Twelve Risk Factors for Sexual Violence on College Campuses (DD-12)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VIOLENCE AND GENDER Volume 2, Number 3, 2015 Original Article ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/vio.2015.0014 The Dirty Dozen: Twelve Risk Factors for Sexual Violence on College Campuses (DD-12) Brian Van Brunt, EdD,1 Amy Murphy, EdD,2 and Mary Ellen O’Toole, PhD3 Abstract National conversations have focused recently on the need for colleges and universities to better address the dilemma of sexual assault and other forms of sexual violence on U.S. college campuses. Administrators, counselors, law enforcement, prevention advocates, and conduct officers struggle with efforts to prevent and intervene on these cases. A recent federal mandate requires campuses to actively implement comprehensive strategies and programs to address this epidemic of sexual violence. This includes targeted prevention programming to address sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, more commonly referred to as intimate partner violence, and stalking behavior. In the wake of this recent attention, university faculty and staff are faced with the dilemma of better understanding the motivations and risk factors associated with individuals and groups committing these types of attacks. Understanding these risk factors provides administrators, conduct officers, law enforcement, prevention advocates, and counselors with insight into preventative education and better informed policy and procedures to reduce sexual assault in the university setting. Introduction At least 50% of sexual assaults are associated with alcohol use (Abbey et al. 2001; Krebs et al. 2007; American he history of research on sexual violence is a long College Health Association 2008; Zapp 2014). one with involvement from the department of justice, Members of all-male organizations such as fraternities T federal bureau of investigation, and the center for disease and athletes have less healthy attitudes and behaviors control. In recent years, sexual violence on college cam- related to sexual assault (Jewkes et al. 2002; Bleeker puses has been the focus of increased scrutiny and resulting and Murnen 2005; Forbes et al. 2006; Zapp 2014). prevention efforts. This positive attention on the prevention This article will expand on these more commonly cited of sexual assault, domestic and dating violence, intimate characteristics and incorporate other high-risk attitudes, be- partner violence (IPV), and stalking has helped practitioners haviors, and experiences into 12 risk factors for sexual vio- and administrators direct training and outreach efforts to lence on college campus (DD-12). The American College college students to work toward the goal of reducing the Health Association describes sexual violence as ‘‘a contin- occurrence of sexual violence in these environments. uum of behaviors instead of an isolated, deviant act’’ (2008). Primary prevention strategies include the need to consider By addressing behaviors that occur throughout this contin- root factors associated with sexual violence. While there uum of risk, it is more likely that sexual violence can be have been numerous studies addressing sexual predation, prevented. In addition, this article provides practitioners with addiction, pedophilia, and paraphilia, there is not a clear descriptive examples of how the risk factors may be observed summary for practitioners of the risk factors for sexual vi- in both individual and group behaviors and attitudes. The olence perpetration on college campuses. following literature summary is essential to inform prevention Commonly cited characteristics of sexual violence on programming so that it can address the underlying causes and campuses are as follows: interpersonal dynamic factors that contribute to sexual as- Men make up the majority of perpetrators (Jewkes sault, dating and domestic violence, and stalking. By bringing et al. 2002; Zapp 2014). together different motivations and contributing factors to 1The NCHERM Group, LLC, Malvern, Pennsylvania. 2Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas. 3George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia. 1 2 VAN BRUNT ET AL. sexual violence—including predation, addiction, paraphilias, identities, sustainable, responsive to community needs, and social factors, and crimes of ease—we aim to construct a informed by research or assessed for value, effectiveness, or starting place for those engaging in prevention in order to help outcome’’ (668.46(a)). VAWA specifically mentions an identify and/or create programming that will aid in reducing ecological model and prevention approach that considers these 12 risk factors. environmental risk and protective factors for individuals, Let us be clear at the outset of this article. Gender-based relationships, institutions, communities, and society, and and sexual violence on college campuses is not singularly identifies goals of decreasing perpetration and bystander in- the result of a few ‘‘bad apples’’ whose worldview and action. The DD-12 provides a tool for institutions to outline behaviors shape an otherwise healthy and enlightened strategies to meet VAWA mandates and, more importantly, to population of young adults. Instead, we suggest that the identify root causes of sexual violence and bystander attitudes problem lies in the subtle encroachment of negative and in the college community. unhealthy ideas about sexuality (degrading and/or noncon- As a tool for the primary prevention of sexual violence, sensual), objectification, obsessive and possessive desires, the DD-12 specifically considers risk factors associated with and depersonalization and dehumanizing thoughts and be- perpetration and promotes the development of healthy atti- haviors that have become pervasive in our culture. tudes and behaviors. DD-12 provides a framework for early The list of factors is not meant to indicate the ability to alert and intervention with individual students who dem- predict that a person or group will be sexually violent. It is onstrate high-risk behaviors, and for student organizations provided to outline behaviors and attitudes that are related to or other institutional groups who are sustaining environ- sexual violence and can be observed in individuals and ments that condone and encourage attitudes supportive of groups as behaviors of concern to be addressed. This article sexual violence. By designing programs and other initiatives is a first step at cutting back some of these invading influ- that consider risk factors for perpetration and are specific to ences by first calling attention to the risk factors that con- subpopulations of students or student groups, institutions tribute to an escalation in gender-based sexual violence. can be more effective in the prevention of sexual violence and the development of a healthier campus community. Mandate from Violence Against Women Act Rationale for DD-12 Risk Factors The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (34 CFR 668.46 [VAWA]) outlines obligations for There are some exceptional tests, assessments, and mea- colleges and universitiesx in regard to the prevention of sures available to law enforcement, psychologists, and cli- sexual violence through modification of the requirements of nicians in the arena of sexual predation and addressing the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) and the Jeanne recidivism. These assessments and checklists are often Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus normed on criminal or probationary populations and have Crime Statistics Act (20 USC 1092(f) [Clery Act]). not specifically addressed the needs of those charged with The major provisions of the newx VAWA regulations include reducing sexual violence on college campuses. However, these assessments provide some helpful research and a increased reporting requirements related to incidents of useful starting point to understand some facets of sexual dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and violence. Several of these measures are discussed here. stalking; The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) was cre- procedural requirements for responding to incidents of ated in 1994 by Kropp et al. (1994, 1995, 1998) to help sexual violence; and criminal justice professionals predict the likelihood of do- prevention programming for students and employees. mestic violence. It was normed on adult male offenders who Specifically, VAWA requires the development of primary had probationary or inmate status following their offense. prevention and awareness programs for incoming students and The 20-item scale looks at past assaults, relationship or new employees and ongoing prevention and awareness cam- employment problems, victim or witness of family violence, paigns for all students and employees to stop domestic vio- substance abuse, suicidal or homicidal ideation/intent, lence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. VAWA mental health history, sexual assault history, jealousy, use of also outlines requirements for the programs to include defi- weapons in threats, escalation in frequency or severity of nitions of ‘‘consent’’ in reference to sexual activity, descrip- assault, attitudes that support or condone spousal assault, tions of options for bystander intervention, information on risk extreme minimization or denial of spousal assault history, reduction, and policies and procedures following an incident and violations of no-contact orders. of sexual violence. Institutions must include program de- The Static-99 score is used to predict risk of sexual re- scriptions to meet this mandate in the Clery Annual Security offense, based on the offender’s score category.