Starting the Conversation: Are Campus Sexual Assault Policies Related to the Prevalence of Campus Sexual Assault?

Abstract

One goal of university campus sexual assault (CSA) policies is to help prevent CSA. Federal guidance in the 2014 White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault Checklist for Campus Sexual Misconduct Policies suggests 10 elements for inclusion in CSA policies (e.g., Policy Introduction, Grievance/Adjudication), and outlines policy topics to be included within each element (Policy Introduction includes two topics: statement of prohibition against sex discrimination including sexual misconduct and statement of commitment to address sexual misconduct). However, no research has examined whether CSA policies impact CSA prevalence. To begin addressing this gap, we studied 24 universities participating in the 2015 Association of American Universities Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct. We linked 2014-2015 data from these universities’ CSA policies and their CSA prevalence findings from the 2015 Association of American Universities (AAU) survey. To test whether the comprehensiveness of schools’ CSA policies was related to schools’ CSA prevalence, we examined the degree to which the CSA policies included recommended policy content from the aforementioned Checklist. Policies were characterized as more comprehensive if they included greater numbers of Checklist topics. We then correlated the number of topics within the policies with school-level CSA prevalence. We also explored whether there was lower CSA prevalence among schools with policies containing particular topics. Results suggested that greater comprehensiveness of schools’ entire CSA policies was negatively correlated with CSA prevalence; however, these findings did not approach statistical significance. The number of negative correlations observed between schools’ CSA policy elements and CSA prevalence among undergraduate women was greater than expected by chance alone, suggesting a possible connection between comprehensive CSA policies and CSA prevalence. Schools with policies that included a topic on their sexual assault response team had the lowest CSA prevalence for both women and men, and schools that included topics describing grievance/adjudication procedures had lower CSA prevalence. This study provides a novel examination of CSA and could inform needed research related to the impact of CSA policies on CSA.

The Campus Sexual Assault Policy and Prevention Initiative: Findings From Key Informant Interviews

“…Despite the horrifying extent of college sexual assault and the broad deleterious consequences, little is known about how variations in campus resources, demographics, and agency collaboration affects CSA prevention, detection, and response efforts (DeLong et al, 2018; Moylan & Javorka, 2020). The field needs this contextual information in order to create effective, efficient individual and institutional interventions to protect students in higher education (Banyard, 2014; DeLong et al, 2018; DeMatteo et al, 2015; McMahon et al, 2019; Mellins et al, 2017; Streng & Kamimura, 2015). Findings from these interviews with individuals who implemented the CSAPP Initiative offer insights into the ways in which variations in experience and context affect the success of policy and prevention programming efforts, particularly those designed to draw on a network of resources.…”

“…Additionally, CSA has been a point of extensive social and political attention in recent years, with high-profile sexual assault cases making the news, and the federal government initiating investigations into possible misconduct. During the Obama administration, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights began investigations into how many higher education institutions responded to cases of sexual misconduct (Anderson, 2017; Baumgartner & McAdon, 2017; DeLong et al, 2018; Kingkade, 2014; U.S. Department of Education Press Office, 2014); some of those Office of Civil Rights investigations affected campus partners within the initiative, and many have not yet closed.…”

“…Sexual assault is a pervasive health and justice concern across the United States, with long-term effects for its victims (Black et al, 2011; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). An estimated 19% to 25% of female college students and 1% to 7% of male undergraduates are victims of sexual assault (Cantor et al, 2015; DeLong et al, 2018; Fedina et al, 2018; Krebs et al, 2016). Sexual assault in the context of the college environment is associated with a wide range of adverse health (Jina & Thomas, 2013; Peterson et al, 2011; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006), academic (Banyard et al, 2017; Jordan et al, 2014; Mengo & Black, 2016), and economic outcomes (Loya, 2015; Potter et al, 2018), from decreased educational performance, to posttraumatic stress, to severe injury.…”

“…Sexual assault in the context of the college environment is associated with a wide range of adverse health (Jina & Thomas, 2013; Peterson et al, 2011; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006), academic (Banyard et al, 2017; Jordan et al, 2014; Mengo & Black, 2016), and economic outcomes (Loya, 2015; Potter et al, 2018), from decreased educational performance, to posttraumatic stress, to severe injury. Beyond the behavior of perpetrators, two interrelated factors that contribute to varying rates of victimization across campuses are campus policies and programs related to sexual misconduct and the prevention of sexual violence (Coker et al, 2015; DeLonget al, 2018).…”

“…With regard to policy and procedure, more comprehensive campus sexual assault (CSA) policies (as defined by the 2014 Checklist for Campus Sexual Misconduct Policies; White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault, 2014) are associated with lower CSA rates (DeLong et al, 2018) and are critical to the prevention of sexual violence (Moylan & Javorka, 2020; Richards, 2016). Currently, there is limited evidence surrounding the efficacy of individual CSA perpetration prevention programs (DeGue, 2014; DeGue et al, 2014), with the best evidence thus far supporting interventions that train bystanders to intervene.…”