Sexual assault within the American university system: a review of policies, student perspectives, and recommendations

Part I - University Sexual Assault Policy Analysis and Recommendations Objective: Sexual violence within the collegiate environment is a pressing issue within American society. One way to address sexual violence is through the adaptation and implementation of a sexual assault policy by colleges and universities. The purpose of this study is to review sexual misconduct and assault policies of ten public universities as well as federal policies in the US. This study contributes to increasing the knowledge of sexual assault policies on American campuses that would be helpful in the development of more effective prevention policies, increasing sexual assault reporting, and decreasing sexual assaults. Methods: The data included relevant legislation, and the university sexual assault and/or misconduct policies from ten selected public universities within the United States in Fall 2014. Results: The policies of the ten universities vary. Three of the universities do not have university policies that explicitly address sexual misconduct as assault. Sexual harassment policies tend to focus on the threat of violence, as opposed to perpetrated sexual violence itself. Conclusions: Further efforts in policy revisions need to be made so that more universities will not only implement sexual assault policies, but also implement more comprehensive policies. Part II - Student Attitudes and Perspectives Regarding University Sexual Assault Policy Objective: The purpose of this study is to assess correlations between attitude, opinions and perceptions of sexual assault on campus and perceptions of university policies related to sexual assault among college students. Participants: Students (N=507) at a large public university in the intermountain west region completed a survey in February and March 2015. Methods: Multivariate multiple regression was conducted to test the association between the perceptions of university polices on sexual assault and individual factors. Results: There are some predictive factors. The predictive factors in student perceptions of importance of sexual assault policy include gender, campus organization affiliation, previous assault reporting to university officials, and adherence to particular anti-rape attitudes. Conclusions: Attitudes and perceptions of sexual assault may be very important for successful implementations of university policies related to sexual assault.

SEXUAL ASSAULT WITHIN THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM: A REVIEW OF POLICIES, STUDENT PERSPECTIVES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS By: f Tara Kay Streng A Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The University of Utah In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Degree in Bachelor of Arts In The Department of Sociology Approved: HrVAkiko'KamiWura Thesis Faculty Supervisor Dr. Kim Korinek Chair, Department of Sociology Dll. Heather Melton Honors Faculty Advisor Sylvia if. Torti, 'PhD Dean, Honors College December 2014 Copyright © 2014 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACTS Part I - University Sexual Assault Policy Analysis and Recommendations Objective: Sexual violence within the collegiate environment is a pressing issue within American society. One way to address sexual violence is through the adaptation and implementation of a sexual assault policy by colleges and universities. The purpose of this study is to review sexual misconduct and assault policies of ten public universities as well as federal policies in the US. This study contributes to increasing the knowledge of sexual assault policies on American campuses that would be helpful in the development of more effective prevention policies, increasing sexual assault reporting, and decreasing sexual assaults. Methods: The data included relevant legislation, and the university sexual assault and/or misconduct policies from ten selected public universities within the United States in Fall 2014. Results: The policies of the ten universities vary. Three of the universities do not have university policies that explicitly address sexual misconduct as assault. Sexual harassment policies tend to focus on the threat of violence, as opposed to perpetrated sexual violence itself. Conclusions: Further efforts in policy revisions need to be made so that more universities will not only implement sexual assault policies, but also implement more comprehensive policies. Part II - Student Attitudes and Perspectives Regarding University Sexual Assault Policy Objective: The purpose of this study is to assess correlations between attitude, opinions and perceptions of sexual assault on campus and perceptions of university policies related to sexual assault among college students. Participants: Students (N=507) at a large public university in the intermountain west region completed a survey in February and March 2015. Methods: Multivariate multiple regression was conducted to test the association between the perceptions of university polices on sexual assault and individual factors. Results: There are some predictive factors. The predictive factors in student perceptions of importance of sexual assault policy include gender, campus organization affiliation, previous assault reporting to university officials, and adherence to particular anti-rape attitudes. Conclusions: Attitudes and perceptions of sexual assault may be very important for successful implementations of university policies related to sexual assault. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACTS ii Part I - University Sexual Assault Policy Analysis and Recommendations INTRODUCTION 1 METHODS 3 RESULTS 4 DISCUSSION 9 APPENDIX 16 Part II - Student Attitudes and Perspectives Regarding University Sexual Assault Policy Statements INTRODUCTION 17 METHODS 20 RESULTS 25 DISCUSSION 27 APPENDIX 32 REFERENCES 34 Part I - University Sexual Assault Policy Analysis and Recommendations INTRODUCTION Female college students have an extremely high risk of being sexually assaulted. It is estimated that one third of female college students are victims of sexual assault by their senior year of college (Finley & Corty, 1993). With such a high percentage of female college students being sexually assaulted, on campus sexual assault prevention programs are essential in lowering the number of sexual assaults (Karjane, Fisher, & Cullen, 2005). According to the Know Your Rights: Title IXRequires Your School to Address Sexual Violence (U.S. Department of Education, 2011), the Education Amendments of 1972 is the cornerstone piece of legislation in the fight to end sexual violence within institutions of higher education. The Education Amendments of 1972 have been an extremely important piece of legislation for American colleges and universities. Their importance in reference to sexual violence has stemmed specifically from Title IX, which was designed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex within all institutions that receive federal financial aid. Title IX further calls for institutions that receive federal financial aid to implement educational programs and also to have policies in place to prevent and protect against sexual violence between and against their students. Because of Title IX, colleges and Universities must respond promptly to sexual violence, provide interim measures, provide students with access to support services, conduct a full investigation and further provide redress as necessary (US Department of Education, 2011). In early 2014 the White House Task force published their Not Alone report (White House Task Force, 2014), which explicitly holds colleges and universities accountable for needing to act to prevent sexual assault of their students, and to implement stronger policies for when students are assaulted. Despite development of federal legislation, sexual violence on college campuses is still greatly underreported (Armstrong, Hamilton, & Sweeney, 2006). One of the contributing factors to that may be that the vast majority of perpetrators are acquaintances, making it harder for the women who experience assault to report (Orchowski, Meyer & Gidycz, 2009). Another reason is that survivors of sexual assault may be unclear on where to report an assault to campus officials. Further, two of the top ranked fears for both male and female college students in regard to reporting are: the issues of confidentiality, and fear of not being believed (Sable, Danis, Mauzy & Gallagher, 2006). Women have often felt re-victimized fearing they will not be believed, oftentimes when investigators ask if alcohol or drugs were involved, or if they had a previous relationship with their perpetrator (Cohn, Zinzow, Resnick & Kilpatrick, 2012). Sexual assault is a significant health issue among female college students. Sexual assault survivors are more likely to report psychological disorders such as major Depressive Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and to drop out of school compared to students who had never been victims of sexual assault (Vladutiu, Martin & Macy, 2011). For these reasons, as well as for others, universities need to reevaluate their sexual assault and misconduct policies to ensure the safety and health of female students, and to ensure proper learning environments for all students. The purpose of this study is to review sexual misconduct and assault policies of ten public universities in the US. This study analyzed how the university policies comply with Title IX, as well as the recent Not Alone report. This study contributes to increasing the knowledge of sexual assault 2 policies on American campuses that would be helpful to further develop more effective policies. METHODS The data included relevant legislation, and the university sexual assault and/or misconduct policies from ten selected public universities within the US. The data sources were the universities’ sexual assault policies as posted on the websites, the Campus Safety and Security Data Analysis Cutting tool, and the Library of Congress. The analysis took three steps. First, the relevant legislation that has surrounded college sexual assault, sexual assault policies, or survivor reporting was reviewed. Second, the policies from the 10 selected public universities were examined. The universities were selected as they are public institutions with enrollment larger than 15,000 students, and are considered flagship or research universities, from varying regions of the United States of America. The universities that were selected include: University of Alabama (Alabama), University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley), University of Georgia (Georgia), Indiana University at Bloomington (Indiana), University of Iowa (Iowa), University of Massachusetts at Amherst (UM Amherst), University of Michigan (Michigan), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC Chapel Hill), University of Oregon (Oregon), University of Utah (Utah). Finally, the university policies were analyzed as to how the university policies comply with Title IX, and the Not Alone report. 3 RESULTS Since 1965, the federal government has passed several forms of legislation in hopes of insuring the health and wellbeing of students in higher education. The legislation that has had the most impact upon the university system includes: the Higher Education Act 1965 (Green, 1965), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Bayh, 1972), and the Student Right to Know Act (Clery Act) of 1990 (Bradley, 1990). Finally in 2014, President Obama and the White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault released its Not Alone report (WH Task Force, 2014). The Not Alone report includes a checklist for universities to reference in revising their sexual assault policies. This checklist includes ten areas, which should be addressed within a sexual misconduct policy. These areas are: 1) an introduction; 2) scope of the policy; 3) options for assistance following an assault; 4) identification of the Title IX coordinator; 5) definitions of various forms of assault; 6) reporting policies and protocols; 7) investigation procedures and protocols; 8) grievance and adjudication procedures; 9) prevention and education policies; and finally, 10) how the staff and faculty involved are trained. These sections provided the foundation for the analysis of the selected universities’ policies. Table 1 describes the 10 universities regarding the size, number of reported sexual assaults in 2012, number of sexual assaults per enrollment, date of most recent policy revision, if they are under Title IX investigation, and the number of sections that comply with the Not Alone check-list out of the 10 sections possible. Although the Not Alone report has spurred changes within policies in many universities, not all have responded proactively. As of November 2014, all of the 10 universities had policies that had been 4 revised in 2013 or 2014, yet none are fully compliant with past legislation (Title IX) or recent recommendations from the Not Alone report. Three of the selected universities, Indiana, Georgia, and UM Amherst, do not even have a specified sexual misconduct policy. As of September 2014, Indiana also did not have a policy regarding sexual misconduct, and still did not in November of 2014 (the university has a sexual harassment policy, which has not been updated since 2002), but had launched a website regarding sexual assault. The website itself is compliant with seven of the ten Not Alone guidelines for a sexual misconduct policy, but the website is not a sexual assault policy itself. Both Georgia and UM Amherst do not have sexual misconduct policies, and only briefly mention the issue within blanketing student codes of conduct. The other seven universities’ policies ranged from five to nine areas of compliance with the Not Alone guideline. Only two of those sections were thoroughly addressed in those seven policies. Those two sections were: definitions of types of sexual misconduct, and reporting policies. There was much variation within those two sections. Iowa had the detailed definitions section as a part of their policy (University of Iowa, 2013). Oregon’s definitions section was also comprehensive, and included definitions related to consent, and when consent is not possible (University of Iowa, 2013; University of Oregon, 2014). Reporting procedures is perhaps one of the most important features that a policy addresses, and is addressed within seven of the ten selected university policies. After those two similarities, the policies varied drastically. UNC Chapel Hill had the policy that was the most compliant with the Not Alone report (University of North Carolina, 2014). North Carolina’s policy was revised in 2014, and was compliant with nine of the ten guidelines in the Not Alone policy checklist. The 5 only area in which the policy was not compliant was regarding grievance information and procedures. UNC Chapel Hill’s policy failed to list what a reporting student can expect as far as potential sanctions against their attacker, or even what the results of investigation may be. North Carolina did address the training that their faculty undergoes to be able to handle reports though, which the only other school to include such was the UC Berkeley. The institution has also undergone Title IX review as of 2014 as well. This shows that while UNC Chapel Hill may be revising its polices to become compliant as legislation changes (Not Alone) they are not currently compliant with existing legislation (Title IX). UNC Chapel Hill, has been under investigation regarding Title IX compliance, like five of our other selected universities. Following UNC Chapel Hill, Oregon’s sexual misconduct policy had eight of the ten guidelines of the Not Alone report (University of Oregon, 2014). The two areas that were missing from its policy was information regarding school education and prevention efforts regarding assault, and how faculty who addresses reporting is trained. Preventative programming was referenced, but only briefly, and extremely vaguely, so therefore there is no way to tell if the programming exists, or in what form. UC Berkeley and Michigan comply with seven items of the Not Alone report (University of California, 2014; University of Michigan, 2014). UC Berkeley’s sexual misconduct policy had seven of the ten guidelines, yet it did not provide options for assistance for reporting students; list the Title IX coordinator, or include information regarding investigative procedures. Also, their policy was a general sexual misconduct policy for all University of California schools, which replaced previous individual policies as of early 2014. Due to the fact that the policy was generalized for all University 6 of California system schools, it does not provide specific details that would be necessary for reporting or student resources at each individual campus. The University of Michigan’s sexual misconduct policy holds seven of the Not Alone guidelines (University of Michigan, 2014). It does not address who the Title IX coordinator is (it referenced that the position exists but not who it is held by or any contact information), or if they have preventative programming, or how relevant faculty are trained. Their introduction section was perhaps one of the best of the selected universities, it addresses that the effects of sexual misconduct jeopardize the mental, physical and emotional welfare of their students, and Michigan community as a whole. Michigan is currently under Title IX review, and their policy was revised in 2013. Iowa and Utah comply with six items of the Not Alone report (University of Iowa, 2013; University of Utah, 2014). Iowa did not have their Title IX coordinator listed, investigative policies and procedures, if they have preventative programming, or what training their related faculty receive (University of Iowa, 2013). As mentioned previously, Iowa had the most extensive definitions section of their policy. Regarding the grievances section, they also not only listed all potential sanctions for offenders, but also explained what each meant. They further provided resources for students who feel that they have been wrongly accused of sexual assault. The strongest aspect of their policy is the fact that it mentions that even if a student who has been assaulted was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of their assault, they should still seek assistance from the university (University of Iowa, 2013). Iowa is not currently under Title IX investigation, and their policy was most recently revised in 2013. 7 Utah’s sexual misconduct policy has six of the ten Not Alone guidelines (University of Utah, 2014). Utah’s policy, which has been listed as “interim” since 2011, did not have an introduction addressing why the school will not tolerate sexual assault, a Title IX coordinator listed, investigative procedures, or how related faculty are trained. Utah’s policy also stated that students who are found to have made false reports of sexual assault are liable to punishment within the criminal justice system (University of Utah, 2014). This detail within Utah’s policy gives the policy what seems to be a tone of distrust regarding students who are reporting. Utah is not currently under Title IX investigative review, and their policy was revised in fall of 2014. Alabama had the lowest number of the Not Alone guidelines within its policy, of the schools that had a sexual misconduct policy (University of Alabama, 2014). Their misconduct policy is written as a series of memorandums after their policy on sexual harassment (University of Alabama, 2014). Alabama’s policy regarding sexual assault is significantly abbreviated compared to its sexual harassment policy. Alabama’s misconduct policy does not provide a scope of the policy, who the Title IX coordinator is, investigative procedures, preventative policies and programming, or how related faculty are trained. Alabama is not currently under Title IX review, and the policy was revised as of 2013. Of the three schools that do not have a sexual misconduct policy, Indiana provides the most resources for their students (Indiana University, 2014). As of November 2014, Indiana has launched an “It’s on Us” website which addresses seven of the ten guidelines for a school policy, although the website itself is not a sexual misconduct policy (Indiana University, 2014). Indiana has a total student enrollment of 46,817 students and 58 8 reports were made regarding sexual assault in 2012 (campus safety and security data cutting tool). The university is under Title IX investigative review (US Department of Education, 2014), and does not have a sexual misconduct policy, only a sexual harassment policy which was most recently revised in 2002. Neither Georgia or UM Amherst have specific sexual misconduct policies (University of Georgia, 2014; University of Massachusetts, 2014). Instead, both universities have general student codes of conduct, which each briefly address that sexual assault is considered misconduct. Both student codes of conduct were updated for the 2014-2015 academic year. Therefore, they are not compliant with any of the Not Alone guidelines. Georgia is not under Title IX review. UM Amherst is under Title IX review. DISCUSSION This study reviews sexual assault policies of ten public universities and relevant federal regulations in the US. The policies of the ten universities vary. Three of the universities do not have university policies that explicitly address sexual misconduct and assault. Sexual harassment policies tend to focus on the threat of violence, as opposed to perpetrated sexual violence itself, and therefore a harassment or generalized misconduct policy cannot provide the resources for sexual violence survivors that a sexual misconduct policy can (White House Task Force, 2014). A sexual misconduct policy is important because it provides an outline for what students can expect from their university after assault (McMahon 2008). The existence of a sexual assault or misconduct policy communicates that a university will not tolerate acts of sexual violence, and does not want its students to be exposed to the detrimental 9 health effects such violence causes (Vladutiu, Martin, & Macy, 2011). Within a policy, a strong introduction is important, not only to address that a university won’t tolerate sexual violence, but why they won’t tolerate it (White House Task Force, 2014). Schools that are part of a larger educational system must be wary of only having one generalized sexual misconduct policy to serve as a blanketing policy for the entire system. Systems of education, which include multiple universities or campuses, should have an individual policy for each institution, and at minimum must provide the specifics for the different Title IX coordinators and counseling options available at each campus. As Rape Abuse Incest National Network (RAINN) reported (2009), within the general population, only 40% of rapes are reported to law enforcement. That percentage is drastically smaller within the pool of collegiate victims though. The Department of Justice has reported that in fact when it comes to sexual assault reporting in the environment of higher education, less than 5% of women report their assaults (Fischer, Cullen, & Turner, 2000). From the 10 universities, for the selected year of 2012, the number of reports that were made to school officials was between 9 at a university with enrollment of over 32,000 students (Utah), and 64 at Michigan with almost 44,000 students. If the number of sexual assault cases is divided by the total number of students for each selected university, the rates of sexual assault range from 0.0003 (Utah) to 0.0015 (Oregon). The rates do not necessarily indicate the actual incident rates of sexual assault because of the low reporting rates. As rates of sexual assault within the collegiate environment have not decreased within the past 15 years (McMahon, 2008), their levels of reporting may not decrease either. 10 University sexual assault or misconduct policies are an important step in working to decrease and prevent sexual violence, and are an integral part to ensure that students know where and how they can report if they are assaulted. It has been shown that increasing awareness of the school policies and reporting regulations have helped to increase reporting (McMahon, 2008). Oregon’s policy includes a flowchart, so that students can understand what the process will be from reporting to resolution (University of Oregon, 2014). Not only should the policy be simple to navigate for a survivor, but also they should be able to be easily connected to on and off campus resources, particularly counseling services, as it has been shown that counseling can make a significant impact in the well-being of a survivor of sexual violence after an attack (Westmarland & Alderson, 2013). There is no way for a university to connect its students who are survivors of sexual assault into the resources that it can provide for them if they do not know that the survivors exist. Therefore, increasing assault reporting is essential for universities. Simply because a policy does not include all of the aspects of federal recommendations, such as the Not Alone guideline, does not mean that the policy itself is a poor policy. For example, even Indiana that does not currently have a sexual assault policy has the third highest level of sexual assault reporting, tied with UNC Chapel Hill, which has the most amount of Not Alone compliance from the sampled universities. Yet, all three of the schools which do not have an individual sexual misconduct or assault policy are under Title IX investigation by the US Department of Education. 11 Recommendations The fact that college women report their sexual assault experience potentially at a lower rate than the national average clearly depicts how important it is that institutions of higher education have the proper policies in place to manage a victim who chooses to report. Sexual violence within higher education is different than sexual violence outside of higher education, with the main distinction being levels of reporting, and therefore needs to be addressed with different tools and methods. A completely standardized sexual assault or misconduct policy would not be suitable for all institutions of higher education but the guidelines addressed in the Not Alone report provide a sufficient foundation. While universities should be able to tailor the material of their policy to be appropriate for their campus, they do in fact need to have a policy (White House Task Force, 2014). Although ideally the American higher education system provides a support system through campus resources for students, this system may not be successful. Many students who are assaulted may have a more difficult time getting connected to available resources because they may not be first reporting to campus officials. Often, students who have been sexually assaulted report their assaults to a friend, as opposed to campus or law enforcement officials (Orchowski, Meyer, Gidcyz, 2009). Therefore, it is recommended that universities implement policies whose purposes are to increase the number of sexual assault survivors reporting to campus officials. This can be accomplished through the addition of educational programming for all students within each campus (McMahon, 2008). The type of educational programming would be geared at increasing awareness of sexual assault, and the definitions of consent, as well as when consent is not possible (as in the cases of 12 intoxication or when asleep). Further, this programming should not happen just one time in a student’s academic career, but during every school year, to keep the material fresh, and maximize preventative results. While all of the seven schools that have sexual misconduct policies have sections defining types of misconduct and assault, as well as reporting policies, more must be considered a bench-mark. If a school does not have all 10 sections of the Not Alone guideline within their policy, we assert that their policy should include sections that outline the procedures for reporting, investigation, grievance/adjudication, prevention/education, and finally, list options for student assistance (such as counseling or health services). These sections are the most important for a policy to include as they outline what a student who has experienced sexual violence can expect to receive from their university if they choose to report, as well as assurance that their university is laying the groundwork to end sexual violence within its campus. Procedures that outline reporting, investigative, grievance and/or adjudication standards provide clarity for reporting students, so that they will be able to navigate the process without experiencing added emotional distress due to confusion or feelings of mismanagement of their case. Outlined systems for student support also provide that the student who has experienced sexual violence will be able to receive the needed physical and mental health services that can help aid in recovering to a healthy mental status after an assault. These sections are the most important because they directly address student’s needs in terms of potentially being able to report their case to university administrative officials. Furthermore, preventative and educational procedures may aid a student who is contemplating reporting their assault, by introducing students to the policies of the school, 13 where they are able to report, and such also outlines the university’s stance in working to end sexual violence within their campus, through the most proven way of doing so, educational programming. Policies that clearly include reporting, investigation, grievance and/or adjudication procedures will depict that a university has the procedures in place to properly handle reports of assault. If more universities are prepared to handle reported assaults than also less investigative reviews into Title IX compliance for universities will be necessary. Such will also help to give students who are interested in reporting their assaults the information needed to understand the effects that reporting may have on both themselves, and on the accused student. Limitations A limitation of this study is that only ten large public universities and their policies were analyzed regarding their policies and legislative adherence. Therefore the ten universities serve as more of a case study than a representative sample of American universities. This study is of importance as it still highlights issues within each of the policies, and reviews how many reports have been made at each school, contrasted with student enrollment size. Conclusions The results of this study suggest that the levels of complying with federal policies on sexual assault on campus vary across universities. Although there is much variation within policies, the strengths of some, and the weaknesses of others are to be noted by other universities working to revise their own sexual assault or misconduct policies. Further efforts in policy revisions need to be made so that more universities will not only implement sexual assault policies, but also implement more comprehensive policies. 14 Future research is necessary to empirically examine how universities’ policies affect student attitudes and behaviors related to sexual assault and prevention. Such empirical studies would warrant the importance of university policies to prevent sexual assault on campus. While the White House Task Force’s Not Alone report may only provide recommendations for policy revisions, adopting aspects of the report may be beneficial to universities. Elements of the Not Alone report that are particularly beneficial for students are procedures for reporting, investigation, grievance/adjudication, prevention/education, and finally, list options for student assistance (such as counseling or health services). Each of these elements can be important in increasing a university’s preparedness for handling reports of sexual assault, increasing campus reporting of sexual assault, and finally increasing Title IX compliance. 15 APPENDIX Table 1 - Review of University Sexual Assault/Misconduct policy Analysis of Policies University Number of Undergraduate Total enrollment enrollment reported sexual assault in 2012 NC Chapel HIE Oregon UC Berkeley Michigan Iowa Utah Alabama Indiana Georgia UM Amkerst 18,370 20,808 25,951 27,979 21,974 24,840 29,443 32,543 26,278 22,252 29,127 24,473 36,198 43,710 29,748 32,077 34,752 46,817 34,536 28,518 35 39 32 64 29 9 13 58 21 26 Under Title Number of sexual assault Date of most recent IK sections that per investigation comply “Not enrollment policy revision Alone” check list {out of 10) 2014 Yes 0.0012 9 8 0.0015 2013 Ym 2014 Yes 1 0.0009 2013 Yes 0.0014 7 0*0010 2013 Ho 6 0.0003 2014 Ho 6 2013 Mo 0.0004 ■5 n/a 0.0012 Yw 0 0 Ym 0 0006 n/a Yes 0 0.0009 n/a a Including on campus, off campus, public property, forcible and non-forcible cases. 16 Part II - Student Attitudes and Perspectives Regarding University Sexual Assault Policy INTRODUCTION Sexual assault is an extremely prevalent issue within the American system of higher education. In fact, studies from the past two decades have shown time and again that between twenty and thirty-three percent of women experience a completed sexual assault by their senior year of college (White House, 2014) (Krebs et. al., 2009) (Finley & Corty, 1993). During an average undergraduate career (expected to last around five years) the amount of attempted or completed rapes may be between one fifth and one quarter of all enrolled women (Fischer, Cullen, Turner, 2000). Further, students within higher education are at higher risk for sexual assault and rape than the general population, and may experience both at higher rates as well (Joseph et. al., 2013) (Koss, Gidycz, Wisniewski, 1987). The negative health effects from sexual violence abound. Those who have experienced sexual violence are significantly more likely to report psychological disorders such as Major Depressive Disorder, anxiety, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (Nickerson et. al., 2013), as well as abuse of drugs and alcohol, and to drop out of school compared to those students who had never survived sexual violence (Vladutiu, Martin, Macy, 2013) (Zinzow et. al., 2011). The development of psychological disorders and their effects not only harm the students who have survived sexual assault, but also further disrupt the larger academic community that a university supports. The incidence of sexual assault and rape within college has remained high within recent decades, despite some preventative work (Rozee & Koss, 2001). While there is a trove of literature regarding proposed preventative measures for universities regarding 17 sexual violence, such literature in relation to university sexual assault policies explicitly is not extensive. In 2014, The White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault released its Not Alone report, which advocates for American institutions of higher education to adopt sexual violence policies if they have none, and to reform existing policies (White House, 2014). The Not Alone report suggested recommendations in the following areas such as reporting policies and protocol, investigative policies and protocol, grievance and adjudication procedures, prevention and education policies, and training information for related faculty and staff. Since the release of Not Alone, colleges and universities have rapidly worked to reform their sexual violence policies. Yet sexual assault prevention policies and implementations still vary across universities (Streng & Kamimura, 2015). Previous studies have examined attitudes, opinions and perceptions of sexual assault on campus among college students. Acceptance of collegiate sexual assault is often linked to belief of rape myths. Rape myths refer to false beliefs about rape in which rape is considered the victims’ fault and victims are blamed (Burt, 1980). Rape myths have been shown to be one of the factors that increase sexual violence (McMahon, 2010) (Mouliso & Calhoun, 2013) (O’Donohue, 2003). These beliefs have been shown to be held significantly more by male fraternity members as well as male student athletes than male students who are in neither student group (Boeringer, 1999), although student acceptance of rape myths is generally moderate (McMahon, 2010). The vast majority of collegiate women do not adhere to rape-myth beliefs (Carmody & Washington, 2001). Adherence to rape myth beliefs allow for collegiate communities to excuse perpetrators of sexual violence, and ignore the reality of sexual assault. The environment of American 18 colleges foster student beliefs that sexual assault between acquaintances or an intimate partner does not constitute actual sexual assault or rape, and such further allows the environment to support and perpetuate sexual assault (Arnowitz, Lambert, Davidoff, 2012). There is also a significant relationship between belief of rape myths and likelihood of perpetration of sexual assault (Mouliso & Calhoun, 2013). While attitudes, opinions and perceptions of sexual assault on campus among college students have been studied, little is known about how students’ attitude, opinions and perceptions regarding university sexual assault are associated with their perceptions of college sexual assault policy. On one hand, as more educational and preventative policies are developed and implemented, incidence of sexual assault rates may decrease in the future (Kress et. al., 2006). On the other hand, university preventative programming and policies have long been criticized and are not always effective in reducing sexual assault (Kress et. al., 2006). Student perceptions may help to pinpoint areas that students value within a policy because students’ perceptions of university sexual assault policies are important and can provide universities with insight into the resources that students feel that they need to prevent sexual assault, and to aid after sexual assault. The purpose of this study is to assess correlations between attitude, opinions and perceptions of sexual assault on campus and perceptions of university policies related to sexual assault among college students. Potential contributions from this study include increased knowledge for the improvement of university sexual assault policies to prevent sexual assault on campus. 19 METHODS Data Collection and Study Participants The data were collected at a state university in the Intermountain West in the US in March 2015. A consent cover letter and a survey instrument were distributed to undergraduate students aged between 18 and 30, attending a social science class. The classes were selected based on whether an instructor at that university was able to spend 15 minutes to administer the survey in class since some classes have very strict content requirements, not all had extra time for a survey. The classes taught by the co-author were not included in data collection. Prior to the data collection, the university’s institutional review board (IRB) approved this study. Measures University Policy Perceptions The scale to assess respondent perceptions regarding university sexual assault policy elements were developed based on sexual assault policies from seven state universities (University of California, 2014) (University of Michigan, 2014) (University of North Carolina, 2014) University of Utah, 2014) (University of Alabama, 2013) (University of Iowa, 2013) (University of Oregon, 2013). This scale included 21 policy related items. Respondents were asked to rate the statements based on how important they felt each potential university sexual assault policy statement was to reducing sexual assault within a university setting. The respondents answered within a 5-point Likert scale (1= not important to 5 = very important). There were five sub-scales, namely 20 counseling/ support resources (2 items), reporting (5 items), investigation (3 items), prevention (7 items), grievance/adjudication (4 items). The examples of the items include, “A university providing sexually assaulted students with written references of health or counseling resources” (counseling/ support resources), “University officials assisting a student who has been sexually assaulted notifying law enforcement” (reporting), “A university beginning investigation of a report of sexual assault within 7 days” (investigation), “New student orientations teaching about sexual assault” (prevention), and, “An assaulted student being notified of the outcome of accused student’s hearing” (grievance/ adjudication). The investigation sub-scale had lower than 0.6 Chronbach alpha even after one of the items was dropped. The investigation sub-scale was not included for analysis accordingly. Other sub-scales have high internal consistency with Chronbach alpha values 0.813 for counseling/ support resources, 0.773 for reporting, 0.808 for prevention, and 0.647 for grievance/ adjudication. A higher score displayed that a respondent perceived the policy elements to being important in reducing sexual assault. College Date Rape Attitudes College date rape attitudes were measured using the College Date Rape Attitudes and Behaviors Survey (CDRABS) (Lanier & Elliot, 1997). The 20 attitude related items were used. The behavioral section of the CDRABS was not included because the focus of this study was attitude. The CDRABS uses a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), with the scoring reversed for some of the items. The examples of the reversed scoring items include “I believe that talking about sex destroys the romance of that particular moment,” “If a woman dresses in a sexy dress, she is asking for sex,” 21 and “Date rapists are usually motivated by an overwhelming unfulfilled sexual desire.” This scale has a high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha being .826. Higher scores represented higher levels of anti-rape attitudes. Opinions Regarding Sexual Assault on Campus To measure opinions regarding sexual assault on campus, we used the Readinessto-Change Scale (Banyard, Eckstein, Moynihan, 2010). The Readiness-to-Change Scale includes nine-items that are divided into three subscales, 1) pre-contemplation subscale (three items), 2) contemplation subscale (three items), and 3) action subscale (three items). All items are measured by a 5-point Likert scale (1= Not at all true; 5 = Very much true). The mean of each sub-scale was used for analysis. The pre-contemplation subscale measures a respondent being unaware that sexual violence exists and consists of “I don’t think sexual assault is a big problem on campus”, “I don’t think there is much I can do about sexual assault on campus”, and, “There isn’t much need for me to think about sexual assault on campus, that’s the job of the crisis center”. A higher score on the precontemplation subscale suggests a person is less aware that sexual violence exists. Chronbach alpha for the precontemplation sub-scale was 0.662. The contemplation subscale measured how respondents are aware that sexual violence exists, but have not taken an action to change his or her behavior or situation, and include, “Sometimes I think I should learn more about sexual assault but I haven’t done so yet”, “I think I can do something about sexual assault and am planning to find out what I can do about the problem”, and, “I am planning to learn more about the 22 problem of sexual assault on campus”. A higher score on the contemplation subscale implies a person is more aware that sexual violence exists and wants to learn more about sexual assault. Chronbach alpha for the contemplation sub-scale was 0.593. To increase internal consistency, one of the items ‘Sometimes I think I should learn more about sexual assault but I haven’t done so yet’ was dropped. Chronbach alpha for the contemplation sub-scale became 0.835 accordingly. The action subscale indicates that a person has taken an action to change behavior or situations related to the prevention of sexual assault and includes, “I have recently attended a program about sexual assault”, “I am actively involved in projects to deal with sexual assault on campus”, and, “I have recently taken part in activities or volunteered my time on projects focused on ending sexual assault on campus”. A higher score on the action subscale indicates that a person takes more action to reduce sexual assault within their environment. Chronbach alpha for the action sub-scale was 0.853. Perceptions o f sexual assault Perceptions of sexual assault was measured using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (IRMA) which has 22 items (McMahon & Farmer, 2011) (Payne, Lonsway, Fitzgerald, 1999). The IRMA uses a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, to 5 = strongly disagree) and has four sub-scales including Subscale 1 She asked for it (6 items), Subscale 2 He didn’t mean to (6 items), Subscale 3 It wasn’t really rape (5 items), and Subscale 4 She lied (5 items). The examples of the items include, “If a girl goes to a room alone with a guy at a party, it is her own fault if she is raped” (She asked for it), “If a guy is drunk, he might rape someone unintentionally” (He didn’t mean to), “If a girl 23 doesn’t physically fight back, you can’t really say it was rape” (It wasn’t really rape), and, “A lot of times, girls who say they were raped agreed to have sex and then regret it” (She lied). Higher score represented adherence to rape-blaming and victim-shaming perceptions. Chronbach alpha for the subscales are as follows: Subscale 1 - 0.838; Subscale 2 - 0.789; Subscale 3 - 0.811; Subscale 4 - 0.914). Knowledge about someone who was sexually assaulted and health-seeking sources Participants were asked whether they knew a college student who was sexually assaulted. If they knew someone, they were further asked to specify the relationship with the person, such as friend or acquaintance from college, friend or acquaintance outside of college, family member, neighbor, themselves, and other. In addition, participants were asked to whom they would report sexual assault if they were a victim of sexual assault including the university’s officials, the police, friends, family members, counseling center, hospital or healthcare facility, other, or would not report to anyone. Demographic information The following demographic information was obtained from participants: age, gender, race/ethnicity, years as a student at the university, major, and membership of a campus organization. Data analysis Data were analyzed using statistical software SPSS (version 22). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the distribution of the demographic characteristics of the students. Descriptive data were presented as frequencies and percentage for categorical 24 variables and means with standard deviations (SDs) for continuous variables. Multivariate multiple regression was conducted to test the association between the perceptions of university polices on sexual assault and individual factors (age, female gender, white race, student less than one year, member of a campus organization), knowledge of someone who was sexually assaulted, whether a participant would report sexual assault to university officials), and attitudes to and perceptions of sexual assault. RESULTS Data were collected at 21 social science classes. Response rate was 40.24% based on the number of enrolled students. Table 1 describes participant demographics of the 507 students. The average age of the participants was 21.1 (SD=2.5). More than 60% of the participants were women (n=320, 63.1%). Nearly 70% of the participants were white non-Hispanic (n=338, 66.7%). Approximately one third of the participants had been a student of the university less than one year (n=160, 31.6%). While all participants were attending a social science class, majors of the participants varied. The most common major was sociology (n=103, 20.3%). One fourth of the participants were a member of a campus organization (n=123, 24.3%). Half of the participants knew a college student who was sexually assaulted (n=257, 50.7%). The percentage was significantly higher for women (56.7%) than men 42.0%) (p<0.01) (not shown in the table). The most common relationship with the victim was friend or acquaintance from college (n= 161,31.8%) followed by friend or acquaintance outside of college (n=121, 23.9%). Fifty-one participants (10.1%) had been sexually assaulted. Forty-three of them are women (not 25 shown in the table). Table 2 presents descriptive statistics of perceptions of and attitudes to university policies, college date rape attitudes, changes of stage, and rape myth. All of the subscales of perceptions of university policies have mean scores more than 4. Reporting policies had the highest mean score (mean = 4.73, SD = 0.46) while the prevention subscale had the lowest means score (mean = 4.46, SD = 0.61). The mean score of the College Date Rape Attitude was 4.29 (SD = 0.43). The average of pre­ contemplation was mean = 2.08(SD = 0.72). Contemplation had a higher score (mean = 3.36, SD = 0.88) than action (mean = 2.09, SD = 1.02). All of the IRMA subscales had mean scores greater than 4. The subscale “It wasn’t really rape” had the highest mean score, 4.71 (SD = 0.50). The subscale ‘She lied” had the lowest score, 4.06 (SD = 0.87). Table 3 summarizes the predictors of university policies to prevent sexual assault on campus. Higher levels of acceptance of college rape were more likely to be associated with the belief that reporting policies are important (p<0.05). Participants who had higher levels of awareness of sexual assault on campus were more likely to believe reporting policies are important (p<0.01). Higher levels of interest in improving situations related to sexual assault were related to higher levels of support of prevention and grievance policies (p<0.01). Participants who had higher levels of interest in taking actions to improve the situations related to sexual assault were more likely to support prevention policies (p<0.05). Higher levels of rejection of rape myth: “He did not mean to” were associated with higher levels of support of grievance policies (p<0.05). Female participants were more likely to believe reporting policies are important than male participants (p<0.05). Participants who were a member of a campus organization are less likely to believe counseling/support resources are important (p<0.05). Participants who 26 indicated they would report sexual assault to university officials are more likely to believe counseling/ support resources (p<0.05), reporting policies (p<0.05), and prevention policies (p<0.01) are important compared to those who do not belong to a campus organization. DISCUSSION This study examined associations between attitude, opinions and perceptions of sexual assault on campus and perceptions of university policies related to sexual assault among college students. The results of this study suggest that students were positive towards most policy measures and mean scores were high during the entire policy question set. There were three main findings. First, date rape attitude and awareness of sexual assault, gender and intention to report sexual assault to university officials were associated with perceptions of university’s reporting policies. Second, interests in improving situations related to sexual assault on campus were related to perceptions of prevention policies. Third, one of the sub-scales of rape myths - he didn’t mean to - and interests in improving situations were associated with grievance policies. The results suggesting that higher levels of acceptance of date rape was associated with higher levels of support of reporting policies are unable to be supported or counter supported by previous studies. Further research is necessary to investigate the association. There was a positive relationship between higher levels of awareness of a sexual assault issue on campus and perceived importance of reporting procedures. This relationship is consistent with other studies that have measured awareness of collegiate sexual assault (Sorenson, Joshi, Sivitz, 2014). In addition to date rape attitudes and 27 awareness of sexual assault, female gender and higher levels of intention to report sexual assault to university officials were related to higher levels of perceptions that reporting policies are important. This may be because women are more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of sexual assault, as men commit 98 percent of all sexual assaults (Sedgwick, 2006) and women may perceive reporting policies as more important than their male peers. Furthermore, intention to report a potential assault to a university official was related to the perceptions of importance regarding reporting policies. It may be important for universities to create a system in which students are aware that university officials can be helpful to students who have experienced sexual assault. Higher levels of interest in improving situations related to sexual assault on campus, based on the contemplation and action sub-scales, were related to higher levels of perceptions that prevention policies are important. This result indicates that raising awareness and promoting actions among college students is important within prevention policies. Previous studies have suggested that bystander intervention trainings may be helpful in prevention of sexual assault (McMahon & Banyard, 2012) as well as greater dissemination of policy information regarding consent within sexual activity (Borges, Banyard, Moynihan, 2008). The results that rejection of rape myths was related to grievance policies indicate that reducing rape myth acceptance may be essential to better support victims of sexual assault. Individuals who accept rape myths do not willingly help people at risk of sexual violence (McMahon, 2011). Rape myths are not only related to the issue of rape, but also to perceptions of women: Rape myth acceptance is related to hostile attitudes and behavior toward women (Suarez & Gadalla, 2010). People who do not accept rape myth are more likely to willingly help people at risk of sexual assault (McMahon, 2011). Providing workshops about rape awareness on campus may be effective to reduce rape myth acceptance as people who have not attended a rape awareness workshops are more likely to accept rape myths compared to those who have attended such programming (Hinck & Thomas, 1999). Recommendations Explanation of reporting procedures is an important element within a sexual assault policy as typically if a survivor of sexual assault does report their assault, it will be to friends and family before school officials or law enforcement (Orchowski, Meyer, Gidycz, 2009). Based on the results of this study, it is recommended that universities develop programs to increase awareness of the realities of campus sexual assault, as well as women-focused programs to encourage reporting, and easier access to university officials. As programming is implemented within universities to help promote greater levels of reporting, it is important that reporting policies are included within university sexual assault policies. Male-focused educational programs are important in prevention of sexual assault, and to teach about consent, as males are the vast majority of sexual assault perpetrators (Stewart, 2013). With that in mind, males also have a unique opportunity to play an important role in potentially preventing sexual assault through active bystander intervention (Gidycz, Orchowski, Berkowitz, 2011). Since participants interested in improving situations or taking action surrounding campus sexual assault are more likely to be supportive of prevention policies and perceive them as important, explanation of educational and preventative programming 29 must be elements of a university sexual assault policy as well. This will help to increase student understanding of the school’s commitment to addressing sexual assault. Further, educational programming has been found to make the most significant difference in prevention of sexual violence (McMahon, 2008). Educational programming has the ability to create systemic societal change, which may reduce sexual assault. Such educational programming can aid in reducing sexual assault in creating university culture that no longer is supportive of rape myths, and understands the realities of campus sexual assault. Educational programming can also make dispersing information regarding support services, reporting policies, investigative policies, and grievance processes easier as well. Finally, elements that address potential options regarding grievance redress and adjudication procedures are essential to be included within a university sexual assault policy, as they specifically address how the student perpetrator will be addressed if found responsible for sexual assault. Currently, American universities carry out sexual assault adjudication in a preponderance of the evidence fashion, as required by the United States Department of Education (Weizel, 2012). Options for redress of survivor grievances may include the ability to change course schedule, change housing (if they reside in oncampus housing), or access to information regarding the university investigation of their sexual assault (University of California, 2014) (University of Michigan, 2014) (University of Utah, 2014) (University of Iowa, 2013). Limitations Limitations within this study include that data was only collected from one large 30 state university in the intermountain west region of the United States, and therefore may not be generalizable to all American universities. Further, the study participants were from a convenience sample. There is no way to assess how respondents and non­ respondents are different or similar to each other. Due to the subject matter of the survey, it may be possible that some participants picked socially desirable answers. It is also to be noted that some students declined to participate due to the topic of the survey - they may not have been interested in the topic or may have felt that it was too sensitive. This study was cross sectional and did not examine causal directions. Conclusions Research into student perceptions and attitudes of university sexual assault policies is a significant gap within current relevant literature. The majority of literature that exists regarding university sexual assault policies has been government funded, and has not always included student perspectives. This study provides increased knowledge about the association between attitudes and perceptions of sexual assault and perceptions of university policies among college students. The results of this study indicate that attitudes and perceptions of sexual assault may be very important for successful implementation of university policies related to sexual assault. In particular, university wide programs to increase awareness and interest, female focused programs, better access to university officials, and eliminating rape myth acceptance are key factors for university policies. More research regarding student attitudes and awareness of sexual assault policies can help to guide policy reform. Research into policy effectiveness would also be very beneficial in continuing to reform policies and prevent collegiate sexual assault. 31 APPENDIX Table I Demographic Chmmicmncs Ag% mmu (££}) Fwki kmt/cthmehf White (nm4$A%pmm) Uhpmlc Asian/ Pacific Ulaodcis Bhck 2U (2.5) %2®mA) m (mj) 49 (9.7) n c?j) IS(X2) 2 (§,4) 45 (8.9) Native Americas Other race m mixed mcc Yaw* as a student at the Umvcrsity Less than 1 year 1-2 years 160 (31J) i56 153 (S0.2) 20 (3J ) mm 3*4 yesfs More thus S yean* Major only) Sociology Paydiology Hcahh Society & Policy AiithrDpology Member o f a campus orgamzaticm ftaow t collcgo Mtidbiti who was se&ually assaulted Friend «r acquaintance from college Friend or acquaintance outside of colIegc Family Neighbor Myself Other Help socking Tie Univemiy's nf!k»3 The police Prietjife 1(13 (20.3) 41 (&S) 24 (4J ) 20 (3J ) 123 (24J) 257 (50J) 161 01 J ) 121 (23,$) Si (15) 6 (0 ) SI (to.t) 14 (2 J ) 204 (40*2) 291 (51*4) 2#4 (5#.0) 21S (54,2) 214 (46,2) 258 (50.9) 52 (10J) 26 (5J ) Family mctabcrs Counseling emter Hospital/ hcalthcare facility IMsii. I would not r&port my assault NteSO?; Frequency 04) 32 Table 2 Descriptive statistics of perceptions related to sexual assault Mean SD Perception of university policies1* 4.59 0.68 Counseliag/ support resources 0.46 4.73 Reporting 4.42 0.61 Prevention Grievance/ adjndication 4.46 0.60 0.43 4.29 College Date Rape Attitudesb Readmess-to-Change 2.08 0.72 Pre-contemplation' 0.88 Contemplation®** 3.36 1.02 2.09 Action4 Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (IRMA)* 0.72 She asked for it 4.32 0.71 4.01 He didn’t mean to 4.71 0.50 It wasn’t really rape 0R7 ihe Ifei 4.06 W=507 *Higher scores indicate that a participant is more likely to believe if $ more important. Score * § § 1*5* £ Higher scores indicate higher levels of acceptance of college date rape. Score range 1*5* *Higher scores indicate that lower levels of awareness of sexual assault on campus* Scom range 141. t Higher scares iadlc.aie that higher levels of Interests in improving situations related to sexual assault on campus. Score range 1-5* * Higher scores indicate greater rejection of rape myths. Score range 1-5, * To improve reliability, one of the three items was dropped. ,4i [Table 3 Predictors of perceptions of university policies (Constant) Age Female White nori-Hispanie Student less than 1 year Member o f a campus organization Know &college student sexually assaulted Report to imiversity officials Date Rape Attitude and Behavior Pre-contempktkm Contemplation Action. Rape Myths: She asked for it Rape Myth: He didn’t mean to Rape Myth; It wasn’t really rape Rape Myth; She lied RF P value N~~5Q7 jp-vaiue denote Counseling 0 346 -0,02 0,08 0.11 >0.0? -0.16 >0.02 0.14 0.18 *0.11 0,09 0.04 -0,001 0.00 0.16 -0,06 016 5 17 <0.01 Reporting 0 336 0.01 0.11 -§,07 *0.02 '0.05 0.04 0.09 0.21 -0.12 0.04 *•0.00! 0.07 -0.03 0.04 -0,02 0 2S 10.08 <0.01 P-value N.S. X.S. N.S, N,S» <0.05 N.S. <0.05 N.S. N.S. im N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S, N.S. g ificanee I om multiva ate regrc on aaaly i 33 P *m tw N.S. <0.05 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. <0.05 <0.05 <0.01 N.S* N.S. N.S. N.S, N,S, N.S, Prevention 0 2.85 -0.003 0.09 0.03 0.11 -0.10 -0.08 0.15 0.07 -0,13 0.19 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.11 -0,02 0,34 1348 <0,01 P-vahxc N.S. N.S, RS, N.S. N.S. R S. <0,01 N.S. -0,01 <0.01 <0.05 N.S. N.S. R& N.S, Grievance 0 2.57 0.002 0,05 -0.08 -0.02 -0.10 0.04 0,07 0.13 -0.007 0,14 -0,03 0,06 ■0,11 001 004 0,22 7 36 <o.;i P-value N.S. N.S. NJSL N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. <0.01 N*S. N.S. <0.05 N.S. N S, u REFERENCES Armstrong, E., Hamilton, L., & Sweeney, B. (2006). Sexual Assault on Campus: a Multilevel, Integrative Approach to Party Rape. Social Problems, 53,483-499. Aronowitz T, Lambert CA, Davidoff S. The role of rape myth acceptance in the social norms regarding sexual behavior among college students. J Community Health Nurs. 2012;29:173-182. Banyard VL, Eckstein RP, Moynihan MM. Sexual violence prevention: the role of stages of change. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2010;25:111-35. Bayh, B. (1972). Title IX o f the United States Education Amendments o f 1972. 92nd Congress of the United States of America. Boeringer, S.B. Associations of rape-supportive attitudes with fraternal and athletic participation. Violence Against Women. 1999;5:81-90. Borges AM, Banyard VL, Moynihan MM. Clarifying consent: Primary prevention of sexual assault on a college campus. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community. 2008;36:75- 88. Bradley, B. (1990). Student Right-to-Know Act. 101st Congress of the United States of America. Carmody DC, Washington LM. Rape myth acceptance among college women: The impact of race and prior victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2001;16:424-436. 34 Cohn, A., Zinzow, H., Resnick, H., & Kilpatrick, D. (2012). Correlates of reasons for not reporting date rape to police: results from a national telephone household probability sample of women with forcible or drug-or-alcohol facilitated/incapacitated rape. JInterpersonal Violence,28(3),455-473. Finley, C. & Corty, E. (1993). Rape on campus: The prevalence of sexual assault while enrolled in college. J Coll Student Development, 34,113-117. Fischer B.S., Cullen F.T., Turner M.G. The Sexual Victimization of College Women. 2000. Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesl/nij/182369.pdf. Accessed December 19, 2014. Gidycz CA, Orchowski LM, Berkowitz AD. Preventing sexual aggression among college men: An evaluation of a social norms and bystander intervention program. Violence Against Women. 2011 ;17:720-742. Green, E. (1965). Higher Education Act o f 1965. 89th Congress of the United States of America. Hinck SS, Thomas RW. Rape myth acceptance in college students: How far have we come? Sex Roles. 1999;40:815-832. Indiana University, Bloomington. Policy Against Sexual Harassment. [Online] Available at: http://policies.iu.edu/policies/categories/administration-operations/equalopportunity/sexual-harassment.shtml. Accessed September 24, 2014. Joseph J.S., Gray M.J., Mayer J. Addressing sexual assault within social systems: system justification as a barrier to college prevention efforts. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma. 2013;22:493-509. 35 Karjane, H. M., Fisher, B. S., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Sexual Assault on Campus: What Colleges and Universities are Doing About it. (Publication No. 205521). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. [Online] Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesl/nij/205521.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2014. Koss M.P., Gidycz C.A., Wisniewski N. The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1987;55:162-170. Krebs C, Lindquist C, Warner T, Fischer B, Martin S. College women’s experiences with physically forced, alcohol- or other drug-enabled, and drug-facilitated sexual assault before and since entering college. J Am Coll Health. 2009;57: 639-649. Kress YE, Shepard BJ, Anderson RI, Petuch AJ, Nolan JM, Thiemeke D. Evaluation of the impact of a coeducational sexual assault prevention program on college students' rape myth attitudes. Journal of College Counseling. 2006;9:148-157. Lanier CA, Elliott MN. A new instrument for the evaluation of a date rape prevention program. Journal of College Student Development. 1997;38:673-676. McMahon, P. (2008). Sexual violence on the college campus: A template for compliance with federal policy. J Am Coll Health, 57,361-365. McMahon, S. Rape myth beliefs and bystander attitudes among incoming college students. J Am Coll Health. 2010;59:3-11. McMahon S, Banyard VL. When can I help? A conceptual framework for the prevention of sexual violence through bystander intervention. Trauma, Violence & Abuse. 36 2012;13:3-14. McMahon S, Farmer LG. An updated measure for assessing subtle rape myths. Social Work Research. 2011;35:71-81. Mouliso E., Calhoun KS. The role of rape myth acceptance and psychopathy in sexual assault perpetration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma. 2013;22:159-174. Nickerson A. Steenkamp M, Aerka IM, Salters-Pedneault K, Carper TL, Barnes JB, Litz BT. Prospective investigation of mental health following sexual assault. Depress Anxiety. 2013;30:444- 450. O’Donohue W, Yeater EA, Fanetti M. Rape prevention with college males: The roles of rape myth acceptance, victim empathy, and outcome expectancies. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2003;18:513-531. Orchowski, L., Meyer, D., & Gidycz, C. (2009). College Women’s likelihood to report unwanted sexual experiences to campus agencies: Trends and Correlates. J Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18(8), 839-858. Payne D L, Lonsway KA, Fitzgerald LF. Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois rape myth acceptance scale. Journal of Research in Personality. 1999;33:27-68. Rape Abuse Incest National Network (RAINN). (2014). Statistics 2009. [Online] Available at: https://www.rainn.org/statistics. Accessed October 12, 2014. Rozee PD, Koss MP. Rape: A century of resistance. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 37 2001;25:295-311. Sable, M., Danis, F., Mauzy, D., & Gallagher, S. (2006). Barriers for reporting sexual assault for women and men: Perspectives of college students. J Am Coll Health, 55,157-162. 28. Sedgwick J L. Criminal victimization in the United States, 2005 Statistical tables: National crime victimization survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 2006. Sorenson SB, Joshi M, Sivitz E. Knowing a sexual assault victim or perpetrator: A stratified random sample of undergraduates at one university. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2014;29:394-416. Stewart AL. The men’s project: A sexual assault prevention program targeting college men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. 2014;15:481-485. Streng T.K., Kamimura A. Sexual assault prevention and reporting on college campuses in the US: A review of policies and recommendations. Journal of Education and Practice. 2015:6;3. Suarez E, Gadalla TM. Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2010;25:2010-2035. University of Alabama. (2014). Policies and Procedures for Students. [Online] Available at: http://www.studenthandbook.ua.edu/policyforstudents.html. Accessed September 24, 2014. 38 University of California, Berkeley. (2014). University o f California Policy, Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence. [Online] Available at: http://policy.ucop.edu/doc/4000385/SHSV. Accessed December 19,2014. University of Georgia. (2014). University o f Georgia Code o f Conduct. [Online] Available at: http://www.conduct.uga.edu/code_of_conduct/codeofconduct.pdf. Accessed December 19,2014. University of Iowa. (2013). Sexual Misconduct Involving Students, Including Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment. University of Iowa. [Online] Available at: http ://www.uiowa. edu/~our/opmanual/iv/02 .htm#21, http://dos.uiowa.edu/policies/ sanctioning-guidelines-for-sexual-assault/. Accessed September 24,2014. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (2014). Code o f Conduct Trustee Doc. #T-94-059. [Online] Available at: http://www.umass.edu/dean_students/downloads/CodeofStudentConduct.pdf. Accessed December 19,2014 University of Michigan. (2014). University o f Michigan Policy on Sexual Misconduct by Students. [Online] Available at: http://studentsexualmisconductpolicy.umich.edu/content/university-michiganpolicy-sexual-misconduct. Accessed December 19, 2014 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. (2014). Policy on Prohibited Discrimination, Harassment and Related Misconduct. [Online] Available at: http://sexualassaultanddiscriminationpolicy.unc.edu/. Accessed December 19, 2014 39 University of Oregon. (2014). UO Policy Prohibiting Sexual Harassment, Including Sexual Assault, Intimate Partner/Relationship Violence, and Gender-Based Stalking and Bullying. [Online] Available at: http://aaeo.uoregon.edu/policyprohibiting-sexual harassment-including-sexual-assault-intimate-partnerrelationship-violence. Accessed October 29,2014. University of Utah. (2014). Interim University Policy 1-012: Sexual Misconduct: Sexual Assault Dating Violence, Domestic Violence, and Stalking, Prevention and Response. Rev 1. [Online] Available at: http://regulations.utah.edu/general/l012.php. Accessed October 6,2014. U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Know Your Rights: Title IXRequires Your School to Address Sexual Violence. [Online] Available at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/know-rights-201404-title-ix.pdf. Accessed November 15,2014. Vladutiu, C., Martin, S., & Macy, R. (2013). College- or university-based sexual assault prevention programs: A review of program outcomes, characteristics, and recommendations. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 12,67-86. Weizel LM. The process that is due: Preponderance of the evidence as the standard of proof for university adjudications of student-on-student sexual assault complaints. Boston College Law Review. 2012;53:1613-1655. Westmarland, N., & Alderson, S. (2013). The health, mental-health, and well-being benefits of rape crisis counseling. J Interpersonal Violence, 28,3265-82. White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. (2014). Not Alone. Washington, District of Columbia. 40 Zinzow H, Amstadter AB, McCauley JL, Ruggerio KJ, Resnick H., Kilpatrick DG. Selfrated health in relation to rape and mental health disorders in a national sample of women. A J Am Coll Health. 2011 ;59(7): 588-594. 41