Intervention for Sexual Violence on College Campuses

Sarah Meyer, Natalya Johnson Jarvis, Julia Hoelzer

Department of Counseling and Higher Education, Northern Illinois University

HESA 522: College Student Development Theory

Dr. Quortne Hutchings

November 14, 2021

 The Issue

More than 13% of all students will experience campus sexual assault during their time at

an institution of higher education (RAINN, 2021). These experiences have a profound impact on

a student’s persistence, retention, academic success, and their mental health. This is true for

students who experience sexual assault during their time in college as well as those who are

already survivors of sexual and relationship violence before they enter. Certain populations are

more at risk of experiencing violence than others. Education initiatives to help prevent sexual

assault, paired with providing students with adequate support and resources is critical to reducing

the effects of sexual and relationship violence on campuses. Our program aims to connect

students with resources, provide appropriate psychoeducation and skill building, and promote

education and prevention efforts.

Literature review

Research on campus sexual assault and partner violence generally consists of studies on

the prevalence and evaluations of relevant programming in higher education. However, the

former is much better represented. Even still, there are difficulties when studying campus sexual

assault. Most research requires survivors to self-disclose which leads to underreporting. There

are also difficulties defining the term “campus sexual assault” which can blur research focus

(Beaver, 2017). While there are limitations and complexities when researching this field, there is

a more than adequate body of work from which to draw.

A common theme in the current research is that there are many barriers to accessing

support services by survivors of sexual and partner violence, especially within a higher education

context. The most prevalent being lack of proper education on an individual and an institutional

level. This includes comprehensive sex education to recognize violence (King et al., 2019)
(Graham et al., 2020), lack of institutional awareness or support (Richards, 2016) (Harris et al.,

2019), and failure to understand proper trauma responses and PTSD (Dunmore et al, 1999) (Senn

et al., 2018). This issue is compounded by a disinterest in education on the topic (Waterman et

al., 2020). In addition to poor education, students may face systematic barriers to services. They

may be worried about negative consequences due to alcohol or drug use (Richards, 2016) or they

may be less able to access services based on demographic (Waterman et al., 2020).

It is generally accepted that sexual and partner violence have a negative impact on

academic performance, retention, and persistence (Kaufman et al., 2018) (Oswalt et al., 2017).

This is true whether students experienced violence before or during their time in college (Jordan

et al., 2014). However, the exact impact depends on a variety of factors. The severity of violence

experienced plays a role in academic outcome; indeed, according to Jordan et al., “When the

form of prior victimization was rape, the association between victimization and lower GPAs was

even more significant” (2014). Survivors often face a “significant drop in grade point average”

and are “more likely to leave the university” (Mengo & Black, 2015). These effects vary in

severity due to social, racial, and economic status; but regardless of these factors (Molstad et al.,

2021), nearly all survivors who report intimate partner violence are “more likely to have lower

GPA and increased academic difficulties” (Brewer et al., 2018). Student’s perception of their

experiences also plays a role in their likelihood to succeed after experiencing sexual and partner

violence (Brewer & Thomas, 2019).

Evaluation of campus resources focused on serving survivors of sexual and partner

violence is recent and results are limited. However, landmark works like those from Bonar et al.

(2018) and Senn et al. (2018) can help inform some best practices for such prevention and

intervention programs. One suggestion is to eliminate barriers to accessing campus resources by

continual education of what is available to students (Bonar et al., 2018). Increasing awareness of

campus resources is best done on a continual, and individually-focus basis (2018) (Waterman et

al., 2020). In addition to education about campus resources, prevention education is also crucial.

By appealing to individual students “values-based decision making,” institutions can effectively

lessen campus sexual assault (Bonar et al., 2018). This is especially important when educating

certain “high risk” populations (Malamuth et al., 2018) (Bonar et al., 2018). Intervention and

response programs are most effective when they employ appropriate psychoeducation (Senn et

al., 2018). More research is necessary to fully understand the impact of education and

intervention programs to inform future developments (Holland & Barnes, 2019).

Overall, research on the effects of campus sexual assault and outreach and prevention

programs in higher education is a growing field that has, within the past decade, become more

relevant and important due to increased visibility and interest in the victimization of women, e.g.,

the “Dear Colleague” letter (Oswalt et al., 2017). While it is good that more research is being

done on the topic, blind spots do exist (Harris et al., 2019). Current studies generally focus on

prevalence and do not adequately address outcomes or program evaluation. Most research is

focused on heterosexual women while content addressing men or other gender and sexual

identities is severely lacking (Harris et al., 2019) (Budd et al, 2017) (Forsman, 2017). As more

programs are developed and implemented over time, more data will be available (Holland &

Barnes, 2019). If future research considers biases in the field, a better understanding of the topic

will be possible.
 Context

Institutional Context

To address the issue of sexual violence on campuses, our programmatic intervention will

take place within the context of a mid-sized, public, four-year institution. As sexual violence is a

pervasive issue on campuses (RAINN, 2021), a mid-sized institution has a wide reach while still

maintaining the capacity to offer personalized care and support to students. Further, our

programming will be delivered through a campus Wellness Center. By offering sexual violence

prevention, education, and resources through a Wellness Center it helps to reduce stigma

surrounding sexual violence. Research shows that survivors of sexual violence often underreport

due to fears of negative repercussion, stigma, and loss of confidentiality (Magnussen & Shankar,

2019). By offering support services through a campus Wellness Center rather than a separate

office for sexual violence prevention, it could ease any fears a survivor may be experiencing,

further increasing the likelihood that the survivor will report and receive the support that they

need.

Additionally, by offering sexual violence prevention, education, and resources through a

student Wellness Center, our programmatic intervention supports survivors of sexual violence in

a holistic manner. Many campus Wellness Centers address all facets of health, including

physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual health. By delivering our programmatic intervention

through a student Wellness Center, survivors of sexual violence will gain access to mental health

counselors, physicians, sexual violence prevention advocates, and public safety officers through

the same office space. As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes, comprehensive

approaches to campus sexual violence prevention and response are most effective (2016), our
programmatic intervention uses research backed best-practices to provide students with the

support they need.

Targeted Audience

The targeted audience for our programmatic intervention is all students and community

members of the university. Although this audience is broad, sexual violence can affect anyone

regardless of gender identity, sexual orientation, race, or other social identities. Therefore, our

intervention seeks to provide sexual violence prevention, education, and support resources for

all. While our intervention aims to target all members of the university community, we recognize

that sexual violence affects members of various social identities differently, particularly women,

people of color, and members of the LGBTQI+ community (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016).

Therefore, our programmatic intervention recognizes the need for specialized, trauma-informed

support services for members of the university community belonging to these social identities.

The majority of the population affected by sexual violence on campus are female-

identifying students. A 2016 study found that 26.4% of female undergraduate students

experienced sexual violence in the 2014-2015 school year (Bureau of Justice Statistics). Sexual

violence was defined as “rape or sexual assault through physical force, violence, or

incapacitation” (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016, Campus Climate Survey Validation Study

Final Technical Report). It is important to note that the percentage of undergraduate students

who have experienced sexual violence is likely much higher, as sexual violence is largely

underreported among women. To date, it was found that only 20% of female student survivors

reported their assault to law enforcement (RAINN, 2021). As the number of female-identifying

students that experience sexual violence is high, our programmatic intervention seeks to provide

these students with the resources and support that adequately meets their specific needs.
 Additionally, sexual violence is highly pervasive in communities of color. While there is

little up-to-date research on racial identity and sexual violence, the Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention noted that 58% of multiracial women, 49% of Native women and 41% of Black

women have experienced sexual violence in comparison to the 47% of White women (2010). It

was also found that 36% of Latina women and 39% of Asian women have experienced sexual

violence (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010). Each community of color faces

unique challenges and circumstances that may prevent them from receiving the resources and

support needed, such as cultural or religious beliefs, language barriers, and distrust of law

enforcement and social services. To cope with such barriers, our programmatic intervention

seeks to provide culturally appropriate resources and services to communities of color, such as

connecting survivors with advocates who are aware of the unique stressors that these

marginalized communities face.

Finally, members of the LGTBQI+ community are more likely to be affected by sexual

violence on campus. The Bureau of Justice Statistics noted that the victimization of sexual

violence was more prevalent among non-heterosexual students than heterosexual students

(2016). While there is a lack of exact statistics to pinpoint the number of LGBTQI+ identifying

students who experience sexual violence on campus, the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention found that 44% of lesbians and 61% of bisexual women have experienced sexual

violence compared to 35% of straight women (2010). It was also found that 40% of gay men and

47% of bisexual men have experienced sexual violence in comparison to 21% of straight men

(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010). As the number of LGBTQI+ identifying

students that experience sexual violence is significantly higher than other subgroups, our
programmatic intervention provides LGBTQI+ identifying students access to culturally

competent services that inclusively and effectively meet their unique needs.

Sexual violence is clearly prevalent in the current state of higher education. Female-

identifying students, people of color, and members of the LGBTQI+ community are the most

affected by sexual violence on college campuses. Our programmatic intervention will seek to

provide better accessibility to resources and support for these students.

Theoretical Framework

In forming the programmatic intervention for this issue, it is important to understand the

theory that reinforces it. For this paper, Third Wave Student Development Theory is the guiding

factor. This theory is commonly referred to as a critical theory. This is because the third wave

takes into account the critical analysis of student self, environment, and life. Rather than simply

looking at an individual’s experiences, this theory guides analyzing and understanding the

critical themes behind it. These themes are intersectionality, critiquing inequality, societal

transformation, and societal change. It is then possible to utilize these four recommendations of

theory into practice (Abes et al., 2019)

Third Wave Theory

The Third Wave Student Development Theory is much more complex than its

predecessors as it is more of a combination of the parts and moving towards taking action as a

result. It concentrates on the first wave contribution as described by Abes et al. (2019) of the

assumption that “college students should grow and develop as a result of their experiences in the

college environment” (p. 9). From there, this connects into the second wave contribution that it is

important to account for social identities in how students grow. As assumed in its name, this all

forms the large wave we see coming to shore, the third wave. This takes to critically analyzing
the layers of student life. The third wave seeks to theorize the intersectionality of power between

student identity and the experiences they have while in a college environment. According to

Abes et al. (2019), it will “never be enough to simply describe student experience…it requires

critical analysis of the intersecting domains of power and structures of inequality that frame

development” (pp. 12-13). It is important to examine the societal context in which inequality

plays a role in development. Oftentimes, this takes place without knowingly being present

because these issues related to inequality are deeply rooted within higher education history,

administration, building names, groups on campus, and much more that silently shape student

growth. It is essential to focus on the layered nature of student development to transform the

system leading to societal change. The Third Wave Theory of Student Development asks

professionals to call into question the intersectionality of student experience with inequality and

the need for transformation and change within larger society.

Justification for Practice

The Third Wave Theory of Student Development is the relationship partner through

which this programmatic intervention can form. A student who has experienced an act of sexual

violence is more than what they have gone through. It is simply not enough to look only at the

experience and is essential to make change for those suffering from inequality at the hands of

society. That is what the third wave theory drives professionals to analyze and allows for the

formation of a practice that seeks to transform the way higher education provides support for

these individuals. This is especially true for communities of color.. In a fact sheet provided by

the Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence (2013), it states that:

Those injustices (sexual violence) were most likely due to adherence to racial and

gender-based stereotypes and rape myths which negatively impact women of color. The
 perceived promiscuity of Black and Hispanic women, and the perceived submissiveness

of Native American and Asian-American women are among many stereotypes that

devalue women of color and condone sexual violence committed against them. Women

of color are often blamed for the sexual violence they suffer, and institutionalized racism

and sexism among systems that respond to sexual violence discourage survivors of color

from reporting their assaults and receiving the supportive services they deserve. (para. 2)

The third wave theory does not stop at this but looks at the complexities of this suffrage of

inequality. The question to ask through this theory is why this is happening within society and

how can we make changes within the campus structure to provide an environment dedicated to

student outreach and development. As higher education professionals, analyzing this broad

intersectionality of power inequality and sexual violence in society with the support of the third

wave theory is the necessary drive for the programmatic intervention on a college campus in

hopes of creating societal transformation.

Programmatic Intervention

Intervention Outcomes

Students must feel that their institution supports them to be as successful as possible

when dealing with sexual and relationship violence (Brewer & Thomas, 2019). That is why

having a designated resource center for survivors is crucial to facilitating student success.

Through this program, retention and persistence will increase for the relevant population. By

providing a welcoming environment, students will also have increased access to existing support

services by reducing stigma associated with coming forward. This will especially help minority

students that are less likely to have access to resources outside of the university (Brewer et al,

2018). Through our intervention efforts, we will increase retention and persistence rates for
survivors, reduce barriers to accessing existing support services, and increase students’ sense of

belonging. Through our prevention efforts, we will reduce stigma associated with the topic of

sexual and relationship violence and help reduce harm by educating faculty, staff, and the student

body about healthy relationships and consent.

Programmatic Strategies

Our resource office will be based within a campus wellness center to provide a familiar

location to students. This will also help us access students who may benefit from our office but

that may not be actively seeking out resources regarding sexual and relationship violence. We

will partner with existing campus resources in order to connect students to further help. These

may include counselling and mental health offices, legal assistance, academic tutoring, and

others. In addition to connecting students to other offices, we will provide advocates that are

trauma-informed and can help students understand the paths available to them and help them

navigate the direction they choose. These advocates will be able to provide general guidance on

how different reporting options work such as Title IX reports, law enforcement reports, receiving

medical care or testing, or not reporting at all. Advocates will be trained to provide appropriate

psychoeducation within their scope of care. They will not function as therapists, but they will

help students with goal setting, follow-through, basic coping skills, and appropriate crisis

management.

In addition to providing advocacy services, our office would engage in campus-wide

educational programming to help prevent campus sexual assault, educate students on healthy

relationship skills, and promote our office. We would continue to partner with other departments

on campus to strengthen cooperation and provide students with a sense of belonging. Some

departments that we will partner with include fraternity and sorority life, on-campus housing,
mental health resources, and student government organizations. We will also host our own

events as we see fit including participating in national movements such as “Take Back the

Night” and domestic violence awareness month. Finally, we will provide training to faculty and

staff on how to respond when a student is in crisis and trauma-informed helping skills to build a

more supportive environment for students.

Rationale

The third wave theory used as the foundation for our program provides the rationale in

the development of this intervention. We will consider the holistic view of student life on the

college campus. For example, one goal of our programmatic intervention is to provide support

that decreases the stigma associated with coming out against sexual violence. As such, we will

offer an anonymous hotline and text messaging service for resources and a means to allow for

disclosure without fear of judgement. This initiative is different from our previously mentioned

interventions as it considers societal norms as a reason for continued sexual violence in higher

education. Considering the third wave theory, it is essential to analyze the intersectionality of

power struggles in society for understanding the student experience. The point is to examine the

student experience via the third wave theory guidelines to develop the necessary materials that

can help anyone who has experienced sexual violence. Therefore, we have developed a multitude

of resources in this programmatic intervention in order to address the situation of sexual violence

on college campuses.

Evaluation

Our programmatic intervention will utilize several evaluation methods to ensure our

programs and resources effectively serve students. One method is tracking student involvement

at our outreach and education events. By collecting this data, our office can see whether
attendance and participation is increasing or decreasing, which can help measure the reach of our

programs. Additionally, our intervention plans to gather student feedback through open forums

and surveys periodically and after events. By gathering student feedback, our office can ensure

that our programs and resources are meeting student needs and are spreading information that

students feel needs to be shared. Finally, our intervention plans to work closely with survivors of

sexual violence to monitor their progress over the span of their enrollment at the university and

beyond graduation. By monitoring students' progress, we can determine how effective our

program is at providing support and can find patterns and areas in which our program can

improve.

Conclusion

Sexual violence is a pervasive issue on college campuses that affects students from all

social identities and backgrounds, especially women, students of color, and those who identify as

LGBTQ+. As survivors of sexual violence experience elevated levels of trauma, these students

are particularly vulnerable to lower levels of persistence and retention in reaching their academic

and career goals. For these reasons, our team proposes a programmatic intervention to spread

sexual violence prevention, education, and outreach information and resources to all college

students and community members, with a focus on the student groups that are most vulnerable to

sexual violence. By utilizing third wave theories, our programmatic intervention will effectively

meet the needs of students experiencing sexual violence, leading to higher levels of student

success and outcomes.

 References

Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & Stewart, D.-L. (Eds.). (2019). Rethinking college student

development theory using critical frameworks. Stylus.

Beaver, W. R. (2017). Campus sexual assault: What we know and what we don’t. The

Independent Review, 22(2), 257–268. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26314820

Bonar, E. E., Rider-Milkovich, H. M., Huhman, A. K., McAndrew, L., Goldstick, J. E.,

Cunningham, R. M., & Walton, M. A. (2017). Description and initial evaluation of a

values-based campus sexual assault prevention programme for first-year college students.

Sexuality, Society and Learning, 19(1), 99-113. doi:10.1080/14681811.2018.1482828

Budd, K. M., Rocque, M., & Bierie, D. M. (2019). Deconstructing incidents of campus sexual

assault: Comparing male and female victimizations. Sexual Abuse, 31(3), 296-317.

doi:10.1177/1079063217706708

Brewer, N., Thomas, K. A., & Higdon, J. (2018). Intimate partner violence, health, sexuality, and

academic performance among a national sample of undergraduates. Journal of American

College Health, 66(7), 683-692. doi:10.1080/07448481.2018.1454929

Brewer, N. Q., & Thomas, K. A. (2019). Intimate partner violence and academic performance:

The role of physical, mental, behavioral, and financial health. Social Work in Health

Care, 58(9), 854-869. doi:10.1080/00981389.2019.1659905

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). An overview of 2010 findings on

survivorization by sexual orientation. Violence Prevention.

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cdc_nisvs_victimization_final-a.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Sexual violence on Campus: Strategies for

Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/campussvprevention.pdf
Dunmore, E., Clark, D. M., & Ehlers, A. (1999). Cognitive factors involved in the onset and

maintenance of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after physical or sexual assault.

Behavior Research and Therapy, 37(9), 809-829. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00181-8

Forsman, R. L. (2017). Prevalence of sexual assault victimization among college men, aged 18–

24: A review. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 14(6), 421-432.

doi:10.1080/23761407.2017.1369204

Graham, K., Treharne, G. J., Liebergreen, N., Stojanov, Z., Shaw, R., & Beres, M. A. (2020). A

qualitative exploration of barriers to university students’ willingness to attend sexual

violence prevention workshops. Sexuality, Society, and Learning, 21(2), 148-160.

doi:10.1080/14681811.2020.1772225

Harris, J. C., Cobain, K. P., & Karunaratne, N. (2019). Reimagining the study of campus sexual

assault. In Perna, L. (Eds.) Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, vol 35.

Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-11743-6_12-1

Holland, K. J, & Barnes, M. L. (2019). Institutional responses to sexual trauma. Journal of

Trauma & Dissociation, 20(3), 259-262. doi:10.1080/15299732.2019.1592642

Jordan, C. E., Combs, J. L., & Smith, G. T. (2014). An exploration of sexual victimization and

academic performance among college women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(3), 191-

200. doi:10.1177/1524838014520637

Kaufman, M. R., Tsang, S. W., Sabri, B., Budhathoki, C., & Campbell, J. (2018). Health and

academic consequences of sexual victimisation experiences among students in a

university setting. Psychology & Sexuality, 10(1), 56-68.

doi:10.1080/19419899.2018.1552184
King, B. M., Scott, A. E., Van Doorn, E. M, Abele, E. E., & McDevitt, M. E. (2019). Reasons

students at a US University do or do not enroll in a human sexuality course. Sexuality,

Society, and Learning, 20(1), 101-109. doi:10.1080/14681811.2019.1606793

Krebs, C., Lindquist C., Berzofsky M., Shook-Sa B. & Peterson K. (2016). Campus climate

survey validation study final technical report. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccsvsftr.pdf

Magnussen, J., & Shankar, I. (2019). Where is it? Examining post-secondary students’

accessibility to policies and resources on sexual violence. Canadian Journal of Higher

Education, 49(2), 90–108. http://journals.sfu.ca/cjhe/index.php/cjhe/index

Malamuth, N. M., Huppin, M., & Linz, D. (2018). Sexual assault interventions may be doing

more harm than good with high-risk males. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 41, 20-24.

doi:10.1016/j.avb.2018.05.010

Mengo, C., & Black, B. M. (2015). Violence victimization on a college campus: Impact on GPA

and school dropout. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice,

18(2), 234-248. doi:10.1177/1521025115584750

Molstad, T. D., Weinhardt, J. M., & Jones, R. (2021). Sexual assault as a contributor to academic

outcomes in university: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence & Abuse.

doi:10.1177/15248380211030247Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence. (2013). Fact

sheet. Sexual Violence and Women of Color.

https://oaesv.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/oaesv-sexual-violence-women-of-color.pdf

Oswalt, S. B., Wyatt, T. J., & Ochoa, Y. (2017). Sexual assault is just the tip of the iceberg:

Relationship and sexual violence prevalence in college students. Journal of College

Student Psychotherapy, 32(2), 93-109. doi:10.1080/87568225.2017.1350122

Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network. (2021). Campus sexual violence: Statistics.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/campus-sexual-violence

Richards, T. N. (2016). An updated review of institutions of higher education’s responses to

sexual assault: Results from a nationally representative sample. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 34(10), 1983-2012. doi:10.1177/0886260516658757

Senn, C. Y., Hollander, J. A., & Gidycz, C. A. (2018). What works? Critical components of

effective sexual violence interventions for women on college and university campuses. In

Orchowski, L. M., & Gidycz, C. A. (Eds.), Sexual assault risk reduction and resistance

(pp. 245-289). Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-805389-8.00010-4

Waterman, E. A., Edwards, K. M., Rodriguez, L. M., Ullman, S. E., & Dardis, C. M. (2020).

Predictors of uptake and retention in an intervention to improve social reactions to

disclosures of sexual assault and partner abuse. Journal of American College Health.

doi:10.1080/07448481.2020.1739054