Distinguishing Between On-Campus and Off-Campus Sexual Victimization: A Brief Report

Abstract

Campus sexual victimization has moved to the forefront of the academy's collective awareness, and recent years have seen drastic increases in scholarship and legal reforms directed at the sexual victimization of college women. Recently, campus climate scholars have turned their attention to the location of victimization given that off-campus areas, such as fraternity parties, have been historically conflated to suggest that one-in-five students experience sexual victimization (on campus) and that college campuses are the epicenters of the public health crisis. However, on-campus sexual victimization is not interchangeable with the sexual victimization of college women. Therefore, determining whether location of campus victimization has distinct correlates is important for efforts related to developing context-specific programs. To contribute to this discourse, this brief report explores the location of campus sexual victimization, specifically examining the types of incidents and contextual factors that occurred on campus compared to off campus. Data come from a campus climate survey drawn from a sample of courses offered during the spring 2017 semester at a southeastern university. Findings indicate that off-campus victimization is more common than on-campus victimization and that alcohol and drug consumption—voluntary and forced—are related to off-campus victimization. Findings suggest that protective behavioral strategies—as they relate to alcohol consumption—and bystander intervention programs may be promising approaches for universities. This study concludes with suggestions for reconceptualizing definitions of on- and off-campus locations.

Introduction

Recent years have seen drastic increases in scholarship and legal reforms directed at the sexual victimization of college students. Overall, the sexual victimization of female college students is well documented (Fisher et al. 2000, 2003), and research consistently finds that women experience numerous forms of sexual violence during their university tenure (Krebs et al. 2007). Despite increased research efforts directed at campus climate—individual and campus community attitudes and behaviors, with focus on sexual victimization—questions remain regarding important aspects of victimization in the ivory tower.

Prevalence findings vary widely due to definitional, measurement, and methodological differences across studies (Fedina et al. 2018). Campus sexual assault also suffers from underreporting, and “dueling data” arguments result in questions regarding accurate statistics (Fisher et al. 2003; Hatch 2017). Moreover, university administrators may worry that university crime statistics will affect their institution's reputation (Luther 2016)—which may result in institutions discouraging reporting or failing to provide accurate reports (Hatch 2017).

Prevalence findings are further complicated by survey reports that do not support the widely cited “1-in-5” statistic—that is, one in five college women will be sexually victimized during their university tenure (Muehlenhard et al. 2017). Recently, campus climate scholars have turned their attention to the location of victimization given that off-campus areas, such as fraternity parties and local drinking establishments, have been historically conflated to suggest that one-in-five students experience sexual victimization (on campus) and that colleges are the epicenters of the public health crisis (Rennison et al. 2017). However, on-campus sexual victimization is not synonymous to the sexual victimization of college students (Rennison et al. 2017).

Fisher et al. (1998) declared that previous studies of campus crime failed at producing insight into patterns of student victimization because researchers had collected little information about the incident itself. This scholarship arguably cemented the importance of unpacking incident characteristics and distinguishing between on- and off-campus victimization. Disentangling on- and off-campus victimization, however, is no easy task. The conflation of on- and off-campus incidents occurs in contemporary campus climate research (Fisher et al. 1998). This trend likely results from the failure to make definitional location distinctions and stems from the fact that these off-campus locations are deeply embedded in college life. Characteristics of residence halls and the regulation of on-campus housing often push students into off-campus locations such as fraternity houses (Armstrong et al. 2006). Neglecting to incorporate and distinguish between on- and off-campus sexual victimization leaves unanswered questions regarding important aspects of college victimization.

In response to the issues identified above, scholars have recently turned more attention to location of victimization in their use of campus climate surveys. This research reveals that off-campus sexual victimization may occur more frequently than on-campus sexual victimization (Rennison et al. 2017). Given this discovery, Rennison et al. (2017) argue that distinguishing between on-campus and off-campus sexual victimization is necessary. To date, research has largely failed to determine whether location of campus victimization has distinct correlates, hindering the ability to develop context-specific programs (Rennison et al. 2017). The current study responds to this gap in research.

Data and Method

Data are drawn from a paper and pencil campus climate survey that was designed to assess prevalence of victimization among the student body and provide insight into student perceptions of the campus community and climate. The 70-question survey that was administered was adapted from the University of Kentucky's campus climate survey. Some survey items had subqueries, as the authors included psychometrically sound scales and popular multi-item campus climate measures in the instrument. For example, students responded to a 15-item rape myth question. Survey questions included perceptions of safety, bystander intervention behaviors, knowledge of campus resources, and experiences on and off campus. The majority of the survey focused on the experience of victimization over the last 12 months and included forms of bullying, sexual violence, emotional abuse, and physical violence. Demographic questions were presented at the end of the survey instrument.

The survey, approved by the University's Institutional Review Board, was administered to a sample of courses during the spring of 2017. Approximately 10% of all classes (e.g., undergraduate and graduate courses across all majors; N = 198) offered during the spring of 2017 were randomly selected. In total, 96 instructors (48.24%) allowed the research team to administer the survey. A member of the research team visited the selected course on a date and time agreed to by the co-principal investigators and instructor. Before handing out the survey, the research team reviewed the voluntary and anonymous nature of the survey and reviewed reporting procedures.

Significant differences did not emerge between instructors who did and did not allow the survey team to sample their class, and whether (1) the class was a graduate or undergraduate course (χ² = 0.24, p = 0.40), (2) the class was an upper-level or introductory course (χ² = 0.26, p = 0.40), or (3) if the course was STEM or not (χ² = 0.48, p = 0.30). Across all classes that took part in data collection, 89.65% of the students who attended class the day the survey was administered participated. At the instructor's discretion, extra credit was offered. In courses where extra credit was offered, an alternative assignment was provided to students who elected not to participate in the survey. The survey took on average 45 min to complete. Overall, 2265 students participated in the survey.

As the authors elaborate below, low cell sizes among the on-campus victimizations made bivariate and multivariate analyses inappropriate. Therefore, the authors provide an exploratory examination of on- and off-campus victimization. Although this approach is not necessarily meant to be used to validate or provide final conclusions, exploratory data analysis is necessary for identifying what data can tell us beyond formal modeling and hypothesis testing (Tukey 1962, 1980/2012). Tukey (1980/2012) asserts that exploratory analyses often lead to the development of important research questions—an aspect of inquiry arguably more important (and challenging) than finding the answers. Therefore, the authors aim to identify location of victimization and to examine contextual factors that occurred on campus compared to off campus.

Measures

Rape victimization

Respondents were asked if during the past 12 months they: (1) “Have been physically forced to have sex (intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or penetration with an object) against your will?,” (2) “Have been forced to have sex because a person threatened to harm you if you did not give in?,” (3) “Did someone have sex with you against your will when you were physically unable to consent to sex (e.g., pass out, unconscious, or not physically able to respond) because someone had slipped you drugs or extra alcohol?,” (4) “Did someone have sex with you against your will when you were physically unable to consent to sex because of alcohol and drugs that you took voluntarily?,” or (5) “Were you in a situation where someone was in the process of physically forcing you to have sex but you managed to escape before intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or penetration with an object occurred?” If the respondent responded affirmatively to any of the five behaviorally-specific questions, they were coded “1”—experienced rape victimization. Respondents who answered no to all five questions were coded “0.”

Follow-up questions

Respondents who answered affirmatively to any of the five behaviorally-specific rape questions completed a series of follow-up questions based on the most serious incident. Responses are based on the respondent's own definition and perception of the “most serious incident” as the survey did not define the phrase. The unit of analysis is the incident.

First, respondents were asked where the incident occurred. A series of on-campus (e.g., a dormitory or student housing, on campus outside, on campus at a fraternity/sorority event or house, etc.) and off-campus locations (at a student's residence, off campus outside, off campus at a bar/party, off campus at a fraternity/sorority event or house, etc.) were provided. Regarding the most serious incident, respondents were asked about their relationship to the perpetrator, perpetrator's gender, and the person's connection to the university.

Results

In total, 1731 respondents provided valid responses on all five behaviorally-specific questions used to capture rape victimization. In total, 99 respondents (5.40%) indicated on the survey instrument that they were raped over the last year. The majority (64.65%; N = 64) stated that they experienced one of the listed forms of assault. Roughly a quarter (27.75%; N = 27) reported two forms of assault, 6.06% (N = 6) reported three forms of assault, and 2.02% (N = 2) reported four forms of assault. No respondents stated that they had experienced all five of the behaviorally-specific assaults.

Table 1 provides an overview of the victims and incidents by whether the incident occurred on or off campus. Of the 71 valid responses regarding the location of the most serious rape incident, 92.96% (N = 66) occurred off campus. The majority occurred either at a student's residence (48.48%; N = 32) or at another off-campus location (40.91%; N = 27). A small minority reported that the rape occurred off campus outside (3.03%; N = 2) or at a bar/party (7.58%; N = 2). None of the respondents reported that the most serious incident occurred off campus at a fraternity/sorority event or house or on a school affiliated trip. When examining the on-campus incidents, 80.00% (N = 4) occurred in a dormitory/student housing and 20.00% (N = 1) occurred outside. When examining the association between the respondent's living situation and the location of the most serious incident, 80.00% (N = 4) of the on-campus rapes occurred to students who lived on campus. Only one (20.00%) occurred on campus to someone who lived off campus. In comparison, the majority of off-campus rapes (45 of 62; 72.58%) occurred to respondents who also lived off campus.

Table 1.

Victim and Incident Characteristics If the Most Severe Incident Occurred On or Off Campus

	Overall		Off campus		On campus
	N	%	N	%	N	%
Victim gender
Female victim	74	79.57	53	85.48	4	80.00
Male victim	19	20.43	9	14.52	1	20.00
Total	93		62		5
Victim year in school
First year	14	15.91	7	12.07	2	40.00
Sophomore, junior, senior, or graduate student	74	84.09	51	87.93	3	60.00
Total	88		58		5
Race/ethnicity
White	60	65.22	41	66.13	2	40.00
Student of color	32	34.78	21	33.87	3	60.00
Total	92		62		5
Respondent lived on or off campus^a
Lived on campus	21	31.34	17	27.42	4	80.00
Lived off campus	46	68.66	45	72.58	1	20.00
Total	67		62		5
Victim relationship to perpetrator^a
Spouse	5	7.46	5	8.06	0
Dating partner	11	16.42	11	17.74	0
“Friends with Benefits”	11	16.42	9	14.52	2	40.00
Friend/acquaintance	37	55.22	35	56.45	2	40.00
Stranger	3	4.47	2	3.23	1	20.00
Total	67		62		5
Female victim/male perpetrator	50	84.75	46	85.19	4	80.00
Female victim/female perpetrator	3	5.08	3	5.56	0	0.00
Male victim/male perpetrator	1	1.69	1	1.85	0	0.00
Male victim/female perpetrator	5	8.47	4	7.41	1	20.00
Total	59		54		5
Perpetrator relationship to university^a
Student	26	40.00	21	35.00	5	100.00
Employee/staff	1	1.54	1	1.67	0	0.00
Don't know connection	2	3.08	2	3.33	0	0.00
Person with no connection	36	55.38	36	60.00	0	0.00
Total	65		60		5

Overall/totals based on respondents who were not missing data on each measure and if the incident occurred on- or off campus.

The majority of rape victims reported that the perpetrator was someone they knew. Only 4.47% (3 of 67) reported that a stranger committed the most serious rape incident. Among the rape incidents that occurred on campus, the victim–offender relationship included someone who the respondent was “a friend with benefits” or “hooking up” with (N = 2; 40.00%), a friend or acquaintance (N = 2; 40.00%), or a stranger (N = 1; 20.00%). Among the incidents that occurred off campus, the victim–offender relationship included a friend or acquaintance (N = 35; 56.45%), a dating partner (N = 11; 17.74%), someone who the respondent was “a friend with benefits” or “hooking up” with (N = 9; 14.52%), spouses/partners/serious relationship (N = 5; 8.06%), or a stranger (N = 2; 3.23%).

When examining the gender of the victim and offender, 79.6% of victims (N = 74) were female. Of those incidents that happened on campus, the majority involved a female victim and a male perpetrator (4 of 5; 80.00%). The other incident that occurred on campus involved a male victim and female perpetrator (1 of 5; 20.00%). Of the incidents that took place off campus, the most typical victim/perpetrator dyad was a female victim and male perpetrator (46 of 54; 85.19%).

University students were the reported perpetrators of all rapes that occurred on campus (N = 5). In contrast, victims of off-campus rapes reported students (N = 21), employees or staff members (N = 1), and people with no connection to the university as perpetrators (N = 36). In addition, in off-campus rapes, some respondents did not indicate if the perpetrator was affiliated with the university (N = 2). The most common offender for off-campus rapes were people who did not have a connection to the university (60.00%) followed by a student (35.00%).

Discussion

This study found that off-campus sexual victimization was more common than on-campus sexual victimization and that alcohol and drug consumption—voluntary and forced—are related to off-campus victimization. Only respondents who experienced an off-campus rape reported forced or voluntary alcohol and drug consumption (results not presented here). The type of sexual victimization and victim–perpetrator relationship also differed between on- and off-campus victimization. These findings highlight the differing contexts in which on- and off-campus sexual victimization occur, although both on- and off-campus victimization are partly a function of opportunity and exposure to potential offenders. The role of alcohol and drugs in off-campus rapes may imply that the risk of victimization increases if the individual engages in certain risky behavior that would not be possible while on campus. On-campus rapes, then, may be more a function of accessibility and proximity to motivated offenders. The role of alcohol and drugs in off-campus sexual victimization also suggests that those who experience it may be exposed to more severe outcomes compared to on-campus rapes. This may especially be the case if the victim was unconscious or incapacitated due to substance use at the time of the rape, potentially lowering the likelihood that they will report to law enforcement and increases the risk that they will not be able to engage in positive coping.

Although the contexts for on- versus off-campus sexual victimization may differ from one another across university campuses, there are some proactive steps that schools can take to help high-risk students. An important aspect of sexual victimization among college students is the use of alcohol and drugs, a common feature of college life and also off-campus sexual victimization (based off the current brief report). Research shows that half of college students report drinking alcohol with the specific intent of getting drunk (Wechsler et al. 2000). Similarly, in half of all sexual assaults, alcohol is consumed either by the victim, offender, or both (Abbey 2002; Abbey et al. 2001).

As such, the most effective alcohol and substance abuse programs are largely based on a “harm reduction” model designed to reduce, minimize, or eliminate the dangers related to substance abuse (Marlatt and Witkiewitz 2002), including sexual victimization. One promising form of harm reduction is the use of protective behavioral strategies (PBS) while drinking alcohol, which are specific, cognitive-behavioral strategies used before and during consumption with the goal of avoiding subsequent negative consequences (Martens et al. 2004). Research examining sexual victimization among college students reveals that PBS are effective at reducing the odds of sexual victimization for both men and women who are high-frequency drinkers (Daigle et al. 2016). Policy responses must acknowledge the role of alcohol, and data collection efforts must also work to capture drinking behavior.

In addition to findings surrounding substance use and drinking behaviors, victims of off-campus rape identified some perpetrators as university employees in positions of power (e.g., faculty and staff), whereas university students were the reported perpetrators of all rapes that occurred on campus. Although intimate relationships between university employees and students are not inherently illegal, they are unethical and, in some cases, violate institutional policies and procedures. Moreover, there have been recent grassroots efforts to (1) highlight the inherent unequal power relationships between students and faculty in the context of romantic relationships and (2) expose predatory faculty at institutions of higher education. Two recent examples include: the anonymous “Sexual Harassment in Academia” survey, which was paired with the hashtag campaign, #MeTooPhD (Kelsky 2017), and the crowdsourced lists of sexual predators in the academy (Chowdhury and Deep 2017). These recent efforts, coupled with the findings herein, suggest that protective measures should include educational efforts geared toward faculty, staff, and students. Specifically, universities might provide guidelines and programming centering on ethical conduct and reporting measures, in conjunction with sexual harassment and assault training.

Because of the survey structure, the location question was limited to the incident the respondent perceived as the most serious. Given that a third of rape victims reported more than one incident, it is possible that the respondent did not perceive the on-campus victimization as the most serious incident. Future iterations of campus climate surveys need to consider the construction of survey instruments. Capturing data on correlates of victimization at the individual level and incident characteristics can lead to complicated survey instruments. Therefore, the goal of the survey needs to be weighed against best survey practices.

Future research should examine the location of all sexual victimizations, as sexual harassment can include cyber victimization. Further understanding the context of cyber victimization is important in preventing sexual violence. With advances in technology and connectivity, and the inextricable link between college life and technology, campus climate research may need to conceptualize location of victimization more broadly to include cyberspace, as opposed to merely on/off campus locations. There is also a need to unpack the experience of male sexual assault victims, including whether there is a gendered component to the location of the incident.

Roughly 5% of the sample reported rape victimization in the past 12 months. When the location of the incident is accounted for, small cell sizes result. Therefore, it was analytically inappropriate to conduct multivariate analyses. Future climate surveys must weigh the cost and benefits of census strategies, which require all students to respond, increasing sample size and power for statistical analyses, but may have a diminishing return. If campus officials are only interested in victimization rates on campus, a random sampling strategy may be sufficient.

Overall, future research would benefit from teasing apart on- and off-campus locations to understand the diversity of student experiences. However, disentangling on- and off-campus victimization is no easy task. Although literature and official statistics indicate that a large proportion of sexual victimization occurs on campus (Fisher et al. 1998, 2000; Stotzer and MacCartney 2016), official statistics on off-campus victimization are problematic at best. Universities do not collect data on off-campus victimization directly. Federal regulations simply require that universities attempt to gather such information from local authorities (Yung 2015). Yung (2015) points out that data collected this way do not distinguish between the police reporting zero incidents and when the police provide no data. Both examples result in a zero value for off-campus sexual victimization in a given academic year.

Moreover, some off-campus locations are more closely tied to universities, such as nonsponsored sorority and fraternity houses (Rennison et al. 2017), and have strong associations with sexual victimization and alcohol use. Other events are campus related (e.g., rape that occurs during travel to a sporting event but “geographically” off-campus) and fall within reporting guidelines under the Clery Act. Future research should consider what is more important—geography, content, or some combination thereof—in an effort to develop a unified definition of what is meant by “on-campus.” Better understanding of diversity in student experiences will also improve the theoretical understanding of college student victimization risk. The differences in contextual factors between on- and off-campus locations may suggest that different factors are driving risk, which further suggests that different responses in each type of location may be warranted. In this way, efforts on campuses to combat sexual assault among college students can incorporate this information and will be better attuned to preventing incidents of sexual violence, whether it occurs on or off campus.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

The authors received support from the Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas and Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Sam Houston State University.

References

Abbey

. (2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college students. J Stud Alcohol Suppl. 14, 118–128.

Abbey

, Zawacki

, Buck

, et al. (2001). Alcohol and sexual assault. Alcohol Res Health. 25, 43–51.

Armstrong

, Hamilton

, Sweeney

. (2006). Sexual assault on campus: A multilevel, integrative approach to party rape. Soc Prob. 53, 483–499.

Chowdhury

, Deep

. (2017). Universities respond to Raya Sarkar's list of alleged sexual predators: Mostly silence, some denials. Scroll.in. Retrieved from https://scroll.in/article/856589/universities-respond-to-raya-sarkars-list-of-alleged-sexual-predators-mostly-silence-some-denials (accessed October 21, 2020)

Daigle

, Johnson

, Napper

, Azimi

. (2016). Protective behavioural strategies while drinking: Do they protect against sexual victimisation and is this protection gendered?. Drug Alcohol Rev. 35, 573–579.

Fedina

, Holmes

, Backes

. (2018). Campus sexual assault: A systematic review of prevalence research from 2000 to 2015. Trauma Viol Abuse. 19, 76–93.

Fisher

, Cullen

, Turner

. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Research report. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice, Washington, DC).

Fisher

, Daigle

, Cullen

, Turner

. (2003). Acknowledging sexual victimization as rape: Results from a national-level study. Just Quart. 20, 535–574.

Fisher

, Sloan

, Cullen

, Lu

. (1998). Crime in the ivory tower: The level and sources of student victimization. Criminology. 36, 671–710.

10.

Hatch

. (2017). Campus Sexual Assault: A Reference Handbook. (ABC-CLIO). (Santa Barbara, CA).

11.

Kelsky

. (2017). Our #MeTooPhD moment. The Professor is in. Retrieved from https://theprofessorisin.com/2017/12/08/our-metoophd-moment (accessed October 21, 2020)

12.

Krebs

, Lindquist

, Warner

, et al. (2007). The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study: Final Report. (National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC).

13.

Luther

. (2016). Unsportsmanlike Conduct: College Football and the Politics of Rape. (Akashic Books, Brooklyn, NY).

14.

Marlatt

, Witkiewitz

. (2002). Harm reduction approaches to alcohol use: Health promotion, prevention, and treatment. Addict Behav. 27, 867–886.

15.

Martens

, Taylor

, Damann

, et al. (2004). Protective behavioral strategies when drinking alcohol and their relationship to negative alcohol-related consequences in college students. Psychol Addict Behav. 18, 390–393.

16.

Muehlenhard

, Peterson

, Humphreys

, Jozkowski

. (2017). Evaluating the one-in-five statistic: Women's risk of sexual assault while in college. J Sex Res. 54, 549–576.

17.

Rennison

, Kaukinen

, Meade

. (2017). Sexual violence against college women. In Addressing Violence Against Women on College Campuses. C Kaulinen, M Hughes Miller, R Powers, eds. (Temple University Press, Philidephia, PA), pp. 17–34.

18.

Stotzer

, MacCartney

. (2016). The role of institutional factors on on-campus reported rape prevalence. J Interpers Viol. 31, 2687–2707.

19.

Tukey

. (1962). The future of data analysis. Ann Math Stat. 33, 1–67.

20.

Tukey

. (1980/2012). We need both exploratory and confirmatory. Am Stat. 34, 23–25.

21.

Wechsler

, Kuo

, Lee

, Dowdall

. (2000). Environmental correlates of underage alcohol use and related problems of college students. Am J Prev Med. 19, 24–29.

22.

Yung

. (2015). Concealing campus sexual assault: An empirical examination. Psychol Public Policy Law. 21, 1–9.