Practice Profile: Sexual Assault Education Programs on College Campuses

This practice comprises programs that are designed to reduce the prevalence of sexual assaults on college campuses by reducing the rape-supportive ideology for those who may potentially perpetrate a crime, while increasing potential victims’ knowledge and awareness of risky situations, and thereby their safety. The practice is rated Effective for reducing rape attitudes (such as acceptance of rape myths and victim blaming) and rape-related attitudes (such as sex-role stereotyping and adversarial

Practice Goals

Sexual assault education programs on college campuses were designed in response to the high incidences of sexual assaults experienced by college-aged women each year (Anderson and Whiston 2005). Although there are a variety of sexual assault education programs, all programs aim to reduce the prevalence of sexual assaults on college campuses by reducing the rape-supportive ideology for those who may potentially perpetrate a crime, while increasing potential victims’ knowledge and awareness of risky situations, and thereby their safety.

Practice Components

Sexual assault education programs are facilitated by trained peers, graduate students, professionals, or a combination of the three. While the programs vary, common components include, but are not limited to, educating participants about the occurrence of sexual assault and the behaviors and attitudes that are typically exhibited by rapists; how to communicate their sexual desires more clearly; how to distinguish between myths and facts about sexual assault; how to increase personal safety and avoid risky situations; and how to support a victim who is recovering from a sexual assault.

Programs vary in length, with some lasting approximately an hour, and others lasting 3 to 4 months. The program format could include role-play scenarios, classroom curricula, or videos depicting a sexual assault situation. The programs are typically interactive. For example, in programs that require participants to view a videotape that described a sexual assault scenario, participants are asked to discuss what happened and are taught ways they could avoid such a situation. In some programs, participants are invited to share experiences from their own lives (Lonsway et al. 1998)

Target Population

While the target population is college men and women, some programs vary further. For example, some programs may include college students in general, while others target fraternity/sorority members or high-risk students. Programs may include both men and women or single-sex groups (Foubert 2000; Breitenbecher and Scarce 1999; Gidycz et al. 2001; Heppner et al. 1995; Lonsway et al. 1998).

Anderson and Whiston (2005) conducted moderator analyses to see if the impact of sexual assault education programs on rape attitudes and rape-related attitudes varied in terms of the population that received the intervention (e.g., general students, Greek members, high-risk students), the gender of the audience that received the intervention (e.g., females/female group, females/mixed group, males/male group, males/mixed group, females/males combined), the facilitator who led the intervention (e.g., peer, graduate student, professional, combination of the three), and content of the intervention (e.g., information, empathy, socialization, risk reduction, more than one type). Regarding the rape attitudes outcome, Anderson and Whiston (2005) found statistically significant differences in terms of the gender of the audience that received the intervention. Although women who received the intervention in an all-female group had the largest effect size (0.287), this effect size was not statistically significant. The largest statistically significant effect size was found for female/male combined groups (0.273), suggesting that being in mixed gender groups had the greatest impact on participants’ rape attitudes. Regarding the rape-related attitudes outcome, Anderson and Whiston (2005) found that the average effect size differed significantly in terms of the population that received the intervention and the type of facilitator who delivered the intervention. The moderator analysis revealed that fraternity/sorority members who received the intervention had a statistically significant effect size of 0.242. This finding suggested that fraternity/sorority members benefited more from the intervention, compared with students who were not in fraternities/sororities. Further, when professionals or peers facilitated the intervention, statistically significant effect sizes were found (0.209 and 0.157, respectively). This finding suggested that peers and professionals were more effective at implementing the program, compared with graduate students or a combination of peers, professionals, and graduate students.

These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:

These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Sexual Assault Risk Reduction Program

Enhanced Assess, Acknowledge, Act Sexual Assault Resistance Program (Canada)

Web-Based Sexual Assault Risk Reduction (SARR) for College Women

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?