Shifting the Paradigm: Primary Prevention On Campuses - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Shifting the Paradigm: Primary Prevention On Campuses PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 6eab6c-Njg4Y


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Shifting the Paradigm: Primary Prevention On Campuses


Shifting the Paradigm: Primary Prevention On Campuses Professor Bonnie S. Fisher School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:14
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 43
Provided by: erc59


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Shifting the Paradigm: Primary Prevention On Campuses

Shifting the ParadigmPrimary Prevention On
  • Professor Bonnie S. Fisher
  • School of Criminal Justice, University of
  • ML 210389, 600 Dyer Hall, 452021-0389
  • 17 August 2011
  • 5th Annual Campus Safety Summit
  • Dennison University

  • 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

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

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)

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)

  • 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)

Federal Legislation
  • Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security and
    Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery
  • 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

ReAction on College Campuses
  • Implementation of awareness and risk reduction
  • 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
  • Risk reduction strategies seek to teach women
    strategies for reducing the likelihood that they
    would be victimized

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 termdiminish 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.,
  • 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)

Primary Prevention of Sexual Violence
  • What is primary prevention?
  • Public health perspective (primary, secondary,
  • 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)

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
  • Goals
  • Increase awareness and understanding of the
    problem of sexual violence
  • Increase feelings of responsibility to solve the
  • 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

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 bystanders sense of responsibility for
  • 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)

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
  • 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

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
  • 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

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

Implementation of Green Dot Phase One
  • Phase One 50-minute Persuasive Speech
  • 1st yr students UK 101, I cr hr intro to college
  • Introduce concept of active bystanding and build
    audiences 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

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

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 sent a letter stating that they were
    nominated to come to a training reception to help
    influence the legacy they leave behind at UK

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

Green Dot Program
  • Similarities w existing bystander prevention
  • 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 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

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
  • Social norms associated with dating and sexual
    violence (Coker, et al., 2011)

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

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 gt26)

Sample Demographics
Demographic Characteristic Undergraduate Population (Spring 2010) Random Sample Analytic Sample
N 18,806 7,945 2,484
Female  49.8  49.6 60.4
White  84.1 83.8 84.6
Mean age (SD)  22.1 (4.4)  22.4 (5.0) 21.0 (2.0)
Freshman 21.2  25.1 28.9
Fraternity / Sorority 13.0 -- 17.0
p lt0.0001 p 0.001
Intervention Exposure Measure
  • Hierarchical Green Dot Exposure Matrix THREE
  • Any SEEDS training (n351)
  • 95 had heard a Green Dot speech
  • 42 were VIP volunteers or clients
  • Green Dot Speech only (n693)
  • Unexposed group (n1281) no SEEDS training, no
    connection with VIP, never heard a Green Dot

Actual and Observed Bystanding Behaviors
  • 12 items about behaviors used or observed in the
    current school year
  • Response options 0not at all 11-2 times
    23-5 times 36 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

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.

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
  • 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

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

Manova Analyses Results Norms
Adjusted Mean Scores (F, p value) Adjusted Mean Scores (F, p value) Adjusted Mean Scores (F, p value)
Outcome Measure SEEDS trained (n351) Green Dot Speech alone (n693) No Intervention (n1281)
Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance 9.40 (5.92, .01) 9.58 (2.07, .15) 10.45(REF)
Acceptance of General Dating Violence 5.65 (0.99, .31) 5.65 (.00, .94) 5.70 (REF)
Manova Analyses Results Bystanding
Adjusted Mean Scores (F, p value) Adjusted Mean Scores (F, p value) Adjusted Mean Scores (F, p value)
Outcome Measure SEEDS trained (n351) Green Dot Speech alone (n693) No Intervention (n1281)
Observed Active Bystanding 12.29 (144.81, lt.0001) 11.45 (38.24, lt.0001) 7.17 (REF)
Actual Active Bystanding 12.22 (95.71, lt.0001) 11.45 (18.38, lt.0001) 8.32 (REF)
  • 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

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

  • Selection bias
  • Survey response rates
  • SEEDS training
  • May be those with greater interest in violence
  • 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

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

What Did We Learn While Assessing Green Dot?
  • Importance of Researcher-Practitioner
  • 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
  • Victimology, public health, psychology, womens
    studies, statistics/methods, social work, law and

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

Now and What Lies Ahead?
  • More rigorous assessment of Green Dot
  • Three campus study in the field
  • Year 2 data collected Spring 2011
  • Year 3 plans in the works!
  • Consortium of schools involved in Green Dot
    implementation evaluation with standardized
  • Web-based survey with same set of core qs
  • Baseline with Year 2 and beyond

  • 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

  • American College Health Association. (2008).
    Shifting the Paradigm Primary Prevention of
    Sexual Violence. (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, 35463-81.
  • Barone RP, Wolgemuth JR, Linder C. (2007)
    Preventing sexual assault through engaging
    college men. Journal of College Student
    Development, 2007 48xxx-xxx.
  • Coker AL, et al. (2011) Evaluation of Green Dot
    An Active Bystander Intervention to Reduce
    Sexual Violence on College Campuses. Violence
    Against Women, 17777-796.
  • Edwards, DJ. (2009) Ending ViolenceOne Green
    Dot at a Time, Instructor Manual. Lexington, KY.

  • 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. 2218-42.
  • Fisher B, Cullen F, Turner M. (2000) The sexual
    victimization of college women. Washington, DC
    Dept of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, NIJ.
  • Kilpatrick, DG, et al. (2007) Drug-facilitated,
    Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape A National
    Study. DC Dept of Justice, Office of Justice
    Programs, NIJ. https//
  • 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

  • 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//
  • 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, 3623-38.
  • McMahon, S. et al. (2011) Conceptualizing the
    Engaging Bystander Approach to Sexual Violence
    Prevention on College Campuses. Journal of
    College Student Development, 52115-128.
  • Ullman, S. (2007). A 10-year update of the
    review and critique of the empirical studies of
    rape avoidance Criminal Justice and Behavior,