Path Analysis of Factors Related to Burnout for Campus-Based Victim Advocates

Background: Campus-based victim advocates are at the center of how colleges and universities respond to sexual misconduct, yet there is a paucity of research about their experiences or perceptions. Little is known about the level of emotional exhaustion and stressors that campus-based victim advocates experience related to their work. Additionally, there is a lack of information regarding the role that organizational factors play in contributing to these unwanted outcomes. This knowledge is important as the well-being of campus-based victim advocates is not only critical to their own health but also to their effectiveness at their job. This study seeks to contribute to this gap in the literature by investigating how organizational factors influence the level of burnout and secondary traumatic stress experienced by campus-based advocates.

Method: Participants were recruited for this cross-sectional study through an anonymous, on-line survey. The official webpages for 1,162 four-year colleges and universities in the U.S were screened to determine if they had a professional campus-based victim advocate for students. Ultimately, a total of 562 campus-based advocates were individually recruited via e-mail to participate in the study, yielding a 37% response rate. Participants worked as campus-based advocates at colleges throughout the U.S. Approximately 29% (n = 61) worked at schools in the South, followed by the West (29%, n = 60), Midwest (20%, n = 42) and Northeast (20%, n = 42) regions of the country. The majority of participants worked at public colleges (70%, n = 146), while fewer worked at private schools (30%, n = 62).

Results: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the fit of a four-factor model: Burnout, Secondary Trauma, Perceptions of Leadership, and Perceptions of Organizational Support (POS). All path loadings between latent variables were statistically significant at the .001 level. Fit of the model was good, RMSEA = .060 with 90% CI [.055, .066] and CFI = .907. Due to the adequate fit of the measurement model, a structural model of the relationship between Burnout, Secondary Trauma, Perceptions of Leadership, and POS was tested. Fit of the model was good, RMSEA = .060 with 90% CI [.055, .066], and CFI = .911. The squared multiple correlation computes that 83.3% of the variance in Burnout is explained by the other factors. Secondary Trauma and POS have direct effects on Burnout and path loadings are statistically significant. Secondary Trauma contributes the highest amount to Burnout (.69), followed by POS (-.40).

Implications: Results of this study indicate that campus-based advocate experience a moderate amount of burnout and secondary traumatic stress related to their work. Perceptions of organizational support directly contributes to burnout, and also influences the relationship between secondary traumatic stress and burnout experienced by staff. Campus administrators can use this data to improve the work experience for advocates in the field. Institutional changes, such as distribution of on-call duties, appropriate pay-scales, and signaling trust in advocates, may impact the level of burnout advocates experience.