Sexual Assault Prevention With Student-Athletes: Exploring Perceptions of the Campus Climate and Awareness of Sexual Assault Policies and Resources

Abstract

Increasing awareness of school sexual assault policies and resources is a central component of sexual assault prevention. Research suggests that the state of the campus climate impacts an individual’s level of awareness, particularly for at-risk groups like student-athletes. The purpose of this study was to examine how macro factors such as participation in sexual assault prevention, perceptions of the institutional response to addressing sexual assault, and perceptions of campus staff (i.e., campus police, athletic staff, and administration) are associated with awareness of sexual assault policies and resources. Student-athletes at five National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) schools participated in a web-based survey to assess their perceptions of the campus climate and awareness of sexual assault policies and resources. The results from an ordinary least squares multiple regression model revealed that past participation in sexual assault prevention, more positive perceptions of the institutional response, and more positive perceptions of campus police and administration were associated with a greater awareness of sexual assault policies and resources while controlling for race, ethnicity, and gender. Perceptions of athletic staff was not significantly related to awareness of policies and resources. These findings demonstrate that delivering consistent messaging and engaging campus staff in sexual assault prevention provides a foundation for building a positive campus climate which, in turn, may reduce campus sexual assault.

Keywords

sexual assault cultural contexts prevention anything related to sexual assault

While institutions of higher education have increased efforts to address sexual assault, few colleges and universities have focused on the ways in which the campus response to allegations of sexual assault impacts the student experience. Sexual assault is defined as any nonconsensual sexual act per federal, tribal, or state law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent (U.S. Department of Justice, 2020). In a national study with college students, 11.7% of students experienced nonconsensual penetration or sexual touching by force or incapacitation during their time in college, with even higher percentages among females (26.1%; Cantor et al., 2017). Despite studies consistently finding high rates of campus sexual assault (Cantor et al., 2017; Krebs et al., 2016), underreporting to campus authorities remains as high as 80% (Sinozich & Langton, 2014; White et al., 2015). Although institutions of higher education are federally mandated to provide sexual assault prevention to the student population, there is a lack of student awareness of school sexual assault policies and resources (Hayes-Smith & Levett, 2010; McMahon & Stepleton, 2018; Walsh et al., 2010). Student awareness of available sexual assault resources on campus is largely influenced by perceptions of the campus climate to address sexual assault (Garcia et al., 2012; Spencer et al., 2017), such as the institutional response to allegations of sexual assault and confidence in campus staff to respond to incidents of sexual assault (Cantor et al., 2017; Sable et al., 2006; Strout et al., 2014; Zinzow & Thompson, 2011). On average, 63.3% of college students believe that campus officials would take a report of sexual assault seriously and only 49.2% trust the university to conduct a fair investigation (Cantor et al., 2017).

Institutions of higher education also have the potential to worsen outcomes for victims of sexual assault as a result of institutional betrayal. Institutional betrayal is defined as systemic or institutional actions—and inactions—that perpetuate traumatic experiences for survivors of sexual assault, such as covering up any wrongdoings, retaliating responses toward sexual assault reports, failing to respond to reports of sexual assault, or lacking civil rights for oppressed groups (Smith & Freyd, 2014). These experiences may lead to poor physical and mental health among survivors (Smith & Freyd, 2017), which could be further intensified for students who have a greater connection to their school such as student-athletes (Smith & Freyd, 2014).

Recommendations for preventing the mishandling of sexual assault at the institutional level are to build transparency and promote institutional values that protect students (Bloom & Farragher, 2013; Smith & Freyd, 2014). To promote institutional reform, many colleges and universities implement sexual assault prevention to address campus sexual assault. Raising awareness of school policies and resources is a critical component of sexual assault prevention as students learn school definitions of sexual assault, and aids in transparency by showing how the school handles situations involving sexual assault and what professional resources are available on campus to support student survivors. Studies have found that greater awareness of school sexual assault policies has been linked to lower rates of campus sexual assault (DeLong et al., 2018). However, there seems to be a lack of student awareness of school sexual assault policies and resources (McMahon & Stepleton, 2018; Walsh et al., 2010). While there is evidence that the campus climate influences students’ awareness of sexual assault policies and resources, few studies explore the impact of the campus climate on at-risk populations like student-athletes who may be more vulnerable to institutional betrayal (Smith & Freyd, 2014). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine student-athlete perceptions of the campus climate and their awareness of sexual assault policies and resources.

Student-Athletes and Sexual Assault

Student-athletes are a unique subpopulation of college students. In the 2017–2018 academic year, there were nearly half a million student-athletes competing across 11,000 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) membership institutions (NCAA, 2018). Although student-athletes make up a smaller percentage of the student population, they are not immune to sexual assault. Previous research found that female athletes face greater sexual harassment in the sport environment (McGinley et al., 2016) and may be more susceptible to sexual harassment from male authority figures (Fasting et al., 2003). In a longitudinal study that followed teens to college, results yielded no significant differences between the prevalence of sexual assault victimization between female student-athletes (14.8%) and nonathletes (15.0%; Milner & Baker, 2017). Meanwhile, male student-athletes have been overrepresented in the literature as perpetrators of sexual assault (Binder, 2001; Crosset et al., 1995). A study conducted with male college students at a public university found that more than half of the students who endorsed perpetrating some form of sexual coercion participated in sports (Young et al., 2016).

Since student-athletes feel more comfortable with teammates and other student-athletes than nonathletes (NCAA, 2017), greater awareness of sexual assault policies and resources may better position student-athletes to recognize sexual assault involving one of their peers as a survivor or perpetrator. Although the campus climate has not been studied in relation to sexual assault with student-athletes, female student-athletes seem to have greater awareness of campus-wide resources than male student-athletes (NCAA, 2017). Moreover, college students who participate in intramural or university sports teams are more likely to believe sexual assault prevention is not important (Jozkowski et al., 2015). To address the gaps in the literature and improve sexual assault prevention with student-athletes, it is imperative to explore macro factors that may affect student-athlete awareness of policies and resources for sexual assault.

Campus Climate and Awareness of Sexual Assault Policies and Resources

Colleges and universities are responsible for creating a safe campus climate. Since institutions of higher education have the capacity to shape community norms that oppose sexual assault and support respectful relationships, more comprehensive theoretical models are needed to assess how knowledge and attitudes could change as a result of sexual assault prevention (Banyard, 2014). Through the socioecological model, institutions of higher education can help build a community response to sexual assault using sexual assault prevention. Bronfrenbrenner’s (1979) socioecological model recognizes the multifaceted interaction between individual, relationship, community, and societal factors. The socioecological model situates a comprehensive campus-based prevention strategy to address risk and protective factors across each of these levels (DeGue, 2014). Students may be more aware of school sexual assault policies if those in their peer network and social environment are committed to changing social norms that contribute to sexual assault. That said, institutions of higher education will be more successful in reducing sexual assault by building community responsibility. When applying this model to the campus climate, consistent messaging from prevention training and from campus staff (i.e., campus police, athletic staff, and administration) may influence the level of awareness of school sexual assault policies and resources.

There has been a push by the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (2014) to assess the campus climate regarding sexual misconduct, including the institutional response to addressing allegations of sexual assault. Research suggests that survivors of sexual assault have a variety of fears, including the following: fear of retaliation, fear of not being believed, and disbelief in successful prosecution (Sable et al., 2006; Zinzow & Thompson, 2011). Spencer et al. (2017) found that undergraduate students who experienced sexual assault during their time in college were more likely to formally report the incident to authorities when they not only felt that the university would handle the report appropriately but also had a positive perception of campus climate. Interviews with college students also highlighted how positive perceptions of the campus climate would enhance knowledge of available resources (Garcia et al., 2012). Since most of the literature focuses on survivors’ experience of reporting sexual assault, more studies are needed to uncover perceptions of institutional response in responding to allegations of sexual assault and the impact on student awareness of school sexual assault policies and resources.

The campus climate is greatly affected by perceptions of campus staff, such as campus police, staff, and administration. Trust, respect, confidentiality, trained professionals, as well as comprehensive and consistent response are believed to be important qualities that college students look for in campus staff when seeking assistance for sexual assault (Strout et al., 2014). A national study found that college students have a low perceived confidence in campus staff and school leadership efforts related to sexual misconduct prevention and response (Krebs et al., 2016). Not only is sexual assault seldom reported to campus police (Krivoshey et al., 2013), nearly 30% of reported cases are dropped by the survivor (Murphy et al., 2014). Other studies indicate survivor fear or dislike of campus police as a barrier to reporting to formal helpers (Sable et al., 2006; Zinzow & Thompson, 2011). Racial discrimination is also a perceived barrier to reporting sexual assault to police, as nonwhite female survivors fear the incident would be viewed as their fault and thus did not want to get police involved compared to white females (Thompson et al., 2007). Many colleges and universities have greater enforced mandated reporting of sexual assault by campus staff, mainly in response to the insufficient response to high-profile sexual assault victimizations by student-athletes (Mancini et al., 2016).

Over the years many resources have been put in place on college campuses to address sexual assault. The release of the Dear Colleague Letter not only reinforced federal requirements under Title IX (1972) that prohibits discrimination based on sex in education and activities but also encouraged colleges and universities to take more prosocial measures to prevent sexual assault, including raising awareness of campus policies and procedures (U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2011). In light of the amendment to Title IX regulations, referred to as the Final Rule (U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2020), there is an even greater impetus for institutions of higher education to educate their communities on the updated definitions of sexual assault, reporting procedures, and adjudication processes. More importantly, as a result of the wide disapproval of the Final Rule, which limits the scope of the school’s responsibility to respond to reports of sexual assault and support due process rights for perpetrating students (Butler et al., 2019), institutions of higher education must create a culture where sexual assault is not tolerated. Many colleges and universities implement sexual assault prevention to their students to raise awareness of sexual assault and how to respond if an incident occurs to themselves or their peers (Amar et al., 2014; Kafonek & Richards, 2017). A meta-analysis of empirical literature found that sexual assault prevention has a positive influence on college students’ knowledge and attitudes toward sexual assault (Newlands & O’Donohue, 2016). Many college students believe that sexual assault prevention is important for themselves and for the student body, especially among females and younger students (Jozkowski et al., 2015). Findings from qualitative research indicates that college students are eager for continued education on sexual assault and available campus resources (Garcia et al., 2012). However, the bulk of research focuses on implementing sexual assault prevention at the individual level (Vladutiu et al., 2011), rather than examining factors at multiple levels of the environment. A systematic review of the literature found that environmental factors on college campuses are instrumental to sexual assault prevention (McMahon, 2015). For example, students and staff at a Midwestern university designed and implemented a sexual assault prevention program for first-year students and found that using a collaborative approach, along with group-based education, participant knowledge and attitudes of sexual assault increased knowledge, and attitudes of sexual assault among participants (Bonar et al., 2019).

Despite sexual assault prevention efforts, there is a lack of awareness of sexual assault policies and resources among the student population (Burgess-Proctor et al., 2016; Krebs et al., 2016; Sabina & Ho, 2014). For example, when a group of criminal justice students were surveyed on their perceptions of sexual assault and awareness of resources, half of the participants said they received information about sexual assault and, of those, only 39% knew where to get information about sexual assault from the university (Hayes-Smith & Levett, 2010). Lack of awareness is likely also influenced by poor policies and definitions of sexual assault. A statewide study of four-year colleges in Ohio found that colleges had inconsistent or confusing definitions of sexual assault, lacked 24-hour reporting services as well as clear policies on confidentiality and anonymity for student survivors (Krivoshey et al., 2013). Results from a campus climate survey at a public university in the Northeast revealed that even though students were exposed to sexual assault either from their personal experience or friend’s experience, students had limited knowledge of campus resources and slight confidence in knowing where to go for assistance should an assault occur (McMahon & Stepleton, 2018).

Demographic factors may impact the student experience as it relates to sexual assault. Studies suggest that there is a greater awareness of sexual assault resources among females than males (Banyard et al., 2007; Walsh et al., 2010). Given that females receive more disclosures than males (Banyard et al., 2010; Paul et al., 2014), females may be more inclined to learn how to support survivors of sexual assault if they are unsure how to go about reporting the incident to campus authorities or seeking assistance from campus services. There may also be racial and ethnic disparities between college students. A recent study found that students of color are more supportive of sexual assault prevention than White students (Worthen & Wallace, 2017). Students of color are at a higher risk of sexual assault victimization (Cantor et al., 2017) and at a greater risk for institutional betrayal when seeking assistance for sexual assault (Gomez, 2015). Thus, students of color may show more interest in sexual assault prevention to better understand school sexual assault policies and resources for themselves or for other minority students. Improving communication and education around campus sexual assault with students of color are believed to mitigate some of the individual and sociocultural risk factors (Ollen et al., 2017).

Campus Climate and Student-Athletes

As the largest national governing body of intercollegiate athletics, the NCAA strives to promote student-athlete success in academics, well-being, and fairness (NCAA, 2019). NCAA member institutions are held accountable for meeting these standards. To assess the current campus climate, the NCAA Growth, Opportunities, Aspirations and Learning of Students in college (GOALS) Study surveyed experiences and well-being of current student-athletes across more than half of NCAA member institutions and found that the majority of student-athletes felt a strong sense of belonging at their college and part of an inclusive team environment (Paskus & Bell, 2016). Positive perceptions of the campus climate and interactions with athletic staff generally promote student-athlete success (Hoffman et al., 2016; Rankin et al., 2016); however, student-athletes report feeling more comfortable speaking with their team captains and coaches about team issues than faculty or administrators (Paskus & Bell, 2016). Taken together, student-athletes have positive perceptions of the overall campus climate at their respective institutions.

Few studies have explored institutional response and administration as they relate to handling sexual assault in athletics (Helling, 2020; McCray, 2015; Mountjoy et al., 2016; Scales, 2009; Spies, 2006). Sexual assault in athletics is not properly addressed when there is abuse of power relationships between staff and student-athletes, a sport culture of secrecy and defense, and failed sport leadership (Mountjoy et al., 2016). In a historical analysis of sexual assault perpetration by student-athletes, colleges with renowned athletic programs not only mishandled allegations of sexual assault to protect their players and overall reputations but also demonstrated patterns of untrustworthy staff (Mordecai, 2017). Many survivors of sexual assault are discouraged from pursuing charges in allegations involving student-athlete perpetrators as a result of delayed responses by athletic department staff and university administrators (Melnick, 1992). These occurrences may influence negative perceptions of the institutional response and campus staff by student-athletes. In addition, a national study found that 20% of schools give athletic departments oversight of sexual assault cases involving student-athletes, which demonstrates different adjudication procedures for student-athletes than nonathletes (U.S. Senate, 2014). Due to the inconsistencies in institutional responses to sexual assault, student-athletes may receive mixed messages about school sexual assault policies.

In response to criticism for lacking policies to address sexual assault (Ananiades, 2012; Parent, 2003; Scales, 2009), the NCAA has taken several steps to improve sexual assault prevention efforts. The NCAA Board of Governors (2020) requires university chancellors and presidents, athletic directors, as well as Title IX coordinators to annually report that their institution is: (a) maintaining compliance with institutional policies, processes, and adjudications for sexual assault; (b) providing information on institutional policies and resources are readily available to student-athletes, and (c) educating coaches, athletics administrators and student-athletes on prevention, intervention, and response. The NCAA Sport Science Institute (2019) also released the Sexual Violence Prevention Toolkit as a resource for institutional leaders to not only prevent campus sexual assault but to also engage student-athletes as prosocial bystanders. Student-athletes are encouraged to collaborate on campus efforts to prevent sexual assault and are also empowered to assist peer survivors of sexual assault and change community norms to prevent campus violence (NCAA Sport Science Institute, 2019). However, little is known about the student-athlete experience and their awareness of sexual assault policies and resources since the NCAA initiated new guidelines and best practices to reduce sexual assault.

Current Study

The extant literature has largely ignored the macro factors associated with student-athlete awareness of sexual assault policies and resources. This study seeks to assess how participation in sexual assault prevention, perceptions of institutional response, and perceptions of campus staff are related to awareness of school sexual assault policies and resources. More specifically, this article aims to examine how participation in sexual assault education and training as well as perceptions of the campus climate are associated with awareness of sexual assault policies and resources. Since individual awareness, perception, and response to campus sexual assault can be influenced and informed by structural forms of oppression and privilege, such as race, ethnicity, and gender (Worthen, & Wallace, 2017), it is important to control for these demographic factors. It is hypothesized that student-athletes who participate in sexual assault prevention have positive perceptions of the institutional response, and having positive perceptions of campus staff (i.e. campus police, athletic staff, and administration) will have greater awareness of sexual assault policies and resources after controlling for race, ethnicity, and gender.

Method

Participants

College students who were 18 years or older and actively participated in an NCAA sport were invited to participate. The researcher utilized convenience and quota sampling to target an equal number of male and female student-athletes at five NCAA membership institutions through professional connections. The survey was e-mailed to approximately 1,150 student-athletes across Division I, II, and III programs in the United States. Two schools were located in the northeast, two in the southeast, and one in the west. Of the 461 participants who agreed to participate, 82 participants were screened out due to eligibility criteria or quota conditions. Another 71 participants were removed due to missing data that exceeded 3%. There was a total of 308 student-athletes with a response rate of 27%.

As illustrated in Table 1, the final sample included 53.3% of females and 48.8% of males. The majority of participants were white (72.4%), followed by black or African American (13.8%), Other (8.2%), Asian or Pacific Islander (4.3%), and Native American or American Indian (1.3%). Another 13% of the participation identified as Hispanic versus Non-Hispanic (86.8%). There were 56.2% in Division I, 16.2% in Division II, and 27.6% in Division III.

Table 1.

Student-Athlete Demographics (N = 308).

Characteristic	Frequency	% (n)
Race
White	220	72.4
Black or African American	42	13.8
Other	25	8.2
Asian or Pacific Islander	13	4.3
Native American or American Indian	4	1.3
Missing	4	1.3
Ethnicity
Hispanic	40	13.2
Non-Hispanic	263	86.8
Gender
Men’s team	144	46.8
Women’s team	164	53.2
Division level
Division I	173	56.2
Division II	50	16.2
Division III	85	27.6

Procedures

This study used a nonprobability cross-sectional survey design. An anonymous, self-administered questionnaire was created in Qualtrics with a unique link for each participating school. The survey was pretested with a small group of doctoral students enrolled in core curriculum classes at the host research institution. Pretesting not only ensured that the questions were clearly worded and organized to reduce measurement bias but also recorded the amount of time needed to complete the survey. The final survey was sent to a gatekeeper at each school’s athletic department. To ensure anonymity, the gatekeepers e-mailed the survey link to their student-athlete listserv and followed up with weekly reminders. Athletic staff verbally reminded their student-athletes during regularly scheduled activities about the opportunity to take the survey. The web-based survey went live in March, 2019 and was open until the desired sample size was reached. Participants received a $10 Amazon e-gift card upon completion of the survey. A list of national sexual assault resources was also provided in the event that participants needed to seek help or support. Institutional review board approval was received from the host institution and each participating institution.

Measures

Participation in sexual assault prevention. One question asked participants to indicate whether they participated in education or training on sexual assault during their time in college. Answer choices included yes, no, or not sure. Responses were recoded into a new dichotomous variable with yes = 1 and no/not sure = 0.

Perceptions of institutional response. Perceptions of institutional response was operationalized as the perceived ways in which the university or college addressed campus sexual assault through prevention and response. The scale was measured using the perception of school leadership climate for sexual misconduct prevention and response which was tested in the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS; Krebs et al., 2016). The seven-item scale measured perceptions of campus leadership efforts related to sexual assault such as “Sexual harassment is not tolerated at this school” and “This school is doing a good job of investigating incidents of sexual assault.” Participants selected whether they agree or disagree ranging from strongly agree = 3, agree = 2, disagree = 1, strongly disagree = 0 (α = .95). Scores totaled between 0 and 21, with a higher score demonstrating more positive perceptions of the institutional response to handling allegations of sexual assault.

Perceptions of campus staff. Nine items were used to measure the perceptions of campus staff, which were divided into subscales about campus police (α = .89), athletic staff (α = .90), and administration (α = .93; Krebs et al., 2016). While the original scale from the CCSVS included perceptions of faculty, the scale was modified to include athletic staff as a way to incorporate a better sense of the athletic culture. The same three questions were asked for each subscale (e.g., “are genuinely concerned about my well-being,” “are doing all they can to protect students from harm,” and “treat students fairly”). Responses for the separate subscales were summed for strongly agree = 3, agree = 2, disagree = 1, strongly disagree = 0. Each subscale ranged from 0 to 9. A higher score indicated more positive perceptions of campus staff.

Awareness of sexual assault policies and resources. Knowledge of sexual assault policies and resources was adapted using by the Awareness and Perceived Fairness of School Sexual Assault Policy and Resources by the CCSVS (Krebs et al., 2016). For the purposes of this study, two items were dropped from the original scale to focus exclusively on participant’s knowledge of the school’s sexual assault policies and resources. The Cronbach’s alpha for the revised instrument resulted in higher reliability (α = .91) than the full scale (α = .89). Participants were asked to indicate their agreement with statements such as “I am aware of and understand this school’s procedures for dealing with reported incidents of sexual assault” and “If a friend of mine were sexually assaulted, I know where to take my friend to get help” on a Likert scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The scale responses ranged from 0 to 9. Higher scores signified greater awareness of school sexual assault policies and resources.

Control Variables

The control variables included race, ethnicity, and gender. Participants selected their race as either white, black or African American, Native American or American Indian, Asian or Pacific Islander, or Other. Most of the participants who completed the survey were white (72.4%). As a result of small percentages of participation from other races, race was recoded coded as binary variable (white = 1, nonwhite = 0). Participants also specified their ethnicity (Hispanic = 1, Non-Hispanic = 0). For gender, participants were asked if they were a member of a men’s or women’s team (men’s team = 0, women’s team = 1).

Statistical Analysis

Data collected from the Qualtrics survey was imported to the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 25.0) where analysis was performed. Descriptive statistics were used to examine the sample’s demographic information, as well as the means and range of the variables. Correlation analyses explored whether awareness of sexual assault policies and resources were correlated with sociodemographic variables and the campus climate. An ordinary least squares multiple regression model was used to assess student-athlete’s participation in sexual assault prevention, perceptions of campus staff, and perceptions of institutional response differentiates between awareness of school sexual assault policies and resources, while controlling for race, ethnicity, and gender. Preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure there were no violations.

Results

Correlations between race, ethnicity, gender, participation in sexual assault prevention, perceptions of institutional response, perceptions of campus staff, and awareness of sexual assault policies and resources are presented in Table 2. Covariates were all significantly correlated to the outcome variable.

Table 2.

Correlations (N = 308).

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Race	1
2. Ethnicity	–.30**	1
3. Gender	.10 +	.07	1
4. Participation in SA prevention	.08	.01	– .14*	1
5. Perceptions of institutional response	.19**	–.12*	–.18**	.14*	1
6. Perceptions of campus police	.23**	–.10+	.02	.07	.61**	1
7. Perceptions of athletic staff	.29**	–.07	–.06	.06	.46**	.54**	1
8. Perceptions of administration	.25**	–.09	.08	.00	.54**	.66**	.58**	1
9. Awareness of SA policies and resources	.23**	–.18**	–.13*	.24**	.62**	.53**	.35**	.46**	1

Note. SA = sexual assault. +p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .001.

An ordinary least squares multiple regression model assessed the association of participation in sexual assault prevention, perceptions of institutional response, perceptions of campus police, perceptions of athletic staff, and perceptions of administration with awareness of sexual assault policies and resources after controlling for race, ethnicity, and gender (see Table 3). The total variance explained by the model as a whole was 46.9%, (F [8, 289] = 31.93, p < .001). Most of the campus climate variables were significant including participation in sexual assault prevention (β = .16, p < .001), perceptions of institutional response (β = .40, p < .001), and perceptions of campus police (β = .20, p = .002). Past participation in sexual assault prevention, more positive perceptions of institutional response, and more positive perceptions of campus police were associated with greater awareness of school policies and resources for sexual assault. Perceptions of athletic staff and perceptions of administration were not significant. However, perceptions of administration approached significance (β = 11, p = .073) as more positive perceptions of administration indicated greater awareness of sexual assault policies and resources. While the control variables were not statistically significant, ethnicity approached significance (β = –.09, p = .059). Hispanic student-athletes had lower awareness of sexual assault policies and resources than non-Hispanics.

Table 3.

Campus Climate and Awareness of Sexual Assault Policies and Resources.

Variables		SE B	β	p
Race (0 = Nonwhite)	.29	.24	.06	.216
Ethnicity (0 = Non-Hispanic)	–.57	.30	–.09	.059+
Gender (0 = Men’s team)	–.21	.20	–.05	.304
Participation in sexual assault prevention	.99	.27	.16	.000**
Perceptions of institutional response	.18	.03	.40	.000**
Perceptions of campus police	.19	.06	.20	.002*
Perceptions of athletic staff	–.04	.05	–.04	.462
Perceptions of administration	.11	.06	.11	.073+

Note. Reference categories are in parentheses.

+p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .001.

Discussion

The goal of this study was to examine how student-athlete perceptions of the campus climate impact their awareness of school sexual assault policies and resources. The results of this study support the hypothesis that student-athletes who participate in sexual assault prevention, have positive perceptions of the institutional response, and have positive perceptions of campus staff will be associated with a greater awareness of sexual assault policies and resources after controlling for race, ethnicity, and gender. Results indicate that participation in sexual assault prevention was related to greater awareness of sexual assault policies and resources, which is consistent with past literature (Morean et al., 2021). Studies demonstrate that there is a powerful impact of sexual assault prevention through education and training on individual knowledge of the prevalence, impact, and consequences of sexual assault (Newlands & O’Donohue, 2016). Before the NCAA mandated annual sexual assault prevention for athletic departments in 2017, institutions of higher education did not always provide targeted training to student-athletes (Amar et al., 2014). Only 37% of colleges and universities provided sexual assault prevention to student-athletes nationwide, with the majority targeting Division I programs (U.S. Senate, 2014). Few four-year institutions were concerned with programming to address the risks and needs of student-athletes (Kafonek & Richards, 2017). This study shows the positive influence of sexual assault prevention with student-athletes. Researchers should consider studying the effect of sexual assault prevention on student-athletes’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors when engaging in sexual assault prevention.

As hypothesized, positive perceptions of the institutional response to handling allegations of sexual assault, as well as positive perceptions of the campus police and administration, were associated with greater awareness of school sexual assault policies and resources. Student-athlete perceptions of institutional response and campus staff align with findings from other studies in which students believe that negative perceptions of the institutional response and campus staff could have detrimental consequences on responding to sexual assault (Sable et al., 2006; Spencer et al., 2017; Zinzow & Thompson, 2011). Further, these results reflect the growing efforts of colleges and universities to better address sexual assault, particularly with student-athletes. Institutions of higher education have been partnering with on-campus personnel to lead sexual assault prevention, with the majority led by law enforcement followed by student services staff, campus administrators, and faculty members (Kafonek & Richards, 2017). Through a community effort, colleges and universities could convey consistent messaging and create more opportunities for students to build rapport with campus staff. More research needs to assess how institutions and campus staff are addressing sexual assault and transforming the overall campus climate to increase awareness of their school’s sexual assault policies and resources.

Different than expected, perceptions of athletic staff were not significantly related to awareness of school sexual assault policies and resources. Due to the fact that the NCAA implemented mandated sexual assault prevention in 2017, it may be too early to detect any major shifts in athletics departments. However, this finding suggests that athletic staff need to prioritize sexual assault prevention in their programs to raise awareness of sexual assault policies and resources. There are many high-profile cases in which athletic departments kept allegations of sexual assault from being shared with institutional administrators to protect student-athlete perpetrators eligibility to play (Scales, 2009). Institutions of higher education may be more concerned about protecting the reputation of their athletic programs than addressing allegations of sexual assault involving student-athletes (Beaver, 2019; Mordecai, 2017). It is possible that these beliefs permeate the collegiate sport culture and student-athletes therefore receive mixed messaging about responding to sexual assault. In addition, athletic departments may not be participating in campus-wide prevention efforts. Future studies should investigate whether student-athletes are receiving consistent messaging from the institution and athletics department. Since athletic staff facilitate student-athlete success in their performance on the field and in the classroom (Rankin et al., 2016), they may also be influential advocates for sexual assault prevention within their department. For instance, coaches have been key figures for promoting sexual violence prevention with their student-athletes (Jaime et al., 2015; Miller et al., 2013; Tredinnick & McMahon, 2019). More research is needed to determine how athletic staff influence student-athlete awareness of sexual assault policies and resources.

Regression analyses revealed that race, ethnicity, and gender did not yield significant differences. These findings contradict past research (Banyard et al., 2007; Worthen & Wallace, 2017; Walsh et al., 2010). However, recent studies suggest that the likelihood of experiencing institutional betrayal is not influenced by race or gender (Pinciotti & Orcutt, 2021). While ethnicity was not statistically significant to awareness of school sexual assault policies and resources, Hispanic student-athletes appeared to have a lower awareness than non-Hispanic student-athletes. Scholars theorize that students of color may encounter microaggressions when seeking assistance for sexual assault due to limited cultural competence within university care systems (Gomez, 2015). Student-athletes of color face greater campus challenges than white student-athletes (NCAA, 2017) and are less likely to find the campus and team environments inclusive or accepting (Bernhard, 2014; Paskus & Bell, 2016). Thus, student-athletes of color, particularly Hispanic student-athletes, may be deterred from staying abreast of current policies and resources in fear that their actions will not be taken as seriously as their white peers. Future research must continue to explore demographic factors as potential predictors of awareness of sexual assault policies and resources in the context of the campus climate.

Implications and Future Directions

The present study makes an important contribution to literature on sexual assault prevention and growing literature on campus climates with at-risk populations. Findings call attention to increasing sexual assault prevention with student-athletes, particularly on school sexual assault policies and resources. Few colleges and universities offer targeted prevention to at-risk groups (Kafonek & Richards, 2017) like student-athletes. Due to developing research that suggest that student-athletes who have been victimized by sexual assault may be vulnerable to institutional betrayal (Helling, 2020; Mountjoy et al., 2016; Pinciotti & Orcutt, 2021; Smith & Freyd, 2014), institutions of higher education should consider offering a range of sexual assault prevention to student-athletes. For example, bystander intervention education on college campuses has had positive outcomes on the individual and community level (McMahon et al., 2019). Programs such as Mentors in Violence Prevention (Katz, 1995) and Coaching Boys into Men (Miller et al., 2013) use a sports-based curriculum to discuss opportunities to intervene as a bystander. By framing sexual violence as a community responsibility (Banyard, 2015), these prevention programs encourage student-athletes to recognize sexual assault on campus and intervene in risky situations involving one of their peers. Student-athletes who participate in bystander intervention education demonstrate increased awareness of school sexual assault policies and resources, and increased confidence to intervene as a bystander to sexual assault (Morean et al., 2021). Another community approach to sexual assault prevention is peer education theater. In Students Challenging Realities and Educating Against Myths (SCREAM) Theater, students perform for audiences inside and outside of the community, such as university students and staff, high school students, social service agencies, and law enforcement (Johnson et al., 2015). As an extension of SCREAM Theater, SCREAM Athletes works in collaboration with the athletic department to allow student-athletes to lead community performances (Rutgers University Student Affairs, Office for Violence Prevention and Victim Assistance, 2020). Participation in SCREAM Theater has been found to increase bystander intentions and behaviors, particularly with repeated exposure (McMahon et al., 2015). More studies should explore effective sexual assault prevention utilizing a comprehensive model to motivate student-athletes to serve as leaders in their communities to combat sexual assault.

Institutions of higher education need to continue conducting campus climate surveys to assess experiences, attitudes, and behaviors related to sexual assault, as put forth by the White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault (2014). Campus climate surveys provide essential information to help improve programs on campus that seek to address violence (Wood et al., 2017), especially for at-risk populations like student-athletes. Implementing campus climate surveys helps bridge the gap between research, practice, and policy to assess current sexual assault policy and outcomes, which will lead to opportunities for improved data collection, increased funding for research and programming, and effective educational programs and tools (Klein et al., 2018). Replicating studies that assess the campus climate will also justify the need more for adequate resources for institutions of higher education to develop, review, and update policies on sexual assault (DeLong et al., 2018).

Participants demonstrated that institutions of higher education have a profound impact on the campus climate and creating a community response to addressing sexual assault. Thus, institutions of higher education should encourage policy reform to cultivate a more robust institutional culture. Colleges and universities should collaborate with athletic departments to improve protocols that better protect student-athletes when they disclose incidents of sexual assault to campus staff and better enforce Title IX policies. With the recent NCAA policy on campus sexual assault (2017), it is especially timely for athletic departments to take the necessary steps to become fully versed in university sexual assault policies, provide resources and education to staff and students within their respective athletic departments, and boost campus-wide efforts to reduce sexual assault. Another area for future research includes focusing on student-athlete experiences regarding the institutional response to sexual assault and interactions with campus staff. Assessing institution’s compliance with mandatory training and reporting of sexual assault is important to ensure student-athletes’ needs are being met.

Although this study adds to the literature on sexual assault prevention, there are some limitations to consider. The dichotomous yes/no variable used to measure sexual assault prevention could not determine information about the type of sexual assault prevention they attended, including the program’s audience, length, or content. Thus, this study did not account for the different variations of sexual assault prevention delivered by each school. For more accurate and reliable results, future surveys should evaluate the impact of specific types of sexual assault prevention on awareness of sexual assault policies and resources. Moreover, it cannot be concluded that the campus climate predicts awareness of school policies and resources without assessing for other potential covariates. Since the survey asked participants to indicate their participation on a men or women’s team, participants did not specify their true gender identify. Other studies should incorporate more inclusive answer choices to better assess a range of different gender identities. The awareness of sexual assault policy and resources scale had a high Cronbach’s alpha after dropping two items; however, the modified scale warrants a confirmatory factor analysis to measure the exact validity. In addition, researchers should consider studying covariates such as past victimization of sexual assault, type of sport, or NCAA Division level to explore differences in student-athlete perceptions of the campus climate. In terms of the research design, there may be self-selection bias because respondents who read the email invitation voluntarily opted to continue with the survey. Finally, this study is not representative of NCAA student-athletes as a result of convenience and quota sampling. There was also a low number of respondents across five institutions, which may be due to the sensitive nature of the study and online survey design. While the response rate was slightly smaller for survey research, the percentage was acceptable for web-based surveys (Shih & Fan, 2009). Researchers should implement a stronger research design with random sampling to increase the response rate and generalizability.

In spite of its limitations, this study identifies notable factors that influence the student-athlete experience in relation to sexual assault. Participation in sexual assault prevention, perceptions of the institutional response, and perceptions of campus staff appear to impact student-athletes’ awareness of school sexual assault policies and resources. Institutions of higher education have a duty to protect the health and safety of student-athletes as part of the community-wide effort to reduce sexual assault. Establishing clear policies and access to resources, delivering consistent messaging across the university, and creating a culture that does not tolerate sexual assault will ultimately build a safe environment for all students.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the NCAA Graduate Student Research Grant.

ORCID iD

Lorin Tredinnick

Author Biography

Lorin Tredinnick, PhD, MSW, LSW, works at Rutgers School of Social Work where she manages the New Jersey Victim Assistance Academy and teaches graduate courses for the Violence Against Women and Children Certificate Program. Her research broadly focuses on violence against women and children in the context of sport, including domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking. She has extensive experience as a trainer and researcher in violence prevention. Dr. Tredinnick has also been a pioneer in the field of sport social work, which uses a holistic approach to address the health and wellness of athletes at various levels of sport.

References

Amar

A. F.

, Strout

T. D.

, Simpson

, Cardiello

, & Beckford

(2014). Administrator’s perceptions of college campus protocols, response, and student prevention efforts for sexual assault. Violence and Victims , 29(4), 579–593.

Ananiades

(2012). Penalty on the field: Creating a NCAA sexual assault policy. Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal , 19(2), 463–479.

Banyard

V. L.

(2014). Improving college campus–based prevention of violence against women: A strategic plan for research built on multipronged practices and policies. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 15(4), 339–351.

Banyard

V. L.

(2015). Toward the next generation of bystander prevention of sexual and relationship violence: Action coils to engage communities . Springer.

Banyard

V. L.

, Moynihan

M. M.

, Walsh

W. A.

, Cohn

E. S.

, & Ward

(2010). Friends of survivors: The community impact of unwanted sexual experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 25(2), 242–256.

Banyard

V. L.

, Ward

, Cohn

E. S.

, & Plante

E. G.

(2007). Unwanted sexual contact on campus: A comparison of women’s and men’s experiences. Violence and Victims , 22(1), 52–70.

Beaver

(2019). College athletes and sexual assault. Society , 56, 620–624.

Bernhard

L. M.

(2014). “Nowhere for me to go:” Black female student-athlete experiences on a predominantly white campus. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education , 8(2), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1179/1935739714Z.00000000019

Binder

(2001). Changing a culture: Sexual assault prevention in the fraternity and sorority community. In Ottens

A. J.

& Hotelling

(Eds.), Sexual violence on campus: Policies, programs, and perspectives (pp. 98–119). Springer Publishing.

10.

Bloom

S. L.

, & Farragher

(2013). Restoring sanctuary: A new operating system for trauma-informed systems of care . Oxford University Press.

11.

Bonar

E. E

, Rider-Milkovich

H. M

, Huhman

A. K.

, McAndrew

, Goldstick

J. E.

,. Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development . Harvard University Press.

12.

Cantor

, Fisher

, Chibnall

, Townsend

, Lee

, Bruce

, & Thomas

(2017). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct . The Association of American Universities.

13.

Burgess-Proctor

, Pickett

, Parkhill

, Hamill

, Kirwan

, & Kozak

(2016). College women’s perceptions of and inclination to use campus sexual assault resources: Comparing the views of students with and without sexual victimization histories. Criminal Justice Review , 41(2), 204–218.

14.

Butler

L. C.

, Lee

, & Fisher

B. S.

(2019). Less safe in the ivory tower: Campus sexual assault policy in the Trump administration. Victims & Offenders: Special Issue on Crime and Justice in the Trump Era , 14(8), 979–996.

15.

Crosset

T. W.

, Benedict

J. R.

, & McDonald

M. A.

(1995). Male student athletes reported for sexual assault: A survey of campus police departments and judicial affairs offices. Journal of Sport and Social Issues , 19(2), 126–140.

16.

Cunningham

R. M.

, & Walton

M. A.

(2019). Description and initial evaluation of a values-based campus sexual assault prevention programme for first-year college students. Sex Education , 19(1), 99–113.

17.

DeGue

(2014, April). Preventing sexual violence on college campuses: lessons from research practice [Prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault]. Division of Violence Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.nccpsafety.org/assets/files/library/Preventing_Sexual_Violence_on_College_Campuses.pdf

18.

DeLong

, Graham

, Magee

, Treves-Kagan

, Gray

, McClay

, Zarnick

S. M.

, Kupper

L. L.

, Macy

R. J.

, Ashley

O. S.

, Pettifor

, Moracco

K. E.

, & Martin

S. L.

(2018). Starting the conversation: Are campus sexual assault policies related to the prevalence of campus sexual assault? Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 33(21), 3315–3343.

19.

Fasting

, Brackenridge

C. H.

, & Sundgot-Borgen

(2003). Experiences of sexual harassment and abuse amongst Norwegian elite female athletes and non-athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport , 74(1), 84–97.

20.

Garcia

C. M.

, Lechner

K. E.

, Frerich

E. A.

, Lust

K. A.

, & Eisenberg

M. E.

(2012). Preventing sexual violence instead of just responding to it: Students’ perceptions of sexual violence resources on campus. Journal of Forensic Nursing , 8(2), 61–71.

21.

Gomez

J. M.

(2015). Microaggressions and the enduring mental health disparity: Black Americans at risk for institutional betrayal. Journal of Black Psychology , 41(2), 121–143.

22.

Hayes-Smith

, & Levett

(2010). Student perceptions of sexual assault resources and prevalence of rape myth attitudes. Feminist Criminology , 5(4), 335–354.

23.

Helling

(2020). Moral injury in non-military contexts: The case of elite sports. Moral Injury Special Interest Group Newsletter , 1(3), 4–6.

24.

Hoffman

J. L.

, Rankin

S. R.

, & Loya

K. I.

(2016). Climate as a mediating influence on the perceived academic success of women student-athletes. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education , 10(3), 164–184.

25.

Jaime

M.C. D.

, McCauley

H. L.

, Tancredi

D. J.

, Nettiksimmons

, Decker

M. R.

, Silverman

J. G.

, O’Connor

, Stetkevich

, & Miller

(2015). Athletic coaches as violence prevention advocates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 30 (7), 1090–111.

26.

Johnson

, McMahon

, Postmus

J. L.

, & Koenick

R. A.

(2015). SCREAMing to prevent violence: A model for peer educational theater programs . Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. http://www.preventconnect.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/SCREAMing-To-Prevent-Violence-Manual-Completed.pdf

27.

Jozkowski

, Henry

, & Sturm

(2015). College students’ perceptions of the importance of sexual assault prevention education: Suggestions for targeting recruitment for peer-based education. Health Education Journal , 74(1), 46–59.

28.

Kafonek

, & Richards

T. N.

(2017) An examination of strategies for the prevention of gender-based violence at four-year institutions of higher education, Journal of School Violence , 16(3), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2017.1318576

29.

Katz

(1995). Reconstructing masculinity in the locker room: The Mentors in Violence Prevention Project. Harvard Educational Review , 65(2), 163–174.

30.

Klein

, Graham

L. M.

, Treves-Kagan

, Deck

P. G.

, DeLong

S. M.

, & Martin

S. L.

(2018). Leveraging data to strengthen campus sexual assault policies. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 32(21), 3298–3314.

31.

Krebs

, Lindquist

, Berzofsky

, Shook-Sa

, Peterson

, Planty

, Langton

, & Stroop

(2016). Campus climate survey validation study [Final technical report]. Bureau of Justice Statistics Research and Development Series.

32.

Krivoshey

M. S.

, Adkins

, Hayes

, Nemeth

J. M.

, & Klein

E. G.

(2013). Sexual assault reporting procedures at Ohio colleges. Journal of American College Health , 61(3), 142–47.

33.

Mancini

, Pickett

, Call

, & Roche

(2016). Mandatory reporting (MR) in higher education: College students’ perceptions of laws designed to reduce campus sexual assault. Criminal Justice Review , 41(2), 219–235.

34.

McCray

K. L.

(2015). Intercollegiate athletes and sexual violence. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse , 16(4), 438–443.

35.

McGinley

, Rospenda

, Liu

, & Richman

(2016). It isn’t all just fun and games: Collegiate participation in extracurricular activities and risk for generalized and sexual harassment, psychological distress, and alcohol use. Journal of Adolescence , 53, 152–163.

36.

McMahon

(2015). Call for research on bystander intervention to prevent sexual violence: The Role of campus environments. American Journal of Community Psychology , 55(3–4), 472–489.

37.

McMahon

, Steiner

J. J.

, Snyder

, & Banyard

V. L.

(2019). Comprehensive prevention of campus sexual violence: Expanding who is invited to the table. Trauma, Violence & Abuse , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019883275

38.

McMahon

, & Stepleton

(2018). Undergraduate exposure to messages about campus sexual assault: Awareness of campus resources. Journal of College Student Development , 59(1), 110–115.

39.

McMahon

, Winter

S. C.

, Palmer

J. E.

, Postmus

J. L.

, Peterson

N. A.

, Zucker

, & Koenick

R. A.

(2015). A randomized controlled trial of a multi-dose bystander intervention program using peer education theater. Health Education Research , 30(4), 554–568.

40.

McMahon

, Wood

, Cusano

, & Macri

L. M.

(2018). Campus sexual assault: Future directions for research. Sexual Abuse , 31(3), 270–295.

41.

Melnick

(1992). Male athletes and sexual assault. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance , 63(5), 32–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.1992.10604186

42.

Miller

, Tancredi

D. J.

, McCauley

H. L.

, Decker

M. R.

, Virata

M. C. D.

, Anderson

H. A.

, O’Connor

, & Silverman

J. G.

(2013). One-year follow-up of a coach-delivered dating violence prevention program: A cluster randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 45(1), 108–112.

43.

Milner

A. N.

, & Baker

E. H.

(2017). Athletic participation and intimate partner violence victimization: Investigating sport involvement, self-esteem, and abuse patterns for women and men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 32(2), 268–289.

44.

Mordecai

(2017). Sexual violence in intercollegiate athletics: A historical perspective of male athletic entitlement [Special issue]. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics , 36–56.

45.

Morean

M. E.

, Darling

, Smit

, DeFeis

, Wergeles

, Kruzer-Yashin

, Custer

(2021). Preventing and responding to sexual misconduct: Preliminary efficacy of a peer-led bystander training program for preventing sexual misconduct and reducing heavy drinking among collegiate athletes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 36(7-8), NP3453–NP3479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518777555

46.

Mountjoy

, Brackenridge

, Arrington

, Blauwet

, Carska-Sheppard

, Fasting

, Kirby

, Leahy

, Marks

, Martin

, Starr

, Tiivas

, & Budgett

(2016). The IOC Consensus Statement: Harassment and abuse (non-accidental violence) in sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine , 50(17), 1019–29.

47.

Murphy

, Edwards

, Bennett

, Bibeau

, & Sichelstiel

(2014). Police reporting practices for sexual assault cases in which “The victim does not wish to pursue charges”. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 29(1), 144–156.

48.

National Collegiate Athletic Association.(NCAA). (2017). NCAA study of student-athlete social environments (2012–2016) January 2017 preliminary report . http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017RES_NCAA_Convention_Social_Environments_present_20170807.pdf

49.

NCAA. (2018). Number of NCAA college athletes reaches all-time high . http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/number-ncaa-college-athletes-reaches-all-time-high

50.

NCAA. (2019). National collegiate athletic association . http://www.ncaa.org/

51.

NCAA Board of Governors. (2020). NCAA policy to combat campus sexual violence . http://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ssi/violence/NCAA_CampusSexualViolencePolicy.pdf

52.

NCAA Sport Science Institute. (2019). Sexual violence prevention toolkit: An athletics toolkit for a healthy and safe culture (2nd ed). https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ssi/violence/SSI_SexualViolencePreventionToolkit.pdf

53.

Newlands

, & O’Donohue

(2016). A critical review of sexual violence prevention on college campuses. Acta Psychopathologica , 2(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4172/2469-6676.100040

54.

Ollen

E. W.

, Ameral

V. E.

, Reed

Palm

K. Hines D.

(2017). Sexual minority college students’ perceptions on dating violence and sexual assault. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 64(1), 112–119.

55.

Parent

C. M.

(2003). Personal fouls: How sexual assault by football players is exposing universities to Title IX liability. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal , 13(2), 617–652.

56.

Paskus

, & Bell

(2016, January). NCAA GOALS study of the student-athlete experience: Initial summary of findings . NCCA. http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/GOALS_2015_summary_jan2016_final_20160627.pdf

57.

Paul

L. A.

, Kehn

, Gray

M. J.

, & Salapska-Gelleri

(2014). Perceptions of, and assistance provided to, a hypothetical rape victim: Differences between rape disclosure recipients and nonrecipients. Journal of American College Health , 62(6), 426–433.

58.

Pinciotti

, & Orcutt

(2021). Institutional betrayal: Who is most vulnerable? Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 36(11-12), 5036–5054. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518802850

59.

Rankin

S. Merson

, D.

Garvey

, J.

, Sorgen

C. H.

, Menon

, Loya

, & Oseguera

(2016). The influence of climate on the academic and athletic success of student-athletes: Results from a multi-institutional national study. The Journal of Higher Education , 87(5), 701–30.

60.

Rutgers University Student Affairs, Office for Violence Prevention and Victim Assistance. (2020). SCREAM athletes . http://vpva.rutgers.edu/scream-theater-and-scream-athletes/what-is-scream-athletes/

61.

Sabina

, & Ho

(2014). Campus and college victim responses to sexual assault and dating violence: Disclosure, service utilization, and service provision. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 15(3), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014521322

62.

Sable

M. R.

, Danis

, Mauzy

D. L.

, & Gallagher

S. K.

(2006). Barriers to reporting sexual assault for women and men: Perspectives of college students. Journal of American College Health , 55(3), 157–162.

63.

Scales

(2009). Student gladiators and sexual assault: A new analysis of liability for injuries inflicted by college athletes. Michigan Journal of Gender & Law , 15(2), 205–389.

64.

Shih

, & Fan

(2009). Comparing response rates in e-mail and paper surveys: A meta- analysis. Educational Research Review , 4(1), 26–40.

65.

Smith

S. P.

, & Freyd

J. J.

(2014). Institutional betrayal. American Psychologist , 69(6), 575–587.

66.

Sinozich

, & Langton

(2014). Rape and sexual assault victimization among college females, 1995–2013 . US Dept. of Justice. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

67.

Smith

C. P.

, & Freyd

J. J.

(2017). Insult, then injury: Interpersonal and institutional betrayal linked to health and dissociation. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma , 26(10), 1117–1131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2017.1322654

68.

Spencer

, Stith

, Durtschi

, & Toews

(2017). Factors related to college students’ decisions to report sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 35(21–22), 4666–4685.

69.

Spies

J. E.

(2006). Winning at all costs: An analysis of a University’s potential liability for sexual assaults committed by its student athletes. Marquette Sports Law Review , 16(2), 429–461.

70.

Strout

T. F.

, Amar

, & Astwood

(2014). Women’s center staff perceptions of the campus climate on sexual violence. Journal of Forensic Nursing , 10(3), 135–143.

71.

Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972, Title 20 U.S.C. Sections 1681–1688.(1972).

72.

Thompson

, Sitterle

, Clay

, & Kingree

(2007). Reasons for not reporting victimizations to the police: Do they vary for physical and sexual incidents? Journal of American College Health, 55(5), 277–282.

73.

Tredinnick

, & McMahon

(2019). College coaches’ influence on student-athlete engagement in sexual assault prevention: Promoting readiness to help and awareness of campus resources. Sport and Society , 22(10), 1–16.

74.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2011). Dear colleague letter on Title IX Coordinators . http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201504-title-ix-coordinators.pdf

75.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2020). Final Rule . https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/titleix-regs-unofficial.pdf

76.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2020). Sexual assault . https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault

77.

U.S. Senate. (2014 July 9). Sexual violence on campus: How too many institutions of higher education are failing to protect students . http://www.mccaskill.senate.gov/surveyreportwithappendix.pdf

78.

Vladutiu

C. J.

, Martin

S. L.

, & Macy

R. J.

(2011). College- or university-based sexual assault prevention programs: A review of program outcomes, characteristics, and recommendations. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 12(2), 67–86.

79.

Walsh

W. A.

, Banyard

V. L.

, Moynihan

M. M.

, Ward

, & Cohn

E. S.

(2010). Disclosure and service use on a college campus after an unwanted sexual experience. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation , 11(2), 134–151.

80.

White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault (U.S.). (2014). Not alone: The first report of the white house task force to protect students from sexual assault . https://www.justice.gov/archives/ovw/page/file/905942/download

81.

White

J. W.

, Koss

M. P.

, Abbey

, Thompson

, Cook

Swartout (2015). What you need to know about campus sexual assault perpetration . Administrator Researcher Campus Climate Collaborative. http://campusclimate.gsu.edu/files/2015/04/Facts-about-perpetration-with-logo_09_11_15slc2.pdf

82.

Wood

, Sulley

, Kammer-Kerwick

, Follingstad

, & Busch-Armendariz

(2017). Climate surveys: An inventory of understanding sexual assault and other crimes of interpersonal violence at institutions of higher education. Violence Against Women , 23(10), 1249–1267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216657897

83.

Worthen

, & Wallace

(2017). Intersectionality and perceptions about sexual assault education and reporting on college campuses. Family Relations , 66(1), 180–196.

84.

Young

B. R.

, Desmarais

S. L.

, Baldwin

J. A.

, & Chandler

(2016). Sexual coercion practices among undergraduate male recreational athletes, intercollegiate athletics, and non-athletes. Violence Against Women , 23(7), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216651339

85.

Zinzow

, & Thompson

(2011). Barriers to reporting sexual victimization: Prevalence and correlates among undergraduate women. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma , 20(7), 711–725.