Kennesaw State University (KSU) is a fast-growing, predominantly undergraduate (90%), comprehensive public research institution. KSU is in the suburban/exurban “Northern Arc” of metro-Atlanta, Georgia, USA. A leader in innovative teaching and learning, KSU is one of the 50 largest public institutions in the U.S. KSU offers more than 190 undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral degree programs to more than 47,000 students. With 13 colleges on two metro-Atlanta campuses, Kennesaw and Marietta within 10 miles of each other in Cobb County, Georgia, Kennesaw State University is a member of the University System of Georgia and is the third largest university in the state.

Like the population it serves, KSU has a very diverse student body, including many students from socioeconomically disadvantaged situations. About 70% of the undergraduate population and 31% of the graduate students are full-time students. Minority enrollment is 26% overall and has grown by over 45% in the past 15 years. About 60% of students identify themselves as White, 20% as Black or African American, 4% as two or more races, 3% as Asian, less than 1% as American Indian or Alaskan Native or Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 8% as Hispanic or Latino. Additionally, 57% of the KSU student body is female and 43% is male. Approximately 36% of the student body hails from Appalachian counties in Georgia, with smaller numbers from Appalachian counties in the surrounding states. About half of the students are first-generation college students.

Multiple high-profile incidents of violent crimes on campus have become a prominent issue in the U.S. in recent years. Incidents such as the Virginia Tech massacre, and the deaths of Jeanne Clery in 1986 [1], Lauren McCluskey in 2018 [2], and Laken Riley in 2024 [3] on college campuses have emphasized an increased need for legislation to assist students in selecting a safe college and improve their safety by reducing the incidence of crimes and fires.

The Clery Act was signed into law in 1990 and was amended to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act in 1998 [4] in honor of Jeanne Clery, an 18-year-old student at Lehigh University, who was raped and murdered in her dorm room in 1986 [5]. She chose Lehigh over other universities because it was close to home. At that time, there was no legal requirement for universities to publish campus crime statistics. Clery’s parents learned that there were 38 violent crimes, including sexual assaults, rapes, and robberies, in the three years preceding Jeanne’s death. They argued that had they known of the crimes at Lehigh, Jeanne would not have attended Lehigh University [6]. They pushed for legislation resulting in the 1990 Clery Act to promote transparency around campus safety, including sexual assault and other crimes of violence towards women [7], [8]. This legislation requires campus safety authorities at schools receiving federal funds to collect and annually disclose campus crime statistics and campus security policies by October 1 of each year [9] and issue Timely Warning Notices to the campus community when there is a perceived security threat that would include information to (1) promote safety and (2) aid in the prevention of similar crimes [10]. Broadly stated, the Clery Act intersects with other federal laws, including the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and Title IX, which collectively address violence and sex/gender discrimination [11]. Clery Act requirements include (1) colleges that receive federal funding must be transparent about certain crimes, including crimes of sexual violence, (2) publishing an Annual Security Report (ASR) to employees and students every October 1st, including criminal offenses, hate crimes, VAWA offenses, and arrests and referrals for disciplinary action in their ASR crime data, (3) colleges must maintain a detailed, accessible public crime log, (4) crime statistics must include incidents that occur on, around, and in some cases, off campus, (5) colleges must issue timely warnings and have an emergency response system in place, and (6) colleges must protect the confidentiality of victims [12]. The 1998 amendment increased the reporting requirements by adding more crimes that must be reported, increased the geographic area to include residence halls and other university-owned facilities, and increased the availability of reports [13]. The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 added emergency response criteria and requirements for hate crimes [13]. The VAWA was amended in 2013 and included additional provisions for reporting crimes such as domestic violence, stalking, and hate crimes related to gender identity [13]. The goal of Clery’s parents and lawmakers was for families to use transparent campus crime reporting data to make decisions on where their children should attend school [14].

The Clery Act, while virtuous, is not without its challenges. For example, Nobles et al. [15] posit that the Clery Act fails to meet its stated goal of transparency in crime reporting on college campuses because it paints an incomplete picture of victimization risk by excluding incidents occurring very near, but technically not on college campuses. They designed a study to spatially investigate the extent to which the Clery Act captures crime occurring on and around campus during a five-year period using GIS software, results indicate that almost half the actual crime that occurs within 500 feet of the campus boundary is not reflected in the official Clery statistics, even though reporting requirements under the Act have technically been met [15].

Additionally, in a mixed-methods survey of a large metropolitan university of nearly 50,000 students, results from a convenience sample indicate that some respondents seem inattentive to notifications from campus security, whereas others appear to overreact, which suggests the Clery Act might decrease safety on college campuses [16]. In an analysis of over 20 years of Clery Act investigation documents from 1996-2017 and interviews with Clery and Title IX coordinators, Terman [17] reports that sexual assault policies were more consistently missing from Annual Security Reports than most other topics of policies.

A 1997 campus safety poll conducted by the Art & Science Group [18] revealed that 64% of parents and 57% of students rated having a safe campus as “very important” in the college choice. A subsequent study conducted in 2016 revealed that 60% of students rated campus safety as “very important” in considering their choice of college [19]. Shariati and Guerette [17] suggest a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) approach to deter crime on campus by manipulating the physical and social qualities of the campus environment (i.e., reducing the suitability of college campuses as a venue for crime); however, their study did not yield a statistically significant positive relationship between the use of CPTED and campus crime rates [20].

Prominent issues concerning campus safety include acquaintance rape and sexual assaults, hate crimes, and campus carry laws. Data collected by the U.S. Department of Justice shows that 1 in 5 college females are affected by sexual violence during their college career [21] overwhelmingly by men they know [22], [23]. They further state that female college students between the ages of 18 to 25 are three times more likely than females of other ages to experience sexual violence and that men are much more likely to commit sexual assault than women [21]. McDaniel and Rodriguez [24] postulate that men who strongly endorse male role norms may be more “at risk” for perpetuating sexual violence. Burt [25] originally defined “rape myths” as “prejudicial, stereotyped, or false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists”. A more recent definition of rape myth is “attitudes and beliefs that are generally false but are widely and persistently held, and that serve to deny and justify male sexual aggression against women” [26]. Studies show that men who accept rape myths are consistently more “at risk” to perpetrate sexual violence or rape than those who do not hold such false beliefs [27], [28], [29]. Using longitudinal data with a sample of 488 men, O’Connor [30] concluded that causality exists for rape myth acceptance and rape proclivity. In a review of legal literature and original empirical research, Cantalupo [31] shows inconsistent incentives for schools to encourage victim reporting and proactively address sexual violence on campus and suggests that both legal and experience-based reasons support an amendment to the Clery Act or Department of Education regulations mandating that all higher education institutions regulated by the Department of Education survey their students approximately every 5 years about students’ experiences with sexual violence. Experiencing sexual assault while at college can severely affect a survivor’s physical and mental health, academic performance, and personal relationships [32]. Annie Clark, founder of the advocacy group End Campus Rape Now, declares that colleges routinely mishandle sexual assault cases [33].

For several decades, most U.S. colleges and universities have prioritized the inclusion of a diverse student body with a focus on racial/ethnic diversity. Nonetheless, hate crimes against racial/ethnic diversity has become increasingly common. Smith & Trotta [34] reported a 20% increase in the number of hate crimes in 2016. Recent high-profile hate crimes have targeted African Americans [35], Muslims [36], Asians [37], religion [38], and the LBGTQ+ community [39]. Conversely, Stotzer and Hossellman [40] discovered that those schools that are most successful in recruiting the hardest to recruit minorities (Black and Latino students) report fewer hate crimes on campus.

Whereas there has been an increase in research supporting campus carry laws, there has been a lack of significant findings pertaining to how these laws impact campus safety. Legal efforts to pass campus safety laws have been met with heated debates. While proponents for campus carry laws argue that the right to keep and bear arms is supported by Second Amendment rights [41] and that individuals need to be able to carry firearms on campus to protect themselves and others from crime and violence that may occur on college campuses [42], opponents argue about campus safety concerns should individuals be allowed carry weapons on campus [43]. In an online crime and victimization survey of approximately 13,000 students at an urban, open-enrollment university in the southern United States, Hignite et al. [44] discovered that “word of mouth” rumors about alleged incidents may heighten both fear of campus crime and perceptions of the likelihood of campus crime victimization.

Using 1989-1990 campus crime data collected by Ordovensky [45], Sloan [46] employed factor analysis to conclude that violent crime had the lowest rate and theft/burglary had the highest rate among all categories of campus crime and multivariate analysis techniques to conclude that several characteristics of the campus, the students, and the locations were significantly related to campus crime. Although intended to maximize public safety, Pelfrey et al. [47] argue that inclusion of perpetrator/suspect descriptions in a campus crime alert may have negative consequences through the repetition of minority suspect information; however, Goldschmidt & Donner [48] contend that as long as a suspect’s race is accompanied by other physical descriptors, it does not constitute racial profiling according the the U.S. Department of Justice guidelines. In a study to examine information available on crime and crime prevention beyond public safety websites, particularly by exploring programs available to students, Woodward et al. [49] concludes that while most colleges and universities provide some methods of prevention or disclosure, few colleges and universities go beyond mere compliance by proactively attempting to prevent crime and/or educating their students about crime. Wu et al. [50] employed a heat map visual technique to analyze Temple University’s public crime log focusing on spatial-temporal data analysis of university-issued crime and safety alerts and concluded the use of visuals, such as heat maps and charts, are easier to interpret than plain text or numerical data when representing crime patterns in the area and analyzing initial crime patterns.

Several studies on sexual assault on college campuses document that women who are members of campus Greek organizations or women who attend Greek events are at an increased risk of experiencing sexual assault [51], [52]. Related studies show that women who were more socially active within their campus Greek community were at an increased risk of becoming a victim to sexual assault [53], [54], [55]. A survey of 1,075 students at a midwestern state university revealed that students who fail to take any action in response to threatening situations indicated they did not want to get involved due to doubt or misunderstanding of the importance and utility of proactive responses or are concerned about the potential harm to themselves if they decide to report a concerning behavior [56], [57]. In a study assessing student perceptions of how the campus climate impacts their likelihood of reporting and crime, Arney [58] concluded that students expressed consistent beliefs that their peers were likely to report crime to campus police rather than themselves. In a survey of six Illinois colleges, results reveal that students expressed limited support for allowing concealed carry of firearms [59].

This paper presents an analysis of campus crime statistics at an urban public research university with a diverse and inclusive student population located in a metropolitan area in the United States. This study aims to evaluate publicly available campus police crime statistics for an urban, public research university during the years 2021-2023 to discern patterns or trends, compare select university crime statistics to national averages, and to determine protocols the university has adopted to improve campus safety for its students and all stakeholders. A key contribution of this research is the development of a methodology to evaluate of crime data for a large, urban university with multiple campuses regarding crime types, select offenses, and violence against women. The methodology employed includes reorganizing published crime data into tables and charts for each campus, performing statistical analyses and drawing conclusions of crime similarities and differences between campuses and the university system, and comparing arrest incidence rates to national averages.

The subsequent sections of this study are structured as follows: Section 2 presents the methodology used to obtain and evaluate the campus crime statistics. Section 3 presents the results of the data analysis. Section 4 presents a discussion of the results. Finally, Section 5 offers concluding remarks, limitations, and directions for future research.

The publicly available crime data was obtained from the Kennesaw State University 2024 Annual Security and Fire Safety Report [60]. Microsoft Excel was used to reorganize crime data into tables and charts and perform all statistical analyses (i.e., descriptive statistics, two-sample t-tests, one-way ANOVA, and p-values) during 2021-2023. Three different categories of analysis were performed for each campus (Kennesaw and Marietta). Data was then combined to represent the university system as a whole: (1) by Type of Crime, (2) Number of arrests and arrest locations for select offenses, and (3) Violence against women (i.e., Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Stalking). Differences in a number of incidents for crime types and arrests between the two campuses were conducted using two-sample t-tests, assuming equal variances. Incidence rates per 10,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) students were computed for crime and arrests (i.e., Liquor Law violations, Drug violations, and Weapons violations) by year. Arrests were evaluated by number of arrests per offense type, total arrests per offense type by year, and location of arrests on each campus. Violence against women was evaluated by offense type and location for both campuses and the university system. Violence against women offenses were compared to national averages published by the National Center for Education Statistics and the U.S. Department of Education’s Campus Safety and Security Cutting Tool.

Results are displayed in the following three sections: Section 3.1. Crime incidence rates by campus; Section 3.2. Arrests by Liquor Law, drug abuse, and Weapons Law violations, and Section 3.3. VAWA/Campus SaVE Act crimes.

Total student enrollment during the years 2021-2023 is displayed in Table 1 [61].

The number of crime incidents recorded by University Police each year from 2021-2023, January 1 to December 31, for each campus is shown in Table 2. The reported crime incidents include combined statistics for non-residential buildings, roadways, and other on campus property as well as residential facilities.

A hate crime is defined as a crime reported to local police agencies or to a campus security authority (CSA) that presents evidence that the victim was intentionally selected because of the perpetrator’s bias against the victim. These categories of bias include the victim’s actual or perceived race, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, and disability.

The number of hate crime incidents recorded by University Police each year from 2021-2023, January 1 to December 31, for each campus is shown in Table 3.

In compliance with the Clery Act, a selected number of incidents recorded by University Police each year from 2021-2023, January 1 to December 31, for the Kennesaw campus is shown in Table 4, for the Marietta campus in Table 5, and combined statistics for both campuses in Table 6.

The Department of Public Safety and University Police prepares KSUs Annual Security and Fire Safety Report to comply with the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Crime Statistics Act of 1990, and most recently amended in 2013. Crime statistics that occurred on each Kennesaw State University campus were compiled by the University Police and include statistics reported by other law enforcement agencies for all non-campus buildings and property and public property adjacent to the campus. The statistics in Table 7 are gathered from January 1 to December 31, each year.

Table 8 displays descriptive statistics of type of crime committed on both campuses between 2021 and 2023.

Crime types recorded by University Police are shown for the Kennesaw campus (Figure 1) and the Marietta campus (Figure 2) from 2021-2023. There was one unfounded incident of motor vehicle theft on the Kennesaw campus in 2023 and one on the Marietta campus in both 2022 and 2023. These unfounded incidents were counted in the motor vehicle theft crime statistics for both campuses since University Police recorded the motor vehicle theft.

The incidence rate per 10,000 FTE students for each campus, calculated as #Incidents divided by Enrollment for each year multiplied by 10,000, is presented in Table 9.

Comparing crime types between the Kennesaw campus and Marietta campuses using a two-sample t-test (assuming equal variances) yields the results in Table 10.

Since the two-tailed p-value is greater than $\alpha=0.05$, we conclude with 95% confidence that there is no significant difference in crime rates between the two campuses during 2021-2023.

Crime types recorded by University Police for both campuses combined, 2021-2023, are shown in Figure 3.

The incidence rate per 10,000 FTE students for both campuses combined is presented in Table 11.

Other Clery Act reportable offenses in Table 12 include Liquor Law, drug abuse, and Weapon Law violations.

The number of arrests and total number of arrests for Liquor Law violations, Drug violations, and Weapons violations on the Kennesaw campus are displayed in Figure 4. Arrests for drug violations are substantially more prevalent than liquor law or weapons violations.

The frequencies and locations of arrests for Liquor Law violations and Drug violations during 2021-2023 are displayed in Figure 5.

The frequencies and locations of arrests for Weapons violations during 2021-2023 for the Kennesaw campus are displayed in Figure 6.

The most prevalent location of liquor law, drug, and weapons violations occurs on the Kennesaw campus, other than student housing.

The number of arrests and total number of arrests for Liquor Law violations, Drug violations, and Weapons violations for the Marietta campus are displayed in Figure 7.

Akin to the Kennesaw campus, arrests for drug violations are substantially more prevalent than liquor law or weapons violations on the Marietta campus.

The number of arrests for Liquor Law, Drug, or Weapons violations on each campus is presented in Table 13.

The incidence rate per 1,000 students for each campus, calculated as #Arrests divided by Enrollment for each year multiplied by 1000, is presented in Table 14.

Comparing Liquor Law violations/arrests between the Kennesaw campus and Marietta campuses using a two-sample t-test (assuming equal variances) yields the results in Table 15.

Comparing Drug Law violations/arrests between the Kennesaw campus and Marietta campuses using a two-sample t-test (assuming equal variances) yields the results in Table 16.

Comparing Weapons Law violations/arrests between the Kennesaw campus and Marietta campuses using a two-sample t-test (assuming equal variances) yields the results in Table 17.

A summary of p-values for Arrest Types is presented in Table 18.

Whereas the p-values indicate no significant difference in Liquor Law violations between the two campuses, significant differences are evident for Drug and Weapons violations.

The number of locations of arrests for Liquor Law violations Drug violations for the Marietta campus are displayed in Figure 8.

The number of locations of arrests for Weapons violations for the Marietta campus are displayed in Figure 9.

Arrests for liquor law, drugs, and weapons violations on the Marietta campus tend to occur on campus, other than student housing. However, five incidents of drug violation occurred on public property in 2022.

The number of arrests and total number of arrests for Liquor Law violations, Drug violations, and Weapons violations for both campuses combined are displayed in Figure 10.

On both campuses combined, drug violations are clearly the most prevalent violation resulting in individual arrests during each year, 2021-2023.

Reportable offenses that violate the VAWA/Campus SaVE Act in Table 19 include sex offenses, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking violations.

Offenses reported to University Police that violate the VAWA/Campus SaVE Act on the Kennesaw campus are shown in Table 20.

Offenses reported to University Police that violate the VAWA/Campus SaVE Act on the Marietta campus are shown in Table 21.

Offenses reported to University Police that violate the VAWA/Campus SaVE Act on both campuses combined are shown in Table 22.

The results in Table 22 reveal that Stalking is the most serious offense type towards women on both campuses, followed by Dating Violence and Domestic Violence recorded by University Police from 2021-2023.

Using one-way ANOVA to analyze whether significant differences exist within each crime type on each campus, the results in Table 23 reveal p-values for Crime Types, Arrests, and VAWA on both the Kennesaw and Marietta campuses. We observe that overall crime and Arrests for Selected Offenses are significant on the Kennesaw campus during 2021-2023.

Several interesting findings emerged from the analyses. Figure 11 shows the number of on-campus hate crimes in the U.S. reported by selected types of crime, 2011, 2020, and 2021 by the National Center for Education Statistics [62], updated in July 2024.

The results in Figure 11 reveal an increasing ten-year trend in the number of hate crimes committed in the U.S. during the past 15 years, primarily intimidation and destruction, damage, and vandalism. For example, there were 761 reported hate crimes in 2011, 571 reported hate crimes in 2020, and 667 reported hate crimes in 2021 [63], [64], [65]. University Police at Kennesaw State University recorded zero hate crimes in its crime logs for both campuses during 2021-2023.

Figure 12 shows a sampling of reported crime data per 10,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students by the National Center for Education Statistics [62], updated in July 2024.

The results in Figure 12 reveal on-campus crime rates per 10,000 FTE students as 4.7 for Burglary, 2.5 for Motor Vehicle Theft, and 7.5 for Forcible Sex Offenses during 2021. Nationally, there is a decreasing trend in recorded burglaries but an increasing trend in the number of forcible sex offenses. In contrast, Kennesaw State University Police recorded on-campus crime rates per 10,000 FTE students as 1.3 for Burglary, 0.9 for Motor Vehicle Theft, and 3.1 for Forcible Sex Offenses during the same year, well below national averages in each crime category. However, as Figure 3 illustrates, of all campus crimes recorded by KSU, rape (28) and fondling (20) are the two most prominent types of crimes recorded, followed by burglary (19) and motor vehicle theft (9).

Figure 13 shows the rate of on-campus arrests for Liquor Law, Drug, and Weapons violations per 10,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students by the National Center for Education Statistics [62], updated in July 2024.

The results for 2021 in Figure 13 reveal arrests per 10,000 FTE students as 4.7 for Liquor Law violations, 4.6 for Drug Law violations, and 0.7 for Weapons Law violations. Whereas Weapons Law violations appear to hold steady since 2015, there are decreasing trends nationally for both Drug Law and Liquor Law violations. In contrast, Kennesaw State University Police recorded on-campus arrest rates per 10,000 FTE students as 2.9 for Liquor Law violations, 9.3 for Drug Law violations, and 1.1 for Forcible Sex Offenses during 2021. Thus, KSU arrest rates are below the national average in terms of Liquor Law and Weapons violations; however, the arrest rate is nearly twice the national average for Drug Law violations, with most drug arrests occurring on the Kennesaw campus (39 for Kennesaw to 3 for Marietta) during 2021. Further, a significant difference exists between the Kennesaw and Marietta campuses in terms of arrests for Drug Law and Weapons violations. Most arrests occur on campus, other than student housing, for each campus.

Figure 14 displays the total number of reported VAWA offenses during 2015 to 2022, as reported by the U.S. Department of Education Campus and Safety Security Cutting Tool [64]. In the year 2022, the number of reported VAWA offenses was 16,555 based on 5,783 institutions with 10,530 campuses.

Based on results from Figure 14, a total of 13,069 VAWA offenses were reported in 2021 and 16,555 VAWA offenses were reported in 2022. In contrast, KSU University Police reported total VAWA offenses of 15 in 2021 (all occurring on the Kennesaw campus) and 17 in 2022 (13 on the Kennesaw campus and 4 on the Marietta campus), with Stalking being the most prevalent offense against women on both campuses during 2021-2022. Women remain a particularly vulnerable population on both KSU campuses and postsecondary institutions across the U.S..

Kennesaw State University has been proactive in crime prevention and reporting efforts by increasing awareness through the following initiatives: (1) University Police maintaining a daily crime log on each campus [65]; publishing the annual KSU Annual Security and Fire Safety Report by October 1 each year [60]; (3) The KSU Women’s Resource Center offers regular training for ONE Choice Bystander Education for the KSU campus community; (4) The Department of Public Safety and University Police offer various safety and crime prevention class presentations throughout the year, which is promoted via the University Police website, Student Inform and KSU Today electronic newsletters, and the University Police’s Facebook page; (5) providing a SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners) program that is available 24 hours per day to provide medical forensic examinations for sexual assault victims; (6) Blue phones that serve as a hotline 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, located in various places throughout both campuses; (7) Title IX hearings for matters involving alleged sexual misconduct; (8) providing issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders (TPOs) to protect victims for allegations of Stalking and Dating Violence; posted contact information for various types of offenses on the University Police website; (9) required annual Clery Act training for all KSU employees and students; (10) KSU Public Safety C.O.R.E. (Community Outreach, Recruitment, and Engagement) Unit that is responsible for crime prevention and the proactive commitment to empowerment of the KSU community [66]; (11) formation of a Behavioral Response Team that takes a planned approach to identifying and assisting individuals who are distressed and/or exhibiting abnormal, threatening, or dangerous behavior [67].

While KSU student enrollment has increased during 2021-2023, the number of recorded crime incidents has remained steady. For example, combined student enrollment for 2021-2023 was 45,004, 45,290, and 47,175 with KSU University Police recorded on-campus crime rates of 1.3 for Burglary, 0.9 for Motor Vehicle Theft, and 3.1 for Forcible Sex Offenses, respectively per 10,000 FTE students during the three-year period under evaluation. These results compare favorably relative to national averages of 4.7 for Burglary, 2.5 for Motor Vehicle Theft, and 7.5 for Forcible Sex Offenses; however, Drug Law and Weapons Law violations, as well as Rape, Fondling, and Stalking have been the most prevalent offenses each year, 2021-2023.

Limitations of this research include: (1) evaluation of only one large research university with two campuses, and (2) only a three-year analysis period post-pandemic.

Areas of future research may include the evaluation of several large universities with multiple campuses to compare crime statistics both within and across campuses, extending the evaluation timeline beyond three years, using other statistical models or techniques to analyze crime data, and including more crime categories for crime type, selected offenses and violence against women.