FinalLitReview

Institutions of Higher Education & Their Response To Sexual Violence
Devon Brammer & Fallon Comrack
April 9, 2015
Lasell College
1

Table of Contents
Introduction to the Problem……………………………………………………………………1
Definition and Prevalence of Sexual Violence…………………………………………………5
Outcomes of Sexual Violence……………………………………………………………………7
Potential Causes of Sexual Violence…………………………………………………………….9
Characteristics of Sexual Violence on Campus……………………………………………….11
Barriers to Reporting Sexual Violence & the Bystander Effect……………………………..13
Past, Present, and Future Interventions……………...……………………………………….16
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………20
Grant Proposal………………………………………………………………………………….24
2

Introduction to the Problem
In America’s fast-paced, technologically advanced culture, the demand for and access to a
higher level of education is continuously increasing. Over time, more and more of the population
has been given the opportunity to attend institutions of higher education (IHE) – which were
originally founded exclusively for the dominant class. As student populations grow in number as
well as diversity, colleges and universities must take full responsibility for adapting their policies
accordingly. The Joint Statement on Rights and Freedom of Students states that the "freedom to
learn depends on appropriate opportunities and conditions in the classroom, on the campus, and
in the larger community" ("Campus Sexual Assault," 2013). This literature review will
specifically look at the problem of sexual violence in a campus setting, and how it interferes with
the overall learning environment and sense of community at IHEs. If colleges and universities
are truly sanctums of learning, creativity, safety, and respect, then why do some students still face
social inequality and discrimination on campuses? Does the system reflect a broader, internalized
attitude of society, "in which respect and safety are not universally enjoyed” (Danis, 2006)?
Since efforts were sparked in the 1970's by the rape crisis and battered women's
movements, IHEs have been grappling with dire questions regarding the safety and respect of
their campuses due to the ever-prevalent problem of sexual violence (Danis, 2006). A common
pattern exhibited by law enforcement, administration, and other authority figures is the
reiteration and accentuation of current procedures, rather than the adjustment of them or the
creation of new ones (“Campus Sexual Assault,” 2013). Colleges and universities are generally
considered to have established procedures for the prevention and management of sexual
harassment – but sexual violence and sexual assault are multifaceted issues that are particularly
complicated in their dealings. Incidences of sexual violence “may constitute criminal offenses,
3

require medical attention, and raise special concerns about reporting, record keeping, and police
involvement” (“Campus Sexual Assault, 2013). In order to be more effective in combating crime
on campus, the policies designed to protect college students must be re-examined (McMahon, p.
362, 2008).
The prevention and elimination of sexual violence on campus depends on the IHE’s
ability to “create community,” but unfortunately, their efforts in doing so have fallen short thus
far. Studies show that approximately 50% of college women experience some form of unwanted
sexual activity and college men report unwanted sexual experiences as well (Banyard, Plante, &
Moynihan, 2004). This is partly because IHE's are typically intricate organizations made up of a
number of sub-communities and groups, whose missions may be competing (Danis, 2006).
Therefore, the efficiency of campus prevention programs is still unknown, calling for more
empirical research of these programs and “the continued development of program innovations
that are grounded in strong theoretical literature about mechanisms of proposed change”
(Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, p. 62, 2004).
According to the literature, a “call to action in creating a stronger sense of community is
not only used by those who work to end violence against women on campuses of higher
education, but also on the communal levels that make up society as a whole" (Danis, 2006). It
may be difficult to imagine that societal reactions to a sexual assault victim have an impact on
how well that particular survivor will psychologically adjust, but macro-level influences on a
sexual assault victim denote factors outside the individual – such as societal or cultural reactions
to sexual victimization. Once a sexual assault has occurred, multiple macro-level factors
influence the victim's psychological reactions (e.g., depression, anxiety, and/or anger). The
victim’s coping strategy is dependent on the way their trauma is received by the larger
4

community, thus enabling or hindering their recovery (Castello, J., Coomer, C., Stillwell, J., &
Cate, K.L., 2006; Lee, J., Pomeroy, E.C., & Rheinboldt, K.T., 2005; Ullman, S.E. & Filipas,
H.H., 2001).
In general, society expects victims to display certain behaviors following the attack (e.g.,
report the attack, stop dating the assailant) (Fanflik, 2007). Yet victim behavior does not always
"make sense" or conform to expectations. In describing this behavior, Gentile Long (n.d.)
explains, "certain behaviors are counterintuitive to the type of behavior the public would expect
from a 'real victim' and, without explanation, these behaviors are easily transformed into reasons
to doubt the victim's account of the assault." When the victim's behavior does not meet the
societal expectations, the victim's behaviors are often re-examined in order to fit within another
scenario that makes more sense. As there is nothing normative about being sexually victimized,
there cannot be a "normal" reaction to such a traumatic event (Fanflik, 2007). Victims are caught
between societal expectations and personal feelings in an attempt to cope with the experience.
Definition and Prevalence of Sexual Violence
Rape and other forms of sexual violence have been identified throughout history, and
according to the World Health Organization (WHO), "sexual violence is ubiquitous; it occurs in
every culture, in all levels of society, and in every country of the world" (Vanwesenbeek, 2008).
Being that sexual violence may impact both males and females, the experience of sexual
violence is not uncommon. Women and children are disproportionally the victims of this
wrongdoing, with an estimated 1 in 3 women being psychologically, physically, or sexually
abused by a male partner during their lifetime (Chibber & Krishnan, 2011). Although victims
consist of mainly women, about 13.8% of men in the United States have also experienced severe
physical violence at some point in their lives (Spivak, Jenkins, Van Audenhove, Kelly, Lee, &
5

Iskander, 2014).
Violence against women is a serious problem no matter which context it is examined in.
Lately, collegiate women who are victims of this injustice have been the focus of much media
attention, as IHEs' policies surrounding the issue have yet to prove significant in its prevention
and eradication. Women who are in the traditional college age range (18-21) are said to be four
times more likely to be sexually assaulted than women of any other age group, and college-
bound women are at a greater risk than their non-college-bound peers ("Campus Sexual Assault,"
2013). Unfortunately, the exact statistics for the prevalence of sexual violence are difficult to
determine. Innumerable incidences remain undisclosed or overlooked, keeping the issue's
severity out of public consciousness and the social sphere. This reinforces the fact that the
existence and development of prevention programs for sexual violence alone – particularly in a
college setting – is not enough (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, p. 62, 2004).
Some broad categorizations of sexually violent acts include rape, interpersonal violence,
sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and gender-based violence, which is defined as the
"fundamental violation of a woman's human rights" (Chibber & Krishnan, 2011). Rape is one, if
not the most extreme act of sexual violence, "leaving millions of girls and women dead,
traumatized, forcibly impregnated, or infected with HIV or other STI's" (Vanwesenbeek, 2008).
Unlike rape by a stranger, many rape crimes that take place in a campus setting are committed by
acquaintances, and "may not even be perceived by those involved as 'rape'" ("Campus Sexual
Assault," 2013).
Acts of interpersonal violence are the most difficult to address, as many do not consider
sexual interactions (consented or otherwise) differently when the parties are married or actively
engaged in a relationship. Interpersonal violence (IPV) has also been described by the WHO, as
6

"the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another
person, or against a community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in
injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or depravation" (Hegadoren, Lasiuk, &
Coupland, 2006). In effectively addressing IPV on campuses, there is a need for recognition that
the occurrence of violence exists within dating relationships. Dating violence is defined as "the
threat or actual use of physical, sexual, or verbal abuse, by one member of an unmarried couple
on the other within the context of a dating relationship" (Danis, 2006). Examples of dating
violence range from a number of experiences, "from the first date to cohabitation, and applies to
both heterosexual as well as same-sex relationships" (Sugarman & Hotaling, 1989; Danis, 2006).
Outcomes of Sexual Violence
Sexual violence has a large variety of potential outcomes for the victim, resulting in
negative health effects that pervade the mind and body. In the most severe cases, it is not unlikely
for a survivor of sexual violence to be killed in the course of, or the aftermath, of an assault. In
addition to this fatal outcome, there is a seemingly endless list of potential long-term physical
effects for victims of sexual violence. Interpersonal violence is associated with a broad array of
adverse health outcomes, including physical disabilities, chronic pain, and depression, suicide, as
well as unwanted and unplanned pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection (Chibber & Krishnan, 2011). For survivors,
physical trauma may or may not be evident, depending on the degree of physical force used
(Vanwesenbeek, 2008).
Unintended pregnancy is a major potential health issue that survivors of sexual violence
often face. The likelihood of an unplanned pregnancy and induced abortions is much higher for
women who are experiencing interpersonal violence than for those who are not (Chibber &
7

Krishnan, 2011). This results from their loss of sexual autonomy in controlling, abusive
relationships, despite the fact that they are likely to be using contraception. Studies from the
United States also illustrated that women who are victims of IPV "are more likely to experience
reproductive coercion," which means they might be forced by a male partner to get pregnant,
undergo sterilization, or seek an abortion (Chibber & Krishnan, 2011). Evidently, a woman's
human rights are inhumanely ripped away from her in the instance of sexual violence.
Another risk for victims of sexual violence is contracting sexually transmitted infections
such as HIV and AIDS. In fact, many cases of HIV/AIDS are tied in one way or another to
violence against women (Vanwesenbeek, 2008). The circumstances under which sexual violence
occurs "can contribute to women's increased risk of HIV infection both directly through forced
sex and indirectly by constraining women's ability to negotiate" her sexual activity
(Vanwesenbeek, 2008).
It is impossible to judge which effects of sexual violence are worst for survivors -
physical or mental. Just as wide in variation as the physical consequences, the scope of negative
mental health effects on victims is vast. Some of these negative mental health outcomes for
survivors are depression, suicide, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety, social
phobias, and sexual dysfunctions. Because the cumulative effects of sexual violence can leave
long-term, and perhaps permanent changes in biological and psychological schemas, many
victims experience alterations in consciousness, self-perceptions, systems of meaning, the ability
to regulate emotion, and the ability to relate with others (Chibber & Krishnan, 2011). All
instances of sexual violence have the following commonalities: they cause lasting mental distress
to survivors, and destabilize how they feel about their place in society.
It is well-known by health professionals that trauma is a major contributor in the
8

development of psychiatric illness – particularly in the case of depression. In physically abused
women, the rates for Major Depressive Disorder range from 66-80% (Hegadoren, Lasiuk, &
Coupland, 2006). Also among the multitude of negative impacts on the mental health of
survivors is the development of anxiety, social phobias, and sexual dysfunctions. Despite the fact
that many victims of interpersonal violence are often desperate for comfort, they are full of
contradictory feelings such as self-loathing and the doubt or lack of faith in others' ability to
understand and respond to them (Hegadoren, Lasiuk, & Coupland, 2006). As one rape survivor
described her experience, she felt "terrified of being with people and terrified of being alone"
(Hegadoren, Lasiuk, & Coupland, 2006).
Overall, traumatized individuals have poorer physical and mental health and a lower
health-related quality of life. In a campus setting, student victims of sexual violence may
continue to live in fear after the attack, due to the fact that the perpetrator might live in the same
residence hall or attend the same classes as them (McMahon, 2008). In the incidence of stalking
and/or unwanted contact with their abuser, a victim “may have difficulty in completing their
classes as many change their routines, alter their daily travel routes, quit their jobs, relocate, and
restrict leaving their homes (Spitzberg, 2002)” (Danis, 2002). Victims of sexual assault on
campus rarely perform at their prior academic levels, regularly dropping courses altogether,
leaving school, or transferring (“Campus Sexual Assault,” 2013).
Potential Causes of Sexual Violence
The causes of sexual violent are extremely complex and often are the outcomes of
numerous individual, community, and societal factors. Such factors include, but are not limited
to, gender inequality, the idea of power and control, and a clear intent to threaten the victim's
sense of self. It is a common misconception that sexual violence is an action based on sexual
9

desire, loneliness, or lack of impulse control – this is not the case:
"Sexual violence is an aggressive act. The underlying factors in many sexually violent
acts are power and control, not as widely perceived, a craving for sex. Rarely is it a crime
of passion. It is rather a violent, aggressive, and hostile act used as a means to degrade,
dominate, humiliate, terrorize and control women" (Vanwesenbeek, 2008).
Power and control do not only involve physical violence or entrapment, they can also mean
emotional power and control. Some ways in which abusers exert control over their victims is by
constricting funds, reducing time spent outside the home, controlling who partners interact with
outside of the home, and reducing overall contact with the outside world (i.e., restriction of
phone/internet access).
Gender inequality in combination with control appears to be another cause of sexual
violence. Gender inequality is a societal issue, and occurs most frequently when men are granted
a higher status than women, and have the ability to control women in various aspects of life.
Gender inequality has always been a large part of the "traditional sex script" a sexual script
commonly used to describe the stereotypical progression of heterosexual interactions, wherein:
“Men are expected to always want sex and to serve as the sexual initiators and women are
to be less driven by sex and thus are thought to function as sexual gatekeepers. Thus,
women's role in the contact of the traditional sex script is to act resistant, at least initially,
to sex to avoid developing a negative reputation, whereas men are expected to pursue a
woman and persist until she gives in” (Gognon & Simon, 2009; Check & Malamuth,
1983).
Unequal power distribution has infected other aspects of interactions between men and women,
most noticeably in the workplace. The reinforcement of gender inequality is a form of social
10

control; it is a way to maintain unequal power between men and women, and is a way of
enforcing the woman's status as subordinate.
In one study, for example, higher rates of sexual violence across the community on
campus were associated with higher levels of "male peer support" that existed (Schwartz &
DeKeseredy, 2000; Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004). The male peer support was measured
by the support of patriarchal attitudes, rape myths, and attachment to friends who themselves had
engaged in sexually coercive behavior. It is noted that sexual insults, prejudicial acts, sexual
harassment by persons in authority over students, and physical and sexual assaults against
women are manifestations of sexism on campus and barriers to women's education" (Boyer;
Danis, 2006).
The importance of norms within the broader population of men is highlighted in literature
about sexual violence on college campuses. Programs and prevention strategies, particularly in
relation to the college student population's attitudes about sexual violence, should therefore
emphasize "positive changes in adversarial beliefs, increased knowledge about sexual violence,
and reduction of risky dating behaviors such as use of alcohol" (Breitenbecher, 2000; Banyard,
Plante, & Moynihan, 2004). As more research is collected on the overall effectiveness of
prevention programs for sexual violence in campus communities, it is suggested that the
philosophies of early prevention programs that focused on mainly small groups, such as athletes
or fraternity members, neglect the necessary wider social change yet to occur (Banyard, Plante,
& Moynihan, 2004).
Characteristics of Sexual Violence on Campus
On a college campus, students are placed in a unique environment that may add to
complications surrounding sexual violence and the appropriate ways to address it. As the
11

American Association of University Professors has long recognized, "the freedom to teach and
learn is inseparable from the maintenance of a safe and hospitable learning environment"
("Campus Sexual Assault," 2013). In a campus setting, victims of sexual violence will commonly
tell their friends about the incident, but withhold it from their families, school officials, and law
enforcement" (Danis, 2006). The campus environment also further perpetuates discrepancies in
reporting because "the fact that sexual assaults on campuses largely take place between
acquaintances blurs understandings of both consent and assault, and lessens the likelihood of
reporting" ("Campus Sexual Assault," 2013). In addition, "previously silent problems such as the
occurrence of stalking and interpersonal violence are now being identified on college campuses
at rates similar to community incidence" (McMahon, 2008).
Every instance of sexual violence is different, and backed by a range of motives, yet
research has shown a positive correlation between sexual victimization and health risk behaviors.
In one study by Koss and Dinero (1989), risk factors for victimization among college students
were found at "all levels of the ecological model," including intrapersonal factors such as past
abuse history and situational variables including the presence of alcohol and alcohol use
(Banyard, Plante, Moynihan, 2004). In another investigation, researchers found that sexual
victimization among college women was also associated with an increased likelihood of reported
tobacco and marijuana use (Gidycz, McNamara, & Edwards, 2006).
Victims of sexual assault are often re-victimized when they are forced to endure social
reactions that often place blame for the crime on the victim (Fanflik, 2007). Women who are
victims of trauma may decide to cope by involving themselves in risky behavior through the use
of drugs and alcohol, self-mutilation, disordered eating, and even suicide (Hegadoren, Lasiuk, &
Coupland, 2006). Some behaviors, such as the use of drugs and alcohol may be sparked by the
12

initial incident of sexual violence while also perpetuating the likelihood of re-victimization.
In addition, attribution of blame for the sexual assault is an internal defense mechanism
many victims contemplate after the assault; it is not uncommon for victims to blame themselves
rather than the perpetrator. Starznski and colleagues (2005) state, "women respond in a variety of
ways to sexual assault experiences including how they attribute blame for the assault and how
they cope with its aftermath" (Starznski, 2005). It is common for perpetrators to minimize the
abuse, focus the blame on the victim due to their actions or appearance (how they dress, the way
they dance, if the victim is "flirtatious", etc.), or in some cases, attempt to make the victim
believe that the attack did not happen (Hegadoren, Lasiuk, & Coupland, 2006). These types of
actions have a significant impact on the victims' sense of self-worth and how they will form new
connections and relationships from that point forward.
Barriers to Reporting Sexual Violence & the Bystander Effect
Sexual victimization is a pervasive social problem with devastating effects for society as
a whole. Studies exploring the dynamics surrounding sexual assault victims suggest that
"something unique about how society perceives sexual assault may lead people to make negative
responses to women disclosing these experiences” (Starzynski, L. L., Ulman, S.E., Filipas, H.H.,
Townsend, S.M., 2005). Although there have been great strides in the movement toward assisting
victims of sexual assault, victims still face multiple barriers when coming forward to report
victimization (Fanflik, 2007). A 2006 survey of 215 college students, in which 54.7% of the
participants were female and 45.3% male, was conducted to identify gender specific barriers to
reporting sexual assault. The results showed that respondents rated "shame, guilt, and
embarrassment," "confidentiality concerns," and "fear of not being believed" as the leading
perceived barriers to reporting rape for both male and female victims (Sable, Danis, Mauzy, &
13

Gallagher, 2006). What is most concerning about the results of this survey is the fact that barriers
to reporting sexual violence that were prevalent 30 years ago, prior to the rape reform movement,
continue to be important to both male and female college students (Sable, Danis, Mauzy, &
Gallagher, 2006).
Although society has made significant strides in reducing the problem of sexual violence,
there are still detrimental intervention flaws that the victim population must try to cope with.
Banyard and Moynihan (2011) believe that:
"The impact of immense efforts to reform the criminal and legal process have been
'devastatingly negative,' failing to truly address the needs of the victims of sexual
violence. In crime prevention policies, sexually violent acts such as interpersonal
violence have attracted very little attention, in comparison with the attention given to
violence between strangers."
Legislative reforms have attempted to prevent sexual violence by acting as a deterrent to
potential offenders, but the outcome has mainly been the investment of much misplaced hope
(Banyard & Moynihan, 2011). In order to catalyze change in these settings, the broader
community must be engaged in attitude and behavioral prevention efforts at all levels of the
ecological model (Banyard & Moynihan, 2011). Therefore, "prevention approaches must go
beyond changing individuals to changing the system that creates and maintains sexual abuse"
(Banyard & Moynihan, 2011).
One way that society has exhibited a flawed response to reports of sexual violence occurs
within the health care sector's response to victims. Within this domain there needs to be an
increased emphasis on public awareness campaigns, prevention programs, and the preparedness
of health institutions and their employees to properly treat the victims of sexual assault violence
14

(Vanwesembeek, 2008). For example, many studies in the United States about health care have
discovered the "average health care costs to be significantly higher among abused as compared
with non-abused women, as well as greater utilization of all hospital services among women
currently experiencing abuse" (Chibber & Krishnan, 2011). These rates are approximated to
remain higher by 20% even five years after the initial sexual violence incident (Chibber &
Krishnan, 2011). According to the CDC, "the combined medical, mental health, and lost
productivity costs of IPV against women are estimated to exceed $8.3 billion per year" (Spivak,
Jenkins, VanAudenhove, Kelly, Lee, & Iskander, 2014). In addition, the focus of existing health
care interventions against sexual violence in the US has been “almost exclusively on changing
the practices of individual health care providers,” when more emphasis needs to be put on the
organizations that employ these individual providers, and how they influence their practices
(Chibber & Krishnan, 2011).
Within the community, the intervention of an incidence of sexual violence can be
attributed to the Bystander Effect. Bystanders are defined as “witnesses to crimes, emergencies,
or high-risk situations, who are not themselves directly involved as perpetrators or victims”
(Banyard & Moynihan, 2011). The bystander’s presence under these circumstances gives them
an opportunity to either make the choice to step in and help the victim, to do nothing, or to
support the perpetrator in making the situation worse (Banyard & Moynihan, 2011). The
intervention of an active bystander is dependent on their awareness of the problem and sense of
responsibility for dealing with it (Banyard & Moynihan, 2011). Yet in the cases of sexual
violence, several factors often pressure bystanders not to act.
Common barriers for bystander intervening when witnessing a sexually violent act
include: the failure to recognize high-risk situations, not knowing effective intervention
15

strategies (such as what to do or say), and not feeling a sense of responsibility for intervening
(having the “none of my business” mentality, or thinking that someone else is better-equipped to
intervene) (Kleinsasser, Jouriles, McDonald, & Rosenfield, 2014). If a bystander does choose to
step in and help victims of sexual violence, they are effectively challenging social norms that
condone the use of force in relationships. They can also do so by supporting a survivor in the
aftermath of an incident (Banyard & Moynihan, 2011). According to the literature, some
examples of effective bystander behavior in a college setting may also include walking a drunk
person home from a party or confronting a person seen drugging another person’s drink
(Kleinsasser, Jouriles, McDonald, & Rosenfield, 2014).
Past, Present, and Future Interventions
Significant change in efforts to reduce sexual violence have been made by feminist
activists, scholars, and bureaucrats, whose main focus has been the prevention of sexual
violence. The central concept for many of these prevention strategies is gender inequality, which
is the discourse for feminists (Carmondy & Carrington, 2000). Activities that have been
promoted and implemented by feminists over the last few decades include: law reform, the
development of support service, introduction of school curricula, informational materials (i.e.,
films, pamphlets, billboard campaigns, etc.), books, journal articles, conferences, community
education announcements, and the training of professional staff and students (Carmondy &
Carrington, 2000). As you can see, there are endless options for public awareness campaigns that
have and will continue to provide some “alternative discourse on sexual violence by public
actions and declarations of anti-violence attitudes” (Carmondy & Carrington, 2000).
In order to redistribute responsibility for acts of sexual violence, particularly on a college
campus, "assessing where communities are in their readies to change around certain social
16

problems will enhance the effectiveness of prevention efforts" (Banyard, Plante, Moynihan,
2004). A central problem to the effectiveness of prevention programs is the community’s lack of
receptivity to the prevention efforts’ messages (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004). In the past,
communities have moved past the historical perspective that assumes “sexual violence does not
exist or is only a problem in other places, to noticing and developing crisis centers that deal with
the problem” (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004). On the other hand, the high quality of
services offered by crisis centers moves these communities to what is described as the
professionalism stage (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004). In this stage, the community sees
itself as having less responsibility for addressing and dealing with the problem and its prevention
because crisis centers are professional agencies that do so.
Men are rarely targeted for primary prevention of sexual violence, even though they are
the primary perpetrators and contributors to a culture of hegemonic masculinity that supports
sexual violence (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004). Instead, sexual assault prevention
programs overwhelmingly target women, providing with them risk-reduction tolls and skill to
prevent their own potential assaults. The "rape avoidance approach" is an example of "prevention
programs that focus heavily on women as potential victims and teach strategies for self-
protection" (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004). Programs on college campuses that involve
this approach may be beneficial in some ways, but they are also highly criticized because they
emphasize women's responsibility for the prevention, rather than equally distributing the
responsibility throughout the entire community. They also may imply to women that they have
full control over all sexual encounters and that they are supposed to somehow control men's
sexuality, which is a biased perspective and not an effective route for prevention efforts to take
(Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004).
17

Prevention efforts that are founded upon the limited perspectives of specific groups
within communities are not always successful, but they do adhere to people's understanding of
the problem. For example, men may get defensive when programs are focused on self-protection
for women because the prevention message is "targeting them as rapists only while women see
themselves mainly as potential victims" (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004). These prevention
programs’ method of delivering messages is off-putting to a significant part of the community's
population, therefore hindering the spread of these messages throughout it. Despite this pattern,
Andrew Stewart believes that prevention programs targeting college men are necessary to
complement risk reduction programs that are mandated for institutions of higher education.
Furthermore, Stewart believes that the extent of male victimization of sexual violence also points
to the importance of including men in primary prevention because they have overlooked stakes
in the issue (Stewart, 2014).
In a study conducted by Kimberly Hanson Breitenbacer and Christine Gidycz in 1998 on
the effectiveness of sexual assault prevention and risk reduction programing. In this study 762
women from the psychology department from two large universities were pooled. Each
participant were given the Ohio University Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program, which lasted
three hours. Data was collected throughout the year, a pretest, another conducted after two
months, and a third after six months. The programs' influence on both attitudes and behaviors
showed varying results. Women who had no prior history of sexual assault found that the
programming was effective in decreasing sexual assault. However, the program was not effective
for women who did have a history of sexual assault (Pashdag, 2001). Yet, when the program was
modified to include additional information specifically tailored to sexual assault survivors, it was
found to be ineffective for both women with and without assault histories (Pashdag, 2001). The
18

message that prevention efforts attempt to get across is not reaching the majority of the
community in which the sexual violence is taking place; a wider scope of public consciousness
about the problem is necessary in its solution.
Prevention programming which targeted both men and women together, with a decreased
emphasis on female risk reduction, found that a one hour rape prevention program had a positive
effect on the acceptance of rape myths in both men and women. Participants were given follow
up surveys two months after completing the program, as well as six months after completing the
program. In a follow-up study on prevention programming targeting both men and women,
results showed that the program did not affect either self-reported sexual aggression in men or
rates of sexual victimization in women. Although the program rated positively, the majority of
participants believed that the information did not apply specifically to them (Pashdag, 2001).
As the importance of the bystander effect has been increasingly realized, bystanders have
become the recent focus of prevention programs (Banyard & Moynihan, 2011). Often these
programs are implemented in college settings, and are not targeted at students "as potential
victims or perpetrators, but rather as agents whose actions can reduce the risk that sexual
violence will be committed by others, toward others" (Kleinsasser et. al, 2014). The purpose of
this approach is to include the entire campus community in the responsibility for reducing sexual
violence (Kleinsasser et. al, 2014). Throughout college communities, increasing bystander
behaviors means that sexual coercion and violence is less tolerated, creating an overall safer
environment (Kleinsasser et. al, 2014).
Little information exists about what types of programming are preferable to participants,
what behaviors are expected to change as a result of these interventions, and how long the
changes can be expected to last. There is also very little information about the types of
19

psychological constructs and environmental variables that are most important to target in the
programs (Hoyt, Rineart, & Yeater, 2008). Even if an effective program existed, women would
continue to come into contact with men who had not received intervention. Thus, to protect
women from harm, research that identifies behaviors that assist women in decreasing their risk of
sexual assault remains necessary (Hoyt, Rineart, & Yeater, 2008).
Conclusion
Sexual violence and abuse is a flaw in humanity that has continuously been reinforced,
rewarded or ignored in our society. Due to mixed feelings and theories on sexual violence -
despite our growth and expansion in technology and logic - sexual violence is a problem that has
so far proven to be unsolvable. Numerous programs, policies, and reforms have been instituted
over the years in response to sexual violence, with little to no significant benefits. Gender
inequality must be addressed in order for laws, policies, and programs to effectively reduce
sexually-related violence with respect to human rights and economic position (Vanwesenbeek,
2008). Ultimately, national governments hold responsibility for eradicating sexual violence
because they possess substantive political and legal power and therefore play the most important
role in addressing the issue (Vanwesenbeek, 2008, p. 41). It is clear that before society can begin
to correct how it responds to sexual violence, it must change the way that its people both think
about and react to sexual violence.
References
20

Banyard, V.L., & Moyninhan, M.M. (2011). Variation in bystander behavior related to
sexual and intimate partner violence prevention: Correlates in a sample of college
students. Psychology of Violence, 1(4), 287-301.
Banyard, V. L., Plante, E. G., & Moynihan, M. M. (2004). Bystander education: Bringing
a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention. Journal Of
Community Psychology, 32(1), 61-79.
Campus Sexual Assault: Suggested Policies and Procedures. (2013). Academe, 99(4),
92-100.
Carmondy, M., & Carrington, K. (2000). Preventing sexual violence?. Australian &
New Zealand Journal of Criminology (Australian Academic Press), 33(3),
341-361.
Castello, J., Coomer, C., Stillwell, J., & Cate, K.L. (2006). The attribution of
responsibility in acquaintance rape involving ecstasy. North American
Journal of Psychology, 8, 411-420.
Chibber, K.S., & Krishnan, S. (2011). Confronting intimate partner violence: A
global health priority. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, 78(3), 449-457.
Danis, F. S. (2006). In Search of Safe Campus Communities: A Campus Response to
Violence Against Women. Journal Of Community Practice, 14(3), 29-46.
Fanflik, P. (2007). Victim Responses to Sexual Assault: Counterintuitive or Simply
Adaptive? Alexandria: the American Prosecutors Research Institute.
Gidycz, C., Lynn, S. J., Rich, C., Marioni, N., Loh, C., Blackwell, L., . . . Pashdag, J.
(2001). The Evaluation of a Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program: A Multisite
Investigation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1073-1078.
21

Hegadoren, K.M., Lasiuk, G.C., & Coupland, N.J. (2006). Posttraumatic stress disorder
part III: Health effects of interpersonal violence among women.
Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 42(3), 163-167.
Kleinsasser, A., Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., & Rosenfield, D. (2014, August 11). An
Online Bystander Intervention Program for the Prevention of Sexual Violence.
Psychology of Violence. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0037393.
Lee, J., Pomeroy, E.C., & Rheinboldt, K.T. (2005). Attitudes towards rape: A
comparison between Asian and Caucasian college students. Violence
Against Women, 11, 177-196.
McMahon, P. P. (2008). Sexual Violence on the College Campus: A Template for
Compliance With Federal Policy. Journal Of American College Health, 57(3),
361-366.
Pashdag, J. (2001). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1073-1078.
Sable, M.R., Danis, F., Mauzy, D.L., & Gallagher, S.K. (2006). Barriers to Reporting
Sexual Assault for Women and Men: Perspectives of College Students.
Journal of American College Health, 157-162.
Spivak, H.R., Jenkins, E., VanAudenhove, K., Kelly, M., Lee, D., & Iskander, J. (2014).
CDC Grand Rounds: A public health approach to prevention of intimate partner
violence. MMWR Recommendations & Reports, 63(2). 38-41.
Stewart, A. (2014). The Men's Project: A sexual Assault Prevention Program Targeting College
Men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 481-485.
Ullman, S.E., & Filipas, H.H. (2001). Predictors of PTSD symptom severity and social reactions
22

in sexual assault victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14, 369-389.
Vanwesenbeek, Ine (2008). Condemn, Combat, and Reduce all Forms of Sexuality-Related
Violence. International Journal of Sexual Health, 20(Supp. 1), 36-43.
Yeater, E., Hoyt, T., & Rinehart, J. (2008). Sexual Assault Prevention with College-Aged
Women: Toward an Individualized Approach. The Journal of Behavior Analysis of
Offender and Victim Treatment and Prevention, 36-51.
Grant Proposal
23

The Lasell College Campus Response Team
(LCCR)
Proposal Summary:
After reviewing extensive literature on college sexual assault prevention programs, their
effectiveness, and further evaluation of the current needs of Lasell College, we propose a
localized response team of Lasell College students and supporting faculty who will provide
immediate support services to campus residents upon request. The Lasell College Campus
Response team will support Lasell College students, on or off campus, who may feel as though
their safety has been compromised, are in need of viable resources within the area, or general
information. With appropriate funding, the LCCR will provide valuable services to students,
while also forming strong relationship and continuing support systems by identifying specific
students who go above and beyond for the overall safety and security of the campus and her
wards.
Organization Description and History:
Lasell College is a private, coeducational institution of higher education with an
estimated undergraduate population of around 1,800 students. Of these 1,800 students an
estimated 36% of the student population is male, resulting in a female student population of
around 64%. If we were to consider that one in four college women will experience sexual
victimization or assault within her college career, around 162 female Lasell College students will
experience sexual victimization during their undergraduate career. Lasell College incorporates
activism, and a strong sense of student leadership with multiple organizations, such as Peer
24

Health Education, and campus partnerships with local agencies like The Second Step. These
organizations and programs introduce Lasell Students to difficult, yet prevalent issues; it allows
for students to become actively involved with the campus, as well as the community. While
educational programming and advocacy groups will assist in promoting awareness about sexual
violence on campus, the induction of a student orientated response team, designed to help
students in times of need, will increase the campuses sense of community and general safety.
Project Description:
The LCCR will be a designated support system for Lasell College students, providing
information and basic services. It will be required that all undergraduate students involved with
LCCR be CPR certified in the chance of a dire emergency, however Campus responders are not
fully certified emergency services staff. Students employed with LCCR will receive social norm
intervention training, empathy-based interventions, as well as first contact reporting training in
the event that a sexual assault occurs on campus, and a campus responder is the first individual
told about the incident. Due to increased engagement with the Lasell College student population
in high tension situations, all LCCR members will be required to attend a 2.5 hour long training
course in which participants will be taught verbal defense strategies as well as negation and
collaboration techniques. Trainings and resources regarding domestic violence situations on
campus will be organized through The Second Step. In addition, all LCCR members will be
required to meet with the current Lasell College Title IX coordinator for a training regarding
current federal legislations and policies. All LCCR students will be required to complete
applicable training’s before/during the beginning of each academic year, as studies have shown
that the effects of certain training programs diminish over time (generally after a period of a few
months). Additional trainings in regards to bystander and active intervention throughout the
25

academic school year will be administered by students engaged with the campus Peer Health
Education program. Other responsibilities of LCCR members will include providing training
opportunities and information events to fellow Lasell College students, active engagement in
events and services on and off campus, relaying current information in regards to offices on
campus to fellow students, providing emergency transportation, a 24/7 emergency phone system,
as well as being recognized leaders and role models on Lasell College Campus.
We will be requesting that faculty nominate students who they feel are responsible
leaders on campus, and would benefit from this form of work. After students have been
nominated, they will receive an application for the program along with a detailed description of
the position, its responsibilities, as well as requirements. When an application for the program
has been received, an interview will be held with the student and senior LCCR staff. During the
interview process, we will be looking for individuals who express a strong desire to become
involved and proactive on the campus, who understand that the work they will be doing may
have some nominal risks, and are dedicated to making the Lasell College campus, and
community a safer and more supportive environment.
Each student employed through the program must be within good academic and conduct
standing with the college (not currently on any form of probation), make a two semester
commitment, and will receive a small stipend of $500 for the academic year. Due to the amount
of training materials required for student responders, online summer training’s and/or training’s
held the week before classes resume will be required. Lodging during this period will be
provided by Lasell College. Of the ten to fifteen undergraduate students to be employed by this
program, we will require that a minimum of five students be van certified and insured through
Lasell College. The LCCR program will be responsible for one campus van to be used for
26

emergency transportation to and around Lasell College Campus. The emergency van will travel
within a 10 mile radius of the Lasell college campus to provide safe and reliable transportation
for Lasell College students (with a student ID). Lasell College students will need to call the
emergency 24/7 phone line and provide their destination to the van driver. The van will be
equipped with a GPS system in order to locate the passenger. The contact information for the
LCCR will be listed on the MyLasell website as well as on the emergency services van. Tracking
of the van, as well as approximate arrival time will be provided through an online tracking
system.
We propose to employ two full time faculty, one being a domestic violence specialist and
the other being a prevention education coordinator. Additionally we will be hiring a part time
sexual violence advocate. Together these three staff members will provide supervision and
management to the LCCR. Full time staff will receive a yearly salary of $35,000 and part time
will receive a yearly salary of around $17,000. Each staff member will be required to make at
least a one year commitment to the position. Discounted housing opportunities will be provided
to all staff members through Lasell College campus housing. On campus housing for all staff
must be applied for after the position has been accepted. If on campus housing is not available,
affordable housing within travel distance will be found. We suggest a trust of $15,000 to assist in
local housing. Staff members will not be required to live on campus in order to be employed. The
main area of focus for supervising staff would be to attend off campus training’s (which then
would be shared with undergraduate responders) meet with other college programs in the area to
form a web of valuable support and resources, as well as day to day logistics and general
supervision.
Risks:
27

A number of risks are involved when developing a program designed to impact sexual
violence on a college campus. While LCCR students will be provided training for dealing with
emergency situations, they are not certified emergency services staff. As alcohol and drug usage
is more prevalent on college campus, LCCR students by engage with individuals in dangerous
states of mind. As alcohol and drug usage are statistically linked to increased aggressive
behavior, LCCR students must be aware of this risk of violent behavior, as physical self-defense
training will not be provided through Lasell College.
Evaluation:
In order to evaluate the LCCR program, we will administer three anonymous surveys to
all currently enrolled Lasell College students, one at the beginning of the year, one at the end of
the fall semester, and one at the end of the spring semester. Through these surveys we will
evaluate how involved in the Lasell College community LCCR members are, how effective the
services they provide are, if the information they provide is current and valuable to the student
population. Through these three surveys, we aim to determine if the institution of the LCCR has
increased knowledge and awareness of sexual violence, decreased instances of sexual
victimization on campus, and increased the students’ feelings of safety on campus. In addition to
surveying the Lasell College student population who are receiving services from the LCCR
program, we will also conduct a two part survey with LCCR members to evaluate how being a
part of the LCCR program as impacted members willingness to end sexual violence and
dedication to improving the Lasell College campus. One limitation to the evaluation process for
this program will be that due to the nomination process required, this program asks for
individuals with certain characteristics and desirability to be involved in the community.
28

FinalLitReview

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (13)

Ähnlich wie FinalLitReview

Ähnlich wie FinalLitReview (7)

FinalLitReview