U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Examining Elements of Campus Sexual Violence Policies: Is Deterrence or Health Promotion Favored?

NCJ Number
185937
Journal
Violence Against Women Volume: 6 Issue: 12 Dated: December 2000 Pages: 1345-1362
Author(s)
Roberto Hugh Potter; Jeanne E. Krider; Pamela M. McMahon
Date Published
December 2000
Length
18 pages
Annotation
This study assesses campus sexual violence policies from the perspectives of public health and criminal justice.
Abstract
Campus sexual violence policies were obtained from a sample of 100 U.S. colleges and universities in 1998. A descriptive analysis of the types of sexual violence prevention programs and dissemination of knowledge about the policies was conducted. Data on actual policies examined were analyzed by using content analytical techniques. The findings suggest that not all postsecondary educational institutions have developed sexual violence prevention policies. Given that the Federal mandate to develop such policies and programs applies only to colleges and universities that receive Title IV funding, it was not expected that there would be compliance within a random sample of educational institutions that included private, religious, and proprietary institutions. The use of deterrence based in criminal and university penalties was apparently the primary preventive effort used at some two-thirds of the schools. Risk-reduction or target-hardening approaches were the next most common prevention efforts. Programs more clearly aligned with the public health approach, such as male responsibility programs or attempts to develop empathy with sexual violence survivors were featured at only a few campuses. More than half of the schools that provided published information did not specify what resources were available for victims of sexual violence. The authors recommend shifting the focus from a victim-impact model (secondary prevention) to a primary prevention model based equally in promoting positive sexual behavior (generalized to other social relationships) and fear of punishment for sexual violence (deterrence). 3 tables and 14 references