Centering the Voices of Students Attending an Historically Black College and University to Develop and Design Culturally Tailored Intimate Partner Violence Prevention Programming

Background and Purpose: Intimate partner violence (IPV) affects college students across all racial/ethnic demographics. However, Black college students face increased risks of adverse outcomes associated with experiencing intimate partner violence, highlighting the critical need for the inclusion of the voices and perspectives of Black college students in the design and development of college-based IPV prevention programming. The perspectives of Black students are essential for creating culturally relevant campus-based IPV prevention programming. Yet, the voices of Black college students, particularly those enrolled at Historically Black Colleges or Universities (HBCUs), have been historically underrepresented in the design and development, of IPV prevention programming. Thus, the purpose of this exploratory qualitative study was to center the voices of Black college students enrolled at an HBCU to address the following research questions: What risk and protective factors for IPV should be addressed in IPV prevention programming on their campus? How should IPV programming be structured on their campus? And what essential content should be included in this programming?

Methods: Using a triangulated methods approach, data were collected via seven focus groups with undergraduate students and individual semi-structured interviews with 17 providers of IPV services. The focus groups ranged in size from three to ten members with 44 students participating across the seven groups. Two faculty members facilitated the focus groups, which lasted between 60 and 90 minutes and one faculty member conducted the semi-structured interviews, which lasted between 90 and 150 minutes. The focus groups and semi-structured interviews followed semi-structured interview guides and the data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis approach.

Findings: The transition to college was identified as a critical period that heightens the risk for IPV, particularly among new students experiencing isolation and loneliness. Additionally, unaddressed cumulative trauma and limited exposure to healthy relationships during childhood were cited as contributors to IPV vulnerability among students. When discussing how to structure effective college IPV prevention efforts, participants emphasized the need for creative, engaging, and interactive programming and the importance of cultivating a safe environment conducive to open dialogue about IPV. Moreover, an overarching theme was the need for inclusivity, advocating for diverse student representation to ensure equitable access. Targeted prevention efforts for high-vulnerability groups such as athletes, sorority/fraternity members, and new students were recommended. Participants suggested that sessions be facilitated by peers and IPV survivors who can share lived experiences and incentivizing participation was proposed. In terms of the content to be included, participants recommended including the identification of red and green flags in relationships, healthy communication skills, self-care strategies, and mental health awareness.

Conclusions: Centering the perspectives of Black college students, particularly those enrolled at HBCUs is paramount, considering the disproportionate impact of IPV on this population. By amplifying their voices, this study identified modifiable risk and protective factors that can inform targeted interventions to prevent IPV within this student community. Interventions that target the vulnerabilities related to the transition to college, address cumulative trauma, and model healthy relationships may help mitigate IPV risks among this population.