Trauma,Violence,& Abuse

The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current status of scientific knowledge on intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence, with a particular focus on the measurement of gender patterns. A multimethod analysis of estimates for the incidence and prevalence of intimate and sexual aggression reveals consistencies across some methodologies and inconsistencies across others. In particular, self-report using behavioral checklists such as the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales yields results that are very discrepant from other research findings. Contrary to some assertions, self-report studies using simple checklists do not represent “most data” on intimate violence; there are large criminological and public health databases that warrant attention. When these sources are considered and placed in the context of other data on violence and aggression, a clear pattern of gender asymmetry emerges, with males perpetrating more physical and sexual violence than females for virtually every form of violence ever studied. Violence research has been hampered by the conservative forces that affect most social science research, including peer review, grant review, and tenure review processes that discourage methodological innovation and reward incremental research studies. We need to focus resources on scientific and technological innovation to better understand violent phenomena and better serve all those involved in violence. Two examples of self-report methods that do not produce gender symmetry are described.

Over the past 25 years, our understanding about violence against college women has greatly expanded, but it has been concentrated in particular areas. As a result, despite this increased attention, significant gaps in our knowledge still exist. One is a failure to take stock in how “violence” is defined and assess whether its current use adequately covers the variety of risks to which college women are exposed. We identify limitations in how the current literature operationalizes violence against college women and illustrate how addressing these limitations can inform and advance the field by identifying new patterns and correlates. We also propose a research agenda to explicitly examine the definition and scope of “violence” as considered in the study of college women.

Rennison and Addington use National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data to document the fact that college women experience violent victimization at a lower rate than women of the same age who do not attend college, which refutes the idea that women in college are at increased risk of being victimized. The measurement of victimization, especially sexual victimization, is, however, a topic that has be the source of much debate. Bureau of Justice Statistics is currently exploring what are the best methods for measuring sexual victimization within the NCVS, and recent methodological research, which is summarized in this article, could inform this process. Although consensus has seemingly been forming around come methods, such as using self-administered survey instruments and behaviorally specific questions when trying to measure sexual victimization, the jury is still out on some other design fronts. What is not clear is whether we need the jury to come in, so to speak. Some methodological variation might be acceptable, especially if the various methods being considered are producing similar results.

The prevalence, incidence, and impact of the gender-based abuse (GBA) of college women have been increasingly documented since the 1980s, with growing precision in the measurements and expanding identification of tactics. Although there is an obvious class bias in focusing on college women (compared to women of similar ages not attending college), it is important to address GBA among this population as they are at serious risk of sexual abuse (particularly incapacitated rape), intimate partner abuse (IPA), and stalking. This article addresses the stealth nature of the nonviolent GBAs of college women and how these abuses frequently operate under the radar of acknowledgment by society, the abusers, campus officials, the criminal legal system, and sometimes, the survivors.

The literature has documented the widespread nature of sexual assault victimization among college women. While the aftermath of violence against university women has also received focus, that is, documenting trauma-related sequelae; risk factors; reporting patterns; and legal interventions, the impact on academic performance has not received adequate attention in the literature. The primary purpose of this study was to explore the association of rape and sexual assault with academic performance among college women. Its specific aims included the following: to compare high school and college sexual assault experiences with collegiate grade point averages (GPAs) at key points in time; to examine any differences in GPA by type of sexual assault; to urge researchers studying retention and persistence patterns or sexual assault among college students to ensure that the relationship between the two is included in research designs; and to recommend that academic institutions expand programming on retention to include rape and sexual assault among the risk factors associated with a lack of persistence.

After sexual assault or dating violence occurs, a college victim may disclose the event to formal and informal sources as well as seek services. The current review explores empirical research on formal disclosure, informal disclosure, service utilization, and service provision among college students. Forty-five empirical articles and reports that met certain criteria were reviewed. Overall, rates of informal disclosure were considerably higher than rates of formal disclosure. Characteristics of the incident, victim, and offender were associated with disclosure. Rates of service utilization were varied but appear to be low among those victimized in the past year. When services were used, physical and mental health services were most often utilized. Available services, policies for dating violence and sexual assault, and judicial processes varied according to the type of institution, and indicate several areas for improvement. A number of research, practice, and policy implications emerge from this critical review of the literature.

This review brings together both the legal literature and original empirical research regarding the advisability of amending the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act or creating new Department of Education regulations to mandate that all higher education institutions survey their students approximately every 5 years about students’ experiences with sexual violence. Legal research conducted regarding the three relevant federal legal regimes show inconsistent incentives for schools to encourage victim reporting and proactively address sexual violence on campus. Moreover, the original research carried out for this article shows that the experience of institutions that have voluntarily conducted such surveys suggests many benefits not only for students, prospective students, parents, and the general public but also for schools themselves. These experiences confirm the practical viability of a mandated survey by the Department of Education.

Campus response to sexual violence is increasingly governed by federal law and administrative guidance such as the 1972 Title IX, the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL), and the 2013 Violence Against Women Act. Educational institutions are directed to expand disciplinary responses and establish coordinated action to eliminate sexual violence and remedy its effects. Compliance fosters a quasi-criminal justice approach not suited to all sexual misconduct and inconsistent with developing practice in student conduct management. This article envisions restorative justice (RJ) enhancements to traditional student conduct processes that maintain compliance, expand options, empower victim choice, and increase responsiveness to DCL aims. The article (1) defines sexual violence and sexual harassment within the DCL scope, (2) elaborates the DCL position on permissible alternative resolutions and differentiates mediation from RJ, (3) sequences action steps from case report to finalization, including both restorative and traditional justice pathways; and (4) discusses building support for innovation beginning with existing campus response.