Implementation Analysis of Campus Sexual Violence Prevention Programming
| dc.contributor.author | Hally, Simone Collette | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2020-09-29T22:02:47Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2020-09-29T22:02:47Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
| dc.description | 58 pages | |
| dc.description.abstract | While institutions of higher education provide opportunities for personal and intellectual transformation, they are also prevalent sites of sexual and intimate partner violence in the United States. The Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act, passed federally in 2013, “require[s] institutions to provide to incoming students and new employees and describe in their Annual Security Reports primary prevention and awareness programs” (Federal Register, 2014) in order to reduce— and ultimately prevent— sexual violence on college campuses. In this paper, I assess institutional interpretations of the Act’s requirement for “primary prevention programs”. After selecting 60 schools across six states and institutional classifications (i.e. public, private, Tribal, Associate, Baccalaureate, Master, Doctoral) and affiliations (i.e. religious affiliation), I used the prevention programming information described in their Annual Security Reports to measure their implementation of primary prevention programming. I measured the range in programming against a set of “promising practices” outlined by the National Association of Student and Personnel Administrators (NASPA) and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) . These practices include: provision of prevention to students and other targeted groups (e.g. staff), appropriate timing (e.g. student and staff orientation) sufficient dosage (more than once), its inclusion of bystander intervention and empowerment, and its facilitation by peers. I recorded the implementation of programming within these categories for each school, and then combined the categories to create an overall “Promising Prevention Index” score. Using statistical analysis, I tested the relationship between each “promising prevention” category, as well as the overall Index, and school characteristics (i.e. State, setting, gender and racial composition, undergraduate population and student-faculty ratio, Carnegie Classification, and religious affiliation). Through these statistical analyses, I found that the state, proportion of black and latino students, as well as Carnegie Classification of each school affected implementation in specific programming categories, as well as the overall Index score. While I point to disparities in funding tied to these factors as a potential justification for their statistically significant relationship with prevention programming, I recommend further research in this area. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1794/25755 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | |
| dc.publisher | University of Oregon | |
| dc.subject | Campus Prevention | en_US |
| dc.subject | Campus SaVE Act | en_US |
| dc.subject | Sexual Violence | en_US |
| dc.subject | Prevention Program | en_US |
| dc.subject | Policy | en_US |
| dc.title | Implementation Analysis of Campus Sexual Violence Prevention Programming | |
| dc.type | Thesis/Dissertation |