"I Fear I'm a Checkbox": Exploring the Unintended Consequences of Campus Sexual Violence Policy Reform

Background & Purpose: Increasing media attention, student activism, and recent policy mandates highlight both the prevalence of sexual violence on college campuses and the failure of campuses to respond adequately. The 2011 US Department of Education clarification of campus responsibilities under Title IX and the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act including the Campus SaVE Act have together heightened the pressure on colleges and universities to solidify and improve their campus’ response to sexual violence. For example, these policies mandate that campuses provide prevention programming for students, train staff, have clear and accessible policies for handling reports of sexual assaults, and to resolve reports in a timely and equitable manner. Despite these policy mandates, campuses report confusion about what is required of them and many are not in compliance.  This paper explores how campuses are managing these policy mandates from the perspective of staff who are charged with implementing the campus response to sexual assault.

Methods: The author will present an interpretive analysis of twenty-two in-depth semi-structured interviews with staff and administrators who are central to their campus’ response to sexual assault and implementation of relevant policies. Participants represent public and private four-year colleges and universities of varying sizes from four states in the Northeastern US. Participants were asked about their campus services and programs relating to sexual assault, efforts to implement policies, and facilitators and barriers of policy implementation. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and were analyzed using an iterative within case and cross case analytic approach using Atlas.ti.

Findings: Analysis revealed that recent policy mandates have been successful at spurring conversation about campus responses to rape and motivating numerous changes to campus policies, procedures, and programming. However, participants also described ways in which the intent of the policies (to promote a victim-centered response on campuses) is lost in implementation as campuses prioritize compliance with the letter of the law to avoid potential punitive consequences of non-compliance. Campus implementation challenges include providing comprehensive prevention programming, training faculty and staff, defining confidential resources, streamlining reporting procedures, and finding ways for campuses to monitor compliance while still honoring victim wishes. Factors that were seen as facilitating policy implementation included strong support from administrators, using a task force to coordinate and oversee implementation, including sexual assault advocates in implementation efforts, valuing student feedback, employing staff dedicated to prevention programming, and having administrators and lawyers who understand that compliance is necessary but not sufficient.

Conclusions: Findings from this study suggest the need for on-going evaluation of the challenges campuses face when implementing policy mandates. In particular, campuses need strategies for finding a balance between achieving full compliance with mandates and improving their victim-centered response. Results also suggest a need for a method of ensuring the full implementation of policy mandates that does not rely solely on punitive responses to complaints of non-compliance, which may inadvertently intensify focus on compliance with the letter of the law at the risk of undermining the spirit of reforms.