On-campus crime has declined, according to a report released by the Department of Public Safety. The 2003 Crime Awareness and Campus Security Annual Report details crime statistics from Jan. 1, 2002 to Dec. 31, 2002.

“I’m pleased with some of the reductions indicated by [the report],” Darryl Harrison, acting director of public safety, said. “Those reductions are specifically in the areas of our residential facilities and our main campus. I would say it is indicative of some positive steps.”

Crimes are categorized alphabetically by severity. Category A violations are the least serious infractions, and include noise violations and violations of the university’s alcohol policy, usually resulting in a fine or work sanction. Category B infractions include violation of fire safety regulations, throwing objects out windows or harassment. Category B sanctions generally range from housing probation to suspension. Category C violations, the most severe, can result in expulsion from the university. These crimes include physical or sexual assault, drug policy violations or theft of more than $500.

Overall campus crime is down more than 25 percent according to the report, with theft making up the majority of the 329 crimes reported during the period covered by the report. Items stolen from student residence halls are recorded as burglaries unless the item was taken by another resident, in which case the crime constitutes a theft. In 2001, students reported 356 incidents of theft, while in 2002, that number fell to 289 reports. Claims of burglary fell by 57 percent from the preceding year.

According to Harrison, steps taken by the university to make the campus more secure have contributed to the decrease in campus crime.

“The controlled access policy had a great deal to do with the decrease in terms of incidence of burglaries and thefts, with this report covering the first full year that the controlled access policy was fully implemented,” Harrison said.

The controlled access policy is the access available to each residence hall, referred to by many students as the lockdown policy. Harrison also cited changes that were made to security protocol after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

“That has placed a big overall emphasis on security in general. Campus perimeter access checkpoints came into place after that and are a permanent fixture now. Officers posted at the main gate, at Prospect Street and so forth had an impact as far as the overall deterrent factor for those individuals who may have, in the past, ventured in to see what’s going on as far as bicycle thefts and such,” Harrison said.

The Office of Student Conduct produced a second report, detailing disciplinary action taken in the Spring of 2003. According to this report, “the number of minor violations increased in spring 2003 as compared to fall 2002, up 18 [percent] overall. However, this is balanced by the significant decrease of major violations.” There were no Category C violations listed for spring 2003.

DPS received only nine reports of sexual offenses during the period covered by the crime report, a number that sexual assaults coordinator Shannon Hunnicutt said may not be indicative of the actual number of sexual assaults on campus.

“There are several reasons why the numbers are low,” Hunnicutt said. “Sexual assault in general is one of the most – if not the most – underreported crimes. There are also specific reasons that women on college campuses don’t report, as a group. Some of it has to do with the myths that are out there about acquaintance rapes.”

Hunnicutt cited fears of not being believed, fear of being blamed for the assault or the psychological difficulty involved in accusing a friend or acquaintance of sexual assault or rape.

“Most often it’s someone they knew and trusted and so it’s really difficult psychologically to wrap your mind around the fact that someone you knew and trusted has just violated that trust and assaulted you,” she said.

In its reporting, DPS distinguishes two types of sexual assault: forcible and non-forcible. Forcible sexual assault, based on the university policy, is non-consensual sex or sex based on coercion; forcible sex, according to Hunnicutt, “is what it sounds like.” The university also defines the crime of sexual misconduct, a Category B violation, to include inappropriate touching. Hunnicutt also attributed part of the low incidence of reporting to a misunderstanding of what constitutes sexual assault.

“A lot of people have the myth that sexual assault is somebody jumping out of the bushes,” she said. “The majority don’t result in any external physical injuries, and so a lot of people who are victimized assume that because there are no physical injuries that it couldn’t have been an assault.”

Harrison said he understood that there is a low incidence of reporting crimes such as sexual assault, but added that he felt most other crimes on Georgetown’s campus were accurately reported to his department. DPS also receives reports from the etropolitan Police Department regarding crimes reported by or perpetrated by Georgetown students. These statistics are included in the final report issued by DPS.

Because the reporting period ended before the Southwest Quad opened in August, DPS can only project the influence the new facility will have on crime in Georgetown. So far, according to Harrison, that influence is small to non-existent.

“It’s been a short while, but we have not seen a significant impact in terms of the number of additional incidents of crime being reported.” In fact, Harrison said the biggest area of concern for crime is not on campus, but outside Healy Gates, in the north and east portions of Georgetown.

“Those are the areas that we’re concerned about because the types of incidents that can occur there are the more personal and serious,” he said.