College Student Perceptions of Notification About Sex Offenders on Campus

Abstract

Sexual victimization is a growing concern on college campuses. Although academic literature has examined the extent and perceived risk and fear of sexual assault at universities, studies focusing on college student attitudes about appropriate sex crime–related policies are severely limited. The Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act of 2000 requires post-secondary institutions to provide a statement giving the campus community guidance on how to access information about registered sex offenders. Colleges and universities are afforded wide discretion regarding whether to use more direct and involved methods for notifying faculty, staff, and students. The current study examines how college students attending a Midwestern university feel about various approaches to notification about sex offenders on campus. Results indicate that impressions of vulnerability are driving some of student opinion about notification, but that other considerations, such as character assessment, privacy concerns, and feelings of uneasiness, are possibly having an impact as well. The findings also strongly support that female student input should be factored heavily into campus sex offender notification strategies.

Keywords

campus notification sex offending higher education policy

Sex crime on college campuses is an issue that has received significant social and political attention in recent years. Statistics indicate that heightened concerns about sexual violence at universities are justified. Approximately one out of five undergraduate females reports an attempted or completed sexual assault victimization during her college experience (Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2009). Evidence also suggests that college women are more vulnerable to sexual victimization than similarly aged and situated females (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987). College campuses encapsulate hazardous settings for potential sexual victimization given that university life exposes students to many factors that increase the risk of sexual violence, such as intensified peer pressure, partying activities, heavy drug and alcohol consumption and subsequent physical impairment, increased opportunities for social interactions with strangers or recent acquaintances, highly concentrated housing structures inhabited primarily by young adults, and perhaps norms accepting of and even encouraging risk taking and sexually aggressive male behavior (Armstrong, Hamilton, & Sweeney, 2006; Fisher, Daigle, & Cullen, 2010; Fisher, Sloan, Cullen, & Lu, 1998; Jackson, Gilliland, & Veneziano, 2006).

Although a number of policies and programs have been implemented to address sexual violence in the United States, sex offender registration and community notification are perhaps the most popular. These policies proliferated in the mid-1990s, beginning with the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act of 1994. This legislation mandated all states to establish sex offender registration systems and requires sex offenders to provide residential addresses to state law enforcement. In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed Megan’s Law, an amendment to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which introduced a notification component by requiring states to implement procedures to increase public safety by disclosing relevant information regarding registered sex offenders. A decade later, The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 led to the creation of an FBI-operated national sex offender database, established penalties for failure to comply with registration and notification laws, required periodic check-ins with police agencies, and enhanced registration information requirements such as documenting current photo identification, vehicle description, and DNA samples.

The Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act of 2000 has driven the adoption of sex offender registration and notification on college campuses. This act requires any registered sex offender who works or attends classes at a university to inform the institution of this status, and each state is required to inform the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the academic institution about any such person. It also specifies that academic institutions are obligated to produce a statement to inform the campus community about how to retrieve information concerning registered sex offenders. The Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act gives complete discretion to post-secondary institutions regarding whether to notify faculty, staff, and students through more direct and thorough approaches, such as using an email alert system and university website or providing specific information such as offense type, student course schedule, and campus organization membership.

As a relatively recent university policy, research on campus sex offender registration and notification is very limited, and no studies have examined how college students perceive potential forms of campus-based notification about sex offenders. The perspectives of students are important because this population is most likely to be sexually victimized on a college campus and thus most apt to benefit from notification policies. Unfortunately, there is no empirical evidence presently guiding the appropriate implementation of notification policies or demonstrating their perceived or real value in university settings. This is disappointing because beliefs about public opinion are often integrated into policy decisions (Burstein, 2003; Key, 1961; Nicholson-Crotty, Peterson, & Ramirez, 2009; Wlezien, 2004). Campus sex offender notification policies could benefit from college student input specifically by increasing the probability that these policies are targeting the types of people who should be subject to notification, providing types of information that students feel are most relevant and helpful, and disseminating information through the most preferred means. The current study addresses the current gap in the research literature by examining perceptions of students attending a public university in the Midwest.

Public Perceptions of Sex Offenders, Registration Requirements, and Community Notification

The public historically has looked upon sex offenders as a particularly vile and incorrigible criminal subpopulation (Quinn, Forsyth, & Mullen-Quinn, 2004; Tewksbury & Lees, 2006). A relatively recent survey of Michigan residents found respondents fearful of sex offenders living in their neighborhood. Specifically, the percentage of respondents reporting being “somewhat or very afraid” was 80.6% for pedophiles in their neighborhood, 66% for date rapists, 59.5% for spousal rapists, and 45% for statutory rapists (Kernsmith, Craun, & Foster, 2009). Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, and Baker (2007) found that the average resident in a Florida city believed that 74% of sex offenders will commit future sex crimes and that sex offenders should spend 38.8 years in prison.

Studies have also examined attitudes specifically toward sex offender registration and community notification. A Washington state survey found that approximately 80% of respondents knew about the state’s community notification laws, and Washington residents overwhelming felt safer from having a state registering system (Phillips, 1998). Anderson and Sample’s (2008) survey of Nebraskans found that nearly nine out of 10 respondents were aware of a sex offender registry in the state although only 34.8% of residents with this knowledge actually accessed information from the registry. Of the Nebraska residents who accessed the sex offender registry, 88% felt personally safer and 87.6% felt their family was safer from checking it. Only 37.6% took protective measures after accessing the registry. Beck and Travis (2004) reported that residents from an Ohio county who received written notification about sex offenders were more likely than residents receiving no notification to take protective measures such as adding outdoor house lighting, cautioning neighbors about strangers, and warning others about dangerous people in the neighborhood. In Massachusetts, residents reported strong approval for police having authority to track sex offenders’ location, police providing information about sex offenders to the public, and the passage of Megan’s Law. The Massachusetts respondents also overwhelmingly agreed that Megan’s law is effective (Proctor, Badzinski, & Johnson, 2002). Anderson, Sample, and Cain (2015) found that 60% of Nebraska residents disagreed that 500 ft is enough distance from a school or day care center for sex offender residences. Approximately 43% of the Nebraska residents believed sex offender residences should be 1 mile or more from schools and day care facilities.

Research has explored public attitudes concerning the extent and types of information that should be provided through sex offender registries and notifications. Approximately three out of four of Levenson et al.’s (2007) Florida sample responded that community notification should apply to all sex offenders. Ninety-five percent responded that the public should have access to sex offender photos and names. Home address was important for 85% of the Floridians, HIV/AIDS status for 77%, vehicle description for 73%, license plate number for 61%, victim age for 53%, and offender co-residents for 51%. Fewer than half of Florida residents desired information about employer address, fingerprints, home phone, or victim name. Only 3% responded that the public should receive no information. A majority of Kernsmith et al.’s (2009) Michigan sample responded that all categories of sex offenders should be required to register. Nearly all agreed that pedophiles (97%) and incest offenders (96.9%) should register. In addition, 86.4% reported that registration is appropriate for juvenile sex offenders, 84.9% for date rapists, 71.3% for spousal rapists, and 65.1% for statutory rapists.

Although support for sex offender registration and community notification is high, questions linger regarding the effectiveness of these policies. Most studies have identified little benefit or mixed results when examining the impact of sex offender registration and notification on sex crime (Ackerman, Sacks, & Greenberg, 2012; Adkins, Huff, & Stageberg, 2000; Barnoski, 2005; Letourneau, Levenson, Bandyopadhyay, Sinha, & Armstrong, 2010; Schram & Milloy, 1995; Walker, Maddan, Vasquez, VanHouten, & Ervin-McLarty, 2005). Interestingly, Zevitz (2006) found that sex offenders subjected to more extensive notification procedures returned to prison for sex offenses at greater rates than sex offenders exposed to more limited notification, although Zevitz noted that sample numbers were too small to run meaningful statistical tests.

Potential collateral consequences of sex offender registration and notification have also been examined. Studies indicate that sex offenders most frequently report such negative consequences as struggling with increased life stress, worrying about the safety of loved ones, feeling isolated, ashamed, embarrassed, or hopeless, losing a friend or a job, encountering personal harassment and rude treatment in public, and losing or being refused housing (Levenson & Cotter, 2005; Mercado, Alvarez, & Levenson, 2008; Tewksbury, 2004, 2005). Tewksbury and Lees (2006) reported similar findings from sex offenders attending universities across the United States. For example, sizable percentages felt their placement on sex offender registries resulted in failure to gain employment or termination from work (65.4%), loss or denial of housing (42.3%), and the loss of a friend (42.3%). Most sex offenders listed on both university and statewide registries stated that the statewide registry had the greatest influence on their lives. In addition, registered sex offenders believed they were most likely to be identified as sex offenders off rather than on campus. Interestingly, Levenson and Cotter (2005) found that Florida sex offenders reported that registration and notification have some benefits. For example, 66% agreed that they are more likely to avoid offending to prove that they are not bad individuals. Furthermore, about one-third reported that they are more willing to manage their behavior due to being watched more closely by neighbors and that communities are safer from knowing sex offender residences.

Study Expectations

Shippee’s (2012) vulnerability perspective guides our expectations regarding how college students will respond to survey items pertaining to notification about sex offenders on campus. This perspective maintains that college students who view situations and circumstances as more threatening will be more receptive to harm-prevention measures. Studies on college campuses have found that actual victimization, perceived risk of victimization, and fear of victimization have motivated college students to become more concerned about crime and engage in more protective behaviors (Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1997; Williams, McShane, & Clark, 2007; Woolnough, 2009). Accordingly, anticipation and fear of victimization should influence whether a person seeks information for the purpose of taking precautionary measures to avert potential danger (Wilcox, May, & Roberts, 2006). In this case, the information being sought is notification about sex offenders on campus and the danger to be averted is sexual assault.

The vulnerability perspective suggests that if students believe certain information will lead to less victimization or prevent it entirely, then the information will be perceived as valuable. This leads to the development of several study expectations. First, the vulnerability perspective implies that college students should desire greater access to information about people they feel would be more successful at sexual victimization and thereby more threatening. Fisher, Cullen, and Turner (1999) found that classmates were more frequently perpetrators of sex crimes on college campuses than others such as friends, boyfriends, and other acquaintances for several specific offenses. For example, classmates committed 44% of attempted rapes, 42% of attempted sexual contacts with force or threatened force, 37% of threats of penetration without force, and 36% of completed rapes. Professors and other university staff were rarely sexual perpetrators at universities. Accordingly, we expect that students will be more supportive of receiving notification about sex offenders who are classmates and students involved in campus organizations than those who are professors and other university staff. Non-student sex offenders living near campus should also generate a desire for notification considering that they are in closer proximity to target a student than if they lived farther away. We predict that the perceived importance of notification about these offenders will be less than for classmates and students in campus organizations but greater than for professors and other university staff.

Second, the vulnerability perspective suggests that students will assign greater importance to methods of notification which lead to quick and convenient information access so that protective measures can be taken if necessary. Campuswide emails and emergency alerts through phone or text messages provide very quick means of communication. Although not immediate sources of information, postings on a university website can be regularly checked and class announcements provide notification at periodic intervals. Direct notification of sex offenders would be delayed significantly if communicated through a campus newspaper, and postings in a campus safety office requires a person to physically travel to a specific location which may pose inconveniences. We expect then that campuswide emails and emergency alerts will be viewed as most important, followed by postings on a university website and class announcements, and then by campus newspaper and postings in a campus safety office.

Third, the vulnerability perspective suggests students will want specific types of information that more effectively empower them to assess the threat and avoid contact with a sex offender. Having access to an offender’s picture and offense type enables a student to directly and immediately identify the offender and evaluate the level of threat. For instance, an offender who has committed rape would be more likely viewed as a threat to avoid than an exhibitionist. Receiving access to a sex offender’s course schedule and major field of study does not offer any immediate identification of threat but assists in identifying an offender’s campus routine and thus provides useful information for taking protective measures. Similarly, address information could be helpful by indicating the offender’s residential proximity and therefore assist with threat assessment. Vehicle information, which is required for state sex offender registries, might be less important on campus than in the larger community simply because spotting a vehicle on campus is probably much more difficult with so many large parking garages and lots. We expect that an offender’s picture and offense will be perceived as most important by students, followed by access to the offender’s address, major, and course schedule, and then by vehicle description.

The vulnerability perspective also suggests that females will be more receptive than males to notification about sex offenders on college campuses. Women are substantially more likely than men to be victimized sexually and fear or perceive a risk of sexual attack on a college campus (Dobbs, Waid, & Shelley, 2009; Fisher & Sloan, 2003; Hughes, Marshall, & Sherrill, 2003; Jennings, Gover, & Pudrzynska, 2007; Lane, Gover, & Dahod, 2009; Steinmetz & Austin, 2014; Tomsich, Gover, & Jennings, 2011). Females are also more likely to engage in protective behaviors than males at a university (Jennings et al., 2007; Tomsich et al., 2011; Woolnough, 2009). Although males are at substantially reduced risk of sexual victimization compared with females, we still believe that males’ receptiveness to sex offender notification will be consistent with the vulnerability perspective considering that the typical male will know several females attending an institution and presumably will desire access to information that can aid in assisting females with avoiding threats and taking protective measures.

Finally, feelings toward notification about sex offenders are expected to differ between students on and off campus, although evidence supporting the vulnerability perspective is not as clear for this expectation. Two studies have found that campuses with higher proportions of students living in dormitories also have higher crime rates (Bromley, 1994; McPheters, 1978), and Banyard et al. (2007) observed that women are more likely to experience unwanted sexual contact on campus than males. Franklin, Franklin, Nobles, and Kercher (2012) found that the more days a woman spends on campus per week, the greater the odds she will be sexually victimized. However, Woolnough (2009) found no relationship between living in a campus residence hall and the use of self-protective behaviors for either males or females. Two studies found no statistically significant differences in fear of crime for females living on campus compared with off campus (Fisher & Sloan, 2003; Steinmetz & Austin, 2014), except that women aged 25 years or older living on campus expressed greater fear than similarly aged women living off campus (Fisher & Sloan, 2003). Considering that sex offenders attending a university would have access and knowledge to many of the same surroundings as students living on campus, we expect that both males and females, but especially females who are at greater direct risk of victimization than males, will have greater interest in notification when they are residing on rather than off campus.

Method

Surveys were administered to undergraduate students enrolled in classes at a large university with more than 20,000 students in the lower Midwest. Seventy-five classes were randomly selected, which resulted in 1,048 students completing the survey. Surveys were administered by graduate students from the university’s criminal justice program at the beginning of class sessions. All students receiving surveys were informed of the survey’s purpose and notified that their responses would be anonymous as no names were requested. In addition, students were informed that participation was voluntary and that they could stop taking the survey at any time once they had started. The university’s institutional review board (IRB) approved all instruments and procedures prior to survey administration.

The survey participants were 60.1% female, 90.3% White, and 49.8% upperclassmen (juniors and seniors). The university population was 54.7% female, 83.5% White, and 64% upperclassmen. The difference between the sample and university population for class rank is largely due to the greater representation of freshman and sophomores in larger classes such as introductory and general education classes. To account for demographic and class rank differences between the sample and population, all survey responses are weighted on these characteristics.

The survey was six pages in length including a title page and contained items ranging from campus safety, sex offender notification, and personal and demographic characteristics. The main survey items examined for this study are taken from the notification section. Respondents were first asked how important it is to be notified of a sex offender who (a) attends classes on campus, (b) participates in campus organizations, (c) works on campus in administration or maintenance, (d) works on campus as an instructor or professor, and (e) lives near campus. Respondents were then asked how important it is to be notified about sex offenders through (a) class announcement, (b) student newspaper, (c) campuswide email, (d) the university emergency alert system via text or phone call, (e) the university website, and (f) posting in the campus safety and security office. Each item in these sections had possible responses of 1 (not important), 2 (slightly important), 3 (important), and 4 (very important). Next the participants were asked whether access should be provided to information about sex offenders at the university including (a) picture, (b) current address, (c) vehicle description, (d) major field of study, (e) course schedule, and (f) type of sex offense committed. Each of these items was examined through possible responses of 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (neutral), 4 (agree), and 5 (strongly agree).

The first three expectations are examined by looking at differences in mean responses to the notification items. Examining expectations regarding gender and housing type requires categorizing responses according to whether a student is male living on campus, male residing off campus, female living on campus, or female residing off campus. ANOVA and the Bonferroni ad hoc procedure are used to determine if these group differences are statistically significant. Specifically, we look for differences between (a) males on campus and males off campus, (b) males on campus and females on campus, (c) males off campus and females off campus, and (d) females on campus and females off campus. The alpha level for assessing statistical significance is set at .05.

Results

Table 1 reports the means responses to items regarding the types of people about which students desire to be notified. Based on the mean values, each category of students felt it was more important to be notified about instructors and professors who are sex offenders than any other type of person. The mean scores also indicated that sex offenders working on campus in a non-instructional capacity were ranked second in importance of notification and sex offenders living near campus were ranked third. Ranked in the bottom two spots of notification importance based on mean scores were sex offenders attending classes on campus and those participating in campus organizations. The mean values indicated that each group, except on-campus females, placed notification of sex offenders attending classes on campus as least important.

Table 1.

Mean (SD) Responses to Survey Items Regarding the Types of People About Whom Students Desire to Be Notified.

	Male on campus	Male off campus	Female on campus	Female off campus
Attends classes on campus^b,c,d,*	2.44 (1.087)	2.34 (1.009)	3.03 (0.893)	2.75 (1.012)
Participates in campus organizations^b,c,*	2.45 (0.987)	2.49 (1.033)	3.00 (0.867)	2.80 (0.958)
Works on campus in non-teaching role^b,c,d,*	2.77 (0.998)	2.79 (1.040)	3.37 (0.770)	3.08 (0.911)
Works on campus as instructor/professor^b,c,d,*	2.81 (.997)	2.98 (1.044)	3.52 (0.684)	3.29 (0.880)
Lives nearby^b,c,*	2.76 (0.997)	2.65 (1.033)	3.28 (0.777)	3.06 (0.903)

“Male on campus” and “male off campus” significant at .05 level.

“Male on campus” and “female on campus” significant at .05 level.

“Male off campus” and “female off campus” significant at .05 level.

“Female on campus” and “female off campus” significant at .05 level.

F ratio significant at .05 level.

Table 1 further shows that females reported the notification of each type of person as significantly more important than males regardless of whether they lived on or off campus. Statistically significant differences were identified between on-campus and off-campus females. On-campus females assigned greater importance than off-campus females to notification about sex offenders who attend classes on campus, work on campus in non-teaching roles, and serve as professors and instructors. No statistically significant differences were found between on-campus and off-campus males in their perceived importance of notification based on information about the offender.

Table 2 reports the level of importance that participants gave to varying methods of notification about sex offenders on campus. The mean scores show that notification through a university website was viewed with greater importance than the other methods, except when tied with positing in a campus safety office among on-campus females. Posting in a campus safety office had the second highest mean importance score across the other three groups. Notification through campuswide emails had the next highest mean score, except for the on-campus female group where emergency alert notification had the third highest mean value. Emergency alert notification was viewed as fourth most important based on mean scores for on-campus males, off-campus males, and off-campus females. Class announcement and student newspaper notification were noticeably ranked toward the bottom based on mean scores, with notification through class announcement clearly resting as least important across all groups.

Table 2.

Mean (SD) Responses to Survey Items Regarding Potential Methods of Notification About Sex Offenders.

	Male on campus	Male off campus	Female on campus	Female off campus
Class announcement^d,*	1.58 (0.842)	1.48 (0.808)	1.83 (0.952)	1.60 (0.867)
Student newspaper*	1.87 (0.935)	1.78 (0.903)	2.12 (1.005)	1.94 (1.027)
Campuswide email^b,c,d,*	2.50 (1.056)	2.24 (1.051)	2.95 (0.988)	2.65 (1.143)
Emergency alert system^b,c,*	2.40 (1.058)	2.17 (1.047)	2.99 (0.970)	2.54 (1.121)
University website^b,c,*	2.56 (1.020)	2.46 (0.981)	3.00 (0.961)	2.88 (1.023)
Posting in campus safety office^b,*	2.51 (1.131)	2.42 (1.083)	3.00 (1.016)	2.69 (1.096)

“Male on campus” and “male off campus” significant at .05 level.

“Male on campus” and “female on campus” significant at .05 level.

“Male off campus” and “female off campus” significant at .05 level.

“Female on campus” and “female off campus” significant at .05 level.

F ratio significant at .05 level.

Table 2 shows that on-campus females perceived four of the six methods of notification as having significantly greater importance than on-campus males. On-campus females compared with on-campus males assigned greater importance to notification through campuswide email, emergency alert system, university website, and posting in a campus safety office. Off-campus males and females differed significantly in perceived importance of notification through campuswide email, emergency alert system, and posting in the campus safety office, with females viewing each as more important than males. Statistically significant differences were found between on-campus and off-campus females on the class announcement and campuswide email items, with on-campus females identifying these methods as more important. No statistically significant differences were identified through the Bonferroni procedures across the groups for the student newspaper method of notification, and no differences were found between on-campus and off-campus males for any of the notification methods.

Table 3 provides the mean level of agreement for items about the types of sex offender information that students might access if available. The mean scores indicate that students were most favorable about gaining access to offense type followed by the offender’s picture. After offender picture and offense type, both on-campus and off-campus males were most agreeable in descending order to gaining access to current address and vehicle description. However, both on- and off-campus females preferred access to vehicle description over current address. Access to information about a sex offender’s major and student course schedule were clearly the two items where respondents indicated the weakest interest. On-campus males and females preferred access to student course schedule over student major, whereas off-campus males and females preferred the reverse for these two low-ranked options.

Table 3.

Mean (SD) Responses to Survey Items Regarding the Types of Information That May Be Provided About Sex Offenders.

	Male on campus	Male off campus	Female on campus	Female off campus
Offender picture^b,c,*	3.87 (1.100)	3.59 (1.189)	4.25 (0.858)	4.02 (1.003)
Current address	3.33 (1.244)	3.26 (1.255)	3.47 (1.157)	3.44 (1.229)
Vehicle description^b,c,*	3.29 (1.252)	3.22 (1.189)	3.67 (1.064)	3.50 (1.171)
Offense type^b,c,*	3.94 (1.100)	3.97 (1.060)	4.31 (0.785)	4.22 (0.922)
Student major^b,c,*	2.43 (1.118)	2.57 (1.223)	2.87 (1.139)	2.86 (1.157)
Student course schedule^d,*	2.65 (1.189)	2.53 (1.210)	2.97 (1.217)	2.67 (1.207)

“Male on campus” and “male off campus” significant at .05 level.

“Male on campus” and “female on campus” significant at .05 level.

“Male off campus” and “female off campus” significant at .05 level.

“Female on campus” and “female off campus” significant at .05 level.

F ratio significant at .05 level.

Table 3 also demonstrates a number of statistically significant differences across the groups regarding their level of agreement about receiving access to sex offender information. On-campus females expressed greater agreement than on-campus males that access should be provided to a sex offender’s picture, vehicle description, offense type, and major. Off-campus females indicated greater agreement than off-campus males that access should be provided to offender picture, vehicle description, offense type, and student major. On-campus females expressed stronger agreement than off-campus females about accessing a sex offender’s course schedule. No statistically significant differences were found between on- and off-campus males for the types of information desired.

Discussion

Five expectations rooted in the vulnerability perspective were set forth for this study. The first expectation was that student respondents would prefer notification about types of people most likely to be successful at sexual victimization on a college campus. We anticipated that respondents would desire information about students on campus over all others as classmates are those most likely to be sexual perpetrators on campus. In addition, we expected students to be least concerned about professors and instructors and non-teaching university staff. The results were completely contrary to our expectations. College students reported that it is most important to be notified about professors and instructors and least important to be notified about people attending classes and participating in campus organizations.

Although the greatest actual risk of sexual victimization comes from other students (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 1999), college students may view university faculty and staff as the greater threat. Professors and instructors typically have access to student information through university information systems. Also, whereas college students can readily avoid contact with other students, they are bound to have multiple exchanges with their professors and instructors through acts as simple as submitting papers and assignments. This less avoidable interaction may drive the desire to know about the sex offending histories of college teachers. In addition to threat considerations, students may feel sex offender information about university employees is important for assessing the character of an individual. For example, students may simply be uncomfortable subjecting themselves in college settings to the authority of a person who has engaged in prior unlawful behavior, especially sexual misconduct.

The second expectation was that students would perceive notification methods as more important when they enabled quick and convenient access to information. Although we expected that the most immediate forms of notification, emergency alerts and campuswide emails, would be viewed as most important, the results showed that communication through a university website and postings in a campus safety office were the most desired notification methods. Importantly, the substantive separation in means between these top two notification methods and emergency alerts and campuswide emails was quite small for on-campus males and females.

Although emergency alerts and campuswide emails provide the most direct forms of communication, students may perceive a university website and campus safety office postings as more stable and durable sources for extracting sex offender information. Students can check such sources not only regularly but also at their leisure. Emergency alerts and campuswide emails may be viewed as more appropriate for first-time notifications involving recent crimes on campus and as perhaps less practical for continued notification of specific types of criminals like sex offenders. The fact that postings in a campus security office were perceived with relatively high importance also might reflect a level of comfort from knowing that campus security officers will have regular access to this information. This might then be viewed as a mechanism to encourage safety officers to be more vigilant and successful in addressing campus sex crime. Somewhat surprisingly from a vulnerability standpoint, class announcements were consistently ranked as the least important method of notification. Here the prospect of receiving direct information about sex offenders may be getting weighed against privacy concerns and perceptions of comfortableness. Students may simply feel that it is too intrusive to make an announcement if a sex offender might be in the room. In addition, students might feel uneasy receiving this information so openly and feel its communication is more appropriate outside of personal group settings.

The third expectation was that students would more strongly desire access to types of information that help them to better identify and avoid a sex offender if deemed necessary. We predicted that offense type and offender picture would be the information types most desired and the results confirmed this expectation. Levenson and colleagues’ (2007) research on Florida residents produced similar findings. Vehicle description fell in the middle of the pack of preferred types of information, whereas we expected it to be the least desired type given the difficulty identifying vehicles on traditional college campuses. In retrospect, a considerable number of college students now live in housing structures that increasingly approximate the layout of apartment buildings and may make vehicle identification easier. Student major and course schedule settled distinctly as the least desired types of information which may indicate that a student sex offender’s whereabouts during the course of school hours is not a critical concern. Moreover, students may feel sufficiently equipped to take protective measures with key identifying information such as the offender’s picture and address.

The vulnerability perspective received considerable support when examining the fourth expectation, which predicted that females would be more receptive to sex offender notification than males. Females expressed greater importance about notification than males for all categories regarding the type of person who might be a sex offender. For items pertaining to methods of notification and types of information desired, more differences were identified between females and males residing on campus than off campus. Gender differences in some form were found for every notification category, except for notification through class announcement and student paper and notification about current address and course schedule. These findings fit comfortably with past research, which clearly indicates that females suffer both greater actual and fear of sexual victimization than males (Dobbs et al., 2009; Fisher & Sloan, 2003; Hughes et al., 2003; Lane et al., 2009; Steinmetz & Austin, 2014; Tomsich et al., 2011). The obvious implication here is that decisions to add or alter sex offender notification strategies should especially take female input and concerns into account.

The final expectation driven by the vulnerability perspective was that on-campus students would be more interested in notification about sex offenders given that they reside in a location frequented by these individuals. As expected, the impact of living on campus was more influential for females than males. In fact, whether males resided on or off campus was not a significant factor for any item. The influence of campus residence was most influential for females on the type of person items, with women on campus stressing the importance of notification more than those off campus. However, campus residence only had a significant impact for six of the 17 notification items, reinforcing the mixed findings for campus housing in the sexual violence literature (Bromley, 1994; Fisher & Sloan, 2003; McPheters, 1978; Steinmetz & Austin, 2014) and perhaps limiting the relevance of residence location for university-related policy implications.

Policy Considerations

Although advancing concrete policy implications from this cross-sectional study is premature, some comments about policy considerations are warranted. First, policymakers engaged in drafting and revising sex offender notification policies should recognize that public attitudes are complex and dynamic (Alvarez & Brehm, 1995; Cullen, Fisher, & Applegate, 2000; Feldman, 2003). A variety of values and interests can converge when people consider policy options, and these values and interests should be factored into policy formation and reconfiguration (Garland, Wodahl, & Schuhmann, 2013; Key, 1961). Just like campus officials, legislators and government officials have considerable latitude in deciding the extensiveness and means by which the public is informed. Sex offender notification policies then are likely to generate a more meaningful impact when policymakers take the time to identify, digest, and incorporate public views.

Campus officials with authority over sex offender policies are advised to carefully examine their notification methods and procedures. If the current study results hold at other locations, the specific type of sex offense committed and offender photo identification will be highly valued information for students and should be incorporated into campus notification policies and procedures. In addition, campus officials are encouraged to enhance efforts to reach female students with their notification procedures, as they desire notification more than males. This might be accomplished through enhanced communication with sororities and other campus organizations with high concentrations of female students.

A notable finding from the current study from a policy perspective is the higher level of importance students placed on receiving notification about faculty and staff as compared with fellow students. While potential reasons for this finding have already been discussed, a competing explanation is that students grossly misrepresent the risk of victimization they face from faculty and staff versus students. From a policy standpoint, this suggests that notification procedures alone may not be sufficient to encourage the level of vigilance needed to enhance student safety. Rather, notification policies will likely need to be paired with an educational campaign to better inform students of the risks they face and the sources from which these risks emanate.

Perhaps the most interesting policy considerations stemming from this study involve the findings concerning how students prefer to be notified about sex offenders on campus. Not surprisingly, students identified advertisements in the student newspaper as the least preferred method of notification. This corresponds with prior research confirming that young adults prefer electronic media platforms over newsprint as a means of staying informed (Kohut, Doherty, Dimock, & Keeter, 2012). As such, campus officials are strongly advised to reconsider newsprint notification, especially as the sole method of notification. While the lack of support for newspaper notification may have been expected, student support for website notification and postings in the campus security office over more immediate forms of notification such as campuswide emails and emergency alerts was not anticipated and raises questions about the degree to which these findings should inform policy. Although student preferences should be considered, it should also be acknowledged that the most preferred forms of notification may not be the most effective. Accordingly, administrators must weigh student preferences against the need for campus safety to develop policies and procedures that best fit the goals of the university.

Limitations

The current study has broken new ground on college student perceptions of notification about sex offenders. As with any initial study, several limitations must be acknowledged. Perhaps the most obvious limitation is that attitudes are examined at a single university, which raises questions about the generalizability of findings and makes the need for replication rather obvious. Future studies might explore how student perspectives might vary across universities and examine how institutional characteristics such as campus crime rates and housing layouts influence opinions about sex offenders on campuses.

Another noteworthy limitation is that the in-class administration of surveys necessitated a short survey that could be completed quickly at the beginning of class. Consequently, all concepts of interest could not be examined due to the time limitations that imposed survey space constraints. For example, the desire for students to be able to obtain offense information was examined, but time and space limitations prevented a deeper exploration of how preferences for notification methods and the type of information desired might vary by different types of sex offenders. The ordering of notification method importance might differ if a respondent is asked to think specifically about a pedophile or perpetrator of incest in comparison with a date or spousal rapist. In addition, space was not available to explore reactions to all potential notification methods such as door-to-door announcements and flyer postings. Space limitations also prevented a more thorough examination of the impact of the vulnerability perspective. Although our expectations were grounded logically in the vulnerability perspective, a more penetrating analysis requires measures of fear and perceived risk of sexual victimization. Analyzing levels of fear and perceived risk of sexual assault for each type of person (e.g., professor and classmate) would be instructive for gaining a fuller understanding of how impressions of vulnerability affect support for campus notification about sex offenders.

The exclusive reliance on quantitative data is also an important limitation. Qualitative research is needed to examine the students’ thought processes as they determine whether to support or oppose various types of sex offender notification approaches. Qualitative techniques could identify how vulnerability concerns might clash with worries about policies being too intrusive or creating feelings of uneasiness.

Conclusion

The current study provides a springboard for building knowledge about preferred notification strategies regarding sex offenders on campus. Sexual victimization is a formidable concern considering the relatively high rates of sexual violence at universities. At this point, input on sexual violence prevention at college campuses from the students who actually attend and inhabit universities is disappointingly scarce in the academic literature. This omission is troubling because these individuals have a firsthand perspective on current college life and can share insight into why policy recommendations may or may not work. The vulnerability perspective has provided some explanation about college student preferences regarding notification about sex offenders although other factors such as privacy considerations and comfort levels are probably playing important roles. Exploring these potential alternative explanations is beyond the scope of this article. The hope is that future research will examine potential notification options at universities more deeply and ultimately facilitate the fruition of informed and effective polices.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the many graduate students who helped with this project, including but not limited to, Julianna Williamson, Jacob Lewis, Amanda Truninger, and Jamie Kim.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Brett Garland is an associate professor and serves as graduate director and community corrections certificate coordinator in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Missouri State University. He earned his PhD from the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Nebraska, Omaha in 2007. His research interests include criminal justice management and staff, community corrections, prisoner reentry, and public opinion on justice-related topics.

Brian Calfano is an associate professor of political science at Missouri State University. He earned his PhD in political science from the University of North Texas in 2007. Dr. Calfano is the director of The Missouri State University Poll Center and coordinator of a certificate program in press-politics.

Eric Wodahl is an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Wyoming. He received his PhD from the University of Nebraska, Omaha in 2008. His research interests include alternatives to revocation for noncompliant offenders, prisoner reentry, and rural issues in the criminal justice field.

References

Ackerman

A. R.

Sacks

Greenberg

D. F.

(2012). Legislation targeting sex offenders: Are recent policies effective in reducing rape? Justice Quarterly, 29, 858-887.

Adkins

Huff

Stageberg

(2000). The Iowa sex offender registry and recidivism. Des Moines: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning and Statistical Analysis Center.

Alvarez

R. M.

Brehm

(1995). American ambivalence towards abortion policy: Development of a heteroskedastic probit model of competing values. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 1055-1082.

Anderson

A. L.

Sample

L. L.

(2008). Public awareness and action resulting from sex offender community notification laws. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 371-396.

Anderson

A. L.

Sample

L. L.

Cain

C. M.

(2015). Residency restrictions for sex offenders: Public opinion on appropriate distances. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26, 262-277.

Armstrong

E. A.

Hamilton

Sweeney

(2006). Sexual assault on campus: A multilevel, integrated approach to party rape. Social Problems, 53, 483-499.

Banyard

V. L.

Ward

Cohn

E. S.

Plante

E. G.

Moorhead

Walsh

(2007). Unwanted sexual contact on campus: A comparison of women’s and men’s experiences. Violence and Victims, 22, 52-70.

Barnoski

(2005). Sex offender sentencing in Washington State: Has community notification reduced recidivism? Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Washington State University.

Beck

V. S.

Travis

L. F.

(2004). Sex offender notification and protective behavior. Violence and Victims, 19, 289-302.

10.

Bromley

M. L.

(1994). Correlates of campus crime: A nationwide exploratory study of large universities. Journal of Security Administration, 17, 37-52.

11.

Burstein

(2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 29-40.

12.

Cullen

F. T.

Fisher

B. S.

Applegate

B. K.

(2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice, 27, 1-79.

13.

Dobbs

R. R.

Waid

C. A.

Shelley

T. O.

(2009). Explaining fear of crime as fear of rape among college females: An examination of multiple campuses in the United States. International Journal of Social Inquiry, 2, 105-122.

14.

Feldman

(2003). Values, ideology, and structure of political attitudes. In Sears

D. O.

Huddy

Jervis

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 477-508). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

15.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(1999). The extent and nature of sexual victimization among college women: A national-level analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

16.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

17.

Fisher

B. S.

Daigle

L. E.

Cullen

F. T.

(2010). Unsafe in the ivory tower: The sexual victimization of college women. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

Fisher

B. S.

Sloan

J. J.

(2003). Unraveling the fear of sexual victimization among college women: Is the “shadow of sexual assault” hypothesis supported? Justice Quarterly, 20, 633-659.

19.

Fisher

B. S.

Sloan

J. J.

Cullen

F. T.

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

20.

Franklin

C. A.

Franklin

T. W.

Nobles

M. R.

Kercher

G. A.

(2012). Assessing the effect of routine activity theory and self-control on property, personal, and sexual assault victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1296-1315.

21.

Garland

Wodahl

Schuhmann

(2013). Value conflict and public attitudes toward prisoner reentry initiatives. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24, 27-48.

22.

Hickman

S. E.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

(1997). College women’s fears and precautionary behaviors relating to acquaintance rape and stranger rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 527-547.

23.

Hughes

P. P.

Marshall

Sherrill

(2003). Multidimensional analysis of fear and confidence of university women relating to crimes and dangerous situations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 33-49.

24.

Jackson

Gilliland

Veneziano

(2006). Routine activity theory and sexual deviance among male college students. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 449-460.

25.

Jennings

W. G.

Gover

A. R.

Pudrzynska

(2007). Are institutions of higher learning safe? A descriptive study of campus safety issues and self-reported campus victimization among male and female college students. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18, 191-208.

26.

Kernsmith

P. D.

Craun

S. W.

Foster

(2009). Public attitudes toward sexual offenders and sex offender registration. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 18, 290-301.

27.

Key

V. O.

Jr. (1961). Public opinion and American democracy. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

28.

Kohut

Doherty

Dimock

Keeter

(2012). In changing news landscape, even television is vulnerable: Trends in news consumption: 1991-2012. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

29.

Koss

M. P.

Gidycz

C. A.

Wisniewski

(1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170.

30.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

C. H.

Warner

T. D.

Fisher

B. S.

Martin

S. L.

(2009). College women’s experiences with physically forced, alcohol- or other drug-enabled, and drug-facilitated sexual assault before and since entering college. Journal of American College Health, 57, 639-649.

31.

Lane

Gover

A. R.

Dahod

(2009). Fear of violent crime among men and women on campus: The impact of perceived risk and fear of sexual assault. Violence and Victims, 24, 172-192.

32.

Letourneau

E. J.

Levenson

J. S.

Bandyopadhyay

Sinha

Armstrong

K. S.

(2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification policies for reducing sexual violence against women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

33.

Levenson

J. S.

Brannon

Y. N.

Fortney

Baker

(2007). Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7, 137-161.

34.

Levenson

J. S.

Cotter

L. P.

(2005). The effect of Megan’s law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 49-66.

35.

McPheters

L. R.

(1978). Econometric analysis of factors influencing crime on campus. Journal of Criminal Justice, 6, 47-52.

36.

Mercado

C. C.

Alvarez

Levenson

(2008). The impact of specialized sex offender legislation on community reentry. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 188-205.

37.

Nicholson-Crotty

Peterson

D. A.

Ramirez

M. D.

(2009). Dynamic representation(s): Federal criminal justice policy and an alternative dimension of public mood. Political Behavior, 31, 629-655.

38.

Phillips

D. M.

(1998). Community notification as viewed by Washington’s citizens. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Washington State University.

39.

Proctor

J. L.

Badzinski

D. M.

Johnson

(2002). The impact of media on knowledge and perceptions of Megan’s Law. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 13, 356-379.

40.

Quinn

J. F.

Forsyth

C. J.

Mullen-Quinn

C. J.

(2004). Societal reaction to sex offenders: A review of the origins and results of the myths surrounding their crimes and treatment amenability. Deviant Behavior, 25, 215-232.

41.

Schram

D. D.

Milloy

C. D.

(1995). Community notification: A study of offender characteristics and recidivism. Seattle, WA: Urban Policy Research.

42.

Shippee

(2012). Victimization, fear of crime, and perceived risk: Testing a vulnerability model of personal control. Sociological Perspectives, 55, 117-140.

43.

Steinmetz

N. M.

Austin

D. M.

(2014). Fear of criminal victimization on a college campus: A visual and survey analysis of location and demographic factors. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 1-27.

44.

Tewksbury

(2004). Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex offenders. Federal Probation, 68, 30-33.

45.

Tewksbury

(2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 67-81.

46.

Tewksbury

Lees

(2006). Sex offenders on campus: University-based sex offender registries and the collateral consequences of registration. Federal Probation, 70, 50-56.

47.

Tomsich

E. A.

Gover

A. R.

Jennings

W. G.

(2011). Examining the role of gender in the prevalence of campus victimization, perceptions of fear and risk of crime, and the use of constrained behaviors among college students attending a large urban university. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22, 181-202.

48.

Walker

J. T.

Maddan

Vasquez

B. E.

VanHouten

A. C.

Ervin-McLarty

(2005). The influence of sex offender registration and notification laws in the United States. Little Rock: Arkansas Crime Information Center.

49.

Wilcox

May

D. C.

Roberts

S. D.

(2006). Student weapon possession and the “fear and victimization hypothesis”: Unraveling the temporal order. Justice Quarterly, 23, 502-529.

50.

Williams

F. P.

III McShane

M. D.

Clark

G. A.

(2007). Does victimization affect perceptions of crime severity? A policy-based analysis. In Moriarity

L. J.

Jerin

R. A.

(Eds.), Current issues in victimology research (2nd ed., pp. 21-40). Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

51.

Wlezien

(2004). Patterns of representation: Dynamics of public preferences and policy. The Journal of Politics, 66, 1-24.

52.

Woolnough

A. D.

(2009). Fear of crime on campus: Gender differences in use of self-protective behaviors at an urban university. Security Journal, 22, 40-55.

53.

Zevitz

R. G.

(2006). Sex offender community notification: Its role in recidivism and offender reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 193-208.