Prevention of Sexual Violence on College Campus

Running Head: PREVENTION OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE ON COLLEGE CAMPUS
1
Prevention of Sexual Violence on College Campus
Kerri-M. Berlin & Maryam T. Bagherkhan
COH 380
National University
02/27/16

2
Table of Contents
Introduction....................................................................................................................................1
Prevention of Sexual Violence on Campus .............................................................................................................................2
Social and Environmental Determinants .................................................................................3
Needs Assessment...........................................................................................................................4
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Risk Factors ..................................................................................................................................................................................5
Planning Model
Goal and Objectives .....................................................................................................................6
Goal
Objectives
Interventions & Strategies
Strategy Overview Table
Implementation Process
Program Considerations
Resources
Marketing Plan
Gantt Chart
Program Timeframe Table
Evaluation Process
Process Plan
Outcome Plan
Data
Reporting
Conclusions
Program Effectiveness
Recommendations
References

3
Health Problem: Prevention of Sexual Violence on Campus
Sexual violence on college campuses is a complex social problem that requires a multi-
faceted response built from prevention, intervention, and enforcement. Because there are unique
situations that make the incidence of sexual victimization on college campuses more
complicated, it is one of the most serious problems facing our nation’s higher education
experience. Focus and prioritization are warranted to seek effective strategies for primary
prevention and robust improvements to existing programs (Coker, et al., 2011).
Introduction
The Department of Justice defines sexual violence as, “Sexual assault is any type of
sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under
the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible
sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape (United States Department of
Justice, 2015)”. State governments and institutions of higher learning define sexual assault,
domestic violence and stalking differently.
The CDC asserts that sexual assault, at its most basic level, refers to any form of non-
consensual sexual activity and that it is an act of aggression designed to humiliate, intimidate,
control, or instill fear (Division of Violence Prevention, CDC, 2014). Sexual violence, a broader
term that encompasses sexual assault, ranges from verbal harassment to sexual assault or abuse
to rape to sexual homicide (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 2014).

4
Sexual assault is not an exclusive act of aggression but should be considered as part of a
continuum of attitudes, beliefs, and actions that support sexual violence. It should also be
understood that sexual violence is an outgrowth of the larger issue of sexism. In order to have an
impact on sexual violence a community must take steps that address smaller issues as they relate
to the larger issue.
Terms used synonymously with sexual victimization include; “rape”, “sexual assault”,
“sexual abuse” and “sexual violence” and are often used interchangeably. However, these terms
may have very different meanings (and implications) in varying situations and locations. More
significantly, legal definitions of specific types of sexual violence may differ from the medical
and social definitions (World Health Organization, 2016).
Social and Environmental Determinants
A campus is ultimately defined by the values, attitudes, and personality of the individuals
within the student body (Pascarella, 1984). Every incoming student brings his or her cultural and
historical experiences to this setting. Newly surrounded by similar people has blocked them
from differing viewpoints, races, class, and other socioeconomic factors, thus magnifying the
related determinants of sexual victimization (Pascarella, 1984).
Residence halls become an important focus within the physical environment for various
reasons. First, students spend a great deal of time within them, studying, interacting, and
sleeping. Furthermore, the distance between residences and campus buildings can be a factor of
interest (Pascarella, 1984).
To highlight the prevalence of the problem at the local level, sexual assaults reported on
the campus of UC San Diego has steadily risen over the last three years. In 2011, there were 6

5
reports, compared to 20 reported in 2013, according to the university’s campus security report
released Oct. 1. In 2014, the U.S. Department of Education published a list of over 70 schools
currently under investigation their questionable response to sexual assaults, including possible
violations of the Clery Act and Title IX, a 1972 law that bans gender discrimination in education
(Division of Violence Prevention, CDC, 2014).
Target Population
This Program is a sexual violence prevention program that aims to increase bystander and
third-person witnesses, pro-social attitudes and behaviors to achieve awareness of population
prone precursors to victimization. College-age students, particularly females, are the program’s
target population as their age and community environment are considered high-risk indicators for
sexual misconduct. Environments, such as college campuses, often encourage rigid gender roles
and cultures that often supports violence and dismiss victims are often identified as contributing
to violence (Baynard, Moynihan, & Eckstein, 2009).
The Program for Preventing Sexual Violence on College Campus also includes college
age men (18-24) in their target population. The program aims to engage men as allies in the
primary prevention efforts (Berkowitz, 2002). Guided by the principle of community
responsibility; men have a role in in preventing sexual and intimate partner violence (Carr,
2008). All college age students (male and female) will be targeted as part of the population to
whose age group and environmental setting potentially expose them to potential perpetration and
bystander intervention situations.

6
Needs Assessment
According to Center for Disease Control (CDC), nearly 1 in 5 (18%) women and 1 in 17
men (1.4%) reported experiencing rape at some times in their lives (CDC,2012). Approximately
1 in 20 women and men (5.6% and 5.3%) respectively experienced sexual violence other than
rape, such as being made to penetrate someone else, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, or
non-contact unwanted sexual experiences or exposure in the 12 months prior to the survey
(Degue, Simon, Basil, Yee, Lang, & Spivak, 2012). The CDC’s data asserts that 34% of female
rape victims were first raped between the ages 18-24 (Division of Violence Prevention, CDC,
2014). The high percentage rate of the aforementioned age group is in line with our target
population of college students.
It is noteworthy that large concentrations of young women come into contact with young
men in a variety of public and private settings at various times on college campuses. Previous
research suggests that these women are at greater risk for rape and other forms of sexual assault
than women in the general population or in a comparable age group (Schroeder, 2013). College
women might, therefore, be a group whose victimization warrants special attention (Fisher, et.
al., 1998).
Recognizing the unique circumstances and characterizations of the target population will
facilitate valid and reliable needs assessment of the community of San Diego University campus.
By analyzing campus sexual violence prevention program reviews (previously implemented and
evaluated) assists these efforts to clearly understand the needs, gaps, and resources of the San
Diego university campus. Sexual and relationship violence affects everyone, regardless of SES,

7
although barriers to reporting or support services can vary for different populations depending on
demographics (Borger, 2016).
More education and awareness is crucial for effective prevention. Students need to know
that affirmative consent is required in sexual situations, that there is a point that people cannot
consent to sexual activity if they are intoxicated to the point of incapacitation, that anyone can be
assaulted, not just heterosexual women, and that most assaults are committed by an acquaintance
of the victim (Waits, 2016). Also, others need to be aware of possible sexual violence situations
and intervene whenever possible. And students need to be aware of the sexual assault resources
available on campus and in the community.
Data Collection
Primary data collection. Program planners obtained Key Informant interviews. Stephanie
Waits, Health Educator at Health Promotion Department at San Diego State University and
Sarah Borger, Prevention & Education Coordinator, University of San Diego; answered a set of
informative questions. The purpose of key informant sources is to gain insight from the people
working directly with the target population.
Secondary Data collection. Colleges and universities collect data to help increase the
understanding of sexual violence prevalence and risks on their campuses. The program planners
reviewed such statistics and campus incidence reports from other geographically similar higher
education institutions. Valuable resources included, the Department of Health and Human
Services, San Diego; Department of Education, CDC facts and figures regarding the incidence of
sexual violence among college-aged students and review of specific legislative materials (Title
IX and Healthy People 2020). Relevant data was also obtained from on-line peer-reviewed

8
scholarly journal searches, using key terms, including; sexual violence, college campus, San
Diego ,primary prevention programs, to name a few.
Data Analysis
Primary data analysis. The common consensus, obtained from both interview sources,
were that those who are around more alcohol and drugs are at higher risk for experiencing sexual
violence (Borger, 2016) (Waits, 2016). Also, students who are involved in sexual/dating
relationships, young women (age 16-24) and the LGBTQIA population are disproportionally
affected by sexual violence (Waits, 2016).
It was confirmed through this data that all people, despite Socio-economic status,
race/ethnicity, or income, benefit from prevention and education efforts, starting at early ages,
talking about consent and healthy relationships (Waits, 2016). If sexual and relationship violence
has occurred, victim/survivors need to be supported, believed, and given options for what will
help with healing (Borger, 2016).
Secondary data analysis. Existing sources of data and information are reviewed to help
increase the understanding of the nature of sexual violence on campuses. Program Planners
compiled enough evidence to suggest there is a lack of community- and societal-level prevention
approaches for sexual violence perpetration.
Most of the reviewed violence prevention strategies focused on creating change at the
individual level, while few take substantial account for the power of peer influences or social
norms. Interpersonal and intrapersonal (relationship-based approaches) are hypothesized as key
prevention elements, given the documented of risk correlates identified at these levels (Baynard,
Moynihan, & Plante, Sexual Violence Prevention though Bystander Education: An experimental

9
evaluation, 2007). The social–ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) conceptualizes violence
as a product of multiple, interacting levels of influence at the individual, relationship,
community, and societal levels of the social ecology.
Further review of pertinent literature reveals that while most victims fail to report assaults
and rarely use off-campus, community-based services, they may directly benefit from specialized
(on-site) services, specifically designed for the climate and politics of a university campus
(NotAlone.gov).
Risk Factors
Age and gender are considered risk factors for victimization; as is sexuality, such as
LGBTQ. Although these determinants are predisposed, there are also behavioral and
environmental risk factors (supported from data collected through key informant interviews and
empirical data). Social settings and situations where drugs and alcohol are common and living in
residential halls are examples of additional risk factors for possible incidence of sexual violence
(Ottens & Hoteling, 2000).
While colleges and universities offer students a wonderful range of positive opportunities
and experiences for learning, some unique characteristics of the campus environment can
magnify the problem of violence against women (CALCASA, n.d.). For example, the majority of
women enrolled at institutions of higher learning are in the most victimized age group for
sexually violent crimes. The majority of these objectives will target specific student groups that
may be at higher risk for sexual violence victimization and perpetration, such as incoming
freshmen and athletes (Banyard & Moynihan, 2008).

10
As mentioned age and gender are considered risk factors for victimization; as is sexuality,
such as LGBTQ. Although these determinants are predisposed, there are also behavioral and
environmental risk factors (supported from data collected through key informant interviews and
empirical data). Social settings and situations where drugs and alcohol are common and living in
residential halls are examples of additional risk factors for possible incidence of sexual violence.
Modifiable risk and protective factors that are characteristic of communities and that are
empirically or theoretically associated with sexual violence (e.g., neighborhood disorganization,
availability of alcohol (Casey and Lindhorst, 2009, DeGue, Massetti, et al., 2012 and Tharp et
al., 2013).
Validating & Prioritizing the Need
Legislation such as Clery Act, which requires all Institutes of Higher Education (IHE)
receiving federal funds to make public all reported sexual assault on their campuses and efforts
to deter this crime, have yet to make an impact in reducing the incidence of sexual assault
(McMahon, 2008). According to the study done by University of Rhode Island, the majority of
students did not believe in rape myths. Over one third admitted to binge drinking and of those
choosing to binge drink, over one third were women and of those reporting of binge drink, 94%
were in the pre-contemplation stage indicating that they did not acknowledge their alcohol use
was in need of a change in order to decrease risk of sexual assault (McMahon, 2008).
This information suggests a need for a new direction in sexual assault prevention
programming that incorporates alcohol use awareness. It’s important that the plan identifies the
intended audience’s stage of readiness to make a change in alcohol use in order to reduce the risk
of sexual assault. This identification would determine the process needed to support the

11
transition to the stage where action up on the problem would follow. When students are clear on
the true meaning of consent, acknowledge any misguided attitudes/norms that predispose risk
factors and then take action to change those behaviors, there will be a decreased incidence
campus sexual assault (McMahon, 2008).
Certain gaps and disparities, specific and unique to the campus community were
identified during the relevant literature review. The campus environment is often insulated from
the community that surrounds the institution. This insulation may pose special challenges for
female college and university students who are survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence or
stalking in dealing with their perpetrators.
Another gap in awareness surfaces when an individual (student) has not been directly
affected by sexual violence, they are hesitant to engage with the issue as it feels scary and
complex. During a primary data interview, the importance of breaking down the stigma and
perceived barriers around discussing sex and relationship violence is key to making positive and
sustainable change (Borger, 2016). Both expert informants stressed the need for more open
discussion about sex among the campus community. The biggest barriers are lack of education
and lack of communication about the topics, as well as, a lack of communication between
partners in sexual situations (Waits, 2016).
Program Focus
In order to come up with a plan to address the issue or suggest recommendations for
improvement to existing plans, it’s necessary to understand: the needs of the priority population,
what is currently being done for the population, and how well the needs have previously been
addressed (McKenzie, 2013).

12
Prevention programs that have sociocultural relevance, are sensitive to and reflective of
community norms and cultural beliefs may be more successful in recruitment, retention, and
achieving outcomes (Nation et al., 2003 and Small et al., 2009). This prevention program focuses
its foundation upon the principles; knowledge and rape myth acceptance and bystander attitude,
behavior, and self-efficacy (as influenced by, Baynard, Moynihan, & Eckstein, 2009).
Goals and Objectives
Primary prevention is the cornerstone of the Prevention of Sexual Violence on College
Campus program. Program activities will be guided by a set of prevention principles, designed
from the construction and evaluation of its goals and objectives. Shared goals and strategies
ensure that efforts to address these crimes provide similar and supportive responses to survivors
and promote a message that all university departments and entities take these crimes seriously.
Goal
The program goals are built upon the principles that include both prevention and
intervention and requires a multi-faceted, coordinated effort that engages key stakeholders from
the surrounding community and throughout the campus, including students, faculty, staff, and
administrators. A successful prevention and intervention strategy is informed by research and
promising practices, and effectively communicates to the entire campus body that sexual assault,
domestic violence, dating violence and stalking will not be tolerated (DeGue S., 2014).
 The Program goal is to provide primary to reduce the incidence of any form of
sexual violence against students on San Diego college campuses.
Objectives

13
Program objectives will help to navigate the course of this program toward achieving the goal.
The components of these objectives are primarily educational, environmental and behavioral.
Process Objective
 By the end of 2016, the program planners will increase the number of prevention
programs offered to San Diego universities from one to three times per year.
Impact Objectives
Learning objective
 By the end of the program, at least 50% of students will achieve awareness of the
pervasiveness of sexual assault on their campus; including, definitions of sexual
violence, consent and how to dispel common myths about rape.
 By the end of the program, at least 50% of students will receive educational
information regarding social forces and destructive norms that foster a rape
supportive environment.
Behavioral objective
 By the end of this program, college students will gain knowledge regarding the role
of alcohol consumption in sexual victimization on college campuses.
Environmental Objective
 By the end of this program, at least 50% of the participants will have increased
knowledge of campus resources for violence prevention, as well as support for
survivors of rape.
Outcome Objectives

14
Outcome objectives are the ultimate objectives of a program and are aimed at changes in
health status, social benefits, risk factors, or quality of life (McKenzie, Neiger& Thackeray,
2013). Our Sexual Violence Prevention Program intends to achieve the above-mentioned
benefits by fulfilling the following outcome objectives:
 By the end of 2017, the number of sexual violence related incidences on San Diego
campuses will decrease by 20%; with consistent messages across campus policies and
programs.
Intervention and Strategies
The following intervention and subcomponent activities/strategies, will be implemented
through the Sexual Violence Prevention Program along with cooperation of San Diego
campuses, address multiple modifying sources from the perspective of a social organizational
environment.
Intervention. The program’s content is made up of several elements (based on the
framework and design of Baynard’s Bringing in the Bystander, that work to increase awareness
of sexual and intimate partner violence and to promote prosocial attitudes and behaviors aimed at
preventing and intervening including key elements about (Baynard, 2007):
Strategies
Using data to guide action, planners will initially administer an annual Campus Climate
Survey to highlight the prevalence of the problem and assist in gauging the need and level of
interventions. This survey, which is included in a campus toolkit, made available through the
White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault website. This campus survey
also gives a snapshot of the students’ attitudes, awareness and beliefs regarding sexual violence

15
on their campus (White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, 2014). The
Campus Climate Survey has been evaluated by the Justice Department, partnering with Rutgers
University’s Center on Violence Against Women and Children to further refine the survey. This
promises to provide a valuable tool for deducing community readiness while creating and
refurbishing program activities.
Building a Bystander is an education and awareness based strategy. The program, facilitated
by planners, will go over current terminology/definitions of sexual violence; review findings of
climate survey to relay prevalence of sexual violence on the campus, establish positive norms
about gender, sexuality and violence with evidence-informed, interactive, multi-session training
program administered as three 90-minute sessions: incoming students, all students in winter and
spring semesters. Evaluation Design used will be varied, including random controlled (RCT) and
quasi-experimental (QE) (Banyard et al., 2007, Moynihan et al., 2010 and Potter and Moynihan,
2011). A 6-month follow-up will be administered in the form of an incentive-based on-line
review. The target population is all male and female college students.
To reinforce positive behavioral norms, a dorm-based, interactive impact, peer-driven
activity, Female Empowerment, will consist of a curriculum addressing relevant sexual violence
scenarios, (tailored to female student audience), skills related to bystander behavior, risk factors
(excessive drinking focused) and healthy sexuality. It will be delivered in 3 one hour educator-
led, self-efficacy/empowerment-based presentations with interactive discussion, and modules
regarding consent and responsible drinking. Again, multiple evaluation designs utilized,
including RCT & quasi-experimental. After a follow-up period of 6 months a web-based survey,
facilitated by Health Education Department will be sent to female student participants.

16
Men as Allies, a coach or male leader-implemented intervention for male students will be
held concurrently to address hyper-masculine peer norms that support rape myths or facilitate
sexual violence. The linkage to alcohol use and violence, as well as consent education will be
emphasized. This activity will take place in the campus gymnasium. Presentations will include a
volunteer rape survivor speech to evoke empathy and small group open facilitated by trained
male leaders. Follow-up and evaluation will be delivered in the same fashion as the female
activity.
A social marketing campaign will be launched in collaboration with the White House Task
Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, utilizing their available resource materials
(NotAlone.gov). This campaign will reinforce the content from program presentations. A visible
link to Not Alone.gov will be highlighted on the university website/student portal. All stidents
will find relevant information, including campus policies (regarding sexual violence),
confidentiality reporting protocol and links to victim resources and support. The evaluation will
be from the Goal-based model and the target audience is campus and community wide.
To ensure effectiveness of environmental objectives, hot spot mapping will be made visible
throughout the campus to identify and monitor unsafe areas (Centers for Disease Control &
Prevention, 2014), monitored over a 6-10 week period, with a 6 month follow-up; design RCT.
Program planners and campus leaders (staff of Health Department, campus security) will
collaborate on community initiatives to implement/enforce policy efforts to reduce excessive
alcohol use, working in conjunction with those individuals responsible for program on the
prevention of sexual assault (Degue, Simon, Basil, Yee, Lang, & Spivak, 2012).

17
Strategies Overview
Strategy Intervention Activity Components Facilitator
Time
Frame
Evaluation
Target
Population
Campus
Climate
Survey
Organizational
Informational
Questionnaire
regarding of the
students’attitudes,
awareness and beliefs
regarding sexual
violence on their
campus, no cost
Incentives: schoolwill
receive posters,
brochures to promote
program, schoolwill be
recognized by White
House Task Force
(website)
Program
planners;
survey
obtained from
White House
Task Force
Campus
Toolkit
Location:
N/A
Toolkit,
Inc.
survey
will be
sent out to
San Diego
college,
requesting
an 8 week
turn
around;
planners
review
results to
refine
activities
&
implement
activities
w/in 2
weeks
Completed
and
published
by Justice
Department,
partnering
with
Rutgers
University’s
Center on
Violence
Against
Women and
Children
Program
planners
Building a
Bystander
Educational
/Interpersonal
Curriculum-
discussion,role
playing/dramatic
reenactments
(volunteer drama
students),volunteer
speaker, discussion
groups,
Incentives: program
lapel pin
Planners,
health
educators
Location:
campus
theater
three 90-
minute
sessions,
over 3
months;
Welcome,
spring &
winter
RCT;email
5 question
/comments
survey to
establish
impact
All
students,
required to
attend 1
session per
year
Female
Empowerment
Seminar
Educational/peer
Intrapersonal
self-
efficacy/empowerment-
based presentations
with interactive
discussion,and
modules regarding
consent and responsible
drinking, tailored for
female audience
location: residence hall
lounge
Incentive: program
Planners,
educators,
community
crisis center
volunteer
3, 90-
minute
sessions
offered
Fall,
spring,
winter
semesters
Participants
will be
emailed
feedback
post test,7
days after
session
Female
college
students

18
rubber bracelet
(donated in-kind),
magnet with resource
info
Men as Allies
Educational/peer
Intrapersonal
Male driven curriculum
similar to female
program with empathy
focus & ally roles
Incentive: program
water bottle (donated
in-kind)
School coach,
trained male
educator, rape
survivor
3, 90-
minute
sessions
offered;
Fall,
spring,
winter
semesters
Participants
will be
emailed
feedback
post test,7
days after
session
Male
college
students
Hot Spot
Mapping &
Social
Marketing
Health
Communication,
Social Media
monitor unsafe areas,
NotAlone.gov PSA link
on schoolwebsite
Location: university
website, 3 hot spot
maps on campus
Materials provided by
NotAlone.gov
Program
planners and
campus
leaders (staff
of Health
Department,
campus
security),
NotAlone.gov
indefinite monitored
over a 6-10
week
period, with
a 6 month
follow-up
Campus/
community
Implementation
The program is administered by professional co-facilitators or by peer facilitators trained
in the program who lead discussions and exercises and deliver the intervention. The facilitators
include both male and female professionals or students who have some leadership and
facilitation experience and an expressed interest in preventing sexual violence. They are trained
in two three-hour sessions. The facilitators work in male–female pairs to deliver the program to
single-sex groups. During training, facilitators receive information on the program and how it
differs from other types of interventions, as well as guidelines on how to deliver the curriculum
successfully.
The Prevention of Sexual Violence Program will be put into action by using a comprehensive
approach to design, guided by the core principles of the program. Interventions are proposed to

19
motivate and address awareness, attitudes, behaviors, knowledge and education of the target
population.
The program, implemented in a single wave during academic year, is justified by the
planners’ confidence in the prior proven success of similar interventions aimed at identical
populations. Planners have considered concerns associated with implementing the program,
including; safety or medical Concerns, ethical concerns and legal concerns. Such concerns were
eliminated as substantiated sexual prevention programs have been designed in collaboration
with, approved and supported by such entities as the Department of Education, Department of
Justice and local law enforcement.
Planning Model
Theories of community responsibility and bystander behavior emphasize the importance
of a larger community response toward preventing sexual and intimate partner violence (Carr,
2008). The program focuses on expanding this awareness to the larger community by not solely
focusing on intervening on potential victims or perpetrators. Instead, the program provides
groups of individuals in the community with the skills and knowledge to intervene by
interrupting situations before or during an incident, speaking out against social norms supportive
of sexual and intimate partner violence, and being an ally of those victimized (DeGue, Massetti,
et al., 2012 ).
When applying the Logic Model, long-term behavior change (outcomes) achievement is less
unlikely when they are delivered in a social, cultural, or physical environment without the
impactful messages and promotion of safe, healthy behaviors or rewards violent behavior
(DeGue, Holt, et al., 2012). In order to implement a comprehensive intervention, the Program for

20
Sexual Prevention on Campus, draws upon evidence-based theory and best practice lessons
gathered from other areas of public health. This program uses the theories of community
responsibility to evoke a greater participant motivation and identify innovative environmental,
and structural strategies that support and encourage healthy behavior, positive social norms
Program sustainability
A strategic prevention plan should look to the future. How will prevention tools that work for
your campus be continued over time? This is especially important if the early efforts for
prevention are made possible by time-limited grants, special short-term funding, or particularly
passionate individual staff members who may be transitory. Again, research and evaluation can
be helpful. If you are able to document the positive effects of prevention efforts, it may be easier
to make the case for continuing resources to support them.
Resources
By utilizing the Campus climate surveys, useful information is generated for tailoring
learning goals to a specific campus and to identifying sub-communities on campus that might
have different prevention needs. This will guide our resource plan. Tools like social marketing
campaigns taken from one campus will likely need to be modified when implemented on another
campus. The survey will also allow the program to gauge activity conduciveness, such as
availability of campus space, scheduling and potential volunteer assistants. Planning,
implementation and evaluation resources will be primarily internally covered by utilization of
available materials, campus community volunteers and local merchant donations.
Budget

21
Many campuses across the nation now have sexual assault prevention programs that
focus on educating students, faculty and staff about acquaintance rape. This means the school
will have an internal budget in place to cover extraneous costs. They will also be likely to have a
competently trained staff (from Student Health Services), students with degree related interest
(who may be offered course credit for their participation) and relationships with local businesses
to pad the program costs.
This program has minimal cost and the school will receive all promotional and
educational resource materials to promote the program (courtesy of Not Alone.gov).
Participating universities will be recognized for their efforts by White House task force (White
House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, 2014).

22
Program Timeframe Table
Planning
Process
Building a
Bystander
Female
Empowerment
Men As Allies
Hot Spot
Mapping/Social
Mrktg.
Evaluation &
Final report
March
2016
April
2016
May
2016
June
2016
July
2016
September
2016
December
2016
January
2017
Planning, Training & Survey (pilot) & Refining=138 days ; Implementation Activities=100 days
Evaluation & Reporting=53 days; Total Time=290 days/9.2months

23
Evaluation Process
To assess quality of content and success of implementation, this program will base the
evaluation design on case studies performed to determine effectiveness among similar sexual
prevention programs implemented on college campuses. Banyard and colleagues (2007) used a
randomized experiment to evaluate the effects of the Bringing in the Bystander treatment on
attitudes, knowledge, and behavior on the intervention group (Baynard, Moynihan, & Plante,
Sexual Violence Prevention though Bystander Education: An experimental evaluation, 2007).
Plan. Working with other community agencies with the same goal to expand a working
knowledge of available data and resources related to sexual violence in colleges and to identify
collaborative opportunities to advance the primary prevention of sexual violence.
Outcome Evaluation
This program will base the evaluation design on case studies performed to determine
outcome effectiveness among similar sexual prevention programs implemented on other college
campuses. Banyard and colleagues (2007) used a randomized experiment to evaluate the effects
of the Bringing in the Bystander treatment on attitudes, knowledge, and behavior on the
intervention group (Baynard, Moynihan, & Plante, Sexual Violence Prevention though
Bystander Education: An experimental evaluation, 2007).
Banyard and colleagues (2007) found that, from pretest to posttest, intervention significantly
improved participant knowledge of sexual violence and scores were significantly different from
the control group for rape myth acceptance. This indicated significantly less acceptance of rape

24
myths among the intervention groups (Baynard, Moynihan, & Plante, Sexual Violence
Prevention though Bystander Education: An experimental evaluation, 2007).
Incorporating these evaluation techniques will further a cohesive approach across all of our
campuses to end sexual violence and promote a campus culture of safety, respect, and shared
responsibility. The interventions of the Prevention of Sexual Violence Program aim to support its
goals and objectives with widespread awareness and communication campaigns in synergy to
help shift culture.
Indicators and Standards/Measurements
We will use approaches as components of an evidence-based, comprehensive, multi-level
strategy to combat sexual violence and include an activity-warranted follow-up/booster session
to increase exposure and determine impact. In addition, this program will conduct strategies,
evaluations and refinements in accordance with reliable victimization measures. One such
reportable outcome indicator will be, The National College Women Sexual Victimization Survey
(NCWSV). The NCWSV survey contained questions about college student respondents’
demographic characteristics, lifestyles or routine activities, living arrangements, prior sexual
victimizations (Fisher & Cullen, 1999).
Data Collection
Reports were obtained from the Department of Education and Centers for Disease
Control & Prevention and used to measure the characteristics of the schools the respondents
attended (e.g., size of enrollment, location, crime rate). These individual and institution-level
variables were used in multivariate analyses that investigated which factors potentially placed
women at risk of being sexually victimized (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 2014).

25
Data Analysis
Methods used to analyze data sources included, descriptive statistics, inferential statistics,
and content analysis. The study used the same measures of indicators and standards at all
program phases. These included a knowledge assessment (of sexual violence and pro-social
bystander behaviors) component, bystander attitudes, behaviors and efficacy scales, and a
decisional balance scale. The bystander attitudes, efficacy, and behavior measurement
instruments were created and piloted by the creators of effectively established programs (Fisher,
Cullen, & Turner, 2000). The program developers for this study will interpret and judge the
validity of its findings based upon evidence-based statistical findings and justify its conclusions
accordingly.
Primary data source analysis. A major problem is that very few of the programs,
currently implemented across the nation’s campuses have been statistically evaluated, but there
are process evaluations and learning outcomes are achieved (Waits, 2016). Both key informants
reported that their respective San Diego-based universities’ sexual violence prevention online
training needs overall improving and that there is a significant need for more programming on
campus. Stephanie Waits, from the Sexual Health Department at SDSU, recommends having
training start in middle and high school about consent and intervention would be the best
prevention and valuable tool for evaluated and creating college-age tailored strategies (Waits,
2016).
Secondary data source analysis. A review of secondary data showed that there are only
a few strategies that proved effective (subsequent of rigorous evaluation design), garnering at

26
least one positive effect on sexual violence perpetration behavior (DeGue, et al, 2014). Further
review strongly suggested that using only one of these strategies is dose-sufficient to reducing
rates of sexual violence on college campuses (Dodge, 2009). Secondary data sources were used
to measure the characteristics of the schools the respondents attended (e.g., size of enrollment,
location, crime rate). These individual- and institution-level variables were used in multivariate
analyses that investigated which factors potentially placed women at risk of being sexually
victimized (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000).
Results Interpretation
Results from one rigorous evaluation using an RCT design showed that four years after
receiving the program, students in the intervention group were significantly less likely to be
victims or perpetrators of self-reported sexual violence involving a dating partner relative to
students in the control group (Foshee et al., 2004).
Further evaluation indicated that the building-level intervention, but not the curriculum
alone, was effective in reducing self-reported perpetration and victimization of sexual
harassment and peer sexual violence, as well as sexual violence victimization (Carr, 2008).
Reporting
The evaluation findings will be used to promote program awareness and emphasize
success and benefits of campus implementation. Program planners and committee participants
will be responsible for implementing evaluation recommendations.

27
The evaluation stakeholders will include; university officials, community partners and local law
enforcement. Communication with these parties is essential to widespread promotion.
Communication channels will include update on status of evaluation, invitations to meetings, and
sharing final findings.
Interested parties will receive information, either by informational seminar, video
presentation or by detailed program packets, on the program and how it differs from other types
of interventions, as well as guidelines on how to deliver the curriculum successfully.
Stakeholder Needs
The named stakeholders will be debriefed on the measurement of sexual victimization, based
on responses and findings from relevant evaluation methods. In addition, victimization measures,
survey questions and secondary data sources used to investigate the factors that potentially
placed college students on campus at risk of being sexually victimized, will be made available to
all stakeholders.
This communication will take place in January, 2017; the summation of the program’s first
implementation wave. A detailed, transparent evaluation report will be made available for public
viewing on partnership and San Diego University websites.
Stakeholders, university officials, in particular, will be motivated by this program’s findings
and find incentive-based value in being recognized by the Department of Education’s list of
sexual violence campus policy compliance. The Prevention f Sexual Violence on College
Campus notes an added university recruitment enticement to be the prospective of increased
future enrollment, based on transparency and safety reporting.

28
Evaluation Questions
Program planners crafted purposeful evaluation questions with the intention of compensating for
existing research limitations and ensuring the confidence of vested stakeholders. Each data
collection method (based on the NIJ research project) relates back to the evaluation questions
initially proposed during the planning process.
 Avoiding unrepresentative/unreliable results by incorporating of a nationally
representative sample of college student needs.
 Ensuring comprehensive evaluation by assessing a range of sexual victimizations
 Achieving validity by examining how the risk of being sexually victimized was affected
by a variety of variables, including demographic characteristics, lifestyles, prior
victimization, and the characteristics of the college or university attended.
Conclusions
Program Effectiveness
Most of the reviewed violence prevention strategies focused on creating change at the
individual level, while few take substantial account for the power of peer influences or social
norms. Interpersonal and intrapersonal (relationship-based approaches) are hypothesized as key
prevention elements, given the documented of risk correlates identified at these levels (Baynard,
Moynihan, & Plante, Sexual Violence Prevention though Bystander Education: An experimental
evaluation, 2007).
Program success will be constituted by comparing our finding against the standards set
forth by a variety of reputable and reliable guidelines, for example, the CDC’s The National
Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS).

29
Recommendations
Throughout the program and evaluation research process, it was apparent that the
majority of primary, bystander prevention frameworks focus on how to intervene, rather than on
educating students by describing when an opportunity to intervene arises. Through bystander
intervention training, self-efficacy can be realized by becoming aware of instances of planned or
spontaneous intervention tactics, directly in the situation or at a distance, immediately or later,
alone or with others (Berkowitz, 2009).
The continuum of sexual violence is another, often overlooked element in prevention
programming. Common discussions of sexual assault typically focus on the most extreme acts of
sexual violence. The continuum of sexual violence moves on to include more physical violations
such as molestation, coerced sex, and statutory rape (Kelly, L, 1988). These violations include
non-consensual contact, including the removal or attempted removal of clothing covering
intimate body parts, date rape or forced sex, and taking advantage of younger/teenaged women
(Kelly, 1988). Such acts often occur in the context of on-going relationships between
acquaintances, dating relationships, and in marriage. These are crucial elements that directly
affect the college-age demographic. The continuum of sexual violence must be at the forefront of
campus based prevention curriculum.
In their discussion of the ‘‘Bringing in the Bystander’’ program, Banyard, Eckstein, and
Moynihan explain that the curriculum must emphasize discussion of all aspects of sexual
violence. Communities (campuses) need to address the ‘‘minor instances of sexual violence’’
because of their connection with sexual assault (Baynard, Moynihan, & Eckstein, 2009).

30
Participants should be realizing safe intervention strategies for situations across the continuum,
(Edwards, 2009); (McMahon, P., 2008).
Prevention of sexual assault on college campuses is incredibly important. Evaluation research
is still in its early stages and it is not possible to offer a specific roadmap that every campus
should follow. Rather, we offer suggestions supported by research for how campuses can
develop a strategic plan to prevent sexual assault. Such a plan is built on engaged conversations
between multiple campus stakeholders to design a comprehensive and sustainable plan of action.
A key component of this plan needs to be assessment and evaluation research, including a plan to
disseminate findings. This knowledge generation can serve as the platform for moving all
campuses and the field of sexual violence prevention forward toward a strong evidence base and
toward ending violence.
A plan for sexual assault prevention on campuses will have better outcome if the focus is to
improve and enhance the programs that have already been developed and show promise (not
alone.gov). Areas of improvement include such things as increased training and education
through innovative technology with mandatory follow-up/booster sessions, more support staff
and statistical evaluation/publication of program success.

31
References
Abbey, A. (2002). Alcohol- Related Sexual Assault. A Common Problem among College
Students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol Supplement, (14), 118-128
Baynard, M., Moynihan, M., & Eckstein, R. (2009). Sexual Violence Prevention: The Role of
Stages of Change. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 25, 111-135.
Banyard V.L., Moynihan, M.M., & Plante, E.G., (2007). Sexual violence prevention through
bystander education: An experimental evaluation. A Journal of Community Psychology,
35 (4), 463-481.
Baynard, V. L., Plante, E. G., & Moynihan, M. M. (2005). Rape Prevention Through Bystander
Education: Bringing a Broader Community Perspective to Sexual Violence Prevention.
University of New Hampshire.
Berkowitz, A. (2002). Fostering men's responsibility for preventing sexual assault. Preventing
violence in realtionships: Interventions across a lifespan , 163-196.
Borger, S. (2016). Key Informant Interview. (M. T. Bagherkhan, Interviewer)
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault , (n.d.). CAMPUS VIOLENCE PREVENTION
resource guides-CALCASA.
Carr, J. (2008, August). Preventinig Sexual Violence Through Empowering Campus Bystanders.
Shifting the Paradigm , 16-17.
Center for Disease Control, (2012). Sexual Violence Data Sheet.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (2010). The National Intimate Partner and
Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS).

32
Cullen, T. F.; Fisher, B.S., Turner, M.G (2000).The Sexual Victimization of College Women.
U.S. Department of Justice.
DeGue S., (2014). Evidence-based strategies for the primary prevention of sexual violence
perpetration. In preventing sexual violence on college campuses: lessons from research
and practice. Prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual
Assault.
DeGue, S., Holt, M. K., Massetti, G. M., Matjasko, J. L., Tharp, A. T., & Valle, L. A.
(2012). Looking ahead toward community level strategies to prevent sexual violence.
Journal of Women's Health, 21(1), 13.
Degue, S., Simon, T., Basil, K., Yee, S., Lang, K., & Spivak, H. (2012). Moving Forward by
looking back: Reflection on a decade of cdc's work in sexual violence prevention,
prevention. Journal of Women's Health , 21 (12), 1211-1218.
Division of Violence Prevention, CDC. (2014). Not Alone. Establishing Prevention
Programming: Strategies planning for campuses. Evidence- Based Strategies for the
Primary of Sexual Violence Perpetration: http//:notalone/assests/evidence-based-
strategies-for-the-prevention-of-sv-prepetration
Dodge, K.A. (2009). Community intervention and public policy in the prevention of antisocial
behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50 (1‐2) (2009), pp. 194–200.
Edwards, D. (2009). Ending violence one Green Dot at a time: Instructor manual. Lexington,
KY.
Fisher, Bonnie S.; Cullen, Francis T., (1999). The Extent and Nature of Sexual Victimization

33
Among College Women: Results from a National-Level Study (Unpublished report,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1999).
“The Jeanne Clery Act Information Page,” at www.campussafety.org (Security On Campus:
College and University Campus Safety Information On-Line, maintained by Security on
Campus, Inc., King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 2000).
Kelly, L. (1988). Surviving Sexual Violence. Polity Press. ISBN: 9780745604633
Lenihan, G., (1992). Gender differences in rape supportive attitudes before and after a date
rape
education intervention. Journal of College Student Development, 33 (4).
McKenzie, James F., Neiger, B. L., Thackeray, R. (2013). Planning, Implementing,
& Evaluating Health Promotion Programs: A Primer (6th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Pearson/ Benjamin Cumming.
McMahon, P. (2008). Assessing college student’s readiness to change alcohol use behavior
related to perceptions of alcohol effects on sexual assault. Assessing College Student’s
Readiness to Change Alcohol Use Behavior Related to Perception of Alcohol Effects on
Sexual Assault, 193p.
McMahon, S. (2010). Rape Myth Beliefs and Bystander Attitudes among Incoming College
Students. Journal of American College Health, 59 (1), 3-11
Moynihan, M.M.,& Banyard, V.L. (2008). Community Responsibility for Preventing Sexual
Violence: A Pilot Study with Campus Greeks and Intercollegiate Athletes. Journal of
Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 36(1/2), 23-28.
Doi:10.1080/10852350802022274

34
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K.L., Saybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E., &
Davino, K. (2008). What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention
programs. American Psychologist, 58(6-7),449-456. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.58.6-7.449
Post, L.A., Klevens J., Maxwell, C.D. , Shelley, G.A and Ingram, E.
An examination of whether coordinated community responses affect intimate partner
violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25 (1) (2010), pp. 75–93.
Salazar, L.F., Vivolo- Kantor, A., Hardin, J. & Berkowitz, A. (2014).A web-based sexual
violence bystander intervention for male college students: Randomized Controlled Trial.
Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(9), e203. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3426
Schroeder, Lauren , (2013). Cracks in the Ivory Tower: How the Campus Sexual Violence Elimi-
nation Act Can Protect Students from Sexual Assault, 45 LOY. U. CHI. L.J. 1195, 1202.
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). U.S. Department of Education Realeases List of Higher
Education Institutions with Open Title IV Sexual Violence Investigations.
Waits, S. (2016, February 3). Health Educator, Health Promotion Department at SDSU. Key
Informant Interview. (K.-M. Berlin, Interviewer) San Diego, CA.
White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. (2014). Not Alone: First
Report. U.S. Federal Government, Office of the Vice President & the White House
Council on Women & Gurls, Washington D.C.
World Health Organization. (2016). WHO. Violence Against Women: who.int.

Prevention of Sexual Violence on College Campus

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Prevention of Sexual Violence on College Campus

Similaire à Prevention of Sexual Violence on College Campus (20)

Prevention of Sexual Violence on College Campus