Sherrill is an extreme example of workplace violence.

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 285 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Section 9.4 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime CHAPTER 9

Bullying or harassment in the workplace is another form of workplace crime. A recent study found that 37% of employees have reported bullying on the job (Namie & Namie, 2011). Sexual harassment, a specific form of harassment and another form of bullying on the job, also reportedly effects 1 in 4 women and 1 in 10 men (Langer, 2011).

The Most Dangerous Occupations

According to NCVS data from 2005–2009, the highest rates of nonfatal workplace vio- lence occurred among bartenders, police officers, and security guards. These can thus be considered the most dangerous forms of work when it comes to likelihood of criminal victimization, as shown in Table 9.9.

Table 9.9: Rates of workplace and nonworkplace violence, 2005–2009

Occupation Rate of workplace violence per 1,000 employed persons age 16 or older

Nonworkplace violence rate per 1,000 employed persons age 16 or older

Percentage of workplace violence

Percentage of employed population age 16 or older

Total 5.1 16.4 100.0% 100.0%

Medical 6.5 15.0 10.2% 8.2%

Physician 10.1 7.7 1.1 0.6

Nurse 8.1 13.8 3.9 2.5

Technician 11.1 12.2 2.3 1.1

Other/medical occupations

3.7 17.5 2.9 4.1

Mental health 20.5 17.2 3.9% 1.0%

Professional 17.0 12.8 1.4 0.4

Custodial care 37.6 4.4 0.7 0.1

Other mental health occupations

20.3 24.1 1.8 0.5

Teaching 6.5 8.8 9.0% 7.2%

Preschool 0.9 9.8 0.1 0.5

Elementary 4.3 4.7 1.5 1.9

Jr. high/middle 8.6 5.0 1.3 0.8

High school 13.5 7.4 2.6 1.0

College/ university

1.9 14.1 0.7 1.9

Technical/ industrial school

54.9 -- 0.7 0.1

Special education facility

17.8 8.0 0.5 0.2

Other teaching occupations

8.9 11.4 1.6 0.9

Law enforcement

47.7 13.7 18.9% 2.1% (continued)

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 286 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Section 9.4 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime CHAPTER 9

Table 9.9: Rates of workplace and nonworkplace violence, 2005–2009 (continued)

Law enforcement officer

77.8 3.5 9.1 0.6

Corrections officer

33.0 13.0 1.8 0.3

Security guard 65.0 23.1 5.6 0.5

Other law enforcement occupations

17.5 16.7 2.4 0.7

Retail sales 7.7 24.3 13.2% 9.0%

Convenience or liquor store clerk

7.1 25.1 0.7 0.5

Gas station attendant

30.2 25.9 0.8 0.1

Bartender 79.9 38.7 1.9 0.1

Other retail sales occupations

6.3 24.0 9.8 8.2

Transportation 12.2 12.9 7.4% 3.2%

Bus driver 10.0 3.1 0.6 0.3

Taxi cab driver 9.0 33.3 0.2 0.1

Other transportation occupations

12.6 13.4 6.6 2.7

Other/ unspecified

2.8 16.6 37.3% 69.3%

Source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/wv09.pdf

The table also shows that some other professionals have higher than average violence victimization rates at work, including especially teachers at technical/industrial schools (54.9 victimizations per 1,000 people), mental health professionals who provide custodial care (37.6 victimizations per 1,000 people), corrections officers (33 victimizations per 1,000 people), and gas station attendants (30.2 victimizations per 1,000 people).

The table also demonstrates that about 19% of all workplace violence occurs in law enforce- ment, followed by 13% that occurs in retail sales, 10% that occurs in medical professions, 9% that occurs in teaching professions, 7% that occurs in transportation-related jobs, and 4% that occurs in mental health professions.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2012d), among workplace homicides, about 28% involved victims with sales and related occupations, and about 17% involved victims in protective service occupations. Table 9.10 shows that the largest percentage of work- place homicides occurs in sales and office work (32.4%), followed by service work (30.4%), followed by production, transportation, and material moving work, management, busi- ness, and financial work (9.6%), natural resources, construction, and maintenance work (6.5%), and professional and related work (5.1%).

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 287 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Section 9.4 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime CHAPTER 9

Table 9.10: Workplace homicides, 2005–2009 Occupation Percent of workplace homicide victim age

16 or older Total 100.0% Management, business and financial 9.6% Management 9.2 Business and financial operations 0.4 Professional and related 5.1% Computer and mathematical -- Architecture and engineering 0.3 Life, physical, and social science 0.1 Community and social services 1.2 Legal 0.6 Education, training, and library 0.6 Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media 1.1 Healthcare practitioners and technical 1.2 Service 30.4% Healthcare support 0.7 Protective service 17.2 Food preparation and service-related 7.2 Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance

2.4

Personal care and service 2.9 Sales and office 32.8% Sales and related 27.9 Office and administrative support 4.9 Natural resources, construction, and maintenance

6.5%

Farming, fishing, and forestry 0.8 Construction and extraction 3.0 Installation, maintenance and repair 2.7 Production, transportation, and material moving

15.7%

Production 2.4 Transportation and material moving 13.2

Source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/wv09.pdf

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

Impact of Specific Factors on Workplace Crime

Workplace violence is in some ways different than violence away from work. For exam- ple, nonfatal workplace violence is more likely than nonworkplace violence to be com- mitted by strangers (53% against males and 41% against females). 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, as shown in Table 9.11.

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 288 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Section 9.4 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime CHAPTER 9

Table 9.11: Workplace violence by gender

Percent of workplace violence

Victim/offender relationship 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: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/wv09.pdf

Also, rates of violence between men and women are greater at work than away from work. At work the rate difference 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%).

Table 9.12 shows rates of nonfatal violence at and away from work from 2005 to 2009 by gender, race, age, marital status, and annual household income. Notice that the rate of victimization at work is higher for Whites, followed by African Americans and Hispanics, whereas it is highest for African Americans away from work, followed by Hispanics and Whites. At work, Whites comprise 78% of violence victims, versus 8.7% that are African American, and 7.8% are Hispanic.

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 varia- tions are examined later in the chapter.

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 289 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Section 9.4 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime CHAPTER 9

Table 9.12: Rates of nonfatal victimization at and away from work, by demographic factors, 2005–2009

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

Victim characteristic 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

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: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/wv09.pdf

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 290 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Section 9.4 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime CHAPTER 9

Table 9.13 shows workplace homicides by demographic factors. The overwhelming major- ity of workplace homicide victims are male (81.6%). Less than half are White (48.9%), whereas African Americans (21.7%) and Hispanics (16.2%) are overrepresented as victims of homicide given their portion of the U.S. population. In terms of age, people are gener- ally equally likely to be killed at work in their late 20s, 30s, 40s, and early 50s. These pat- terns are also generally different than those away from work.

Table 9.13: Workplace homicides by demographic characteristics, 2005–2009 Victim characteristic Percent of workplace homicide victims age 16 or older

Total 100.0%

Sex

Male 81.6%

Female 18.4

Age

16-19 years old 2.2%

20-24 7.4

25-34 21.0

35-44 25.4

45-54 22.6

55-64 14.8

65 or older 6.3

Race/Hispanic origin

White 48.9%

Black/African American 21.7

Hispanic/Latino 16.2

American Indian 0.4

Asian/Pacific Islander 11.2

Two or more races 0.1

Other or race not reported 1.3

Source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/wv09.pdf

Trends in Workplace Crime

Figure 9.6 depicts trends in violence at and away from work from 1993 to 2009, with a break in the data in 2006 due to a methodological change in the NCVS.

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 291 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Section 9.4 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime CHAPTER 9

Figure 9.6: Workplace and nonworkplace nonfatal violence against people 16 years and older who are employed and unemployed

Based on data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/wv09.pdf

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

Figure 9.7 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 9.7: Workplace homicides, 1993–2009

Based on data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/wv09.pdf

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

50

40

30

20

10

0

1993 1995 2000 2005 2009

Nonworkplace violence

Violence against person not empoloyed

Workplace violence

Rate per 1,000 persons age 16 or older

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

1993 1995 2000 2005 2009

Number of employed victims age 16 or older

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 292 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Section 9.4 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime CHAPTER 9

These data show that the rate of workplace violence declined in the 1990s, as did the num- ber 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 also very similar to those of school crime and cam- pus and university 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 crimi- nal victimization. Finally, workplace crime obviously obstructs productivity of employees and businesses.

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 & Murphy, 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 property. 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 trickery. 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 (Rob- inson & 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 prod- ucts, tobacco, hospital error, occupational disease and injury, and so on, injure tens of mil- lions and kill hundreds 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 property), 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 crimi- nal (Reiman & Leighton, 2009), and in these cases, crime prevention means preventing corporations from killing or injuring their own employees or customers.

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 293 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Section 9.4 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime CHAPTER 9

Take the recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico caused by an exploding oil rig operated by British Petroleum (BP). Many people might view the deaths of 11 workers as an accident, but the actions of BP probably rise to the level of manslaughter if not murder. BP was found to have failed to follow required safety regulations (negligent behavior); skipped routine maintenance (negligent behavior); used nontrained, noncertified inspectors and falsified inspection reports (reckless behavior); disabled warning sensors (reckless behav- ior); ignored a clear sign of an impending disaster (knowing behavior); and more. Further, BP has a long history of such problems that have resulted in death, including a refinery explosion that killed 15 people in Texas City, Texas. As a result of their actions, BP execu- tives may face manslaughter charges (Bergin & Lau, 2011).

No one knows for sure whether these crimes are increasing, but recent events (such as the massive fraud on Wall Street and in the banking industry, which caused a major economic recession) 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 nor- mal or to be expected given the focus of large corporations on profit above all else (Bakan, 2005; Robinson & Murphy, 2009). 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.

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 website of “White Col- lar Watch” by Peter J. Henning and The New York Times at http://dealbook.nytimes.com/category /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?

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 294 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Section 9.4 Nature and Extent of Workplace Crime CHAPTER 9

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 light- ing, better security procedures, and an alarm system. Implementation of policy and proce- dures, keeping in contact with workers while out in the field, and making sure that work- ers 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 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.

ADR can be used as an alternative to court litigation or agency adjudications, or to help disputing 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 environment), mediation (helping each party to reach a compromise), and ombudsper- son programs (a person in the agency who listens to grievances confidentially and recom- mends 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 dis- abled, 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 provided 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 offend- ers from committing crimes at particular places.

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 295 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Section 9.5 Explanations for School and Workplace Crime CHAPTER 9

9.5 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 questions emerged in the context of this review. The fol- lowing section offers potential explanations for special considerations of school and workplace crime.

Why Is Crime in Schools 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, mean- ing 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 universities and workplaces are very strong at schools. For example, the primary agent of socialization 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 Study: Risk Factors for Workplace Violence Risk factors for workplace violence are many and include working in certain types of jobs and with certain types of people. For example, those employees who must exchange money and/or work with volatile or unstable people are more at risk for criminal victimization. Also, being employed in positions where a person often works alone, in an isolated area, at night, or in high-crime neighbor- hoods can make one more at risk for victimization. Further, those who work in places where alcohol is served and those who provide direct services to others are generally more at risk for victimization. These factors increase the risk for victimization because they deal with motivations for crime (e.g., money) and triggers for aggression (e.g., alcohol), and because they make people and places more attractive as potential targets.

Although most violence at work stems from crimes such as robberies by people not associated 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, dis- ciplined, 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.

Given these realities, managers and employees at workplaces aim to reduce these risk factors as a means to reduce criminal victimization. They often educate their employees, especially in the most hazardous jobs, about potential warning signs to be on the lookout for, and they ask and expect their employees to take precautions to protect themselves including having them report suspicious and concerning behavior.

Source: http://crimeprevention.rutgers.edu/crime/violence/workplace/prevention.htm#type1

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 296 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Section 9.5 Explanations for School and Workplace Crime CHAPTER 9

case of parents active in Parent-Teacher Associations and those who volunteer at schools (Berns, 2012).

Beyond this, teachers and school administrators act as parents to children while the chil- dren 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 simi- lar if not identical 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 controlling behavior of people 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 con- text 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 tes- tosterone, which is associated with higher levels of aggression. They are simultaneously socialized 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 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,

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 297 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Section 9.5 Explanations for School and Workplace Crime CHAPTER 9

robbery occurs against students walking to their cars at night or traveling to social gather- ing 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 ille- gal 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 life- style 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 appro- priate 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 victims, for example, by advis- ing 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, Orchowski, & Berkowitz, 2011; Palmer, McMahon, Rounsaville, & Ball, 2010).

Why Are Some Jobs More Dangerous Than Others?

Recall that some jobs are more dangerous than others. The most dangerous jobs in Amer- ica include bartender, police officer, and security guard. Also, rates of victimization are high for teachers at technical/industrial schools, mental health professionals who provide custodial care, corrections officers, and gas station attendants.

Why? What these 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 correc- tional personnel deal with lawbreakers and rule breakers, and thus their risk of criminal victimization is significantly higher.

Meanwhile, mental health professionals provide services to unstable people who under certain circumstances are more likely to become violent. Students in technical and indus- trial schools are under high amounts of stress, and this sometimes produces aggressive behavior. Finally, 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.

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 298 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Section 9.5 Explanations for School and Workplace Crime CHAPTER 9

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 clientele includes criminal offenders. General strain theory also is helpful for understand- ing workplace crimes because aggression at work is often the result of negative emotions stemming from bad experiences with fellow employees or customers.

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 fac- tors 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 non- workplace violence is more likely to be committed by people who know each other. Fur- ther, the rate of victimization at work is higher for Whites than minority groups, whereas away from work, the rate of victimization is higher for African Americans and Hispanics than Whites. Additionally people ages 20–34 years have the highest rates of victimiza- tion 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 exam- ple, 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 Uni- versity 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 cyberbullying case. The story of how Ravi ostensibly cyberbullied Clementi into taking his own life has become a key focal point of numer- ous 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 assump- tions 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 finding out his new roommate had cautiously come out just days before the start of the

Mel Evans/Associated Press

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

(continued)

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 299 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Section 9.5 Explanations for School and Workplace Crime CHAPTER 9

Using the Sociological Lens: The Cyberbully Criminal (continued) semester (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. (Contrary to conventional wisdom about the case, Ravi never actually posted any video or pictures online). Regardless, Ravi violated his roommate’s privacy, and Clementi complained to friends that he was afraid and was 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 lightening 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 eventu- ally 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 convicted 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, how- ever, 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 perspec- tives 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 sen- tence 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, “Dharun Ravi Is Sentenced,” Garden State Equality, May 21, 2012. http://www .gardenstateequality.org/2012/05/dharun-ravi-is-sentenced/

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 backlash against the gay community and would also fail to address the rampant and widespread homopho- bia 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 worth- less, but he couldn’t have been the first,” said Dan Savage, founder of the It (continued)

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 300 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Chapter Summary CHAPTER 9

Using the Sociological Lens: The Cyberbully Criminal (continued) 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). Slate columnist J. Bryan Lowder agrees that Ravi is 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 message is going to fix all that is misguided” (quoted in Zernike, 2012).

Jay Michaelson, “30-Day Sentence for Dharun Ravi in Rutgers Spying Case Is Right,” Daily Beast. com, 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 perspec- tive. 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 Clementi to jump to his death—the world has blamed Ravi, but it is likely that issues with his parents, a history of depres- sion, 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 homophobia, cyberbullying, or hate crimes, Kaminsky concludes that Ravi’s punishment was too steep.

Ross Kaminsky, “Nobody Pushed Tyler Clementi,” American Spectator, May 23, 2012. http:// spectator.org/archives/2012/05/23/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.

Chapter Summary

Young people spend an enormous amount of their lives during childhood, adoles-cence, 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.

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 301 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Chapter Summary CHAPTER 9

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, occasion- ally 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.

Key Terms

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, as well as having one’s property destroyed by others on purpose.

Clery Act Requires colleges and univer- sities that receive federal financial aid to report crime statistics and to make such statistics readily available to the public.

cyberbullying Willful and repeated harm to another through the use of computers, cell phones, or other electronic devices.

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 misappropriat- ing money or property.

hazing Harassment or abuse or even violence in the form of a ritual, typically of initiation into a group, club, or team.

informal social control Controlling behavior of people through nongovern- mental mechanisms such as the family.

leakage A student’s intentional or unin- tentional admission of violence to come.

moral panic When a crime is blown out of proportion to the threat it actually poses, and policies are created and implemented that are mostly unnecessary and can even make things worse.

nonworkplace violence Nonfatal vio- lence (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 included).

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 302 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Chapter Summary CHAPTER 9

relational aggression Occurs when people use emotion and manipulation to harm others rather than physical violence, usually involves methods such as spread- ing rumors about someone, excluding or ostracizing them.

school-associated violent deaths Homi- cides, suicides, or deaths resulting from a legal intervention by a law enforcement officer that occur on the campus of a school.

sexual harassment Being the victim of unwelcome sexual advances, verbal com- ments, physical touching, and even offen- sive remarks about one’s gender.

targeted 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 employed victims 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, intimi- dation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site.

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 81% 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. The author suggests the decline in workplace crime is due mostly to economic and social changes that have occurred in broader society. What changes are these?

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

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 303 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Chapter Summary CHAPTER 9

In the Field: Experts Weigh in on Crime, Work, and School The definition of crime changes as society changes its norms and values. Such changes also impact social responses to crimes. Experts comment on the study of crime, how crime impacts groups they work with, and different crime response and intervention methods.

Laura Christofferson

How does domestic violence impact victims when they are outside the home (i.e., at work or at school)? Domestic violence impacts victims outside of the home in many ways. For one, a victim may have difficulty concentrating at school or work due to the violence at home. When a person’s basic needs are threatened, it is much more difficult to attend to other things. So a person who is just hoping to survive another night at home may be much less motivated to study math and science.

Victims of domestic violence often experience hypervigilance, which is like being on “high alert.” Hypervigilance makes it difficult to relax and self-regulate—skills necessary for school, work, and for getting an adequate amount of sleep. Additionally, it is common for victims to experience nightmares and wake up frequently throughout the night. This fatigue can certainly have an impact on one’s activity level and ability to focus.

Perpetrators of violence might call a victim’s work repeatedly or show up unannounced in order to exert power and control. This can impact the victim’s employment, which is often the intent of the perpetrator.

Domestic violence victims may have difficulty making or maintaining social relationships for a vari- ety of reasons, such as shame and embarrassment or because their perpetrator tries to keep them isolated.

Jake Finney

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 individuals who are victims in such cases? Bullying and harassment of LGBTQ individuals is commonplace in schools and the workplace. The L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center works to ensure LGBTQ equal- ity 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,

attorney referrals, restraining order preparation, assistance with crime victim compensation, and advocacy within the criminal justice system.

Could you please provide an example of an incident or issue and how L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center responded to help address and/or resolve the situation? We frequently receive requests from employers to provide LGBTQ sensitivity trainings, and some- times these requests are part of an employer’s efforts to resolve conflicts between employees. In some instances the trainings 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 bully- ing, and in one instance we were sought out for our expertise by the Los Angeles

Courtesy of Laura Christofferson

(continued)

Courtesy of Jake Finney

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 304 7/5/13 4:23 PM

Chapter Summary CHAPTER 9

In the Field: Experts Weigh in on Crime, Work, and School (continued) 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 orientation, 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 administrators 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 victim’s consent and not knowing how the parents would respond could lead to similar results.

Erik Fritsvold

Part of the research for Dorm Room Dealers analyzed the role of the criminal justice system and school administration. Can you please tell us more about what you discovered? Our research included a half-dozen colleges and universities in Southern California. Both Dr. Rafik Mohamed and I had similar access to this demo- graphic—access to individuals in these different arteries of this college drug- network that surprisingly did not overlap. We focused purely on the dealers but their interactions with the customers did play a role in the research.

My coauthor spoke with the administrators. The criminology literature shows that schools of all types underreport crime. What the college administrators said dovetails with this longstanding issue. There is tension because they want their institution to appear crime free, but if they need to report crimes these reports will contradict their crime-free status.

Courtesy of Erik Fritsvold

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 305 7/5/13 4:23 PM

coL82305_09_c09_257-306.indd 306 7/5/13 4:23 PM