Sexual Assault Policies in Post-Secondary Institutions in Canada: A Comprehensive Analysis

1. Sexual Assault Policies in Post-Secondary Institutions in Canada Sharon Crabb, CFUW Fredericton; email sharonacrabb@gmail.com Member of the CFUW Status of Women and Human Rights Sub-Committee of the CFUW Advocacy Committee CFUW Conference and AGM—June 2017

2. CFUW Status of Women and Human Rights Sub-Committee of the CFUW Advocacy Committee Pam Love, CFUW Fredericton, Chair Thelma McGillivray, CFUW Burlington Anne Cordon, CFUW Peterborough Judy Pagano, CFUW Edmonton Sharon Crabb, CFUW Fredericton

3. Across Canada Participation

4. Questionnaire Statistics—National Results + 200 post-secondary (public) institutions in Canada + 155 questionnaires completed = 70.5% +109 indicated “yes” to having a sexual violence/harassment policy = 70.3% +42 indicated “no” to having a sexual violence harassment policy = 27.1% + 4 indicated “unclear” to having a sexual violence/harassment policy = 2.6%

5. Top 5 Questions Responding “Yes” (excluding Question 1 re Policy • Question 3—Does the policy include a comprehensive definition of sexual violence and harassment? (103 “yes” responses = 66.5% • Question 4—Has the policy been implemented within the past 5 years? (88 “yes) responses = 56.8%

6. Top 5 Questions continued: • Question 7—Does the policy implementation involve such groups as Administration on campus, Faculty, Students, Human Resources Professionals, Victims? (97 “yes” responses = 62.3% • Question 8—Does the policy stipulate confidentiality in complaint reporting and follow-up process? (102 “yes” responses = 65.8%

7. Top 5 Questions continued • Question 16—Does the policy state that the complainant has the right to representation, a support person or an advocate in mediations, hearings and/or investigations? (83 “yes” responses = 53.5%

8. Top 5 Questions Responding “No” • Question 6—Does the policy address conflict of interest for those tasked with following up on a report of sexual violence or harassment? (66 “no” responses = 42.6% • Question 17—Does the policy state that the lesser violations of school policy on the part of the complainant will be excused in a case of sexual violence or harassment? (97 “no” responses = 62.6%; 43 “NA” responses = 27.7%

9. Top “no” Questions continued • Question 18—Does the policy explicitly prevent irrelevant inquiries into the complainant’s sexual history? (96 “no” responses = 61.9%; 42 “NA” responses = 27.1%) • Question 20—Does the policy say a complainant has the right to appeal the decision of mediation, hearings and/or investigations? (58 “no” responses = 37.4%; 42 “NA” responses = 27.1%

10. Top “no” questions continued • Question 12—When sexual violence or harassment is reported, is mediation pursued automatically? OR (79 “no” responses = 51.0%, 18 “unclear” responses = 11.6%, 44 “NA” responses = 28.4%). Similar responses to Questions 13 and 14.

11. Areas of Concern/Confusion/ Reflection • Is the implementation of the policy as intended or as outlined in the policy? • Is it sufficiently explicit specific to procedures for the complainant? • There are mixed references to policy being easy to locate and known to students compared to not always “user friendly”. • Is there a concern about “legal due diligence”?

12. Areas of Concern . . . continued • Often mediation and appeals and how the complainant is informed of the results are not included in the policy. • There is minimal reference to involvement of students, faculty, counsellors in the policy. • Who administers the policy? What is the level of expertise of person(s) involved in administering the policy?

13. Areas of Concern . . . continued • What options are available to the complainant? • It is sometimes difficult to find relevant information.

14. Conclusion • Where do we go from here—what is next? • How might you be involved? Thank you to CFUW members across Canada who made this research possible.