Abstract: Campus Sexual Assault Policies: An Analysis of the Presence of Federally Recommended Content for a Sample of Universities (Society for Social Work and Research 23rd Annual Conference - Ending Gender Based, Family and Community Violence)

Schedule:

Sunday, January 20, 2019: 12:30 PM

Union Square 19 Tower 3, 4th Floor (Hilton San Francisco)

* noted as presenting author

Laurie M. Graham, MSW, Royster Fellow, Doctoral Student, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC

Stephanie DeLong, MPH, Doctoral Student, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC

Erin Magee, MSW, MPH, Project Coordinator, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC

Sarah Treves-Kagan, MPH, Royster Fellow, Doctoral Candidate, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC

Christine Gray, MPH, Doctoral Student, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC

Alison McClay, BA, Student, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC

Samantha Zarnick, Student, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC

Lawrence Kupper, PhD, Professor, Associate Chair, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC

Rebecca Macy, PhD, L. Richardson Preyer Distinguished Chair for Strengthening Families Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC

Olivia Ashley, DrPH, Senior Public Health Scientist, RTI International, NC

Audrey Pettifor, PhD, Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC

Kathryn E. Moracco, PhD, Research Associate Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC

Sandra Martin, PhD, Associate Dean for Research, Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC

Background: Sexual assault (SA) is a pervasive social issue. Undergraduate students attending U.S. colleges and universities, particularly those from marginalized groups, are at high risk of experiencing SA. Campus SA policies represent one part of a comprehensive plan to address, and potentially prevent, campus SA. Recent research suggests that while most schools have policies, there is significant variation in policy comprehensiveness. Federal guidance suggests that robust, clearly defined policies regarding prevention, response, and adjudication are critical to addressing campus SA. We sought to characterize how campus SA policy content varies and compares to federal recommendations.

Methods: We conducted a content analysis of campus SA policies of 24 schools that participated in the 2015 Association of American Universities (AAU) Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct as part of a larger study that examines the relationship between policy content and campus SA prevalence (results presented elsewhere). These 24 schools were chosen due to availability of both their SA policy content and SA prevalence data from the AAU survey. Campus SA policy content was gathered from 2014-2015 Student Handbooks, Safety and Security Reports, and formal SA policy statements. Policies were coded to assess their concordance with the 2014 Checklist for Campus Sexual Misconduct Policies, offered by the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. Each policy could have included up to 10 broad categories of information (i.e., elements) and up to 93 specific pieces of information (i.e., topics) within these elements. We calculated descriptive statistics for the presence of each recommended element/topic across school policies.

Results: The number of policy elements and topics in campus SA policies varied widely. Out of a possible 93 topics, policies included between 20 and 88 topics (Mdn = 56.5). Across policies, the most complete elements were policy introduction, assistance options, and policy scope. Among the most frequently included topics were a statement describing SA as misconduct, a description of conduct covered by the policy, identification of SA reporting options, a description of people covered by the policy, a statement concerning the availability of counseling services regardless of reporting, a description of the Title IX Coordinator’s role, and a statement that consent cannot be obtained from an individual who is incapacitated. Many of the topics that infrequently appeared in policies described adjudication processes (e.g., only 16.7% of policies prohibited prior sexual conduct as an acceptable form of evidence). Less than half of schools included statements expressly stating that policies applied regardless of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

Implications: Campus SA policy content and comprehensiveness, as compared to 2014 federally recommended guidelines, varied widely in this sample of U.S. colleges and universities. Better characterizing the state of campus SA policies allows us to target support mechanisms to help universities and schools develop robust policies to prevent, respond to, and adjudicate campus SA. Next steps include conducting additional research to examine how campus SA policies advance SA prevention, particularly for marginalized and undersupported students who are at heightened risk of experiencing SA.