submitted by us in partial fulfillment of the requirement of BS in Social Work is our original work. It shall also not be submitted to obtain any degree to any other University or institution.

Group Members

Syeda Wafa Zainab BSWF18M027

Muhammad Khan BSWF18M036

Rai Jawad Hussain BSWF17M033-R

Muzammil Ijaz BSWF18M007

Zain Raza Khan BSWF18M001

Faran Azeem BSWF18M012

Nouman Aslam BSWF18M005

Danial Sajjad BSWF18M010

Hamza Zahid BSWF18M019

Abu Bakar BSWF18M038

APPROVAL CERTIFICATE

The thesis entitled “Female Students Perception about In-Campus Safety: A Case Study of University of Sargodha” written by

Syeda Wafa Zainab , Muhammad Khan, Rai Jawad Hussain, Muzammil Ijaz, Zain Raza Khan, Faran Azeem, Nouman Aslam, Danial Sajjad, Hamza Zahid, M. Abu Bakar, is accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the Degree BS in Social Work .

Supervisor

Dr. Sadia Rafi

Department of Social Work

University of Sargodha

Chairman

Dr. Beenish Ijaz Butt

Department of Social Work

University of Sargodha.

_________________

Date:

DEDICATION

We dedicate ther project to Allah Almighty the most Beneficent and Merciful, who is our source of knowledge, wisdom and guidance. We are also delicate ther work to our respected supervisor and our family and friends whose encouragement has made sure that we give it all what it takes to finish ther work.

KNOWLEDGEMENTS

All praises for ALLAH ALMIGHTY, who enables us to know about certain unknown things in the universe and helps us to overcome a lot of difficulties. We are immeasurably indebted to ALLAHALMIGHTY, the propitious, the benevolent and sovereign whose blessing and glory flourished our thoughts, giving us a helping supervisor, talented teachers, affectionate parents, and unique friends.

All respect for the HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PBUH) who clearly mentioned the difference of right and wrong path, to ensure the success in our lives. Our each and every breath, our each and every gesture throughout our transient life has ever been grateful to the HOLY PROPHET (PBUH) who is the only paragon of guidance and knowledge for all humanity.

We are fortunate to have worthy Dr. Sadia Rafi as our supervisor. Simply speaking ther study has only been completed owing to her guidance based on her exposure to the world. We are deeply indebted and wish our utmost appreciation and gratitude to her for her encouragement, technical discussion, inspiring guidance, remarkable suggestions, keen interest and constructive criticism which enabled us to complete ther research study.

We are more earnestly obliged to our parents who always raised their hands for our success and gave us an environment to achieve ther goal. Thanks for your marvelous help, strenuous efforts and prayers done by all of you for our unbreakable success. In the end we are much thankful to ALLAH Almighty who enabled us to complete our research work. (Alhamdulillah)

Research Group

Syeda Wafa Zainab BSWF18M027

Muhammad Khan BSWF18M036

Rai Jawad Hussain BSWF17M033-R

Muzammil Ijaz BSWF18M007

Zain Raza Khan BSWF18M001

Faran Azeem BSWF18M012

Nouman Aslam BSWF18M005

Danial Sajjad BSWF18M010

Hamza Zahid BSWF18M019

Abu Bakar BSWF18M038

CHAPTER – 1

INTRODUCTION

The perception of safety on campus is not a novel topic; it is an issue that has always been thought of by many people. Institutions of higher learning are places where individuals develop skills to be used for the betterment of the society making it necessary to really pay attention to the campus safety perception of students.

In recent times, the safety of university campuses has become an issue of widespread. The issue could be attributed to the higher perception of risk of students due to several high profile cases that are covered by the National media in recent years. It could also be perhaps as a result of the increase in enrollment of students in our universities which is not commensurate with the number of security personnel provided by university authorities on our campuses. (Owusu, 2020)

The matter has been analyzed from the perspective that increases in Female enrolments levels could be a factor since female students are normally perceived as vulnerable when it comes to safety and security issues. Studies conducted by Chekwa, have found out that crime and violence are prevalent in school and higher learning communities (Burton & Leos hut, 2019).

Research studies have argued that violence on university campuses had always existed. As documented by Schackner (as cited in Pezza, 1995), hertorians have noted that the situation about safety on campuses of higher educational institutions existed way back in the fifteenth century. The literature has it that bloody and sometimes fatal encounters between townsfolk and students occurred. Also, in 1807, rioting and rebellion resulted in the suspension of more than half of the student’s population at Princeton University (as cited in Pezza, 1995)

1.1 Statement of Problems:

Many parents are concerned about the safety of their child on College/university campus away from home. The safety of college campuses has become an issue of widespread concern in recent years. Ther could be due to more female students going to colleges and universities today than ever before, as female students are often perceived as being more vulnerable than men, or because of higher perception of risk due to several high profile cases being covered in Pakistan in recent years (Riazul Haq 2019)

Pakistani university campuses are witnessing an increase in violence at an alarming rate. Last year’s tragic murder of Mashal khan at Bacha Khan University is an early warning that campuses have a tendency to degenerate into war zones. Last year the principle of a college was slain by a student in Charsada. Female students of Siraiki department at Bahauddin Zakariya University victimized to alleged gang rape. The same can be said of all big campuses in Pakistan. (R.A.siddiqui 2018)

In Pakistan, recent years have witnessed a mushroom growth of private-and public-sector Universities. Ther has increase security concern. During the last 15 years, 102 universities were established across the country. However, the current situation warrants the inclusion of strict security measures. Campus safety/security should not be left to the university administration alone. Further, merely establishing police station on campuses will not serve the purpose either. Technology based solution like CCTV cameras, metal-detector gates act as deterrents. (M.A Babakhel, 2020).

1.2 Background:

Henry Fielding developed the idea of crime prevention in 1748 (The complete Campus Crime Prevention Manual 8). During ther same period he also started to develop a police department in London. Crime prevention started with police officers but declined because they were more involved in criminal investigation. John C. Klotter, a professor at university of Louisville, was also influential in crime prevention. He founded the National Crime prevention Institute (NCPI) in 1971. These successful principle and concept of crime prevention used on campuses of Colleges and Universities around the world. (Brown, 2020).

The first university security department to open in the US was in 1894, at Yale University. The Yale campus police department was started to solve the problem between the students and the “townies” (people of the town around the university). Yale recruited police officers from the New Haven police department to staff the Yale Campus police Department. (Brown, 2020).

Campus security, in general, declined until the 1920, when watchmen were employed to protect college prosperity. The schools recruited retired police officers to run campus security. In the 1950’s the school were trying to install professionalism into campus security field by the use of uniforms and professional organizations (Fisher and Sloan 231).

Yet, ther increase in professionalism was still unable to improve the security officer’s knowledge of how to deal with the riots, sit-ins and vandalism found on college campuses in the 1950’s and 1960’s. The local police in ther era were prone to use force with arrest to handle campus situations. (Loud, 2020).

Campus security responsibility extended from every day students life to special events held on campus. Special events such as Sports, pep-rallies, special speakers, concerts, graduations, and theatre bring. No matter what the situation present, campus security must have a plan to address it. A large part of daily security life is dealing with the issue of proper parking of vehicles, which is magnified with special events.

A campus safety and security department must also keep a long of incidents that occurs on campus because of crime awareness and campus security act of 1990, enacted by President George Bush. In 1998 the title of the act was changed to the Jeanne Clery Act in memory of Jeanne Clery, who was murdered on a campus in 1986. Ther act mandates that all schools must report their crime statistic for the current year and three years of the schools.

Today there are occurrence of terrorism, medical emergencies and natural disaster, when campus security will be expected to work hand in hand with local, state, and federal agencies. Terrorism on campus is a very real possibility and is sometime hard to prevent. Schools are considered “soft” targets. They are unsuspecting and multicultural, with great freedom of movement and a large population in a small area.

Campus safety and security originated to solve the problems existing between college students and “townies.” It has evolved to encompass a total approach to asset protection and loss control. Contemporary campus security departments should not only concerned them with the quality of daily campus life but must extend their vision to create the needed liaisons with outside agencies for situation they cannot deal with alone. (Brown, 2020).

1.3 Campus Safety Sargodha Campus:

Within the past few decades, crime on college campuses has become growing issue. Throughout the years, society has viewed university campuses as a sanctuaries that were immune to the crime faced by the larger society that surrounding them. In the 1980s, concern increased about criminal activity, safety and security on university campuses (Department of Education 2021).

Statistically female students feel less safe on college campuses than men (Bryden & Fletcher, 2020; Bryden & Fletcher, 2009; Dobbs, Waid & Shelley, 2009; Kelly & Torres, 2006; Wilcox, Jordan & Pritchard, 2020). Based on reported crimes, female students tend to be attacked more than men. While most crimes happen to college students, faculty and staff are often victims as well. (Raymond, 2020).

Recent incidents of campus violence across the country have placed a spotlight on safety and security in the college environment. If fear of violence or victimization overtakes students “mind while on campus, they will not be able to grow emotionally, socially, or academically (Gargan, 2020).

Stalking incidents also have the potential for sexual assault’ and violence. “Many different style of harassment compromise stalking. For the most part, stalking will usually take the form of annoying, threatening. Or obscene telephone calls or letters….. Stalking will conduct covert surveillance of the victim. Following every move the target makes and then informing her her by telephone or mail that their every move has been observed” (Gargan, 2019).

A report by the Association of American Colleges (1987), noted that female students who have knowledge of rape incidents on campus may choose to drop or to not register for night classes. The report also concluded that, “Fear of rape and uncertainty about campus security also often prevent female students from: attending extracurricular activities scheduled at night; using the library; using athletic facilities; and applying for jobs or maintaining employment during the evening hours” (Trump & Kenneth, 2020).

Today’s colleges and universities are faced with many challenges in the attempt to provide a campus which is safe and secure. The college campus has traditionally been known as a safe haven for students, but recent tragic events have left the leaders of higher education with the challenges of preparing for tragedies that could happen on their campuses (Goshen & Kentucky, 2020).

Mental health issues have also continued to become more prevalent in society and are often displayed in the students on today’s college campuses. Research from those with strong student-life administration background indicate many students are dealing with family issue, returning from active duty, dealing with relationship issues, or peer pressure which is causing them to seek violence as a solution (Thomas, 1995).

Most crime against female students that occur on colleges campuses is sexual assaults. While rape remains grossly underreported on college campuses, a survey indicated that “out of 1,000 female students 4.9% indicated they were victims of attempted or completed rapes” (Charles C. 2019).

1.4 Statement of the Problem

The study of the “perception of female students about in-campus safety” conducted in University of Sargodha.

1.5 Objectives:

Main objective:

To determine the experience of female students about safety in campus

Sub objectives:

To find out the socio economic and demographic characteristics of the respondents
To determine the extent to which students are concerned about safety in campus.
To determine what factor contribute to students feeling of insecuirty.

To identify the problem faced by female students in campus at day time.
To identify the attitude of female students toward harassment on campus secuirty.
6 Justification of the study:

Ther study focuses on students “perceptions of female scholar about campus safety”. By focusing on female scholar perceptions, ther research aims to reveal the types of safety issues female students are concerned about. Investigating the perception of students on safety on campus is very useful in that the study provides a rich platform to explore the issue on safety and security with a view to helping administration and University Management alike to address to pressing security issues that confront students through innovating policies.

1.7 Operational Definition

Campus:

Any part of Sargodha University’s campus including residence halls, Academic buildings, open spaces, sidewalks, parking lots, etc.

Campus environment:

A place that has a unique cultural and social identity is defined by the way it is used and the students who use it. By doing ther, the physical social, environmental, and economic states of campuses are taken in to consideration.

Perception (of student):

Student’s awareness, feelings, or sense based on environment

Safe:

Free from hurt, injury, danger, or risk.

Student:

Any person currently enrolled in classes at Sargodha University in undergraduate and graduate students.

CHAPTER NO.2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Introduction to the literature Review

Ther thesis focuses on student perception of safety on Sargodha University campus; therefore it is important to first understand the literature and research on campus safety and security. It is also important to examine the effectiveness of campus safety and security methods and educational programming for students on how to prevent campus crime. Due to an increase in campus crime and violence nationally, researchers now focus on campus safety and security more than ever before.

2.2 About campus safety:

Campus security and safety is an important feature of postsecondary education. The Department of Education is committed to assisting school in providing students nationwide a safe environment in which to learn and to keep students, parents and employees well informed about campus security. These goals were advanced by the Crime Awareness and Campus security Act of 1990. The Department is committed to ensure that postsecondary institutions are in full compliance with that Act, and enforcement of the Act is a priority of the Department (NAICU, 2019).

Safety and security must be front of mind for university and college administrators. Protecting the wellbeing of students, staff, faculty, and guests is not only simply the right thing to do, but it is also reduced risk and exposure for the institution itself. While ther has always been true, colleges and universities are now dealing with greater variety of incidents while also being subjected to a much higher level of public scrutiny (Carolyn Parent, 2018).

A safe campus environment is priority for colleges, students, and their families alike. Students, faculty, administrators, and visitors should feel safe and secure any time they step foot on a college campus. As such, institutions have devoted significant resources to campus security personnel and safety measures, and lawmakers have maintained an active interest in the issue. (Barton 2020).

Recent events such as the shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University which involved mass shooting leaving at least five dead on each campus and ending with the perpetrator committing suicide, have received a lot of media attention and may have altered the way people view the place where they live, work, and/or study. Unfortunately, these attacks have little impact on research and scholarly attention to campus safety (Sulkowski , Lazarus 2019).

Baker and Boland (2019) claim that colleges and universities have started to examine and implement safety measures due to the resent decade of on campus shootings and sexual assaults. In an analysis of college campus safety, 22% of 564 students reported being a victim of at least one type of crime. To lower the perception of victimizations on campus findings suggest that simply adding or changing certain campus structures such as lighting or central walkways can greatly reduce the chance of victimization on campus (Jennings, Gover, Pudrzynska 2020).

According to the US Department of Education (2019), since 1988 more female students than men have been enrolling in degree-granting institutions. Any incident that happens on a college campus can happen to both men and female students but multiple studies have found that female students are more likely to be sexually harassed compared to men and have a negative consequence because of it (Bryden & Fletcher, 2020).

In the study by Bryden and Fletcher, the females took more precaution compared to the men and felt less safe on campus. Neither gender differed on their opinions about how the campus could improve their safety programs. Both genders knew of the safety programs available to them and took advantage. While they did not have opinion about how the campus could improve their safety programs, they did have different opinions about their satisfaction about it (Wilcox et al, 2020).

Men felt very satisfied with campus safety, most of the female students felt somewhat satisfied. In another study done with undergraduates, the female students experienced sexual assault more than men. Some of the participants even experienced more than three types of harassments. Researcher found that overall victimization was a frequent event and that sexual assault and personal victimization was low. These students feared crime but they believed that their campus was safer (Jennings, Gover, et al 2020).

According to the U.S. Department of Education (2019), since 1988 more female students than men have been enrolling in degree-granting institutions. Any incident that happens on a college campus can happen to both men and female students but multiple studies have found that female students are more likely to be sexually harassed compared to men and have a negative consequence because of it (Bryden & Fletcher, 2020).

In the study by Bryden and Fletcher, the females took more precaution compared to the men and felt less safe on campus. Neither gender differed on their opinions about how the campus could improve their safety programs. Both genders knew of the safety programs available to them and took advantage. While they did not have any opinions about how the campus could improve their safety programs, they did have different opinions about their satisfaction about it. While men felt very satisfied with campus safety, most of the female students felt somewhat satisfied. (Wilcox et al., 2020).

In another study done with undergraduates, the female students experienced sexual assault more than men. Some of the participants even experienced more than three types of harassment. Jennings, Gover, and Pudrzynska (2020) found that overall victimization was a frequent event and that sexual assault and personal victimization was low. These students feared crime but they believed that their campus was safer (Jennings, Gover, 2020).

To lower the percent of victimizations on campus findings suggest that simply adding or changing certain campus structures such as lighting or central walkways can greatly reduce the chances of victimization on campus (Jennings, Gover, & Pudrzynska 2020).

Researchers pay particular attention to crime against female students and their perception of campus safety. Most crimes against female students that occur on college campuses are sexual assaults. While rape remains grossly underreported on college campuses, a survey indicated that “out of 1,000 female students, 4.9% indicated they were victims of attempted or completed rapes” (Shafer 2020).

Female students on college campuses face more of a risk for rape than those not on a college campus. Education is one way colleges and universities try to combat sexual assaults on their campuses. On many campuses, female students are often given the opportunity to take self-defense classes. Alcohol awareness programs also aim to teach students about the dangers of binge drinking (Wilcox, 2020).

Alcohol use and sexual assault are often linked to Greek life on college campuses. Researchers claim that fraternities are often the source of many sexual assaults because they “commodity female students, “use them [female students] to attract new members,” and “provide sexual access to them as a presumed benefit to fraternity membership” (Belknap 2020).

College campuses are most often portrayed as safe havens for students, but have played host to students who have experienced some sort of criminal activity. Our nation’s college campuses are primarily compromised of teens and young adult students ranging in ages of 18-24.

Most of these students in ther age group are experiencing freedom from their parents and have their own sense of responsibility for the first time in their lives. Ther transition period from youth to adulthood can be difficult for some students and can ultimately result in experimenting in criminal activity which affects not only themselves, but others around them (McConnell 2021).

Fear of crime was an emerging social problem in the 1960, when President Lyndon B. Johnson told legislators that “crime – and fear of crime – has become a public malady”. Since the 1970s, when the data on fear of crime become available through the General Social Survey and the National Crime Survey, fear of crime emerged as a significant research issue (Ferraro 2020).

For example, research has demonstrated that female students are more afraid victims than men, even though men are more likely to become victims (Ferraro 2019). Fear of crime as it relates to routine activities and environment is a significant research area. Routine activities theories consider the idea that crime is dependent upon the opportunities presented by people’s everyday activities (Osgood, et al. 1996: 635).

It is clear from that campus crime is not a random event, but rather can be correlated with certain specific characteristics of the student’s body and the college campus. He finds that race and sex have a highly significant effect on the likelihood of victimization in campus violence and that 65% of violent acts against students go unreported and that “students were under the influence of alcohol or other drugs in 64% of physical assaults” (Carr, 2021).

Fear of crime, is hard to measure. Wilcox et al. (2020) defined different sense of the mind which deal emotional feelings, behavioral components, and cognitive instincts but are summarized as having crime specific techniques. Ther can be connected to fear in certain points of the day or certain places such as fear of crime during the evening would in most instances being higher than fear of crime during the day. All of these senses play a particular rule in fear of crime and are different for every person (Rader, 2019).

Campus crime has become a more significant area of research, with much of the literature focusing on specific area such as binge drinking, whether university police should carry weapons, overall commentaries about the problems of campus crimes, handbooks for administrators or case studies of specific crimes that occurred either on college campuses or by university students off campus. (McConnell, 2019).

Crime is a reality on the college campus which students will have to deal with. Other crimes on campus include, but are not limited to, burglary, vehicle theft, vandalism, battery, harassment, fraud, possession of a weapon and disorderly conduct. Although these types of criminal activities exist on the university’s campus, there have been other significant events which have occurred on our nation’s college and university’s campuses which have gathered attention around the world (R.A siddiqui 2020).

Campus violence can affect both the individual and the institution. On an individual level the effects of violence on individual can be in cognitive or behavioral domains. The national institute of justice reports that victims can suffer short and long term health issues, such as sexually-transmitted diseases, anxiety, eating disorders, chronic illness, and post-traumatic stress disorder (Backes. B, 2020).

University students who have been sexually assaulted are more likely to engage in risky behaviors, such as binge drinking and drug use, and have lowered academic achievement and they may be at greater risk for re-victimization. Students in higher education go through violence that affects their safety, ther violence comprises of sexual abuse, rape, hazing, vandalism, theft, aggravated assault, stalking and murder (Oluwajana, 2019).

Sexual assault is “A wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between the victim and offender. Sexual assault may or may not involve force and includes such things as grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also includes verbal threats” (Pak. Department of Education, 2020).

Sexual harassment is “Unsolicited, offensive behavior that inappropriately asserts sexuality over another person. The behavior may be verbal or nonverbal”. In university’s stalking can affect the security and wellbeing of female students. Hazing is the act of carrying out nasty tricks on an individual or making a person about to be initiated into a group to perform terrible deeds that can affect their safety or the safety of others around her or her (Merriam-Webster Online).

Safety policies must respect institutions as unique environments of higher learning. Acts of extreme violence often reflect hatred, intolerance, and bigotry, and people recognize that such behavior cannot be tolerated within campus environment. Studentship, creativity and the fruitful exchange of ideas and learning could not thrive. Through education and outreach, campuses can allow safety planning and preparation to flourish campus environment (Andre Simons, 2010).

In recognition of ther balance, safety strategies should be flexible. Rigid policies do not necessarily promote secure environment and may contribute to outlandish application of discipline that enrage and alienate the general campus populous. Administration should review harsh disciplinary measure that may discourage individuals from reporting concerns and suspicions for fear a fellow student will face unjust punishment. (Mario Scalora, 2020).

2.2 Campus Accountability and Safety Act:

The Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA) was a bill introduced in the 114^th United States Congress with the goal of reducing sexual violence on college and university campuses. First introduced in 2021, a revised bill was introduced in February 2020 by Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri

With nine bi-partisan cosponsors. 43 co-sponsors eventually signed on. The bill died in committee at the end of the session without reaching of floor vote in either house (McCaskill, 2020).

Supports of the bill believe that it will help to reform the sexual assault investigation process to protect victims and achieve prosecution of offenders by increasing transparency and cooperation between higher education institution and local law enforcement. Estimates from National Sexual Violence Resource Center places the number of men who survive sexual assault in collage at about 1 in every 16 student, and for female students, every 1 in 5 (WorldNet website 2018).

CASA would require all school (colleges and universities) to appoint confidential advisors to assist students claiming to be sexual assault. These advisors would be trained to conduct forensic interview with students for the purpose of gathering facts on the alleged crimes. They would also advise students on their option for the next steps, and serve as liaisons with local law enforcement in cases where a student’s chooses to report the case to the police. Confidential advisor would not be obligated to report to other personnel at the college/university (McCaskill 2019).

Institution only had to keep track of forcible and non-forcible sex offenses (in addition to other crimes, such as robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft and arson). Institution must also maintain statistics on dating violence, sexual assault and stalking incidents. Each institution is also required to provide an explanation of its anti-sexual violence policies and procedure in its Annual Security Report, a report that includes statistics for crime committed on and near campus over the past three years. (McCaskill 2019)

CHAPTER NO: 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction:

Methodology means that process and procedure in which our research plan is designed, while research design mean the connection between research method and the process in which we collect information from our respondent. It is Qualitative study; by using the questionnaire on the “

perception of female students about in-campus safety”

is examined. Universe of ther research is University of Sargodha. Only 120 questionnaires are divided through “random” sampling method. The survey questionnaire examines perception of female scholar about campus safety. Data is analyzed on “SPSS” software.

3.2Qualitative Research:

Qualitative research can be defined as the study of the nature of phenomena and is especially appropriate for answering questions of why something is (not) observed, assessing complex multi-component interventions, and focussing on intervention improvement.

3.3 Research Design:

Research design is the arrangement of the condition in an empirical research project. There are different types of studies in research. These include descriptive, experimental, exploratory and case study. They all facilitate researchers to gain the knowledge about the facts. Research design mainly consists of three processes (1) data collection process (2) to choose an instrument and (3) the sampling process.

The main technique used in ther research is questionnaire. Simple random sampling work used for collection of data.

3.4 Research procedure:

The research was conducted on the female students of University of Sargodha (Main Campus).The respondents were selected through Simple Random Sampling. The survey was conducted for the female students to fill up the questionnaire containing 49 items for the objectives. The respondents were given five or three option to select any of their choice by likert scale.

3.4.1 Universe:

The word universe is used to denote the aggregate from which the sample is chosen. The researcher can say that, it is that area where they are going to conduct the research.

The present study was conducted in University of Sargodha (Main Campus).

3.5 Sampling techniques:

The study used random sampling techniques to select female students who agreed to respond willingly to survey questionnaire.

3.5.1 Random sampling:

Random sampling is a part of the sampling technique in which each sample has an equal probability of being chosen. A sample chosen randomly is meant to be an unbiased representation of the total population. If for some reason, the sample does not represent the population, the variation is called a sampling error.

3.5.2 Sample:

Sample is defined as the actual units which are selected to participate in the study (Troncher, 2005). A sample is the subject of the population that is taken to be the representative of entire population.

According to Good & Hat (1952), “a sample refer to a small representative of universe or population”

Female sample in ther research was taken from university students.

3.5.3 Sample size:

It is not for researcher to study all the cases in the population so that they draw sample from the populations that have similar characteristics.

A statistical sample is miniature picture on cross section of entire group or agnate from which sample is taken (Nachmias, 2021).

Keeping in view above lines the researcher’s selected 120 respondents to collect the data of question. Because, to reach every female of the population was the reseachers take the data from Sir syed block, having department,Education,Psychology,Political Sceince,Iternational Relation and Social work.

3.6 Tool of data collection:

Qualitative study was used for research and samples were taken from different departments throughout University of Sargodha.

In ther research, survey method and questionnaire was selected as a tool for data collection. The questionnaire contains minimum 49 questions which are asked to female. It was designed to get information about the campus safety.

3.6.1 Questionnaire:

In ther research survey method and questionnaire was selected as a tool for data collection. The questionnaire was distributed to respondents for getting appropriate answers from them.

3.6.2 Likert Scale:

Likert scales are survey questions that offer a range of answers options; from one extreme attitude to another, like “strongly agree”. Typically they include a moderate or neutral midpoint. (Rensis Likert). In ther research, there were five or three possible answers from respondents. These were strongly agree, agree, neutral, strongly disagree, and disagree. The second possible answers from respondents are to great extent, to some extent, not at all. So, Rensis Likert scale was used in ther research

SPSS for Data Analyses:

SPSS V, 23 statistics is a software package used for logical batched and non-batched statistical analysis.

3.7 Statistical Data analysis:

According to Godfrey (2021), data analysis is the process of gathering, modeling and transforming data with the goal of highlighting useful information, suggestion, and conclusion and supporting decision making. For ther purpose the statistical package for social science (SPSS) was used. Repondents of ther study are 120 female students from University of Sargodha. The collected data were analyzed by using statistical method. Data were analyzed by using frequency, percentage and have done by tables.

3.8 STATISTICAL DATA ANALYSIS

3.8.1 Frequency Distribution:

The data that have been coded and prepared for automatic processing are now ready for analysis. The first task is to construct frequency distributions to examine the pattern of the responses to each of the independent and dependent variables under investigations. A frequency distribution of a single variables, sometime referred to as a uni-variate frequency distribution, is the frequency of observations in each category of a variable.

To construct a frequency distribution, the researcher simply lists the categories of the variable and counts the number of observation in each. It gives the standard from of a uni-variate frequency distribution

f= n/T*100%

Where:

n = Number of respondents in a single gender classification.

T = Total number of respondents including all the gender classification.

Percentage:

In order to bring the data into comparable form, percentage of various categories of data were worked out in the present study. The percentages were calculated by following formula;

Percentage=——————x100

Where:

F= Frequency

N= Total numbers

CHAPTER: 4

DATA ANALYSIS

Data analysis and interpretation is the process of assigning meaning to the collected information and determining the conclusions, significance, and implications of the findings. In ther chapter data is interpreted through tables in detail

Frequency and Percentage Distribution:

Table No: 4.1

Age of the respondents
Category		Frequency	Percent
	18-20	36	30.0
	21-23	56	46.7
	24 and above	28	23.3
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding their age. According to the table 30% respondents have age between 18-20 years, 46.7% respondents have age between 21-23 years and 23.3% respondents have age of 24 years and above.

Table No: 4.2

Academic Degree Program
Category		Frequency	Percent
	BS	44	36.7
	M.A/M.Sc.	55	45.8
	M.Phil.	21	17.5
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding their academic degree program. According to the table 36.7% respondents are from BS, 45.8% respondents are from M.A/M.Sc., and 17.5% respondents are from M.Phil.

Table No: 4.3

Department of the respondents
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Social Work	24	20
	Education	24	20
	Psychology	24	20
	Political science	24	20
	International Relation	24	20
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding their department. According to the table 20% students belong to Social Work, 20% students belong to Education, 20% students belong to Psychology, 20% students belong to Political science and 20% students belong to International Relation.

Table No: 4.4

Parents Profession
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Government Sector	55	45.8
	Private Sector	65	54.2
	Total	120	100.0

The above Table shows the frequency distribution regarding their Parent’s profession. According to the table 45.8% work in Government sector while, 54.2% work in Private sector

Table No: 4.5

Family Income
Category		Frequency	Percent
	10000-25000	6	5.0
	26000-40000	30	25.0
	41000-55000	46	38.3
	55000 and above	38	31.7
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding their family income. According to the table 5% respondents have family income in-between 10000-25000, 25% respondents have family income in-between 26000-40000, 38.3% respondents have family income between 41000-55000 while, and 31.7% respondents have family income of 55000 or above.

Table No: 4.6

Total Family Members
Category		Frequency	Percent
	2-4	15	12.5
	5-7	68	56.7
	8-10	37	30.8
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents family members. According to the table 12.5% respondents have 2-4 family members, 56.7% respondents have 5-7 family members while, and 30.8% respondents have 8-10 family members.

Table No: 4.7

Residential Status
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Hostels	55	45.8
	Day Scholar	65	54.2
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding their Residential status. According to the table 45.8% respondents live in Hostels, while 54.2% respondents are day students

Table No: 4.8

Background of the respondents
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Rural	70	58.3
	Urban	50	41.7
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding their background. According to the table 58.3% respondents belong to rural background, while 41.7% respondents belong to urban background.

Table No: 4.9

Security arrangement in our university gate/hostel is satisfactory
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Strongly Agree	44	36.7
	Agree	33	27.5
	Neutral	6	5.0
	Strongly Disagree	16	13.3
	Disagree	21	17.5
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Security arrangement in our university gate/hostel is satisfactory”. According to the table 36.7% strongly agree, 27.5 % agree, 5% neutral, 13.3% strongly disagree and % 17.5 disgree with the statement.

Table No: 4.10

Department/hostel opening and closing hours are appropriate
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Strongly Agree	19	15.8
	Agree	52	43.3
	Neutral	7	5.8
	Strongly Disagree	25	20.8
	Disagree	17	14.2
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Department/hostel opening and closing hours are appropriate”. According to the table 15.8 % strongly agree, 43.3 % agree, 5.8 % neutral, 20.8 % strongly disagree and 14.2 % disagree with the statement.

Table No: 4.11

Security squad available at university campus are enough and skilled
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Strongly Agree	16	13.3
	Agree	19	15.8
	Neutral	19	15.8
	Strongly Disagree	36	30.0
	Disagree	30	25.0
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Security squad available at university campus are enough and skilled”. According to the table 13.3% strongly agree, 15.8 % agree, 15.8 % neutral, 30 % strongly disagree and 25 % disagree with the statement.

Table No: 4.12 I am satisfied with the level of security in our residence hall within campus
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Strongly Agree	12	10.0
	Agree	27	22.5
	Neutral	13	10.8
	Strongly Disagree	38	31.7
	Disagree	30	25.0
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “I am satisfied with the level of security in our residence hall within campus”. According to the table 10 % strongly agree, 22.5 % agree, 10.8 % neutral, 31.7 % strongly disagree and 25 % disagree with the statement.

Table No: 4.13

The university has taken necessary steps to make campus safe
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Strongly Agree	14	11.7
	Agree	36	30.0
	Neutral	20	16.7
	Strongly Disagree	23	19.2
	Disagree	27	22.5
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “The University has taken necessary steps to make campus safe”. According to the table 11.7 % strongly agree, 30 % agree, 16.7 % neutral, 19.2 % strongly disagree and 22.5 % disagree with the statement.

Table No: 4.14

I know where I can go to get help if I have an emergency at campus.
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Strongly Agree	11	9.2
	Agree	21	17.5
	Neutral	30	25.0
	Strongly Disagree	25	20.8
	Disagree	33	27.5
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “I know where I can go to get help if I have an emergency at campus”. According to the table 9.2% strongly agree, 17.5 % agree, 25% neutral, 20.8 % strongly disagree and 27.5 % disagree with the statement.

Table No: 4.15

In case of some emergency situation I can trust and seek help from university administration/faculty
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Strongly Agree	21	17.5
	Agree	21	17.5
	Neutral	33	27.5
	Strongly Disagree	23	19.2
	Disagree	22	18.3
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “In case of some emergency situation I can trust and seek help from university administration/faculty”. According to the table 17.5 % strongly agree, 17.5 % agree, 27.5 % neutral, 19.2 % strongly disagree and 18.3 % disagree with the statement.

Table No: 4.16

I feel the campus buildings are safe from security point of view
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Strongly Agree	26	21.7
	Agree	32	26.7
	Neutral	20	16.7
	Strongly Disagree	30	25.0
	Disagree	12	10.0
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “I feel the campus buildings are safe from security point of view “. According to the table 21.7 % strongly agree, 26.7 % agree, 16.7 % neutral, 25 % strongly disagree and 10 % disagree with the statement.

Table No: 4.17

Departments are not designed and built at for off places within campus
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Strongly Agree	19	15.8
	Agree	45	37.5
	Neutral	27	22.5
	Strongly Disagree	21	17.5
	Disagree	8	6.7
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Departments are not designed and built at for off places within campus”. According to the table 15.8% strongly agree, 37.5 % agree, 22.5 % neutral, 17.5 % strongly disagree and 6.7 % disagree with the statement.

Table No: 4.18

Presence of campus police
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Strongly Agree	28	23.3
	Agree	54	45.0
	Neutral	11	9.2
	Strongly Disagree	19	15.8
	Disagree	8	6.7
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Presence of campus police”. According to the table 23.3 % strongly agree, 45 % agree, 9.2 % neutral, 15.8 % strongly disagree and 6.7 % disagree with the statement.

Table No: 4.19

Satisfaction with our campus environment
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Strongly Agree	14	11.7
	Agree	71	59.2
	Neutral	15	12.5
	Strongly Disagree	4	3.3
	Disagree	16	13.3
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Satisfaction with our campus environment”. According to the table 11.7 % strongly agree, 59.2% agree, 12.5 % neutral, 3.3 % strongly disagree and 13.3 % disagree with the statement.

Table No: 4.20

Scared and threatened walking through campus.
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Strongly Agree	18	15.0
	Agree	47	39.2
	Neutral	25	20.8
	Strongly Disagree	15	12.5
	Disagree	15	12.5
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Scared and threatened walking through campus”. According to the table 15% strongly agree, 39.2% agree, 20.8% neutral, 12.5% strongly disagree, 12.5% disagree with the statement.

Table No: 4.21

Being comfortable walking through campus at evening.
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Strongly Agree	14	11.7
	Agree	44	36.7
	Neutral	23	19.2
	Strongly Disagree	28	23.3
	Disagree	11	9.2
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Being comfortable walking through campus at evening”. According to the table 11.7 % strongly agree, 36.7 % agree, 19.2 % neutral, 23.3 % strongly disagree and 9.2 % disagree with the statement.

Table No: 4.22

Being uncomfortable walking through parking area alone
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Strongly Agree	35	29.2
	Agree	40	33.3
	Neutral	20	16.7
	Strongly Disagree	16	13.3
	Disagree	9	7.5
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Being uncomfortable walking through parking area alone”. According to the table 29.2 % strongly agree, 33.3 % agree, 16.7 % neutral, 13.3 % strongly disagree and 7.5 % disagree with the statement.

Table No: 4.23

Afraid of being attacked by someone with a weapon.
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Strongly Agree	27	22.5
	Agree	42	35.0
	Neutral	14	11.7
	Strongly Disagree	26	21.7
	Disagree	11	9.2
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Afraid of being attacked by someone with a weapon”. According to the table 22.5 % strongly agree, 35 % agree, 11.7 % neutral, 21.7 % strongly disagree and 9.2 % disagree with the statement.

Table No: 4.24

Worried being a crime victim on campus
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Strongly Agree	29	24.2
	Agree	31	25.8
	Neutral	21	17.5
	Strongly Disagree	25	20.8
	Disagree	14	11.7
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Worried being a crime victim on campus”. According to the table 24.2 % strongly agree, 25.8% agree, 17.5 % neutral, 20.8 % strongly disagree and 11.7 % disagree with the statement.

Table No: 4.25

UOS security wing provides a comfortable and safe environment within the campus
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Strongly Agree	27	22.5
	Agree	42	35.0
	Neutral	15	12.5
	Strongly Disagree	26	21.7
	Disagree	10	8.3
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “UOS security wing provides a comfortable and safe environment within the campus”. According to the table 22.5 % strongly agree, 35% agree, 12.5 % neutral, 21.7 % strongly disagree and 8.3 % disagree with the statement.

Table No: 4.26

I would recommend ther university as a safe place to others.
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Strongly Agree	29	24.2
	Agree	41	34.2
	Neutral	22	18.3
	Strongly Disagree	16	13.3
	Disagree	12	10.0
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “I would recommend ther university as a safe place to others”. According to the table 24.2 % strongly agree, 34.2 % agree, 18.3 % neutral, 13.3 % strongly disagree and 10 % disagree with the statement.

Table No: 4.27

I feel uncomfortable being ourself on different basis within campus
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	18	15.0
	To Some Extent	64	53.3
	Not at All	38	31.7
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “I feel uncomfortable being ourself on different basis within campus”. According to the table 15% respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 53.3% respondents agree to some extent while, 31.7% respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.28

I am scared of being followed while walking alone in campus
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	30	25.0
	To Some Extent	60	50.0
	Not at All	30	25.0
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “I am scared of being followed while walking alone in campus”. According to the table 25 % respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 50% respondents agree to some extent while, 25% respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.29

I am afraid of being captured by stranger cell phone at campus.
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	38	31.7
	To Some Extent	54	45.0
	Not at All	28	23.3
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “I am afraid of being captured by stranger cell phone at campus”. According to the table 31.7 % respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 45% respondents agree to some extent while, 23.3 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.30

I am afraid of being blackmailed by someone after capturing me without permission at campus.
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	37	30.8
	To Some Extent	59	49.2
	Not at All	24	20.0
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “I am afraid of being blackmailed by someone after capturing me without permission at campus”. According to the table 30.8 % respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 49.2 % respondents agree to some extent while, 20 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.31

I am afraid of our personal cell phone number being hacked from various sources at campus
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	38	31.7
	To Some Extent	57	47.5
	Not at All	25	20.8
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “I am afraid of our personal cell phone number being hacked from various sources at campus”. According to the table 31.7 % respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 47.5 % respondents agree to some extent while, 20.8 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.32

I am afraid of being sexually assaulted at campus
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	40	33.3
	To Some Extent	45	37.5
	Not at All	35	29.2
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “I am afraid of being sexually assaulted at campus”. According to the table 33.3 % respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 37.5 % respondents agree to some extent while, 29.2 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.33 Harassment is a crime which people are afraid/ashamed to express about.
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	54	45.0
	To Some Extent	36	30.0
	Not at All	30	25.0
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Harassment is a crime which people are afraid/ashamed to express about”. According to the table 45 % respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 30 % respondents agree to some extent while, 25 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.34 Unawareness among students about right and complaint mechanism
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	33	27.5
	To Some Extent	67	55.8
	Not at All	20	16.7
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Unawareness among students about right and complaint mechanism”. According to the table 27.5 % respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 55.8 % respondents agree to some extent while, 16.7 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.35

Students face harassment at campus but don’t register.
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	47	39.2
	To Some Extent	38	31.7
	Not at All	35	29.2
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Students face harassment at campus but don’t register”. According to the table 39.2 % respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 31.7 % respondents agree to some extent while, 29.2 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.36 There is effective complaint mechanism against harassment at campus.
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	16	13.3
	To Some Extent	50	41.7
	Not at All	54	45.0
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “There is effective complaint mechanism against harassment at campus”. According to the table 13.3 % respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 41.7 % respondents agree to some extent while, 45 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.37 The number of harassment incidents is low within our campus.
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	33	27.5
	To Some Extent	49	40.8
	Not at All	38	31.7
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “The number of harassment incidents is low within our campus”. According to the table 27.5 % respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 40.8 % respondents agree to some extent while, 31.7 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.38 Being unsafe in classroom during evening time
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	19	15.8
	To Some Extent	52	43.3
	Not at All	49	40.8
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Being unsafe in classroom during evening time”. According to the table 15.8 % respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 43.3 % respondents agree to some extent while, 40.8 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.39 Being comfortable with our teaching faculty
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	43	35.8
	To Some Extent	52	43.3
	Not at All	25	20.8
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Being comfortable with our teaching faculty”. According to the table 35.8 % respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 43.3 % respondents agree to some extent while, 20.8 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.40 Students at our class treat me respectfully
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	72	60.0
	To Some Extent	34	28.3
	Not at All	14	11.7
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Students at our class treat me respectfully”. According to the table 60 % respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 28.3 % respondents agree to some extent while, 11.7 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.41 Being uncomfortable to talk with male students during discussion
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	23	19.2
	To Some Extent	57	47.5
	Not at All	40	33.3
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Being uncomfortable to talk with male students during discussion”. According to the table 19.2% respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 47.5 % respondents agree to some extent while, 33.3 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.42 Being uncomfortable visiting faculty/staff at their offices.
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	37	30.8
	To Some Extent	51	42.5
	Not at All	32	26.7
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Being uncomfortable visiting faculty/staff at their offices”. According to the table 30.8 % respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 42.5 % respondents agree to some extent while, 26.7 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.43 While facing sexual harassment at any place within office, shouting right at the spot.
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	35	29.2
	To Some Extent	46	38.3
	Not at All	39	32.5
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “While facing sexual harassment at any place within office, shouting right at the spot”. According to the table 29.2 % respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 38.3 % respondents agree to some extent while, 32.5 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.44 After being harassed running away from the place.
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	27	22.5
	To Some Extent	60	50.0
	Not at All	33	27.5
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “After being harassed running away from the place”. According to the table 22.5 % respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 50 % respondents agree to some extent while 27.5 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.45 Seeking help from departmental management/nearest resource person
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	48	40.0
	To Some Extent	48	40.0
	Not at All	24	20.0
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Seeking help from departmental management/nearest resource person”. According to the table 40% respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 40 % respondents agree to some extent while, 20 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.46 Making a phone call to friends/family.
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	60	50.0
	To Some Extent	46	38.3
	Not at All	14	11.7
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Making a phone call to friends/family”. According to the table 50 % respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 38.3 % respondents agree to some extent while, 11.7 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.47 Going to harassment cell, registering a complaint
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	52	43.3
	To Some Extent	35	29.2
	Not at All	33	27.5
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “Going to harassment cell, registering a complaint”. According to the table 43.3 % respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 29.2 % respondents agree to some extent while, 27.5 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.48 UOS provides safe environment for female students.
Category		Frequency	Percent
	To Great Extent	57	47.5
	To Some Extent	38	31.7
	Not at All	25	20.8
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondents regarding the statement “UOS provides safe environment for female students”. According to the table 47.5 % respondents agree with the statement to great extent, 31.7 % respondents agree to some extent while, 20.8 % respondents do not agree at all with the statement.

Table No: 4.49 Where in the university do you mostly feel unsafe during evening time?
Category		Frequency	Percent
	Ground	28	23.3
	Class room	19	15.8
	Bus stop	19	15.8
	Canteen	8	6.7
	Parking Areas	39	32.5
	Hostels	7	5.8
	Total	120	100.0

The above table shows the frequency distribution of the respondent regarding where they feel unsafe at the university during evening time. According to the table 23.3% respondents feel unsafe at the ground, 15.8% feel unsafe in the classroom, 15.8% respondents feel unsafe at the bus stop, 6.7% respondents feel unsafe at the canteen, and 32.5% respondents feel unsafe at the parking areas while 5.8% respondents feel unsafe at the hostels during evening time.

CHAPTER NO: 5

SUMMARY , CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Main Findings:

The respondents of the study were the female.
Majority of the respondents 46.7% participants in survey are belonging to age category 21-23 years old.
Majority of respondents 45.8% participants in survey are from M.A/MSc degree program.
Majority of respondent’s parent’s 54.2% are working in private sector.
Majority of respondents 38.3% families are having income in-between 41000-55000.
Majority of respondents 56.7% are having 5-7 family members.
Majority of respondents 54.2% residential status are day scholar.
Majority of respondents 58.3% are belong to rural background.
Majority of respondents 36.7% are strongly agree with the statement that security arrangement in our university gate/hostel is satisfactory.
Majority of respondents 43.3% are agree with the statement that department/hostel opening and closing hours are appropriate.
Majority of respondents 30% are strongly disagree with the statement that security squad available at university campus are enough and skilled.
Majority of respondents 31.7% are strongly disagree with the statement that I am satisfied with the level of security in our residence hall within campus.
Majority of respondents 30% are agree with the statement that the university has taken necessary steps to make campus safe.
Majority of respondents 27.5% are disagree with the statement that I know where I can go to get help if I have an emergency at campus.
Majority of respondents 27.5% are Neutral with the statement that In case of some emergency situation I can trust and seek help from university administration/faculty.
Majority of respondents 26.7% are agree with the statement that I feel the campus buildings are safe from security point of view.
Majority of respondents 37.5% are agree with the statement that Departments are not designed and built at for off places within campus.
Majority of respondents 45% are agree with the statement that presence of campus police is a factor effecting feeling of safety/unsafe.
According to the statement that is satisfaction with our campus environment majority of respondents 59.2% are agree.
According to the statement that scared and threatened waking through campus majority of respondents 39.2% are agree.
According to the statement that being comfortable walking through campus at evening majority of respondents 36.7% is agreed.
According to the statement that being uncomfortable walking through parking area alone majority of respondents 33.3% is agreed.
According to the statement that Afraid of being attacked by someone with a weapon majority of respondents 35% are agreed.
According to the statement that worried being a crime victim on campus majority of respondents 24.2% are agree.
According to the statement that UOS security wing provides a comfortable and safe environment within the campus majority of respondents 35% are agree.
According to the statement that I would recommend ther university as a safe place to other majority of respondents 34.2% are agree.
Majority of the respondents 53.3% are agree to some extent with the statement that I feel uncomfortable being ourself on different basis within campus
Majority of the respondents 50% are agree to some extent with the statement that I am scared of being followed while walking alone in campus.
Majority of the respondent 45% are agree to some extent with the statement that I am afraid of being captured by stranger cell phone at campus.
Majority of the respondents 49.2% are agree to some extent with the statement that I am afraid of being blackmailed by someone after capturing me without permission at campus.
Majority of the respondents 47.5% are agree to some extent with the statement that I am afraid of our personal cell phone number being hacked from various sources at campus.
Majority of the respondents 37.5% are agree to some extent with the statement that I am afraid of being sexually assaulted at campus.
Majority of the respondent 45% are agree to great extent with the statement that harassment is a crime which people are afraid/ashamed to express about.
Majority of respondents 55.8% are agree to some extent with the statement that unawareness among students about right and complaint mechanism.
Majority of the respondents 39.2% are agree to great extent with the statement that students face harassment at campus but don’t register.
Majority of the respondents 45% are not at all agree with the statement that there is effective complaint mechanism against harassment at campus.
Majority of the respondents 40% are agree to some extent with the statement that the number of harassment incidents is low within our campus.
Majority of the respondents 40% are agree Majority of the respondents 43.3% are agree to some extent with the statement that being unsafe in classroom during evening time.
Majority of the respondents 43.3% are agree to some extent with the statement that being comfortable with our teaching faculty.
Majority of the respondents 60% are agree to great extent with the statement that students at our class treat me respectfully.
Majority of the respondents 47.5% are agree to some extent with the statement that being uncomfortable to talk with male students during discussion.
Majority of the respondents 42.5% are agree to some extent with the statement that being uncomfortable visiting faculty/staff at their offices.
Majority of the respondents 38.3% are agree to some extent with the statement that while facing sexual harassment at any place within campus shouting right at the spot.
Majority of the respondents 50% are agree to some extent with the statement that after being harassed running to great extent with the statement that seeking help from departmental management/nearest resource person.
Majority of the respondents 50% are agree to great extent with the statement that making a phone call to friends/family.
Majority of the respondents 43.3% are agree to great extent with the statement that going to harassment cell, registering a complaint.
Majority of the respondents are agree to great extent with the statement that UOS provides safe environment for female students.
5% thought that they feel unsafe at parking areas during evening time.

5.2 SUMMARY:

Ther study took a Qualitative approach for looking at campus safety. The purpose of ther study was to investigate the perception of students on campus safety. Research has shown that students are not looking forward to only recognize qualifications but the best possible university experience of which security and safety are of major concerned to them.

Securing an environment for learning and making it safe requires an all-inclusive approach that does not only address unhelpful behavior (such as people with a penchant for violence and bullying) but also tackle the basic elements of the campus environment. So creating a safe and secure campus requires dealing with the whole campus environment consisting of the physical and psychological environment.

The present study was carried out in University of Sargodha. The sample consists of 120 female students of UOS which was selected through simple random sampling. The main objective of the study was to determine the experience of female scholar about safety in campus.

Research like ther thesis can be a good tool to use when a university’s administration is examining how efficient their efforts are in regards to campus safety. Since each college and university around the country is made up of various demographics and environments, ther research cannot be generalized to all schools/colleges and opinions of students. However, ther creates a demand for research similar to ther to be duplicated on all campuses to promote the most effective measures on combating physical/sexual assault and campus violence

5.3 Conclusion:

The purpose of the study is to examine the perception of female students about campus safety. The result of the study shows that the majority of female students feel unsafe on different basis on campus. Regarding the safety climate at the University of Sargodha, students who participated in ther study have an unsatisfactory behavior. Safety and security is everyone’s responsibility. No doubt UOS maintain its own security force. Most of students feel unsafe during evening time specially at parking areas alone.

Many participants worried being a crime victim on campus. Majority of students did not know where they can go to get help in case of some emergency. They are being unaware about right and complaint mechanism. Majority of respondent felt that students face harassment at campus but don’t register because people are afraid/ashamed to express about. Many respondents agree that UOS security wing make their best to provide a comfortable and safe environment within the campus but there are some flaws which need to fulfill for better safety and security.

Recommendations

Ther research has shown there are many different variables to consider when determining the perception a student or parent may have in regard to campus safety and security. More research could be performed to determine how educated the students are in regard to the safety and security services provided by the university. Ensuring the campus community is aware of offerings such as the rape aggression defense class and university-provided police walking escorts are certainly great services which would help enhance the safety culture.

The literature researched clearly reveals alcohol use is a common element in both poor student performance and campus crime. It would be worthwhile to perform a comparative study between or among campuses which permit alcohol and those which do not to determine whether there is a variance in student perceptions of campus safety. Ther research could provide information which could help campus administrators and community leaders improve the safety culture on and near the campus.

Furthermore, additional research should be performed which concentrates solely on the parents of students and their involvement in the college decision process with regard to their perceptions of campus safety. The survey results indicated the students felt their parents were very concerned with the security of the campus. It would be worthwhile for higher education leaders to know just how educated prospective parents are about the security of the campus prior to sending their children.

Participants have should be awareness about crime victim on campus.
Examine the perception of female students about campus safety.
Secure the Female students on different basis on campus.
Regarding the safety climate at the University of Sargodha, students who participated in ther study have an unsatisfactory behavior
Maintain the security force
Protect the students to face harassment at campus
Maintained the security system of Campus for the scholar to get the education and make them healthy to face the different types of challenges.

REFERENCE

Bader, Hans (August 6, 2021). “Troubling provision in Campus Accountability and Safety Act”. Liberty Unyielding,

Bauerlein, Valerie (August 14, 2020). “Prosecutors’ Group Backs Changes to College Campus Sexual Assault Investigations”. The Wall Street Journal

Bedenbaugh, C. P. (2020). Measuring fear of crime on campus: a study of an urban university. Measuring fear of crime on campus: a study of an urban university, 1-58.

Bishop, Tyler (19 November 2020). “Forcing Colleges to Involve Police in Sexual-Assault Investigations?” The Atlantic. The Atlantic.

Campus Accountability and Safety Act, Act No. S. 2692 of 2021

Campus Security. 2020. 20 Feb 2020. http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/PPI /security.html

Carl, Michael (August 10, 2021). “Campus-rape bill comes under heavy fire”. WND “Actions – S.590 – 114th Congress (2020-2020): Campus Accountability and Safety Act”. US Congress. Retrieved 17 January 2020.

Carrico, B. A. (May 2020). THE EFFECTS OF STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS SAFETY AND SECURITY. THE EFFECTS OF STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS SAFETY AND SECURITY, 1-69.

Carrico, Brian Andrew, “The Effects of Students’ Perceptions of Campus Safety and Security on Student Enrollment” (2020).Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 1006

Editor/Reporter, Tyler Kingkade Senior; Post, The Huffington (2020-11-13). “Several Sororities Back Away From Safe Campus Act”. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2020-11-14.

Fisher, Bonnie S., and John J. Sloan, III. Campus Crime: Legal, Social and Policy Perspectives. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1995. The Handbook for Campus Safety and Security Reporting – Department of Education – February 2019 NAICU HEA 101 Quick Guide: Campus Crime Reporting

Gillibrand, Kirsten. “Resource Center: Campus Accountability and Safety Act”.

Hays, Charlotte (August 1, 2021). “Some Takes on the Campus Accountability and Safety Act”. Independent Female students’s Forum.

Kingkade, Tyler (13 September 2020). “28 Groups That Work With Rape Victims Think The Safe Campus Act Is Terrible”. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 18 October 2020.

Kingkade, Tyler (4 August 2020). “Fraternity Groups Push Bills to Limit College Rape Investigations”. Huffingtonpost.com. the Huffington Post. Retrieved 18 October 2020.

KRAUSS, A. L. (2019). LEFT IN THE DARK: UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA STUDENTS’. 1-33.

Kren, C. A. (2019). Student Perceptions on Campus Safety and Physical/Sexual Assault. 9-63.

Leef, George (August 11, 2021). “Blatant Conflict of Interest in Campus Accountability and Safety Act”. National Review Online.

McCaskill, Claire. “The Bipartisan Campus Accountability and Safety Act” (PDF). ^https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_ nsvrc_factsheet_media packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf

McElroy, Wendy (August 13, 2021). “Op-ed – Contributors: “Devil’s in the details of Campus Accountability and Safety Act””. The Hill.

Muscat, K. (2019). Rowan University students’ perceptions of campus. 1-62. Blaikie, N (2020) Analyzing Qualitative Data: social sciences. SAGE Publications.

Muscat, Kristen, “Rowan University students’ perceptions of campus safety” (2019). Theses and Dissertations. 313.

Oluwajana, T. (2019). Students Perception of Safety in Campus VIS a VIS Crime and Violence – A Case study of ECU. Temitope Oluwajana, 2019, 2-61.

Oluwajana, T. (2019). Students Perception of Safety in Campus VIS A VIS Crime and Violence – A Case. 2-61.

Owusu, G. A. (October 7, 2020). Is Our Safety and Security Guaranteed on University of Cape Coast Campus? Undergraduates Students’ Perceptions. Vol. 5, No. 4; 2020, 75-85.

Owusu, G. A. (october 7,2020). Is Our Safety and Security Guaranteed on University of Cape Coast Campus? Undergraduates Students’ Perceptions. Vol. 5, No. 4; 2020 , 75-85..

Raymond, Katelyn, “A Comparison of Sorority and Non-Sorority Students’ Perceptions 1 Beliefs and Attitudes About Campus Safety, Victimization, and Personal Safety” (2020).BS s Theses. 1933. http://thekeep.eiu.edu/ theses/1933.

Rhodan, Maya (July 30, 2021). “Bipartisan Bill Aims to Reform Campus Sexual Assault Investigations”. Time. EDITORIAL: Campus sex assault bill flattens due process”. Las Vegas Review-Journal. August 17, 2021.

Salmon, Matt (29 July 2020). “Safe Campus Act of 2020”. Congress.gov. Library of Congress.

Sessions, Pete (16 November 2020). “The Fair Campus Act of 2020”. Congress.gov. Library of Congress.

Snow, T. B. (n.d.). Statistical Analysis of Campus Safety Factors. 4-31.

Svrluga, Susan (July 29, 2020). “Do students get a fair hearing?” The Washington Post.

Svruluga, Susan (29 July 2020). “Do students get a fair hearing? An effort to change how colleges handle sexual assaults”. Washington Post. Retrieved 18 October 2020.

Trump, Kenneth S. “Terrorism and School Safety: Impact of Terrorism on School Security and Crisis Planning.” 2020. 20 March 2020. http://www.schoo lsecurity.org/terrorist_response.html

Trump, Kenneth S. Practical Schools Security: Basic Guidelines for Safe and Secure Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc, 2018. The Complete Campus Crime Prevention Manual. Goshen, Kentucky: Campus Crime Prevention Programs, May 1996.

Tumulty, Brian (10 January 2020). “Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand looks for more legislative success in 2020”. Loud. Retrieved 17 January 2020

Woodcock, Chris. “Developing a Security Profile.” American Schools and University. December 2019

YCP Campus Safety & Security. 2019. 20 February 2020. http://www.ycp.edu/ security/

Appendix

We are student of BS Social Work . I am going to conduct a research on the topic of a ‘Female Students Perception about In-Campus Safety” A Case Study University Of Sargodha’ in Sargodha University. In ther regard I have to need answers of some question, so it is requested that please give me right information. Your information is very important for our research. I would like you to participate in the research. I assure you the information you provide in the research will remain confidential and will only use for research purpose.

Title:

“FEMALE STUDENTS PERCEPTION ABOUT IN-CAMPUS SAFETY”A CASE STUDY UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA

”

SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS

…………..
Academic Degree Program………….
Department……………….
Parents Profession……………..
Family income………….
Total Family Members………….
Residential status: Hostels/day scholar….
Background: rural/urban
Please read each statement and mark what indicates your opinion of agreement and disagreement as it relates to your experience in campus

1=strongly agree 2=Agree 3= Neutral 4=strongly disagree 5=Disagree

STUDENTS CONCERN ABOUT IN-CAMPUS SAFTY
Statements	SA	A	N	SD	D
i. Security arrangement in our university gate/hostel is satisfactory.
ii. Department/hostel opening and closing
Hours are appropriate.

iii. Security squad available at university campus are enough and skilled
iv. I am satisfied with the level of security in our residence hall within campus.
v. The university has taken necessary steps to make campus safe
vi. I know where I can go to get help if I have an emergency at campus.
vii. In case of some emergency situation I can trust and seek help from university administration/faculty
viii. I feel the campus buildings are safe from security point of view.
ix. Departments are not designed and built at for off places within campus.

Please read each statement and mark if you agree and disagree as it relates to the number of factors you perceive as effecting feeling of safety.

1=strongly agree 2=Agree 3= Neutral 4=strongly disagree 5=Disagree

FACTOR EFFECTING FEELING OF SAFETY/UNSAFE

Statements	SA	A	N	SD	D
i. presence of campus police
ii. Satisfaction with our campus environment
iii. Scared and threatened walking through campus.
iv. Being comfortable walking through campus at evening.
v. Being uncomfortable walking through parking area alone
vi. Afraid of being attacked by someone with a weapon.
vii. worried being a crime victim on campus
viii. UOS security wing provides a comfortable and safe environment within the campus
ix. I would recommend ther university as a safe place to others.

Please read each statement and mark to what extent you agree and disagree about problems faced by respondents regarding security within campus.

1= to great extent 2= to some extent 3= Not at all

MAJOR SECURITY ISSUES WITHIN CAMPUS

Statements	To great extent	to some extent	Not at all
i. I feel uncomfortable being ourself on different basis within campus.
ii. I am scared of being followed while walking alone in campus.
iii. I am afraid of being captured by stranger cell phone at campus.
iv. I am afraid of being blackmailed by someone after capturing me without permission at campus.
v. I am afraid of our personal cell phone number being hacked from various sources at campus.
vi. I am afraid of being sexually assaulted at campus

vii. Harassment is a crime which people are afraid/ashamed to express about.
viii. Unawareness among students about right and complaint mechanism
ix. Students face harassment at campus but don’t register.
x. There is effective complaint mechanism against harassment at campus.
xi. The number of harassment incidents is low within our campus.

Please read each statement and mark to what extent you agree and disagree about attitude of female students towards harassment within campus.

1= to great extent 2= to some extent 3= Not at all

ATTITUDE TOWARDS HARASSMENT

Statements	To great extent	to some extent	Not at all
i. Being unsafe in classroom during evening time.
ii. Being comfortable with our teaching faculty.
iii. Students at our class treat me respectfully.
iv. Being uncomfortable to talk with male students during discussion.
v. Being uncomfortable visiting faculty/staff at their offices.
vi. While facing sexual harassment at any place within office, shouting right at the spot.
vii. After being harassed running away from the place.
viii. Seeking help from departmental management/nearest resource person.
ix. Making a phone call to friends/family.
x. Going to harassment cell, registering a complaint.
xi. UOS provides safe environment for female students.

Are there any places in university where you feel unsafe during evening time? List in order.

1. Class room…….

2. Ground………..

3. Bus stop……….

4. Canteen……….

5. Parking Area……

6. Hostels…………

SUGGESTED MEASURES FOR IMPROVEMENT

What are your suggestions for improving current situation regarding in campus safety?

Muzammil Ijaz

Blogger By Passion, Programmer By Love And SEO Expert By Birth.This Quote Explain Me Perfectly. I did Bachelor’s in social work from the University of Sargodha