Shifting the Paradigm: Primary Prevention On Campuses

1. Shifting the Paradigm:Primary Prevention On Campuses Professor Bonnie S. Fisher Bonnie.Fisher@uc.edu School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati ML 210389, 600 Dyer Hall, 452021-0389 17 August 2011 5th Annual Campus Safety Summit Dennison University

2. Acknowledgements • Multi-disciplinary Research Team • University of Kentucky • Ann Coker, PhD • Corrine M. Williams, ScD • Emily R. Clear, MPH, CHES • Patricia Cook-Craig, PhD • University of South Carolina • Suzanne Swan, PhD and her UG & graduate students • American University • Jane Palmer, ABD • University of Cincinnati • Billy Henson, former graduate student, PhD • Heidi Scherer, former graduate student, PhD

3. Objectives of Presentation • Provide information • Background facts about sexual violence against college women • Information about what is known about current prevention strategies on campuses • Overview of primary prevention, specifically focus on engaging in bystander intervention and Green Dot • Evaluation results from Green Dot at one campus • Results • Lessons learned • References/resources • Generate ideas from YOU! • Conversation about your prevention and assessment efforts on your campus • Lessons learned and future directions

4. Background to Violence Against College Women • Up to 25% of women may experience attempted or completed raped during college (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000) • 5.2% of college women raped in the last year (5.5 times higher than women in general population) (Kilpatrick, et al., 2007) • 1.8% forcibly raped (3.4 times higher) • 3.6% experienced drug-facilitated rape/incapacitated rape (8.5 times higher)

5. Background toViolence Against College Women • Repeat Sexual Victimization • Of 16% of women experienced at least one form of sexual victimization, 47% were repeat victims during an academic year • Repeat Rape • Of the 3% of college women who experienced rape, 23% were repeat victims (experienced two or more rapes) during an academic term (Fisher, Daigle, and Cullen, 2010)

6. Background • Dating and sexual violence (DV/SV) rates are highest among those in their late teens to mid-twenties; thus college students are at the age of greatest risk • Campus Sexual Assault Study (Krebs, et al., 2009), since entering college • 17% threatened/humiliated by a dating partner • 6% physically hurt by a dating partner • 13% stalked, many by current/former boyfrd, in an academic year (Fisher, et al. 2000)

7. Federal Legislation • Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security and Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act) • Disclose publicly annual crime statistics, inc sexual offenses • State sexual assault policy • Describe the educational programs provided by the school to promote awareness of sexual assault • Congressional OVW funds to encourage developing programs that address dating violence, sexual assault and stalking on college campuses • Proposed legislation: Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act

8. ReAction on College Campuses • Implementation of awareness and risk reduction programs • Rape knowledge and changing rape supportive attitudes/rape myths • Awareness strategies have sought to increase students’ knowledge about the dangers of sexual violence and what intervention programs are available • Risk reduction strategies seek to teach women strategies for reducing the likelihood that they would be victimized

9. Effectiveness of College Programs • None have worked well to reduce rape; overall effectiveness questionable at best (Lonsway, et al., 2009) • Rape knowledge, changing supportive attitudes and rape myths, and awareness strategies • Increases in knowledge/changes in attitudes but effects are and short term—diminish over time • Effects on actual behavior negligible, if at all • Risk reduction strategies • Self-defense deters the completion of an attempted rape (Ullman, 2007; Fisher, et al., 2007) • Forceful physical resistance (e.g., biting, scratching, hitting) • Forceful verbal resistance (e.g., screaming, yelling, swearing) • Repeat victimization • Self-protection reduces risk of repeat incident (Fisher, et al., 2010)

10. Primary Prevention of Sexual Violence • What is primary prevention? • Public health perspective (primary, secondary, tertiary) • Occurs before the onset of the problem, with the goal to reduce the actual incidence of the problem and to promote general well being to targeted audience (McMahon, et al., 2011) • Campus application of primary prevention • Involves developing comprehensive strategies that stop sexual violence before initial perpetration or victimization, especially those that make community level changes (Lee, et al. 2011)

11. Example of Campus Primary Prevention • Active/Engaging Bystander Intervention Programs • Teach and encourage bystanders who are aware of or observe situations and interactions that could lead to sexual harassment, intimidation, coercion, or assault, IPV/dating violence, or stalking • Goals • Increase awareness and understanding of the problem of sexual violence • Increase feelings of responsibility to solve the problem • Increase commitment to act • To empower people to act both individually and collective by fostering a sense of caring and community, campus cultures can be transformed and become safer

12. Key Components of Empowering Bystanders • Develop a sense of competence and identify situations for intervening • Teach/build a repertoire of specific intervention skills for bystanders to use (Moynihan and Banyard, 2008) • Interrupt abusive or potentially risky situations/possible sexual victimization • Foster bystander’s sense of responsibility for intervening • Provide role models of helping behavior • Create new situational norms of intervention • Support bystander intervention on campus • Social marketing promotions (Banyard, et al., 2007; Edwards, 2009)

13. Evaluations of Bystander Interventions • Men's Project (Barone, et al., 2007) • Recruited male college students on athletic teams, in fraternities and male residence halls • Found that having a support group was essential to their ability to challenge their sexist environment and effectively use bystander behaviors • Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante (2007) • First empirical evidence that a bystander intervention for sexual violence prevention resulted in significant and sustained changes in knowledge, attitudes, and bystander behaviors in both college men and women

14. Violence Prevention Intervention: Green Dot • Developed by Dr. Dorothy Edwards, former Director of the Violence Intervention and Prevention (VIP) Center at University of Kentucky • Purpose • To increase proactive bystanding behaviors and reduce dating and sexual violence on college campuses • Logic • Understanding how perpetrators target victims allows the bystander to assess the situation, view their options for action and select a safe proactive bystanding behavior that they are willing to carry out

15. Green Dot: Two Phases • Phase One • Persuasive Speech • Phase Two • Students Educating and Empowering to Develop Safety (SEEDS) • Peer Opinion Leaders (POL)

16. Implementation of Green Dot: Phase One • Phase One: 50-minute Persuasive Speech • 1st yr students: UK 101, I cr hr intro to college transition • Introduce concept of active bystanding and build audience’s commitment to prevention • Purposes of speech • To help students find their connection to dating and sexual violence (D/SV) • Build awareness of the problem D/SV • present a bystander intervention as a manageable and simple activity • persuade/motivate students to get involved in prevention/link them to UK VIP Center

17. Phase Two: Recruitment into SEEDS • Students invited at end of persuasive speech to attend Students Educating and Empowering to Develop Safety (SEEDS) • Peer Opinion Leaders (POL) strategy to recruit for SEEDS

18. Peer Opinion Leaders (POL) Recruitment • Faculty, staff, students, Resident Assistants • Identified and nominated POLS whom they thought were respected and influential • Students nominated more than once were ided as POLS • POLS sent a letter stating that they were nominated to come to a training reception to help influence the legacy they leave behind at UK

19. Students Educating and Empowering to Develop Safety (SEEDS) • Focus • Preventing perpetration behavior by providing students with skills to be a proactive bystander to violence • Students attend small group, intensive sessions • Voluntary and open to all students • SEEDS training • Trained in recognizing and implementing proactive bystanding behaviors • What is known about bystanders • Barriers to intervening • Perpetrators and patterns of perpetration

20. Green Dot Program • Similarities w existing bystander prevention programs • Overview of VAW/detailed perp info to guide and inform bystander responses • Discussion of bystander role • Skill-building opportunities • Distinction between Green Dot and other programs • Emphasis targeted recruitment strategies based on POLS • POLs potentially optimize the effectiveness and efficacy of the bystander approach as those most socially influential are most likely to influence others to engage in proactive bystanding

21. Evaluation of Green Dot at University of Kentucky • Objective • To evaluate the efficacy of Green Dot in a sample of college students • Examined effects of Green Dot on • Actual and observed bystanding behaviors by intervention • Social norms associated with dating and sexual violence (Coker, et al., 2011)

22. Study Design • Field period: Spring 2010 • Random sample of 2,000 students from each class (Freshman-Seniors); ½ sample per class was male • Recruitment letter to participate in study • $2 cash sent via the mail to participate in a web-based survey • Email with Zoomerang survey link was sent two days later • Reminders via email were sent approximately every three days for two weeks

23. Response Rate • Of the 7,945 students invited to participate in the web-based survey • 3,872 clicked on the link to the web-site • 3,417 completed the survey • The overall response rate was 43% • 88% of those who clicked on the link completed the survey • Analytic Sample Size = 2,484 (excluded incomplete surveys and students >26)

24. Sample Demographics *** p <0.0001; ** p = 0.001

25. Intervention Exposure Measure • Hierarchical Green Dot Exposure Matrix: THREE GROUPS • Any SEEDS training (n=351) • 95% had heard a Green Dot speech • 42% were VIP volunteers or clients • Green Dot Speech only (n=693) • Unexposed group (n=1281): no SEEDS training, no connection with VIP, never heard a Green Dot speech

26. Actual and Observed Bystanding Behaviors • 12 items about behaviors used or observed in the current school year • Response options: 0=not at all; 1=1-2 times; 2=3-5 times; 3=6 or more times • Scores ranged from 0-36 • Higher score, more behaviors (actual or observed) • Sample survey items • Spoke up if somebody said that someone deserved to be raped or to be hit by their partner • Asked someone that looked very upset if they were okay or needed help

27. Acceptance of General Dating Violence Scale • 5 items with responses from strongly disagree (=1) to strongly agree (=4) • Scores range from 5-20 • Higher scores indicate greater acceptance of dating violence • Sample survey items • There are times when dating violence between couples is okay. • Someone who makes their partner jealous on purpose deserves to be hit.

28. Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale • 7 items with responses from strongly disagree (=1) to strongly agree (=4) • Scores range from 7-28 • Higher scores indicate greater acceptance of rape myths • Sample survey items • When women are raped, it is often because the way they said “no” was unclear. • A woman who dresses in skimpy clothes should not be surprised if a man tries to force her to have sex

29. Statistical Analyses • Multiple Analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to test all hypotheses • Controlled for gender, class, social fraternity or sorority affiliation, current relationship status, and parental education • Conducted using SAS 9.2

30. Manova Analyses Results: Norms

31. Manova Analyses Results: Bystanding

32. RESULTS • All levels of the intervention significantly increased bystanding behaviors • SEEDS trained students reported a significant increased in actual and observed active bystanding compared to students who heard a Green Dot speech. • While having heard a Green Dot speech alone may have an effect on increasing bystanding behaviors, the addition of SEEDS training noticeably increased active bystanding behaviors

33. Discussion of Findings • Findings are consistent with other recent studies which provide evidence for the promise of a bystander approach to address sexual violence • Green Dot persuasive speeches alone (50-minute intervention) do have some effect on increasing bystanding behaviors • Implications for cost-effective prevention intervention

34. Limitations • Selection bias • Survey response rates • SEEDS training • May be those with greater interest in violence prevention • Possibly more likely to engage in bystanding behaviors because they or someone they know may have experienced violence or they had another important connection to violence and need for prevention efforts

35. What Did We Learn from Evaluation? • Green Dot significantly increased both observed and actual bystanding behaviors in the general population of students • SEEDS training, which is primarily bystander capacity and efficacy, is superior to Green Dot speeches alone

36. What Did We Learn While Assessing Green Dot? • Importance of Researcher-Practitioner Collaboration • Communication about program and evaluation • Brain storming together! • Building trust with each other over time • Team approach to evaluation/assessment of Green Dot program • Importance of Multi-Disciplinary Team (having fun!) • Victimology, public health, psychology, women’s studies, statistics/methods, social work, law and society

37. What Did We Learn While Assessing Green Dot? • Survey Design • Took time but well worth the investment • Victimization/perpetration, bystanding, demographics, lifestyle questions…LOTS OF DATA • Recruitment Letter • Takes time to count out 2 $1.00 bills..but fun, too! • Survey Administration • Web-based survey easy to create • Fast/inexpensive way to get LOTS of data quickly • $2.00 incentive increased response rate

38. Now and What Lies Ahead? • WHERE WE ARE NOW • More rigorous assessment of Green Dot • Three campus study in the field • Year 2 data collected Spring 2011 • Year 3 plans in the works! • FUTURE PLANS • Consortium of schools involved in Green Dot implementation & evaluation with standardized methodology • Web-based survey with same set of core q’s • Baseline with Year 2 and beyond

39. GENERATING IDEAS: WHAT IS HAPPENING ON YOUR CAMPUS? • Types of prevention programs • IPV/Dating violence • Sexual violence • Campus crime more generally • Evaluation of Program Effectiveness • Outcome measures/Results • Plans to assess current prevention programs • Lessons learned • Implementation • Process/Outcome Evaluation

40. References/Resources American College Health Association. (2008). Shifting the Paradigm: Primary Prevention of Sexual Violence. www.acha.org (see for Lee, et al., Sexual Violence Prevention). Banyard VL, Moynihan MM, Plante EG. (2007) Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35:463-81. Barone RP, Wolgemuth JR, Linder C. (2007) Preventing sexual assault through engaging college men. Journal of College Student Development, 2007 48:xxx-xxx. Coker AL, et al. (2011) Evaluation of Green Dot: An Active Bystander Intervention to Reduce Sexual Violence on College Campuses. Violence Against Women, 17:777-796. Edwards, DJ. (2009) Ending Violence…One Green Dot at a Time, Instructor Manual. Lexington, KY.

41. References/Resources Fisher B, Daigle LE, Cullen FT. (2010) Unsafe in the ivory tower : the sexual victimization of college women. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Fisher, Bonnie S., Leah Daigle, Francis T. Cullen, and Shannon Santana. (2007) “Assessing the Efficacy of the Protective Action-Completion Nexus for Sexual Victimization.” Violence and Victims. 22:18-42. Fisher B, Cullen F, Turner M. (2000) The sexual victimization of college women. Washington, DC: Dept of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, NIJ. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf Kilpatrick, DG, et al. (2007) Drug-facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape: A National Study. DC: Dept of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, NIJ. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219181.pdf Krebs, CP, et al. (2009). The Differential Risk Factors of Physically Forced and Alcohol- or Other Drug-Enabled Sexual Assault Among University Women. Violence and Victims, 24: 303-321.

42. References/Resources Lonsway, KA, et al. (2009). Rape Prevention and Risk Reduction: Review of the Research Literature for Practitioners. VAWNET, National Online Resource Center for Violence Against Women. http://oregonsatf.org/prevention/docs/Rape_Prevention_Risk_Reduction.pdf Moynihan MM, Banyard VL. (2008) Community responsibility for preventing sexual violence: A pilot study with campus Greeks and intercollegiate athletes. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 36:23-38. McMahon, S. et al. (2011) Conceptualizing the Engaging Bystander Approach to Sexual Violence Prevention on College Campuses. Journal of College Student Development, 52:115-128. Ullman, S. (2007). A 10-year update of the “review and critique of the empirical studies of rape avoidance” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34:411-429.