by Linda Langford, Sc.D.
This publication is also available in PDF format. (.pdf file requiring Adobe Acrobat)
This publication was developed to help campuses prevent violence and promote safety. It reviews the scope of campus violence problems, describes the wide array of factors that cause and contribute to violence, outlines a comprehensive approach to reducing violence and promoting safety on campus, and lists specific recommendations that administrators, students, faculty, staff, and community members can follow to review and improve their policies and strengthen their programs and services. The document concludes with vignettes describing initiatives specific campuses have undertaken to reduce violence and promote a safe environment.
Estimates of campus violence range widely due to both the underreporting that skews official statistics and the use of differing definitions and data collection methodologies in surveys. Existing data indicate, however, that a substantial minority of college students experience some type of violence and related consequences. According to one nationally representative survey of college students, approximately 17 percent of students reported experiencing some form of violence or harassment in the previous year.1
Common forms of campus violence include sexual and interpersonal violence. A 1997 national telephone survey found that 1.7 percent of college women had experienced a completed rape and 1.1 percent an attempted rape in the seven months prior to the study. Projecting these figures over an entire calendar year, the survey’s authors concluded that nearly 5 percent of college women might be victimized annually and that up to 25 percent might be assaulted by the end of their college years. In the same study, 13 percent of college women reported they had been stalked during the seven-month period.2 Other studies, using varying definitions, estimate that from 20 to 50 percent of students experience dating violence by the end of college.3, 4 In addition, 13.2 percent of college students report having been in a physical fight in the past 12 months,5 8.5 percent report carrying a weapon in the past 30 days,5 and 4.3 percent report “having a working firearm with them at college.” 6
Hazing is also a common concern. Of the 25 percent of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes who responded to a 1999 Alfred University survey, 79 percent had experienced some form of hazing, and 51 percent of respondents had been required to participate in drinking contests or alcohol-related hazing. Approximately 20 percent of the respondents reported what the authors called “unacceptable and potentially illegal” hazing.7
Hate and bias crimes occur all too frequently on campus. A 1998 study estimated that an average of 3.8 hate crimes per campus occurred that year, 80 percent of them motivated by the victim’s race or sexual orientation.8 In a study of gay and lesbian students, 42 percent reported experiencing some level of physical aggression due to their sexual orientation.9
Victims of violence experience a wide variety of physical and emotional consequences, often leading to social and academic difficulties.10 Violence can lower the quality of life for all campus constituents, who may become fearful and restrict their activities out of concern for safety. In addition, violence affects the bottom line for colleges by increasing costs, lowering retention, and absorbing resources that could otherwise be used to further the academic mission.
Studies have found that no single factor causes violence. Researchers have identified many determinants, including both individual characteristics and attributes of campus and community environments.11 These factors can be organized according to a “social ecological framework,” a commonly used public health model. This model recognizes that health- and safety-related behaviors are shaped through multiple levels of influence—individual, group, institutional, and community as well as public policy and societal factors.12, 13 The nature and strength of these factors will vary across settings and by type of violence.11
In a campus community, the following are examples of possible influences at each level:
Any given violent event typically results from a convergence of some or all of the above factors. The National Research Council concluded: “A violent event requires the conjunction of a person with some (high or low) predisposing potential for violent behavior, a situation with elements that create some risk of violent events, and usually a triggering event” (emphasis added).*, 11
The complexity of violence suggests that efforts to reduce violence will require multicomponent initiatives designed to address the array of contributing factors. In addition, efforts should take into account the typical dynamics of campus violence. For example, most incidents of campus sexual assault are perpetrated not by a stranger who jumps out of the bushes but by someone known to the victim.2
Campus administrators understandably struggle with their roles and responsibilities with respect to influencing student behavior. While some incidents of violence are unpredictable, it is possible to identify and reduce the factors that make violence more likely. Recent court decisions reflect a growing expectation that campuses will deal proactively with these foreseeable risks to students.14 Thus, campuses must consider whether there are factors within their control that might contribute to the likelihood of violence or injury. Failure to institute basic measures such as educating students about common types of violence, creating and enforcing strong policies, implementing comprehensive alcohol prevention efforts, and reviewing incidents with the aim of preventing future problems may expose institutions to legal action. By identifying and adequately addressing local conditions that contribute to violence, individual campuses reduce both the probability of harm and the likelihood of a successful lawsuit, while also enhancing the learning environment.
While avoiding liability is desirable, recent legal and scientific work urges administrators to broaden their view beyond a “rules and regulations” orientation in order to foster a safe, healthy, and civil campus environment.14, 15 Violence prevention and safety promotion should be seen as part of the broader mission of any institution of higher education, namely, to create a context in which all campus constituents flourish both academically and personally.
Often, responses to violence focus on reacting to specific incidents, typically relying on disciplinary measures or the criminal justice system. Such efforts are essential to maintain a safe environment, and strong enforcement sends a clear message about an institution’s intolerance for violent behavior. A comprehensive approach to violence, however, also includes complementary measures aimed at early intervention and prevention. As the social ecological model suggests, campuses must seek to minimize the broad spectrum of factors that contribute to violence, as identified through a local assessment of campus conditions. A comprehensive program will include approaches such as the following:
Some of these approaches, such as escort services and self-defense classes, are already common on campuses. While such risk reduction efforts can be an important part of an overall approach, they focus on protection against assaults by strangers and target only potential victims. Therefore, these measures must be supplemented with other programs and policies targeting violence among acquaintances, friends, and intimates and addressing potential perpetrators and bystanders.
Given the complexity of violent behavior and the diversity of settings, structures, cultures, and students among campuses, there is no simple, one-size-fits-all solution for violence in higher education settings. Officials at each institution must design a program that meets their particular circumstances and needs.
In recent years a consensus has emerged from community-based prevention research about the best practices for developing, implementing, and evaluating interventions designed to reduce health and safety problems. Taken together, these lessons from prevention science suggest a number of clear principles that should govern efforts to address campus violence.
Principles for Designing Effective Campus Violence Interventions
Interventions should be
The following recommendations build upon the above principles, providing concrete actions that individual campus and community teams can use to assess their campus and community conditions, set priorities, and implement well-designed strategies.
Campus and community teams should do the following:
1. Use multiple, coordinated, and sustained intervention approaches designed to achieve synergy among program components.
Most campuses already have some programs, policies, and systems in place to address violence. However, many educational efforts are one-time programs, and they are rarely coordinated with other policies or services. Some may even present conflicting or confusing messages. Prevention research shows that coordinated and sustained activities are more effective than one-time programs. Ensuring that multiple efforts are coordinated and synergistic is the single most important way in which practitioners can improve their initiatives against violence. For example, programs such as staff training on policies and procedures, student educational programs, and disciplinary actions for policy violations should all be examined to ensure that their messages are consistent. The remainder of these recommendations provide additional guidance for coordinating and integrating multiple strategies.
2. Engage in a “problem analysis” to assess local problems and resources, which will inform specific goals and objectives.
To be effective, programs must be based on data that reveal
the most serious local problems and the factors that contribute to them. For
example, one campus may experience problems with fights outside bars in the
local community, whereas another may be faced with high rates of sexual assault
in on-campus fraternity houses. Such dissimilar problems require very different
sets of intervention strategies. A thorough review of campus conditions also
can help college administrators identify campus assets and existing initiatives
that can be mobilized as part of a coordinated and comprehensive campus response.
Helpful sources for the problem analysis include statistics, policies, and programs
compiled to comply with the Clery Act16 and the Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Act (DFSCA).17 Additionally, campuses may (1) survey
students to obtain information about behaviors, knowledge, norms, and skills;
(2) perform environmental scans;18 (3) conduct regular safety audits;19,
20 and (4) collect information from key campus stakeholders to document
existing efforts and priority concerns. The planning team should analyze the
collected data to identify specific problems and their contributors, articulate
the conditions that need to be changed, and translate the campus’s needs
into concrete goals and objectives.
3. Draw on existing research, theory, and logic to decide what strategies
might work to solve the targeted problems.
Keeping in mind the specific problems and their contributors identified in step 2, planners should examine existing research and theory to determine how best to make changes. The key is to remain focused on local problems rather than to adopt initiatives that seem generally promising but do not address the locally identified issues. For example, if the problem analysis found that fights in residence halls usually involved unaccompanied outside visitors, the planning team would look for programs, policies, and procedures that have been effective in monitoring and supervising visitors to campus.
Good sources for such promising strategies are evaluations of efforts designed to address similar problems in both campus and community settings. Reviews of “best practices” for community and youth violence prevention compiled by federal agencies may provide programs, policies, and services that can be adapted to campus settings (see “Non-Campus Best Practice Reviews” in the Resources section of this publication). In the absence of evaluated strategies, intervention approaches may be based on behavioral or other theories.21, 22
While practitioners at other campuses can be an invaluable source of information to help generate ideas and avoid stumbling blocks, it is advisable not to adopt programs and policies from other campuses uncritically. Planners should examine any strategy under consideration to determine whether it has empirical or theoretical support and whether it is a match for their own local problems and conditions.
4. Create a logic model and program plan.
Regardless of the source of programming ideas, planners should choose programs and policies based on the likelihood of their achieving the defined goals and objectives. There should be a logical connection between program activities and desired results. Many campus teams find it useful to create a “logic model,” a diagram illustrating how each planned activity will contribute to the long-term goal of reducing campus violence.23 In addition, to ensure that the initiative stays on track, it is helpful to create a detailed work plan that lists specific tasks, states who is responsible for each, and sets out a timeline for completing those tasks.
5. Build infrastructure to support planning and implementation efforts, including partnerships and collaborations, institutional support, and systems.
In order to succeed, planned initiatives require supportive infrastructure, defined here as the broad range of resources, systems, and processes needed to develop, implement, and evaluate interventions. While developing infrastructure will not by itself reduce violence, these components are critical for creating the strategic changes needed to improve campus safety. Important types of infrastructure for such efforts include partnerships and collaborations, institutional support, and systems.
Partnerships and Collaborations. Because violence is a multifaceted problem, solutions must engage multiple campus and community stakeholders. Most violence-related issues will require consultation with numerous stakeholders, including representatives from campus law enforcement, campus judicial or disciplinary systems, student affairs, health services, counseling, health education, victim advocacy, students, faculty, and parents. Campus legal counsel and risk managers should ensure that policies and programs comply with federal, state, and local laws. Other departments that may be involved include equity, diversity, or social justice offices; residence life; admissions; fraternities and sororities; athletics departments; and human resources. Some initiatives, such as those involving threat assessment or crisis management teams, also might draw on multiple departments. Because many violent offenses on campuses involve alcohol, some campuses have developed task forces specifically to coordinate violence interventions with alcohol and other drug prevention efforts. In addition, because problems are rarely confined within campus boundaries, campus officials will need to engage members of the surrounding community in order to make systematic and lasting changes.
Research suggests that successful partnerships share such qualities as an inclusive and broad-based membership; a strong core of committed partners; a shared vision for the group’s work; effective and stable leadership; adequate staff support; clearly defined roles and responsibilities; concrete goals and objectives; and avoidance or resolution of severe conflict.24, 25 There is, however, no one partnership structure that will work for every campus at all times, and campus officials are encouraged to think strategically about which structure best meets their current needs. For example, an institution addressing off-campus student riots would need to work with a broadly inclusive campus and community coalition from the start, whereas a campus that is revising the student conduct code may start with a campus-based task force, expanding the group’s membership or consulting community representatives to address off-campus issues. To facilitate cooperative working relationships and information sharing across departments and agencies, campuses should consider creating formal and informal interagency agreements.
Institutional Support. Without high-level support, efforts to address violence will languish. College presidents must establish campus violence prevention as a priority and to that end provide support and funding for planning, implementation, and evaluation processes. Administrators also should assist program directors in their efforts to obtain external funding.
A common barrier to implementing proposed initiatives is lack of staff time. Simply put, efforts that are inadequately staffed are unlikely to succeed. It is essential for planning teams to specify whose staff will implement each effort and to create a system of accountability for follow-through. Ideally, every campus should have a dedicated office or staff person to coordinate programs, policies, and services addressing violence.
Systems. In some cases, institutional systems may actually hinder violence intervention efforts. For example, the problem analysis may reveal that data sharing is difficult. In this case, campus officials might create a new data system, shared between campus security and judicial systems, to facilitate the collection and use of crime and disciplinary data by both departments. Other strategies may require creation of specialized infrastructure, for example, cross-departmental teams devoted to crisis management or threat assessment.
6. Evaluate programs, policies, and services, and use results for improvement.
Given that resources are scarce, it is imperative to use them both efficiently and effectively. The key to ensuring accountability is to evaluate whether initiatives are achieving their intended outcomes. Long-term financial support for violence intervention, whether it comes from outside sources or is part of a college’s regular budget, will be available only if evaluation results warrant it.
Because most program planners associate evaluation with measuring results, they often delay thinking about it until after a program is up and running. To be most effective and useful, however, the evaluation should be planned as the program is being developed. Building this component into the process from the outset will sharpen everyone’s thinking about the program—its mission, goals, objectives, and tactics. Additionally, planning teams can use evaluation results to revise and improve their programs to maximize their effectiveness. Including a professional evaluator on a project team helps to ensure that outcome-based thinking is an integral part of the project’s design and implementation.26
Campus violence is a complex problem, and there are no easy answers. It cannot be solved by a one-time program or a single department, nor is there a one-size-fits-all blueprint for successful efforts. Rather, prevention science suggests a set of principles and a process that campus and community stakeholders can use to guide their work. Senior administrators must exercise leadership by establishing and supporting a long-term, collaborative process to create and sustain a comprehensive, strategic, multicomponent, coordinated approach to preventing violence and promoting safety on campus. This process will bring together multiple partners in order to examine local data; identify and prioritize local problems; target those problems with an appropriate mix of strategies; construct a logic model, work plan, and evaluation plan; create infrastructure to support implementation; and evaluate the effectiveness of these efforts. This strategic planning process can be used to formulate integrated initiatives addressing specific subtypes of violence and to coordinate efforts across different types of violence.
While this process may seem burdensome, ultimately there is no other way to ensure that scarce campus resources are well spent. Despite the challenges, many campus communities have begun to establish long-term initiatives and share lessons they have learned. Ongoing efforts to prevent violence and promote campus safety require dedication, commitment, resources, and persistence, but they are a necessary investment if all campus constituents are to reach their full potential. This view is summarized eloquently by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators: “A safe campus environment is one in which students, faculty, and staff are free to conduct their daily affairs, both inside and outside the classroom, without fear of physical, emotional, or psychological harm. Personal safety is a basic human need that must be preserved if the mission of the university is to be pursued.” 27
Given that no single approach to violence and safety will work for every campus, the following vignettes illustrate targeted interventions implemented by individual campuses in response to an identified need or problem. Each of these programs follows the principles and process described above for developing successful initiatives.
Multicomponent Approach to Campus Violence
University of Northern Colorado
The University of Northern Colorado’s (UNC) approach to violence includes complementary and coordinated initiatives designed to support victims, hold perpetrators accountable, and minimize violent incidents. The university has introduced strong administrative policies and procedures, rigorous admissions standards, crime prevention and awareness programs, proactive policing, management of the physical environment (lighting, vegetation, emergency telephones), and other prevention and intervention initiatives such as peer education, a men’s program, and services for survivors.
“Stop, Look, Listen” (SLL), UNC’s unique and comprehensive safety program, is a two-hour workshop required for all incoming freshmen. SLL explores a variety of health and safety issues geared toward promoting personal health and safety, and it emphasizes discussions concerning sexual assault and alcohol consumption.
These measures are strengthened further by ongoing review of incidents and potential problems, campus and community partnerships, coordinated alcohol and violence reduction efforts, and a strong emphasis on victim support.
UNC’s efforts are based on firm policies combined with rapid and consistent enforcement. All campus constituents are urged to report incidents. Campus policy requires all alleged sexual offenses to be investigated; when appropriate, cases also are referred to the local district attorney. Graduated administrative sanctions are based on the principle of student accountability, and penalties provide for potential removal of problem individuals if deemed appropriate. Emphasis is placed on supporting and protecting victims during the disciplinary process. A cross-departmental committee meets regularly to ensure that policies and procedures are appropriate, to locate loopholes in existing policies, and to revise and initiate policies as needed.
UNC holds a variety of prevention education programs throughout the year, including a required workshop for first-year students at summer orientation. To ensure that messages concerning the need to prevent alcohol use and sexual assault are consistent, these sessions are led jointly by campus law enforcement and alcohol and other drug prevention staff. The Student Code of Conduct further highlights the link between alcohol and sexual assault by noting that “voluntary intoxication is NOT an excusable justification for inappropriate or illegal behavior.” Victims of crime, however, are rarely sanctioned for alcohol consumption or possession, and sexual assault victims, in particular, are never sanctioned.
Additional personal safety, sexual assault prevention, and alcohol prevention education programs are held throughout the year. These educational efforts include information about advocacy services available to victims.
Other initiatives address the physical environment. Each year, campus police conduct visual security surveys and facility audits to scan for physical hazards and unsafe areas. An array of measures has been instituted as a result: emergency telephones, electronic alarm systems, a high-security lock/key system, regular trimming of vegetation, and registration for bicycles and other items of value. Walking and golf cart escort services are available.
UNC police take a proactive approach to crime prevention. Campus areas are actively patrolled by police officers, and officers participate in the ongoing safety audits and educational programs described above. In addition, mutual aid agreements between UNC and local police allow for shared training, mutual assistance, and systematic reporting to campus officials of incidents in areas adjacent to campus.
A campus and community committee, Sexual Assault Free Environment (SAFE), which meets monthly, includes representatives from the assault survivors advocacy program (ASAP), the counseling center, the dean of students, residential life, campus police, the alcohol and drug office, Greek life, and the district attorney’s office. UNC’s crisis response committee also meets weekly. The staff who serve on this team regularly share information about new and ongoing safety issues and concerns.
Consequently, the structures described allow campus and community officials to coordinate policies and programs, ensure that they remain effective, and respond to new mandates as required. For example, Colorado recently passed a state law forbidding any student convicted of riotous behavior from enrolling in a state institution. Because UNC’s admissions standards already allowed for a special committee to review applicants with felony and sex crime convictions, they were more easily able to respond to this new law.28, 29
The Center for the Prevention of Violence
Against Women
Marshall University (West Virginia)
Because Marshall University serves the area of West Virginia with the state’s highest reported rates of domestic violence and sexual assault, it is likely that many students on campus have witnessed violence in their families. Within the context of this high-risk environment, the university’s Office of Women’s Programs noted that the number of crimes against women reported was lower than expected, suggesting underreporting. This information, taken together, indicated the need for a more comprehensive campus program addressing both domestic violence and sexual assault.
In the year 2000, the Office of Women’s Programs applied for and received funding from the federal Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) to establish a campus-based Center for the Prevention of Violence Against Women. The center developed a multifaceted set of initiatives aimed at reducing the incidence of violence and ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable for their actions. The project involves collaborations among judicial affairs, the counseling center, the women’s center, and public safety. The program is designed to do the following:
While many campus programs focus primarily on preventing sexual assaults, Marshall staff responded to the particular needs of their students by also including extensive information and education about all forms of intimate partner violence. Educational efforts include separate programs for men and women.
The project also has allowed the university to create partnerships and initiatives to solve newly identified problems. For example, the Center for the Prevention of Violence Against Women teamed up with the office of judicial affairs, the counseling center, and public safety to develop an antistalking policy to increase the accountability of perpetrators for their stalking behaviors.
As a result of these combined efforts, referrals to the women’s center and counseling center have increased dramatically.30, 31
University Counseling and Advising Network
(U-CAN)
Cornell University
Cornell University has created a problem-focused early intervention program characterized by cross-disciplinary collaboration and coordination of existing services. While not specifically focused on violence, this initiative is designed to facilitate early identification of problems that might lead to aggression or self-harm. Cornell’s University Counseling and Advising Network (U-CAN) grew out of five interrelated observations:
In 1999 the director of health services at Cornell University responded by initiating a program designed to increase early identification and referral of a broadly defined category of “students in distress.” With funding from supportive alumni, two full-time staff members worked with cross-departmental teams from medical, nursing, counseling, health promotion, academic advising, and other departments to create a network to facilitate, coordinate, and enhance the work of the many service providers who were already supporting students. U-CAN accomplished this goal through five basic initiatives:
During the development of these programs, a postdoctoral fellow and graduate student were hired as part-time evaluators to help clarify the program’s goals and objectives and to design appropriate process and outcome evaluation measures.32
Linda Langford, Sc.D., is associate director for violence prevention initiatives at the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention.
1 Personal communication with Cheryl Presley, Ph.D., executive director of the Core Institute, e-mail January 29, 2004. (National Probability Sample Study, Core Institute, Student Health Programs, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Ill.)
2 Fisher, B. S.; Cullen, F. T.; and Turner, M. G. The Sexual Victimization of College Women. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2000.
3Makepeace, J. M. “Courtship Violence among College Students.” Family Relations 30: 97–101, 1981.
4Arias, I.; Samios, M.; and O’Leary, K. D. “Prevalence and Correlates of Physical Aggression during Courtship.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2: 82–90, 1987.
5Barrios, L. C.; Everett, S. A.; Simon, T. R.; Brener, N. D. “Suicide Ideation among U.S. College Students: Associations with Other Injury Risk Behaviors.” Journal of American College Health 48 (5):195–198, 2000.
6Miller, M.; Hemenway, D.; and Wechsler, H. “Guns and Gun Threats at College.” Journal of American College Health 51 (2): 57–65, 2002.
7Alfred University. Initiation Rites and Athletics: A National Study of NCAA Sports Teams. Alfred, N.Y.: Alfred University, 1999.
8Wessler, S., and Moss, M. Hate Crimes on Campus: The Problem and Efforts to Confront It. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2001.
9Herek, G. M. “Documenting Prejudice against Lesbians and Gay Men on Campus: The Yale Sexual Orientation Survey.” Journal of Homosexuality 25 (4 ): 15–30, 1993.
10Cohen, M. A.; Miller, T. R.; and Rossman, S. B. “The Costs and Consequences of Violent Behavior in the United States.” In Reiss, A. J. Jr., and Roth, J. A. eds. Understanding and Preventing Violence, Volume 4: Consequences and Control Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, National Research Council, 1994.
11Reiss, A. J., Jr., and Roth, J. A. Understanding and Preventing Violence, Volume 1. Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior: Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, National Research Council, 1993.
12Stokols, D. “Translating Social Ecological Theory into Guidelines for Community Health Promotion.” American Journal of Health Promotion 10: 282–98, 1996.
13 Chalk, R., and King, P. A. Violence in Families: Assessing Prevention and Treatment Programs. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998.
14Bickel, R. D., and Lake, P. F. The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University: Who Assumes the Risks of College Life? Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 1999.
15Roark, M. L. “Conceptualizing Campus Violence: Definitions, Underlying Factors, and Effects.” Journal of College Student Psychotherapy 8 (1/2):1–27, 1993.
16Security On Campus, Inc. Complying with the Jeanne Clery Act. Retrieved February 2, 2004, from www.securityoncampus.org/schools/cleryact/.
17Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA), and Drug-Free Schools and Campuses Regulations. Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention. Retrieved July 29, 2003, from www.higheredcenter.org/dfsca/.
18Ryan, B. E.; Colthurst, T.; and Segars, L. College Alcohol Risk Assessment Guide: Environmental Approaches to Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention, revised 1997.
19Security On Campus, Inc. “Campus Safety Audit.” Retrieved February 2, 2004, from www.securityoncampus.org/students/audit.pdf. (.pdf file requiring Adobe Acrobat)
20Winnipeg Committee for Safety. “Winnipeg Safety Audit Manual.” In Safety Tool Box. Winnipeg, Canada: Winnipeg Committee for Safety, January 2001. Retrieved February 2, 2004, from www.winnipegcommitteeforsafety.org/wcfs2003pdfs/Safety_Audit_Manuals.pdf. (.pdf file requiring Adobe Acrobat)
21The Communication Initiative. Change Theories. Retrieved February 2, 2004, from www.comminit.com/change_theories.html.
22U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity Evaluation Handbook: Appendix 3 Theories and Models Used in Physical Activity Promotion. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2002. Retrieved February 11, 2004, from www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/physical/handbook/appendix3.htm.
23Weiss, C. H. “Understanding the Program.” In Weiss, C. H. Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies, 46–71. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1998.
24Mattessich, P. W., and Monsey, B. R. Collaboration: What Makes It Work. St. Paul, Minn.: Wilder Research Center and Wilder’s Community Collaboration Venture, 1992.
25National Evaluation Findings Sheets: Community Partnerships. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and SAMHSA’s National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Other Drug Information. www.health.org/govstudy/ms666/nefsheets.aspx.
26Langford, L., and DeJong, W. “Prevention Update: How to Select a Program Evaluator.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention, 2001.
27National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. In Roark, M. L. “Conceptualizing Campus Violence: Definitions, Underlying Factors, and Effects.” Journal of College Student Psychotherapy 8 (1/2): 1–27, 1993.
28University of Northern Colorado. Student Handbook, June 2002. Retrieved February 2, 2004, from www.unco.edu/dos/handbook/stuhndbk.htm.
29University of Northern Colorado. University of Northern Colorado Safety and Security Information 2002. Retrieved December 5, 2002, from www.unco.edu/finadmin/uncpd/securityreport.htm.
30Interview with Carla Lapelle, coordinator, Student Health Education Programs, Marshall University, summer 2002.
31West Virginia Grants to Combat Violent Crimes Against Women on Campuses. Office on Violence Against Women, Office of Justice Programs. U.S. Department of Justice, 2000. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo/map/campus/2000/wvgtcv.htm.
32Marchell, T. “In the Spotlight: Reaching Out to Students in Distress.” Student Health Spectrum. The Chickering Group, fall 2001.
The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention
Education Development Center, Inc.
55 Chapel Street
Newton, MA 02458-1060
(800) 676-1730
Fax: (617) 928-1537
HigherEdCtr@edc.org
www.higheredcenter.org/
The U.S. Department of Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention provides nationwide support for campus alcohol, other drug, and violence prevention efforts.
The Center offers training and professional development activities; technical assistance; publications; support for The Network: Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues; and assessment, evaluation, and analysis activities.
The Center lists resources addressing campus violence at www.higheredcenter.org/violence/. The Center’s Campuses and Other Drugs Web page, found at www.higheredcenter.org/drugs/, includes resources on date rape and club drugs.
Federal Resouces
Office of Safe and Drug-Free
Schools (OSDFS)
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Ave, SW
Washington, DC 20202-6123
(202) 260-3954
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/
OSDFS supports efforts to create safe schools, respond to crises, prevent alcohol and other drug abuse, ensure the health and well-being of students, teach students good citizenship and character, and provide national leadership on issues and programs in correctional education. The agency provides financial assistance for drug abuse and violence prevention activities and activities that promote the health and well-being of students in elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education. OSDFS participates in the development of Department program policy and legislative proposals and in overall administration policies related to drug abuse and violence prevention. It also participates with other federal agencies in the development of a national research agenda for such prevention.
Office for Civil Rights
U.S. Department of Education
Customer Service Team
Mary E. Switzer Building
330 C Street, SW
Washington, DC 20202
(800) 421-3481
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/
Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination prohibited in schools by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. In 2001, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights published guidelines to assist institutions with Title IX compliance related to sexual harassment, titled “Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties.”
Office of Postsecondary Education
Campus Security Statistics
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Postsecondary Education
1990 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 401-1576
www.ope.ed.gov/security/
The Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) maintains a Web site for campus security statistics, authorized by Congress with the 1998 amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965 to help potential college students and parents research criminal offenses on college campuses.
National Organizations
The National Sexual Violence
Resource Center (NSVRC)
123 North Enola Drive
Enola, PA 17025
(877) 739-3895
(717) 909-0710
www.nsvrc.org/
The National Sexual Violence Resource Center serves as an information clearinghouse, provides information and technical assistance to people working to prevent sexual violence, and identifies emerging policy issues and research needs to support the development of policies and practices specific to the intervention and prevention of sexual violence. The Web site includes campus-specific resources.
Security On Campus, Inc.
601 South Henderson Road, Suite 205
King of Prussia, PA 19406
(888) 251-7959
www.securityoncampus.org
Security On Campus, Inc. (SOC), founded in 1987, is a nonprofit grassroots organization dedicated to fostering safe campus environments. SOC educates prospective students, parents, and the campus community about the prevalence of crime on campus and assists victims with information about laws, advocacy organizations, legal counsel, and other resources. SOC also provides guidance to campuses regarding compliance with the Clery Act and other federal laws.
Stophazing.org
www.stophazing.org
Established in 1992, Stophazing.org is a Web-based resource committed to providing students, parents, and educators with resources and up-to-date statistics on the problem of hazing in America. The site lists books, articles, and hazing prevention programs.
Stop the Hate
Association of College Unions International (ACUI)
One City Centre, Suite 200
120 West Seventh Street
Bloomington, IN 47404-3925
www.stophate.org
The Association of College Unions International (ACUI) created the Stop the Hate initiative to provide training and other resources to aid colleges in addressing hate and bias-related crimes and incidents.
Campus Organization
Indiana Campus Sexual Assault
Prevention Project (INCSAPP)
Student Wellness Office
601 Stadium Mall Drive
West Lafayette, IN 47907
(765) 496-3363
www.purdue.edu/incsapp/
The Indiana Campus Sexual Assault Prevention Project is the campus component of the Communities Against Rape (CARe) Initiative of the Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service. While INCSAPP’s Web site is designed to promote collaboration between campus and community organizations in the state of Indiana, it also offers generally helpful resources related to sexual assault , including bibliographies, campus policies, and victim advocacy information.
Non-Campus Best Practice Reviews
Although not specific to college and university campuses, the following reviews of “best practices” for community and youth violence prevention compiled by federal agencies may provide programs, policies, and services that can be adapted to campus settings.
Best Practices of Youth
Violence Prevention: A Sourcebook for Community Action
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/bestpractices.htm
This sourcebook presents effective violence prevention practices in four areas: parents and families; home visiting; social and conflict resolution skills; and mentoring. The resource also discusses the science behind each program and provides a directory of additional resources.
Blueprints for Violence
Prevention
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence
www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/
Blueprints for Violence Prevention is an initiative that describes effective and promising youth violence prevention and intervention programs. Eleven model programs and 21 promising programs were identified for their effectiveness in reducing adolescent violent crime, aggression, delinquency, and substance abuse.
Early Warning, Timely Response:
A Guide to Safe Schools
U.S. Department of Education
Special Education and Rehabilitation Services
http://cecp.air.org/guide/guide.pdf
(.pdf file requiring Adobe
Acrobat)
This guide offers research-based practices designed to help school communities identify early warning signs of violence and develop prevention and intervention programs and crisis response plans. Although the recommendations are aimed at primary and secondary schools, many of the resources are adaptable for higher education.
“Youth Violence Prevention: Descriptions and Baseline Data from 13 Evaluation Projects,” by Powell, E., and Hawkins, F. (American Journal of Preventive Medicine 12 (5S): 1996)
This issue of American Journal of Preventive Medicine includes articles describing 13 school, hospital, and community violence prevention projects and their initial evaluation results.
Preventing School Violence:
Plenary Papers of the 1999 Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation—Enhancing
Policy and Practice Through Research, Volume 2.
National Institute of Justice
www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/180972.pdf
(.pdf file requiring Adobe
Acrobat)
This publication includes three papers describing current efforts and promising practices for school violence prevention.
Youth Violence: A Report
of the Surgeon General
Department of Health and Human Services
Office of the Surgeon General
www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/
This report summarizes the research on youth violence in the United States, including the scope of the problem, causes of violence, risk and protective factors, and effective strategies and programs to reduce and prevent youth violence.
World Report on Violence
and Health
World Health Organization
www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/wrvh/en/
This publication examines various types of violence as an international public health problem, including youth violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual violence. It describes the magnitude and impact of violence, key risk factors, the effectiveness of intervention and policy responses to violence, and recommendations for action.
This publication has been funded with federal funds from the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education under contracts number ED-99-CO-0094 and ED-04-CO-0137 with Education Development Center, Inc. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Last Update: July 7, 2006