Victimization of Students in Higher Education: Scope in Angeles City

EXTENT OF VICTIMIZATION OF STUDENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN ANGELES CITY

Kevin C. Yalung , Rhem Rick N. Corpuz, Ph D . Joemer S. Santos1, Carl Edwin P. Sangab1, James C. Yalung1, Ivan T. Sicat1

Table of Contents

Abstract

This study determine the extent of victimization of students in higher education institution in Angeles City, the degree of seriousness of college student victimization in Angeles City, the factor that influence the respondents victimization, the significant relationship between types of crime and place of the commission, the significant relationship between types of crime and place of the commission, and the significant relationship between types of crime and reasons of crime victimization. The result show that the students of higher education institution in Angeles City, the usual index crime experience by the respondents is theft and the usual non index crime experience by the respondent is child abuse. Also the study shows that the higher education institutions are following the Ched Memorandum Order 42, series of 2005. It is recommended to conduct school-based crime prevention program: an extention activity this program will teach students to defend them self from criminals and ways on how to avoid victimization.

KEYWORDS: Extent, higher education institution, index crime, non-index crime, frequency of violence,

Introduction

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) series, previously called the National Crime Survey (NCS), has been gathering data on personal and household victimization since 1973. An ongoing survey of a nationally representative sample of residential addresses, the NCVS is the main source of information on the characteristics of criminal victimization and on the number and kinds of crimes not reported to law enforcement authorities (National Archive of Criminal Justice Data).

There are lot of victims in the society that prefer to keep quiet than to report the crime that was happened to them, because of the time consuming and other factors that will made them think twice if they are going to report it or not.

The Crime Clock dramatizes the fact that with the passing of each and every second, minute, hour, and day, the toll keeps mounting. According to Andrew Karmen, one crime index offense is committed every 3 seconds, one violent crime every 23 seconds, one property crime every 3 seconds, one murder every 33 minutes, one forcible rape every 6 minutes, one robbery every 78 seconds, one aggravated assault every 37 seconds, one burglary every 15 seconds, one larceny-theft every 5 seconds, and one motor vehicle theft every 26 seconds (Karmen, 2012).

We cannot get a clear image of repeat victims because victims, particularly repeat victims, frequently choose to not report the crime to the authorities. In 2000, for example, only half of all known violent crime was reported to the police and a substantial portion of this (approximately a fifth of serious violent assaults) was reported by bystanders, relatives, or acquaintances (Hart & Rennison 2003).

We also know that the police are more likely to be notified of crimes by certain types of victim than others; for example, older victims, women, African Americans, and poor people may be more likely to report certain crimes than their counterparts (Tjaden & Thoennes 2000). Victims report a variety of reasons justifying their decision not to report crimes to the police. Data from 2000 reveal that approximately 20% of victims of violent crimes felt that the offense was a personal or private matter (Hart & Rennison 2003). This was followed by justifications including a belief that the crime was not sufficiently important (14%), or that there was an expectation that the police would not take the offense seriously (6%) (Earl Warren, 2014).

There is now acknowledgment within victimization scholarship that not only do offenders and victims share multiple attributes; often, they tend to be the same people (Jennings et al. 2010). Moreover, while recent research has begun to demonstrate a more sophisticated connection between individualsï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ identification as either offender or victim, it is clear that there is a considerable relationship that makes these roles coincide (Schreck et al. 2008). The victim-offender overlap also has important implications for reporting practices, although these conclusions are somewhat unclear. While some have found that victimization perpetrated by acquaintances was related to lower levels of reporting (Block 1974), others have found no such relationship (Bachman 1993), and others found a relationship to higher levels of reporting (Felson et al. 1999).

The main challenge of studying victim services is that the effectiveness of each program is difficult to measure. This challenge is due to numerous variable factors regarding the victimï¿½ï¿½ï¿½s current psychological, emotional and practical states (Davis et al. 2006). Factors such as the types of crimes and trauma experienced, the victimï¿½ï¿½ï¿½s immediate concerns including issues with health and housing, and what types of personal issues are on-going (Davis et al. 2006; Ruback et al. 2013). These issues can include dealing with anxiety, depression or substance abuse stemming from the effects of their victimization (Ruback et al. 2013). What is consistent however, is that each study concludes that a combination of services is likely to have the most positive effect on reduction of revictimization (Earl Warren, 2014).Second, there is almost no current research on re-victimization of males.

According to CHED Memorandum Order 42 Series 2005, they implement guidelines for the creations of student crime prevention council in all colleges and universities. Because criminality apart from being a phenominal problem is everybodyï¿½ï¿½ï¿½s concern that needs to be addressed to all sectors in a well-orchesrated and coordinated matter.

Under Department of Education (DepEd) by virtue of Department Order 101 of 1994 initiated the creation of Student Crime Prevention Council in all institutions learning.

A significant number of our young children and youth were involved in the commission ofcrimes or committed misdeaminors and other forms of disciplinary infractions, this memorandum of understanding is by DIG, DepEd, CHED, SCPCï¿½ï¿½ï¿½s and provide full support to the crime prevention campaign of the government.

This study is focused mainly on determining who or how many here in Angeles City was already been victimized but still they chose not to voice out, because some of them are thinking that the crime they had been experienced is not that essential. Other than that, the study gives us a contribution on different facts. First it will help us to be conscious on our surroundings especially outdoors. Second, this would help the police force to prevent the situation to happen again. Third, it would also help the victim to voice out their feelings to assist them to solve their case by means of reporting. It will give awareness to the public that no matter how small or big the amount that was stolen to them, how light or serious the situation happened to them, justice must be rendered and also by means of reporting the crime to the police it will help them identify other offenders that didnï¿½ï¿½ï¿½t know yet, to create a baseline data on college student victimization in terms of victimï¿½ï¿½ï¿½s profile, crimes committed against the college students, mode of commission of crimes and the reasons of victimization, and lastly this will contribute in the idea of the public to see if the police forces really do their job well.

This study will give benefit to the community especially to those victims that are afraid or doesnï¿½ï¿½ï¿½t have time to report. It will give benefit to other law enforcement agencies to take their action that some people in the community are not reporting such situation and that the public will become aware that not all crimes reported to the police are the basis of identifying how many the crimes that has been committed by perpetrator and how many citizen is already victimized. It will help them to know that there are things that must give time and importance. This will help them to determine on what punishment should fit the offense done to them and in able to prevent such things from happening again. This study will also help the future researchers that would have the same interest on studying the victimizations survey in Angeles City.

This study is specifically focused on those college students who had been experience being the victim of any crime, either male or female that prefer to hide and not to spoke up to the police and other law enforcement agencies because of being afraid, lazy, and any other reasons that lead them to just sit and not to do actions about it. The result of the study is limited only in Angeles City Pampanga, Philippines.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

This study aims to determine the extent of victimization of students in higher education institutions in Angeles City in Academic Year 2016-2017.

Specifically the following:

1. How may the socio-demographic profile of College Students in Angeles City be described in terms of:

1.1 Age; 1.3 Course; and

1.2 Sex; ; 1.4 Civil Status?

2. What is the Degree of Seriousness of College Students Victimization in Angeles City:

2.1 Crimes Committed;

2.2 Frequency of Violations;

2.3 Location;

2.4 Time;

2.5 Weapon; and

3. Thus life style a Factor that Influence the Respondent Victimization?

4. Is there a significant relationship between types of crime and place of the commission?

Hypotheses:

1. There is no significant relationship between types of crime and place of the commission.

Theoretical Framework

According to lifestyle theory it purpose that individuals are targeted based on their lifestyle choices, and that these lifestyle choices expose them to criminal offenders and situations in which crimes may be committed. Examples of some lifestyle choices indicated by this theory include going out at night alone, living in "bad" parts of town, associating with known felons, being promiscuous, excessive alcohol use, and doing drugs.

In addition to theorizing that victimization is not random, but rather a part of the lifestyle the victims pursues, the lifestyle theory cites research that victims "share personality traits also commonly found in law violators, namely impulsivity and low self-control" (Siegel, 2006). This previous statement was discussed in a psychology journal by Jared Dempsey, Gary Fireman, and Eugene Wang, in which they note the correlation between victims and the perpetrators of crimes, both exhibiting impulsive and antisocial-like behaviors (2006). These behaviors may contribute to their victimization since they cause the individual to put themselves at higher risk for victimization than their more conservative lifestyle counterparts.

According to Wolfgang the formal concept of victim precipitation in his seminal work on homicide in 1967 when he argued that, in some instances, the victim may initiate the behavior of the victimizer. To test this assertion, Wolfgang collected official data on 588 homicides that occurred over the course of 4 years in Philadelphia and found that almost 26% (150 homicides) fit his definition of victim precipitation. Subsequent studies that have included a measure of victim behavior in their analyses have found that victim-precipitated violent crimes are most likely to occur between a female offender and a male victim known to one another. Alcohol is another common predictor, with one or both parties having consumed alcohol prior to the incident.

The deviant place theory states that greater exposure to dangerous places makes an individual more likely to become the victim of a crime (Seigel, 2006). Unlike the victim precipitation theory, the victims do not influence the crime by actively or passively encouraging it, but rather are victimized as a result of being in "bad" areas. In order to lower the chance that one will become the victim of a crime, the individual should avoid the "bad" areas of town where crime rates are high. For example, South Central Los Angeles is notorious for its gangs, and high crime rate. The more an individual ventures into South Central, the more likely they are to become the victim of a crime there. Sociologist (William Julius Wilson )discusses the social and economic inequality that finds more minorities in the victim seat, since minorities are more commonly from low income households that are unable to move away from crime-ridden areas than their Caucasian peers are (1990). Moreover, the deviant place theory suggests that taking safety precautions in these areas may be of little use since it is the neighborhood, and not the lifestyle choices, that affect victimization (Seigel, 2006). In a nutshell, if a neighborhood is "deviant," the only way to lower your risk of victimization is to leave the neighborhood for a less deviant, low crime rate area.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

This study will use descriptive- survey research as its research design. This method finds answer to the questions who, what, when, where and how. It describes situation or given state of affairs in terms of special aspects or factors.

Since the study is going to use a descriptive survey, checklist questionnaire shall be the means of gathering information among the respondents. This method will aid the researchers in gathering the results and responses.

Population and Locale of the Study

The outcome gathered from the sample will represent the entire population generally. In this study, the students of Angeles University Foundation, Holy Angel University, City College of Angeles, and Republic Central College in Angeles City shall be the target population.

In order to obtain data, a questionnaire checklist was utilized. The following steps were employed in the construction and validation of the questionnaire.

Content and Face Validation. The researcher determined the degree to which the questionnaire represents the essence, the topics, and the areas the test is designed to measure. The test was validated whether it measured what it intended to measure

Consultation with experts. Criminology Professors and practitioners were tapped to improve the questionnaire. Inspection was made to have the initial draft, then, a group of experts from the College of Criminal Justice Education validated the questionnaire.

A pre-testing was done for 50 respondents to test a sample that is comparable to the target population. This also determined the average time spent in accomplishing the questionnaire and relevant problem to the questionnaire wer also discovered. The trial test was conducted to analyze the good and poor items using Cronbachï¿½ï¿½ï¿½s Alpha.

The entire process determined the internal consistency, item homogeneity, discriminability and difficulty of the items. The outcome was very satisfactory.

To established the questionnaires reliability and internal consistency, the Cronbach Alpha was utilized

SAMPLING METHOD

Table 1 Population and Sample Size Distribution among the four schools namely Angeles University Foundation, Republic Central College, Holy Angel University, and City College of Angeles in Angeles City

Category of the Respondent Frequency Percentage Sample Size

Angeles University Foundation 5,210 25.8 97

Republic Central Colleges 581 2.9 11

Holy Angel University 12,460 61.8 233

City College of Angeles 1,910 9.5 36

Total 20,161 100% 377

The researcher made use of a software called ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½RAOSOFTï¿½ï¿½ï¿½, a sample size calculator, to compute the sample size, the researchers were able to come up with the sample size of 97 for Angeles University Foundation, 11 for Republic Central Colleges, 233 for Holy Angel University, 36 for City College of Angeles.

The researchers will be using a questionnaire checklist to the 377 respondents that came from the different colleges and that the respondents will answer each question.

The data on the study will be using Stratified Snowball Sampling on all Four Schools namely Angeles University Foundation, Republic Central College, Holy Angel University, and City College of Angeles. Stratified sampling refers to a type of sampling method which the researcher divides the population into separate groups, called strata. Snowball Sampling is a non-probability sampling technique that is used by researchers to identify potential subjects in studies where subjects are hard to locate. Non-probability sampling is a judgmental sampling, the data gathered is whatever they want, does not provide every member of the populations an equal chance of being selected as part of the sample, and the probability or chance of an element to be chosen as sample unknown. The stratified snowball sampling is used since it would be implausible to draw the names of the respondents in a fishbowl since there are thousands of names and tracking them one by one would be too costly, time consuming and impractical in the given time frame.

Then the percentage of each population per School where computed thru which the sample size per School where acquired by means of multiplying the percentile of each population to the raosoft recommended sample size which is 377. The researchers went to the Schools in order to acquire the document of total population projection of each School.

In this part the treating of duly accomplished questionnaire for specific problem states, the researcher made use of frequency, percentage and ranking computation. Then the data was statistically interpreted using descriptive

Chi-Square is a statistical test to determined significant correlation or relationship.

In floating the questionnaires, the respondents were oriented on how to accomplish the survey form. The data will be collected on July 2016. The data were derived from the collected and tallied questionnaires that is tallied and recorded in excel file. All the collected data will be recorded on paper and will be stored and placed in a file cabinet for storage and accessibility. The researcher firmly checked whether all the responses will be answered properly by ensuring that no questionnaire will be answered haphazardly and that no item will be left blank. Questions, if any, are accommodate.

After the data were collected and tallied using excel file, analysis and interpretation of results will done. The researchers used data mining in the interpretation of the gathered data as the process of analyzing data from different perspectives and summarizing it into useful information. Descriptive statistics were used in interpreting the data.To determine the significant correlation or relationship between two ordinal data the statistical test to be used is Chi-Square Correlation.

In measuring the effectiveness of CMO 42, series of 2005 the respondents have to choose between Excellent, Very Good, Good, Satisfactory, or Poor.

Numerical Equivalent Scale Interpretation

5 4.20-5.00 Excellent

4 3.40-4.19 Very Good

3 2.60-3.39 Good

2 1.80-2.29 Satisfactory

1 1.00-1.79 Poor

RESULT

Profile of the Respondents

Table 2 Frequency distribution of the respondents as to Higher Education Institution

Higher Education Institution f % Rank

1. Angeles University Foundation 97 25.8 2

2. City College of Angeles 36 9.5 3

3. Holy Angel University 233 61.8 1

4. Republic Central Colleges 11 2.9 4

Total 377 100.0 —

Table 2 presents the Higher Education Institutions in Angeles City. It can be gleaned from the data that most of the respondents come from Holy Angel University with 233 or 61.8 percent. This is followed by Angeles University Foundation with 97 or 25.7 percent, and City College of Angeles with 36 or 9.5 percent. The least are those coming from Republic Central Colleges with only 11 or 2.9 percent of the total respondents. This is more or less the same population trend for HEIs in Angeles City as the University with the biggest population is Holy Angel University and the least is Republic Central Colleges.

Table 3 Frequency distribution of the respondents as to age of the respondents

Age of the respondents F % Rank

15-17 years old 80 21.2 2

18-20 years old 245 65.0 1

21-23 years old 38 10.1 3

24-27 years old 9 2.4 4

28 years and above 5 1.3 5

Total 377 100.0

Table 3 presents the frequency and percentage of respondents according to age. Among 377 respondents, majority of the respondents belong to the age bracket of 18-20 with 65.0%, followed by 80 respondents who are aged between 15-17 with 21.2%, followed by 38 respondents who are aged between 21-23 with 10.1%. while there are 9 respondents who are aged between 24-27 with 2.4%, and only 5 respondents who are aged 28 years and above with only 1.3%.

Table 4 Frequency distribution of the respondents as to gender of the respondents

Gender of the Respondent f % Rank

Male 165 43.8 2

Female 212 56.2 1

Total 377 100.0

Table 4 presents the frequency and distribution of respondents according to gender. It can be seen that majority of the population are female with 212 out of 377 respondents or 56.2% and 165 respondents or 43.8% are male.

Table 5 Frequency distribution of the respondents as to civil status of the respondents

Civil Status of the Respondent f % Rank

Single 364 96.6 1

Married 9 2.4 2

Single Parent 4 1.1 3

Total 377 100.0

Table 5 shows the frequency and distribution of respondents according to civil status respondent. It can be seen the majority of the population are single with 364 out of 377 respondents while the population of married is 9 out of 377 respondents or 2.4% and 4 respondents or 1.1% are single parent.

Table 6 Frequency distribution of the respondents who were victimize within the past 6 months

Does the victimization occur within the past 6 months f % Rank

Yes 377 100 1

No 0 0 2

Total 377 100.0 —

It shows on the data in the table 6 that the entire respondent was victimized within the last 6 months.

FACTORS AFFECTING LEVEL OF VICTIMIZATION

Table 7 Frequency distribution of the respondents as to mode of transportation of the respondents

Mode of transportation of the Respondent f % Rank

Walk 51 13.5 2

Public Bus, Subway, Train 8 2.1 5

Bicycle, Motorbike, or Motorcycle 48 12.7 3

Jeepney 235 62.3 1

School Bus 7 1.9 6

Car 28 7.4 4

Total 377 100.0

Table 7 shows the frequency and distribution of respondents according to ways of transportation of respondent. It can be seen among 377 respondents majority of the population are jeepney with 235 or 62.3% followed by means of walking with 51 or 13.5% followed by bicycle, motorbike or motorcycle with 48 or 12.7% followed by car with 28 or 7.4% followed by public bus, subway, train with 8 or 2.1% and only school bus has the least number of respondents with 7 or 1.9%.

Table 8 Frequency distribution of the respondents as to the time of travelling of the Respondents

Travel time of the respondents F % Rank

Less than 15 minutes 117 31.0 1

15-29 minutes 67 17.8 3

30-44 minutes 97 25.7 2

45-59 minutes 42 11.1 5

60 minutes or longer 54 14.3 4

Total 377 100.0

Table 8 shows the frequency and distribution according to how long is the time of transportation from home to school of respondents. It can be seen among 377 respondents majority of the population are 15 minutes with 117 or 31% followed by 97 respondents who took the time of between 30-44 minutes with 25.7% followed by 67 respondents who took the time between 15-29 minutes with 17.8% followed by 54 respondents who took the time of 60 minutes or longer with 14.3% and 42 respondents for those who took the time of between 45-59 minutes with 11.1%.

Table 9 Frequency distribution of the respondents higher institution education as to security guards or assigned police officers

Does the school have security guards or assigned police officers? f % Rank

Yes 369 97.9 1

No 8 2.1 2

Total 377 100.0

Table 9 indicates that among 377 or 100% respondents, 369 or 97.9% of them said that the schoolï¿½ï¿½ï¿½s safety and security is being secured by security guards or assigned police officers and 8 or 2.1% said that their institution is not being protected by the said personnel. Thus, most of the respondents agreed that their institution is being guarded by security guards or assigned police.

Table 10 Frequency distribution of the respondents were they have others school staff or other adults supervising the hallway

Does the school have others school staff or other adults supervising the hallway? f % Rank

Yes 290 76.9 1

No 87 23.1 2

Total 377 100.0

Table 10 shows that 290 or 76.9% respondents agreed that their hallway is being supervised by school staffs or personnel while 87 or 23.1% of them disagreed to the above mentioned question, for a total of 377 or 100% respondents.

Table 11 Frequency distribution of the respondents that there school has Metal detectors, including wands

Metal detectors, including wands? f % Rank

Yes 178 47.2 2

No 199 52.8 1

Total 377 100.0

Table 11 shows the frequency of the respondents that has metal detectors and wands wherein 178 or 47.2% of the total respondents said ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Yesï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ and 199 or 52.8% of them said ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Noï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ for a total of 377 or 100% respondents. Therefor it is clearly stated that the schools that has metal detectors and wands are more than those who doesnï¿½ï¿½ï¿½t have.

Table 12 Frequency distribution of the respondents were in the school locked entrance or exit doors during the day

School locked entrance or exit doors during the day f % Rank

Yes 221 58.6 1

No 156 41.4 2

Total 377 100.0

Table 12 states the frequency of respondents that their school locks their entrance and exit doors during class hours wherein among 377 or 100% respondents, 221 or 58.6% of them says that their institution locks the entrance or exit doors during class hours while 156 or 41.4% of them says that their institution does not lock their entrance or exit doors.

Table 13 Frequency distribution of the respondents which there school require visitor sign in

Require visitor sign in f % Rank

Yes 348 92.3 1

No 29 7.7 2

Total 377 100.0

Table 13 is the frequency of respondents which their school requires visitors to sign in before entering the school premises, 348 or 92.3% of the respondents agreed to this question while 29 or 7.7% of them disagreed that their institution requires their visitors to sign in before entering the school premises for a total of 377 or 100% respondents.

Table 14 Frequency distribution of the respondents which there school require locker checks

Require Locker Checks f % Rank

Yes 175 46.4 1

No 202 53.6 2

Total 377 100.0

Table 14 shows that among 377 or 100%, 174 or 46.4% of them says that their school staffs does have locker checklists and 202 or 53.6% of them says that their school staff doesnï¿½ï¿½ï¿½t have locker checklists.

Table 15 Frequency distribution of the respondents which require students wear badges or picture identification?

Students wear badges or picture identification f % Rank

Yes 350 92.8 1

No 27 7.2 2

Total 377 100.0

Table 15 states that their institution requires their students to wear the appropriate badges or Identification (ID). 350 or 92.8% of the respondents agreed to this question while 27 or 7.2% of them disagreed that the institution requires their students to wear the appropriate badge(s) or Identification (ID) for a total 377 or 100% respondents

Table 16 Frequency distribution of the respondents which have One or more security cameras to monitor the school?

School have one or more security cameras to monitor the school f % Rank

Yes 337 89.4 1

No 40 10.6 2

Total 377 100.0

Table 16 is the frequency of schools who uses security cameras to monitor the school wherein 337 or 89.4% said ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Yesï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ or that their school has security camera(s) to monitor the school while 40 or 10.6% of them said ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Noï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ or that their school doesnï¿½ï¿½ï¿½t have security cameras to monitor the school

Table 17 Frequency distribution of the respondents if their school provide a set of written guidelines that the school provides

There is a set of written guidelines that the school provides f % Rank

Yes 360 95.5 1

No 17 4.5 2

Total 377 100.0

Table 17 indicates if there is a set of written rules or guidelines or code of student conducts that their school provides. Among 377 or 100% respondents, 360 or 85.5% of them affirmed that their schools provide a set of code of student conducts and 17 or 4.5% of them negate the above mentioned question.

Table 18 Frequency Distribution of the respondents if they hear about a threat to school or student safety, do you have a way to report to someone in authority without giving your name

If they hear about a threat to school ot students safety, do you have a way to report to someone in authority without giving name f % Rank

Yes 282 74.8 1

No 95 25.2 2

Total 377 100.0

Table 18 shows the frequency of the respondents if they have way of reporting without giving their name. 282 or 74.8% said ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½yesï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ and 95 or 25.2 said ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½noï¿½ï¿½ï¿½

Table 19 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents on how often they are distracted from doing their school works because other students are misbehaving

How often they are distracted from doing their school works because other students are misbehaving f % Rank

Never 61 16.2 2

Almost never 43 11.4 3

Sometimes 238 63.1 1

Most of the time 35 9.3 4

Total 377 100.0

Table 19 presents the frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents on how often they are distracted from doing their school works because other students are misbehaving. About 238 respondents with 63.1%, indicates they are distracted sometimes, while 61 respondents with 16.2% indicated that they were never distracted. There are 43 respondents with 11.4% stated that they were almost never distracted, whilst only 35 respondents with 9.3% said that they were distracted most of the time while doing their school works because of the misbehaving students

Table 20 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents on how often do teachers punish students during your class

how often do teachers punish students during your class f % Rank

Never 94 24.9 2

Almost never 62 16.4 3

Sometimes 210 55.7 1

Most of the time 11 2.9 4

Total 377 100.0

Table 20 presents the frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents on how often do teachers punish students during class. About 210 respondents with 55.7%, indicates that their teacher sometimes during the class, while 94 respondents with 24.9% indicated that theyï¿½ï¿½ï¿½re teacher never punish student during the class. There are 62 respondents with 16.4% stated that theyï¿½ï¿½ï¿½re teacher almost never punish student while the class, whilst only 11 respondents with 2.9% said that they were distracted most of the time while doing their school works because of the misbehaving students

Table 21 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents if they know what the school rules are

Does the respondent know what the school rules are f % Rank

Strongly agree 119 31.6 2

Agree 203 53.8 1

Disagree 46 12.2 3

Strongly Disagree 9 2.4 4

Total 377 100

Table 21 presents the frequency distribution of respondents if they know the school rules. About 203 respondents or 53.8% Agree that they know the school rules, while 119 respondents or 31.6% strongly agree that they know the school rules. There are 46 respondents with 12.2% disagree that they know the school rules, whilst only 9 respondents with 2.4% strongly disagree.

Table 22 Frequency and percentage distribution of respondents if the school rules are fair

Does the school rules are fair f % Rank

Strongly Agree 105 27.9 2

Agree 213 56.5 1

Disagree 53 14.1 3

Strongly Disagree 6 1.6 4

Total 377 100

Table 22 presents the frequency distribution of respondents if the school rules are fair. About 213 respondents or 53.8% agree that the school rules are fair, while 105 respondents or 27.9% strongly agree that the school rules are fair. There are 53 respondents with 14.1% disagree that the school rules fair, whilst only 6 respondents with 1.6% strongly disagree that the school rules are not fair.

Table 23 Frequency and percentage distribution of respondents if the punishment for breaking school rules is the same no matter who you are

Does the punishment for breaking school rules is the same no matter who you are f % Rank

Strongly agree 108 28.6 2

Agree 215 57.0 1

Disagree 45 11.9 3

Strongly Disagree 9 2.4 4

Total 377 100.0

Table 23 presents the frequency distribution of the respondents if the punishment for breaking school rules is the same no matter who you are. About 215 respondents or 57.0% agree that the punishment for breaking school rules is the same no matter who you are, while 108 respondents or 28.6% strongly agree that the punishment for breaking school rules is the same no matter who you are. There are 45 respondents with 11.9% disagree that the punishment for breaking school rules is the same no matter who you are, whilst only 9 respondents with 2.4% strongly disagree that the punishment for breaking school rules is the same no matter who you are.

Table 24 Frequency and percentage distribution of respondents if the school rules are strictly enforce

Does the school rules is strictly enforce f % Rank

Strongly Agree 96 25.5 2

Agree 213 56.5 1

Disagree 62 16.4 3

Strongly Disagree 6 1.6 4

Total 377 100.0

Table 24 presents the frequency distribution of the respondents if the school rules are strictly enforce. About 213 respondents or 56.5% agree that the school rules are strictly enforce, while 96 respondents or 25.5% strongly agree that the school rules are strictly enforce. There are 62 respondents with 16.4% disagree that the school rules are strictly enforce, whilst only 6 respondents with 1.6% strongly disagree that the school rules are strictly enforce.

Table 25 Frequency and percentage distribution of respondents if the school rule is broken, the student know what punishment will follow

Does the respondent know what punishment will follow if school rule is broken F % Rank

Strongly Agree 91 24.1 2

Agree 214 56.8 1

Strongly Disagree 64 17.0 3

Disagree 8 2.1 4

Total 377 100.0

Table 25 presents the frequency distribution of the respondents if the school rule is broken, the student know what punishment will follow. About 214 respondents or 56.8% agree that when the school rule is broken, the student know what punishment will follow, while 91 respondents or 24.1% strongly agree that when the school rule is broken, the student know what punishment will follow. There are 64 respondents with 17.1% disagree that when the school rule is broken, the student know what punishment will follow, whilst only 8 respondents with 2.1% strongly disagree that when the school rule is broken, the student know what punishment will follow.

Table 26 Frequency and percentage distribution of respondents if it is possible to acquire drugs inside the school

Is ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½it possible to acquire drugs inside the school f % Rank

Yes 66 17.5 2

No 251 66.6 1

Don't know 56 14.9 3

Don't know drug 4 1.1 4

Total 377 100.0

Table 26 presents the frequency and distribution of the respondents if it is possible to acquire drugs inside the school. About 251 respondents with 66.6% said that it is not possible to get drugs inside the school, while 66 with 17.5% said yes it is possible to get drugs inside the school. There are 56 respondents with 14.9% said that they donï¿½ï¿½ï¿½t know if it is possible to get drugs inside the school, whilst 4 respondents said that they donï¿½ï¿½ï¿½t know drugs.

Table 27 Frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents if they know any student under the influence of drugs or alcohol inside the school

Does they know any student under the influence of drugs or alcohol inside the school

F % Rank

Yes 117 31.0 2

No 260 69.0 1

Total 377 100.0

Table 27 presents the frequency and distribution of respondents if they know any student under the influence of drugs or alcohol inside the school. About 260 respondents with 69% doesnï¿½ï¿½ï¿½t know any student under the influence of drugs or alcohol inside the school, while 117 respondents with 31% said that they know any student under the influence of drugs or alcohol inside the school.

Table 28 Frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents if there is anyone offer, or try to sell or give an illegal drug other than alcohol or tobacco at the school

Is there anyone offer, or try to sell or give an illegal drug other than alcohol or tobacco at the school

f % Rank

Yes 36 9.5 2

No 341 90.5 1

Total 377 100.0

Table 28 presents the frequency and distribution of respondents if there is anyone offer, or try to sell or give an illegal drug other than alcohol or tobacco at the school. About 341 respondents with 90.5% answer no one offer, or try to sell or give an illegal drug other than alcohol or tobacco at the school, while 36 respondents with 9.5% said yes that there is someone offer, or try to sell or give an illegal drug other than alcohol or tobacco at the school

VICTIMIZATION RATE AS TO INDEX CRIME

Table 29 Frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents on index crime

Index Crime F % Rank

Theft 142 37.7 1

Physical injuries 97 25.7 2

Duel 12 3.2 7

Robbery 33 8.8 4

Threats 40 10.6 3

Acts of Lasciviousness 25 6.6 5

Malicious Mischief 15 4.0 6

Slander 7 1.9 8

Swindling 6 1.6 9

Total 377 100.0

It can be gleaned in the table 29 that Theft has the highest frequency with 142 or 37.7% and the lowest is Swindling with a frequency of 6 or 1.6%, while Physical Injuries has the frequency of 97 or 25.7%, Threats with a frequency of 40 or 10.6%, Robbery has the frequency of 33 or 8.8%, Acts of Lasciviousness has the frequency of 25 or 6.6%, Malicious Mischief has the frequency and Hazing has the frequency of 35 or 9.3%.

VICTIMIZATION RATE AS TO NON INDEX CRIME

Table 30 Frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents on non-index crime

Non-index Crime f % Rank

Child Abuse 99 26.3 1

Violence Against Women 69 18.3 2

Trafficking in persons/ Illegal Recruitment 26 6.9 7

Hazing 35 9.3 6

Sexual Harassment 36 9.5 5

Photo and Video Voyeurism 63 16.7 3

Cyber Crimes 49 13.0 4

Total 377 100.0

It can be gleaned in the table 30 that child abuse has the highest frequency with 99 or 26.3% and the lowest is Trafficking in person/illegal recruitment with a frequency of 26 or 6.9%, while violence against women has the frequency of 69 or 18.3%, Photo and Video Voyeurism with a frequency of 63 or 16.7%, Cyber Crimes has the frequency of 49 or 13.0%, Sexual Harassment has the frequency of 36 or 9.5, and Hazing has the frequency of 35 or 9.3%.

TIME AND PLACE OF COMMISSION OF THE CRIME

Table 31 Frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents on the time of the commission of the crime

Time of the Commision of the Crime F % Rank

12:01AM-6:00AM Dawn 69 18.3 3

6:01AM-11:00AM Morning 49 13.0 4

11:01-6:00PM Afternoon 137 36.3 1

6:01PM-12:00MN Night 122 32.4 2

Total 377 100.0

It can be gleaned in the table 31 that 11:01-6:00PM AFTERNOON has the highest frequency with 137 or 36.3% and the lowest is 6:01AM-11:00AM MORNING with a frequency of 49 or 13.0%, while 6:01PM-12:00MN NIGHT has the frequency of 122 or 32.4%, and 12:01AM-6:00AM DAWN has the frequency of 69 or 18.3%.

Table 32 Frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents on the place where they were victimize

Place of the commission of the crime F % Rank

Inside the School 130 34.5 2

Public Places 118 31.3 1

Restaurant/ Eatery 11 2.9 7

Inside the Boarding House/ Apartment 32 8.5 4

Along the road 40 10.6 3

Convenience Store 4 1.1 8

Abandoned Place 24 6.4 5

Inside the House 18 4.8 6

Total 377 100.0

It can be gleaned in the table 32 that Inside the school has the highest frequency with 130 or 34.5% and the lowest is Convenience Store with a frequency of 4 or 1.1%, while public places has the frequency of 118 or 31.3%, Along the road has the frequency of 40 or 10.6%, Inside the Boarding House/Apartment has the frequency of 32 or 8.5%, Abandoned Place has the frequency of 24 or 6.4%, Inside the House has the frequency of 18 or 4.8% and Restaurant/Eatery has the frequency of 11 or 2.9%.

Table 33 Frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents on the suspects in the commission of the crime

Suspect in the commission of the crime f & Rank

Unidentified Person/ Stranger 270 71.6 1

Classmate or Schoolmate 64 17.0 2

Acquaintances/Friends 17 4.5 3

Family Member/ Relatives 12 3.2 4

Boyfriend/Girlfriend (Former or Present) 5 1.3 6

Faculty 3 .8 7

Public officer 6 1.6 5

Total 377 100.0

It can be gleaned in the table 33 that Unidentified Person/ Stranger has the highest frequency with 270 or 71.6% and the lowest is Faculty with a frequency of 3 or .8%, while Classmate/Schoolmate has the frequency of 64 or 17.0%, Acquaintance/Friends has the frequency of 17 or 4.5%, Family Member/Relatives has the frequency of 12 or 3.2%, Public Officer has the frequency of 6 or 1.6%, and Boyfriend/Girlfriend has the frequency of 5 or 1.3%.

Table 34 Frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents on the weapon used in the commission of the crime

Weapon used in the commission of the creime f % Rank

Physical strength/ Ability 212 56.2 1

Computer/ Cellular Phone 127 33.7 2

Knife, Bolo or Icepick 24 6.4 3

Firearm 14 3.7 4

Total 377 100.0

It can be gleaned in the table 34 that Physical Strength/Ability has the highest frequency with 212 or 56.2% and the lowest is Firearm with a frequency of 14 or 3.7%, while Computer/Cellular Phone has the frequency of 127 or 33.7%, and Knife, Bolo or Ice Pick has the frequency of 24 or 6.4%.

Table 35 Frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents on the reasons why they were victimized

Reasons why they were victimized f % Rank

Leaving things unattended 94 24.9 1

Trusting strangers (chatting and texting with 65 17.2 2

Asking favour 30 8.0 5

Provocative behavior (threatening a fight) 26 6.9 6

Failure to lock doors, windows and other openings 9 2.4 9

Walking in dark streets, alleys, or deserted places 33 8.8 4

Walking alone especially at night 34 9.0 3

Carrying a large amount of cash/ Wearing expensive jewelry 17 4.5 7

Drinking alcoholic beverages/ Joining drinking sessions 14 3.7 8

Going to crowded places 33 8.8 3

Coming to school-going out to school 7 1.9 10

Wearing provocative clothing 4 1.1 11

Peer pressure/ requirement in joining an fraternity 9 2.4 9

Living in disorganized or urban areas 3 .6 12

Total 377 100.0

It can be gleaned in the table 35 that Leaving Things Unattended has the highest frequency with 94 or 24.9% and the lowest is Living in Disorganized or Urban areas with 1 or .3%, while Trusting strangers (chatting and texting with) with 65 or 17.2%, Walking alone especially at night with 34 or 9.0%, Walking in dark streets, alleys, or deserted places and Going to crowded places with 33 or 8.8%, Asking favour with 30 or 8.0%, Provocative behaviour (threatening a fight) with 26 or 6.9%, Carrying a large amount of cash/ Wearing expensive jewellery with 17 or 4.5%, Drinking alcoholic beverages/ Joining drinking sessions with 14 or 3.7%, Failure to lock doors, windows and other openings and Peer pressure/ requirement in joining an fraternity with 9 or 2.4%, Coming to school-going out to school with 7 or 1.9%, and Wearing provocative clothing with 4 or 1.1% other 1 or .3 is missing.

EXTENT COMPLIANCE OF CMO 42, SERIES OF 2005

Table 36 Extent of Compliance of CMO 42, series of 2005 and the degree of implementation

CMO 42, series of 2005 Mean Standard Deviation Variance Rank Interpretation

A. Holding a Personal Safety and Security Seminar 3.21 1.277 1.632 4 Good

B. Leaflets distribution and Posting of poster regarding crime prevention tips 2.99 1.262 1.593 8 Good

C. Seminar on Child Abuse 2.97 1.292 1.669 9 Good

D. Seminar on Cyber and other Technology Crimes 3.03 1.306 1.706 7 Good

E. Seminar on Sexual Harassment 3.05 1.266 1.602 6 Good

F. Seminar Workshop on Gender and Development 3.06 1.274 1.624 5 Good

G. Seminar on Trafficking in Persons 2.90 1.258 1.582 10 Good

H. Training on Disarming Technique and Self-defense 3.27 1.303 1.697 2 Good

I. Conduct of Seminars in drug prevention and control 3.21 1.320 1.742 4 Good

J. Seminar on Illegal Gambling 2.84 1.313 1.723 12 Good

K. Seminar on Fraternity quarrels 2.85 1.366 1.866 11 Good

L. Conduct of Seminars on Hazing 2.79 1.380 1.904 13 Good

M. Report all illegal activities of students and/or recommend the imposition of appropriate sanction by school authorities 3.26 1.309 1.713 3 Good

N. Providing assistance for the victim such as counseling, legal advice, medical examination and financial assistance 3.66 1.195 1.427 1 Very good

Total 3.14 Good

Table 36 presents the Extent of Compliance of CMO 42, series of 2005. The overall data shows that the respondents give a mean interpretation of good with a mean score of 3.14 on the CMO 42,series of 2004 such as: (a) Holding a Personal Safety and Security Seminar; (b) Leaflets distribution and Posting of poster regarding crime prevention tips; (c) Seminar on Child Abuse; (d) Seminar on Cyber and other Technology Crimes; (e) Seminar on Sexual Harassment; (f) Seminar Workshop on Gender and Development; (g) Seminar on Trafficking in Persons; (h) Training on Disarming Technique and Self-defense; (i) Conduct of Seminars in drug prevention and control; (j) Seminar on Illegal Gambling; (k) Seminar on Fraternity quarrels; (l) Conduct seminar on Hazing; (m) Report all illegal activities of students and/or recommend the imposition of appropriate sanction by school authorities; and (n) Providing assistance for the victim such as counseling, legal advice, medical examination and financial assistance.

SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP

Table 37 Reason of Crime Victimization

Variable Chi-square value Critical Value Interpretation

Types of Crime and Place of the Commission of the Crime 39.51 37.65 With Significant Relationship

Table 37 shows that the type of crime and Place of the Commission of the Crime has a significant relationship.

DISCUSSIONS

FACTORS AFFECTING LEVEL OF VICTIMIZATION

The table 6 that the entire respondent was victimized within the last 6 months, table 7 it shows that most of the passengers utilized jeepney as a mode of transportation in reaching their destinations, jeepneys is a common form of transportation in the Philippines and has been a customs for Filipinos to ride jeepneys to reach there destinations. Jeepneys offer a fair which is reasonable to employees and students and it is the most accessible way to reach destinations in nature areas in Angeles City. While jeepneys offer cheap and affordable rates the danger of riding jeepneys is obvious. Most criminal syndicates take advantage of jeepneys in committing crimes some are declaring hold up inside jeepneys to intimidate passengers to release their belongings or some can just pluck out the jewelries from the neck por from the earrings of the person who Is riding the jeepney. While jeepneys offer a good way of transporting passengers. Study show that jeepney is one of the most common venue for commission of crimes, table 8 that most of the respondents are travelling with a time span of less than 15 minutes, table 9 most of the respondent answered yes which mean they have has assigned security guards or assigned police officer to prevent victimization which is also effective in preventing victimization. In support of the result of our study IES National Center for Education Statistics they also got the same result that most of the school has assigned security guards or assigned police officer to prevent victimization, the table 10 most of the respondent answered yes which mean they have other school staff or adult supervising in the hallway to prevent victimization which is also effective in preventing victimization. In support of the result of our study IES National Center for Education Statistics they also got the same result that most of the school has other school staff or adult supervising in the hallway to prevent victimization, table 11 that most of the respondents that there school doesnï¿½ï¿½ï¿½t have metal detectors and other security measures to prevent crime. Same with the study of the IES National Center for Education Statistics which give the same result that some of the school they cover doesnï¿½ï¿½ï¿½t have metal detectors to prevent crime. This give more risk of victimization to students, table 12 that most of the respondents answers that the entrance and exit of the school is locked during the day which can reduced the possibility of victimization. Also according to IES National Center for Education Statistics they conduct a study if the school locked the entrance and exit doors, if there is an impact with the rate of victimization which give the result of when the entrance and exit doors the rate of victimization is low. Also in the study of Edward Maglucot and Jose Rene Cepe they conduct the same study entitled the student crime victimization survey in the Universities of Dumaguete City which give them the same result that if the entrance and exit doors of the school is not lock there is a high possibility that students will be victimize, and in table 13 it shows that most of the respondent that their school is requiring visitor sign in to prevent student victimization. This result is supported in the study of National Crime Victimization and IES National Center for Education Statistics said that school requiring visitors sign in has a lesser possibility of victimization.

In the table 14 it can be seen that the result gathered from the respondents said that the school doesnï¿½ï¿½ï¿½t require locker checks. Were the possibility of being victimized is high. According to National Crime Victimization Survey not requiring locker check can increase the possibility of being a victim in schools, table 15 that most of the higher education institution that the respondents attending are requiring students wear badges or picture identification in order for them to identify the students easily and because of that it can prevent occurring crime inside the vicinity of the school. The result of the data in table 15 is supported and has the same result this is the survey of IES National Center for Education Statistics, table 16 that the higher education institution that the respondents are attending has security cameras to monitor the school. This security camera is an important tool for ensuring safety on school grounds. Schools facing challenges such as violence or vandalism on campus find school security cameras an indispensable aid to identifying and resolving issues as they arise. According to the study entitled ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½THE STUDENT CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY IN THE UNIVERSITIES OF DUMAGUETE CITYï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ of Edward Maglucot and Jose Rene Cepe(2009). In this study they get the same result that security cameras can help prevent crime because on the security camera captured the suspect it would not be hard to locate and identify the suspects. This Can suppress victimization. Criminals will hesitate to commit crime because there is an security camera, table 17 most of the respondents said that there school have have a code of student conduct/student handbook this is a guideline wherein the contents are the rules and regulation of the school, what the students should do inside the vicinity of the school, ways on how to prevent victimization and the punishment will be imposed if the student violates in the rules. Code of student conduct/student handbook is effective to prevent violence and victimization in the school because when students commit a violation he/she will be punish according to the student handbook. Accordint to the study entitled ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½THE STUDENT CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY IN THE UNIVERSITIES OF DUMAGUETE CITYï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ of Edward Maglucot and Jose Rene Cepe(2009). On their study almost all of the respondents said that student handbook is effective in preventing victimization, and in the table 18 almost of the respondent said that they have ways to report threats without giving their name. In this way the safety of the student can be protected because their profile was not exposed. This is a effective way to prevent crime. Because students will not be afraid to report threat since they will not be exposed. According to Maryville Daily Times in UK there country emergency landline is effective in preventing crimes and in reporting threats it doesnï¿½ï¿½ï¿½t require personal profile.

Table 19 that the respondents are frequently distracted from doing there school works because of their classmates who are misbehaving those using gadgets, doing which is inappropriate inside the class room. According to Melinda Boring that one of the factors why student are misbehaving is phone or any gadget during the class. This attracts students to misbehave, table 20 shows that the teachers are punishing students during class but not most the time. Because punishing students during class is a waste of time, the table 21 the respondents said that they know what the school rules are. We all know that school rules are the guidelines that the student should know in order for the school to maintain the peace and orderliness of the school. On the other hand still there are students doesnï¿½ï¿½ï¿½t follow the school rules. It is important to follow school because they enable the class to run smoothly so that everyone can learn and benefit from what the teacher has to offer. When students follow school rules, everyone, from the teachers to the students, can achieve their goals in the classroom. According to North Greenville University rules, every student is required to read the enlightener before beginning classes. Many students, however simply skim instead of truly reading into specifics, table 22 the respondents agree that the rules are fair. School rule is a required set of actions by a teacher towards a student (or groups of students) after the student's behavior disrupts the ongoing educational activity or breaks a pre-established rule created by the school system. If the school rules are fair and well implemented the rate of victimization is low but it doesnï¿½ï¿½ï¿½t mean that there is no possibility of being victim. According to the study entitled ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2013ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ authored by Simone Robers, Jana Kemp

and et al. The result of their study is that most the respondent answer that their school have a fair rules which is good so that there is no issues that the school favors someone, table 23 the respondents agree that the punishment if the school rules are broken is the same no matter who you are this result implies that most of the teachers are fair. But there is still teachers are not fair. Favoring some students in the school rules can make student commit crimes because they know that the punishment to be imposed is not the same what really punishment should be. According to Allison Rizzolo of Public Agenda. Nearly half of teachers surveyed (49%) reported they have been accused of unfairly disciplining a student. She said that merely favoring some students in school rules can make student commit crime and it can increase the rate of victimization, table 24 most of the respondent said that their schools are implementing the school rules. This implies that implementing of school rules strictly can help to prevent victimization. Base from the article of Erin Lockley of New Orleans strictly implementing school rules can make students minimized the possibility of victimization, table 25 most of the respondents agreed that if the school rules if broken, the student knows what punishment will be imposed. They have the guidelines or the student handbook were in students are require to read and understand it by heart, table 26 show that 251 out of 377 said that it is not possible to get drugs in schools. On the other hand 66 out of 71 of the rest of the respondents said that it is possible to get drug were in I agree that it is really possible to get drugs which can increase the rate of victimization. According to the Teen Rehab Center the result of their study shows that 86% of the respondents said that it is possible to get drugs inside the vicinity of the school, table 27 said that they know someone under the influence of drugs inside the vicinity of the school. But according to Teen Rehab Center most of their respondents said that they know someone who is under the influence of drug or alcohol inside the vicinity of the school, and it can be gleaned in the table 28 said that it is not possible to get drugs inside the vicinity of the school, but according to the news A 14-year-old has been arrested for selling prescription drugs on campus at Terronez Middle School in southeast Fresno. Police say several students bought Xanax from the teen for $5 to $6 each. Last month, two female students were also arrested on the same campus, also for selling Xanax. A security officer witnessed the drug deal on campus Thursday. Police say several students bought the prescription drug for $5 to $6 each. Fresno police say the teen brought and sold several prescription pills at school to other students.

VICTIMIZATION RATE AS TO INDEX CRIME

It can be gleaned in the table 29 the most index crime committed is theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it, theft doesnï¿½ï¿½ï¿½t require force to commit, it is not that hard to commit, and no force applied. According to Theft most common crime : Survey of Mumbai theft is the most commonly experienced crime in Mumbai and Delhi followed by sexual harassment and physical assault. In both cities, the majority of all crimes take place from 12 pm to 6 pm. Also according to the study of Edward Maglucot and Jose Rene Cepe they conduct the same study in index crime which gives them the result of theft is the most common crime committed in universities in Dumaguete City.

VICTIMIZATION RATE AS TO NON INDEX CRIME

Table 30 show that most of the respondents were victims of child abuse. Child abuse refers to the infliction of physical or psychological injury, cruelty to, or neglect, sexual abuse or exploitation of a child. There are different types of child abuse such as physical abuse, neglect, psychological abuse and sexual abuse. Child abuse is common because victim choose no to report because they are afraid and they think that it is just a waste of time. The effect of child abuse is can continue into adulthood without intervention. These include: depression, anxiety, disassociation, PTSD, eating disorders, addiction, suicidal thoughts, personality or attachment disorders.

TIME AND PLACE OF COMMISSION

Table 31 show that most victim in the respondents were victimize during afternoon from 11:00am to 6:00pm. This is common to the respondents because thatï¿½ï¿½ï¿½s the time they were not at home. Also according to The Student Crime Victimization Survey in the Universities of Dumaguete City by Edward Maglucot and Jose Rene Cepe they got the same result of the study that students usually being victimized at the time of 11:00am to 6:00pm, table 32 shows that the usual place of the commission of crime is inside the school. This result might because all the respondents are students. According to the study of Edward Maglucot and Jose Rene Cepe in different universities in Dumaguerte City, Philippines they got the same result were in the most of their respondents said that they were victimized inside the school, table 33 most of the suspects are unidentified persons or stranger. Also in the study entitled The Student Crime Victimization Survey in the Universities of Dumaguete City by Edward Maglucot and Jose Rene Cepe they got the same result that most of the suspects are unidentified or stranger, the table 34 that most of suspects utilized physical strength or ability to victimize. Physical strength or ability is the frequently used because it doesnï¿½ï¿½ï¿½t require money to commit crime. According to The Student Crime Victimization Survey in the Universities of Dumaguete City by Edward Maglucot and Jose Rene Cepe. Physical strength or ability the most use weapon to commit crime. Because everyone can use it, and it can be gleaned in the table 35 that leaving things unattended has the highest frequency which mean this is the number one reason why respondent were being victimized. This result is supported to the study of Edward Maglucot and Jose Rene Cepe entitled The Student Crime Victimization Survey in the Universities of Dumaguete City. Were in the study got the same result of leaving things unattended is also the number one reasons why students being victimized.

EXTENT COMPLIANCE OF CMO 42, SERIES OF 2005

table 36 the over-all mean on the extent compliance of higher education institution in the Ched Memorandum Order 42, series of 2005 is 3.14 which has the interpretation of good, it means that all the schools are following the CMO 42, series of 2005 but not to the full extent, the highest mean is Providing assistance for the victim such as counseling, legal advice, medical examination and financial assistance, and the lowest is conduct of seminar on hazing with a mean of 2.79 with an interpretation of good. Edward Maglucot and Jose Rene Cepe conduct a study entitled The Student Crime Victimization Survey in the Universities of Dumaguete City. Were in they also conduct survey regarding the schools if they follow the CMO 42, series 2005. The over-all mean is 2.49 which also has the interpretation of good , it means that all the schools are following the CMO 42, series of 2005 but not to the full extent.

SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP

Table 37 shows that the type of crime committed has a significant relationship with the place of the commission of the crime.

Conclusion

Therefore we conclude that females students are more prone to be victimized. Hence, women Is considered as the vulnerable sector of society, the leading crimes that victimized college students in Angeles City are theft, physical injuries, child abuse and cyber crimes, the major causes of victimization is victimï¿½ï¿½ï¿½s precipitation and lifestyle. Hence, crime victims play a vital role in the commission of crime, most crimes that victimized college students were committed during afternoon and in the night, the suspects usually used physical strength or ability and computer/cellular phones in committing crime, majority of the crimes were committed inside the school premises and in public places.

There is significant relationship between the types of crime and the place of commission of crime. Crimes against persons were mostly committed in the school and crimes against property were mostly committed in public places. This relationship supports the Victimï¿½ï¿½ï¿½s Lifestyle Theory which states that crime is not a random occurrence but rather a function of the victimï¿½ï¿½ï¿½s lifestyle.

RECOMMENDATION

We recommend to conduct a School-Based Crime Prevention Program: An Extension Activity. This activity will teach students on how to prevent crimes, why victimization occurs, the factors of being victimize and the students will be teach basic ways of self-defense. We also recommend to other researcher to conduct a indepth study regarding child abuse, theft and trafficking in person.

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½

References

A. BOOKS

Battaglia, M. (2008). Multi-stage sample Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Retrieved from http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/encyclopedia-of-survey-research-methods/n311.xml

B. JOURNALS

Andrew Karmen (2012). Crime Victims. An Introduction To Victimology Sixth Edition.

Breitenbecher, K.H. & C.A. Gidycz (1998) ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½An Empirical Evaluation Of A Program Designed To Reduce The Risk Of Multiple Sexual Victimizationï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Journal Of Interpersonal Violence, 13(4): 472-488

Andrew R. Klein (June 09) Practical Implications Of Current Domestic Violence Research: For Law Enforcement, Prosecutors, And Judges

Chu, L.D. & Kraus, J.F. (2004). Predicting Fatal Assault Among The Elderly Using The National Incident-Reporting System Crime Dat Davis, R., P. Guthrie, T. Ross & C. Oï¿½ï¿½ï¿½sullivan. (2006) ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Reducing Sexual Revictimization, A Field Test With An Urban Sample.ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Summary Report To The National Institute Of Justice. Vera Institute Of Justice.

a. Homicide Studies, 8, 71-95.

Desai, S., I. Arias, M.P. Thompson & K.C. Basil. (2002) ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Childhood Victimization And Subsequent Adult Revictimization Assessed In A Nationally Representative Sample Of Women And Men.ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Violence And Victims, 17(6): 639-653

Earl Warren (April 2014). Revictimization And Related Services: Literature Review

Felson, R.B., S.F. Messner, & A. Hoskin. (1999) ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½The Victimï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Offender Relationship And Calling The Police In Assaults.ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Criminology, 37(4): 901ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½17.

Gondolf, E. W. (2002) ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Batterer Intervention Systems: Issues, Outcomes, Recommendationsï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.

Hart, T.C., & C. Rennison. (2003) ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Reporting Crime To The Police, 1992ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½2000.ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Bureau Of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, Dc: U.S.Department Of Justice.

Hill, T.D., L.M. Kaplan, M.T. French & R.J. Johnson. (2010) ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Victimization In Early Life And Mental Health In Adulthood: An Examination Of The Mediating And Moderating Influences Of Psychosocial Resources.ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Journal Of Health And Social Behaviour, 51(1) 48ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½63.

Jennifer L. Truman & Michael Planty (October 2012). Criminal Victimization, 2011

Jennifer Truman, Lynn Langton, And Michael Planty (October 2013). Criminal Victimization, 2012

Johnson, Holly (2005) Crime Victimisation In Australia: Key Results Of The 2004 International Crime Victimisation Survey, Australian Institute Of Criminology Research And Public Policy Series No. 64, Australian Institute Of Criminology, Canberra

Lachs, M., Bachman, R. & Williams, C. (2004). Older Adults As Crime Victims, Perpetrators, Witnesses, And Complainants. Journal Of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 16, 25-40.

Planty, M. (2007). Series Victimizations And Divergence. In Lynch, J.P. & Addington, L.A. (Co-Editors). Understanding Crime Statistics: Revisiting The Divergence Of The Ncvs And Ucr (Pp. 156-182). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K.

Rand, M., & S. Catalano. (2007) Bureau Of Justice Statistics Bulletin: Criminal Victimization, 2006. Washington, Dc: U.S. Department Of Justice.

Rennison, C., & M. Planty. (2003) ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Nonlethal Intimate Partner Violence: Examining Race, Gender, And Income Patterns.ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Violence And Victims, 18(4): 433-443.

Ruback, R.B., V.A. Clark & C. Warner. (2013) ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Why Are Crime Victims At Risk Of Being Victimized Again? Substance Use, Depression, And Offending As Mediators Of The Victimizationï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Revictimization Link.ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Journal Of Interpersonal Violence, 29(1): 157ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½185.

Schreck, C. J., & Fisher, B. S. (2004). Specifying The Influence Of Family And Peers On Violent Victimization: Extending Routine Activities And Lifestyle Theories. Journal Of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1021-141.

Schreck, C.J., E.A. Stewart, & D.W. Osgood. (2008) ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½A Reappraisal Of The Overlap Of Violent Offenders And Victims.ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Criminology, 46(4): 871-906.

Shannan Catalano (Sept. 2012) Stalking Victims In The United States ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Revised.

Shannan Catalano (Sept. 2010). Victimization During Household Burglary

Shields, G., King, W.R. & Fulks, S. (2004). Determinants Of Perceived Safety Among The Elderly: An Exploratory Study. Journal Of Gerontological Social Work, 38, 73-83.

Truman, J.L., & M. Planty. (2012) Criminal Victimization, 2011. Bureau Of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington, Dc: Office Of Justice Programs.

C. INTERNET RESOURCES, ARTICLES AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS

Bureau Of Justice Statistics (2014). Location. Retrieved March 17 2016 From Http://Www.Bjs.Gov/Index.Cfm?Ty=Tp&Tid=44

Californians For Safety And Justice, (2013) Available At:Http://Libcloud.S3.Amazonaws.Com/211/72/D/228/2/Victimsreport_07_16_13.Pdf

Devin Kowalczyk (2015). Descriptive Research Design: Definition, Examples & Types. Retrieved March 09, 2016, From Http:// Study.Com /Academy /Lesson /Descriptive-Reseracg-Design-Definition-Examples-Types.Html.

Gregory M. Herek, Et Al. Hate Crime Victimization Among Lesbian, Gay, And Bisexual Adults Prevalence, Psychological Correlates, And Methodological Issues. Retrieved March 17 2016, From Http://Jiv.Sagepub.Com/Content/12/2/195.Short?Rss=1&Ssource=Mfc

National Archive Of Criminal Justice Data (2010). National Crime Victimization Survey Resource Guide. Retrieved March 17, 2016, From Http://Www.Icpsr.Umich.Edu/Icpsrweb/Nacjd/Ncvs/

National Center For Biotechnology Information. Youth Violence: A Report Of The Surgeon General. Retrieved March 17 2016 From Http://Www.Ncbi.Nlm.Nih.Gov/Books/Nbk44301/

National Center For Education Statistics. Retrieved March 17 2016 From Http://Nces.Ed.Gov/Fastfacts/Display.Asp?Id=49

National Center For Victims Of Crime (2012). The Trauma Of Victimization. Retrieved March 17 2016 From Http://Www.Victimsofcrime.Org/Help-For-Crime-Victims/Get-Help-Bulletins-For-Crime-Victims/Trauma-Of-Victimization

National Institute Of Justice, October 26, 2010. Victims And Perpetrators. Retrieved March 17, 2016 From Http://Www.Nij.Gov/Topics/Crime/Rape-Sexual-Violence/Pages/Victims-Perpetrators.Aspx

Rape Abuse & Incest National Network. How Often Does Sexual Assault Occur?. Retrieved March 17 2016 From Https://Rainn.Org/Get-Information/Statistics/Frequency-Of-Sexual-Assault

Samuel Perreault And Shannon Brennan (2009). Criminal Victimization In Canada, 2009. Retrieved March 17 2016, From Http://Www.Statcan.Gc.Ca/Pub/85-002-X/2010002/Article/11340-Eng.Htm

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½

APPENDIX A

Dear Respondent,

Greetings of Peace and Solidarity!

The undersigned group is currently pursuing a degree in Bachelor of Science in Criminology and as a final Requirement; we are required to write a thesis with the working title ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Incidence and Prevalence of Victimization of Students in Higher Education Institutions in Angeles Cityï¿½ï¿½ï¿½.

At this juncture, may we most humbly request that you take time to answer the prepared questionnaire, if you have questions, feel free to approach the undersigned representatives. Your response shall be treated with utmost confidentiality and professionalism and shall at all times handled with care. All data gathered herein shall be used only for the purpose of this study..

Thank you very much for your cooperation and support in this humble undertaking.

Mabuhay po kayo! God bless and Godspeed!

Respectfully,

KEVIN C YALUNG

CARL EDWIN P SANGAB

JOEMER S SANTOS

JAMES C YALUNG

IVAN T SICAT

Noted by:

DR. RHEM RICK N. CORPUZ

Adviser

APPENDIX B

REQUEST LETTER FOR THE POPULATION OF THE SCHOOL

APPENDIX C

POPULATION PER HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION

INSTRUMENT 1

QUESTIONNAIRE CHECKLIST

Name(Optional): ________________________________ Date:_________________

Course & Year: _________________________________

QUESTIONNAIRE CHECKLIST

Directions: Kindly accomplish this questionnaire checklist completely and as truthful, honest and straightforward as much as possible. The data herein shall be treated with utmost confidentiality and professionalism. Tick the line which corresponds to your answer and write the appropriate response on blanks provided.

I. PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS

1. School

( ) Angeles University Foundation ( ) Holy Angel University

( ) City College of Angeles ( ) Republic Central Colleges

2. Age

( ) 15-17 years old ( ) 18-20 years old ( ) 21-23 years old

( ) 24- 27 years old ( ) 28 years old ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ above

3. Gender

( ) Male ( ) Female

4. Civil Status

( ) Single ( ) Married ( ) Single Parent

5. Does your victimization occurred in the last 6 months?

( )Yes ( )No

6. How do you get to school most of the time this school?

( ) Walk ( ) School bus

( ) Public bus, subway, train ( ) Car

( ) Bicycle, motorbike, or motorcycle ( ) Other please specify,

( ) Jeepney

7. How long does it take you to get from your home to school most of the time?

( ) Less than 15 minutes ( ) 15-29 minutes

( ) 30-44 minutes ( ) 45-59 minutes

( ) 60 minutes or longer

8. Does your school take any measures to make sure the students are safe?

For example, does the following have:

a. Security guards, or assigned police officers?

( ) Yes ( )No

b. Other school staff or other adults supervising the hallway?

( ) Yes ( )No

c. Metal detectors, including wands?

( ) Yes ( )No

d. Locked entrance or exit doors during the day?

( ) Yes ( )No

e. A requirement that visitors sign in?

( ) Yes ( )No

f. Locker checks?

( ) Yes ( )No

g. A requirement that students wear badges or picture identification?

( ) Yes ( )No

h. One or more security cameras to monitor the school?

( ) Yes ( )No

i. A code of student conduct, that is, a set of written rules or guidelines that the school provides you?

( ) Yes ( )No

8b. If you hear about a threat to school or student safety, do you have a way to report it to someone in authority without giving your name?

( ) Yes ( )No

9a. In your classes, how often are you distracted from doing your school works because other students are misbehaving, for example, talking or fighting?

( ) Never ( ) Almost never

( ) Sometimes ( ) Most of the time

9b. In general, how often do teachers punish students during your classes?

( ) Never ( ) Almost never

( ) Sometimes ( ) Most of the time

10. Thinking about your school would you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the followingï¿½ï¿½ï¿½

a. Everyone knows what the school rules are.

( ) Strongly Agree ( ) Agree