Developing and Implementing Survivor-Centered Sexual Violence Prevention and Intervention Policies and Practices on College Campuses: Perspectives from Campus Advocacy, Title IX, and Athletic Personnel

Background and Purpose: Sexual violence (SV), or any sexual activity (e.g., rape, sexual assault, unwanted touching, sexual harassment, stalking) without consent, is prevalent on U.S. college campuses. Approximately 1 in 5 women report SV victimization during their undergraduate college years. SV is associated with a range of negative short- and long-term consequences, including poorer physical health, mental health, and educational outcomes. While institutions of higher education are governed by Title IX rules and regulations, there is variation in how SV prevention and intervention policies and practices are implemented and whether these approaches best serve SV survivors. This qualitative study sought to examine how four different universities have developed and implemented survivor-centered prevention and intervention practices.

Methods: We partnered with four public Division I universities located in mid- to large-sized cities in different parts of the U.S. In total, we conducted 22 semi-structured interviews with representatives from campus safety or advocacy representatives, the Title IX compliance office (e.g., Title IX coordinator or investigator), and the athletic department (e.g., athletic director, sports medicine). Individual, in-depth interviews were conducted over Zoom. Interviews were transcribed via Zoom autocoding and uploaded into Dedoose, a qualitative data analysis software. Informed by phenomenology, we employed a codebook thematic analysis to identify key themes related to developing and implementing survivor-centered SV prevention and intervention policies and practices. Trustworthiness was maintained through confirmability, audit trails, and credibility.

Results: Our analysis generated three key themes: (1) “Education and Accessibility”, (2) “Interpersonal Relationships and Individual Well-being”, and (3) “Societal Norms.” The first theme reflected the importance of relevant, consistent, and accessible SV prevention and intervention information for both SV survivors and the campus personnel who may be offering resources and support. The second theme distilled participants’ observations of the importance of survivor agency and autonomy following SV--especially in the reporting decision and process--and the value of trustworthy personnel and institutions for survivor well-being. The third theme contextualized the ways in which rape myths, gender norms, pernicious beliefs about false SV reporting, and other sociocultural factors complicate implementing survivor-centered SV prevention and intervention practices.

Conclusion and Implications: The findings of this study underscore the need for continued efforts to develop and implement SV policies and practices that center the well-being of survivors. Across institutions and positions, participants all emphasized the value of such policies and practices but noted the ways in which institutional and societal conditions undermined consistent and widespread implementation of these efforts. Future work, particularly that which incorporates survivor voices, is needed to identify best practices to implement and sustain survivor-centered SV prevention and intervention efforts across college campuses.