Campus and College Victim Responses to Sexual Assault and Dating Violence

Rate of Reporting to the Police

Studies uniformly found low rates of reporting to police (Edwards et al., 2012; Finkelson & Oswalt, 1995; Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003; Kilpatrick et al., 2007; Koss, 1998; Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2007; Lindquist et al., 2013; Littleton, 2010; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011), except when hypothetical reporting was probed (Amar, 2008; Orchowski, Meyer, & Gidycz, 2009; Tamborra & Narchet, 2011). Rates of reporting to police varied from 0% for sexual coercion, date rape, and dating violence (Edwards et al., 2012; Finkelson & Oswalt, 1995; Fisher et al., 2003) to 12.9% for forced sexual assault (Krebs et al., 2007), although one study with a small sample found a rate of 42% (Guerette & Caron, 2007). Three large-scale studies differentiated between forced sexual assaults and sexual assaults that included drug or alcohol use (e.g., victim voluntarily or involuntarily becomes incapacitated; Kilpatrick et al., 2007; Krebs et al., 2007; Lindquist et al., 2013). All three studies showed that rates of reporting to the police were substantially lower when substances were involved. Some studies did not specify who made the report to the police (Kilpatrick et al., 2007; Krebs et al., 2007) and others did not indicate which police unit (e.g., campus, local, city) was reported to (Kilpatrick et al., 2007; Lindquist et al., 2013; Orchowski et al., 2009). However, data from the National College Women Sexual Victimization (NCWSV) study (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 1999) indicated that most incidents reported to the police were reported by the victim (85%). Generally reports were made to municipal, local, or city police (Fisher et al., 1999; Krebs et al., 2007) except for incapacitated sexual assaults that were reported mainly to campus police, when reports were made, according to the Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) study (Krebs et al., 2007). Only one-third of those who reported to police were satisfied with the way the report was handled (Krebs et al., 2007) and police were generally rated as not at all supportive by those who reported to the police (Koss, 1998). This set of studies gives no indication, however, of what happened once the report was made to the police.

Rate of Disclosure to Other Formal Sources

Rates of reporting to campus authorities or other formal resources (e.g., victim crisis center, health services, professor) varied across studies from 0% for campus services (Tamborra & Narchet, 2011) to 15.8% for victim’s, crisis, or health care centers (Krebs et al., 2007), but it is important to recognize studies measured disclosure to varying resources. For example, Tamborra and Narchet (2011) queried contacting campus services (e.g., campus police, counseling center, residential services), while Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, and Turner (2003) defined campus authorities as campus law enforcement, resident hall advisors, deans, professors, other college authorities, and on-campus bosses, employers, or supervisors. Other studies asked about contacting a victim’s, crisis, or health center (Krebs et al., 2007; Lindquist et al., 2013). Findings from three studies indicate that residence life is unlikely to be contacted postsexual assault (Fisher et al., 1999; Orchowski et al., 2009; Tamborra & Narchet, 2011). Again, as with reporting to police, those who were assaulted by force were more likely to contact a victim’s, crisis, or health center than those who were incapacitated during their assault (Krebs et al., 2007; Lindquist et al., 2013). Also, findings from the CSA study (Krebs et al., 2007) indicated that on-campus services were not contacted as often as off-campus services. The study also gives some indication of postreporting experiences—over 70% reported being satisfied with the way the report was handled (Krebs et al., 2007).

Factors Associated With Reporting to the Police

Characteristics of the victimization incident, victim, and offender were associated with formal disclosure. The focus of this section is consistent with most studies that tend to look exclusively at factors associated with reporting to the police (cf. Fisher et al., 2003; Orchowski et al., 2009) as opposed to other formal supports. More severe victimizations as indicated by presence of a weapon, physical force, injury, peritraumatic fear, and perceived fear of death/injury during assault were associated with higher levels of reporting to the police (Fisher et al., 2003; Kilpatrick et al., 2007; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011). Assaults that occurred on-campus versus off-campus were more likely to be reported to the police (Fisher et al., 2003). Alcohol use and being too drunk or high to control behavior were associated with not reporting the sexual assault to the police (Kilpatrick et al., 2007). Forms of sexual assault categorized as less severe, such as sexual contact and threats, were associated with lower levels of reporting to the police (Fisher et al., 2003; Kilpatrick et al., 2007).

Characteristics of the victim associated with higher levels of reporting to the police include acknowledging the incident as rape, a higher degree of memory about the assault, high levels of self-efficacy, being able to have open sexual communication, and being concerned about family members knowing about the assault (Fisher et al., 2003; Kilpatrick et al., 2007; Orchowski et al., 2009). Also, victims who reported to the police indicated the main reason for doing so was to prevent crimes against others (Kilpatrick et al., 2007). Characteristics of the victim associated with lower levels of formal disclosure included attributions of blame for rapes centered on the victim’s behavior or character (Orchowski et al., 2009). Sexual assault education appeared to be unrelated to reporting to the police or campus security (Breitenbecher & Scarce, 2001). Some studies offered conflicting associations between victim characteristics and reporting to the police. For example, the NCWSV study (Fisher et al., 2003) found that assaults against African American women were more likely to be reported to the police, while another large-scale study found sexual assaults against Caucasian women were more likely to be reported to the police (Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011). Moreover, one study found a negative association between a previous victimization history and likelihood to report (Orchowski et al., 2009), but another found a nonsignificant association (Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011).

Offender characteristics associated with the incident being reported to police included being of a different race/ethnicity than the victim, multiple offenders versus a single offender, and being a stranger (Fisher et al., 2003; Gidycz & Koss, 1990), although another study found a nonsignificant association between a stranger offender and reporting the incident to the police (Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011). It is important to note that most studies focused on bivariate relationships between reporting and related variables. Only two studies that examined reporting to police postassault tested multivariate models (Fisher et al., 2003; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011).

Barriers to Reporting to the Police

Across several studies, the assault not being serious enough was the top reason endorsed by victims to explain why the incident was not reported to the police (Fisher et al., 2003; Krebs et al., 2007; Thompson et al., 2007). Other reasons that were included in the top three reasons for not reporting a sexual assault to the police were being unclear that it was crime or that harm was intended, not having proof the incident occurred, not wanting others/family to know, not wanting the police involved, believing that the police would not think it was serious enough, fear of reprisal, and the victim thinking she was partially or fully responsible (for incapacitated sexual assault and date rape; Finkelson & Oswalt, 1995; Fisher et al., 2003; Kilpatrick et al., 2007; Krebs et al., 2007; Thompson et al., 2007). A study of perceived barriers also included similar reasons, except that shame and embarrassment were the top rated barriers (Sable, Danis, Mauzy, & Gallagher, 2006). School officials shared their own perspectives on barriers to reporting. First, students who are newly independent may feel a sexual assault is a failure in their efforts to protect themselves (Karjane et al., 2002). Additionally, traumatic responses, a desire to control their lives, connotations of labeling oneself a victim, confidentiality issues, and a potential lack of evidence, all work together to reduce the likelihood of reporting (Karjane et al., 2002).

While most studies reported frequencies only, those that tested for differences in reasons for not reporting to the police found that reasons varied by type of sexual assault, victim race, location of incident, and severity (Krebs et al., 2007; Thompson et al., 2007). For example, severe victimizations were associated with not reporting the sexual assault because the police would believe it is the victim’s fault, shame and embarrassment, and not wanting others to know about the incident compared to less severe victimizations (Thompson et al., 2007). Further, not wanting anyone to know was more common among forced sexual assault victims (42%) than victims of incapacitated sexual assault (29%; Krebs et al., 2007). Ratings of perceived barriers also varied by gender such that some barriers (e.g., fear of retaliation, financial dependence, and lack of resources) were rated as more important among women, and others (e.g., shame, concerns about confidentiality, and fear of not being believed) were rated as more important among men (Sable et al., 2006). Moreover, reasons for not reporting physical assaults varied from reasons for not reporting sexual assaults. For example, shame and embarrassment was not one of the top five reasons for reporting physical assaults, but it in the top five for sexual assault. Reasons for not reporting physical assaults varied by alcohol use (e.g., being scared of the offender was associated with alcohol use at time of incident), relationship to offender (e.g., not wanting anyone to know was associated with being physically assaulted by an intimate), location (e.g., thinking the incident was not serious enough was associated with being victimized off-campus), and severity (e.g., shame and embarrassment were associated with severe victimizations; Thompson et al., 2007).

Facilitators to Reporting to the Police

One study (Krebs et al., 2007) asked participants what would increase willingness to report to the police. The main facilitators that were identified included public education about acquaintance rape, expansion of counseling and advocacy services, free health services (e.g., pregnancy counseling if the rape victim becomes impregnated, HIV/AIDS testing), and laws around protection of confidentiality. Karjane, Fisher, and Cullen (2002) also assessed facilitators of students’ disclosure according to college officials. The administrators indicated that on-campus victim assistance offices, campus law enforcement protocols, a confidential reporting option, and coordinated crisis responses across campuses and communities, would facilitate reporting of sexual assault.

Rates and Characteristics of Informal Disclosure

Rates of informal disclosure ranged from 41% for victims of unwanted sexual intercourse (Walsh et al., 2010) to 100% of a convenience sample recruited for a study about sexual assault (Guerette & Caron, 2007). While estimates of informal disclosure of sexual assault and dating violence were generally high (65% or above; Banyard, Ward, Cohn, & Plante, 2007; Edwards et al., 2012; Fisher et al., 2003; Krebs et al., 2007; Lindquist et al., 2013; Littleton, 2010; Littleton, Axsom, Breitkopf, & Berenson, 2006; Orchowski, Untied, & Gidycz, 2013; Walsh et al., 2010), lower rates of disclosure were found in some samples. Two possible factors accounting for the lower rates are inclusion of men in the sample (Walsh et al., 2010) and short reference periods (e.g., less than a year; Orchowski & Gidycz, 2012; Walsh et al., 2010). Across all studies that asked who the victim disclosed to, friends, especially female friends, were the primary confidants for sexual assault and dating violence victims (Amar & Gennaro, 2005; Edwards et al., 2012; Fisher et al., 2003; Guerette & Caron, 2007; Littleton, 2010; Orchowski & Gidycz, 2012; Walsh et al., 2010). Studies that measured hypothetical disclosure also found friends were the most likely confidants. (Orchowski et al., 2009; Próspero & Vohra-Gupta, 2008). Family members were told about the incident substantially less often than friends (Fisher et al., 2003; Orchowski & Gidycz, 2012). Some women disclosed their sexual victimization directly after it occurred, but others disclosed up to two years later (Guerette & Caron, 2007; Orchowski & Gidycz, 2012). The median number of people disclosed to was three (Littleton et al., 2006).

Factors Associated With Informal Disclosure

Research on factors associated with disclosing victimization to friends, family members, and other sources of support tended to focus on differences between groups, with only a few studies using multivariate models (Fisher et al., 1999; Orchowski & Gidycz, 2012). These factors pertain to the incident (e.g., severity, type of victimization), victim characteristics (e.g., gender, victimization history, acknowledgment of victimization, substance use, coping methods, attachment, rape myth acceptance), and offender characteristics (e.g., relationship to victim, substance use). With regard to the type of victimization, while rape and sexual coercion were not associated with informal disclosure in logit models, sexual contact was positively associated with informal disclosure when compared with threats (Fisher et al., 2003). Injury was also associated with informal disclosure (Fisher et al., 2003), indicating that more severe sexual victimizations are disclosed more often than less severe sexual victimizations. Findings related to victim characteristics showed that women (85%) disclosed more often than men (67%; Banyard et al., 2007), those who acknowledged their unwanted experience as a victimization (91%) tended to disclosure more frequently than those who do not acknowledge the incident as a victimization (80%; Littleton et al., 2006), and those with higher levels of rape myth acceptance disclosed to more people than those with lower levels of rape myth acceptance (Paul, Gray, Elhai, & Davis, 2009). Dating violence victims were more likely to informally disclose when they placed blame on themselves and their partners for the violence, exhibited high levels of stress, and thought about ending the relationship (Edwards et al., 2012). Additionally, a past history of sexual victimization appeared to restrict future disclosures of sexual violence (Orchowski & Gidycz, 2012; Orchowski et al., 2009). Personal characteristics positively associated with informal disclosure of sexual assault included coping via emotional support, attachment to others, and a tendency to disclose events in a study of actual disclosure (Orchowski & Gidycz, 2012) and self-efficacy, ability to openly communicate about sexual matters, and engaging in self-protective behaviors in a study measuring hypothetical disclosure (Orchowski et al., 2009). However, self-blame regarding behaviors in a hypothetical event was associated with not disclosing informally (Orchowski et al., 2009). Both offender and victim substance use prior to the sexual violence incident were associated with informal disclosure (Fisher et al., 2003; Orchowski & Gidycz, 2012), in contrast to the findings for formal disclosure that showed the opposite relation. With regard to the relationship between victim and offender, Fisher et al. (2003) found that informal disclosure was highest for known others (e.g., professors, teachers, graduate assistants, teaching assistants, employers, supervisors, bosses, coworkers, stepfathers, and other male relatives), and Orchowski and Gidycz (2012) found that as level of acquaintance with the perpetrator increased, informal disclosure decreased.

One study examined barriers to informal disclosure of dating violence. Edwards, Dardis, and Gidycz (2012) probed women who experienced dating violence in their relationships but did not disclose to anyone. The majority of these women (80%) felt that the behaviors in their relationship were “no big deal.” Additionally, some women felt no one would understand (10%) or were worried about reactions if they told (20%; Edwards et al., 2012).

Responses to Informal Disclosure

A few studies examined reactions to disclosures and how these responses were related with the psychological functioning of victims (Edwards et al., 2012; Littleton, 2010; Orchowski & Gidycz, 2012; Orchowski et al., 2013). Negative reactions to sexual assault disclosure were received rarely to very rarely and female peers often responded with emotional support (Littleton, 2010; Orchowski & Gidycz, 2012). A mixed methods study on dating violence disclosures (Edwards et al., 2012) found that disclosures were viewed as helpful by victims if good advice was gained, it was an opportunity to vent, and emotional support was offered. However, reactions to disclosures were viewed as negative when the confidant gave bad advice, told the victim to end the relationship, did not understand, or joked about the incident. Negative reactions to sexual violence disclosure were associated with poorer psychological functioning (Littleton, 2010; Orchowski et al., 2013). Negative reactions could include controlling the decisions of victims, which was associated with posttraumatic stress symptoms, depressive symptoms, and anxiety; and blaming the victim, which was associated with poor self-esteem and lower levels of reassurance of worth in multivariate models (Orchowski et al., 2013). Studies examining informal disclosure reactions and psychological functioning for dating violence are not currently available.

Rates of Service Use

Rates of service utilization varied by type of service and reference period for the victimization. Data from one study showed that 52% of rape victims sought help from professionals (e.g., medical doctor, priest, minister or rabbi, lawyer, psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, or other therapist) in their lifetime for emotional problems (Amstadter et al., 2010). Two studies showed that the use of services for victimizations that had occurred within the past year was substantially lower. Nasta et al. (2005) found that 20% of sexual assault victims used any on-campus service and 6% used any off-campus service for sexual assault–related help. Walsh et al. (2010) found that 3% and 6% of victims of unwanted sexual contact and unwanted sexual intercourse used any service, respectively.

With regard to specific types of service utilization, physical and mental health services appeared to be the most utilized, according to research findings. Over 90% of those who sought professional services in Amstadter and colleagues’ (2010) study sought help from a mental health professional. In other studies, 42% of victims of sexual assault during college went to a counselor (Guerette & Caron, 2007); 13.2% of those who were sexually assaulted by force since entering college and 4.4% of those who were sexually assaulted while incapacitated since entering college sought psychological counseling (Lindquist et al., 2013); and 8% of those sexually victimized in the academic year used psychological services (Nasta et al., 2005). Medical services were utilized by 12% of those sexually victimized in the academic year (Nasta et al., 2005); 50% of women who experienced sexual assault in college (Guerette & Caron, 2007); and 48% of rape victims who used professional services in their lifetime (Amstadter et al., 2010). At the incident level, 18.7% of those raped in their lifetime sought medical attention after their rape (Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011). With regard to dating violence, rates of service utilization appear to be similar, as 16% talked to mental health professionals (Próspero & Vohra-Gupta, 2008) and 40% of injured women sought health care (Amar & Gennaro, 2005).

Studies also measured other forms of service utilization such as victim services (Kilpatrick et al., 2007), crisis centers (Banyard et al., 2007; Gidycz & Koss, 1990; Koss, 1998), religious counsel (Amstadter et al., 2010), hotlines (Guerette & Caron, 2007), court (Guerette & Caron, 2007), restraining orders (Lindquist et al., 2013), filing a campus grievance (Lindquist et al., 2013), women’s centers, and student life (Nasta et al., 2005). The most common of these was victim service utilization by women who were raped in their lifetime (14.7% of drug and alcohol facilitated rapes/incapacitated rape victims and 21.6% of forcible rape victims; Kilpatrick et al., 2007). Also relevant to the review, 4.3% of victims of forced rape since entering college filed a grievance with university officials, but none of the incapacitated rape victims did so (Lindquist et al., 2013). Finally, 0% of sexual assault victims within the academic year used a women’s center and only 3% utilized student life deans (Nasta et al., 2005). It is important to note that when students were asked whether they would use services, almost 100% respond affirmatively (Nasta et al., 2005); however, the reality is that few college victims actually utilize campus or other services.

Factors Associated With Service Utilization

Types of service use may be related to each other as reporting to the police was associated with receiving medical attention and victim services (Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011), thus indicating that some victimizations may require multiple help seeking efforts. However, one of the few studies that investigated factors related to service utilization found no significant associations between individual-level and incident-level characteristics and service use (Amstadter et al., 2010). The only variable associated with service use was posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms (Amstadter et al., 2010), pointing to distress motivating service use. Nonetheless, Banyard, Ward, Cohn, and Plante (2007) documented that women were significantly more likely to use a crisis center for unwanted sexual experiences than men, and Gidycz and Koss (1990) found heightened rates of therapy use among those assaulted by a group, as opposed to one individual. The one study on dating violence service use indicated that physical and psychological dating violence were associated with mental health services but not sexual dating violence (Próspero & Vohra-Gupta, 2008). Finally, the study by Wu and colleagues (2013) indicated that U.S. students were more supportive of law enforcement and social service intervention in cases of domestic violence than Chinese students.

Knowledge of Services

Unfortunately, studies regarding knowledge of services do not show a substantial level of knowledge about campus services among students. While students, especially female students, tended to know where to get information (Banyard et al., 2007), only about 40% knew where the crisis center was located (Banyard et al., 2007; Walsh et al., 2010). On another campus, 40% knew where to get information about sexual assault and only 7% agreed with the statement, “I know where to go to receive help if I or someone I know were sexually assaulted at [the university]” (Hayes-Smith & Levett, 2010). Studies show mixed relationships between gender and knowledge of services (e.g., nonsignificant difference and women are more knowledgeable about services) as well as sexual assault history and knowledge of services (e.g., victims are more and less aware of services than nonvictims; Hayes-Smith & Levett, 2010; Nasta et al., 2005; Walsh et al., 2010). There were no studies examining the knowledge of dating violence services on campuses.

Barriers and Facilitators of Service Utilization

Only shame and embarrassment were mentioned in all studies examining barriers to service utilization (Guerette & Caron, 2007; Nasta et al., 2005; Walsh et al., 2010). Other top barriers were feeling that it was a private matter, thinking it was not serious, concerns around confidentiality, fear, not wanting to deal with it, and denial (Guerette & Caron, 2007; Nasta et al., 2005; Walsh et al., 2010). Barriers appear to be more prominent in cases of unwanted intercourse, as opposed to unwanted sexual contact (Walsh et al., 2010). A participant in a qualitative study shared the varied reasons she did not seek services:

I didn’t want to be labeled as a victim. I weighed telling versus the implications on all the other parts of my life: the reactions of my family, the fact that I was accusing someone in my immediate circle of acquaintances of rape, the pity I would be sure to receive. I also knew that people would be forced to pick sides between me and the rapist, and I didn’t want that. Basically everything in my life besides this was going really great, and I decided that it wasn’t worth risking all of that to confess or to seek legal action. (Guerette & Caron, 2007, p. 39)

The same study queried facilitators for service utilization and found encouragement from friends and family, knowing what happened was wrong, and wanting to prevent the incident from happening to someone else all helped women get help for their sexual assault victimization (Guerette & Caron, 2007). With regard to dating violence, one study found that embarrassment, thinking services would not help, and people’s perceptions (e.g., people would think the participant was crazy) hindered mental health service use among dating violence victims (Próspero & Vohra-Gupta, 2008).

Suggestions for Services

Most students supported a full course, a campus event, student orientation, and informative publications as ways of distributing information about sexual assault (Hayes-Smith & Levett, 2010). A qualitative study queried students about campus sexual resources generally and found that students repeatedly brought up issues of sexual violence and wanted services that were easily accessible. One student explained how even though services are available, they are not central to the functioning of the campus:

… especially the rape thing, because a month ago we had three girls raped in the [fraternity house part of campus], so if you had resources for students who happen to get sexually assaulted that would be nice because they’re kind of hidden around here. (Garcia et al., 2012, p. 65)

Students also made suggestions such as safety lights, security officers and escorts, orientation programs, awareness events, and improved print and online material (Garcia et al., 2012).

Service Provision

Services researched in the literature include direct services for sexual assault and dating violence victims (Karjane et al., 2002; National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 1977; Payne et al., 2009; Tiefenthaler et al., 2005); communications about services, including websites (Hayes-Smith & Hayes-Smith, 2009), training (Karjane et al., 2002), and classes (Ottenritter, 2002); and the process of providing services (e.g., development, collaboration, barriers; Barco & Reel, 2011; Holtfreter & Boyd, 2006; Lichty et al., 2008; Payne, 2008). With regard to direct services, large campus police departments reported in the mid-1970s that health services (100%) and counseling services (91%) were largely available to rape victims, which was not the case for other types of police departments (National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 1977). This indicated that campuses are resource rich in comparison to other localities. A study in 2005 corroborated this trend for domestic violence by reporting that the existence of a top-ranked college or university in a county was a significant predictor of a domestic violence program in that county (Tiefenthaler et al., 2005). This, however, does not mean that all universities have myriad resources for dating violence and sexual assault.

Indeed, available estimates indicated that 20% of colleges have a women’s resource facility (Hayes-Smith & Hayes-Smith, 2009) and 29% had victim assistance services (Karjane et al., 2002). Sexual assault policies indicated that 58% of campuses notified students of services, mostly counseling and campus police (Karjane et al., 2002), but this number dropped to less than 40% when limited to 2-year institutions, historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), and Native American colleges and universities, indicating that these services are likely not available at some institutions. Moreover, only about 25% of campus administrators (Karjane et al., 2002) indicated they provided victim-related support services to specific student groups. Studies have not enumerated the services available for dating violence on campus, but a needs assessment of a university that applied the community readiness model found that the university was best identified as “in preparation” for dating violence services, as most of their efforts had been directed to sexual assault (Barco & Reel, 2011).

Communication about services and how to respond to sexual assault may occur through websites, posters, classes, or trainings. However, a study of 60 websites (Hayes-Smith & Hayes-Smith, 2009) found many websites were poor and only 15% were excellent with regard to sexual assault information. On one hand, poor websites had no information, perpetuated victim-blaming attitudes, narrowly focused on vaginal–penile rape, or told female students what to do to not get raped (e.g., don’t drink). Excellent websites, on the other hand, contained detailed and victim-friendly information and identified programs on campus for sexual assault. Another modality of advertising services included posters and they have been found to increase students' knowledge of sexual assault nurse examiners as a resource (Konradi, 2003). Courses are another way to deliver information about services and 78% of community colleges identified sexual assault and 75% identified dating violence as an important topic to address in class (Ottenritter, 2002). Other methods were shown not to be as popular. Slightly more than 35% of campuses covered sexual assault in their new student orientations and 42% of schools provided sexual assault response training to students (Karjane et al., 2002).

With regard to the process of service development and delivery, Lichty, Campbell, and Schuiteman (2008) explicated an inclusive way of determining what services are already available, what services are needed, and how these could be prioritized into a university-wide response. Indeed, successful collaboration is an important part of service provision for victims. Collaborations between sexual assault crisis centers, police, administration, faculty, and staff included both many accomplishments and tensions (Payne, 2008). For example, although local police are involved with victimizations on campus, they may not be equipped to handle situations of incapacitated rape. Also, while faculty and staff may be supportive of efforts for victims, they may not know the regulations universities must follow (Payne, 2008). Similar tensions were reported in a qualitative study of a campus-coordinated response for dating violence—that is, while advances have been made, including police involvement and understanding of vulnerable situations, further improvement is possible (Holtfreter & Boyd, 2006).

Structural barriers reported by campus-based advocates include competition for funding and a young, transient population that is embedded in a sexualized culture punctuated with drug and alcohol use (Payne et al., 2009). Suggestions for improvement consistently included more funding and resources and more awareness of violence issues (Barco & Reel, 2011; Carmody et al., 2009; Holtfreter & Boyd, 2006). Other suggestions for improving services included statewide coordination of sexual assault services, better services for international students, assessment of needs, promotion of victim advocate programs, and information sharing and research (Carmody et al., 2009; Holtfreter & Boyd, 2006).

Policies

The first finding of note with regard to policies is that not all campuses have written polices for sexual assault and dating violence. Among community colleges, 25% had a written policy on domestic violence and 75% had a written policy on sexual assault (Ottenritter, 2002). In another study, only 66% of colleges had publically available sexual assault policies (Krivoshey et al., 2013). Karjane and colleagues' large-scale study (Karjane et al., 2002) was able to examine sexual assault policies in detail. Half of the polices included specific goals (such as no tolerance, having a campus free from violence) and half did not (Karjane et al., 2002), missing an important opportunity to send a signal to the campus community. Another basic aspect of sexual assault policies is explicating what is meant by sexual assault. However, a third of sexual assault policies only mentioned the generic term sexual assault or sexual offense, and the remainder mentioned specific types of sexual assault, most commonly penile–vaginal rape (93.4%), possibly leading to confusion among those anally, orally, or digitally raped. About 70% of policies indicated whom to contact after an assault, leaving 30% of the campuses uninformed about whom to contact. According to campus administrators, confidential reporting was offered in 84% of colleges, anonymous reporting in 46% of colleges, and third-party reporting in 35% of colleges (Karjane et al., 2002). Another study found somewhat lower rates for these options, but also found that only 38% of Ohio colleges allowed 24/7 reporting (Krivoshey et al., 2013). This is an important service given that these crimes tend to occur after hours.

Judicial Processes

Although filing a grievance with judicial affairs is an important option for victims of dating violence and sexual assault, only one study examined this. Karjane and colleagues (Karjane et al., 2002) offered the following insights into the campus judicial system. First, more than half of the sexual assault policies did not mention legal or disciplinary options, limiting the amount of information victims have access to (Karjane et al., 2002). About 70% of schools had disciplinary procedures for sexual assault and of those, half had a written description of the hearing process, 58% had a process to file a written complaint, 51% disclosed the composition of the judicial hearing board, 53% notified the complainant of procedures and/or outcomes, 46% provided a written description of the hearing process (e.g., having others present, evidence, testimony cross examination), and 22% indicated the burden of proof used in the hearings. Given these percentages, it is likely that many victims who may file a grievance are not given information on what to expect.

Refining Measurement

The review of extant research on formal disclosure, informal disclosure, and service utilization revealed vast diversity in operationalization and measurement of central concepts, distracting from the ability to make precise statements about these concepts. One of the first sources of variation is the time period used to assess for victimization. The time period used in studies include in the current relationship (Edwards et al., 2012), since the beginning of the year (Banyard et al., 2007; Breitenbecher & Scarce, 2001; Fisher et al., 1999; Walsh et al., 2010), during a follow-up period (Breitenbecher & Scarce, 2001; Littleton, 2010; Orchowski & Gidycz, 2012), in the past year (Amar & Gennaro, 2005; Próspero & Vohra-Gupta, 2008), since attending college (Krebs et al., 2007; Lindquist et al., 2013; Thompson et al., 2007), while in college (Finkelson & Oswalt, 1995; Guerette & Caron, 2007), over the past 5 years (Paul et al., 2009), since the age of 14 (Koss, 1998; Littleton et al., 2006; Orchowski et al., 2013), and lifetime (Kilpatrick et al., 2007). Such varied time periods likely affects the constructs of interest as those further from the victimization had more time to process and disclose the victimization, possibly yielding higher disclosure rates in those studies. Another source of variation was the way in which disclosure was queried. While most studies asked this as a yes/no question, there was little precision and uniformity in aspects such as who reported it and to whom it was reported. Most studies designed their own questions for disclosure and service utilization, detracting from comparisons across studies and mudding understanding of these concepts. Research in this field would be largely advanced through the development of a comprehensive measure of disclosure and service utilization.

Expanding the Research on Disclosure and Service Utilization

Beyond standardizing the measurement of disclosure and service utilization, research questions can seek to understand these concepts more fully. As it stands, research has generally relied on dichotomous, cross-sectional data without theoretical underpinnings. Theoretical models such as the transtheoretical model, ecological model applied to the help-seeking process, and symbolic interactionism view help seeking as a process, but this has been excluded from studies in this area. Many stages of the process have not been researched. For example, what influences college students’ understanding of their victimization experience as violence? What meaning do victims give to their victimization experience and how does this influence behavioral decisions? How is awareness of the problem then translated into a decision to seek assistance/disclose? How does one go about choosing from viable alternatives for assistance? How do interpersonal and sociocultural factors shape each of these processes? How do decisions at each of these stages influence each other? The current body of work is unable to answer these questions. Another limitation in the current research that hinders understanding is relying on one victimization (e.g., the most severe) for follow-up questions. This skews the victimization experiences to the most severe and thus responses to other victimizations are unknown. While a person may have a general proclivity to help seeking, the subtle nuances between their victimization experiences and how they responded are missed when only one victimization experience is asked about in detail. Intrapersonal variation in responses to dating violence and sexual assault could also be informative.

Understanding the Outcomes of Disclosure and Service Utilization

A focus on dichotomous conceptualization of disclosure and help seeking also excludes outcomes. Studies included in this review provided limited insight into the aftermath of disclosure and service utilization. While some studies included responses to informal disclosure, this was focused on understanding how positive and negative reactions affect psychological functioning (Edwards et al., 2012; Littleton, 2010; Orchowski & Gidycz, 2012; Orchowski et al., 2013). However, questions regarding the utility of disclosure and/or service use for deterring future violence and coping with the aftermath of violence were not asked. That is, it is unknown how effective these efforts were. Asking about satisfaction is not sufficient for understanding how lives are reconstructed after severe violence. These are especially important questions for services such as counseling, crisis centers, and health centers. In what ways is service utilization helpful for victims? How can services be tailored to be responsive to college students’ needs? Such evaluative questions were largely missing from the extant research. Further, it is important to include the viewpoints of students in improving services, as few studies queried their perspectives on services.

Accounting for Diversity

The studies in this review have largely relied on White, heterosexual, female samples. White women are not as common on college campuses as the demographics of a large number of these studies would indicate, even those that used national sampling frames. Notably, in 2010, 60% of undergraduate students were White (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012); however, a large number of the studies reviewed here relied on samples that were largely White. Current research has not adequately addressed disclosure and service utilization among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer, African American, Latino, Asian American, Native American, disabled male, and international students. As reported in Karjane et al. (2002), few offer specialized services for these groups. It is important, however, for research to examine influences on disclosure and service utilization such as discrimination, religiosity, belonging to a small community, language use, immigrant status, heterosexism, and racism, possibly through qualitative studies. Further, the current student body does not fit the image of the student who has just graduated high school and moves off to college, financially supported by mom and dad. The Washington Post reports that only one third of today’s college students fit that description (Johnson, 2013, September 14). Research in this area needs to be much more attentive to working students, part-time students, those in community colleges, and those with families of their own, as these groups are becoming more and more representative of college students.

Busting Silos in Disclosure and Service Utilization Research

While the vast majority of research available on disclosure and services for college victims focused on sexual assault and more research is needed on dating violence, this compartmentalization of victimization types obscures the fact that these victimizations overlap in many ways. First, sexual violence is a part of dating violence. Sexual violence was part of dating violence for 58% of college women who reported any dating violence (Sabina & Straus, 2008). Second, intimates account for 24% of perpetrators of forcible rape (Kilpatrick et al., 2007) and 38% of forced sexual assault perpetrators (Krebs et al., 2007). In fact, 19% of forced sexual assaults occurred while on a date (Krebs et al., 2007). Thus, it is not accurate to treat these two victimizations as unique. One way to better grapple with the overlaps between victimizations (including those beyond physical and sexual) would be for studies to ask about a range of violence experiences (e.g., unwanted touching, forced sexual, assault, aggravated assault, stalking, psychological abuse) and then ask about perpetrators (Hamby & Grych, 2013). This approach would potentially capture many victimization experiences among college students and would allow examination by perpetrator type, which is an important variable for disclosure and service utilization. Measurement of violence in the current studies does not allow disentangling of the differences between victimization types (e.g., physical, sexual) and, at the same time, differences by victim–offender relationship. Service and policy implications of silo busting include comprehensive services, revised polices that address differing forms of violence in tandem, and collaboration across programs/services.

Shifting the Focus

Viewing disclosure and service utilization as the responsibility not only of the individual but also of the campus shifts the focus in research and practice from service utilization to service availability. An implicit assumption in the current research seems to be that the general lack of formal disclosure and service utilization is due to student decisions and a potential disinterest in services. However, one could also contend that a reason for a lack of service utilization is a lack of appropriate and helpful services that are responsive to the needs and lifestyles of students. It is important to shift focus from an individual level of analysis to a contextual level of analysis. The campus community is also responsible for how services are utilized. They have a duty to seek ways of enhancing the safety, both physically and psychologically, of students on their campuses. It is important to remember that some students do not have access to victim services and are not notified of services that are available. Some colleges do not have policies for sexual assault and dating violence or do not provide clear guidance about steps to take after a victimization. By focusing on students' decisions, the role of the campus is diminished. Colleges need to develop service systems so that victims have alternatives, craft informative polices, make students aware of their options after experiencing either dating violence and/or sexual assault, and deal with sexual assault and dating violence incidents in a swift and definite manner.

Major Findings

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research