As awareness of and national attention to campus sexual assault in the U.S. has grown, efforts to study and respond to the problem have increased. While these efforts are to be applauded, they have yet to fully challenge or correct the privileged and exclusive perspectives and assumptions regarding student experiences of campus sexual assault. Specifically, the experiences of white, heterosexual, cisgender, middle-class, and American citizens who are students at primarily elite, traditional colleges and universities are taken as the norm, while experiences of students of color,LGBTQ students, and international students are neglected. Here we examine two primary sources of information regarding campus sexual assault: large-scale self-report surveys and individual reporting to authorities. We first review the content of select large-scale surveys used to gather and measure self-reported data from students on the scope, prevalence, and character of campus sexual assault, and identify areas of omission and neglect regarding marginalized students. We then review literature on barriers to reporting to authorities specific to these groups that further exclude them from our understanding of the problem. We end with recommendations for improved efforts to study and respond to campus sexual assault that are more inclusive and comprehensive.
Changes in how campuses respond to sexual assault under Title IX may dramatically alter the experiences of survivors and the roles of responders. This exploratory study examines how the roles of campus-based sexual assault victim advocates are changing and the effects on advocacy and survivors. Although most advocates agree that Title IX has increased awareness and reporting of sexual assault, they are concerned about the loss of confidential outlets for reporting, conflicts with other responders, and devaluation of their role. Some advocates see professionalization as a solution, whereas others worry that professionalization might negatively affect their ability to serve survivors.
Recent federal and state-level justice reforms have centered on “legal reintegration” (e.g., permitting expungement for a greater range of crimes and rights restoration). While scholarship has tapped public opinion of this approach, much of it predates recent reentry efforts. We see an opportunity to extend this literature by focusing on a contemporary sample ( N = 374) of residents living in Virginia, a state that recently considered such reforms. Results suggest most of the public supports expungement reform, but less than 40% support rights restoration generally, with approval levels dependent on specific type of restoration. Divides are explained by socio-demographic factors, particularly political ideology and race, as well as crime-related views. Implications are discussed.
In recent years, fundraisers have become increasingly focused on major gift solicitation while donors have been making larger gifts to fewer organizations. As this trend continues, some have begun to question whether major organizations and/or wealthy individuals now have too much control over the work of nonprofits and the communities they serve. While it is true that major gifts are important and can made a noticeable, positive impact, in some cases community members might see their impact as intrusive. In situations such as this, what is the “best” course of action? How should fundraisers consider, balance, and address the perspectives and rights of their organization, donors, and community members? This paper creates a framework for fundraisers as they consider not only their responsibilities to their organization and constituents, but also their responsibilities for promoting equity within their community as a whole. This paper draws on the social‐ecological model, as well as concepts from intersectionality, to explore how fundraisers can increase involvement from all community members in a nonprofit's work to create a participatory and community‐engaged process, with a special focus on including those who are typically marginalized, rather than maintaining a hierarchical system of power. It also draws on the theories of rights‐balanced fundraising ethics, community‐centric fundraising, and other ethical frameworks of fundraising and public administration to compare what is being done by fundraisers to what should be done to encourage ethical practices in fundraising. The paper is supplemented by examples of the impact of implementing (or not implementing) community engagement in fundraising practices. This paper aims to create a community‐engaged philanthropy framework for fundraisers as they consider not only their responsibilities to their organization and donors, but also their responsibilities for promoting equitable distributions of power within their community. This framework provides specific guidance for fundraisers as to how they can balance these multiple (and sometimes competing) responsibilities while also keeping ethics at the forefront of their actions. It demonstrates how, by taking a community‐engaged approach to their work, fundraisers are able to bring about better long‐term outcomes for their organization. Specifically, the framework considers: (1) To whom are fundraisers most responsible, and to whom should fundraisers be most responsible—their nonprofit, their donors, or those being served? (2) For what rights of community members must the fundraiser account when soliciting funds, and to what extent is the fundraiser responsible for upholding these rights? (3) In what ways can an invitation from a fundraiser to make a gift also invite some level of power or control over the organization's work? (4) To what extent do fundraisers have the responsibility to maintain an equitable power balance among their constituents, including donors and those served? (5) How can fundraisers help ensure that all community members are able to participate in the organization's work to extent that they are willing and able?
According to the United Nations Refugee Agency, there are approximately 21.3 million refugees worldwide, about half of whom are female. Although all refugees face challenges, female refugees face unique situations and struggles which can make them particularly vulnerable. Victimization of female refugees can take place at various points during their migration experience, including before leaving their home country, in a refugee camp, upon arrival in their receiving country, and after resettlement in their receiving country. There are also different types of victimization that may be experienced, including physical and mental/emotional victimization. In order to help female refugees cope with experiences of past victimization and avoid future victimization, agencies and refugees can work together to discuss and identify cultural differences, especially those regarding gender roles, so that female and male refugees are afforded equal rights within their receiving country community.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.