Abstract
This case study examined community readiness in a cohort of U.S. universities. Drawing on the Community Readiness Model (CRM), the extent to which a campus was ready to implement a comprehensive hazing prevention plan was assessed. The study was designed to help build the knowledge base using the CRM to systematically assess the cohort’s work to prevent hazing. Methods. Utilizing the CRM, key informants were interviewed. Interview data were scored using CRM rating scales and then coded following basic interpretive methods of qualitative analysis. Scores determined levels of readiness while data were analyzed for emergent themes related to a comprehensive approach to hazing prevention. Results. The CRM assessment revealed preplanning stages of readiness, meaning campus staff considered hazing prevention to be important and asking what should be done. Emergent themes that may strengthen and sustain hazing prevention in higher education are identified and discussed. Conclusions. Indications that the CRM may be useful for hazing prevention research and practice can contribute to the development of a knowledge base to support efficacy and assist campus communities in focusing their work while directing efforts toward higher levels of readiness.
Prevention programs on university campuses are key to the health and safety of student populations. With a focus on challenging attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions on campus communities, prevention specialists assist in guiding campus administrators to create environments to maintain the safety of students who participate in cocurricular opportunities; hence, hazing prevention and other forms of violence have become a priority. Health education and promotion go hand in hand as each provides a way to understand what might protect students and change university cultures that normalize dangerous student behaviors, such as high-risk drinking, suicide, relationship violence, and hazing.
Hazing can harm students and undermine the missions of educational institutions (Allan et al., 2018b; Allan & Madden, 2012). Research has shown hazing to be relatively widespread with reports ranging from 26% to 55% of college students and 47% to 48% of high school students belonging to clubs, organizations, or teams experiencing some form of hazing (Allan et al., 2019; Allan & Madden, 2012; Hoover, 1999). Harmful effects can include physical and emotional harm to students, reputational damage, and costly litigation for families, student organizations, teams, schools, and universities (Allan et al., 2018a). Professional staff and administrators report feeling discouraged and perplexed by entrenched attitudes and beliefs that support a culture in which hazing exists as part of college life (Allan et al., 2018b).
Nature and Extent of College Hazing
Research suggests that hazing is woven into the fabric of student life and campus culture in U.S. colleges and universities (Allan et al., 2018b; Allan & Madden, 2008). Sixty-nine percent of college students in a national study recognized hazing as part of campus culture, largely due to an awareness of hazing practices within teams or student organizations other than those in which they participated (Allan & Madden, 2012). Although fraternities are frequently identified for reckless and deadly hazing activities, sororities, military organizations, athletic teams, marching bands, and other clubs also engage in such practices (Kerschner & Allan, 2021; Sanborn, 2012; Silveira & Hudson, 2015).
Hazing behavior can be understood along a continuum (Allan & Kerschner, 2020) including behaviors categorized as humiliation, harassment, and violence. Hazing behaviors for college students can include being awakened during sleep and/or sleep deprivation, personal servitude, isolation, kidnaps, alcohol and other substance misuse, expectations to wear humiliating attire and watching or performing sex acts and enduring harsh weather conditions without proper clothing (Allan et al., 2019; Allan & Madden, 2012).
In a 2008 study of more than 11,000 students at 52 colleges and universities throughout the United States, hazing was reported in a range of group settings including varsity athletics (74%), fraternities and sororities (73%), club sports (64%), band, and other performing arts organizations (56%) as well as academic clubs, honor societies, and intramural sports (Allan & Madden, 2012). More recently, based on data from 5,880 college students enrolled at universities with commitments to comprehensive hazing prevention programs in place, Allan and colleagues (2019) found lower overall rates of hazing (26%), but similar patterns relative to behaviors and types of groups in which hazing occurred. Other examinations of hazing in U.S. postsecondary education have noted similar patterns (Campo et al., 2005; Owen et al., 2008; Silveira & Hudson, 2015).
Studies have documented activities that cause physical and psychological harm, entail high-risk substance abuse, and involve sexual and gender violence (Allan et al., 2019; Finkel, 2002; Hoover, 1999), which tend to reinforce heteronormativity regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender identity (Anderson et al., 2012; Parks et al., 2015).
Hazing Prevention Consortium
Due to the serious nature of hazing, a Hazing Prevention Consortium (HPC) was launched (2013) in collaboration with universities willing to commit to a comprehensive approach to prevention (Allan et al., 2018b). The activities of the HPC focused on an approach that was collaborative, strategic, and sustainable. Both research and practice were included in an integrated loop to build, implement, evaluate, and sustain best practices for eliminating hazing on participating campuses. For example, assessment data collected at each university guided the prioritization and implementation of particular prevention strategies including coalition-building, trainings, and visible leadership statements.
Comprehensive Hazing Prevention
Drawing on established public health approaches, recommendations for comprehensive campus hazing prevention were initially identified in an unpublished whitepaper by Langford (2008) and included the following suggestions: (a) identify and address multiple contributing factors across multiple levels of influence (i.e., individual, peer, and group); (b) conduct a local analysis; (c) include prevention, early intervention, and response components; (d) use multiple, coordinated, and sustained strategies; (e) ensure programs, policies, and services are coordinated and synergistic; (f) ensure that each component of the initiative has clearly defined goals and objectives informed by data and research; and (g) build collaborations or partnerships (Langford, 2008).
The Hazing Prevention Consortium produced a Hazing Prevention Framework (HPF) using data gathered from universities committed to a comprehensive approach to hazing prevention (Allan et al., 2018b). The HPF provides guidance for campus communities in assessing campus climate for hazing and building capacity for planning, developing, implementing, and evaluating data-informed hazing prevention strategies.
The HPF aligns with Langford’s (2008) recommendations as well as the Strategic Prevention Framework (SAMSHA) to elaborate eight key components of comprehensive hazing prevention including commitment, capacity, cultural competence, assessment, planning, implementation, evaluation, and sustainability. The commitment component of the HPF is closely aligned with the concept of readiness but does not specifically delineate stages of readiness (Allan et al., 2018b).
Community Readiness Model (CRM)
The CRM is a practical tool designed to integrate an assessment of a community’s culture, resources, and quantify levels of readiness to guide the complex process of community change (Battaglia et al., 2012; Plested et al., 2006) and to assist in identifying effective practices to ensure a sustainable prevention program (Donnermeyer et al., 1997; Jumper-Thurman et al., 2003; Oetting et al., 2001). It is based on the transtheoretical model of behavior change, assessing an individual’s readiness to act on a new (typically healthier) behavior, and it provides appropriate strategies, or processes of change to guide the individual through the stages of change (Stanley, 2014, p. 11). The CRM targets key members of a community relative to community norms, known as key informants (Stanley, 2014).
A noteworthy value of the CRM is guiding prevention efforts toward focused and manageable strategies while recognizing influential factors in campus community environments that help to move communities forward with their plans (Kelly & Stanley, 2014). The development of community interventions that correspond to level of readiness sets up communities for maximal success (Stanley, 2014).
CRM components include (a) set of open-ended survey questions about the community’s attitudes, knowledge, beliefs, and so on about an issue, (b) a small number of key respondent interviews using the survey, (c) scoring of the completed interviews using scales provided for each dimension of community readiness, (d) calculation of readiness scores on five dimensions using the interview scores, and (e) use of final readiness scores to develop a plan for action (Stanley, 2014). The multidimensional model measures nine stages of readiness (Figure 1). Potential factors influencing hazing prevention implementation in higher education can be found in any one or more of the nine stages.
Stages of readiness and descriptions (Stanley, 2014).
Readiness can vary by dimension; each dimension receives its own community readiness score and represents a measure of what is happening, such as, leaders demanding change (i.e., measured by leadership support, community climate, and knowledge) (Stanley, 2014).
Community readiness encompasses five dimensions to help guide communities to move readiness levels forward: (a) Community Knowledge Efforts (what the community knows about efforts), (b) Leadership Support (attitude of university leaders toward addressing the issue), (c) Community Climate (community’s attitude toward addressing the issue), (d) Community Knowledge of the Issue (how much the community knows about the issue), and (e) Resources (resources being used or could be used to address the issue) (Stanley, 2014).
Examining the readiness of university communities can help identify factors that may influence successful implementation of hazing prevention. Community readiness literature suggests that communities further along the readiness continuum experience greater levels of effectiveness and sustainability (Freedman et al., 2011). To date, little is known about campus readiness for hazing prevention with few published empirical studies. Given this backdrop, this investigation was designed to explore levels of university readiness and perceptions of readiness among campus professionals engaged in hazing prevention.
Part of a larger investigation that focused on campus ecology, this article reports on findings relative to the CRM and perceptions of campus readiness guided by the following question: For a group of universities engaged in hazing prevention, what is the level of community readiness to implement and sustain a comprehensive approach to hazing prevention? The CRM is most closely connected to the commitment and capacity components of the HPF.
Method
Participants and Recruitment
Key informants from HPC universities were recruited using purposive sampling to achieve a representative group. Two or three key informants for five universities agreed to be interviewed. Interviewees included (a) the primary liaison for each HPC university, (b) a frontline prevention specialist, and/or (c) a higher-ranking administrator, such as a vice president for student affairs or senior student affairs officer (SSAO). The HPC universities included public and private research universities located in the Northeast, mid-Atlantic, South, and Western regions of the United States, ranging in enrollments from 7,000 to 64,000. All were historically white and three were designated as Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs).
In total, 15 CRM interviews were conducted. Informed consent was secured from each key informant prior to scheduling participation in a 45- to 60-minute individual interview, with interview times ranging between 40 and 70 minutes. Following the CRM protocol, each respondent interview was recorded.
The interviews covered knowledge of hazing (providing detail of what community members knew about hazing and perceived effects of hazing on others), how concerned leaders perceived hazing to be and, in turn, how leaders supported efforts to aid in their campus community’s goals for hazing prevention. The climate and level of concern relative to hazing, inquiry about available resources (i.e., funding, space, FTEs), and whether there would be support for continued hazing prevention efforts were also a focus. Policy questions specifically inquired what participants’ thoughts were about strengthening hazing policy.
Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim, and universities were identified numerically and subsequently, key informants that represented each university were identified alphabetically (e.g., Interview 1a).
Data Analysis
Interview transcripts were scored independently by two researchers, using anchored rating scales delineated in the CRM Handbook (Stanley, 2014, pp. 49–53). Table 1 illustrates an anchored rating scale for dimension of Community Knowledge of Current Efforts. Score translation included discussion of researchers’ ratings until consensus was reached.
Anchored Rating Scale Community Knowledge Dimension.
Note. Community Readiness Handbook (Stanley, 2014).
The mean and standard deviation (SD) for each domain was calculated separately, reported per domain. The overall community readiness score was calculated by averaging the five domain scores. Scored results for readiness have been cited as evidence-based in CRM literature (Stanley, 2014). The last step involved entering scores into a table with assigned meaning.
Transcript data were also analyzed inductively and iteratively using a basic interpretive approach. In the first phase, transcripts were coded to elucidate stakeholder perceptions of campus readiness. In the second analytic phase, a process of layering was employed where codes were combined to produce overall themes relevant to perceptions of readiness and to inform a comprehensive approach to hazing prevention.
An analysis of the CRM data, combined with the thematic analysis, was integrated so that each set of data informed the next, providing feedback in a looped process.
Results
Knowledge of hazing prevention efforts and resources emerged with the highest overall scores of all CRM dimensions followed by leadership and knowledge of hazing and community climate as the lowest scoring dimension. The community readiness score revealed an overall Readiness Level of 4.60, a Preplanning stage of readiness for the institutions participating in this study, as illustrated in Table 2.
HPC Readiness Levels, Stages, and Score Meanings.
Note. HPC Readiness Level: 4.60. Overall HPC Readiness Stage: Preplanning (Stanley, 2014). HPC = Hazing Prevention Consortium.
The Readiness Level score, a 4.69 for Leadership, is at the Preplanning Stage of Readiness. Greater than a 4.0, the Leadership dimension is higher on the list in the anchored rating scales and closer to the preparation stage of readiness, demonstrating planning has begun in earnest, but the community itself offers moderate support. According to the CRM Handbook (Stanley, 2014), this means the community is “moving towards actively showing support of continuing or improving hazing prevention efforts, however, does not demonstrate leaders as driving forces in prevention of the issue work or that the issue is a priority” (p. 50). An overall readiness for hazing prevention with capacity to strengthen a comprehensive approach emerged as a key finding and was illustrated by key informants in sentiments like, “. . . hazing prevention is not one person’s job, it’s everybody’s job” (Interview 1a), and “We think it’s important and we’re going to find all the ways to make sure that what we’re doing is working” (Interview 2b). “Faculty, staff, students, alumni, you name it, we’re all involved in it” (current hazing prevention efforts) (Interview 3a), and “There’s personal responsibility to buy-into the safety and security that’s everybody’s business to includes that of hazing when it occurs—that means faculty, staff, students, alumni, you name it, we’re all involved in this” (Interview 3b).
Themes
Campus Coalition
Hazing prevention infrastructure, such as coalitions, leadership, strategic plans, and hazing prevention evaluation or student hazing data survey findings, were articulated as priorities. The following excerpt illuminates the use of a coalition-based approach and some of the challenges connected to it:
[the] council was established 2 years ago with 25 professional members; and a handful are directly doing something about hazing; 30–50 members are active in support, however, hazing prevention becomes more passive when taking it back to departments/units. (Interview 4b)
Data also underscored the perception that campus-wide representation is important amid competition for scarce resources. In addition, nearly all key informants highlighted that federal legislation regarding sexual assault prevention was prioritized over hazing due to federal funding and reporting mandates.
Leadership
Highly visible anti-hazing statements from campus leaders were described as essential to effective prevention. The organizational hierarchy was noted by several key informants and reinforced by having campus senior leadership be visibly supportive of hazing prevention efforts as noted in the following:
The leaders supportive of addressing hazing prevention in our community are the Associate Dean of Students, in the Dean of Students’ office, the Dean of Students, the Vice-Provost for Student Affairs, and ultimately, I do think it goes up to the Provost and the President . . . who both signed the letter that went out at the beginning of the year. (Interview 1a)
Leaders at all levels of the university, including student leaders, were considered vital to assessment and evaluation efforts to inform hazing prevention.
Evaluation and Student Hazing Data
Excerpts about hazing prevention evaluation and student hazing data highlighted additional strategies. For example,
“. . . [We} established evaluative benchmarks and have collected data for the past 10–12 years” (Interview 4a) “. . . survey data conducted with undergraduate students . . . data on social norms (2013, 2015) . . . informs all of our strategic decisions . . . ” (Interview 4b).
In aggregate, hazing evaluation ranged from students’ hazing prevalence to campus climate, encompassing baseline data on social norms, and changes made for prevention training.
Campus Hazing Prevention Strategies
Another set of themes referred to the implementation of available prevention strategies used by universities to target a broader audience (students/staff). Educational trainings for staff, student groups, athletic teams, fraternities, sororities, staff, and parents were described as prevention mechanisms as noted in the following:
“hazing prevention has been in place for staff for many years” (Interview 4a), and “we have annual education for fraternities and sororities about hazing . . . ” (Interview 2a), and “. . . mandatory bystander intervention skills include hazing prevention” (Interview 1b).
A variety of educational training that included a range of staff, student groups, and athletic coaches were in place at several sites. Notably, faculty were absent from these descriptions.
One week in September, known as National Hazing Prevention Week (NHPW), is well-established and referred to extensively to garner campus-wide, active participation in hazing prevention. For example,
. . . we have a hazing prevention week on our campus . . . creating some awareness, letting students know what resources are available. We have students sign a pledge that indicates they won’t haze. (Interview 2a)
A pride of allegiance was clear but key informants articulated the general understanding that NHPW was only part of the solution for hazing prevention.
Widespread knowledge about the importance and effectiveness of bystander intervention and social media campaigns for prevention initiatives was evident. Interviewees highlighted social media use to reach students and provide information about the little known (emotional) hidden harm of hazing. For example, “One of the things we are currently doing is creating a Bystander video to educate students about how to intervene in various types of situations involving mental health, sexual violence, and we added hazing . . .” (Interview 4a).
Websites and Accountability
Reporting and accountability themes accentuated the implementation of prevention tools to target a broader audience (students, faculty, staff, parents, and families) that might potentially be affected by hazing. For instance, key informants described websites as “comprehensive,” “accessible,” and “robust” tools for sharing hazing prevention information with students, faculty, staff, families, and parents. The following statement exemplifies this shared perspective:
. . . a website where people can go and get all the information they need on hazing, whether you’re a parent or whether you’re a faculty member, or you’re a student, or [someone who has] witnessed hazing (Interview 1b) . . . hazing prevention website targets the students, faculty, parents, families . . . (Interview 1c).
Hazing prevention websites were described as a means of providing information for all potential constituents that might be affected by hazing. Websites provided easy access and made available accurate hazing data, current training schedules, leadership statements or letters from the president, and policy, which served the capability of increasing knowledge of hazing prevention efforts. The anonymity of reporting was seen as another key preventive strategy and highly regarded as an important mechanism for preventing hazing activities as well as promoting hazing prevention efforts.
We have a pretty robust website . . . been around for over ten years . . . would call it an initiative within itself . . . “one-stop-shop” . . . also has the capacity to report hazing confidentiality online . . . and also by telephone . . . (Interview 4b)
Anti-Hazing Policies and State Laws
Similarly, anti-hazing policies included in campus’s student conduct codes were noted as vital to prevention. One key informant stated, “obviously, we’ve had a policy for as long as I can remember (Interview 5a)” and another reported,
We have a strong policy . . . a pretty consistent and strong Student Code of Conduct, so when hazing is presented to the university, we now have an investigation team that can interview students and be able to come up with an unbiased investigation, then take the organization through a student conduct process that allows for an informal discussion first without having a hearing board and to talk about what might be some ways that if they accept responsibility that we can do an educational process to restore the injustice they’ve created. (Interview 3b)
State laws were touted by all as important to hazing prevention, and finally, universities were mixed in levels of resource commitment to hazing prevention.
Discussion
An overall preplanning level for capacity and readiness to implement and sustain comprehensive hazing prevention was identified for this group of universities. Readiness scores for knowledge of efforts (preplanning), leadership (preplanning), and knowledge of the issue (preparation) were at a high level of preplanning or had reached the preparation stage of readiness, dovetailing with recommendations offered by Langford (2008). This study also revealed this group of universities was at the preparation stage of readiness to take action to prevent hazing.
As the result of the CRM assessment, factors were identified connecting capacity and readiness to a comprehensive campus hazing prevention approach. For example, campus communities ready for prevention had fully functioning coalitions with campus-wide representation that trained key representatives in hazing prevention for 3 or more years. In addition, other factors that might strengthen a comprehensive approach to hazing prevention included financial support alongside sharing of hazing information and clear anti-hazing policies. Lack of involvement from key community members was another important takeaway. Key constituencies (e.g., faculty, parents, and some students) were largely absent from the discussion according to the interviews. Effective and sustainable prevention requires multicomponent interventions that address critical domains (e.g., family, peers, community) that influence the development and perpetuation of the behaviors to be prevented (Nation et al., 2003). In addition, building capacity and partnerships that include diverse stakeholders are important for effective prevention in community settings.
Universities are expected to take proactive steps to provide an environment conducive to learning, and therefore, universities can be held accountable for student safety including the profound consequences of hazing. Adopting a more comprehensive hazing prevention approach that features environmentally focused strategies is a shift from simply toughening campus policies and stricter enforcement practices. Currently no model for hazing prevention exists that will work for every institution (Allan et al., 2018b; Langford, 2008). The findings from this investigation underscore this reality and contribute to the development of a knowledge base that can support more focused research about efficacy for campus hazing prevention.
Knowledge about readiness can shed light on processes needed to address hazing programmatically (Travis et al., 2012). This analysis revealed what community members knew about hazing, the efforts to prevent hazing, and people missing in hazing prevention. These findings point to the need for inclusiveness and to address community attitudes about hazing in prevention (Allan & Madden, 2012).
Results of this investigation suggest that the CRM can assist with campus efforts by assessing which groups or subcommunities are most in need of hazing prevention. Sharing stories through the lens of CRM, key informants assisted in an environmental scan to identify relative safety of their campus environments which, in turn, reinforces other researchers’ findings that campus hazing culture can be heterogeneous and dynamic. For example, key informants spoke about hazing knowledge in different subgroups. Athletic groups and fraternities were informed of hazing policies and, seemingly, valued hazing prevention in different ways. In the CRM Handbook, community climate was defined as “what is the community’s attitude toward addressing the issue?” By asking questions such as, “how much of a priority is hazing prevention in your community?” and “are community members supportive of addressing hazing in your community?’ Findings from this study indicated that community climate needs the most focus as it scored lowest as a dimension of readiness.
Limitations
Several limitations of the study warrant attention. First, the sample was drawn from a cohort of universities participating in the HPC and thus are not representative of all colleges and universities. The qualitative design is not generalizable; however, the findings may be transferable to informing hazing prevention readiness at other institutions with similar characteristics.
Another limitation was the fact that this case study purpose was to find out the readiness of the HPC cohort; albeit the cohort score is the result of the averaged scores of 13 key informants (five universities). The readiness score may have been different with all eight universities represented in this study.
Efforts were made to control confounding variables by identifying early and making appropriate changes to the study. Several HPC key informants reported a long history with hazing prevention or achieved maturation being involved for a long period of time, which could have led to selective bias/loss. External validity threats include the Hawthorne effect (when participants change their behavior in response to being studied). We worked to mitigate these factors by assuring key informants the purpose of the assessment was to study readiness and to determine capacity to fully implement hazing prevention programs, not to assess or evaluate history and/or knowledge about hazing or hazing prevention.
Conclusion
While not previously used to investigate readiness for hazing prevention, the CRM provided a well-researched set of questions to gather data from key university staff during a complex, challenging process of planned community change. Building on the findings of this case study, the CRM can be useful in assisting university administrators with moving toward a comprehensive approach to hazing prevention. The CRM can provide a record of community strengths to draw upon, a mechanism for reporting any conditions or concerns, and can be used to increase resources or strategies to gain broader public support.
This investigation also highlights how CRM utilization contributes to knowledge that can help the field move past the implementation of programs and, ultimately, allow university prevention coalitions to institutionalize hazing prevention as an important piece of health promotion and safety of college students.
When there is a visible, high-level commitment from leadership and the community at large, the CRM can help assure that intervention strategies are culturally congruent and sustainable. For example, in the leadership dimension, commitment should be visibly demonstrated to foster campus communities that are free from hazing (Allan et al., 2018a). By interviewing stakeholders, it became clear that campus leaders need to plan and take action to assist in changing campus communities to strengthen the likelihood of safety for all.
This study also reveals the potential for adapting the CRM assessment to high-risk groups within universities, especially groups that have experienced hazing or wish to prevent hazing from happening in their environments. The CRM may be used with subcommunities on campus (e.g., fraternities or the Greek system as a whole). Matching interventions to the readiness level of the subcommunities is key and may be useful in responding to the local dynamics of that community. For example, a barrier to preventing hazing may be limited knowledge or comprehension about how hazing is defined, hazing policies or statutes, and/or different types of hazing behaviors. Another barrier may be that members in a subcommunity may not know the long-lasting consequences that hazing can have on individual members and the group. The CRM can help to identify these barriers so they can be mitigated earlier in the process.
The CRM may also be useful for schools/communities outside of postsecondary education that have experienced hazing behaviors and wish to prevent hazing from happening in the future. High school prevention programs attempting to address hazing could benefit. Ideally, successful colleges and universities should mentor high school students before they graduate and move onto higher education. As parents of a Florida State University student, who died in an alleged hazing incident, state, “Breaking the cycle of hazing requires accountability and education, and education needs to start in high school” (2018, March 13). The CRM could be employed in secondary school settings to help guide school leaders to implement planned, measurable, and impactful prevention programs.
Resources and funding help with the issue of hazing and the work to prevent it. HPC universities need both to support hazing prevention. Evaluation is part of the HPF and helps to measure effectiveness to ensure ongoing support. The CRM is an easy-to-use tool and can be employed in program evaluation. According to the literature on community readiness, the CRM can provide insight into key outcomes in ways that traditional evaluation methods may not bring to light (Plested et al., 2006). Another potential use of the CRM is as a steward of funds, assisting in quickly assessing whether proposed hazing prevention programs stand a chance to succeed. Grant-making organizations need to utilize their resources efficiently and may suggest that the grantee use the model to develop the infrastructure (tailored to its stage of readiness) and support that will make it possible to implement change successfully (Plested et al., 2006).
This study was designed to help build the knowledge base for hazing prevention, highlighted how the CRM can be used as a tool for systematically assessing what is working and not working in campus hazing prevention. The CRM served to strengthen data storytelling often revealing stakeholders’ commitment as well as contributions to hazing prevention.
Several challenges were also revealed. For example, participants talked about sexual assault prevention being a competing issue. According to federal mandates that occurred during the time just preceding this study, sexual assault prevention was prioritized. Addressing student and alumni attitudes about hazing was another articulated challenge alongside campus compliance with required hazing prevention strategies. Yet, when it came to eliminating hazing behavior, key informants expressed frustration with what seemed to be a disconnect: Despite policy and awareness, hazing behaviors persisted.
The promise of community readiness assessment is that it can provide additional insight about preliminary intervention efforts needed to broaden understanding and promote buy-in from university members. Insights gained from this study can contribute to a growing knowledge base about campus hazing prevention and help to support safer environments for all students.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Data collection for this investigation was supported by the StopHazing Research Lab with the University of Maine.
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: StopHazing provided partial funding for transcribing interviews completed in this study.
