Leveraging Data to Strengthen Campus Sexual Assault Policies

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Education recently announced that existing legislation and guidance on campus sexual assault (CSA) policies had created a “failed system” in institutions of higher education. This announcement raises the question of how CSA legislation and guidance should be evaluated and applied in practice. We believe researchers are well situated to not only leverage data and empirically evaluate the success (or failure) of CSA federal and university policies but also to facilitate development of improved, more effective CSA policy. This commentary first chronicles the pivotal role of federal policy and guidance in driving the collection of CSA data and increasing research efforts in this domain. Second, we present recommendations for increased collaboration among researchers, practitioners, and policy makers aimed at measuring the effectiveness of current CSA policies and promoting data-driven policy. These recommendations focus on (a) establishing a CSA data repository, (b) analyzing existing CSA data to gain knowledge and identify opportunities for improved data collection, and (c) translating and disseminating CSA research to help bridge gaps between research, practice, and policy.

Keywords

sexual assault cultural contexts adult victims date rape situational factors anything related to sexual assault

In September 2017, the U.S. Department of Education (DoED) released new guidance on the ways in which campuses should address incidents of campus sexual assault (CSA), which includes rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, and other forms of unwanted sexual contact. Stating that the 2014 federal recommendations (White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, 2014) were creating a “failed system,” the 2017 guidance sought to prevent schools from “over-reaching” in CSA adjudications (U.S. DoED, 2017a, 2017b). The DoED’s shift in stance on federal CSA guidance has raised important questions about the types of metrics that should be used to determine the extent to which federal legislation and guidance are effective in addressing CSA. In this commentary, we argue that researchers—in partnership with policy makers, educators, students, and practitioners—can and should leverage data to assess the impact of CSA-related policies and guidance through rigorous, systematic, and creative research. Research implemented through such partnerships can play a critical role in promoting and informing the development of data-driven federal policies and guidance, as well as university policies, aimed at preventing and responding to CSA.

In this commentary, we first briefly describe how federal policy and guidance helped to increase the generation of CSA data and the resulting knowledge about CSA. We then provide three recommendations for how researchers can work with practitioners, policy makers, and other stakeholders to leverage CSA data to evaluate and improve CSA policies.

Federal Policy and CSA Data Collection

Data collection on CSA has been strongly influenced by federal CSA policies and guidance. The greatest body of CSA data has been generated by three key federal actions: (a) the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (hereafter, the Clery Act); (b) the Campus Sexual Violence Act, which is a provision under Section 304 of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, including the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (Campus SaVE); and (c) the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (2014, hereafter, White House Task Force). This commentary describes each of these legislative actions and guidance documents, as well as the CSA data generated to comply with federal requirements and suggestions.

The Clery Act and Campus Crime Data

The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics was signed into law during 1990 (Clery Act, 1990). It mandates particular standards and procedures that institutions of higher education (IHEs) must use when collecting information on campus crime (including sexual assault) and reporting this information to the campus community (Brubaker, 2009; Clery Act, 1990). This law was an important mechanism to increase IHEs’ accountability for student safety and enhance transparency regarding incidents of CSA and other crimes (Brubaker, 2009). IHE reports generated in response to the Clery Act provide valuable insights into patterns and environmental factors related to CSA, information that IHE administrators can use to inform their policies and practices. However, Clery reports underestimate the true prevalence of CSA, since these reports only include information on crimes that have come to the attention of IHE authorities. Moreover, research has shown that most CSA incidents are not reported to these authorities (Yung, 2015).

The Violence Against Women and Campus SaVE Acts and Campus CSA Program and Evaluation Data

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 and the 2013 Reauthorization of VAWA have led to increased CSA data focused on developing and evaluating CSA prevention and intervention programs. VAWA created federal legal definitions for domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. In addition, VAWA created funding mechanisms for programs designed to reduce sexual assault, intimate partner violence, and stalking on IHEs. Equally important, the 2013 Reauthorization of VAWA included the Campus SaVE Act that expanded VAWA provisions by requiring campus administrators to provide programs for all incoming students and new employees aimed at primary prevention of campus violence and safety awareness. For example, Campus SaVE programs include bystander-intervention programs designed to teach students the skills needed to recognize and intervene in CSA situations. Campus SaVE also required that IHEs demonstrate that their institutions are providing ongoing CSA prevention and awareness programs for students and faculty. In addition, the 2013 Reauthorization of VAWA included provision of dedicated funding for IHEs to develop CSA intervention and prevention programs.

Evaluations of CSA prevention and intervention programs provide critical data regarding “best practices” for preventing CSA and supporting CSA survivors (Richards, Branch, Fleury-Steiner, & Kafonek, 2017). Intervention research, including rigorous program evaluation, plays a critical role in the ongoing development and testing of CSA programs and interventions (DeGue et al., 2014). Furthermore, IHE implementation of CSA programs can be guided by the results of rigorous studies that have identified evidence-supported strategies and program options such as Green Dot (Coker et al., 2015) and RealConsent (Salazar, Vivolo-Kantor, Hardin, & Berkowitz, 2014) that have been shown to be effective among samples of college students in reducing sexual assault perpetration.

To comply with Campus SaVE requirements, many campuses have implemented prematriculation online safety courses and in-person prevention programs, both of which collect data to monitor respective program effects. For example, the EverFi (2015) company, which produces an online CSA prevention module for students titled “Haven,” has released reports with program effectiveness data. Data from prematriculation programs offer another source of data with the potential to help to characterize CSA, as well as the effects of these programs on CSA incidence.

White House Task Force and Climate Surveys

Beyond federal policies, guidance from the White House Task Force catalyzed many IHEs to collect campus climate data related to CSA. In 2014, the Obama Administration established the White House Task Force that was charged with providing comprehensive guidance to IHEs on how to prevent and respond to CSA (White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, 2014). The first recommendation provided by the Task Force was for IHEs to conduct campus climate surveys of students to estimate CSA prevalence and provide other important information regarding CSA.

Many IHEs responded to this guidance by undertaking campus climate surveys focused on CSA, resulting in a great increase in our understanding of CSA. This increased understanding will help inform CSA-related policies and practices. For example, 27 campuses participated in the Association of American Universities (AAU) Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct, a rigorous student survey designed and implemented by Westat with input from researchers and practitioners from the participating campuses. Findings from this large-scale survey have resulted in multiple reports that have greatly enhanced our knowledge of CSA (for some examples see Cantor et al., 2015; Cantor, Townsend, & Sun, 2016; Stratford, 2015). However, participation in this survey was only available to AAU-affiliated IHEs, and it was relatively costly to participate (US$85,000 per institution).

Another successful campus climate survey initiative in response to federal guidance was undertaken by the Administrator-Researcher Campus Climate Collaborative (ARC). This group worked together over several years to develop and then refine a survey instrument called the ARC 3 Campus Climate Survey (Administrator Researcher Campus Climate Collaborative [ARC3], 2017). This survey has been used by over 350 IHEs, state coalitions, and other organizations, and has resulted in multiple reports and publications (ARC3, 2017; Tulane University Wave of Change, 2018; University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, 2016; University of Iowa, 2016). Although this instrument is freely available for any institution to use, each institution must undertake its own survey implementation, data analysis, and dissemination of survey findings (ARC3, 2017).

Other campuses (Emory University, 2015; Iowa State University, 2018; Portland State University, 2016) have opted to create their own CSA campus climate surveys to allow for total institutional customization, reduced cost, and ready use of results (Stratford, 2015). However, some such surveys have shortcomings (e.g., limitations of methodological rigor, data security, and low response rates) often due to institutional research infrastructure constraints, such as a lack of CSA experts on campus and/or survey methodology (New, 2016). Notably, campus climate surveys have often included only undergraduate students and, therefore, have not collected critical data on other members of the campus community such as graduate and professional students, faculty, and staff (Voth Schrag, 2017). Therefore, although climate surveys have yielded more robust data, the quality, completeness, and operationalizability of that data varies dramatically by IHE.

Recommendations

Given the data available to inform CSA policy, we propose that researchers leverage the existing data sets via further analysis and gather additional, needed data that can be used to strengthen CSA policy. This can be accomplished by (a) establishing a CSA data repository, (b) analyzing existing CSA data and identifying opportunities for improved data collection, and (c) translating and disseminating CSA research findings to bridge gaps between research, practice, and policy. Implementing these recommendations will provide increased opportunities for collaboration among practitioners, IHE administrators, policy makers, students, criminal justice and legal experts, and researchers to harness data toward improving CSA policy, as well as CSA prevention and intervention efforts.

Establish a CSA Data Repository

We suggest that to efficiently use existing CSA data and identify current data gaps, researchers should work together to ensure each of the disparate data source is publicly available in usable forms. Such efforts should begin with inventorying and describing each data set and data source and then creating a data repository. Establishing a CSA data repository would facilitate access to data sets (e.g., climate survey and intervention research data), data descriptions, codebooks, lists of related publications, and information on evidence-supported or promising intervention strategies. Ultimately, a data repository would allow researchers to quickly identify the state of current research and knowledge about CSA, find available data sets, assess the strengths and limitations of each data set, and determine how to access various data sources. Taking stock of existing data will also elucidate gaps in existing data that future research should address to better inform CSA policy decisions. Moreover, creating and continually updating a CSA data repository has great promise for increasing the efficiency of CSA policy research conducted across IHEs and disciplines.

Although creating a CSA data repository will require funding and an organizing body to lead initial and ongoing maintenance efforts, we believe that studies from other fields of research show such efforts to be cost-effective, feasible, and useful. Data repositories allow for increased efficiency and coordination across individual research agendas. For example, the federal government invested in creating two separate repositories: one for education-related data (Institute of Education Sciences, 2017), and another for digital-spatial data (Federal Geographic Data Committee, n.d.). Each of these data repositories was intended to foster collaboration, promote the availability and quality of data, assist in coordinating research efforts, minimize duplication of research efforts, and assist with disseminating research findings to both researchers and practitioners. Evaluations of these data repositories have shown them to be cost-effective; efficient; and effective in increasing access to data among a greater diversity of users, increasing public awareness of spatial data, improving the quality of meta-data, supporting improved government decision-making, promoting innovation in the field, and strengthening partnerships across sectors (Crompvoets, Bregt, Rajabifard, & Williamson, 2004; Crompvoets et al., 2007).

Specific to the field of violence prevention, the World Health Organization recently launched the Violence Prevention Information System (Violence Info; Burrows et al., 2018). The Violence Info is an effort to systematically assemble high-quality data and research findings from around the globe to provide estimates on the prevalence, consequences, risk factors, and prevention and response strategies for various types of violence, including intimate partner violence, sexual violence, violence against children, homicide, elder abuse, and youth violence (Burrows et al., 2018). The Violence Info website provides violence prevalence estimates in easy-to-read graphics that are designed to help users visualize findings from multiple studies. In addition, the Violence Info site organizes data on country-level violence prevention policies and inventories each country’s violence prevention programming. Although, to the best of our knowledge, the Violence Info database currently lacks a filtering mechanism that allows users to access only CSA-focused studies, Violence Info nevertheless stands as an example of how investing in a shared portal for existing research on violence, such as a data repository, can serve to disseminate findings to a wide audience in a digestible manner.

The Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) at the University of Michigan currently houses data from multiple research investigations, including some that have focused on CSA data. ICPSR (n.d.) receives funding from international agencies, the federal government, foundations, and professional associations to house data, to increase data access, and to provide the social science research community with trainings on data use and analysis. ICPSR has 776 member institutions and hosts 10,000 studies, comprising 4.8 million variables. Currently, ICPSR hosts the AAU (2017) Campus Climate Survey, with some restrictions on data use; Krebs and colleagues’ (2011) study on CSA prevalence on the campuses of historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs); and Lindo, Siminski, and, Swensen’s (2017) data from their study on college “party culture” and sexual assault.

Analyze Existing Data and Identify Opportunities for Improved Data Collection

After establishing a repository for CSA data and findings, we hold that researchers will be better equipped to locate and analyze existing CSA data, identifying the data’s strengths and limitations, and develop and implement a research agenda to collect new needed data that addresses the current limitations. Researchers can play a critical role in partnering with practitioners, policy makers, and other stakeholders to assure that future data collection allows for linking CSA policies and CSA outcomes, thereby fostering analyses that assess the degree to which policies’ act to prevent and respond to CSA.

Opportunities for improved data collection

Although a full inventory of CSA data gaps would necessitate assembling all current data sources in one place, as in a data repository, we argue there are evident opportunities for improved data collection. Campus climate surveys, for example, should allow for sufficient variation to reflect unique characteristics of different IHEs, including institution type (e.g., public, private, historically Black, tribal), size, location, and the distribution of risk and protective factors among their students (Wood, Sulley, Kammer-Kerwick, Follingstad, & Busch-Armendariz, 2017). Campus climate surveys should also use rigorous methods to ensure high responses, strong instrumentation, and trustworthy data security (Cantalupo, 2014). We believe that only through leveraging both the best available survey methods and the expertise of subject matter experts and IHE leaders, can campus climate surveys produce data that IHEs can operationalize into data-driven decisions to prevent and respond to CSA.

We also believe that conducting rigorous qualitative studies is an underutilized strategy to assess CSA policies, such as addressing questions regarding the influence of these policies on survivors’ choices as to whether they report to campus administrators or law enforcement, seek survivor support services or academic and other accommodations (e.g., housing), or transfer schools. Survivor stories are instrumental in fostering momentum for improved CSA policies (e.g., Burgess-Proctor et al., 2016; DeLoveh & Cattaneo, 2017; Holland & Cortina, 2017). Through rigorous qualitative inquiry, researchers can help policymakers move beyond anecdote to understanding how CSA policies operate in the lives of students.

Finally, we argue that triangulating data from multiple sources is an efficient and practical way to address gaps and validate or strengthen data sources. There is currently limited CSA research that brings together multiple CSA data sources, but that research has provided powerful findings that are highly relevant to policy. For example, Coulter and Rankin (2017) linked data on campus climate for sexual and gender minority students with their reports of victimization. In another study, Stotzer and MacCartney, (2015) examined how institutional factors, such as alcohol policies, affected CSA prevalence. These are just two examples of how researchers are linking multiple data sources in ways that can help inform CSA policies (see McMahon, Wood, Cusano, & Macri, 2018 for recommendations on how to triangulate data from various perspectives using an ecological approach).

Funding can drive improved data collection

Federal funding for CSA research, resulting from federal law and guidance, has led to studies that inform CSA prevention, response, and policy. For example, the White House Task Force funded the Rutgers University’s Center on Violence Against Women and Children’s (2016) pilot study of a climate survey instrument, and the Prevention Innovations Research Center at University of New Hampshire’s multiinstitutional study of effective strategies for ensuring that students understand CSA policies (Potter et al., 2016). This work resulted in evidence-informed guidance for IHE practice. In 2015, research on CSA was identified as a priority area for federal funding from organizations such as the National Institutes of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, 2017); this prioritization led to a proliferation of funded CSA-related research (see White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, 2017, pp. 26-30).

Developing a national data collection strategy with the capacity to adequately and accurately measure the successes and failures of CSA policies will require allocation of federal resources to support data collection, analysis, and reporting. A model of this type of structured funding dates back to 1991, when federal funding created the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) that has produced annual methodologically rigorous data sets that are collected and analyzed by the CDC and others. These data sets allow for state- and national-level data-driven program and policy decision making in the areas of youth injury and violence; sexual behavior; alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use; and barriers to healthy eating and physical activity (CDC, 2018). Other organizations that play critical roles in funding research and innovative evaluation efforts include nongovernmental organizations, for-profit companies, and foundations. For example, Raliance, a national collaborative whose members include the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, and the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, received US$10 million from the National Football League (2016) that included provisions for funding grants to improve response to CSA victims, to reduce the likelihood of CSA perpetration, and to strengthen the capacity of communities and organizations to create safe environments.

Translate and Disseminate Findings

Data can only inform CSA policies if they are intentionally and accessibly translated and disseminated for use by practitioners and policy makers. Researchers are well-positioned to work with policy experts and state and national antisexual violence coalitions to synthesize, translate, and disseminate relevant research to multiple audiences, such as IHE administrators, policy makers, government agencies, students, the media, practitioners, law enforcement, and others. We advocate for the creation of thoughtful partnerships that push researchers to disseminate their findings beyond traditional academic mediums, such as practice conferences, policy briefs, white papers, webinars, online videos, social media campaigns, and fact sheets (Murray et al., 2015; Wood et al., 2017).

Translating research findings into educational programs and tools that incorporate the challenges and opportunities of diverse campuses will require collaboration among researchers and practitioners. Researcher–practitioner collaborations would enhance both research and practice, as well as increase the likelihood that evidence-based practices are disseminated on a wide scale (Damschroder et al., 2009; Fixsen, Blase, Naoom, & Wallace, 2009). In addition, working closely with policymakers and other policy experts will help ensure that interventions are bolstered by state and federal policy. Resources such as the Prevention Innovations Research Center’s (n.d.) white papers, the Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs’ (n.d.) Connections and Partners in Social Change publications, the National Sexual Violence Resource Center’s (n.d.) special collections, and PreventConnect’s (n.d.) online learning project are all powerful examples of organizations translating CSA prevention and survivor support research into practice. However, significantly more work is necessary to translate and disseminate findings on a larger scale to practitioners and policy makers.

At the IHE level, CSA working groups (e.g., Sexual Violence Prevention Visioning Task Force, Interpersonal Violence Prevention Committee, Title IX Committee) comprised of key campus and community stakeholders, including students, provide spaces for valuable interdisciplinary collaboration to develop policies that institutionalize all the components needed for a comprehensive prevention and response system that meets institutional goals. To be effective, these groups must be charged and resourced by the highest-level administrator on campus, such as the president or chancellor of the IHE. Just as federal guidance necessitated the creation of a Title IX Coordinator position to oversee CSA reporting systems (U.S. DoED, 2014), future federal guidance could send a powerful message by requiring IHEs to create working groups devoted to cultivating data-driven CSA prevention, intervention, and policy efforts. Furthermore, CSA working groups constitute powerful collaborations that inform campus research agendas to address gaps in knowledge that are critical to preventing and responding to CSA. These working groups also require further study to determine the most effective structure, activities, and leadership of these researcher-practitioner collaborations. While findings of such groups will be particularly valuable to each IHE, they could also provide crucial information to the broader field through peer-reviewed articles, community and conference presentations online and in-person, case studies, and publicly available reports such as those that have been produced by Michigan State University and Rutgers University (Lichty, Campbell, & Schuiteman, 2008; McMahon, Stepleton, Connor, & Cusano, 2016).

Conclusion

The DoED has proposed that the United States currently has a “failed system” to address CSA. We encourage further empirical examination of this complex topic to determine what is working and what is not working (Svrluga, 2017). We believe that the recommendations in this commentary provide a path to systematically and rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of the current system in preventing and responding to CSA. The current cultural moment can provide an opportunity for researchers, practitioners, administrators, activists, students and other stakeholders to rise to the challenge of leveraging data and years of momentum to further enhance CSA-related federal legislation and associated guidance as well as CSA campus policies and practices.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This manuscript is a collaborative project of the UNC Gender-Based Violence Research Group. The authors are grateful to Diane Wyant, Andrew J. Rizzo, Meera Seshadri, and Jeffrey W. Segal for their editing support. The authors thank the Caroline H. and Thomas S. Royster Fellowship (Laurie M. Graham) and the William R. Kenan Fellowship (Sarah Treves-Kagan) both awarded by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that supported time and effort for this research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors would like to acknowledge the UNC Injury Prevention Research Center’s support for this work (CDC/NCIPC/R49CE002479).

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number T32-AI007001 (Stephanie M. DeLong). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

ORCID iDs

L.B. Klein

Laurie M. Graham

Author Biographies

L.B. Klein, MSW, MPA, is a doctoral student and teaching fellow in the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-Chapel Hill) and a member of Prevention Innovations Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. They have provided consulting and training on gender-based violence (GBV) prevention and advocacy across the U.S. and Canada and is a founder of the Campus Advocacy and Prevention Professionals Association (CAPPA). Their research and practice center building community capacity to effectively prevent and respond to GBV with a particular focus on LGBTQ communities and implementation science.

Laurie M. Graham, MSW, is a Caroline H. and Thomas S. Royster Fellow and doctoral student in the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Social Work. As a practitioner, she has worked with various agencies to provide support services for survivors of GBV and violence prevention programming. Her research and practice focus on GBV-related intervention and prevention and bridging the gap between research and practice. She has particular research interests in sexual violence perpetration prevention and human trafficking, as well as developing and evaluating prevention strategies that simultaneously prevent multiple forms of violent behavior.

Sarah Treves-Kagan, MPH, is a William R. Kenan Fellow and doctoral student in Health Behavior at the UNC-Chapel Hill focusing on social justice, health disparities and violence prevention. She has conducted research, advocacy, service delivery and government programming on sexual assault, GBV and youth homicide in domestic and international settings. Ms. Treves-Kagan’s work particularly focuses on structural approaches to reducing violence among vulnerable populations. Her work has included research projects, interventions and programming for at-risk youth, adolescents, LGBT populations, rural communities, and low-income settings.

Premela G. Deck, JD, MSW, is admitted to the bar in Massachusetts and North Carolina and is a doctoral student at the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Social Work. As an attorney, Premela practices family law and criminal defense law. Her law practice informs her doctoral research which focuses on researching and assessing existing law and policies and critically assessing their sociological ramifications, with a particular focus on GBV and criminal sentencing practices.

Stephanie M. DeLong, MPH, is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Epidemiology at UNC-Chapel Hill, also minoring in the Department of Health Behavior. Her research focuses on GBV experienced among adolescents and young adults, with an emphasis on intimate partner violence, internationally, and campus sexual assault, domestically. Other research interests include intervention design, conducting randomized controlled trials, and the translation of research into practice.

Sandra L. Martin, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Maternal and Child Health, and Associate Dean for Research, in the Gillings School of Global Public Health at UNC-Chapel Hill. Dr. Martin’s research includes: campus climate surveys of sexual misconduct; sexual assault prevention programs for the military; high school–based programs to educate students about sex trafficking, and refer high-risk/trafficked students to appropriate resources; evaluation of sexual assault prevention programs for high-risk adolescents and young men; and work to better understand differential responses/sequela after sexual assault, including the development of posttraumatic stress disorder.

References

Administrator Researcher Campus Climate Collaborative. (2017). ARC3 Campus Climate Survey. Retrieved from http://campusclimate.gsu.edu/arc3-campus-climate-survey/

Association of American Universities. (2017). Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct, 2010-2015. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. doi:10.3886/ICPSR36696.v1

Brubaker

S. J.

(2009). Sexual assault prevalence, reporting and policies: Comparing college and university campuses and military service academies. Security Journal, 22, 56-72. doi:10.1057/sj.2008.10

Burgess-Proctor

Pickett

S. M.

Parkhill

M. R.

Hamill

T. S.

Kirwan

Kozak

A. T.

(2016). College women’s perceptions of and inclination to use campus sexual assault resources: Comparing view of students with and without victimization histories. Criminal Justice Review, 41, 204-218. doi:10.1177/0734016816634786

Burrows

Butchart

Butler

Quigg

Bellis

M. A.

Mikton

(2018). New WHO violence prevention information system: An interactive knowledge platform of scientific findings on violence. Injury Prevention, 24, 155-156. doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042694

Cantalupo

N. C.

(2014). Institution-Specific Victimization Surveys: Addressing legal and practical disincentives to gender-based violence reporting on college campuses. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 227-241. doi:10.1177/1524838014521323

Cantor

Fisher

W. B.

Chibnall

Townsend

Lee

Bruce

Thomas

(2015). Report on the AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct. Retrieved from https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/%40%20Files/Climate%20Survey/AAU_Campus_Climate_Survey_12_14_15.pdf

Cantor

Townsend

Sun

(2016). Methodology report for the AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct. Retrieved from https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/%40%20Files/Climate%20Survey/Methodology_Report_for_AAU_Climate_Survey_4-12-16.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/index.htm?s_cid=tw-zaza-1016

10.

Coker

A. L.

Fisher

B. S.

Bush

H. M.

Swan

S. C.

Williams

C. M.

Clear

E. R.

DeGue

(2015). Evaluation of the Green Dot bystander intervention to reduce interpersonal violence among college students across three campuses. Violence Against Women, 12, 1507-1527.

11.

Coulter

R. W. S.

Rankin

S. R.

(2017). College sexual assault and campus climate for sexual- and gender-minority undergraduate students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0886260517696870

12.

Crompvoets

Bregt

Rajabifard

Williamson

(2004). Assessing the worldwide developments of national spatial data clearinghouses. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 18, 665-689. doi:10.1080/13658810410001702030

13.

Crompvoets

de Bree

van Oort

P. A.

Bregt

A. V.

Wachowicz

Rajabifard

Williamson

(2007). Worldwide impact assessment of spatial data clearinghouses. Journal of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association, 19(1), 23-32. Retrieved from http://www.urisa.org/clientuploads/directory/Documents/Journal/Vol19No1.pdf

14.

Damschroder

L. J.

Aron

D. C.

Keith

R. E.

Kirsh

S. R.

Alexander

J. A.

Lowery

J. C.

(2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4(1), Article 50. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50

15.

DeGue

Valle

L. A.

Holt

M. K.

Massetti

G. M.

Matjasko

J. L.

Tharp

A. T.

(2014). A systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 346-336. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.004

16.

DeLoveh

H. L. M.

Cattaneo

L. B.

(2017). Deciding where to turn: A qualitative investigation of college students’ help-seeking decisions after sexual assault. American Journal of Community Psychology, 59, 65-79. doi:10.1002/ajcp.12125

17.

Emory University. (2015). Summary report of the Emory University Student Campus Climate Survey 2015. Retrieved from http://equityandinclusion.emory.edu/_includes/documents/sections/title-ix/CCS-Student-Report-2015.pdf

18.

EverFi. (2015). Sexual victimization and social norms on the college campus: Summary of research. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://info.everfi.com/rs/everfi/images/EverFiInsightReportWinter2015.pdf

19.

Federal Geographic Data Committee. (n.d.). Clearinghouse concepts Q & A. Retrieved from https://www.fgdc.gov/dataandservices/clearinghouse_qanda

20.

Fixsen

D. L.

Blase

K. A.

Naoom

S. F.

Wallace

(2009). Core implementation components. Research on Social Work Practice, 19, 53-540. doi:10.1177/1049731509335549

21.

Holland

K. J.

Cortina

L. M.

(2017). “It happens to girls all the time”: Examining sexual assault survivors’ reasons for not using campus supports. American Journal of Community Psychology, 59, 50-64. doi:10.1002/ajcp.12126

22.

Institute of Education Sciences. (2017). What works clearinghouse. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

23.

Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. (n.d.). About ICPSR. Retrieved from https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/content/about/

24.

Iowa State University. (2018). Campus Climate Survey for learning, living, and working final report. Retrieved from https://www.campusclimate.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/ClimateSurvey/Iowa%20State%20Final%20Report.pdf

25.

Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act), 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f). (1990).

26.

Krebs

C. P.

Barrick

Lindquist

C. H.

Crosby

C. M.

Boyd

Bogan

(2011). The sexual assault of undergraduate women at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3640-3666. doi:10.1177/0886260511403759

27.

Lichty

L. F.

Campbell

Schuiteman

(2008). Developing a university-wide institutional response to sexual assault and relationship violence. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 36, 5-22. doi:10.1080/10852350802022241

28.

Lindo

Siminski

Swensen

(2017). Replication files for “college party culture and sexual assault.” Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. doi:10.3886/E100462V3

29.

McMahon

’Stepleton

K. O.

Connor

Cusano

(2016). Campus Climate Surveys: Lessons learned from the Rutgers-New Brunswick pilot assessment. Center on Violence Against Women and Children, School of Social Work, The State University of New Jersey, Rutgers. Retrieved from https://socialwork.rutgers.edu/node/962

30.

McMahon

Wood

Cusano

Macri

L. M.

(2018). Campus sexual assault: Future directions for research. Sexual Abuse. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/1079063217750864

31.

Murray

Ong

Smith

P. H.

Foreman

Hostler

M. J.

Przewoznik

Dooley

(2015). Linking research and practice to address domestic and sexual violence: Lessons learned from a statewide conference with researchers and practitioners. Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research, 7, 76-87. doi:10.1108/JACPR-07-2014-0129

32.

National Football League. (2016, June 28). NFL commits $10 million to sexual violence prevention initiatives. Retrieved from http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000671880/article/nfl-commits-10-million-to-sexual-violence-prevention-initiative

33.

National Sexual Violence Resource Center. (n.d.). Online special collections. Retrieved from https://www.nsvrc.org/publications/online-special-collections

34.

New

(2016, July 29). Creating the right climate survey. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/29/campus-climate-surveys-abound-does-disagreement-over-what-works-best

35.

Portland State University. (2016). Sexual Misconduct Climate Survey report. Retrieved from https://www.pdx.edu/diversity/sites/www.pdx.edu.diversity/files/campusclimatesurvey-final%20report.pdf

36.

Potter

S. J.

Edwards

K. M.

Banyard

V. L.

Stapleton

J. G.

Demers

J. M.

Moynihan

M. M.

(2016). Conveying campus sexual misconduct policy information to college and university students: Results from a 7-campus study. Journal of American College Health, 64, 438-447. doi:10.1080/07448481.2016.1178122

37.

PreventConnect. (n.d.). Learn. Available from http://learn.preventconnect.org

38.

Prevention Innovations Research Center. (n.d.). White papers and other PIRC reports. Retrieved from https://cola.unh.edu/prevention-innovations-research-center/white-papers-and-other-pirc-reports

39.

Richards

T. N.

Branch

K. A.

Fleury-Steiner

R. E.

Kafonek

(2017). A feminist analysis of campus sexual assault policies: Results from a national sample. Family Relations, 66, 104-115. doi:10.1111/fare.12236

40.

Rutgers University Center on Violence Against Women and Children. (2016). Understanding and responding to campus sexual assault: A guide to climate assessment for colleges and universities. New Brunswick, NJ: School of Social Work, The State University of New Jersey, Rutgers. Retrieved from https://socialwork.rutgers.edu/node/963

41.

Salazar

L. F.

Vivolo-Kantor

Hardin

Berkowitz

(2014). A web-based sexual violence bystander intervention for male college students: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(9), Article e203. doi:10.2196/jmir.3426

42.

Stotzer

R. L.

MacCartney

(2015). The role of institutional factors on on-campus reported rape prevalence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 2687-2707. doi:10.1177/0886260515580367

43.

Stratford

(2015, January 13). Declining the AAU Survey. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/13/more-dozen-research-universities-opt-out-higher-education-groups-sexual-assault

44.

Svrluga

(2017, September 7). Transcript: Betsy DeVos’s remarks on campus sexual assault. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/09/07/transcript-betsy-devoss-remarks-on-campus-sexual-assault/?utm_term=.cbeceda3c3ac

45.

Tulane University Wave of Change. (2018). Tulane Climate Survey: Executive report and action plan. Retrieved from http://tulane.edu/sites/tulane/files/WaveofChangeExecutiveReportActionPlan.pdf

46.

U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Questions and answers on Title IX and sexual violence. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf

47.

U.S. Department of Education. (2017a). Dear colleague letter (Guidance document). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-title-ix-201709.pdf

48.

U.S. Department of Education. (2017b). Q&A on campus sexual misconduct. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-title-ix-201709.pdf

49.

University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. (2016). Sexual Misconduct and Perceived Campus Response Survey. Retrieved from http://wecare.illinois.edu/docs/SMPCresponse_full_report.pdf

50.

University of Iowa. (2016). Speak Out Iowa survey full-report and anti-violence plan to end sexual misconduct, dating violence, and stalking. Retrieved from https://speakout.uiowa.edu/assets/Uploads/Speak-Out-Iowa-Full-Report-and-Anti-Violence-Plan.pdf

51.

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Public Law 113-4, 42 U.S.C. §§13701–14040, (2013).

52.

Voth Schrag

R. J.

(2017). Campus based sexual assault and dating violence: A review of study contexts and participants. Affilia, 32, 67-80. doi:10.1177/0886109916644644

53.

Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs. (n.d.). Resources and publications. Retrieved from http://www.wcsap.org/resources-publications

54.

White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. (2014). Not alone: The first report of the White house task force to protect students from sexual assault. Washington, DC: The White House. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/ovw/page/file/905942/download

55.

White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. (2017). Preventing and addressing campus sexual misconduct: A guide for university and college presidents, chancellors, and senior administrators. Washington, DC: The White House. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/Documents/1.4.17.VAW%20Event.Guide%20for%20College%20Presidents.PDF

56.

Wood

Sulley

Kammer-Kerwick

Follingstad

Busch-Armendariz

(2017). Climate Surveys: An inventory of understanding sexual assault and other crimes of interpersonal violence at institutions of higher education. Violence Against Women, 23, 1249-1267. doi:10.1177/1077801216657897

57.

Yung

C. R.

(2015). Concealing campus sexual assault: An empirical examination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(1), 1-9. doi:10.1037/law0000037