Sexual assault is a pervasive problem on university and college campuses in the United States that has garnered growing national attention, particularly in the past year. This is the first study to systematically review and synthesize prevalence findings from studies on campus sexual assault (CSA) published since 2000 ( n = 34). The range of prevalence findings for specific forms of sexual victimization on college campuses (i.e., forcible rape, unwanted sexual contact, incapacitated rape, sexual coercion, and studies' broad definitions of CSA/rape) is provided, and methodological strengths and limitations in the empirical body of research on CSA are discussed. Prevalence findings, research design, methodology, sampling techniques, and measures, including the forms of sexual victimization measured, are presented and evaluated across studies. Findings suggest that unwanted sexual contact appears to be most prevalent on college campuses, including sexual coercion, followed by incapacitated rape, and completed or attempted forcible rape. Additionally, several studies measured broad constructs of sexual assault that typically include combined forms of college-based sexual victimization (i.e., forcible completed or attempted rape, unwanted sexual contact, and/or sexual coercion). Extensive variability exists within findings for each type of sexual victimization measured, including those that broadly measure sexual assault, which is largely explained by differences in sampling strategies and overall study designs as well as measures of sexual assault used in studies. Implications for findings and recommendations for future research on the prevalence of college-based sexual victimization are provided.

A multisite survey conducted at eight campuses of a southwestern university system provides the data for the present study, total N = 17,039 with 1,869 gender and sexual minority (GSM) students. Sexual violence was measured using the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES), and analysis included both the participant’s risk of experiencing sexual violence and the extent (or total count) of sexual violence experienced. This study poses the following research questions: What effects do gender identity and sexual orientation have on the risk and extent of sexual violence among students and, among victims, what is the relationship between gender identity/sexual orientation and mental health (posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD], depression) and academic environment (disengagement and safety) outcomes for university students? Multilevel, random effect hurdle models captured this sequential victimization dynamic. GSM and cisgender heterosexual (CH) female students are predicted to be 2.6 and 3 times, respectively, as likely to experience sexual violence compared with CH male students. In addition, GSM students experiencing sexual violence are also expected to experience a greater number of sexually violent acts (74% more) over their college career compared with victimized CH male students. The models confirm that the risk of victimization increases over time (13% per year for CH male students), but GSM students are expected to experience an additional (10%) increase in risk of victimization per year compared with CH male students. GSM and CH female students are also predicted to be more likely to have PTSD and experience more severe depression symptoms than CH male students. GSM students are expected to experience significantly higher rates of PTSD, worse depressive symptoms, and greater disengagement than CH female students. The discussion explores how institutions of higher education might recognize the resilience of GSM students and consider the protective potential of social and community support when developing programs or interventions for diverse populations.

No abstract

The coronavirus pandemic necessitated rapid shifts in approach for service providers working with survivors of interpersonal violence. To reduce the spread of the virus, providers and agencies implemented a rapid and unplanned expansion of virtual services while also developing new protocols to support safe and socially distant in-person services. To understand how these shifts have impacted victim service professionals and the survivors they serve, to provide guidance for on-going efforts, and to inform planning for future public health emergencies, this study asks the question: What approaches did the interpersonal violence workforce use to address social distancing needs during COVID-19? Semi-structured interviews were conducted from July to December 2020 with 33 interpersonal violence service providers from across the United States, and data were analyzed via conventional content analysis with additional steps for data credibility. Findings fall within two primary categories: 1) Technology and Virtual Service Provision; and 2) Social Distancing for In-person Services. Within each category, a number of themes emerged illustrating strengths and challenges of each approach, and the complex web of technological, safety, and public health considerations being balanced in interpersonal violence service agencies. These results provide guidance for the implementation of virtual services in an on-going manner, as well as underscoring the importance of future planning to facilitate effective in-person but physically distant services. There is also a clear need for agencies to support the interpersonal violence workforce to reduce occupational stress and enhance skills and capacities with new forms of services.

This approach to disseminating injury prevention interventions holds promise for enhancing the appeal of safety information and increasing the protection of children.