PE Week 10 Assignment 3

This proposal focuses on a face-to-face sexual harassment training program for students at ABC University. The primary goal is to evaluate the effectiveness of ABC University's sexual harassment training by assessing its impact on peer intervention within the college community and informing the university's Office of the President about its influence on attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors related to bystander intervention. 

3

Developmental Phase

The sexual harassment training at ABC University is in its implementation/mature phase, having been in place for over ten years as an established part of the university's prevention efforts. While the training itself is fully operational, this evaluation is also in the mature stage, with the instruments and data-collection logistics finalized.

Immediate tasks for the program involve refining the curriculum, training facilitators, and preparing evaluation readiness, which includes developing baseline and post-session instruments. The evaluation framework will measure changes in attitudes and bystander self-efficacy, using checkpoints to monitor outcomes over time. 

4

Needs to be Addressed

Evaluating the program’s peer support training for victims of sexual harassment

Identifying modifications that will enhance the training’s effectiveness and positive outcomes for students receiving support from ABC University

Primary area of interest for this evaluation is the influence that the training is having on intervening by peers

The lack of positive, supportive, and effective peer intervention for female student victims of sexual harassment in academia needs to be addressed. While academic institutions may have formal policies and legal obligations, the informal peer support system is currently failing to support victims adequately. The need for this evaluation stems from underreporting resulting from victim and institutional factors, as well as negative and inadequate peer responses. Sexual harassment is an intractable issue on college campuses, with studies indicating that women are 3.5 times more likely than men to experience it. This issue extends to field placements, where 64% of trainees, both male and female, have reported inappropriate sexual comments. (Clancy et al., 2014). While colleges and universities are legally required to have policies and procedures for handling sexual harassment, victims often hesitate to report incidents or confront their harassers. (Cantalupo and Kiddler, 2018). When victims seek support from peers, they can face further harm through negative responses. (Orchowski and Gidycz, 2015).

5

Context

For a sexual harassment training program to be effective, it must operate within a supportive institutional environment. This requires consistent support from top administrators, who must also create clear, escalating consequences for offenders and acknowledge those who report misconduct. A positive environment integrates prevention messages into the institution's core mission and strategic plans.

The efficacy of a sexual harassment training program depends on its alignment with and support from the broader institutional context, including the organizational structure, campus culture, and legal framework. A positive, impactful environment is characterized by robust, consistent administrative support, including dedicated funding and the strategic integration of prevention messaging. Key to this is a transparent system of accountability with defined, escalating disciplinary consequences for offenders, alongside official recognition for individuals who report or intervene.

6

Positive environmental factors

Consistency

Support from administrators and staff

Accountability

Policies and procedures that enforce disciplinary consequences

A more diverse leadership, particularly with a greater representation of women in senior roles, can enhance motivation to lead anti-harassment efforts and strengthen related policies. Studies suggest that women leaders have a broader understanding of harassment and are more likely to advocate for policies that benefit other women. Campuses should integrate principles of equity, inclusion, and mutual respect directly into their institutional structures, policies, and procedures to build a more diverse and respectful environment. Successful programs work by challenging social norms that allow for sexual aggression and replacing them with prosocial norms that actively discourage sexual violence. Promoting respectful behavior and consent can be achieved through strategic marketing campaigns and peer-led educational initiatives. Looking at peer-facilitated sessions and student-led initiatives can make prevention programming more relevant and engaging for students. This also empowers them to take ownership of campus safety and develop leadership skills. When educating and training students, faculty, and staff to be active bystanders can significantly improve campus culture as well. These programs can teach community members how to safely and effectively intervene in potentially harmful situations. This fosters a shared responsibility for prevention. The universities can demonstrate "institutional courage" by providing accessible, confidential support services, such as counseling and legal aid. They must also communicate that reporting is a courageous act. Creating dedicated safe spaces and providing robust community support, which includes mental health centers and other resources, is a key component of this effort. Effective collaboration with local law enforcement, hospitals, and off-campus community groups strengthens the overall support system for victims as well. 

7

Negative Environmental Factors

Institutional tolerance

Social power imbalances

Harmful cultural norms

A campus climate where students and staff fear retaliation, social ostracization, or damage to their academic or professional reputation if they report sexual harassment brings a negative influence for victims. Training that fails to address the specific contexts and power dynamics of a particular campus, instead relying on generalized or legalistic language, is often ineffective. (Palmeieri et al., 2023). The inherent hierarchical nature of higher education, particularly the dependence of graduate students on faculty for career advancement and funding, can increase the risk of abuse and make reporting highly risky. (Palmeieri et al., 2023). A culture that tolerates or ignores inappropriate behavior by prominent or high-status individuals (e.g., high faculty members, well-known college athletes, college board members) is a significant obstacle to prevention and accountability. Environments where disrespectful, crude, or belittling behavior, especially misogynistic comments, are tolerated can normalize more severe forms of sexual harassment and make prevention efforts more difficult. Deeply held societal and campus norms, such as rigid gender roles or beliefs that normalize sexual aggression, can be difficult to change through training alone. (Kumar and Verma, 2020). Colleges can also face challenges such as limited funding, inadequate staffing, and a lack of experience in implementing and evaluating prevention programs that can impact the fear of student underreporting sexual harassment. Budget cuts or financial strain can also affect prevention initiatives. These factors can undermine official policies, discourage reporting, and lead to institutional betrayal, where the college fails to protect those dependent on it for safety.

8

Target Population

Undergraduate and Graduate students

ABC University is a private institution located in a suburban metropolitan area with a total enrollment of approximately 8,500 students. The university offers both undergraduate and graduate degrees. 

Research indicates that sexual harassment is prevalent within academic environments, with women experiencing it at a significantly higher rate than men (Abrams, 2018; Cantalupo & Kidder, 2018). Women are 3.5 times more susceptible to sexual harassment throughout their academic careers, and a study by Clancy et al. (2014) reported that 64% of trainees had been exposed to inappropriate sexual comments in academic fieldwork settings. While legal mandates require institutions to establish preventative, reporting, and investigative measures, victims often remain reluctant to formally report incidents or confront their harassers (Cantalupo & Kidder, 2018). In addition, victims who seek peer support for harassment can face negative reactions, and bystanders are seldom inclined to intervene directly or offer assistance (Orchowski & Gidycz, 2015).

9

Other Stakeholders and their Needs

The Director of this program:

-The Office of the President

Who delivers the program activities:

-ABC University’s counseling center

Are there others who may have input and will be affected by the program activities?

-Various groups and individuals, both inside and outside the university, such as other students, students’ families, faculty, student organizations, survivors and victims of sexual harassment, law enforcement, healthcare professionals, legal representatives, and education administrators, can provide input and be affected by the program activities.

As the population most directly and widely affected by campus sexual harassment, students must be involved in policy and program development. Input from all student populations—including marginalized groups, undergraduates, graduates, and student-athletes—is crucial. Student groups can provide valuable feedback on the program's cultural relevance and effectiveness. For instance, postdoctoral students are particularly vulnerable to harassment due to institutional and power dynamics and should have a voice in policy. Input from survivors is essential for developing a trauma-informed and survivor-centered approach to prevention and response. As long-term members of the community, faculty can offer stability and continuity in prevention efforts. They are often required to undergo specific training. Supervisors and administrators have a legal responsibility to report and address sexual harassment and must be equipped with the necessary training and understanding. Campus offices and departments, such as the Office of Civil Rights and the Office of Sexual Misconduct, directly administer non-discrimination policies and provide input on how to respond to incidents. Regarding campus safety and law enforcement, their input is crucial for coordinating with local law enforcement and ensuring the safety of the campus community. Student life and residential staff are often on the front lines, responding to students’ concerns and implementing preventative measures in residential neighborhoods. Staff from counseling and health services provide critical support to survivors and offer insights into the needs of those who have experienced harassment. Off-campus stakeholders and partners, such as community-based service providers, offer sexual assault victim services, advocacy, and counseling. They are crucial partners who can offer support to students outside the campus system. Local police and other law enforcement agencies should be involved in program planning, as they may be called upon to investigate and prosecute criminal offenses. State and federal government officials, including the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, set regulations and enforce federal laws. External organizations dedicated to preventing sexual harassment in higher education, such as those in the National Academies, can provide expertise and resources. They may also facilitate collaboration among colleges and universities, allowing institutions to share best practices and resources. Alumni can provide a valuable institutional perspective, while donors and funders can affect a program’s resources and longevity.

10

Other Stakeholders and their needs continue

Who will use the evaluation findings?

-The Office of the President of ABC University

What do stakeholders need to learn from the evaluation?

-Stakeholders need to learn that the program must be effective, not just present, requiring focus on culture change, clear policies, and consequences.

-The evaluation should reveal whether the program is working and identify specific areas for improvement, such as the need for more targeted training for different populations or the necessity for more accessible reporting channels.

-Stakeholders must understand the specific nature of harassment at the university, including its frequency, the most vulnerable groups, and the most common perpetrators, to direct prevention efforts effectively.

-The evaluation should show the extent to which the university's culture fosters a respectful environment. It's crucial for stakeholders to understand that a prevention program's success depends on creating a culture that proactively supports respect, rather than just focusing on avoiding legal liability.

-A key finding from any evaluation is whether the university's sexual harassment policies are clear, accessible, and consistently enforced.

-The evaluation should highlight whether the program is successfully changing behaviors rather than getting bogged down in trying to change beliefs. Prevention efforts should focus on concrete actions and outcomes.

-Stakeholders need to see data on how consequences for violations are applied. The evaluation should inform whether disciplinary consequences are appropriate, escalating, and clearly stated.

11

Other Stakeholders and their Needs

How will the findings be used?

-The findings will be used to improve the program, make decisions about resources, guide future strategy, justify actions, and gather evidence for impact.

-Evaluation findings show what parts of the program are working and what needs to be changed or improved.

-Colleges can determine if they should invest more resources into a program, revise existing elements, or discontinue a program if it is not meeting its goals.

-The findings help set the direction for the program and scale up successful initiatives.

-Colleges can use the data to assess whether the program is having the intended impact on students and staff and to build a more comprehensive, evidence-based prevention approach.

12

Theoretical Foundation: Supporting Frameworks

Bystander Intervention Model – Bowes-Sperry & O’Leary-Kelly (2005), focuses on decision-making process and observer response to harassment

Theory of Planned Behavior – links attitudes, norms, and perceived control to likelihood of intervention.

Symbolic Interactionism – campus norms shape behavior and perception

Application: Promotes peer accountability, confidence, and proactive intervention

The theoretical foundation integrates three frameworks. The Bystander Intervention Model explains the observer’s decision-making process, why and how individuals choose to act when witnessing harassment. The Theory of Planned Behavior adds that attitudes, perceived norms, and sense of control determine whether a bystander intervenes. Finally, Symbolic Interactionism provides a sociocultural lens, showing how campus norms and shared meanings shape those behaviors. At the intersection, these theories collectively justify the program’s focus on empowering students to intervene confidently, transforming both behavior and campus culture.

13

Logic Model for Program Implementation

This slide summarizes the core logic behind ABC University’s Sexual Harassment and Bystander Intervention Program. It begins with the inputs and resources, which include counseling staff, university funding, campus space, and partnerships with student organizations and community agencies. These elements make it possible to deliver the training program. The activities represent what the program does, interactive workshops, role-plays, surveys, and campus climate assessments that allow participants to learn and reflect. The outputs are the measurable products, such as the number of workshops delivered, students trained, and survey data collected. These outputs demonstrate that program activities are being implemented as intended. The short-term outcomes include immediate gains like greater awareness of sexual harassment policies, improved confidence in intervening as a bystander, and clearer understanding of reporting procedures. Finally, the long-term outcomes show the broader impact, reducing incidents of harassment, fostering a sustained culture of accountability, and strengthening the overall campus climate. Together, these components show how the university’s investments in resources and activities directly contribute to a safer, more respectful learning environment.

14