Sexual Violence and University Campus Response to Sexual Violence

Sexual Violence and University Campus Response to

Sexual Violence

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Sexual violence is a form of violence against women and girls that has been

perpetrated as a form of oppression against the female gender to maintain a hierarchy of

patriarchy within our society (Namy et al., 2017). Internationally, males are responsible

for 98% of the sexual offenses reported to the police (Cortoni et al., 2017). Gender-based

violence has been part of some religious beliefs and teachings, as well as embedded in

traditions worldwide (Perrin et al., 2019). Sexual violence is a public health issue

globally. According to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2019), sexual violence is a

worldwide issue with significant physical and psychological effects on the health of

victims, and available services do not effectively address the needs of survivors.

In the United States, 1 in 5 women will experience sexual violence within their

lifetime (Smith et al., 2018). According to Peterson et al. (2017), sexual violence within

the United States is a public health problem that is both serious and costly. The estimated

lifetime cost per victim of rape is more than $122,000 (Peterson, et al., 2017). Within

institutions of higher learning, sexual violence has continued to be a problem for students.

According to the Association of American Universities with a total of 181,752 students

from 33 colleges and universities, the rate of sexual assault is 1 out of 5 for female

students (Krebs et al., 2016). In an attempt to address sexual violence on

college/university campuses, federal legislation and guidance documents were developed

and disseminated to campuses within the United States. Legislation and guidance

documents that were developed are discussed further in Chapter 2 within the literature

review.

The purpose of this study was to explore the factors, intervention, and prevention

strategies, as well as policies and procedures used in addressing sexual violence on a

university campus. This exploration brought about some insight into participants’

experiences as a part of the on-campus system addressing sexual violence. The social

change implications of this study include providing data to help clarify what aspects of

intervention and prevention strategies, as well as policies and procedures, are working, as

well as those strategies, policies, and procedures that are not working in addressing sexual

violence on campus. The data may lead to changes in legislation, policies, and

procedures, as well as intervention/prevention programs and services in combating sexual

violence on college/university campuses.

The significant areas of focus of this chapter include the background, problem

statement, purpose of the study, research questions, conceptual framework of the study,

nature of the study, definitions, assumptions, scope and delimitations, limitations,

significance, and a summary.

Background

Sexual violence is coercing someone to engage in some type of sexual act that the

person does not willingly want or choose to participate in (World Health Organization

[WHO], 2019). The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) defines rape as “the

penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or

oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim”

(United States DOJ, 2017). Sexual violence is a broad term that can be used

interchangeably with the terms rape and/or sexual assault (WHO, 2019). According to

BestColleges.com (2020), sexual assault is a type of sexual violence, and the term applies

to a broad range of forced and unwanted sexual activity. The term sexual assault can also

include rape or attempted rape.

The highest rates of sexual violence are perpetrated against female and gender

nonconforming students on college/university campuses within the United States. For

female college students within the United States, sexual violence rates are 28%, and for

gender nonconforming students, the rate is 38% (Mellins et al., 2017). According to

Cantor (2020) 26.4% of undergraduate female students experience rape or sexual assault

through physical force, violence, or incapacitation, and 23% college students who

identify as transgender, genderqueer, and nonconforming (TGQN) have been sexually

assaulted.

Sexual violence is a public health and human rights issue that has both short and

long-term consequences on victims’ physical, mental, sexual, and reproductive health

(WHO, 2019). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2020) identified

sexual violence as a public health problem and determined that it leads to other health

problems, which include both psychological and physical issues (National Sexual

Violence Resource Center [NSVRC], 2016). Psychological health problems include post-

traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), eating disorders, anxiety, and depression (NSVRC,

2016). Physical health problems include bodily injuries, potential pregnancy, and risk of

contracting a sexually transmitted infection (STI) (NSVRC, 2016). In addition, Molstad

et al. (2021) identified an increase in academic problems including learning problems,

decrease in grade point average, and dropping out of college/university.

Over the years, there has been a shift from studying victims’ behaviors and

experiences to include studying prevention efforts to address sexual violence. On the

college/university campus, these research topics need to include the role the

college/university itself plays in implementing and overseeing intervention and

prevention efforts. According to Title IX, which was first enacted in 1972, there is an

explicit acknowledgment of college/university campuses being responsible for providing

a safe and equal environment for learning (The United States Department of Justice

[DOJ], 2015). In 1990, federal legislation called the Clery Act, named after a

college/university student, Jeanne Clery who was killed in her dorm, mandates that

colleges receiving federal financial aid must report crime statistics on an annual basis;

this includes incidences of sexual violence on their campus (Clery Center, 2019). It

further outlines specific mandated standards and procedures for colleges when collecting

data regarding crimes on campus, as well as reporting this data (Clery Center, 2019). The

Clery Act was later amended in 2008 to more precisely describe how and when

colleges/universities were to publish and distribute their annual security report (Clery

Center, 2019).

On April 4, 2011, the Department of Education’s (DOE) Office of Civil Rights

(OCR) sent a 19-page document called the “Dear Colleague” letter to colleges and

universities (Ali, 2011). This document provided new guidance regarding Title IX, the

federal statute prohibiting sex discrimination for any educational program or activity

receiving federal financial assistance (Ali, 2011). In 2013, the Campus Sexual Violence

Elimination (SaVE) Act was created (Rape and Incest National Network [RAINN],

2019). This act was an amendment to the Clery Act within the Violence Against

Women’s Act (VAWA) of 2013 (RAINN, 2019). It required a broader range of sexual

incidences to be reported, as well as ensuring that victims are notified of their rights and

provided accommodations (RAINN, 2019). Last, in January of 2014, the White House

Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault was created to focus on addressing

sexual violence at colleges/universities (White House Task Force to Protect Students

from Sexual Assault, 2017). In April 2014, the DOE’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR)

distributed a Title IX question-and-answer guidance document that contained further

requirements to reduce re-traumatization of victims (White House Task Force to Protect

Students from Sexual Assault, 2017).

After these steps were taken to address sexual violence, colleges/ universities had

very different interpretations of how to address sexual violence on their campuses.

According to Moylan and Javorka (2019), an exploration of the relationship between

institutions and their impact on prevalence and response to sexual violence on campuses

should be addressed. Engaging a wide range of campus stakeholders is essential to

creating effective and sustainable changes to campus culture (Mellins et al., 2017). In

2017, a letter was sent to colleges and universities from the United States DOE, OCRs

under the Trump administration to rescind the Dear Colleague Letter of 2011, and the

OCR Question and Answer document of 2014 ,while the regulatory guidance on Title IX

from 2001 remained in place (United States DOE, n.d.). Then, in May 2020, the United

States DOE released the latest Title IX regulations that were required to be implemented

within each federally funded college/university by August 14, 2020 (United States DOE,

2020).

A gap in the knowledge that this study aims to address is identifying successful

and unsuccessful strategies in addressing sexual violence on campus. Strategies included

campus policies and procedures, as well as intervention and prevention programs and

services that are considered best practices. According to Richards (2019), future research

should aim to evaluate if institutions of higher education provide policies and programs

regarding sexual violence, and if the range of content adheres to best practices. Klein et

al. (2018) recommended using qualitative studies for future research as this approach was

underutilized in addressing college/university sexual assault (CSA) policies. Qualitative

approaches should be used as a strategy to gather data regarding survivors’ choices,

which can then inform the development of campus policies (Klein et al., 2018). This

study was needed to help identify concerns and successes in guiding the creation of an

effective victim-centered system in addressing sexual violence. Through this study, I

identified successful components within this university campus that could create a system

that meaningfully supports a safe campus for everyone.

Problem Statement

Sexual violence on college/university campuses is a prevalent problem that is not

frequently reported (CDC, 2020). While sexual violence can occur anywhere to females

and males of all ages, college-age females between the ages of 18 and 21 are more likely

to be victimized than other groups (CDC, 2020). A form of sex discrimination is sexual

violence as covered under Title IX, a federally funded law that prohibits institutions from

discriminating based on sex (United States Department of Education [DOE], 2020).

Despite the passage of Title IX and other protections through federal and state laws for

students, sexual violence and harassment continue to be a barrier to education for too

many students (The American Association of University Women [AAUW], 2018). An

additional concern is that colleges/universities make it challenging for students to report

on campus, and college/universities are not adequately reporting incidents of sexual

violence and harassment when they occur (AAUW, 2018). The outcome is that many

students continue to be negatively impacted by sex discrimination in schools, which is

unlawful (AAUW, 2018). According to Bellis et al. (2018), there is extreme variance in

how institutions respond to sexual violence across colleges/universities, even with the

media attention that began in 2011 and federal guidance. The DOE’s Secretary Betsy

DeVos identified in a speech that the United States DOE acknowledged that current

legislation and guidance on campus sexual assault (CSA) policies had designed and

implemented a “failed system” within institutions of higher education (Shibley, 2014).

This qualitative research aims to address a gap in understanding regarding how a

university campus addresses sexual violence and provides insight into developing

appropriate victim sensitive policies and procedures. The results of this study may

provide insight into the factors, intervention/prevention programs and services, policies,

procedures, processes, and perceptions that colleges/universities use in addressing sexual

violence.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to understand the factors, intervention and

prevention strategies, and policies and procedures that exist regarding the phenomenon

of sexual violence that were experienced by various stakeholders in addressing sexual

violence on a university campus through a qualitative paradigm. There is currently not a

clear understanding of how sexual violence is addressed on college/university campuses.

As such, increased understanding of how campuses address this issue is needed to

provide relevant intervention/prevention programs and services and to implement changes

in policies and procedures that reflect best practices.

Research Questions

RQ1: How do students, administrators, Title IX coordinators, health promotion

staff, victim advocates, and survivors describe their experience of campus sexual violence

and the college/university sexual assault response system?

RQ2: How do students, administrators, Title IX coordinators, health promotion

staff, victim advocates, and survivors describe best practices at a college/university

campus in the southeastern United States addressing sexual violence?

Theoretical Framework

The framework used for the study is the ecological model proposed by McLeroy

et al. (1988). This model is a framework that provided five levels of influence on health

behaviors: intrapersonal, interpersonal processes, institutional factors, community factors,

and public policy (Green et al., 1996). This model is an appropriate framework to use

since it provides a framework to focus on addressing public health issues across multiple

levels within the environment that affect individual behavior (American College Health

Association [ACHA], 2018). Each level represents factors that influence sexual violence.

I asked questions related to the various levels of the model of participants that represented

various stakeholders on the university campus as to how the university addressed sexual

violence on campus. Due to the interrelationship that exists between factors within each

level, interventions are more likely to be effective when factors are addressed at each

level of the ecological model (ACHA, 2018).

Nature of the Study

A qualitative approach was chosen for this study as it enabled me to capture the

participants’ experiences regarding the way the university addresses sexual violence.

Since qualitative methods are exploratory in nature and are mainly concerned with

gaining insights and understanding on underlying reasons and motivations (Corbin &

Strauss, 2015), this method was in line with the type of study that was conducted.

Qualitative research is consistent with exploring, describing, and interpreting a campus’s

response to sexual violence. A qualitative approach also allowed for in-depth exploration

of individuals’ experiences and perceptions of their experiences on campus in addressing

sexual violence. This type of in-depth exploration is not feasible in a quantitative study

(Corbin & Strauss, 2015).

The specific qualitative approach is an instrumental case study, which is defined

as using a particular person, situation, organization, department or group to gain

knowledge and insight into a phenomenon (Harrison et al., 2017). The phenomenon was

sexual violence on a university campus and the campus’s response. The instrumental

type of case study was chosen due to its characteristic of being able to gain a wide array

of information about a given issue or topic (Crowe, 2011). This approach allowed for a

deeper understanding of the larger issue (Ridder, 2017) of how a college campus

addresses sexual violence.

I interviewed various stakeholders on a university campus. During their

interviews, participants shared what they believed to be best practice for addressing

sexual violence on campus. The interviews provided valuable data for me as to what is

working and what is not working regarding intervention and prevention strategies, as well

as policies and procedures on the college campus. The data were analyzed using content

analysis.

Definitions

Advocate: A trained person who supports a victim/survivor in navigating the

options that are available to the victim/survivor. The advocate is not a part of any system

that has a bias when addressing sexual violence. Support is provided by the advocate to

the victim/survivor with whatever decisions the victim/survivor makes (Office of Justice

Programs [OJP], 2019).

Crisis-line advocacy: Typically, this is a 24-hour crisis telephone line that is

available for victims/survivors to use 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. When a

victim/survivor calls this line, the victims/survivors are greeted by a trained advocate who

can help them (OJP, 2019).

In-person advocacy: People who are either paid or volunteering their time to meet

with victims/survivors who have reached out for support and resources (OJP, 2019).

Interventions: Services and resources provided to support a victim/survivor of

sexual violence. This intervention could be in the form of in-person advocacy, crisis line

advocacy, hospital accompaniment, online resources, referrals for counseling, pamphlets,

and brochures (OJP, 2019.)

Prevention: The act of preventing sexual violence from occurring. The CDC

(2019) identifies three prevention focuses. Primary prevention prevents first-time

perpetration and victimization. Secondary prevention is immediate intervention, and

tertiary prevention is long term intervention (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

2019).

Sexual Assault Response System/Team: This term refers to the processes that were

created and implemented to address intervention and prevention strategies on

college/university campuses. This includes policies, procedures, interventions, and

preventions (NSVRC, 2018).

Sexual violence: The ACHA (2016) recognizes sexual and relationship violence

affecting college and university campuses as a serious public health issue. Sexual and

relationship violence comprise a continuum of behaviors, including but not limited to

sexual/gender harassment, sexual coercion, sexual abuse, stalking, sexual assault, rape,

dating violence, and domestic violence; in a sense, it is a wide concept that encompasses

any form of unwanted sexual interaction (ACHA, 2016). This interaction can be verbal,

non-verbal, written, or physical contact (ACHA, 2016).

Stakeholders: These are individuals who are associated with college/university

campuses either as students, staff, and/or administrators who work to address sexual

violence on the college campus (OJP, 2019).

Victims/survivors: Anyone that has experienced some form of sexual violence.

Some researchers use the term victim, while other researchers use the term survivor. This

study may use the terms victims/survivors interchangeably (OJP, 2019).

Assumptions

This study was guided by the following assumptions. First, the university campus

that was used for the study was interested in providing quality programs and services to

meet the needs of the students on campus both to prevent sexual violence and to

adequately address victims of sexual violence. This assumption was important to

highlight to acknowledge the administration’s willingness to participate in this study.

Secondly, the participants who were interviewed were truthful with their responses. This

assumption was necessary to gain an understanding of the current state of processes and

procedures on the campus as well guide future implementations.

Scope and Delimitation

Scope

Scope is defined as the borders in which the study is conducted, and the

phenomena the researcher used to understand within a certain population, sample size,

geographic location and setting (DePoy & Gitlin, 2015). This study focused on

participants’ lived experiences regarding sexual violence on their university campus. The

population included students, administrators, Title IX coordinators, health promotion

staff, victim advocates, and survivors. The sample size was small, comprised of 17

participants. The geographic location was within the southeast region of the United

States, and the setting was a university campus.

One aspect of the research problem that was addressed was gaining knowledge

and understanding of the intervention programs and services that are available for victims

of sexual violence on campus. Another aspect that was addressed was gaining knowledge

and understanding of the prevention programs and services that were available on

campus. A third aspect was gaining knowledge and understanding of the policies and

procedures that are in place to address sexual violence.

College administrations struggle to address sexual violence while coordinating

collaboration between many areas of the college setting that have different

understandings of sexual violence, and that were challenged with implementing

ambiguous federal mandates (Wilson, 2015). This study provided an opportunity for

individual interviews with students, staff, and administrators regarding their experiences

in working to address sexual violence. The collection of data from the individual

interviews can help determine which strategies are successful in addressing sexual

violence and those strategies that are not as successful. These data can also help

determine what best practices should be used in future developments of policies and

procedures to guide interventions and prevention efforts.

Delimitations

The population of focus for this case study were individuals from all levels of the

university campus. The individuals that were interviewed were students, staff and

administrators at the identified university. Individuals that were not part of the university

as a student, staff, or administrator of the individual university were excluded from the

study. The participants were recruited from one university in the southeastern United

States. The utilization of interviews limited the number of participants, which limited the

views expressed. Since this study was exploratory, the potential for transferability is also

unlikely. The outcomes could be used to conduct further research in this area; however,

this study is not generalized for all colleges/universities. According to Leung (2015),

since qualitative studies are focused on a particular issue, population, and location, the

expectation of generalizability, also known as transferability, is not a concern.

Limitations

A limitation related to methodology is that the participants recruited for this study

were from one college campus. Another limitation was that some constituents were not

willing or able to engage in an interview. If participants were not willing, it may have

been due to their concern regarding confidentiality, despite assurances of confidentially

regarding the study and their interview responses. Some participants may not have had

the time to engage in an interview. To remedy this, I was flexibile to meet with

participants’ availability and strived to be as accommodating as possible.

A bias that could have influence the study’s outcomes included my own bias

while analyzing the data. As the researcher, it was my role to be focused on the

exploratory nature of this study with a clear understanding that this study was designed to

understand the experiences of these participants regarding sexual violence on campus.

Another bias that could have been present was if the participants wanted to please me as

the researcher in their interview responses instead of being truthful.

Significance

This research considered changes that occurred regarding sexual violence and

college/university campuses beginning in 2011. A qualitative approach was used to

interview individuals who were connected with a college campus regarding their

perceptions on how the current policies, procedures and processes are used to address

sexual violence. In this research, I explored past events that have influenced current

policies, procedures, processes, and perceptions. While this study cannot be generalized,

insights from this study may aid in identifying potential changes that could be made with

policies, procedures, processes and perceptions to move from a “failed system” (Shibley,

2014) to a sensitive and successful system in addressing sexual violence on campus. The

findings from this research may lead to further research regarding campus responsibilities

and responses. The findings could also contribute to positive social change by

encouraging college/university administrators and staff to consider and implement

additional ways to support a safe and violence-free campus for every student, while

ensuring perpetrator accountability.

Summary

Acts of sexual violence continue to be a pervasive problem within our society, as

well as on college campuses. Although some efforts over the years have attempted to

address both intervention efforts and prevention efforts on college/university campuses,

there are still challenges in understanding what has specifically been done on a

college/university campus to address sexual violence.

In the upcoming sections of this dissertation, information will be provided on

what factors are involved in campus sexual violence, including intervention and

prevention strategies. Policies and procedures to respond to sexual violence are also

addressed and identified, as well as some clarification as to how a campus should focus

on sexual violence to ensure best practices are reviewed. Chapter 2 will provide a review

of the relevant research literature on the topic. In Chapter 3, I focus on the study

methodology, the phenomenon of interest, research design, and information on how the

study was conducted and analyzed. Results of the study are provided in Chapter 4.

Finally, Chapter 5 includes the summary, conclusion, and recommendations from the

research.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The problem studied is sexual violence on college/university campuses and how

sexual violence was addressed on a college/university campus. College/university

campus sexual violence has reached concerning levels. Conley et al. (2017) identified

that this population is a relevant study group and found that the rates of victimization for

college students are higher than any other group. According to Fedina et al. (2018), the

most prevalent unwanted sexual behavior is touching and sexual coercion, followed by

incapacitated rape and attempted or completed, forcible rape. Best Colleges (2020)

identified that sexual assault on a college/university campus affects everyone and is a

serious public health, safety, and social issue. Sexual violence has become one of the

most common forms of violence among individuals attending educational institutions

based on the increasing numbers of sexual assault on college/university campuses within

the United States (United States Department of Justice, 2017).

While women are not the only victims of sexual violence, women are victimized

at a higher rate than men. Conley (2017) reported that 23% of women reported a sexual

assault since the beginning of college versus 11.6% of men. While males and females are

both victims of sexual violence on college/university campuses, according to Canan et al.

(2016), women experience higher rates of rape identified as unwanted penile, vaginal

penetration at 25.6%, and sexual assault defined as unwanted sexual behavior not

including penile, vaginal penetration at 27.2%. Krebs et al. (2016) found that 1 in 4

female students experience some form of sexual violence while attending college.

Minority groups also have a high rate of victimization. Coulter et al. (2017) found

that bisexual women and lesbians are at a much higher rate of sexual victimization than

heterosexual women. Coulter et al. (2017) also found there were almost three times the

sexual victimization prevalence for gay and bisexual college/university males as

compared with heterosexual men. Canan et al. (2021) found that lesbians and bisexuals

report higher rates of sexual assault victimization than heterosexual women.

Campus climate surveys are used by colleges/universities to measure sexual

assault prevalence on college/university campuses and measure students’ attitudes and

behaviors (United States Department of Justice, 2017). The Association of American

Universities gathered 27 colleges/universities together in 2015 to complete the campus

climate survey, and then in 2019, gathered 33 colleges/universities to again answer the

campus climate survey that included some additional questions based on the feedback

from the 2015 survey. Cantor (2020) found that there was a 3% increase from the 2015

campus climate survey compared to the 2019 campus climate survey regarding the rates

of nonconsensual sexual contact through physical force, or the inability to consent.

Cantor (2020) identified a rate of 13% for nonconsensual sexual contact by physical force

or inability to consent since the student enrolled at the school. Cantor (2020) also found

the rates of nonconsensual sexual contact and inability to consent for undergraduate

students, TGQN, and women are significantly higher than for men and

graduate/professional students.

According to the United States Department of Justice (2017), college/universities

that conducted their own climate survey have an advantage in addressing sexual violence

on their campuses due to the data collected on the survey being specific to their campus,

versus using regional or national data. Past research shows that sexual assault behaviors

and context look different on every campus (United States Department of Justice, 2017).

Similar results from Krebs et al. (2016) were found by Mellins (2017), who analyzed a

population-representative sample using the “The SHIFT” survey and concluded that 22%

of students reported being sexually assaulted since beginning college.

This study aimed to understand the intervention and prevention strategies that

existed and were experienced by various stakeholders, as well as policies and procedures

in addressing sexual violence on a college/university campus. There is currently not a

clear understanding of how sexual violence was addressed on college/university

campuses. Increased knowledge of how campuses addressed sexual violence is needed to

provide appropriate intervention and prevention programs and services, as well as

implemented changes in policies and procedures reflecting best practices.

Historically, the passage of Title IX in 1972 enacted gender equity in educational

institutions that received federal funds and mandated that schools prevent and address

sexual harassment, which included sexual violence (Network for Victim Recovery of

D.C., n.d.). According to Lieberwitz (2016), the track record for the way in which

universities interpret Title IX in addressing sexual violence has been uneven. While the

OCR office enforces Title IX regulations, the way that colleges and universities interpret

and then implement policies and procedures to be in compliance with the Title IX

regulations is different (Lieberwitz et al., 2016). While there were successes with

colleges and universities addressing incidences of sexual violence, there were instances of

college and university administrators who did not punish severe acts as well as repeated

acts of sexual violence (Lieberwitz et al., 2016). In 2011, OCR issued a Dear Colleague

Letter that encouraged proactive measures to be taken to prevent sexual harassment and

violence as well as the school’s responsibility to address sexual violence issues (Network

for Victim Recovery of D.C., n.d.). The Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE)

Act of 2013, which was an amendment to the Clery Act, was created to require colleges

and universities to report a more extensive range of sexual violence incidents that occur

on campus and notify victims of their rights, which includes allowing a student legal

representation in a Title IX hearing, disciplinary proceedings that are equitable, and

publicly available prevention and awareness programs to be offered by the university

(Network for Victim Recovery of D.C., n.d.). Then in 2014, the OCRs created a question

and answer guidance document to minimize re-traumatization of the victim OCR’s 2014

Title IX Q&A Guidance (Network for Victim Recovery of D.C., n.d.). In addition, the

White House Council on Women and Girls Task Force was created to combat sexual

assault on campuses by providing more substantial federal enforcement efforts and

provide additional tools to help schools (The White House, 2017). College and

universities nationwide were creating, deepening, or re-evaluating their approaches to

responding and preventing sexual assault (The White House, 2017).

In 2017, a letter was sent to colleges and universities from the United States

Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights under the Trump administration to

rescind the Dear Colleague Letter of 2011, and the OCR Question and Answer document

of 2014 (United States DOE, 2017). There were four central claims (United States DOE,

2017). The allegations were the Preponderance of Evidence Standard was a low bar for

sanctioning disciplinary actions, prosecuting innocent students, “due process” was not

afforded for sexual misconduct cases, and campuses should not have the authority to

carry out sanctions for justice (United States DOE, 2017). In 2018, the United States

DOE proposed new regulations to address due process and equity for accused students;

the new proposed regulations garnered public comments regarding the proposed

regulations and did not release to colleges and universities at that time (United States

DOE, 2018). While the 2011 and 2014 guidance documents were rescinded, prior

regulatory guidance on Title IX from 2001 remains in place (United States DOE, 2017).

Both the United States DOE and Nyangweso (2017) identified a failed attempt to address

sexual violence on a college campus prior to the proposed regulations addressing due

process and equity for the accused students. While the United States DOE mentions the

distributed guidelines and legislation that failed, Nyangweso (2017) further discussed that

the failure was due to ignoring the complex social variables that inform the student’s

experience and sexual violence as the subject matter when colleges offer instructive

guidelines. Harper et al. (2017) discussed that Title IX was not achieving its intended

goals and may instead be causing undue harm to victims and respondents.

In May 2020, the United States DOE released the latest Title IX regulations,

which were required to be implemented within each federally funded college and

university by August 14, 2020 (United States DOE, 2020). The Secretary of Education,

Betsy DeVos, claimed that these new regulations would strengthen protections for all

students under Title IX (United States DOE, 2020). Since May 2020, several responses

to these new regulations criticized the lack of support these regulations would provide for

victims of sexual violence (Anderson, 2020, May 7). Two of the organizations criticizing

the new regulations include the Know Your IX organization and the American Council on

Education (Anderson, 2020, May 7). There are three main concerns that the new

regulations could create; these include a narrowed definition of sexual harassment, which

means that some victims may not qualify to have their incident addressed by the Title IX

office; a decrease of reporting from victims of sexual violence; and for students who are

not on an official college or university location, like study abroad programs, an incident

of sexual violence will not qualify to be addressed by the Title IX office (Anderson, 2020,

May 7). Four plaintiffs filed the first federal lawsuit against the DOE regarding these

new regulations on May 21, 2020, which were Know Your IX, the Council of Parent

Attorneys and Advocates, Girls for Gender Equity, and Stop Sexual Assault in Schools

(Martin et al., 2020).

In the remainder of Chapter 2, I discuss the literature search strategy that I used,

as well as the theoretical foundation for this study. Next, I discuss the literature review

and the study variables. This chapter provides an extensive review on the prevalence of

sexual violence on college campuses; knowledge and attitudes regarding sexual violence;

laws, policies, and procedures regarding sexual violence on campuses; intervention and

prevention programs on college campuses; barriers to reporting sexual violence on

college campuses; barriers to accessing services and resources on college campuses;

sports teams; Greek life; and safety on college campuses. Last, I provide a summary of

the literature review that includes the major themes noted.

Literature Search Strategy

Selected articles relating to sexual violence and addressing sexual violence by

college and university campuses are described here. The databases used for the search

include SAGE Journals, MEDLINE, PubMed, ProQuest, Google Scholar, and Thoreau.

The keywords searched were sexual violence, rape, intervention, and prevention related

to sexual violence; college, universities, sports teams and sexual violence on college

campuses; Greek life and sexual violence on college campuses; barriers to reporting

sexual violence on college campuses; barriers to accessing services and resources on

college campuses; confidentiality, victim-blaming, sexual violence and public health;

Clery Act, Dear Colleague Letter, and Title IX; rape; sexual assault; sexual violence;

sexual misconduct; college campuses; Title IX; Clery Act; SaVE Act; The White House

Task Force; Dear Colleague Letter; intervention for sexual assault prevention; the

prevalence of sexual violence on College Campuses; knowledge and attitudes regarding

sexual violence; laws, policies, and procedure regarding sexual violence on college

campuses; intervention and prevention programs on college campuses; barriers to

reporting on college campuses; barriers to accessing services and resources on college

campuses; challenges; lived experiences; qualitative study; accessing care; accessing

services; well-being; coping; social support theory; barriers; daily experiences; daily

experiences, perspective, and collaboration. Internet searches were also conducted, and

information pertinent to the study were retrieved from organization websites, namely the

National Sexual Violence Resource Center, World Health Organization, CDC, and the

Institute for Justice. In using an iterative search process, each of the above terms were

used independently initially to determine the response. Then each term was added to

another term to determine if there were different articles revealed. The terms sexual

violence and rape were specifically used with the other terms to ensure that the search

engines were inclusive of all potential articles.

Theoretical Foundation

The framework that was used was an ecological model. Ecology is the study of

organisms and their relationships and interactions with each other and their environments

(National Geographic, 2020). The model provided an overlap of each of the levels to

denote the continual interactions that occur between organisms and their environments on

an ongoing basis. Several variations of the ecological model have been used within a

variety of fields to study various organisms and their environments. The ecological

model was first used in psychology by researchers to understand human development

within systems and various settings in which it occurred (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). The

core focus of the ecological model was that behaviors have many levels of influence. The

public health profession has often used the ecological model (McLeroy et al., 1988) to

address public health issues across multiple levels. Intervention can occur across various

levels of the model and at various times. This ecological model was used to focus on

health promotion interventions within the college setting.

The CDC (2016) used a four-level, social-ecological model to support

understanding of how violence prevention strategies will potentially affect the factors

within each level. The model provided an example of the association between the

individual, relationship, community, and societal factors. The model showed each level

as a ring that overlaps each other, indicating how factors within one level influence

factors at another level (CDC, 2016). The CDC identifies the importance of addressing

the higher levels of the model, which include within the relationship level, family, friends

and colleagues; the community level, which are both formal and informal organizations;

and the societal level, which is public policies and laws (CDC, 2016). For colleges and

universities, the higher levels of the ecological model may have a broader reach and an

increase in sustainability on the campus, instead of focusing on violence prevention at the

individual level (CDC, 2016). The broader reach addressed the campus community, as

well as systems and institutions. Changes within these levels could affect policies and

procedures to support sexual violence intervention and prevention strategies.

The framework I used was the ecological model, which provided five levels of

influence on health behaviors (Green et al., 1996). This model was used by the American

College Health Association (ACHA) in addressing health promotions and behaviors

within colleges and universities (ACHA, 2020). The levels included intrapersonal,

interpersonal processes, institutional factors, community factors, and public policy (Green

et al., 1996). The ecological model describes how individuals interact with each other

and their environments. Each level included factors that influence health behaviors.

Figure 1

Ecological Approach

Note: The social ecology of health promotion interventions. Retrieved from the American College Health Association.

https://www.acha.org/HealthyCampus/HealthyCampus/Ecological_Model.aspx. Reprinted with permission.

The first level of the ecological model was intrapersonal (ACHA, 2020). This

level addressed influences that affect the individual. Within this level were factors such

as knowledge, attitudes, self-concept, skills, and developmental history that influenced an

individual’s behavior (ACHA, 2020). This level also included racial/ethnic identity,

religious identity, gender, sexual orientation, financial resources, economic status, age,

genetics, goals, values, resiliency, health literacy, coping skills, the stigma of accessing

counseling services, values, goals, expectations, time management skills, and accessing

health care skills (ACHA, 2020). An example within the intrapersonal level was the

student and the student’s general attitudes and values.

The second level was the interpersonal level, which included interpersonal

processes and primary groups (ACHA, 2020). This level included social networks that

are both formal and informal social support systems that included family, workgroup, and

friendship networks (ACHA, 2020). This level also included athletics, intramural sports,

recreation, clubs, and Greek Life (ACHA, 2020). Within this level, individuals interacted

with others such as friends, family, social support network and workgroups (ACHA,

2020). Relationships and interactions within this level influenced health behaviors. An

example within the interpersonal level was the fraternities on a college campus which

may reside under the student life department.

The third level was the institutional level. This level focused on social institutions

with organizational characteristics and formal (and informal) rules and regulations for

operations (ACHA, 2020). This level focused on campus related social institutions,

characteristics as well as rules and regulations (ACHA 2020). Other related factors

within the institutional level included safety, campus climate (tolerance/intolerance),

competitiveness, class schedules, lighting, unclean environments, air quality, buildings,

noise, financial policies, distance to classes and buildings, availability of study and

common lounge spaces (ACHA, 2020). An example of interactions within the

institutional level may have included the registrar’s office which is responsible for several

things including a student’s class schedule and would be the office that students needed to

access if they needed to change their class schedule. If a student is sexually assaulted by

a classmate and wants to change their class schedule so they will no longer have class

with the person that assaulted them they would need to speak with the registrar’s office.

The fourth level was the community level. This level focused on the relationships

among campuses and non-campus organizations, institutions, networks, and associations

(ACHA, 2020). Other factors included neighborhood associations, location in the

community, built environment, on/off-campus housing, community leaders, businesses

(e.g., bars, fast food restaurants, farmers markets), walkability, commuting,

transportation, parking, parks (ACHA, 2020). An example within the community level

on a college campus was campus housing. Those students who lived on campus are a

part of the housing community.

The fifth level was public policy. Within this level are laws and policies that were

developed and implemented locally, statewide, nationally, and globally (ACHA, 2020).

The focus was a healthy campus which was created by policies that provided resources to

mediate structures connecting individuals and the larger social environments (ACHA,

2020). Other policies within this level were those that provided behavior incentives, both

positive and negative, which included increased taxes on alcohol and cigarettes (ACHA,

2020). Additional policies within this level included ones that restricted behavior such as

alcohol sales and consumption as well as tobacco use in public spaces (ACHA, 2020).

Last, other policies within this level related to social justice, violence, foreign affairs, the

economy, green policies, and global warming (ACHA, 2020). An example within this

level was the Title IX office on a college campus. Since this office addressed Title IX

complaints and Title IX is a federal law, this office could be considered within the public

policy level of the ecological model. The Title IX office could also be considered within

the institutional level as well.

Within each of these levels, strategies can be created to address sexual violence

and, therefore, was an appropriate framework for this study. In addition, the interview

questions were designed based on the various levels of the model. Campus ecology

focuses on factors within the environment and influences that affect individual behavior

through interactions (ACHA, 2018). Due to the interrelationship that exists between

determinants of health within each level, interventions are more likely effective when

determinants are addressed at each level of the ecological model (ACHA, 2018).

Application of the Ecological Model

The ecological model has been used in various fields to study the relationships

between organisms and their environments. Bronfenbrenner (1977) identified the

wellbeing of individuals as being based on the complex relations of their immediate

settings. These immediate settings included home, school, and institutional workplace

patterns, societal norms, and informal and formal social structures (Bronfenbrenner,

1977). Various kinds of violence have been studied using the ecological model as well as

a variation of the ecological model known as the socioecological model (Bhochhibhoya et

al., 2019). The ecological model, with a focus on health promotions and interventions,

has been applied previously in research addressing sexual violence from an intervention

and prevention perspective as well as other health-related studies. The World Health

Organization (WHO) used an ecological model with four levels to address health

promotion initiatives (WHO, 2020). For my study, I used five levels within the

ecological model for my subject of study. The levels overlapped each other, and various

interventions, programs, and resources can be implemented at each level.

The Project Health Education Awareness Research Team (HEART) used an

ecological model in addressing cardiovascular disease risk factors by designing a health

promotion and disease prevention program (Balcázar et al., 2012). The ecological model

was used within the second phase of this project, which focused on enhancing and

restructuring the environment (Balcázar et al., 2012). The activities that are included

within the five levels of this ecological model include nutrition programming and

physical activities (Balcázar et al., 2012). The nutrition programming included nutrition

classes, meetings for coffee and talk, cooking demonstrations, and grocery shopping

demonstrations (Balcázar et al., 2012). The physical activities included aerobics, family

soccer, dancing, walking, and swimming (Balcázar et al., 2012). Balcázar et al. (2012)

noted that the ecological model must be a good fit for the community and culturally

competent. Each level of the ecological model was addressed in creating a

comprehensive program that was found to be important and challenging (Balcázar et al.,

2012).

Wadsworth et al. (2018) used an ecological model to categorize the forces that

either supported or detracted from a person’s well-being after an assault. They used each

level of the ecological model to identify the barriers and those things that facilitate

positive well-being for women who experienced adult sexual assault. Using the

ecological model allowed for a more comprehensive and advanced understanding of the

well-being of adult sexual assault victims after the assault. Researchers were able to

examine the barriers and facilitators for positive well-being from a more holistic

perspective using the ecological model which has been lacking in previous research that

did not use the ecological model. In addition, researchers were able to see connections

between the levels of the model in addressing barriers and things that support positive

well-being. Examining the construct of well-being within the ecological model

demonstrated the holistic and dynamic ways that sexual assault affects victims/survivors

on each of the ecological levels. Researchers identified both emotional and physical

health functioning in collaboration with spiritual, relational and financial health. In

addition, the outcomes were supported by health care professionals and researchers to the

ecological model with the multiple levels when addressing the effects of the well-being of

victims after a sexual assault.

Bhochhibhoya et al. (2019) used an ecological model as a comprehensive strategy

to identify the rates of sexual victimization on a single college campus among college

students across genders and sexual orientation. In addition, they used the ecological

model to study risk factors and protective factors of college students who were in dating

relationships within the different levels of the ecological model. The individual,

interpersonal, community, and societal levels were explored regarding sexual

victimization and its associations at the various levels of the ecological model. Three

types of sexual victimization were explored, which were unwanted sexual contacts,

attempted rapes, and complete rapes. The researchers were able to use the ecological

model to identify various relationships between study participants and factors within each

level of the model.

Sabbah et al. (2016) used the ecological model to study intimate partner violence

among Jordanian women. The ecological model was used because it includes

environmental factors such as culture and policy and individual factors in one framework.

This model also shows the interaction between the individual human behavior and

environmental factors within the model. Using the ecological model enabled the

researchers to examine deficiencies of traditional theories. Traditional theories may only

provide a view from one lens or dimension while the ecological model allows for a

multidimensional view. Researchers used the ecological model as a first step in

understanding the multidimensional aspects of intimate partner violence in Jordan.

Fulu and Miedema (2015) used the ecological model to study violence against

women within Maldives and Cambodia. This ecological model included the individual,

relationship, community and social levels. Risk and protective factors regarding violence

against women were identified throughout the different levels of the model. Factors that

were studied included finances, religion, urbanization, social isolation, ideas regarding

marriage, gender roles, and legislation. At the individual level women were in social

isolation and not provided support which can be a risk factor for violence against women.

Within the relationship level there was non-egalitarian decisions made, and poor

communication between male and females within the home. The ideas of marriage as

well as religion and finances are under the charge of the male within the home. Poor

communication also increased the risk of violence against women. At the community

level there was an acceptance of wives being beaten and there was also a stigma

associated with divorce meaning that women were less likely to file for divorce due to

this stigma. The community level also addressed religion, marriage and gender roles and

urbanization. In addition, the community supported family privacy meaning that if there

was abuse occurring and the community was aware of the abuse, the likelihood of a

community member intervening was unlikely. Last, within the community level there

was a lack of sanctions for the abuser to face which means an abuser was not going to be

held responsible for their behavior. Each of these factors within the community level also

can increase the risk of violence. The social level addressed legislation, gender roles,

marriage, religion, cultural factors and finances. The gender roles within Maldives and

Cambodia were very traditional and the rules that men should follow were much different

and not equitable to the rules women follow. Men were considered and were expected to

be the head of the household. The men were also responsible for the financials and made

all financial decisions. Each of the factors mentioned within the social level were risks

for violence against women, however, women who worked outside of the home and made

a wage could be considered a protective factor for women. In addition, national

legislation and organizations working to change legislation regarding women within

Cambodia was a protective factor in addressing violence against women. While the

ecological model was used to examine factors associated with violence against women in

previous studies, the current study identified the need for intervention within the

community and societal level.

Rationale

I chose the ecological model to focus on approaching sexual violence from several

levels. Each level within the ecological model was connected to the other levels in

various ways. In order to address sexual violence holistically, a multifaceted approach

using the ecological model was most appropriate to address intrapersonal, interpersonal,

institutional, community, and public policy factors. According to ACHA (2018),

interventions were more likely to be successful if addressed at all levels of the ecological

model.

Literature Review Related to Key Variables and Concepts

There are several key variables included in the literature review. The variables to

be considered in this study included barriers to reporting on college campuses, barriers to

accessing services on college campuses, lack of victim confidentiality, attitudes beliefs

and behaviors regarding sexual violence, alcohol and victimization on college campuses,

fraternities and college athletes on college campuses, intervention, and prevention

programs on college campuses, and policies and procedure regarding sexual violence on

college campuses.

Barriers to Reporting on College Campuses

It can be difficult to report a campus sexual assault. There are many reasons that

victims choose not to report their victimization to the college or university. Barriers to

reporting can be personal in nature or campus, community, or institutional related.

Victims may experience psychological, physiological, and physical responses to their

victimization, presenting challenges for reporting (WHO, 2019). Victims may experience

stress, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress disorder, among other symptoms, and may

experience physiological and physical responses to their assault or in response to their

body’s psychological state (WHO, 2019). Sexual violence is associated with

psychological and physical health consequences that can be both short- and long-term

(Stoner & Cramer, 2017). These trauma-related experiences may not only delay or

prevent their reporting but could also impact their status as a student. According to Tull

(2022, February 7), victims may suffer from a multitude of symptoms that include

depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as well as reoccurring

gynecological and sexual health programs. Victims may also experience feelings of guilt,

shame, or embarrassment regarding sexual assault. Mennicke (2021) identified barriers

to formally disclosing an assault, including fear, shame, and embarrassment, not wanting

to deal with the assault, thinking the assault was not serious, and denial. Victims may

think the assault was their fault and feel guilty if they were to report the incident to the

campus officials or be ashamed or embarrassed to think that someone could take

advantage of them.

Victims may find it difficult to report if they knew who assaulted them. Victims

are assaulted by someone they know 80% of the time (United States DOJ, 2017). When

there is a known perpetrator the chances of reporting the assault become even more

unlikely. Schwarz et al. (2017) found that the main reason for not reporting a sexual

assault was if the victim knew the attacker. Victims do not report sexual violence crimes

if the assailant is known to the victim (RAINN, 2016) or if the victim thought that she

was somehow responsible for the sexual assault (Tull, 2022, February 7). Stoner and

Cramer (2019) found that sexual assault is primarily underreported because crime is

highly personal. Individuals do not typically discuss their sexual encounters openly with

others, so sharing a sexual experience that was forced is not only very personal but can

also cause a victim to be very uncomfortable with discussing the victimization at all.

Victims who are not comfortable reporting their assault since it is personal may choose to

remain silent or tell a friend or family member instead of reporting to the authorities.

Stoner and Cramer (2017) found that victims were more comfortable reporting unwanted

experiences to friends. Dworkin et al. (2016) also found that victims were more likely to

disclose to friends as well as family members.

Another barrier includes ambiguous and inconsistent policies and procedures for

reporting and accessing services at colleges and universities. According to Stader and

Williams-Cunningham (2017), factors such as unclear reporting methods, punitive

policies, and victim-blaming lead to devaluing the victim’s traumatic experience and

institutional betrayal. Victims may be confused or not sure of where to make a report or

whom to speak with at their college or university. If victims were not treated

appropriately by their college or university, this could prolong their healing process.

Dissociation was significantly and positively associated with Institutional betrayal along

with physical health symptoms, trauma symptoms, and three trauma variables, two of

those traumas being college-specific sexual assault and intimate partner violence

(Rosenthal, 2018).

Reporting any form of sexual violence is supported by Title IX, which states that

no person within educational programs and activities in the United States can be

discriminated against based on sex (United States DOE, 2020). The OCR provides

interpretation in the form of guidelines regarding federal legislation and laws to be

implemented. The Office of Justice also supports the interpretation of Title IX. The

courts have not offered guidance to clarify how to interpret Title IX, so students may be

less likely to report sexual assault. According to the precedent set by the Supreme Court,

they typically let the federal agency interpret the statute, so the court does not create a

conflict between future and prior interpretations when a court is asked to interpret an

unclear statute and faces a conflict between an interpretation (Cole & Back, 2019).

According to Smith (2016), there are no consistent sexual violence procedures in place to

respond to and address sexual violence by most universities. There needs to be

clarification on some issues, which include how to file a complaint, the timeframe for a

university to investigate the complaint, and the potential disciplinary outcome if the

complaint is substantiated (Smith, 2016).

The goal of higher education institutions should be to conduct rapid and

appropriate responses to sexual violence; however, the institution should minimize the

harm to the student and support the student’s right to self-determination (Holland et al.,

2018). While colleges and universities want to maintain a safe, educational environment,

each institution independently must interpret the federal guidelines, which leaves much

room for various interpretations as to the creation and implementation of an equitable,

victim supported process. Holland et al. (2018) identify a need for innovative policies

and practices that offer an alternative to mandatory disclosure of sexual violence by those

employed by the institution of higher education. Victims who choose to report should

encounter a transparent process and understand each of the components.

Barriers to Accessing Services on College Campuses

Barriers to accessing services also exist on college campuses. Similar to reporting

barriers, survivors often will not seek services if they do not think that their assault meets

the criteria set out by rape myths. According to Elmore (2021), rape myths “explain a set

of beliefs that serves as a foundation for sexual aggression toward women”. Rape myths

are things people think should be present if a rape has occurred (Rollero & Tartaglia,

2019). Some rape myths include she asked for it, he did not mean to, she lied, it wasn’t

really rape, perpetrator has to be a stranger; a weapon is used, the perpetrator usually

jumps out of the bushes and attacks the victim, victims usually have cuts and bruises from

the perpetrator during the rape (Dawtry et al., 2019; Rollero & Tartaglia, 2019). Rape

myth acceptance (RMA) occurs when false beliefs about sexual assault are excepted by

individuals (Prina & Schatz-Stevens, 2020). Rape myths that create a barrier for

accessing services include those individuals who discourage victims from identifying

their experience as sexual assault (DeLoveh & Cattaneo, 2017). Victims may also not

seek services if they do not have characteristic injuries that are thought to be consistent

with those who have been sexually assaulted or if their injuries are not severe enough.

Victims may think or feel that maybe they were not assaulted or question their own

victimization experience if victims are discouraged from identifying their experiences as

sexual assault. Another concern is that victims worry that they will not be believed

(DeLoveh & Cattaneo, 2017), especially if the victim knows the perpetrator. Known

perpetrators account for 80% of the sexual assaults that occur (United States DOJ, 2017).

Victims may worry that mutual friends and acquaintances of the victim and the

perpetrator will not support the victim’s disclosure. Other victims may worry that the

known perpetrator will get in trouble from the college or university or get arrested due to

the assault. According to Cantor et al. (2020), assistance from a victim services agency

was provided for 1 in 5 college-aged female survivors.

Male victims may have additional barriers to accessing services. According to

Conley et al. (2017), males represented 11.6% of the sample that experienced sexual

victimization, and only 2.8% reported rape. While most victims are female, access to

services and resources should be available for all victims. Conley et al. (2017) cited that

male victims may be uncomfortable seeking services at a women’s center so that services

need to be provided in a more neutral location. Ensuring that locations for services and

resources are supportive of all victims and ensuring that staff are trained to serve both

male and female victims is essential to serve both male and female victims adequately.

Cultural minority students as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer

(LGBTQ) students face other barriers in accessing services and resources on campus.

According to Bach (2021) service utilization is met with many barriers for historically

marginalized survivors of sexual assault. Gómez (2022) identified a need for culturally

conforming, trauma-informed education and therapeutic resources. Dion (2022) found

that Indigenous students experienced significantly higher levels of sexual harassment

when compared to their non-Indigenous peers, however, there was not a significant

difference in sexual assault rates for Indigenous students when compared to their non-

Indigenous peers. According to Bourassa et al. (2017) policies that are sustainable and

prevent Indigenous students from being invisible are needed.

Sabina and Ho (2014) recommended that instead of focusing on the victim’s

responsibility to utilize service, the college environment needs to focus on low disclosure

rates. During strategic planning processes and discussions, colleges and universities

should include survivors as collaborative partners when considering what services and

resources a campus should offer (Koss et al., 2014). There is some conflict as to what

specific actions colleges and universities should take (Koss et al., 2014), so it is essential

to determine who should be included in deciding the resources and services provided to

survivors (DeLoveh & Cattaneo, 2017). Any plans and procedures developed to support

survivors and advocate for them should include survivor perspectives (DeLoveh &

Cattaneo, 2017).

Lack of Victim Confidentiality

College students who are victims of sexual violence are concerned about their

confidentiality. Confidentiality on campus is a concern for potential reporting and

seeking services. Sabina and Ho (2014) found that concerns around confidentiality

created a barrier for victims in disclosing their assault. Depending on whom the college

student decides to disclose their victimization will determine if the person on campus has

to report the incident to an official on campus. Colleges and universities are federally

required to designate employees required by the college and university to disclose sexual

assault reports to the university (Holland et al., 2018). If a student were sexually

assaulted and disclosed to a mandated employee of the college or university, the

employee would be required to report the sexual assault to the college or university. It is

often unclear to students’ which employees are mandated reporters and those not

mandated to report. According to Barnes and Freyd (2017), if employees were required

to report assaults to the university, less than 6% of students would be “extremely likely”

to disclose a sexual assault. According to Munro-Kramer et al. (2017), participants stated

that victims fear the loss of confidentiality if they seek resources. Mennicke et al. (2019)

noted that mental health services on college campuses are often designated as confidential

resources, which may appeal to victims, so they decide to use those services. While

mental health services on campuses are designated as confidential, services and support

provided by other professionals on campus such as victim advocates and crisis line staff

may not be designated as confidential (Mennicke et al., 2019). The confidential

designation of a particular campus staff may be different based on the specific college or

university Mennicke et al., 2019). Victims on campus must understand the process and

procedures so they can make an informed decision regarding reporting and accessing

services and support (Mennicke et al., 2019).

Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behaviors Regarding Sexual Violence

The victims’ attitudes and beliefs may be strongly influenced by attitudes and

beliefs held by groups/communities that the victim engages with and the

group/community where the victim is a member. According to Burrus and Carney

(2015), everyday events are strongly influenced by social attitudes and beliefs. Relyea

and Ullman (2015) found that social reactions toward survivors had an impact on

survivors. Survivors reported that others blamed them, stigmatized them, or made them

feel like children (Relyea & Ullman, 2015). Survivors described increased levels of

potentially harmful behavior or thinking, increased self-blame, social withdrawal, and

decreased sexual assertiveness (Relyea & Ullman, 2015). In reviewing research from

2000 through 2016 regarding law enforcement and rape victims, Sleath and Bull (2017)

found that there are still significant issues regarding the treatment of rape victims in

investigating rape cases. Sleath and Bull (2017) found that law enforcement consistently

engages in victim blaming and the primary indicator of how much blame is attributed to

the victim is based on the victim’s level of intoxication when sexually assaulted. The

greater the intoxication by the victim the increased likelihood that law enforcement will

blame the victim for the assault (Sleath & Bull, 2017).

According to McDermott et al. (2015), years of research have associated the

perpetration of sexual assault on men’s masculinity. Rigid traditional masculinity

provides acceptance of sexual assault by men (McDermott et al., 2015). This hierarchal

relationship and the idea that masculinity should include males pressuring females with

sexual advances and those females should be responsive to those advances leads the male

partner to exert power and pressure on their female partner (Eaton & Matamala, 2014).

Beliefs that encourage attitudes of male superiority and female inferiority also contribute

to sexual violence against women.

If victims believe that sexual assault is their fault, they are less likely to report

(Stoner & Cramer, 2019). Victims who were worried about being believed were less

likely to report their victimization. If victims believe that the college condones rape

myths and victim-blaming ideas, then the victim will be less likely to make a formal

report (Stoner & Cramer, 2019). Victim blaming can take the form of victims blaming

themselves, or victims may worry their friends, family, colleagues, and community

members will blame them for the assault.

Rape culture is an environment in which sexual violence against women is

normalized and ignored or excused in popular culture and the media (Marshall

University, 2020). Rape culture is supported and perpetuated through the objectification

of women’s bodies, the glamorization of sexual violence, and the use of misogynistic

language, causing a disregard for women’s rights and safety within society (Marshall

University, 2020). All women are affected by rape culture (Marshall University, 2020).

All women are limited by the rape of even one woman creating degradation and terror

(Marshall University, 2020). Rape reminds women that they are seen as subordinate to

males and that women have to think about safety measures that would otherwise not be an

issue due to the prevalence of rape (Marshall University, 2020). Some safety that women

need to think of is having a friend with her when in a social situation, limiting alcohol

consumption, and always be aware of their surroundings (Bestcolleges.com, 2020). The

existence of rape creates limitations of behavior for most women and girls, and the fear of

rape is something that most women and girls think about, while men typically do not

(Marshall University, 2020). The female population as a whole is held in a subordinate

position to the male population as a whole by the powerful means of rape, even though

many women are never victims of rape, and many men do not rape

(Marshall University, 2020; Young et al., 2016).

Alcohol and Victimization on College Campuses

Alcohol is another factor in addressing sexual violence on college and university

campuses. According to Alcohol.org (2020), sexual assaults that involve alcohol account

for 50% of the assaults, and when an acquaintance of the victim is the perpetrator, 90% of

the assaults involve alcohol. The consumption of alcohol increases the likelihood that a

student will be a victim of sexual assault. Gilmore et al. (2015) found that women who

consume more alcohol than usual are twice as likely to be victimized compared to those

who rarely or never drink alcohol. Alcohol.org (2020) identified that sexual assault

victims used alcohol in about 43% of the sexual assaults crimes that occurred while

perpetrators used alcohol in about 69% of the sexual assault crimes. Alcohol can cause

two negative effects on the victim. First, alcohol can negatively affect the victim’s

memory, which can create a challenge for remembering events during the assault. Flowe

et al. (2016) explored the impact alcohol creates on a victim’s memory when sexually

assaulted. The victims who were identified as intoxicated by alcohol answered fewer

questions and would state that they did not know the answer compared to victims who

were not intoxicated (Flowe et at., 2016). However, the accuracy of the intoxicated

victim’s responses did not differ from the non-intoxicated victim’s responses (Flowe et

al., 2016). Secondly, an increase in the amount of blame for the assault is placed on the

victim for placing herself in a dangerous situation (Flowe et al., 2016). A widespread

social norm on college campuses supports that if the victim had consumed drugs or

alcohol before or during the assault, then the victim is partially responsible for the assault

(Cowley, 2014). Siefkes-Andrew and Alexopoulos (2018) identified that campuses need

to explore their environments and their alcohol policies that may be putting students at

risk of sexual assault.

Fraternities and College Athletes on College Campuses

When male students begin their college or university experience, they may decide

to pledge to a fraternity. Participating in a fraternity may sound like the perfect college

experience. Being associated with a fraternity will increase the likelihood that the student

will be a perpetrator of sexual violence. According to Jozkowski and Wiersma‐Mosley

(2017) fraternities are a problem that contributes to sexual assault on college campuses.

Three characteristics were found to be a channel connecting fraternity membership and

accepting sexual violence: conforming to masculine norms are expected, members are

pressured to conform by the men in the fraternity, all fraternity members are expected to

uphold those norms, and the objectification of women was to be accepted (Seabrook et

al., 2018). Seabrook et al. (2016) found that the pressure to uphold masculine gender

norms (e.g., having several sexual partners, displaying dominance) explains the

relationship between fraternity membership and sexual aggression. According to

Seabrook et al. (2018), victims are blamed more, and fraternity members are blamed less

for sexual assault than when the perpetrators are non-fraternity members.

College administrators responsible for addressing sexual violence against women

on college campuses should explore how fraternity members are less likely to be held

responsible for sexual assault (Seabrook et al., 2018). Boyle (2015) identified dangerous

cultures within some fraternities. Some men are interested in certain fraternities where

they think it will be easier to commit sexual violence, and these fraternities perpetuate

hostility and violence against women (Boyle, 2015).

Male student-athletes are also identified as a population that commits sexual

violence at a higher rate than non-athletic students. Male athletes also have value systems

and beliefs that support rape culture. According to a survey by the White House Task

Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (2017), a survey of approximately 15,000

women and 8,000 men showed that male athletes were 20% of the perpetrators

responsible for campus sexual assaults. The study also showed that fewer incidents of

sexual assault occurred at schools that had smaller athletic programs and smaller Greek

life associations. McCray (2015) found through a comprehensive review of research that

perpetrators of campus sexual assaults were disproportionately male student-athletes.

Similar to fraternity values and beliefs, Foubert et al. (2020) identified that intercollegiate

athletes have a higher rape myth acceptance, more significant restriction of gender-role

attitudes, and higher rates of sexually coercive behavior than non-college athletes. An act

of sexual coercion by male athletes is 77% more likely than a male student who is not an

athlete, and the coercive acts used included force or threats of harm (Young et al., 2016).

Young et al. (2016) mention the lack of research on intercollegiate athletes perpetrating

violence against college women despite the ongoing, high-profile cases of violence

against college women by male college athletes.

Intervention and Prevention Programs on College Campuses

All colleges and universities are required by Title IX to provide intervention

programs and services to those students who were victimized as well as prevention

programs to address sexual violence on campuses (Know Your IX, n.d.). Campuses may

provide a variety of programs and services and may choose a variety of ways to

implement them (Know Your IX, n.d.). Campuses must have a well-rounded program

that includes intervention programs and services for survivors as well as prevention

programs for all students, staff, and administrators. Conley et al. (2017) identified the

importance of prevention and intervention programming in addressing sexual violence.

Intervention

Interventions for survivors vary by campus (Sabina & Ho, 2014). Some campuses

have programs or centers dedicated to intervention services for victims of sexual

violence. In contrast, other campuses provide intervention services as an extension of

their counseling centers, women’s centers, and campus health services. According to the

White House Task Force (2017), the majority of colleges and universities strive to

provide services and advocacy for sexual assault victims. Services can be provided in

many ways, including on-campus or off-campus, by a local sexual assault center or victim

advocacy program via a memorandum of understanding (The White House Task Force,

2017). The type of institution determines the services and policies for sexual assault and

dating violence as well as judicial processes and identifies a need for improvement in

several areas (Sabina & Ho, 2014). According to Sabina and Ho (2014), 58% of 4 year

campuses notified students of services including counseling and campus police while for

2 year institutions, Native American colleges and universities, or historically Black

colleges and universities (HBCUs), less than 40% of the students are made aware of

services including counseling and campus police.

Services and resources can include 24/7 crisis intervention, victim advocacy,

accompaniment for a forensic medical exam, counseling, support groups, and various

resources and materials to support the victim during their healing process by campus

students and staff while other campuses utilize community-based sexual assault programs

(Bestcolleges.com, 2020; White House Task Force, 2017). Physical and mental health

services were the most often services utilized (Sabina & Ho, 2014). Other campuses may

have a combination of intervention services they provide, and the local community based

sexual assault program provides (Bestcolleges.com, 2020). Victim advocates are the

professionals that respond to crisis lines and in-person crisis responses.

Victim advocates are trained professionals who are typically employed by the

college or university or in a local community program. According to the OJP, Office for

Victims of Crime Training and Technical Assistance Center (OJP OVC, TTAC, 2020),

trained professionals known as victim advocates specialize in supporting victims of

crimes. Responsibilities of advocates may include emotional support, counseling, exam

accompaniment, resources, and information as well as court accompaniment (OJP OVC,

TTAC, 2020). Victim advocates can support victims by listening and believing them,

accompanying them if they choose to have evidence collected on their body known as a

forensic medical exam, provide resources for crime victims compensation, and often

working in collaboration with other professionals on the campus in support of the victim.

In working with other college or university professionals, victim advocates can help

victims with their academic schedule or housing location if victims want to change their

schedule or housing location. Having trained victim advocates easily accessible to

students is often seen as a best practice for promoting a compassionate, appropriate

response to victims (Amar et al., 2014; Cantalupo, 2014).

According to Javorka and Campbell (2019), a collaboration between advocacy

services on campus and those within the community may offer the best comprehensive

services and support to victims on campus. Campus advocacy services can provide

support regarding specific campus-related procedures, academic schedules, housing, as

well as crisis intervention. Community-based advocacy services can ensure the victim’s

confidentiality, while the campus advocate may not be able to provide the same level of

confidentiality based on policies and procedures. According to Javorka and Campbell

(2019), the policies on campuses requiring campus staff to disclose any sexual assault,

including the victim’s name, is a challenge for advocates who want to maintain a victim’s

confidentiality and ultimately a concern for victims.

Prevention

Before the 2013 SaVE Act, primary prevention programming for sexual violence

was not mandated on college and university campuses. Primary prevention of sexual

violence is defined by the (CDC, 2020) as preventing first-time perpetration and firsttime

victimization. Secondary and tertiary prevention may also be included in the

programming. Secondary prevention is the immediate response for victims after an

assault has occurred, and tertiary prevention is long term aftercare for victims after an

assault (CDC, 2020). Colleges and universities may have had programs focused on

sexual violence; however, those programs could have addressed anything from awareness

to prevalence to prevention efforts. Primary prevention programs for sexual violence and

awareness programs were mandated on all federally funded college and university

campuses as of 2013 by the SaVE Act (Dills et al., 2016). There was no specific federal

mandate for what primary prevention programs should be used or implemented; however,

there was the guidance provided regarding what specific education would include.

Education under the Campus SaVE Act included: educational programs for all new

campus employees and all incoming students that focus on primary prevention and

awareness, bystander intervention strategies that are safe and positive options, resources

and materials that help identify warning signs of abusive behavior and information on risk

reduction and last for current students and faculty, ongoing awareness and prevention

(End Rape on Campus, n.d.).

The “Think Tank” was created out of the White House Task Force established in

2014; this was a group of federal agencies and departments that came together in 2015.

This group is comprised of experts from different backgrounds within the United States

working in the field of sexual violence. They formed to address how community

organizations and sexual assault centers that provide rape prevention education as well as

sexual violence prevention programming on college and university campuses can best

address sexual violence (Dills et al., 2016). According to Dills et al. (2016), colleges and

universities need to move beyond the idea of just being compliant with the federal

guidelines and focus on culture change. A framework was created to outline components

in addressing campus sexual violence. The five components that were developed by the

“Think Tank” were comprehensive prevention, audience, infrastructure, partnerships and

sustainability, and evaluation (Dills et al., 2016). Along with the five components, there

was guidance in promoting best practices in prevention planning and implementation of

sexual violence initiatives for college campuses and within the community (Dills et al.,

2016).

The CDC, which was part of the “Think Tank,” had already identified a

framework to address sexual violence prevention. The framework the CDC identified

was the social-ecological model (CDC, 2020). The social-ecological model uses four

levels to address sexual violence prevention: individual, relationship, community, and

societal. The interaction of the social ecological model in conjunction with the five

components developed by the “Think Tank” created a comprehensive sexual violence

prevention plan (Dills et al., 2016). Dills et al. (2016) explain that a comprehensive

sexual violence plan includes educational programs, peer support groups for active

bystanders, creating and distributing sexual violence awareness, and prevalence materials.

Dills et al. (2016) also include intervening by choosing to stand up to verbal comments

and conversations that negatively talk about women and other activities such as

partnering with sororities and other groups to bring about changes on campuses.

An evidence-based approach used on college and university campuses to prevent

sexual assault is bystander training (Dills, et al., 2016). Bystander programs engage both

women and men as witnesses to behaviors from others that can increase the potential for

violence and train the bystander to intervene safely or speak up against social norms that

support violence (Dills, et al., 2016). For students at colleges and universities, two

bystander programs were identified by the CDC (Dills et al., 2016). Bystander

approaches for preventing sexual violence provide peer leadership and involve

individuals creating social change (Basile et al., 2014). Individuals are taught to safely

and effectively intervene if they see behaviors that put others at risk and to encourage

protective norms within their circles of influence (Basile et al., 2014). One bystander

program known as “Green Dot,” is a bystander-based prevention program created to

reduce sexual violence and other forms of perpetration and interpersonal violence

victimization, and the second bystander program is called “Bringing in the Bystander”

(CDC, 2020).

Green Dot is a bystander intervention program that is nationally recognized, and

the focus is on individuals building the skills needed to intervene when they see situations

involving violence of a personal nature that are power based (stalking, intimate partner

violence, and sexual assault) (Alteristic, n.d.). Preventing harm from developing within

communities can be initiated by everyone choosing to make a small difference with

words or actions known as “Green Dots” (Alteristic, n.d.). An evaluation of Green Dot

was conducted on a college campus that implemented the program, and it was determined

that there was an 11% lower rate of sexual harassment and stalking victimization after

implementation (Basile et al., 2014; Coker et al., 2015). Also, researchers found stalking

perpetration and sexual harassment was at a 19% lower rate for the same college that

implemented Green Dot when compared with two colleges that did not implement Green

Dot (Basile et al., 2014; Coker et al., 2015).

A second bystander intervention program is called “Bringing in the Bystander”

(RAINN, 2020). This program is similar to Green Dot in that it teaches skills for a

bystander intervene to prevent an act of violence from occurring. In addition, Bringing in

the Bystander also focuses on developing empathy for victims and community members

addressing societal norms that perpetuate gender based violence against women and girls.

An evaluation of Bringing in the Bystander curriculum showed an increase in individuals’

self-efficacy and their intentions to engage in bystander interventions among college

students (Basile et al., 2014) and deciding to help friends with bystander behaviors

(Basile et al., 2014; Moynihan et al., 2015).

Powers and Leili (2016) studied the effects of bystander interventions with staff

from bars. Bars were identified as any alcohol serving establishment. They explored the

bar staff’s attitudes surrounding sexual harassment/assault, how they currently handle

these situations, and their opinions regarding programs and policies that currently

mandate responsibility. Powers and Leili (2016) found that bystander programs may

work exceptionally well with staff from bars because some of the barriers among college

populations will be less salient to them. Bar staff do not have the same limitations as

college and university staff. Colleges and universities have specific policies that they

have to follow regarding sexual violence and reporting; however, bar staff do not have

those same policies. One particular barrier that staff from bars are not going to focus on

will be the reporting procedures that are present on campuses when disclosure of sexual

violence occurs (Powers & Leili, 2016). In particular, staff from bars are already

responsible for intervening in other situations and, therefore, these interventions can

extend to sexual violence (Powers & Leili, 2016).

Another prevention program is an empowerment-based training to reduce the risk

for victimization for women called “The Enhanced Assess, Acknowledge, Act” (Basile et

al., 2014). This program’s goal is to ultimately reduce the risk for violence by providing

education and skills training to assess potential risk from others, acknowledging danger

while overcoming emotional barriers, and learning skills to use verbal and physical

strategies (Basile et al., 2014). In evaluating the program, at the one-year follow-up,

participants were 50.4% less likely to have experienced rape and/or attempted rape than a

control group (Basile et al., 2014). The risk of sexual coercion and other non-consensual

sexual contact was also significantly lower in the intervention group (Basile et al., 2014;

Senn et al., 2015).

Policies and Procedure Regarding Sexual Violence on College Campuses

There are three main pieces of federal legislation to address policies and

procedures that should be in place on college campuses to address sexual violence

through prevention and intervention strategies (Moyan, 2016). Those pieces of

legislation include Title IX (1972), Clery Act (1990), and the Campus SAVE Act (2013),

which is an amendment to the Clery Act (Moyan, 2016). Even though the first two pieces

of legislation were enacted in 1972 and 1990, widespread coverage of campus sexual

assaults was not mainly in the public eye until 2011 when the Dear Colleague

Letter was distributed to colleges and universities by the OCR under the DOE. The Dear

Colleague Letter’s purpose was to provide interpretation and federal guidelines as well as

best practices for Title IX. It became clear that colleges and universities did not have

adequate policies and procedures to address prevention or intervention programs.

Since 2013, investigations for Title IX violations regarding inadequate responses

to cases of sexual violence were conducted for almost 200 colleges (Bellis et al., 2018).

This list was made available to the public. It made colleges and universities concerned

that their institution would not meet the compliance standards and subsequently

investigated by the OCR. There was concern from the participants in the study by Moyan

(2016) that the focus for their institutions was compliance with federal mandates instead

of focusing on programs, resources, and support for intervention and prevention programs

(Moyan, 2016). According to Moyan (2016), the frequent mishandling of sexual assaults

on campuses has created attention from student activists, the media, and the U.S. federal

government. Moyan (2016) reported that 11 out of 14 participants in her study explained

the confusion and conflict that was present as their campuses were unsure how to

interpret and implement the federal regulations.

Bellis et al. (2018) found that, after federal changes from OCR with the “Dear

Colleague Letter” offering guidance on Title IX, institutions’ responses varied widely in

responding to sexual violence. In their study, there were 24 colleges and universities

identified and only 11 of the campuses studied identified their Title IX Coordinator,

which is the staff ultimately responsible for the investigation of a reported case under

Title IX (Bellis et al., 2018). The majority of policies (87.5%) did not mention the

“burden of proof” which is what is required to determine if the code of conduct was

violated under the sexual misconduct policies (Bellis et al., 2018). Only 46.6% of

colleges and universities included information about a victim’s rights and there were no

policies that included the identification of services regarding safety and security for

students (Bellis et al., 2018). The confusion, conflict, and variety of responses by various

colleges and universities create further confusion and conflict for students, particularly

for those who have been victimized.

College and universities are allowed self-governance over who is considered a

“responsible employee”; however, OCR has issued resolution agreements with some

colleges and universities based on investigations and OCR has determined that all

employees can be considered “responsible employees” (Holland et al., 2018). The term

“responsible employee” refers to a college or university employee that has been given the

duty to take action and the responsibility to report any sexual violence incidences

(Holland et al., 2018). Moyan’s (2016) study participants were concerned about the

quality of the programs, services, and resources if compliance by the college or university

was the only priority. If colleges and universities focused on providing best practice

quality intervention and prevention programs, services, and resources, then federal

compliance would be accomplished; however, if compliance was the only focus, then best

practice quality programs, services, and resources may not be implemented.

Schwarz et al. (2017) found that college students may question their college or

university’s ability to respond to sexual assault reports effectively to protect victims and

respect them. If the victim’s experience was negative, the victim will not only not receive

the support, services, and resources needed, but may not choose to disclose to anyone else

and try to deal with the trauma alone. Also, communication may spread to other students

and victims that the college or university will not provide victims with the support,

services, and resources they need.

Olomi (2019) found that colleges and universities that implemented a

multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach that included participants on and off the campus

may increase collaborative efforts in addressing sexual violence on campuses. One of the

limitations of the study by Olomi (2019) is that the effectiveness of victim well-being and

case outcomes within the MDT collaboration was not evaluated. In studying 24 colleges

and universities, Bellis et al. (2018) determined that some colleges and universities based

on 2013 and 2014 data had made significant efforts in addressing the federal government

guidance documents.

Summary and Conclusions

In this chapter, I reviewed the peer-reviewed literature that identified the need for

exploring qualitatively sexual violence on a college campus. This exploration included

the lived experiences of participants regarding campus sexual violence and the campus’s

response. There was currently not a clear understanding of how sexual violence was

addressed on college campuses. Bellis et al. (2018) identified how extremely different

colleges and universities respond to cases involving sexual violence, even with federal

guidance and media attention. A gap in the knowledge that the study addressed was

identifying successful and unsuccessful strategies in addressing sexual violence on

campus. Strategies included campus policies and procedures as well as intervention and

prevention programs that were considered best practices. The ecological model was the

framework used for this qualitative case study. A qualitative approach was chosen

because the design’s approach enables me to capture the participants’ lived experiences

with how the college addressed sexual violence. The ecological model guided the

development of the interview questions and helped analyze the data. In this chapter, I

presented information about barriers to reporting on college campuses, barriers to

accessing services, lack of confidentiality, victim-blaming, attitudes, beliefs and

behaviors regarding sexual violence, Greek life and college athletes, intervention and

prevention, and policies and procedures regarding sexual violence on college campuses.

The ecological model and its use in previous studies were also reviewed. Chapter 3

presented the research design, the role of the researcher, and methodology.

Chapter 3: Research Method

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to understand the intervention and prevention

strategies that exist and were experienced by various stakeholders in addressing sexual

violence on a college/university campus. There is currently not a clear understanding of

how sexual violence is addressed on college and university campuses. Increased

understanding of how college and university campuses address this issue is needed to

provide relevant intervention, prevention services, and programs and to implement

changes in policies and procedures that reflect best practices.

In this chapter, I discuss the research design and rationale, the researcher’s role,

and the methodology that will be used. The methodology section includes participant

recruitment, instrumentation, and procedures used for recruitment and data collection,

including a data analysis plan. Next, I address trustworthiness, credibility, transferability,

dependability, confirmability, and intra- and intercoder reliability. Last, under

trustworthiness, I discussed ethical procedures, and finally, the summary of the chapter.

Research Design and Rationale

The research questions for this study were as follows.

RQ1: How do students, administrators, Title IX coordinators, health promotion

staff, victim advocates, and survivors describe their experience of campus sexual violence

and the college/university sexual assault response system?

RQ2: How do students, administrators, Title IX coordinators, health promotion

staff, victim advocates, and survivors describe best practices at a college/university

campus in the southeastern United States addressing sexual violence?

The phenomenon of interest for this study was sexual violence on a

college/university campus and the campus’s response. Sexual violence is a public health

and human rights issue on college/university campuses (WHO, 2019). There is no clear

understanding of the intervention and prevention efforts in place to address this issue

(WHO, 2019). I used an instrumental case study to allow for a deeper understanding of

the problem of how a college/university campus addresses sexual violence (Stake, 2003).

An instrumental case study is defined as using a particular person, situation, organization,

department, or group to gain knowledge and insight into a phenomenon (Harrison et al.,

2017). I explored several factors related to sexual violence to learn how this campus

addresses sexual violence.

Role of the Researcher

One role of the researcher was to be the instrument used to collect data. In this

qualitative study, I, as the researcher, was a human instrument. I conducted the

interviews with the study participants, collecting the data regarding the lived experiences

of students, staff, and administrators on one college/university campus as it relates to how

the college addresses sexual violence. Researchers can explore a certain phenomenon or

problem by using interviews and focus groups with individuals who can provide

information and insight into the phenomenon or problem (Sutton & Austin, 2015). As the

researcher, I analyzed the data after I have finished collecting the data. The last role of

the researcher in qualitative work is to understand and give the context of a phenomenon

to readers (Sutton & Austin, 2015). Researchers should be aware of their biases and

should take steps to address them. Researchers should acknowledge their viewpoints and

subjectivities and not ignore their personal biases (Sutton & Austin, 2015). The

researcher’s responsibility was to ensure that the participants’ experiences emerge from

the participants’ perceptions, instead of the researcher’s perceptions (Cypress, 2017).

I work in the field of sexual violence; however, I do not work on a particular

college or university campus. I do know staff on the campus that I have identified as my

study location. If I interviewed someone I knew, I communicated with the participant

that the interview would remain confidential. Also, I was continually aware of my

subjectivity regarding how sexual violence is addressed on college/university campuses.

I ensured my personal perceptions did not influence my data collection or analysis of the

data. I kept a journal of my thoughts throughout the data collection and analysis phase so

I could be as transparent as possible through this process.

I provided the participants with a ten dollar gift card for participating in the study.

This incentive provided the participant with a small gesture for their time and expressing

their lived experiences. Gelinas et al. (2018) found that an increase in the likelihood of

recruiting a wide range of research participants is possible when offering appropriate

incentives, and the risk of exploitation is reduced. If a participant began the interview but

did not complete the interview, the participant still received the ten dollar gift card.

Methodology

Participant Recruitment

I am not studying a population but a phenomenon. I interviewed students, staff,

faculty, and the local sexual assault center staff to gain a deeper understanding of the

phenomenon, which is sexual violence on a college/university campus and how the

college/university is addressing sexual violence. Each participant had to have knowledge

of sexual violence on the college/university campus. This knowledge came from various

sources.

The focus of qualitative research is to ensure that the researcher can answer the

research question(s). Since I conducted a qualitative study, and my focus was on a

specific phenomenon, I wanted to identify the participants that would have an in-depth

knowledge of the phenomenon of study through purposive sampling. In qualitative

research, purposeful sampling is widely used in the recruitment of information-rich cases

and identification related to the phenomenon of interest (Palinkas, 2015). It is defined as

a strategy used in choosing individuals and locations to understand the phenomenon

being studied (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Researchers may use their expertise or special

knowledge in recruiting subjects to develop a purposeful sample (Berg, 2007). I chose

this sampling strategy because I was able to recruit participants and sites to best inform

me of the phenomenon under study. According to Yin (2016), when determining the

sample size of a qualitative study, there is no standard method that a researcher should

use; however, sample size with purposeful sampling is typically small (Creswell & Poth,

2018). The sample size is dependent on what the researcher is trying to discover and why

the study is being conducted (Roberts, 2013). The appropriate sample size will enable me

to have a variety of participants with various roles on the college/university campus who

can all provide a particular perspective based on their role. I ceased recruiting additional

study participants once my research questions were answered.

The purposeful sampling technique used is maximum variation sampling, which is

a type of purposeful sampling, also known as heterogeneous sampling (Creswell & Poth,

2018). The definition of maximum variation sampling is when there is a phenomenon,

and researchers want to understand how it is viewed and understood with various

individuals, in various settings, and at various times (Creswell & Poth, 2018). To use the

maximum variation sampling method, I recruited a small number of participants who

maximized the diversity relevant to the research questions (see Creswell & Poth, 2018).

This technique enabled me to gather a wide range of perspectives related to sexual

violence on a college/university campus. The sample size was deemed appropriate when

saturation was reached. There were 17 study participants who represented a variety of

departments/offices, as well as the local sexual assault program to ensure extensive

knowledge of sexual violence and the college/university responses. The relationship

between sample size and saturation is when the sample size provides indepth knowledge

and information about a phenomenon such that no more sampling is needed (Patton,

2015). There is a lot of discussion within qualitative research with regard to what sample

size is adequate. The main objective in choosing this sampling procedure is identifying

those study participants who can answer the interview questions, which in turn will

address the research questions.

The inclusion criteria that were used for study participants included:

1. Participants with in-depth knowledge and information regarding the

phenomenon of study.

2. Participants were either a student, student survivors, work or previously

worked for the college/ university, or local sexual assault center staff.

3. Each participant needed to have knowledge and/or experience of how sexual

violence is addressed on campus either through intervention or prevention

efforts. The participants included but are not limited to individuals from the

following departments, offices or organizations: sexual assault response team

members, counseling center, health services, student health and wellness

promotion, equal opportunity & Title IX, housing, office of student activities,

office of student conduct, university police department, and the local sexual

assault center. There may be an overlap in which a sexual assault response

team member may also be associated with another office, department, or

organization on campus.

4. Participants who communicated effectively in English, able to read, write, and

comprehend English.

5. Participants who were willing to share their lived experiences regarding how

the college/university addresses sexual violence.

6. Participants were willing and able to give informed consent. Participation

acceptance was achieved when the candidate successfully met all criteria in an

initial screening interview and an informed consent form was signed.

I reached out to a contact I had within the counseling center on campus to see if

she thought the university would be willing to let me conduct a qualitative study with

constituents on their campus and was told there was interest in this study. Once IRB

permission was obtained (Walden IRB approval # 03-01-21-0670970), I emailed my

contact at the university to ask for contact information (names, emails and phone

numbers) of the departments that would have extensive knowledge of both sexual

violence on campus and the university’s response. Then I reached out to the different

offices provided by my contact through email first and then a follow up phone call if they

did not respond to my email. To recruit students, I emailed the chair of the university’s

sexual assault response team to inquire about students who may be interested in

participating. The same email (Appendix A) was used, replacing staff and administrators

with students, and it referenced their sexual assault team rather than an office or

department.

To recruit staff at the local sexual assault center, I sent an email (Appendix B) to

the executive director. To recruit survivors, I emailed (Appendix C) the local sexual

assault center to ask if they would be willing to reach out to survivors who were sexually

assaulted on campus and ask if they would be willing to be interviewed. I explained that

I received IRB approval from their university to conduct a qualitative study regarding

sexual violence on campus and the university’s response, noting that I would like to

utilize one or two staff, administrators, or students within their office for an individual

interview. Each individual needed to be able to provide detailed information regarding

the issue of sexual violence on campus and/or the university’s response. I included a

copy of the eligibility requirements to participate in the study with the email.

Emails and phone calls were used to recruit individual participants (see

Appendices A, B, and C for email and phone call information). Individuals who were

interested were asked to contact me either through phone or email, and to provide their

name and contact information. I followed up with everyone who contacted me to verify

that they met the criteria to participate. After I verbally confirmed their commitment, I

emailed each potential participant a letter (see Appendix D), a consent form (see

Appendix E) and a confidentiality form (see Appendix F), which included the purpose of

the research and an explanation of the interview process. The informed content was sent

with the letter (see Appendix E; Patton, 2015).

Since I used purposeful sampling, if the initial recruitment process did not provide

all of the participants that I needed, I may have needed to reach out to other participants

within the identified departments on the campus to ensure I had the data I needed to

address my research questions. As noted by Patton (2015), I needed to invite participants

who have knowledge and experience on the phenomenon of study to be interviewed. In

addition, I also reached out to the local sexual assault center that serves the university

campus to recruit staff to interview. When I spoke with each potential participant, I

clarified the participants’ voluntary participation (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

Instrumentation

In addition to myself being the primary instrument for data collection, I also used

a short survey at the beginning of the interview to gather demographic information (see

Appendix G). The data collection technique that I used was a semi-structured interview

with open-ended questions to individual participants. I asked follow-up questions after

the open-ended questions to gain clarification as needed.

I collected the data and interpreted the interviews after recording the interviews to

ensure that the data I collected were accurate. I obtained permission from the participants

to record the interview. Initially, I was going to have the interviews transcribed by a

professional; however I decided to have the interviews transcribed by NVivo. Once the

transcriptions were completed, I had to go in and extensively edit the transcriptions due to

a lack of accurate transcription. I deleted all personal proof of identity and private data

from the transcripts (Hohl, 2014). According to Mojtahed et al. (2014), semi-structured

interviews support additional conversations between the researcher and the participant to

gather a greater understanding of the phenomenon. Using a semi-structured interview,

the researcher may ask additional follow-up questions regarding the phenomenon

(Mojtahed et al., 2014).

An instrumental case study uses a case to gain knowledge and information

regarding a phenomenon (Crowe, 2011). The instrumental type of case study was chosen

due to its characteristics of being able to gain a wide array of information about a given

issue or topic (Crowe, 2011). The phenomenon of interest was sexual violence and the

university’s response. In using an instrumental case study, I was able to use one

university setting to gather data from a wide variety of sources within various

departments, offices and a local community program that work within the area of sexual

violence. Burkholder et al. (2016) recommended creating a semi-structured interview

guide with open-ended questions, to ensure consistency with each interview.

I began my interviews with an introduction explaining the purpose of the study

and the interview. I began with questions to help build rapport with each participant. I

concluded with asking if the participant would like to add anything else to the interview

and discussed the next steps, which involved explaining to the participants that all

interviews would be transcribed. I used an interview guide with open ended questions

and will record all interviews, as well as take field notes to promote credibility and

validity (Anney, 2014).

Instrument Development

According to Brod et al. (2009), one way to ensure content validity is to have

direct communication with the participant. I personally interviewed each participant

using the interview guide I created. I first focused on the research questions I wanted

answered. Then I focused on the larger areas of knowledge surrounding sexual violence

on college/university campuses that are pertinent to answering the research questions.

The areas of knowledge became the key variables/factors for my literature review. Each

of the variables/factors were aligned within the levels of the ecological model and I

created interview questions under each variable/factor that would assist in answering the

research questions. I created interview questions that would be open ended and focused

on asking “How” questions and encouraging elaboration. I asked follow up questions

when appropriate for clarification or additional information. I began each interview with

warm up questions to build rapport. According to Keeley et al. (2013), content validation

can be achieved by individuals and experts in relevant fields acting as informants. Keeley

et al. (2013) discusses how patients within their study have insider information and

perspective by their lived experiences while experts in the relative field have outsider

information and perspectives that provide additional information. Both perspectives

create content validation (Keeley et al., 2013). For my study, the participants I

interviewed included student survivors of sexual violence as well as other students,

faculty, staff, and the local sexual assault center. I had lived experiences from a number

of different perspectives that provided for content validation.

Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection

Since I needed participants who were knowledgeable about the phenomenon, I

contacted each identified department and office either through email or a phone call to

enquire about an interested participant to be a part of my study. I obtained verbal or

written informed consent at the beginning of the interview after which participants

completed a brief demographic questionnaire (Appendix G). After they complete the

survey, I explained the purpose of the interviews and provided definitions of “sexual

violence,” “intervention,” and “prevention” that I used in asking the interview questions. I

conducted in depth interviews on the phone. I began the interview using a semistructured

interview guide. Semi-structured interviews enable open-ended questions, which allows

for flexibility, and follow-up questions can be asked based on the participants’ responses

(Mojtahed et al., 2014). At the conclusion of the interview, I explained the next steps of

my research and let participants know that I would reach back out to them once I have my

initial results to get their feedback if needed.

In the current study, the semi-structured interviews contained open ended

questions that prompted discussions about factors that affect victims of sexual violence

on campus and the university’s response to sexual violence. Questions prompted the

participants to share their own opinions or experiences and allow them to discuss their

perceptions of the values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors among students, faculty, and

staff at the university as a whole. I started out asking questions to help the participant get

comfortable and to gain rapport (see Appendix H for interview questions).

Data Analysis Plan

After all interviews were completed, I used NVivo to complete the transcriptions.

Once I received the transcribed interviews, I had to go in and edit the transcriptions. A

large majority of the interviews were not clearly transcribed. This seemed to be due to

the softer the voice the less accurate the transcription. At the beginning of the transcripts,

pseudonyms were assigned to each participant to protect their identity.

Content analysis was used to analyze the data. It is defined as a research method

in which patterns are identified in recorded communication (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

Qualitative researchers often use content analysis to analyze data. The steps for analysis

included familiarizing myself with the data, beginning coding, generating themes,

reviewing themes, and defining and naming themes (Caulfield, 2020). According to

Creswell and Poth (2018), data needed to first be organized, then began reading the data

to become familiar with it; next was the coding of the data and then organizing themes

and representing and interpreting the data. Data analysis was a continued process from

the beginning of the collection through the interpretation and representation of the data.

Once the interviews were transcribed, I first managed and organized the data by creating

a chart with each of the interview questions listed and all of the answers to those

questions together. The chart allowed me to easily read each question and all of the

answers to each question so I could familiarize myself with the data. Next, I began

comparing the data for similarities and differences and creating codes from the text.

Once all of the codes were created, I categorized the codes and began identifying themes

throughout the data that were collected. I continued to reflect on the data I was reading

and the notes I was taking. Next, I reviewed the themes that I had identified and

determined if any other themes needed to be identified or if current themes needed to be

edited. Last, I defined and named the various themes that were identified.

Finally, I began my interpretation of the data and related categories, themes and

families of data together. According to Yates and Legget (2016), the researcher’s method

of creating meaning from the themes and classifications is the process of interpreting the

data. The interpretation of the data was related to the ecological model throughout the

analysis process. Last, I represented the data. This representation was through creating a

point of view regarding the data and displaying and reporting the data for future

researchers.

Issues of Trustworthiness

In qualitative research, trustworthiness allows researchers to explain the benefits

of qualitative research and the explanation of interpretations, which lends to the

credibility of the findings and is used to build trust (Patton, 2015). According to

Korstjens and Moser (2018), to ensure the quality of a study, trustworthiness is sought

through methods used, degree of confidence in data, and data interpretation. According

to Amankwaa (2016), worthiness and consideration by readers are obtained when

researchers establish protocols and procedures for each study. Trustworthiness includes

credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability and ethical procedures

(Korstjens & Moser, 2018).

Credibility

The credibility of a study is the confidence that the findings are true (Creswell &

Poth, 2018). I used two sources of data to ensure credibility. One source was the in-

depth interviews, and the other data source was data from the university’s annual security

report. This report included data required under the “Clery Act”. I also used member

checking. The participants that I recruited had a wide variety of in-depth knowledge of

the phenomenon. For member checking, I asked for clarification if needed from each

participant based on their responses at the end of the interviews (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

Transferability

Transferability is the potential ability of the findings in one study to be used in

future studies (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). As the researcher, I cannot determine

transferability; instead, that will be up to future researchers and/or readers to determine. I

only provided in-depth details of the study. The reader will determine if they can transfer

the findings to their setting (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). To support transferability, I

collected in-depth data regarding the participants’ lived experiences regarding the

phenomenon to ensure a detailed description is provided.

Dependability

Dependability is the focus on consistency (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). I ensured

that the data analysis process followed accepted standards for the case study design

(Korstjens & Moser, 2018). According to Kleinheksel et al. (2020), researchers often use

content analysis as a well established method for analyzing data within qualitative

research which includes case studies. An audit trail can confirm dependability (Korstjens

& Moser, 2018). I ensured that an audit trail was created by taking field notes and using

an audio recording during the study.

Confirmability

Confirmability is when the results from the participants’ perspectives are true and

believable to establish confidence (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). According to Patton

(2015), confidence is established when the data are considered genuine, and the

researcher does not create the findings. An audit trail can ensure confirmability

(Korstjens & Moser, 2018). I ensured that an audit trail was created by taking field notes

and using an audio recording during the study to confirm the participants’ perspectives. I

also focused continually on the research process known as reflexivity to ensure that I kept

in mind the effect I could have had on the study (Creswell & Poth, 2018). I was reflexive

by keeping a journal of my thoughts and feelings regarding the research. I was mindful

of my demeanor and tried to keep that same demeanor with each participant. I asked each

of the interview questions in the same order and used the same tone and manner for each

participant. I did not provide any comments or statements in favor or against the

responses.

Ethical Procedures

I obtained Institutional Review Board approval from Walden University and the

university where I conducted my study. I informed the participants regarding the purpose

of the study and explained the informed written consent that they signed to be a

participant. The participants were made aware that their participation was voluntary, and

they could have chosen to stop participating at any time (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The

participants’ voluntary participation was included in the informed written consent that

they signed before participating (Rubin & Rubin, 2012; Patton, 2015). The participants’

interviews and personal information remained confidential. Once I received the

transcripts of the interviews, I removed the identifying information for each individual to

protect their confidentiality and prevent personal information disclosure. All research

material and information, including field notes, transcripts, and audiotapes, was preserved

in either a locked safe in my home office or on my computer. My computer was

password and virus protected. In addition, I kept the information in my OneDrive file

that is also password protected. I will destroy the materials and information after five

years. As the researcher, I will be the only person that will have access to the materials

and information within the locked safe, computer and OneDrive.

Summary

Sexual violence on college campuses is a prevalent problem that frequently is not

reported (Office on Women’s Health, 2018). The prevalence of sexual violence is higher

for college students than in other groups, so it is essential to focus on college students as a

population (Sinozich & Langton, 2014). Despite the passage of Title IX, as well as other

protections through federal and state laws, sexual violence and harassment continue to be

a barrier to education for too many students (American Association of University Women

[AAUW], 2018). An additional concern is that colleges and universities make it

challenging for students to report on campus and that schools are not adequately reporting

incidents of sexual violence and harassment when they occur (AAUW, 2018).

In this study, my aim was to utilize a case study with an ecological framework to

understand the intervention and prevention strategies that exist and were experienced by

various stakeholders’ in addressing sexual violence on a college campus. Increased

understanding of how campuses address this issue is needed to provide consistent and

specific support to victims, conduct effective evaluations, and implement changes in

policies and procedures that reflect best practices. A purposeful sampling technique was

used to recruit participants affiliated with the university I studied. The participants had

in-depth knowledge of and experience with sexual violence and how the college or

university addresses sexual violence. Each participant met the selection criteria to

address the research questions. The participants were provided informed verbal or

written consent before the data collection. I used an in-depth qualitative interview that

was conducted on the phone.

The results of my study and the additional information from the study will be

available for public health services as well as colleges/universities. My study will also be

available for further research regarding sexual violence and college/university responses

to address sexual violence. In chapter 4, I described the data collection, data analysis,

data coding, and findings. Last, in chapter 5, I focused on the analysis, conclusions, and

recommendations for future research.

Chapter 4: Results

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore the factors, intervention/prevention

strategies, and policies/procedures used to address sexual violence on a university

campus. There is currently not a clear understanding of how sexual violence is addressed

on campuses. The research questions focused on participants describing their experiences

of how campus sexual violence incidences are addressed, including the university sexual

assault response system along with best practices. My research was based on the lived

experiences of students, faculty, and staff at the university, as well as staff from the local

sexual assault center. All participants had some knowledge of how sexual violence is

addressed on their campus, either through intervention, prevention, and/or policies and

procedures. For this study, data analysis was conducted on data collected through

interviews with 17 participants. There were two self-identified males and 15 self-

identified females.

This chapter is divided into several sections to address the research questions. In

this chapter, I discuss the setting that was used, as well as the demographics of the

participants who participated in the study. Next, this chapter includes the specifics

regarding data collection and data analysis. Finally, I address evidence of trustworthiness

and the results.

Setting

All interviews were conducted over the phone on a recorded line. The times of

day for the interviews varied based on the participants’ availabilities. I made sure to

recommend to all participants to identify a quiet, private location so that they were not

interrupted, as I identified the same type of location. Two of the participants had to hang

up and call back due to a bad connection. One of the two participants called back at the

very beginning of the call, and the other participant had to call back when we started the

interview questions due to a bad connection. Each of the participants appeared to be

volunteering as a participant of their own free will. I did not identify any coercion or

force used on any participant prior to or during the interviews.

Demographics

There was a total of 17 participants who engaged in interviews. The participants

included students/past students, faculty, and staff/past staff at the university, as well as

staff from the local sexual assault center. Participants self-identified their role(s), gender

identity, and race/ethnicity. See Table 1 for further demographic details. All the

participants had at least some knowledge of sexual violence intervention and/or

prevention on this university campus.

Table 1

Participant Demographic Information – Gender and Ethnicity

Ethnicity Female Male

Caucasian 9 1

Black 2

Caucasian/Hispanic 1

Black/Hispanic 1 1

Hispanic/Latino 2

Data Collection

Once the study was approved by Walden University and the university that I used

to study the phenomenon, I began posting flyers in person on the university campus, as

well as emailing all the departments to ask for participants. A total of 17 participants

were scheduled for interviews between April and July 2021. I provided each potential

participant with the IRB approval form from the university study site and flyer with

details regarding the study. If they agreed to participate in the study, I then sent them the

consent form via email. Each interview lasted between 45 minutes and 1 hour and 15

minutes. Seventeen participants were interviewed for this study. The data collected from

each participant were their responses to interview questions.

The interviews were recorded by a phone application called “TapACall Pro.” This

phone application records both incoming and outgoing calls. This application also

enables the interviewer to start a recording at any point on a phone call, which allows the

interviewer to first get verbal consent from the participant before starting the recording.

After the interview time was scheduled, I sent the consent form to the participants via

email and, if they consented to the interview, to email a response noting this. I then

called the participant at the designated time. I introduced myself to the participant, and I

went back over the consent form to make sure they understood and asked if they had any

questions. I asked them if they consented to being recorded for the interview, and if they

agreed, I started to record our conversation. Each of the 17 participants consented to the

interview and being recorded. I explained how the phone call would progress. I

conversed with each participant at the beginning of the call to help build rapport and

explained the purpose of the study and the interview. I started the interview by asking

them five demographic questions and then moved into asking the 16 interview questions

to each participant. I typically would repeat the questions just to make sure they heard

them correctly and to help the participants retain the questions while providing their

responses. I concluded the interview questions with asking if the participant would like

to add anything else to the interview and discuss the next steps, which involved

explaining about the interviews being transcribed. I thanked them for their time and

asked them what email address I should use to send their $10 gift card. Then I explained

that after the study was completed, I would send each participant the results of the study.

The last thing I asked the participant was if they knew of any other faculty, staff, and/or

students who would have experiences and knowledge of sexual violence and the campus

that I could interview.

One variation in the data collection process from the plan presented in Chapter 3

was how the interviews were conducted. I initially stated in Chapter 3 that I would

conduct the interviews either in person, on the phone, or through a video platform such as

Zoom or GoToMeeting. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the in-person interviews were

not a favored option by participants. Whereas the video platform was an option, all

participants chose to do their interview over the phone. Again, due to the pandemic,

participants may have been tired of using video platforms on a regular basis. The only

unusual circumstance that was encountered during the data collection was that at the

beginning of one of the interviews, either one or both phones had a bad connection, and

we could not hear each other. We had to hang up and call back a couple of times, then

the issue seemed to resolve itself.

Data Analysis

Content analysis was used to analyze the data. It is defined as a research method

in which patterns are identified in recorded communication (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

Qualitative researchers often use content analysis to analyze data. The steps for analysis

included familiarizing myself with the data, beginning coding, generating themes,

reviewing themes, and defining and naming themes (Caulfield, 2020). According to

Creswell and Poth (2018), data need to first be organized. In order to be successful and

efficient and decrease the likelihood of mistakes in analyzing the data, data need to be

organized in a manner that makes sense to the researcher when beginning the data

analysis. This organization could include keeping all data regarding certain topics

together in one file. I kept all my data for this study in my One Drive. This included all

the responses to each research question, as well as any notes I took during the interview

process.

I started organizing the data by creating an Excel spreadsheet with all of the

research questions and answers. Each research question was placed across the top of the

Excel spreadsheet horizontally, and each participant was listed vertically on the left hand

side of the spreadsheet. Each participant’s response was placed under each question and

corresponding to each participant. This enabled me to be able to compare and contrast

the participants’ responses within this spreadsheet. My data analysis was a continual

process from the beginning of the collection through the interpretation and representation

of the data. The following sections present the steps of the content analysis process.

Step 1: Familiarization

After I completed each interview, I would go back and listen to process the

information that I was just given from each participant. I initially was going to pay a

person to transcribe all the data; however, I instead used NVivo’s transcription service.

When I received the transcribed interviews, there were a lot of errors within the

transcribed interviews. I had to go back through each transcribed interview and make

corrections to each of the 17 transcribed interviews. The unexpected time that had to be

allotted for going through each interview to ensure the data were correct or edited to be

correct enabled me to become very familiar with all the data.

Once all the interviews were transcribed and corrected, I created an Excel

spreadsheet to begin my analysis, instead of using NVivo for analysis, due to the issues I

experienced with NVivo’s transcribing service. The Excel spreadsheet listed each of the

16 interview questions from the interview guide across the top horizontally, and I listed

each of the participant’s responses, along with the participants’ first and last name initials,

gender, race, position, and length of time with the university vertically along the right-

hand side of the Excel spreadsheet. This setup allowed me to compare the responses of

all 17 participants for each interview question. While some of the responses from the

sexual assault center staff regarding the university reflected responses given by

faculty/staff and students, other responses regarding the university’s intervention and

prevention services and programs, as well as Title IX policies and procedures specific to

the university, were not known. I specifically focused on comparing the students’

responses to the faculty/staff responses due to the small number of respondents from the

sexual assault center.

I read and reread each interview from beginning to end several times to

familiarize myself with the data. I would not look at the data for a couple of days and

think about what I had read. I would then go back and read the data again to solidify my

familiarity with the data.

Step 2: Begin Coding

My initial plan was to read and code the students’ responses and then read and

code the faculty/staff responses. I read and reread each interview and began writing in

codes within each interview when I came upon a word or statement that I thought was

significant to the phenomenon of study. As I was reading through each interview again

and again, I would again code words and phrases that I identified as significant. I found

that sometimes I would code something that I initially had not coded, but once I read it

again, the code became apparent. I was going to separately code the students and

faculty/staff responses; however, after coding the students’ responses and starting to code

the faculty/staff responses, the codes were the same. So, I combined the codes from the

students and faculty/staff. The codes were given to provide a description of the content.

There were 64 codes that emerged from the data. I collected the data into groups based

on their identification by code.

Step 3: Generating Themes

After reading and rereading the codes and identifying patterns within the codes, I

was able to begin generating themes. The themes that were generated were a larger

category than the codes that were generated. There were several instances in which there

were codes that had overlapped within various themes. There were initially nine themes

generated during this process. After further review, I combined three of the themes

together due to similarities within their codes. The themes were generated with the idea

that they would help explain the data. Six final themes were generated.

Step 4: Reviewing and Naming Themes

I went back through the data with the themes to make sure that the current themes

were accurate representations of the data. After further review, I combined three of the

themes together due to similarities in the participants’ responses between the three themes

I combined. The nine original themes were edited to be six themes after reviewing the

themes and data again. The names for each theme were created with the thought of

helping to understand the data. The participants’ responses to the interview questions

helped to create the six themes. There were 64 codes and six themes that emerged during

the data analysis phase.

Table 2

Themes and Codes

Theme Codes

Theme 1: Sexual

Violence (SV)

Concern on

Campus

(1-9)

1. Sexual assault minimized/not taken seriously

2. Cases not being reported/pressure to not report

3. Victims feel unsafe/unsure how to proceed

4. Faculty/staff safety for students & wellbeing

5. Fraternity house safety

6. Fraternity treatment of women

7. Adequate intervention and prevention services and programs

8. Marginalized populations

Discrepant Response: 9. Not aware of any concerns (stated by one participant)

Theme 2:

Perpetuating SV

on Campus

(10-17)

10. Gender norms/traditional gender roles pressure to remain in role

11. Fraternities’ attitudes, beliefs, behaviors

12. Fraternities’ power/dominance

13. Jokes/messaging/catcalling/misogynistic statements

14. Understanding consent

15. Misconceptions regarding Sexual Violence (SV) responsibilities

16. Athletes’ attitudes, beliefs, behaviors

Discrepant Response: 17: Not aware of things happening that perpetuate SV (from one participant

Theme 3:

Barriers to

Reporting and

Intervention

Services

(18-40)

18. Victims not aware of their options/if know options, not comfortable with options

19. Victims not understanding process

20. Confidentiality

21. Fear: retaliation, perpetrator will know

22. Previous experience with university office was negative

23. How to report/who to report to/website not easy to access information

24. Having to verbally repeat incident

25. Not safe space to report

26. Who are mandated reporters/confidential reporters

27. Previous victims’ experience/Title IX office

28. Federal changes creating more confusion and less safety

29. Not being believed

30. Believing sexual assault myths/stigmas

31. Perception from others/fraternity and sorority members

32. Not well marketed

33. First Year Experience (FYE) info not remembered over time

34. Faculty/staff not well trained to respond to student’s questions

35. Transportation to sexual assault center

(Table continues)

Table 3 cont.

Themes and Codes

Theme Codes

Theme 3:

Barriers to

Reporting and

Intervention

Services

(18-40)

36. Limited counselor center sessions/waiting for appointment

37. Do not have sexual assault center on campus

38. Recommendations

Discrepant Response: 39: Not aware of any barriers for reporting or intervention services (from one participant)

Discrepant Response: 40: Confidentiality NOT a problem (from six participants)

Theme 4:

Alcohol,

Fraternities, and

(41-47)

41. Lack of understanding impact of alcohol on body

42. Consent

43. Drinking at Fraternity parties/underage drinking

44. University’s response

45. Getting sorority girls drunk

46. Sex and drinking part of Greek Culture

47. Cultural norms

Theme 5:

Intervention and

Prevention

Services and

Programs

(48-56)

48. Counseling

49. Sexual Assault Center

50. Campus resources

51. Community resources

52. Sexual Assault Response Team (SART)

53. Sexual Assault Student Educators (SASE)

54. Community Events

55. Prevention Programs – Everfy, Rape Aggression Defense (RAD) self-defense class, Sex Signals, First Year

Experience (FYE)

56. Recommendations for additional services/programs

Theme 6: Title

IX Policies and

Procedures

(57-64)

57. University’s response

58. Who is mandated reporter and what does that mean

59. Employees are trained during onboarding process

60. Annual training for staff

61. Confusing, unclear

62. Trump’s administration changes in Fall 2020 creating further confusion and safety concerns

63. Cross examination concerns

64. Recommendations

Discrepancies

Identifying the data that were identified as deviant from the other data is evidence

of trustworthiness. There were responses to a few questions that were in opposition to the

remainder of the responses from the rest of the participants. I stated the opposing

response(s) under each theme and code section that included a discrepant response. I

made sure to incorporate all the data, even the data that were considered deviant. Most of

the discrepant responses were from the same participant.

Evidence of Trustworthiness

In qualitative research, trustworthiness allows researchers to explain the benefits

of qualitative research and the explanation of interpretations, which lends to the

credibility of the findings and is used to build trust (Patton, 2015). According to

Korstjens and Moser (2018), to ensure the quality of a study, trustworthiness is sought

through methods used, degree of confidence in data, and data interpretation. According

to Amankwaa (2016), worthiness and consideration by readers are obtained when

researchers establish protocols and procedures for each study. Trustworthiness includes

credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability and ethical procedures (Korstjens

& Moser, 2018). I utilized these principles throughout the duration of this study and

provided detailed information for each principle below.

Credibility

As mentioned in chapter 3, I used two sources of data to ensure credibility. One

source was the in-depth interviews, and the other source was the 2021 security report for

the university. Each participant had a wide variety of in-depth knowledge of the

phenomenon. The in-depth knowledge requirement was a part of the inclusion criteria

during the recruitment process. I originally stated in chapter 3 that I would send the

preliminary results to the participants and ask for feedback; however, the length of time it

took to recruit, schedule interviews, and conduct interviews did not allow time for follow

up after the interviews were completed. I did make sure to ask follow up questions or ask

for clarification during an interview if a participant said something that I thought was

unclear or did not understand. In addition, I would ask for an example from the

participants about the topic we were discussion.

Transferability

Transferability is the potential ability of the findings in one study to be used in

future studies (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). To support transferability, I provided details of

the recruitment, data collection, analysis, and results to provide another researcher with as

much information as possible for future studies. I also provided information regarding

the setting for the interviews as well as steps I implemented to maintain participants’

confidentiality.

Dependability

Dependability is the focus on consistency (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). I kept a

journal to ensure I had a trail of my reflections as well as what I was doing to maintain

consistency throughout the study. In addition, the interview guide helped to maintain

consistency since the same initial questions were asked of each participant. Based on the

participants response, I may have asked a follow-up question(s). Last, I also recorded

each participant’s interview after asking for their permission to record. All participants

agreed to the recording. The recordings are additional support to ensure dependability.

Confirmability

Confirmability is when the results from the participants’ perspectives are true and

believable to establish confidence (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). I maintained a journal

during my study to support not only consistency and dependability but also

confirmability. The field notes I took supports confirmability as well as the audio

recording of each interview. I was also mindful of my demeanor during each of my

interviews and be thoughtful regarding the effects that I can have on the study. My

thoughts and feelings were listed in a journal along with the field notes.

Results

The interview protocol contained open-ended questions and, if appropriate, I

asked additional follow-up questions for clarification or more information. I collected

data from 17 participants to address the two research questions.

RQ1: How do students, administrators, Title IX coordinators, health promotion

staff, victim advocates, and survivors describe their experience of campus sexual violence

and the college/university sexual assault response system?

RQ2: How do students, administrators, Title IX coordinators, health promotion

staff, victim advocates, and survivors describe best practices at a college/university

campus in the southeastern United States addressing sexual violence?

Theme 1: Sexual Violence (SV) Concerns on Campus

In the first theme of Sexual Violence concerns on campus, the participants

discussed the concerns of sexual violence on campus based on their personal experiences.

Some of the participants had specifically worked with a survivor(s) on campus or are a

part of a group working to address sexual violence while other participants had heard

from students, faculty, and staff of incidences of sexual violence toward students. All

student participants thought there were concerns of sexual violence on campus while 88%

of faculty and staff participants thought there were issues. The concerns ranged from the

university minimizing sexual assaults and not taking them seriously to victims not feeling

safe and unsure of how to report an assault. Other participants discussed issues regarding

fraternities’ treatment of women, inadequate intervention and prevention services and

programs and inadequately servicing marginalized populations. There was one

faculty/staff participant who did not think that there were concerns regarding sexual

violence on campus; however, all of the other student and faculty/staff participants

thought there were concerns by students as well as faculty/staff. SP1 stated, “There is a

lack of support from some university offices.” This response was based on experience

with other offices on campus. SP2 stated, “The university covers up the number of sexual

assaults that occur.” SP4 stated, “The university minimizes sexual assault on campus.”

FSP8 stated, “There are concerns that cases are not being reported by faculty, staff and

students as well as victims not feeling comfortable reporting, so they are not getting the

resources and help that they need.” There were also concerns for marginalized and by

marginalized populations on campus about how they are treated. FSP15 said

Yes, there are concerns by everyone except administration. I feel like there are

concerns by marginalized genders, folks. Just the way we tell our students, you

know, where you’ll have marginalized gender staff or faculty or even other

students if it’s a night class, so be careful walking to your car and we’re not

worried about being mugged, right?

Other participants discussed the misogynistic issues related to fraternities and how

that perpetuates sexual violence on campus. Some of the fraternities have even discussed

their concerns of how other fraternities treat women. FSP10 said

I’ve had a lot of women either ask me to potentially report for them or fraternities

come out and express their dismay at other fraternities that they treat women

poorly or horribly or something along those lines from a staff and student

perspective, mainly from the women.

Other participants discussed victims not wanting to report and then if they do

report sexual violence their victimization will not be taken seriously by the university.

FSP12 said

Some of those concerns are that they don’t feel comfortable in reporting any

potential situation that they or someone they know may have experienced. But

also, once it’s reported, another concern is that it’s not, um, it’s not taken

seriously, in essence, perhaps because the outcome is not something they

expected.

There were also participants who discussed the university had concerns regarding

sexual violence and wanted to address this concern. SP6 stated, “university has concerns

regarding prevention and awareness programs and services.”

Theme 2: Perpetuating SV on Campus

In the perpetuating sexual violence on campus, participants discussed issues that

they believe through their lived experience supported sexual violence on campus. Eighty

three percent of the student participants agreed that there were attitudes, beliefs and

behaviors that perpetuate sexual violence on campus and 88% of faculty and staff agreed.

Participants addressed traditional gender norms, fraternities and athletes’ attitudes, beliefs

and behaviors, understanding consent as well as misconceptions regarding sexual

violence responsibilities. Fraternities seemed to be an ongoing theme in discussions

regarding gender norms and sexual violence. There was one student and one faculty/staff

who did not think that there were attitudes, beliefs or behaviors on campus that

perpetuates sexual violence. SP2 stated, “Gender roles supported by Greek Life can

perpetuate sexual assaults.” SP1 stated, “Socially constructed gender norms support

incidences of sexual violence. We have had to address attitudes and behaviors within my

fraternity that are problematic.” SP4 stated, “There have been inappropriate jokes and

touching that support incidences of sexual violence.” SP6 stated, “I am aware of jokes

and messages that have occurred that support incidences of sexual violence.” In addition

to issues with fraternities’ participants did not think that students overall understood what

consent means even though consent is discussed within their current prevention

programming. FSP9 said

Yeah, inappropriate jokes, jokes of a sexual nature, cat calling. And then I think

another thing that I would say comes up sometimes is maybe students just not

fully understanding what consent means. And that comes both from complainants

and respondents since these are often young people.

SP1 stated, “There is a stigma regarding getting consent for sexual interaction.

The thought is that you are supposed to be able to read it.” Another participant discussed

students, faculty and staff that may make comments or behave inappropriately toward a

person or populations that do not fit into traditional gender roles. FSP15 stated, “bias by

students and faculty and staff when campus community member doesn’t fit in the gender

binary. Laughing, making comments regarding dress or hair, pressure to get back into

your role.” Participants discussed the power dynamic that is associated with athletes,

fraternities and sororities. FS14 stated, “We get complaints every semester from females

being catcalled from a particular housing unit that houses athletes.” SP1 stated, “There is

power and influence which creates social credibility for athletes, fraternities, and

sororities.”

Theme 3: Barriers to Reporting and Intervention Services

Under the barriers for reporting and intervention services 100% of student

participants said there were barriers to reporting and 66% of student participants said

there were barriers to intervention services. Eighty eight percent of the faculty staff

participants said that there were barriers to reporting and intervention services. There

were some barriers that were mentioned for both reporting and intervention services,

however, there were certain barriers which were specific to reporting and intervention

services. Participants discussed several barriers that include not knowing how to

report or who to report to, and lack of transportation to the community based sexual

assault center. There were also recommendations that were discussed to address the

barriers that were mentioned. There was one faculty/staff participant who did not

think that there were barriers to reporting or intervention services. The remaining

student and faculty/staff participants did think that there were barriers to either

reporting an incident of sexual violence, accessing intervention services or both.

Barriers to Reporting

Participants discussed barriers to report, which included not reporting to a

university office because the case will not go anywhere, or they are not sure how to begin

the process of reporting. SP1 stated, “They [the student] possibly dealt with certain

office before and their concern did not go anywhere. Students talk to each other and will

tell another student to not bother going to an office because they didn’t help them.” SP2

stated, “Students don’t know how or who to report to on campus and not being believed

is a barrier.” Other barriers to reporting discussed by participants were that faculty and

staff are not trained on how to appropriately respond if a student approaches them and the

faculty and staff are not aware of who within the university are deemed mandated

reporters.

FSP15 said

One of the biggest barriers is that generally on campus, faculty and staff are

not properly aware of who are mandated reporters and who are not and how that

works and they are not well trained in how to respond if a student comes to

them. Awareness of whether faculty/staff are mandated reporters is not given to

students initially by those that don’t really know, this may cause student to not

want to report.

Participants also thought another barrier was that students were not aware of

which university offices were mandated reporters even though there is training and

education for the students on this. Other barriers discussed by participants includes the

fear of not being believed, ongoing questions the victim will have to answer, victim

blaming by others and experiences other victims have had when they reported, stigma of

mental health, and federal Title IX guidelines making it less safe to report. FS14 said My

office educates on this, the students are still not sure and understand the differences on

which offices are mandated reporters, which offices are not mandated reporters and

confidential reporters. Fear that they won’t be believed, consistently questioned, victim

blaming, hearing experiences from other survivors about Title IX not going in their favor

or feeling as if they weren’t protected and believed. I think there is some level of

knowing that Title IX law has recently changed to the Trump administration and Betsy

DeVos, but not truly understanding how and just knowing that it made it less safe for

them to report. So, you know, having that fear also. We are seeing that with mental

health that it continues to be a target population that isn’t accessing any services,

including mental health, like in particular mental health. There’s a lot obviously of

stigma and cultural barriers with regard to mental health, but there’s the same kind of

threat and theme that you see with interpersonal violence, too.

Other participants discussed the information that Freshman students are given

during their First Year Experience (FYE) which creates an overload and the students do

not remember the information. Other barriers are having to repeat the incident, the

perpetrator finding out that the incident was reported, fear of retaliation, myths regarding

SV, not a safe space to report and worried about what people will think of them if they

report. FSP13 said

I think that understanding the Title IX process and what that looks like, they get

Title IX info at their FYE, however due to information overload they don’t

remember. If a victim believes justice won’t be served, they don’t want to go

through the process.

FSP11 said

I think our reporting structure is a little obscure in this in the sense that students

don’t necessarily know how to find it or how to report it., hard to find info about

reporting on our website, knowing how to report, or where to report.

SP3 stated “the number of times a student would have to repeat their victimization

before it is in the Title IX office and hesitant to report because worried that perpetrator

will find out and then fear of retaliation”. SP4 stated, “Myths surrounding sexual assault

creates a barrier for victims to report and not a safe space.” SP5 stated, “stigma around

sexual assault, victims are scared to report and what people would think of them for

reporting.” Other concerns discussed by the participants was confidentiality and having to

confront their perpetrator as well as the entire school knowing what happened to them if

they report. FSP12 said

No guarantee on confidentially, victims do not want to confront the perpetrator.

So, for a lot of these complainants or victims, they’re reluctant or they see that as

a barrier to reporting they’d rather not report versus having to either confront.

You know, they’re the person they’re accusing or for that person to know that

they were the one who reported it.

FSP15 stated, “The students are so scared that if they report, then the whole

school’s going to know.” Another barrier to reporting is with regard to sororities. There

are women within sororities that will convince another sister to not report an incident

regarding a fraternity because that sorority will be blacklisted by the fraternities. FSP10

said

A lot of the times they (victims) choose not to report because their friends will

bully them into not doing it or believing that it wasn’t necessarily that. And it

was more of consensual specifically, because either the organization when I say

organization, I’m talking about fraternity and sorority life. If a sorority is and this

is like a sorority woman as a woman who was sexually assaulted by a fraternity

man, her sorority sisters will ask her not to report because it will blacklist them as

an organization from the fraternity.

Another participant discussed the grueling task of a victim having to speak to

several offices if they choose to report. Other concerns focus on students not being aware

of Title IX or resources, they provide. FSP9 stated, “daunting for victims to report to

various offices.” FSP8 said

There’s information out there and there is a Title IX office and they’re working to

get their image out there. But I don’t know that all students are aware of it. I

know they [students] get talked to about it Title IX in our orientation program,

which is called First Year Experience (FYE), but I don’t think they retain that

information. Don’t know that all faculty and staff understand what happens after

they [faculty/staff] report a sexual assault.

FSP15 stated, “The students are so scared that if they report, then the whole

school’s going to know.” While faculty and staff are provided information regarding Title

IX and their role when they first start as an employee of the university, participants

discussed needing additional training for faculty/staff regarding their role as well as

wanting to support the survivor when they do not want to report to the university. FSP13

said

And so, I think that’s a big problem in educating faculty and staff members about

their role as a responsible reporter that they do have to tell the university. But I

also think that is a barrier to students receiving help. Sometimes the students

don’t necessarily want the university to know. So, then the people that are in a

position to help them, they might not be as willing to tell. So, I think that’s kind

of a double edged sword because you want accurate reporting numbers at the

same time. I wonder if that doesn’t keep some students from seeking help.

Recommendations to Address Reporting Barriers

Participants were asked about their recommendations to address the reporting

barriers at the university. One participant stated that there needed to be a comprehensive

review of the policies and procedures that include input and feedback from students,

faculty and staff. This participant wants to use the barriers that have been identified

through this study to inform the review. SP1 said

Marketing. Comprehensive review of policies and practices. Do current policies

and practices serve us best? Don’t think current processes work for now, have to

be willing to examine current processes. Comprehensive review of policies and

procedures informed by faculty, staff, and students. Should use barriers to inform

the review and overhaul of policies and procedures.

Other participants stated that the current programs should continue as well as

increasing promotions, adding additional resources and ensuring people are attending the

trainings. SP2 stated, “continue providing seminars within Freshman First Year

Experience (FYE) class that is required. We also would send how to report slides to

professors. Giving info to friends so they can help victims report if they choose to.” SP4

stated, “provide reassurance.” SP5 stated, “trainings that are available. Getting people to

those trainings. “Sex Signals” program is a good educational program.” SP6 stated,

“Increase promotion on campus. If more common topic on campus students may feel

more comfortable coming forward.” FSP15 said

Training on campus. Need same type of training for SA like safe space training to

teach faculty and staff how to work with survivors. So, we need to train our

faculty and our staff on how to properly deal when a student discloses and to be

able to indicate that in some way so that students know who is safe to go to and

who isn’t.

Participants discussed having an advocacy center on campus at included on-site

advocates. The university currently collaborates with the local community sexual assault

center. Another recommendation was to reconsider the faculty and staff that are

mandated reporters since some students would feel more comfortable going to their

professor they see on a regular basis. FSP14 said

So, I would love to see a true advocacy center on campus. So, I think it would be

more helpful because of access, transportation, having like a closer arm to us.

Many institutions have certified victims’ advocates working at the university.

FSP13 said

Wish whole process was more survivor focused and thinking more about how to

support survivors. I don’t necessarily love the role that faculty and staff are

mandated reporters. I don’t think they know that they are and that gets them in

trouble. Students are more likely to speak to their professors versus going to Title

IX office since they see them every day.

Another participant’s recommendation focused on ensuring that there are clear

expectations regarding reporting an incident and a safe environment to report. FSP12

said

Clear expectations, ensure a safe environment for students to report, students can

trust that there are resources, other people they can go to, for faculty and staff to

recognize fears exist with students not coming forward, for faculty and staff to

become available, resourceful and knowledgeable for students who want to come

forward.

Education continued to be a constant area of discussion for participants when

discussing intervention and prevention strategies as well as Title IX policies and

procedures. FSP11 stated, “Education, I think is really important.” There was discussion

about the lack of participation by some fraternity members regarding sexual violence.

This participant spoke at length about requirements for Greek Life. Specifically, the

fraternity men to increase their engagement and require trainings for them. The training

would include follow up sessions and ongoing trainings until they graduate. FSP10 said

Title IX specific requirements, Specific requirements from Greek Life office,

opportunities for fraternity men to be more engaged and required to go to mandatory

trainings. And I feel like there’s not necessarily good follow up from various

departments. And so, I think if there was more if there were more follow ups, it would

be ideal or potentially like training instead of just hitting them when they’re fresh and

incoming, we need to consistently do it until they graduate. This participant was

specifically focused on providing support and resources for those survivors who want to

report and letting them decide what they want to do. FSP9 said So, I think in terms of

overcoming those barriers, I tried to come at it from a support and resources angle, and

I’m giving you options and I’m wanting you to lead where this goes to the extent that

you can so that I’m not just another person telling them what to do. So, I think that that

would be my strategy there. Another recommendation was to make sure the survivor

understands that if they report, it doesn’t mean that they have to go through with all of the

steps after the initial report.

FSP8 said

I think we need to make it available what reporting means and how to market that.

And so just because you report something doesn’t mean that it has to go through with

everything but reporting it helps to track and provide trends and data. Another

recommendation focused on the topic of consent being provided on an ongoing basis

during training. FSP7 said

We always talk about bystander intervention. We always talk about all those

things. Consent has to be done to death. Every time not just once. Um there’s no

assumed consent we talked about and toxication we talked about all of that but

then we started adding in what do you do if you show that okay somewhere that

helps break the barrier of them not coming forward or not getting the resources

they need.

Barriers to Intervention Services

When asked about barriers for intervention services this participant focused on

lack of support within the counseling center due to cultural difference between students

and counselors within the counseling center. SP1 said

Barriers within the counseling center for multicultural students who often do not

feel supported due to cultural differences. There are very few counselors that are

Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) within the counseling center.

Counseling Center does not reflect the BIPOC student body.

Participants also discussed the length of time a student has to wait before they are

able to see a counselor and the limited number of sessions as barriers. SP2 stated,

“Campus counseling center very booked, may take months to see a counselor.” FSP9 said

I guess we do have some practical concerns that that there is eventually a limit when we

talk about like counseling at the counseling center. There is a cap on the number of

sessions that students are permitted per year.

FSP13 stated, “Counseling center can be really busy; victims may have to wait for

a counseling session for 3 to 4 weeks.” The following two participants discussed barriers

within intervention services that students do not have knowledge of resources or that they

can receive resources without having to report. SP5 stated, “Lack of knowledge of

resources. Students may not realize they can get resources without reporting.” SP6 stated,

“They [students] are not aware of resources.” The following participants discussed

barriers to include: the lack of transportation to the sexual assault center, having to be

transported by the police to the sexual assault center and thinking if they talk to the police

then they must report, Title IX office is only open eight to five, students and in particular

marginalized students having to utilize the police for transportation to the sexual assault

center. FSP8 said

Typically, these [sexual assaults] happen at night or early morning hours and are

off campus. And so, if a student doesn’t have a way to get there, [sexual assault

center] it’s hard for them to get to the sexual assault center. Police transporting

victims to rape crisis center. However, if they talk to the police, the police can

take them to the center. However, students are afraid to talk to the police because

of the fact that then they think they have to report it and that the police are going

to get involved. Our Title IX office is only open eight to five.

FSP15 said

Transportation for students. But mostly they put them in the back of a cop car

and that’s going to make a lot of marginalized gender folks or just marginalized

identity folks feel unsafe and then they end up not reporting.

FSP13 stated, “rape crisis center is not on campus, finding transportation to

community rape crisis center.” FSP11 stated, “no public transportation to rape crisis

center.” Other barriers included: lack of staff and frequent programming as resources, no

sexual assault center on campus and victims [within Greek Life] think they have to deal

with their victimization themselves due to negative response by Greek Life. FSP12

stated, “While there are resources, victims may not be able to use immediately due to lack

of staff, not frequent programming.” FSP11 stated ,“don’t have a space on campus like a

sexual assault center on campus.” FSP10 stated, “Victims think they have to deal with it

[sexual assault] by themselves internally because it would look bad to their fraternity

brothers or sorority sisters if they need extra help.” Other barriers focused on lack of

privacy and confidentiality due to the media as well as the police parking outside of the

dorms where everyone can see, and students can determine the name of the victim. SP5

stated , “yes, from the media. If students, see a police car at dorm and police at dorm

room and then media posts an incident; people will figure out who the victim is.” FSP9

said

I think that we also have students have concerns that the student newspaper will

find out about their report and print information and if they’re coming forward

and wanting their situation to remain private, they certainly don’t want it printed

in the student newspaper or even in the local newspaper.

FSP11 stated, “confidentially concerns from local newspaper.” The following

participant discussed the national laws and the lack of protection they provide for victims.

FSP15 stated, “I think our national laws are not built to protect victims. I think a lot of

people don’t understand [our national laws]. The need for confidentiality and or the

choice in reporting, and you can see that displayed in our laws.”

Recommendations to Address Victim Focused Interventions

The following are recommendations of victim focused interventions from

participants. This participant focused on recommending not only diversifying staff but

also, diversity training for current staff. SP1 stated, “diversity competency and

diversifying staff to be reflective of diverse student population. Diversity among

counselors. Diversity training for current staff not just incoming doctoral students.”

Other recommendations included: adding group therapy as an option within the

counseling department as well as community resources to include pamphlets and

brochures, and promoting services. SP2 stated, “group therapy and community

resources.” SP5 stated, “a bag of pamphlets, brochures and materials like what sorority

receives as well as information regarding the sexual assault center.” SP6 stated, “Campus

wide promotion of services for victims.” This participant discussed a sexual assault

center located closer to campus and to not have the police transport victims to the sexual

assault center. FSP8 stated, “rape crisis center closer to campus and not have university

police transport victims to rape crisis center. Have victim call Title IX office and

directed to the rape crisis center as well as resources.” Additional recommendations

include increased communication and presentations, as well as adding the option for the

sexual assault center staff coming to the campus if students want services and an exam on

campus. FSP10 stated, “more communication, more presentations without using

additional resources if possible.” FSP11 stated, “evolve partnership with RCC. Can RCC

staff come to campus health services for students who cannot come to their center and

want a sexual assault exam?”

Theme 4: Alcohol, Fraternities, and Sexual Violence

In the alcohol, fraternities and sexual violence theme, participants discussed

through their lived experiences the connection between alcohol and sexual violence as

well as a relationship between fraternities and sexual violence. One hundred percent of

both the student participants and the faculty/staff participants stated that there is a

connection between alcohol and sexual violence. When looking at a relationship between

fraternities and sexual violence, 83% of the students and 88% of the faculty/staff stated

that there was a relationship. Both groups discussed the connection that alcohol and

fraternities have in relation to parties. There were some participants who mentioned a

concern in specifically discussing fraternity members in relation to sexual assault versus

other students in general; however other participants could specifically recall incidences

that involved fraternity members.

Alcohol

The following participants discussed the connection between alcohol and sexual

violence. Consent and how alcohol affects the body is not understood by students as well

as alcohol being used at fraternity parties to intoxicate girls and then sexually assault

them. The participants also discussed the prevalence of alcohol on this campus even

though the university limits alcohol and their response are punitive. SP1 stated Alcohol is

part of the college culture. There is a lack of understanding how alcohol impairs the

body. They don’t understand consent under the influence and what it means to be

incapacitated and not be able to provide consent. The response from the university is

punitive. No real restorative justice.

SP2 states

I have witnessed alcohol at frat parties and girls being drugged or just drink too

much and they would be preyed upon. Hear from girls being assaulted and

drugged. At this university the drinking culture is pretty high and prevalent.

SP3 stated, “The office of student conduct has processed cases involving alcohol.

Can’t give consent when under the influence of alcohol. There is a lot of alcohol use.

There is education and outreach regarding alcohol within student population.” SP4 stated,

“people having girls hanging out, getting drunk. People see a green light for sex.

University limits alcohol.” SP5 stated, “Approximately 80 percent of reported sexual

assaults involve some type of alcohol substance from my experience.” SP6 states In

most cases of sexual violence alcohol was involved. University has no tolerance for

underage drinking. Get into a lot of trouble if you have alcohol on campus. Not sure if

there was an underage victim of sexual violence if they would get in trouble for

drinking.

FSP8 stated, “So yes, I do believe alcohol is connected to sexual assault, not the

whole thing that happens, but I believe it is a part of what happens at times.” The

following participants discussed the connection between alcohol and sexual assault and

training students about the difference between intoxication and incapacitation as well as

consent and prevention. FSP9 said

We certainly receive reports that involve alcohol. And so, we talk to them about

intoxication versus incapacitation and that it’s the responsibility of the person

initiating to be sure the other person has consented. We try to talk about

intoxication versus incapacitation and consent before the fact and include that in

our programming and training.

FSP10 stated, “university intervenes – trainings, university intervention – specific

trainings on sexual assault.” FSP11 said

You know, they are taking things that are altering their state of mind and their

consciousness. So those kinds of situations do lead to sexual assault happening

easier, unfortunately. I would say prevention efforts are definitely there from

university.

FSP12 said

Yes, I do believe there is a connection when there’s alcohol or even drugs

involved. We all know that our judgment, we may have a lapse in judgment.

And when we have a lapse in judgment, things like that, things like this may

happen. In addition, you know, cases that we have seen come through our office,

more often. I would say we do have an office of Student Wellness and Health

Promotion, which is responsible for the education of our students on alcohol or

other drugs, other substances and overall wellness.

This participant specifically stated that they believe alcohol is used to perpetrate

sexual assaults and the victim blaming that accompanies these types of assaults. In

addition to focusing on prevention training which includes consent and bystander

intervention. FS14 said

So, yes, I believe it’s happening. I believe it’s being used. I know it’s being used

as drug inducing, sexual assault. And the other layer of that that is problematic is

the victim blaming message attached to it. When we educate on substance use. It

is a risk reduction model. When it is sexual assault or interpersonal violence, it is

true primary prevention. It focuses on teaching consent, bystander intervention,

etc.

Fraternities

The following participants were asked if they thought there was a relationship

between fraternities and sexual assaults. There was a discussion that sex and alcohol was

a part of the fraternity culture, however, it is not a part of the fraternities and sororities

mission, vision and goals. They discussed girls talking about being drugged at the

fraternity parties and fraternities breeding sexual violence however, sexual assaults

involving Greek Life are underreported. SP1 said

It is a large part of fraternity culture. Sex and alcohol are a large part of that

culture. Sex and alcohol are not part of fraternities and sororities mission, vision,

and goals. When alcohol and sex are mixed, there are often incidences of sexual

assault and misconduct.

SP2 stated, “Fraternities on campus can definitely breed sexual violence.” SP5

stated, “Fraternities and sororities have more access to partying and events that involve

alcohol as a cultural norm. A lot more incidences of sexual assault that involve Greek

Life are underreported than reported.” SP6 stated, “I have heard of stories of girls saying

that certain frat guys have tried to drug them at parties and take advantage of them.”

FSP9 stated, “definitely there are reports that involve some members of Greek life.”

FSP14 said

I believe there is a relationship specifically on this campus, and I believe that a

high prevalence of sexual assaults coming out of Greek organizations are

perpetrated by fraternity members and a large demographic of victims are sorority

members.

This participant discusses that there are certain fraternity houses and students who

have more instances of sexual assault associated with them [fraternity houses]. FSP10

said

So, what I’ve heard from Title IX and having been a few of those meetings, is

there are quite a few fraternity houses that are, say, known as more of the

common area or the common house that would have those instances. And so

there’s definitely a sign or like a let’s say, like a line that ties X fraternity house to

a lot of the victims of sexual assault. In talking with Title IX specifically, that

there are definitely statistics that showcase the line between fraternities and

fraternity members and sexual assault victims.

This participant discussed the rule in place for sororities that does not allow

women to have parties within their sorority houses. This participant stated that if they

have to go to the fraternity house to drink that this puts the women at risk. FSP13 said

Women are not allowed to have parties in their own homes, which means they’re not as in

control of their alcohol consumption. And that puts them at risk. I think that they’re

going into fraternity houses to drink, to drink and have fun and hang out like they’re

going into those environments. And I can speak firsthand from being a sorority woman

on this campus now.

Theme 5: Intervention and Prevention Services and Programs

Under this theme all participants agreed that there are intervention and prevention

programs and services available on campus or through the community sexual assault

center. Intervention services are services provided to a victim of sexual assault and

prevention programs would include primary prevention activities to prevent first time

perpetration and first-time victimization. The university uses two online educational

programs called “Alcohol Awareness and Prevention Training for College Students”

(“AlcoholEDU”) and “Sexual Assault Prevention”, both provided by EverFi. EverFi is

an education technology company providing various trainings and support on numerous

topics for students that was bought by Vector Solutions (a similar company to EverFi) in

July 2021. While all the participants agreed that there are intervention and prevention

services and programs provided, not all the participants were clear on what activities

would be considered intervention and those that would be considered prevention.

Intervention Services

These participants discussed the intervention services that they were aware are

available to victims of sexual violence. Those services include counseling services,

support groups, orientations, events, Title IX, Dean of Students and the sexual assault

center. SP4 stated, “counseling service, support groups, orientations, events.” SP3 stated,

“Title IX provides accommodations for those victims who report.” SP5 stated, “sexual

assault response team, sexual assault center, Title IX, Dean of Students.” This participant

discussed the specific process that is involved once the student has met with the Title IX

Office. FSP8 said

Once that student has met with the Title IX Office, they are referred to the Dean

of Students Office to be able and only one person gets that email to be able to

reach out to them and say, how can we help you academically? Um, not to say

like we’re here to discuss what happened, but to say, like, we know that this

could lead to something that has impacted your academics. And so, we try to

reach out to them to say, like, these are the options that we have to help you

through this situation that you’re experiencing and help you through the process.

This participant spoke specifically about the events that the university hosts in

addressing sexual violence. FSP8 said

We do some of the things called take back the night where we do a march and

then allow students to come forward and speak. We’ve done other events were

students are able to come forward to speak. We do walk a mile in her shoes,

which is a great program for just educational things. And a lot of times victims

or, people who have victims and or other people are seeing this information and

being able to comprehend it. We also do the clothesline project, which I think is a

very empowering program that helps with our students to understand what is

going on.

This participant discussed that they offer the student the opportunity to speak with

them [their university office] to learn more information. FSP9 said

Offers them the opportunity to talk with us if they would like to know more about

our policies and processes and resources and also shares kind of the general basic

resources. Like we go ahead and list counseling center, Dean of Students Health

Services, the live safe at the University Police Students Disability Resource

Center.

Prevention Programs

The participants discussed the various prevention programs that the students at

this university are involved in on this campus. SP1 stated, “sexual assault student

educators (SASE), Walk a Mile event more well known and sex signals which is an

educational training.” The following participants spoke specifically about the prevention

education that is required to be taken by football players, and Greek Life as well as other

programs such as “Sex Signals” and other programs provided by Student Wellness and

Health Promotion, sexual assault student educators (SASE) and the sexual assault

response team (SART) which is chaired by the counseling center and provides various

prevention programs. SP4 said

Seminars and hub events talking about sexual assault. Football players, fraternity

and sorority life have to go to a required session on sexual assault. So, it’s kind of

like this is just something I have to do not something I want to do. Teachers offer

extra credit if you participate in a sexual assault event or program.

SP5 stated, “Rape Aggression Defense System (RAD), housing will do

programming around sexual assault, putting information on bulletin boards, sexual assault

student educators (SASE) will do events and have flyers up around regarding statistics

and breaking myths.” SP2 stated, “SASE to bring awareness, programs, clubs, jobs and

teams set up on campus to combat this. I’m on the sexual assault response team (SART)

and I help educate, fundraisers, tabling events to bring awareness of campus resources.”

This participant spoke specifically about the online prevention program being long and

dry for sexual violence topics. FSP9 said

I think our programming is good. I do think that I’ll probably echo at least one

thing that you probably hear from other coaches that I’m not sure our on line

module is the most student friendly introduction to these topics. It’s kind of long.

It’s kind of dry, in my personal opinion. That is a system level decision. But they

are aware of our concerns. And so hopefully when it’s time to reconsider what to

do moving forward, they will consider that.

This participant mentioned a program called “Sex Signals” which they stated is

great and was created by Catharsis Productions. FSP15 said

So, they do “Sex Signals” every year, the beginning of the year for the incoming

freshmen, which is a really great it’s like a presentation. It’s done by two people

who are usually closer to college age. And it does a great job explaining it goes

beyond no means no, like it explains what consent really is. It gives them

examples. It’s kind of like skits and it’s kind of funny, but it’s also serious. So

that’s a big one every year we’re starting to do bystander intervention programs.

Recommendations

The participants were asked to provide recommendations regarding intervention

and prevention services and programs for this university. The participants discussed

including education regarding sexual assault while providing other programs, having

focus groups on certain topics, university addressing the drinking and increase outreach

and education for alcohol and sexual violence as well as bystander intervention. SP1 said

Be strategic in embedding sexual assault into other programming that is already

occurring. University thinks too linear. If a student walks away from a program and is

given new information regarding sexual assault within another program, they may walk

away and remember. There is intersectionality.

SP2 stated, “Counseling center has groups on certain topics that students can use

their free sessions to attend. Cracking down on drinking”. SP3 said

Increase outreach and education for alcohol and sexual violence and their

intersection. A lot of alcohol training continued online trainings for students.

Have representatives come speak to student organizations, incentivize students

within organizations for participating in smaller group talks. This will increase

engagement. How to intervene as a bystander, have someone come and talk about

what resources are available.

This participant discussed having a safe space. This space would be free from

judgement and blame and enable the student to have their voice heard and are taken

seriously. SP4 said

Solidify safe space. This is a place of no judgement, a place of acknowledgement

and even if you don’t understand, not making it wrong because you don’t

understand not a place of blame, just a place where their voice can be heard and

they can be taken seriously.

This participant discussed the recommendation that training, and reinforcement

need to occur each year until graduation and not just the first year. SP6 stated, “reinforce

and provide trainings for each class sophomore, junior and senior each year for

information received during FYE. I am a junior and am starting to forget things, I was

told as a freshman.” This participant recommends focusing on making sure that students

understand that they can speak to the police and that does not mean that they have to

report the incident. FSP8 said

I think our intervention methods that we have in place are well thought out and

there’s a great team that is there. But getting the students there is the hard part.

Trying to find a way that students understand that it’s OK to talk to university

police and that they don’t have to report the incident there. I think sometimes

universal police have a bad stigma that they’re automatically think students are

going to as students, automatically have to report. So, trying to change that

stigma would probably be something that I recommend.

This participant wants to replace the current online educational programs EverFi

[“AlcoholEDU” & “Sexual Assault Prevention”] with “U Got This” developed by

Catharsis Productions. FSP13 stated, “I wish we would replace EverFi [“AlcoholEDU”

& “Sexual Assault Prevention”] with “U Got This “ and there would be teeth in it. They

all would have to do it.” This participant discusses the program EverFi [“AlcoholEDU” &

“Sexual Assault Prevention”] and why they believe it is ineffective. They discussed

instead to focus on bystander intervention training, supporting survivors, dispelling

myths, mental health and diversity inclusion. This participant thinks that this training

[“U Got This”] should be a requirement for faculty and staff as well. This participant

also discussed comparing the EverFi [“AlcoholEDU” & “Sexual Assault Prevention”]

program to the “Sex Signals” program. The majority of students thought that the “Sex

Signals” program was better and they [students] were more likely to change their

behavior after watching it [“Sex Signals’]. FSP14 said

I have never liked EverFi [“AlcoholEDU” & “Sexual Assault Prevention”]. I

think that it is not a good modality in educating our students. Our system office

requires for our students, to all complete. So, there’s multiple problems with this

one. It’s not very effective curriculum because it’s the presentation of the

information. Students can click through it and go into the details of the neuro

neurodiversity of a trauma survivor. And instead of really focusing in on what

these kids need, which is bystander intervention training and, you know,

supporting survivors, you know, dispelling myths, etc. So, it’s not very good

curriculum to begin with. So, I do think if we included mental health and

diversity inclusion, that these would enhance interpersonal violence prevalence on

campus. So, I think those need to be included. We also have nothing required for

faculty and staff, nothing. EverFi even has a module. We just don’t pay for it.

Right. So, something needs to be added as a requirement for faculty staff. And if

we can require faculty staff to do like cyber training every year online, then

there’s no reason why we can’t require them to do a stalking, healthy

relationships, consent, sexual harassment module. We looked at students

comparing two different competitors, which was Catharsis Productions [“U Got

This”], and then everybody else unanimously. It was like 92% of students said

this [“U Got This”] is better curriculum and I’m more likely to change my

behavior after watching this.

This participant discussed more training for the police department regarding why

victims choose not to report so that students do not feel pressure to report by the police as

well as sensitivity training. FSP15 said

I think everything we’re currently doing definitely needs to continue. But I would

like to see maybe some more education around why victims choose not to report

or what the laws even are around that. Because most folks don’t know that you

have 12 months to decide. I feel like there could be more training for the

University Police Department so that they don’t pressure students right to file so

that they understand that that’s just taking control from the victim again.

Definitely some sensitivity training.

Theme 6: Title IX Policies and Procedures

Title IX at this university drives what intervention and prevention services and

programs are provided on campus. There have been various federal changes over the

years as to what specific things universities by law can do and should do to support

students at their universities during their student careers. Participants were asked to

discuss the current universities policies and procedures under Title IX that are in place to

address sexual violence. Participants were also asked if they thought the polices and

procedures were adequate. This participant thinks that the policies and procedures are not

adequate and there is uncertainty about advising students and staff who are not in the

Title IX Office. SP1 stated, “not adequate. Uncertainty around advising those students

and staff not in the Title IX Office. Not a secure feeling.” Another participant discussing

the Title IX language can be very confusing for freshman students. SP2 stated, “makes

sense, but language used can be very confusing. Confusing for Freshman students. And

when you’re already in this very high stress and high trauma situation, it doesn’t help.”

Interpersonal Level

SP3 stated, “yes, but concern with underreporting and so while the policies and

procedures are there are student’s taking advantage of what policies and procedures have

created.” SP4 stated, “I feel like there is just something to check the box to say that they

did.” This participant discussed that they do think the university addressing sexual assault

appropriately, however they have concerns with the regulations from the Department of

Education at the National level. One specific concern is that the victim can be cross

examined by opposing advisors and if a victim chooses to not be cross- examined then the

panel cannot rely on any of their statements. FSP8 said

Yes, I do believe they address sexual assault appropriately from my lens. I have

concerns about some of the regulations that come from the Department of

Education…...hopeful with the new presidential administration some of those

more burdensome requirements will be revised out of the rules. One of them is

that students have to have advisers for their hearings and the advisers cross-

examine the opposing students. That should not be how our process is. There’s

also the rule under the new regs that says that if a student does not if a party does

not participate or if a party does not submit to cross-examination at the hearing,

then the panel cannot rely on any of their statements. I think that students should

have the opportunity to participate as much or as little at every step of the process

as they’re comfortable.

This participant also discussed the concerns regarding victims being cross

examined. FSP13 said

I do feel like one thing that our process could do without to better serve our

students and not have such a chilling environment for our complainants and

respondents to is removing the classic combination piece. OK? I am still giving

you your right to an adviser and that adviser can be anybody you want - lawyer,

mom, dad, siblings, friends, whoever. I’m still giving you the opportunity to

bring witnesses. I’m giving you the opportunity to ask questions of witnesses and

ask questions of your accuser or you’re the person you are accusing. But the

cross-examination, because it’s really frightening for our students, primarily for

our complainants’ victims, which is another could be another barrier to reporting

and participating in a process. Yes, that [cross examination] came down Fall of

2020. That was part of Betsy DeVos plan and all of that. So, because it’s federal

guidelines, we have federal guidelines that came down and then our university

system came down. This is now law on making sure that we’re incorporating this

into our process.

This participant discussed that the policies and procedures are adequate however

staffing could be better and provide more resources or showcase their resources to

students. FSP9 said

I would say it is adequate, but I feel like it’s very similar to mental health officers,

like they could always be better staffed or provided more resources or opportunity

to showcase their resources to students, as well as giving more of a spotlight in

general.

This participant discussed that what they may want to do to support students may

not be within the policy from the state which is their authority. FSP12 said

Our Title IX policies and procedures, which is what would address and how you

would report sexual violence for our university, a lot of that is tied to the state

policy because we’re a public institution that is mandated and operated by the

state. So sometimes what we would like to do as educators and people are

working on the front lines with our students is not really what we’re getting as far

as what our policy is from higher up.

This participant discusses the changes that need to take place with the national

Title IX regulations. They mention undertones of gender norms and stereotyping within

the Title IX regulations. They discuss it [Title IX regulations] not supporting survivors,

not effective and does not prevent sexual assault. FSP14 said

Nationally Title IX is not where it should be. It needs rethinking and we need new

guidance because I don’t like what happened under Betsy Ross (Betsy DeVos) at

all. So that is very inadequate. I will say, our university still maintained a lot of

its previous policy and procedures, which were better. So, I think there’s always

room to grow. I also wish that a lot of the policy procedures with more inclusive.

I think that even though maybe it doesn’t have gendered language in it, per say, or

doesn’t have language that designates race and ethnicity, I think a lot of the way

it’s written has undertones of gender norms and stereotyping, or I think that the

absence of it, the kind of blindness of not addressing how sexual violence impacts

everyone but in different ways and to different extents, I think is a disservice.

And I don’t think that’s just a silly thing by no means. I think that. It’s kind of

it’s all written with like a kind of broad strokes approach. They follow the letter

of the law. They uphold what, you know, legally Title IX is supposed to do. But

that being said, I don’t think it supports survivors, is effective or prevents sexual

assault at all.

This participant discussed the university hiding sexual assaults that happen

because they are worried that parents will not want to send their students to this

university instead of acknowledging that sexual assaults happen on this university

campus. FSP15 said

I think the administration tries to hide it too entirely much because they’re so

afraid that if they admit the sexual assault happens and happens regularly on this

campus, then no one will want to send their students here instead of realizing it

happens.

Recommendations

Participants were asked to provide recommendations for additions or changes to

the policies and procedures to ensure best practices are being followed with intervention

and prevention strategies on this university campus. This participant discussed being

better aware of individuals that need support. This would include those with different

identities that were not included in the process. SP1 stated, “Better awareness of people

we support [students, faculty, staff]. Current policies and procedures do not account for

differences in identities. Especially when these folks are not represented in that process.”

This participant discussed adding more information about confidentiality for students

which may make students likely to report. SP2 stated, “adding more about how students’

information will be kept confidential. Victims may feel more confident and secure in

reporting.” Other recommendations include greater education, aware of resources and

letting students see the people who work in the Title IX and Dean of Student’s Office.

SP3 stated, “greater education. Making people aware of the resources available, putting

faces to that as well. Faces within Title IX and Dean of Student’s Office and more

outreach.” This participant discussed having more interactive opportunities with

discussion as well as engaging everyone. SP4 stated, “more interactive, video with

discussion. Try to engage everyone.” FSP7 stated, “needs to be more done with

fraternities and sororities.” This participant recommended continuing with trainings as

well as professional development sessions for the trainers. This participant hopes that

there are new rules that come out from the new federal administration. FSP8 said

I would say that the making sure that we get to continue training that we need, but

also making sure those that are responsible for training us are having the

opportunities to attend those professional development sessions, making sure

they’re up to date on reading anything that comes out. My hope would be that

when we get new rules from the new administration, that they’ll pull back on

some of those requirements and then we can advocate to the system office to pull

back on those in our system policy.

This participant recommends support for primary prevention where the university

can easily allocate resources, funding and capital to make a difference. FSP14 stated,

“going back to more support for primary prevention, that’s really where we can easily

allocate resources and funding and capital too in order to try and make a dent.” This

participant recommends the university being open and honest about sexual assaults that

occur on campus so that more folks will feel safe coming forward. FSP15 stated, “if the

administration let folks know [about sexual assault] and we’re open and honest about it.

We would have more folks who feel safe coming forward.”

Summary

In this study, I focused on the phenomenon of sexual violence on a university

campus. The purpose of this study was to understand the factors, intervention and

prevention strategies and policies and procedures that exist regarding sexual violence and

were experienced by various stakeholders in addressing sexual violence on a university

campus. This chapter addressed the study setting, participants’ demographic information,

data collection, analysis, evidence of trustworthiness and the results.

This study addressed RQ1 by showing through the lived experiences of the

participants that sexual violence is still prevalent on this university campus. Participants

discussed victims feeling unsafe and/or unsure of how to report or seek services.

Participants also described concerns for fraternities’ attitudes, beliefs and behaviors

toward women, fraternity house safety as well as fraternities’ power/dominance within

the university and the role that plays in victims not reporting. There were also

discussions regarding pressure to remain in traditional gender role(s) as well as jokes,

messaging, catcalling and other misogynistic statements on campus. Then there were

responses regarding students’ misconceptions regarding sexual violence and

responsibilities as well as understanding consent.

The second part of RQ1 was addressed by discussing the universities response

system. There is a response system on the university campus; however, depending on if

the victim reports or just wants to receive services will determine the specific response.

Some participants stated that sexual assaults are minimized and not taken seriously.

Participants stated that some victims do not understand the process of reporting or

receiving services and other victims are not aware of their options. Two major concerns

for several of the participants were the response system in regard to transportation from

student housing to the local sexual assault center and the lack of confidentiality due to

law enforcement transporting a student to the local sexual assault center.

Best practices were discussed by the participants in addressing RQ2 by stating that

they thought it was a good idea to have a sexual assault center on the campus as an option

for victims. Another best practice mentioned was a decrease in the amount of time to

wait for a counseling appointment as well as culturally representative counseling staff

available. Continued prevention programing with the fraternities, sororities and athletes

as well as the FYE programs. Participants wanted to see the addition of various programs

each year for sophomores, juniors and seniors. Participants discussed replacing EverFi

with another program. Annual training for employees regarding Title IX was also

discussed.

The hope is that best practice recommendations are supported by the university

administration as well as the board of regents for state schools which is the governing

body for this university. The final chapter includes interpretation of the findings,

limitations of the study, recommendations, implications regarding positive social change

and a conclusion.

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to understand the intervention and prevention

strategies that existed and were experienced by various stakeholders in addressing sexual

violence on a university campus. There is currently not a clear understanding of how

sexual violence is addressed on university campuses. Increased understanding of how

campuses address this issue is needed to provide consistent and specific support to

victims, conduct effective evaluations, and implement changes in policies and procedures

that reflect best practices.

The nature of this study was a qualitative case study, which was chosen because to

enable me to best capture the participants’ experiences regarding the way in which the

college addresses sexual violence. Since qualitative methods are exploratory in nature

and are mainly concerned with gaining insights and understanding of underlying reasons

and motivations (Corbin & Strauss, 2015), this method is in line with the type of study

conducted. Qualitative research was consistent with exploring, describing, and

interpreting the campus’s response to sexual violence.

This study was conducted to understand sexual violence as the phenomenon

through lived experiences, as well as how it is handled on this university campus. In

addition, results from this study may help to guide the creation of successful best practice

intervention and prevention programs and services, as well as Title IX policies and

procedures addressing sexual violence. Through this study, I identified successful

factors, as well as factors that should be addressed within this university campus to create

a system that meaningfully supports a safe campus for everyone.

Key Findings

In this study, I identified four key findings from the data analysis. The first key

finding was that sexual violence is still a concern on this university campus. Sexual

violence still being a concern was based on the participants’ responses. Participants

either heard instances of sexual violence that occurred on campus or have worked with

survivors on campus. The second key finding is that there are barriers to reporting and

accessing intervention services. One barrier to reporting key finding was that survivors

were either not comfortable reporting and did not feel safe, or they were worried about

retaliation from perpetrators. Barriers to services included transportation to the

community sexual assault center. This transportation barrier includes issues of privacy

and confidentiality. The third key finding is that the current online programs required by

the state and by this university are inadequate. The online programs “AlcohEDU” and

“SAP” are not adequate to provide knowledge to students that will translate into useful

skills and abilities in addressing sexual violence as a survivor, advocate, support person,

or general student, according to study participants. The fourth key finding is that Title IX

policies and procedures are not clear for students, faculty, or staff. Faculty and staff are

not sure how to help a student that approaches them who has been victimized and

students are not sure who they can talk to without having to file a report. In addition,

students are not clear on their ability to access services without having to file an official

report.

Interpretation of the Findings

The study found that participants were concerned about sexual violence on this

campus. The participants’ concerns focused on behaviors that perpetuated sexual

violence, barriers to reporting, and intervention services, as well as intervention and

prevention programs, services, policies, and procedures addressing Title IX. These

concerns were from either working directly with a survivor, or in working with others on

campus regarding issues surrounding sexual violence. There were several findings that

confirmed and/or extended the knowledge regarding sexual violence on a university

campus.

Theme 1: Sexual Violence on Campus

This study’s findings support the research within the peer reviewed literature

regarding sexual violence on college and university campuses. Research from The Best

Schools (2020) identified that sexual assault on a college/university campus affects

everyone and is a serious public health, safety, and social issue. Reynolds-Tylus et al.

(2019) identified an increased risk of sexual violence for young individuals attending

postsecondary institutions of education.

Theme 2: Perpetuating Sexual Violence on Campus

This study identified how group attitudes can influence survivors’ attitudes and

beliefs. According to Burrus and Carney (2015), everyday events are strongly influenced

by social attitudes and beliefs. Relyea and Ullman (2015) found that social reactions

toward survivors had an impact on survivors. This same factor was found within this

study, identifying sorority sisters that encourage their sorority sister survivors to not

report sexual violence because their sorority would be blacklisted with the fraternity

involved. Caron and Mitchell (2021) found that college women who did not disclose

their assaults to anyone discussed harsh judgements or feeling shut down by comments if

they attempted to tell a sorority sister, friend, or family member. The responses from the

survivors were to not report the incident due to peer pressure, which extends the findings

from attitudes and beliefs to behaviors.

Another finding within the literature review was the support of traditional gender

roles. Martinez (2018) found that stereotypes and perpetrator rape myths were more

supported by Greek-affiliated students and men than non-Greek affiliated students and

women. The findings from this study confirmed the support of traditional gender roles,

particularly within Greek Life, and inappropriate behaviors including comments towards

those not identified within the binary system. According to Canan et al. (2016)

perpetration and victimization within sexual assault cases were overrepresented by

fraternity men and sorority women. Inappropriate behaviors exhibited by students

include misogynistic statements, as well as jokes and messaging that occur have been

experienced, witnessed or confided in by a student(s). According to the Association of

American Universities (2020), 41.8 percent of students identified at least one type of

sexually harassing behavior that they had experienced since at college. The behaviors

that were most common included “heard insulting or offensive remarks or jokes,”

(27.0%) and “heard inappropriate or offensive comments about someone’s body,

appearance, or sexual activities” (33.7%).

Another inappropriate behavior from my study included cat calling by male

athletes from a particular housing unit. According to a participant, there are complaints

each semester from students who walk by this housing unit and are exposed to this

inappropriate behavior.

Last, while this study did not specifically focus on law enforcement and their

treatment of survivors, participants did discuss training for law enforcement that focused

on survivor sensitivity. This is consistent with findings by Sleath and Bull (2017) who

noted that there are still significant issues regarding the treatment of rape victims in

investigating rape cases. Sleath and Bull (2017) found that law enforcement consistently

engages in victim blaming and the primary indicator of how much blame is attributed to

the victim is based on the victim’s level of intoxication when sexually assaulted.

Theme 3: Barriers to Reporting and Intervention Services

In the literature review, I discussed the barriers that exist that prevent survivors

from reporting as well as seeking intervention services. This study included barriers not

included within the literature review. One issue is sororities creating a barrier for their

sorority sister survivors to report. This study identified how group attitudes can influence

survivors’ attitudes and beliefs. According to Burrus and Carney (2015), everyday events

are strongly influenced by social attitudes and beliefs. Relyea and Ullman (2015) found

that social reactions toward survivors had an impact on survivors. This same factor was

found within this study identifying sorority sisters that encourage their sorority sister

survivors to not report sexual violence because their sorority would be blacklisted with

the fraternity involved. Caron and Mitchell (2021) found that college women who did

not disclose their assaults to anyone discussed harsh judgements or feeling shut down by

comments if they attempted to tell a sorority sister, friend or family member. The

response from the survivors were to not report the incident due to peer pressure which

extends the findings from attitudes and beliefs to then behaviors that occur.

Another barrier to reporting found both within the literature review and this study

was an unclear reporting process; this includes who to report to and where to report.

Bellis et al. (2018) found that, after federal changes from OCR with the “Dear Colleague

Letter” offering guidance on Title IX, institutions’ responses varied widely in responding

to sexual violence. Participants identified an additional barrier to reporting as students

being unclear as to which faculty and staff are considered mandated reporters. Schwarz

et al. (2017) found that college students may question their college or university’s ability

to respond to sexual assault reports effectively to protect victims and respect them.

Another barrier to reporting and intervention within the literature review which

was also identified within this study was victim confidentially. According to

MunroKramer et al. (2017), participants stated that victims fear the loss of confidentiality

if they seek resources. Under the Title IX guidelines that were disseminated in 2020,

there is a concern that the rules make it more difficult for victims to report instances of

sexual violence (Anderson, 2020).

Some participants discussed that survivors worried about the entire university

finding out about their victimization. Barriers discussed within participant interviews for

both reporting and intervention services included survivors not being believed, victim

blaming, fear of retaliation from the perpetrator, survivors worried that family and friends

will not support them if they find out, and the first year experience training was not

remembered over time.

Another finding from the peer reviewed literature is that the LGBTQ+

communities had a higher rate of victimization than other populations. According to

Nightingale (2022), sexual and gender minority identified students are disproportionately

impacted by sexual violence on college campuses. Klein et at. (2021) discussed the

higher risk of sexual assault victimization for students who identified as lesbian, gay,

bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) than their peers who consider

themselves cisgender, heterosexual. Coulter et al. (2017) also found there were almost

three times the sexual victimization prevalence for gay and bisexual college/university

males compared with heterosexual men. Edwards et al. (2022) identified numerous

barriers for sexual and gender minority victims when deciding to disclose their assault. In

this study I also found inadequate support for marginalized students including

transgender, genderqueer, and nonconforming (TGQN) college students as well as black,

indigenous people of color (BIPOC). This finding was based on participants discussing

inappropriate comments made by students, faculty, and staff regarding marginalized

students; also, that faculty and staff are not reflective of the student body. The faculty

and staff not being reflective of the student body was discussed by participants in relation

to the counseling center. Participants shared that the majority of the counseling center

staff were white, and students did not feel comfortable accessing counseling services

when they did not see anyone other than a white person to serve them.

I also found that if victims thought that sexual assault was either minimized or not

taken seriously the likelihood of them reporting would be decreased. Stoner and Cramer

(2019) identified that if victims believe that the college condones rape myths and

victimblaming ideas, then the victim will be less likely to make a formal report. If

victims believe that sexual assault is their fault, they are less likely to report (Stoner &

Cramer, 2019). Victims who were worried about being believed were less likely to report

their victimization.

A barrier to accessing services found through this study include lack of

transportation to the local sexual assault center. This barrier was discussed by several

participants as concerns regarding the survivor’s privacy as well as their confidentiality

when a police car parks outside of a survivor’s dorm to transport them to the sexual

assault center, everyone that can see the police car and the student getting into the car.

Another barrier identified within this study was the length of time to wait for a counseling

appointment at the counseling center and the limited number of counseling sessions per

student. While there is a limited number of sessions, one participant stated that the

counseling center would work with a student if needed. Another barrier stated was the

lack of a sexual assault center on the university campus. While the university has a good

relationship with the local sexual assault center several participants discussed the benefits

of having the sexual assault center local on the campus.

Theme 4: Alcohol, Fraternities, and Sexual Violence

According to Alcohol.org (2020), sexual assaults that involve alcohol account for

50% of the assaults; when an acquaintance of the victim is the perpetrator, 90% of those

assaults involve alcohol. One of the participants stated that 80% of their sexual assault

cases involved alcohol. Toxic gender norms, in addition to alcohol being served at

fraternity parties, contribute to an increase in the incidences of sexual violence (Barnes,

2021).

According to Ray and Parkhill (2021), there is extensive support for the

association between sexual aggression and hostile masculinity. Rigid traditional

masculinity provides acceptance of sexual assault by men (McDermott et al., 2017).

According to Martinez et al. (2018), fraternity men who affirm more traditional gender

roles are more supportive of rape myths, participate in behaviors that are more sexually

aggressive, and more strongly affirm hostility toward women. Seabrook et al. (2018)

identified three characteristics that were found to be a channel connecting fraternity

membership and accepting sexual violence: conforming to masculine norms is expected,

all fraternity members are expected to uphold those norms, and the objectification of

women was to be accepted. Seabrook et al. (2016) found that the pressure to uphold

masculine gender norms (e.g., having several sexual partners, displaying dominance)

explains the relationship between fraternity membership and sexual aggression.

According to Seabrook et al. (2018), victims are blamed more, and fraternity members

are blamed less for sexual assault than when the perpetrators are non-fraternity members.

It is important to identify that individual are responsible for their behaviors and actions at

all times, whether alcohol is involved or not. One of the participants discussed that part

of Greek Life’s culture is sex and drinking.

Attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors were addressed under the theme of perpetuating

sexual violence are also addressed here, in that fraternities uphold toxic masculine gender

norms that include the objectification of women. One participant explained that there

were times when a fraternity would complain about another fraternity’s treatment of

women. Another participant discussed how the sorority houses were not allowed to have

alcohol. This participant went on to explain how this rule allows for less control of what

you are drinking when you are not the host and know what drinks are being served.

Further, sorority sisters may be more likely to attend the fraternity parties since they

cannot have alcohol on their premises. A couple of participants discussed students’ lack

of understanding of how alcohol can impact the body. Other participants discussed the

lack of understanding of what consent means, especially when alcohol is involved.

Theme 5: Intervention and Prevention Services and Programs

This study confirms the literature review findings with regards to intervention and

prevention services and programs. Campuses may provide a variety of programs and

services and may choose a variety of ways to implement them (Know Your IX, n.d.).

Campuses must have a well-rounded program that includes intervention programs and

services for survivors as well as prevention programs for all students, staff, and

administrators. Conley et al. (2017) identified the importance of prevention and

intervention programming in addressing sexual violence.

There may be several factors that exist to determine what intervention and

prevention programs and services are offered on a campus and those that are offered by

community partners. Services can be provided in many ways, including on-campus or

off-campus, by a local sexual assault center or victim advocacy program via a

memorandum of understanding (The White House Task Force, 2014). This study found

that this university campus provides both intervention services and resources as well as

prevention programs and resources. In addition, this university has a partnership with the

local sexual assault center to provide additional services and resources for students. This

university has a counseling center which provides free counseling for all students that

includes survivors of sexual violence. While counseling is offered, many participants in

the study described the length of time to wait for an appointment. The counseling center

oversees the sexual assault response team (SART) that focuses on the various

intervention services, programs and resources as well as the sexual assault student

educators (SASE) that provide various trainings and programs throughout the campus.

Under prevention, the five components that were developed by the White House

“Think Tank” were comprehensive prevention, audience, infrastructure, partnerships and

sustainability, and evaluation (Dills et al., 2016). Along with the five components, there

was guidance in promoting best practices in prevention planning and implementation of

sexual violence initiatives for college campuses and within the community (Dills et al.,

2016). This university also has the Office of Student Wellness & Health Promotion

which provide evidence-based programs and best practices related to public health. Since

sexual violence is considered a public health issue, it is included in issues this office

addresses. This university mandates on online program that the participants discussed as

“not effective” and boring. The online programs that the participants were referring to

are “Alcohol Awareness and Prevention Training for College Students” (“AlcoholEDU”)

and “Sexual Assault Prevention Training for College Students” (SAP), both provided by

EverFi. Other prevention programs mentioned by participants are Rape Aggression

Defense (RAD) self-defense class, Sex Signals, and First Year Experience (FYE).

Theme 6: Title IX Policies and Procedures

The literature review focused on the confusion and lack of consistency with

procedures various universities follow to comply with Title IX. According to Stader and

Williams-Cunningham (2017), factors such as unclear reporting methods, punitive

policies, and victim-blaming lead to devaluing the victim’s traumatic experience and

institutional betrayal. There needs to be clarification on some issues, which include how

to file a complaint, the timeframe for a university to investigate the complaint, and the

potential disciplinary outcome if the complaint is substantiated (Smith, 2016). This same

confusion was also apparent when participants were discussing students’ lack of

knowledge regarding the policies and procedures surrounds Title IX. In addition,

participants discussed the confusion of faculty and staff with the current policies and

procedures. Some of the participants themselves stated that they were not totally clear as

to how some of the Title IX policies and procedures should be implemented.

Analyze and Interpret Findings

The theory I used to analyze and interpret the findings was the ecological model.

The ecological model has been used in various fields to study the relationships between

organisms and their environments. Bronfenbrenner (1977) identified the well-being of

individuals as being based on the complex relations of their immediate settings. Various

kinds of violence have been studied using the ecological model as well as a variation of

the ecological model known as the socioecological model (Bhochhibhoya et al., 2019).

For my study, I used the ecological model which contains five levels. Those levels are

intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, community, and public policy level. The

intrapersonal level focused on an individual’s attitudes, beliefs and behaviors regarding

sexual violence. An example within the intrapersonal level would be the student and the

student’s general attitudes and values. The interpersonal level focused on the connections

and relationships that individuals had within groups of friends and well as athletic teams,

fraternity and sororities and how that affects an individual’s attitudes, beliefs and

behaviors. An example within the interpersonal level is the fraternities on a college

campus. The institutional level addressed how the university addresses sexual violence

through intervention and prevention services and programs as well as the creation and

implementation of policies and procedures. An example of interactions within the

institutional level includes the university’s implementation of institutional policies and

procedures. The community level focuses on the relationships among campuses and non-

campus organizations, institutions, networks, and associations (ACHA, 2020). An

example within the community level would be the sexual assault center. The last level is

the public policy level. Within this level are laws and policies that are developed and

implemented locally, statewide, nationally, and globally (ACHA, 2020). An example

within this level would be the Title IX office on a college campus. Since this office

addresses Title IX complaints and Title IX is a federal law, this office could be

considered within the public policy level of the ecological model.

Intrapersonal Level

Within the intrapersonal level, participants discussed survivors’ limited

knowledge to access services and resources and how to report. All freshmen participate

in the first year experience (FYE) which includes education and information regarding

sexual violence. This education and information is not mandated for the general student

population each year after the initial FYE, which may impede a student’s ability to

remember information received regarding accessing services and resources or how to

report. Ongoing mandated education and training each year for all students would enable

students to maintain knowledge and skills for themselves as well as for their friends and

peers. Participants also identified that victims do not feel safe reporting or seeking

services. Holland and Cortina (2017) found that survivors’ likelihood of accessing help

from on campus support was related to the survivors’ perception of if their assault would

be considered acceptable or justified to use the on campus support services.

Factors that were discussed included marginalized students not having faculty and

staff that represent them as well as a lack of cultural sensitivity from some students,

faculty and staff. Participants discussed a lack of diversity among campus service

providers as well as a lack of diversity among faculty and staff prevent some students

from accessing services and/or reporting the assault. Other factors included perpetrator

retaliation, not being believed, previous experience with a university office was negative,

and negative perceptions of victim by peers. According to participants, some victims

who understand that if they go forward with an official report that the perpetrator will be

notified decide that they do not want to proceed. These victims may seek out services

through the on-campus counseling center or the local sexual assault center. One point to

mention here is that victims often think that they must report an assault before they can

access services on campus or off campus; however, this thought is not accurate. This

example should be added to the ongoing mandated yearly trainings that are recommended

so students are clear that filing a report and accessing services are two different things

and you do not have file a report to access services. Other victims may never come

forward to report or seek services because they are worried about not being believed or

negative perceptions from peers and friends. Sexual assault myths and stigmas are the

foundation for individuals’ beliefs and negative perceptions related to sexual assault.

Students should be well educated on myths and stigmas as a part of their ongoing

education and training. While sexual assault response team members and peer educators

are well educated and trained on myths and stigmas, the student population in general

seems to need continued education and training.

Interpersonal Level

The interpersonal level includes fraternities, sororities, and athletes. This study

found that some fraternity members treatment of women was inappropriate even though

according to Seabrook (2021) residents of fraternity houses may participate in training

regarding intimate partner violence and have knowledge of related resources. Findings

identified attitudes, beliefs and behaviors that support traditional gender roles and

perpetuate sexual violence. Fraternity parties were identified as a hub for alcohol and

sex. According to Foubert et al. (2020), alcohol involved sexual assaults were

significantly more likely to be committed by fraternity men and student athletes than

other men on campus. One participant described that alcohol is not allowed in the

sorority houses but is allowed in the fraternity houses which puts the sorority women at a

disadvantage in controlling what alcohol is served, how much, and if there is anything

else in the alcohol being served at fraternity parties. Participants discussed misogynistic

statements as well as jokes and incident of cat calling from a group of athletes as

examples of inappropriate behaviors. There were complaints made to faculty and staff

from other fraternity houses regarding a specific fraternity house’s treatment of women.

This incident made the fraternity house that reported the incident re-evaluate its own

attitudes and behaviors toward women. The act of collectively working through

discussion of groups attitudes and behaviors make this finding appropriate for the

interpersonal level, however, in looking at each individual fraternity member’s attitudes

and behaviors would also overlap with the intrapersonal level as well. There are both

intervention and prevention programs that are specifically provided for Greek Life and

athletes. While groups are increasing their knowledge and skills regarding sexual

violence intervention and prevention within this level there is also an overlap with the

intrapersonal level with an increase of individual knowledge and skills due to their

participation in educational programs.

Lastly, consent was a finding that was closely linked to alcohol and sex.

Participants discussed students lack of understanding regarding the impact of alcohol on

their bodies and when that is combined with not understanding what consent means

creates issues for students as well as the university. The subject of consent continued to

be a discussion point for participants. Consent needs to be a larger focus going forward

within student education.

Institutional Level

The institutional level within the ecological model factors includes the

university’s policies and procedures based on the Title IX regulations and guidance. The

university uses the policies and procedures to implement intervention services and

resources as well as prevention programs and resources. This level would also include

how the university handles collecting sexual violence data and how that data is reported.

Findings from this study identified that sexual assaults are minimized and are not taken

seriously. There were also findings that determined that cases were not being reported to

officials (this could be due to survivors not wanting to report or not feeling comfortable

or safe to report). Schwarz et al. (2017) found that college students may question their

college or university’s ability to respond to sexual assault reports effectively to protect

victims and respect them. Findings also identified concerns from students, faculty and

staff with regard to adequate intervention and prevention programs and services.

Moyan’s (2016) study participants were concerned about the quality of the

programs, services, and resources if compliance by the college or university was the only

priority. Additional findings were that faculty and staff are not culturally reflective of the

student population. Bloom et al. (2021) found it harmful when a campus’s response and

prevention for sexual violence and sexual harassment were lacking an intersectional

approach. Students have a variety of social identities that overlap. This overlapping can

create various challenges and discrimination. Social identities include, gender identity,

nationality, sexual orientation, disability, and race as examples. This may increase the

belief that the university is not focused on cultural representation of students or care

about supporting culturally diverse survivors.

Another finding was that while reporting and services are available to all

survivors, this does not automatically mean that every survivor will want to report or seek

services or have access to report or seek services. According to findings, survivors may

not know who to report to or where to report or how to access services. Participants

stated that survivors were confused and unclear with the reporting procedures and how to

access services. In addition, there is confusion as to who is considered a mandated

reporter (responsible reporter). Participants also shared that students are not aware that

they can make an official report without having to file a campus police report if they

choose not to report to police.

Another factor within the institutional level is transportation to the sexual assault

center based on the university’s policies and procedures. Currently the campus police

transport to the sexual assault center and this creates a lack of privacy for the survivors

and concerns regarding confidentiality. Findings also identified that employees are

trained on Title IX and the universities policies and procedures when they first start

working at the university. Participants stated that additional yearly training for faculty

and staff is recommended. Intervention and prevention programs and services under

Title IX are currently provided on campus for students within their first year experience

(FYE) as well as for Greek Life and athletes. Findings also found that the current

programs “AlcoholEDU” and “SAP” are not interactive and engaging and need to be

replaced by other more engaging programs such as “Sex Signals” and “U Got This”.

Another program identified that is currently being provided is the Rape Aggression

Defense (RAD) self-defense class provided by the police department. This program is

implemented infrequently due to lack of funding and staff. Participants discussed lack of

funding and/or staff to provide the programs “Sex Signals” and “U Got This”. Findings

identified that “Sex Signal” and “U Got This” were rated by the students as better

programs and more likely to change behavior than “AlcoholEDU” and “SAP”. Findings

identified that the university provides a counseling center to support students which

includes survivors. Participants reported that the counseling center did not provide

culturally diverse staff to support culturally diverse students. In addition, while the

counseling center is free to attend, there is usually a long wait for an appointment. The

counseling center oversees the sexual assault response team who review intervention

activities and sexual assault student educators who provide various educational trainings

across campus. The Office of Student Wellness and Health Promotion focuses on

prevention through the socioecological model through a public health lens and the Office

of Equal Opportunity and Title IX provide various trainings and resources regarding the

federal guidelines and the university’s policies and procedures to students as well as

faculty and staff to support students.

Community Level

Within the community level this study focused on the university’s interaction with

the local sexual assault center that provides intervention services and resources to

survivors and their loved ones affected by sexual violence. Participants discussed that if

survivors want services from the local sexual assault center, they can either call the crisis

line operating 24/7 or they can come in person to the center for services and resources.

Participants discussed the option of having the sexual assault center staff come to the

university campus to provide services or the option of the university having its own

sexual assault center on campus. Concerns regarding transportation to the local sexual

assault center is also under the institutional level because it is part of the universities

policies and procedures. Transportation is under community level since transportation is

to the community level partner which is the sexual assault center. The transportation

concern includes concerns for the survivor’s privacy as well as their confidentially. This

concern is because transportation is provided by the police department who comes to the

dorm and the survivor if she/he/they choose to go with them is seen being escorted to the

police car and taken to the sexual assault center. Everyone that is within viewing distance

can figure out what happened.

Public Policy Level

The last level of the ecological model is the public policy level. This level

includes laws and policies at the local state and national levels. Findings identified that

the federal changes that occurred in Fall of 2020 were not victim centered, caused a lot of

confusion, and created situations in which survivors were less likely to report assaults.

Findings identified that the process addressing cross examinations were harmful to the

survivors and created a chilling effect for survivors who then may have chosen to not

follow through with an incident. Another concern from the findings is that faculty and

staff who are considered mandated reporters (responsible reporters) may not know that

they are mandated reporters or if they know that they are mandated reporters, they may

not know what they are supposed to do in this role. Findings identified the current

programs “AlcoholEdu” and “SAP” by EverFi (bought by Vector Solutions) that is

supported by the university system for the state as stale, boring and not creating changes

with students.

Limitations of the Study

I originally stated in chapter 3 that I would send the preliminary results to the

participants and ask for feedback; however, the length of time it took to recruit, schedule

interviews, and conduct interviews did not support time for follow up after the interviews

were completed. I asked follow up questions or asked for clarification during an

interview if a participant said something that I thought was unclear or I did not

understand. In addition, I asked for examples from the participants about the topic we

were discussing.

A second limitation that arose was that the community based sexual assault center

staff were unable to answer some of the interview questions regarding the university’s

policies, procedures, and practices on campus.

Since this was a case study, the results will not be able to be generalized to the

broader college population. The university that was the focus of this study should be able

to use the findings to strengthen their sexual violence prevention and intervention

strategies.

Recommendations

Findings from this study demonstrated that sexual violence is still an issue on this

university campus. While this was a case study that focused on sexual violence as the

phenomenon, future researchers may want to consider conducting a study with this

university that focuses on specific populations (LGBTQ+, IBPOC) lived experiences with

regards to sexual violence prevention and intervention.

Participants discussed the potential of creating a sexual assault center on campus

since currently survivors must travel off campus to the local community sexual assault

center which was considered a major barrier to receiving in person services, although

crisis line services are available 24/7 over the phone. Future researchers may want to

consider studying services provided by a sexual assault center that currently is on a

university campus versus services provided by a sexual assault center that is community

based. In this study one participant disclosed as being a survivor, however other survivors

may have participated. Future researchers may want to consider a study that solely

focuses on survivors as participants and their experiences on campuses regarding sexual

violence. Future researchers may want to consider a case study that focuses on LGBTQ+

students and BIPOC students.

Several participants mentioned concerns regarding the current educational

programs that are used for students which are “AlcoholEDU” and “SAP” through EverFi

and their recommendations to replace these with programs provided by Catharsis. Two

of their programs are called “Sex Signals” and “U Got This”. Future researchers may

want to conduct a study in which current programs utilized by universities are evaluated

for effectiveness.

Implications

Social Change

Positive social change is defined as “a deliberate process of creating and applying

ideas, strategies, and actions to promote the worth, dignity, and development of

individuals, communities, organizations, institutions, cultures, and societies” (Walden

University, 2022, para.1). While the issue of sexual violence is still a concern for this

university campus, there are opportunities to improve the university’s response to and

prevention of sexual violence.

Intrapersonal Level

Within the intrapersonal level, if changes are made to ensure that survivors have

the knowledge to access services and resources and how to report then survivors will feel

more comfortable reporting and seeking services and resources. In addition, survivors’

attitudes towards themselves and their views of themselves will more positive. This

university may want to consider increasing their efforts starting with the president’s

office and engaging all other offices as well to ensure that there is ongoing education for

students, faculty and staff as to the resources and support that is available and the steps to

access resources and support.

Within this level if the fraternities, sororities and athletes were trained on

intervention efforts, prevention efforts, bystander intervention and how to influence and

address negative attitudes and behaviors of friends and acquaintances there may be a

decrease in attitudes and behaviors that perpetuate sexual violence. In addition, there

could be an increase in support of friends and acquaintances who are survivors. There

may also be an increase in support for sorority sisters who are victimized as well as

fraternity brothers holding each other accountable when inappropriate behaviors are

witnessed.

Institutional Level

The university uses the policies and procedures to implement intervention services

and resources as well as prevention programs and resources. This level would also

include how the university handles collecting sexual violence data and how that data is

reported. According to Office of Justice Programs (2020) success of the Title IX Office

is essential to institutional leadership support. Changes in policies and procedures within

the university should support a survivor centered approach. Moylan (2016) identified that

sexual assault policy implementation is determined by administrators and may not benefit

survivors. These changes can also ensure faculty and staff are culturally reflective of the

student population which may increase the belief that the university cares about

supporting survivors. Genuine collaboration among the university’s committees within

the different colleges may increase the success of intervention and prevention programs

and services as well as increase the likelihood that a survivor will feel comfortable

reporting and/or seeking services. Olomi (2019) found that colleges and universities that

implemented a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) approach that included participants on and

off the campus may increase collaborative efforts in addressing sexual violence on

campuses. In addition to a multidisciplinary team, inclusive participation on all

committees and groups within the university setting may support a more inclusive

environment for all students. Coulter and Rankin (2020) identified that if there was a

greater inclusion of sexual and gender minority individuals on campus then there was

lower incidences of sexual assault among these populations. This finding supports the

importance of inclusive participation with all discussions and decisions that are

implemented within the university. According to Coulter and Rankin (2020) an increase

in the inclusion of sexual and gender minority students may reduce sexual assault in

college among these vulnerable and marginalized populations.

Another factor within the institutional level is transportation to the sexual assault

center based on the university’s policies and procedures. Currently the campus police

transport to the sexual assault center and this creates a lack of privacy for the survivors

and concerns regarding confidentiality. An updated procedure for transportation of

survivors that supports privacy and ensure confidentially will create a positive social

change. This study provides data that may help clarify what aspects of intervention and

prevention strategies are working and those strategies that are not working in addressing

sexual violence on campus. The data may lead to changes in legislation, policies, and

procedures in combating sexual violence on college campuses.

Community Level

Within the community level this study focused on the university’s interaction with

the local sexual assault center that provides services and resources to survivors and their

loved ones affected by sexual violence. One positive social change based on the

participants responses would be if the sexual assault center staff would be willing to

provide services on the university campus. Currently survivors must go to the sexual

assault center for in person services and resources. Another factor that may have a

positive outcome is a transportation agreement made with a community partner such as

the sexual assault center or other community partner and the university to ensure privacy

and confidently in transporting the survivor from the campus to the sexual assault center.

Other community factors may include partnering with community counseling centers to

help with the current wait list for survivors to be seen at the university’s counseling

center.

Public Policy Level

This level includes laws and policies at the local state and national levels. Within

this study the positive social change that can occur is if the national Title IX guidance

document based on the federal regulations are edited to provide a survivor centered

approach to addressing Title IX on a university campus. A couple of those changes

include removing the cross-examination process and addressing who is considered a

responsible reporter on the university campus. Another change that can support a social

justice change will be replacing the programs “AlcoholEdu” and “SAP” by EverFi that is

supported by the university system for the state with programs through Catharsis.

Conclusion

This study confirmed that sexual violence is still an issue on this university

campus. In addition, there are still barriers to reporting and accessing services as well as

barriers with the current mandated curriculum and the Title IX policies and procedures.

There are opportunities to create and strengthen current policies and procedures to ensure

that best practice guidelines are followed. These policies and procedures will be the

foundation for guiding and implementing best practice intervention and prevention

programs, services, and resources. All students should be provided the knowledge, skills,

and abilities to feel confident in supporting each other as well as themselves in addressing

sexual violence. All survivors should safely and confidently be able to access all services

and resources. Last, it is essential that the university’s leadership is on board and engaged

in providing financial, personnel and genuine support through their values and beliefs for

intervention and prevention strategies to ensure sexual violence is not tolerated and

survivors will be supported throughout their healing process. Everyone deserves a safe

and supportive educational experience.

Sexual Violence and University Campus Response to Sexual Violence

Students also viewed