Volume 24, Issue 2 p. 335-352
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Open Access

When and how many: Factors associated with campus sexual assault reforms

Abbie Nelson

Corresponding Author

Abbie Nelson

School of Social Work, Michigan State University, East, Lansing, Michigan, USA

Correspondence

Abbie Nelson, School of Social Work, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Carrie A. Moylan

Carrie A. Moylan

School of Social Work, Michigan State University, East, Lansing, Michigan, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Jennifer Allen

Jennifer Allen

School of Social Work, Michigan State University, East, Lansing, Michigan, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Amy Hammock

Amy Hammock

School of Social Welfare, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 05 March 2024

Abstract

Institutions of higher education have faced increasing pressure to comply with federal regulations and reform their response to campus sexual assault. This study explores institutions of higher education employees’ perceptions on whether decoupling, or organizational resistance to change, is associated with the number and timing of campus sexual assault reforms adopted. Early captured reforms instituted before the “Dear Colleague Letter” in 2011, mid included reforms instituted after the Dear Colleague Letter in 2011 but before the 2015–2016 academic year and during the period of heightened attention to campus sexual assault, and late which included reforms instituted during or after the 2015–2016 academic year. A web-based survey of institutions of higher education employees familiar with sexual assault policy implementation on their campuses asked about types of reforms, timing, decoupling, and campus characteristics. Correlations and t-tests were run to examine the types of reforms across time periods, and regression assessed the degree to which decoupling was associated with the number and timing of reforms. Higher decoupling was associated with fewer reforms in the early period and more in the late period, though not with the overall number of reforms adopted. Findings highlight the importance of understanding factors that influence change on campuses.

INTRODUCTION

Sexual assault is a widespread problem at colleges and universities in the United States, with the most reliable estimates finding that 20% of women and 6% of men experience sexual assault in college (Fedina et al., 2018; Krebs et al., 2016; Muehlenhard et al., 2017). Negative health and mental health consequences have been associated with sexual assault such as increased risk of depression and anxiety (Carey et al., 2018), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Zinzow, Resnick, Amstadter et al., 2010; Zinzow, Resnick, McCauley et al., 2010), disordered eating and lack of interest in intimacy and sex (Kaufman et al., 2019). Experiencing sexual assault is also associated with academic disruptions and poor academic performance (Baker et al., 2016; Jordan et al., 2014; Potter et al., 2018). Several US federal laws recognize the detrimental impact of sexual assault and outline the obligations that educational institutions have to protect students, including Title IX (20 U.S.C. § 1681) and The Clery Act (Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1092). These laws require campuses to respond promptly to reports of sexual assault, provide prevention programming, and to be transparent about crimes on campus. Despite these governmental mandates, campuses historically have lagged in their implementation of even the required policies and procedures (Richards et al., 2017). In the past 10 years, there has been increased focus on the issue of campus sexual assault and campuses have reformed policies and added programming (Moylan, 2017; Richards, 2019). These efforts were highly encouraged by policy and regulatory changes at the federal level (U.S. Department of Education, 2011, 2014; White House Task Force, 2014) as well as student activism and media coverage. Despite overall improvements in campus compliance, there is inconsistency across campuses in their adoption of reforms (Richards, 2019) and limited information about factors that influence campus implementation of policy reforms (Moylan, 2017). This study seeks to explore institutions of higher education employees’ perceptions on whether decoupling, or organizational resistance to change, is associated with the number and timing of campus sexual assault reforms adopted.

Policies affecting campus reform

One of the major pieces of federal legislation related to campus sexual assault is Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. § 1681), which requires educational programs that receive federal funding to respond expeditiously in instances of sex discrimination at their institution and work on prevention efforts to deter these acts. Under this legislation, sexual assault and sexual harassment are considered forms of sex discrimination (U. S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 1997). A second major federal legislation is the Clery Act of 1990 (Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1092), which requires institutions receiving federal funding to compile and make accessible to the public crime statistics, including sexual assault, with the intent of increasing transparency and protecting students. Though both laws had been in place for decades, in 2011 the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights issued a “Dear Colleague Letter” (“Dear Colleague Letter”) reminding campuses of their obligations under Title IX as previous reports had demonstrated insufficient and inconsistent implementation (Karjane et al., 2002). The “Dear Colleague Letter” provided guidance to institutions of higher education's on how to meet the requirements. The “Dear Colleague Letter” signaled a change in federal government regulatory action that spurred many campuses into action (Moylan, 2017).

This era of increased federal regulatory attention continued with the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (42 USC §13,701) in 2013 which amended the Clery Act with the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (RAINN, 2022). The SaVE Act required institutions to 1) maintain and report statistics on dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking incidents 2) provide accommodations and increased protection for survivors such as informing them of their rights and providing information about support services, 3) provide sexual violence prevention and awareness education to all students and employees, and 4) have protocols for disciplinary actions after violence occurs and protections in place for survivors during this process (Congressional Research Service [CRS], 2013). During this time period, the Obama administration also created the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault in 2014. The Task Force had a series of meetings that resulted in two documents that outlined evidence-based practices and guidance for creating campus climate surveys, supporting survivors, creating coordinated community responses, transparency, and policy development (White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, 2014, 2017). Throughout this period of policy and regulatory reform, attention to the issue of campus sexual assault continued to rise in the media and was spurred on by students mobilizing together in person and on social media to advocate (Sander, 2013). For example, in 2014 a student from Columbia University carried a mattress around with her on campus as a performance art piece in which she stated she would continue until her campus removed her perpetrator from the school (Bauer-Wolf, 2017). This was followed by several social media campaigns highlighting the problem of campus sexual assault and nationwide initiatives such as “It's On Us” to engage students in awareness and prevention education against campus sexual assault (It's On Us, 2022). The result of these events and acts was that campuses had enhanced external and internal pressures to create and maintain polices and systems that supported survivors, educate their communities, as well as make sure they were making other changes to follow the guidelines of the new laws.

Since this period of increased attention to the issue of campus sexual assault, the focus of regulatory activity has shifted with each new federal administration. In 2017, the Secretary of Education rescinded the “Dear Colleague Letter” and other guidance related to Title IX stating that the mandates were confusing and could violate the due process rights of students, replacing it with a more permanent rule change (U.S. Department of Education, 2017a; 2017b). Currently, and under yet another federal administration, the Department of Education has proposed new Title IX regulations, which are still under review at the time of the writing of this manuscript.

Policy outcomes

With the attention given to campus sexual assault in the media, from students and activists, and the federal government, campus compliance with federal policies has improved, though the degree to which campuses are compliant is still variable and inconsistent (McMahon et al., 2019; Richards, 2019). For example, public and four-year institutions have been found to be in better compliance than two-year campuses (Karjane et al., 2002; Richards, 2019) and variations occur in what is given priority for campuses as due process and fairness were reported to be a higher priority in one study than creating a victim-centered response or managing the campus image (Moylan et al., 2020).

From the perspective of victim advocates and campus personnel, qualitative studies have shown that although Title IX has increased the recognition and attention given to campus sexual assault it has also come with challenges such as confidentially issues for survivors, new staff that may not be sufficiently trained, resources focusing more on complying with Title IX then on survivor prevention and advocacy, and concerns for how policies are affecting marginalized students (Brubaker & Keegan, 2019; Brubaker & Mancini, 2017; Javorka & Campbell, 2019). Although a focus on compliance might lead to improvements, some campus staff have expressed concern that attention and improvements might not lead to long-term meaningful change (Moylan, 2017). A study by Yung (2015), for example, looked at an indicator of compliance with the Clery Act, namely campus reports of the number of sexual assaults, and found that the rates of sexual assaults reported by institutions of higher education's while they were being audited for Clery Act violations were 44% higher when compared with reports before the audit. However, when the audit was complete the number of Clery reported sexual assaults dropped lower than before the audit period, which suggests that the improvements that come from regulatory oversight might only be temporary effects of a heightened focus on compliance. Understanding how and why campuses engage in reforms, for example are they motivated by victim-centered priorities (Moylan, et al., 2020) or are they the result of regulatory enforcement and oversight (Yung, 2015), might provide insight into whether and how reforms can lead to meaningful change.

Institutional theory

This study is guided by institutional theory, which provides a framework for understanding how and why organizations act as they do by accounting for the role of external pressures (such as regulatory pressure) and corresponding internal drive to maintain autonomy over practices. Institutional theory explains that as organizations grow, they begin to act like other institutions that are structured in the same way in the same field in a process called isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). In this process of isomorphism common beliefs about how an organization should function become accepted and enacted by more organizations putting pressure on similar organizations to behave in the same way (Boxenbaum & Jonsson, 2017). By acting in accordance with isomorphic pressures the organizations can obtain the financial and social resources needed to succeed. From the standpoint of institutional theory, the external pressures that shape the behaviors of organizations, in this case institutions of higher educations, are called coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Coercive pressures come from political or other external entities that have the power to mandate certain structures or practices such as legislation and the guidance from the Department of Education and Title IX that stipulate how institutions of higher educations should shape their practices around campus sexual assault. Mimetic pressures arise usually when organizations look to what their peers are doing and mimic that behavior (Boxenbaum & Jonsson, 2017). In this context it might mean an institutions of higher education reviewing other universities’ policies and procedures related to campus sexual assault to determine if their policies need to be updated. Normative pressures are perceptions of how an organization should be acting, in other words norms that are upheld by public and professional organizations (Suchman, 1995). An example of how the media could support a normative pressure is a social media campaign that supports the voices of survivors being heard and considered during policy implementation. Having a better understanding when these pressures support or impede institutions of higher education's reforms could help better understand how to support campuses in the process of policy implementation.

Another important concept of institutional theory is that of “decoupling” when an institution's daily practices do not match what their policies and formal structure allege to uphold (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Meyer & Rowan (1977) explain this may occur because it is not feasible for organizations to actually implement what is expected of them within their structure or there may be competing expectations that do not align. An example of this would be an institution of higher education having a policy that states all new employees receive training on campus sexual assault prevention and awareness, but then this is not tracked or reinforced in a way that ensures that practice is occurring. Decoupling can help campuses have flexibility to meet competing demands. However, this can become harmful if they are projecting one image externally but acting in ways that harm or neglect survivors, staff, and other campus personnel.

Institutional theory, although historically used in exploring business and management behaviors has been applied to campus sexual assault (Moylan & Hammock, 2021), and other related areas such as rape crisis centers (Zilber, 2002) and sexual assault response teams (Moylan & Lindhorst, 2015). Previous research looking at decoupling and implementation of campus sexual assault policy implementation found that only normative legitimacy pressures significantly predicted decoupling, higher decoupling was found for public campuses and larger universities, and there were significantly higher rates of decoupling reported by campus-based victim advocates than Title IX coordinators (Moylan & Hammock, 2021). This prior work suggests that institutional theory might be useful for helping to explain campus sexual assault policy implementation.

Current study

The current research expands upon the information already gained about decoupling and institutions of higher educations to explore the relationship between decoupling and the implementation of reforms by surveying staff and administrators who might be knowledgeable about sexual assault related policy implementation. Decoupling represents organizational attempts to resist external demands for changes to operating practices, such as those that were being highlighted as important for campuses in the years following the “Dear Colleague Letter.” The research questions are:
  1. Do respondents who rate their institution as engaging in more decoupling also report that their campus adopted fewer reforms than those that reported less decoupling?

  2. Did respondents who indicate that their institution was more decoupled report that their campus waited longer to adopt reforms than campuses in which respondents reported less decoupling?

We hypothesize that staff and administrators who report that their campuses are characterized by higher levels of decoupling will also report that their campuses have resisted pressures to change and thus will have waited longer to enact reforms and will have adopted fewer reforms than staff and administrators who report that their campuses are less decoupled.

Methods

The current study used data that came from an anonymous web-based survey administered in spring of 2017 and thus capture campus activities up to the point that a new federal administration began to shift the focus of regulatory attention. Michigan State University human subjects research review board approved the study. Participants for this study were recruited in two ways. First, emails were sent to staff and administrators who might be knowledgeable about sexual assault related policy implementation (i.e. campus president, dean of students, Title IX coordinator, victim advocates) at institutions of higher educations in two states, chosen to reflect one state with a state-level campus sexual assault law and one without equivalent state legislation. We utilized various means to identify institutions in those states (e.g., databases of institutions of higher education), and then searched websites for names and emails of those in the specified roles. Second, survey invitations were shared on the list-servs of 8 professional organizations that represent positions typically involved in sexual assault policy implementation (i.e., Title IX coordinators, Advocates, Student Conduct). The invitation to take the survey included a description of the survey's purpose of exploring the process of policy implementation related to campus sexual assault and details about how to participate.

Sample

Individuals in our sample were employed in many different positions on campus. The most common roles included Title IX officer/deputy, student affairs administrator, advocate, sexual assault prevention/health promotion staff, student affairs staff, and upper-level administrator (see Table 1). Altogether 85.6% of respondents worked at a 4-year college or university; 60.4% worked at a public college or university; and 43.6% worked at schools that enrolled 5000 or fewer students. For context, the National Center for Education Statistics (2022) reports that 30% of degree-granting institutions were public at the time of data collection. Respondents spent an average of 5.96 years at their current position (SD = 5.52; [1, 21]), and an average of 11.82 years in higher education (SD = 7.25; [1,21]). Among the total sample, respondents identified that, on average, 46.08% of their job was focused on sexual assault in some way (SD = 33.49; [0, 100]).

TABLE 1. Respondents’ demographics.
Characteristic %
Role on campus (n = 324)
Title IX officer/deputy 23.77
Student affairs administrator 17.28
Advocate 11.73
Sexual assault prevention/health promotion 8.02
Student affairs staff 8.02
Upper-level administrator 6.79
Race/ethnicity (n = 185)
White/Caucasian 84.86
Black/African American 4.32
Hispanic 4.86
Asian American 1.08
Native American 2.16
Other 2.70
Educational attainment
PhD/doctorate 25.80
Professional degree 8.40
Masters 45.30
Bachelors 18.40
Associates 1.60
High school/GED .50
Less than high school .00
  • Note: Percentages will not add up to 100% because respondents could choose multiple roles and the table includes only those most commonly selected.

For personal demographics, most respondents identified themselves in open-ended text boxes asking about race and gender identity as White (84.9%) and as women (77.9%). We classified text entries into categories for the purposes of describing the sample. For gender identity, we included those who specified woman, female, cisgender woman, and other variations of woman-identified gender identities as “women,” and similarly constructed the men category. There were a small number (n = 6) who either identified as non-binary or genderqueer or did not provide a gender identity that could be categorized (e.g., answering “heterosexual”). The average age of respondents was 42.18 years (SD = 12.73; [21,70]). The most reported highest educational attainment level was a master's degree (45.3%), followed by a PhD or other doctoral degree (25.80%), a bachelor's degree (18.4%) or other professional degree (8.4%). Only 2.1% of the sample had an associate degree or lower.

Measures

Decoupling

The decoupling measure was developed for this survey and has been demonstrated to be reliable (Cronbach's alpha = .84) (Moylan & Hammock, 2021). The measure was comprised of five items (e.g., “Campus leaders really value the importance of preventing sexual assault from occurring,” “Campus leaders have taken steps to change culture that supports sexual assault on campus”) (See Appendix A). The mean scale score was calculated from the five items, some of which were reverse coded such that higher scores would represent responses signifying greater decoupling.

Attitudes about campus sexual assault reforms

The respondent's attitudes about recent campus sexual assault reforms were assessed using two subscales developed for this survey (Moylan et al., 2020). The improved subscale included questions asking about respondents' belief of whether campus sexual assault reforms had led to improved handling of sexual assault on campuses, such as “attention to campus sexual assault has increased the fairness of investigation and adjudication processes,” and “campus sexual assault reforms have improved campus responses to victims of sexual assault.” The four items on the scale had an alpha of .79. The six exaggerated items had an alpha of .82 and measured a belief of whether the attention and importance given to campus sexual assault was exaggerated; an example item is “the prevalence of sexual assault on campuses has been exaggerated.”

Campus-level characteristics

Dichotomous variables were created to capture campus-level characteristics. Survey respondents were asked about structural characteristics of their institution such as whether the campus was a 4-year or 2-year institution. To capture student life and culture, respondents were asked about whether fraternities and sororities were prominent on campus and whether alcohol, drugs, and partying feature prominently in campus social life. Respondents were asked whether their campus had received an Office of Violence Against Women (Office of Violence Against Women) campus grant, which is a funding mechanism to support campus efforts to improve their efforts related to campus sexual assault, or whether the campus had been involved in a civil lawsuit or regulatory oversight action such as a Title IX investigation by the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights.

Campus prioritization of due process goals

Survey respondents were also asked about priorities that motivated their campus’ implementation of policy reforms, with subscales capturing victim-centered priorities and fairness and due process priorities, both of which might motivate reform activity (Moylan et al., 2020). The victim-centered lens subscale (a = .94) consisted of 11 items with examples such as “ensuring victims have access to supportive resources” and “creating a trauma informed system to respond to reports of sexual misconduct.” The second subscale represented institutions of higher education's priorities around fairness and due process and consisted of two items (a = .75). The two questions asked were “protecting the due process rights of accused students” and “ensuring the adjudication process is fair and equal for both complainants and respondents.” The subscale scores were calculated by determining the mean of the items in each scale.

Reforms

The survey asked about 28 different reforms that campuses may have undertaken, and when those reforms were implemented. For the purpose of this study, reforms were defined as actions that campuses might undertake to improve campus sexual assault prevention and response, especially as consistent with regulatory guidance or recommended best practices (White House Task Force, 2017). These reforms fell into the following five categories: prevention related policies or programs (“Provide bystander education to all students”), survivor support services (“Offer dedicated sexual assault advocacy services on campus”), increases in systemic coordination (“Convened a task force or work group to oversee sexual assault policy and procedures”), compliance related reforms (“Examined policies to ensure compliance with federal and/or state laws and regulations”), and reforms that extend beyond compliance (“Adopted or clarified an amnesty provision (e.g. underage drinking) for those reporting sexual assault).” We created count variables for the total number of reforms that had been implemented, as well as counts of reforms that were instituted in the following time periods: early captured reforms instituted before the “Dear Colleague Letter” in 2011, mid included reforms instituted after the “Dear Colleague Letter” but before the 2015–2016 academic year during the period of heightened attention to campus sexual assault, and late which included reforms instituted since the start of the 2015–2016 academic year. Respondents could also choose to indicate that their campus had implemented the reform, but the timing was unknown. Reforms with unknown timing were included in the overall count of reforms but were excluded from the time period counts.

Data analysis

We ran correlations and t-tests to look at the types of reforms across time periods early, mid, and late. Next, we ran regressions to assess the degree to which decoupling was associated with the number and timing of reforms controlling for campus and individual characteristics. All analyses were performed in SPSS (v. 27)

RESULTS

Timing of reforms

On average, respondents reported that their campus implemented 20.32 reforms across all time periods out of 28 possible reforms (SD = 5.69). The early time period (before 2011) had the fewest number of reforms reported (M = 3.72, SD = 4.3). The middle time period (2011–2016) had the highest average number of reforms reported (M = 7.82, SD = 5.75), followed by the late time period (post 2016) (M = 5.43, SD = 4.98). See Table 2 for more details.

TABLE 2. Mean number of reforms in each time period.
M (SD) Range
Time period
Early (pre-2011) 3.72 (4.3) [0, 18]
Middle (2011–2016) 7.82 (5.75) [0, 21]
Late (post 2016) 5.43 (4.98) [0, 23]
Overall 20.32 (5.69) [0, 28]

Type of reforms

When comparing the proportions of reforms made by campuses by category, compliance reforms were the most frequently adopted with an average of 4.59 out of 5 reforms. Prevention reforms were second followed by beyond compliance and coordination. The lowest proportion of reforms were made in the area of service reforms with 2.81 out of four service reforms implemented on average. See Table 3 for more details.

TABLE 3. Mean prevalence of each reform type.
M (SD) Range
Type of Reform
Prevention 5.23 (1.7) [0, 7]
Services 2.84 (1.13) [0, 4]
Coordination 2.88 (1.45) [0, 5]
Compliance 4.59 (.99) [0, 5]
Beyond compliance 4.87 (1.93) [0, 7]

To answer our first research question, we ran a model exploring whether decoupling predicted the total number of reforms adopted, controlling for individual and campus characteristics (Table 4). This model was significant overall (F (10,145) = 12.45, p < .001) and explained 43% of the variation in overall reforms. Contrary to our hypothesis, decoupling was not significantly related to the total number of reforms implemented. The significant predictors of the total number of reforms implemented include being a 4-year university, having had an Office of Violence Against Women grant, being a party to a civil suit or regulatory oversight action, and adopting victim centered priorities. Adopting a victim-centered priority was most strongly associated with implementing the largest number of reforms.

TABLE 4. Association between decoupling and overall reforms.
Variable B SE β
Constant −.63 4.66
4-year university 2.66** .96 .19
Greek prominent −.46 .87 −.04
Alcohol/drug prominent −.63 .74 −.06
Office of violence against women grant 1.47* .76 .13
Civil suit/regulatory oversight 2.19** .8 .18
Improved .66 .59 .08
Exaggerated .4 .59 .05
Due process priority 1.03 .64 .13
Victim centred priority 3.12*** .72 .44
Decoupling −.05 .56 −.01
R2 = .43***
  • Note: Β = unstandardized beta; β = standardized beta.
  • Abbreviation: SE, standard error.
  • * = p < .05;
  • ** = p < .01;
  • *** = p < .001.

To answer our second research question about whether decoupling is associated with fewer reforms in the earlier time period and more reforms in later time periods, we ran a series of identical regression models predicting the number of reforms in early, mid, and late time periods (see Table 5). In these models predicting the number of reforms implemented in each time period, higher decoupling was associated with fewer reforms in the early period and more in the late time period, consistent with our hypotheses. The early reforms model was significant (F(10, 145) = 6.11, p < .001) and explained 25% of the variance in the number of reforms implemented before the 2011 “Dear Colleague Letter.” Other variables that were significantly associated with the number of early reforms included campuses with alcohol and drug prominence, those that had an Office of Violence Against Women grant, and those that had experienced a civil suit or regulatory oversight.

TABLE 5. Association between decoupling and timing of reforms.
Early Middle Late
Variable B(SE) β B(SE) β B(SE) β
Constant 5.10(4.29) −9.43(6.14) −13.14(5.01)**
4 year university 1.09(.89) .09 3.76(1.27)** .24 −2.31(1.04)* −.18
Greek prominent −.50(.80) .05 .75(1.15) .06 −.65(.94) −.06
Alcohol/drug prominent −1.42(.68)* −.16 .84(.98) .07 .68(.80) .07
Office of violence against women grant 2.15(.70)** .23 .44(1.00) .04 −.70(.81) −.07
Civil suit/regulatory oversight 2.45(.74)*** .26 1.26(1.06) .1 −1.75(.86)* −.16
Improved .42(.55) .07 1.57(.78)* .19 .64(.64) .09
Exaggerated −.17(.55) −.03 .48(.78) .06 .10(.64) .14
Due process priority .45(.59) .07 1.82(.84)* .21 −.07(.69) −.01
Victim centred priority −.23(.67) −.04 −.49(.95) −.64 2.67(.78*** .41
Decoupling −1.07(.51)* −.22 −.58(.74) −.09 2.68(.60)*** .48
Total R2 .25 .14 .18

The model predicting the number of reforms implemented in the middle time period (2011–2015), was also significant (F (10,145) = 3.59, p < .001), and explained 14% of the variance. Significant predictors in this model included being a 4-year campus, attitudes that reforms had improved campuses, and campuses that were perceived as making due process a priority. The variables in the model predicting the number of reforms in the later time period accounted for 18% of the variance and was significant (F (10,145) = 4.44, p < .001). In addition to decoupling being significantly associated with more reforms in the late period, other significant predictors included being a 4-year campus, with the campus having victim centered priorities, and being party to a civil suit or regulatory oversight action.

Discussion

Related to our first research question, 1) Do respondents who rate their institution as engaging in more decoupling also report that their campus adopted fewer reforms than those that reported less decoupling?; we found that decoupling did not significantly predict campus’ overall number of reforms related to campus sexual assault, a finding which was not consistent with our hypothesis that decoupled campuses would have implemented fewer reforms. Some research suggests that campuses were influenced by pressures to improve their response to sexual assault in the years following the “Dear Colleague Letter” (Moylan, 2017) and that campuses had increased their overall compliance related to campus sexual assault in 2015 compared to a study a decade earlier (Richards, 2019). In other words, the intensity of attention to the issue may have pushed many campuses, even those with more decoupling, to adopt reforms by the time our study was conducted. This is consistent with institutional theory which posits that organizations experience pressures to conform to established standards in their field. Those pressures can be coercive, meaning regulatory or legalistic, normative, or mimetic in nature, and research has explored the ways that these pressures operate in relation to campus sexual assault (Moylan & Hammock, 2021). This finding might reflect that the field of higher education tended to adopt reforms meant to improve the response to sexual assault during the time period under study, and thus even decoupled campuses felt pressure to follow suit.

Our second research question tested the hypothesis, based on institutional theory, that decoupled campuses would wait to adopt reforms until pressures are greater, and thus decoupled campuses would have fewer reforms in the earlier time period and more reforms in the later time period. Our results are consistent with this hypothesis as higher decoupling was associated with fewer reforms in the early period and more in the late time period. Combined with the results of the first research question, this suggests that institutions in which the respondents reported to be decoupled may wait longer to adopt reforms, but ultimately make similar numbers of reforms as less decoupled campuses.

A number of other variables in our models were associated with having implemented more reforms and might therefore help us understand what factors support policy implementation related to campus sexual assault. For example, being a 4-year university, having received an Office of Violence Against Women grant, being party to a civil suit or regulatory oversight action, and adopting victim centered priorities were all associated with having adopted more reforms overall. Compared to 2-year institutions, 4-year institutions implemented more reforms in the middle time period, coinciding with the years following the “Dear Colleague Letter.” A 4-year institution might be more likely to have sufficient resources and infrastructure to be able to support reforms and respond to regulatory guidance when compared to 2-year institutions, which aligns with previous research showing that public and 4-year institutions are in better compliance with Title IX mandates than 2-year schools (Karjane et al., 2002; Macri, 2019; Richards, 2019). The Office of Violence Against Women campus grants are intended to support campuses in strengthening their prevention and response to sexual assault, and thus may have served as a supportive mechanism for implementation of reforms. However, we did not have data to help us understand the timing of Office of Violence Against Women grants compared to the reform periods, so it is also possible that campuses that had begun adopting reforms early took advantage of Office of Violence Against Women grant opportunities to further strengthen their responses, which could explain why Office of Violence Against Women grants were associated with the number of reforms in the pre-“Dear Colleague Letter” period but not later time periods. Campuses that have been parties to civil lawsuits or regulatory oversight could have adopted reforms either in response to settlements or to reduce the likelihood of future legal or regulatory consequences. Lastly victim-centered approaches were emphasized between 2011 and 2016 by the White House Task Force and in popular media stories such as the American documentary film The Hunting Ground that highlighted the failure of college administration to appropriately deal with college sexual assault incidences (Kirby & Ziering, 2016). Therefore, it makes sense that campuses that adopted victim centered priorities would be motivated to engage in more reform given that reforms were considered necessary to support survivors and demonstrate institutional accountability for preventing and responding to sexual assault. Interestingly, victim centered priorities were associated with the overall number of reforms and with reforms adopted in the late time period, which could suggest that the focus on improving campus response to victims was most salient for campuses after multiple years of public attention to the issue of campus sexual assault.

IMPLICATIONS

Policy

This study can play a role in understanding what might support policy implementation related to campus sexual assault and subsequent campus reforms. Supportive mechanisms such as having received an Office of Violence Against Women grant seemed to be associated with increased reforms, which suggests the importance of continuing to offer grants and other financial or technical assistance to campuses as they implement what can be costly unfunded mandates. If further mandates are to be implemented, it would be important to keep in mind how well-supported institutions of higher educations are in their ability to implement those regulations and reforms. With these supports in place, campuses may be able to make reforms more quickly, and the reforms they implement become a powerful example and motivator for other campuses, consistent with the idea of mimetic pressures encouraging isomorphism. Our findings suggest that some campuses may be slower to implement reforms, such as those engaging in more decoupling, but that sustained attention to the issue and support mechanisms may help campuses overcome barriers to reform. Other factors, including civil suits and regulatory oversight, what institutional theory would deem coercive measures, might also help spur institutions into action out of concern for costly, punitive, or legal consequences. Together this suggests that those interested in furthering policy reform should couple clear regulatory guidance, a compelling rationale (such as centering victims’ needs), mechanisms that support the adoption of reforms, and appropriate use of regulatory mechanisms to encourage compliance.

Practice

For practitioners on campuses, several implications emerge from our findings. We found that having a victim centered approach was the strongest factor associated with the overall number of reforms, policies and practices that were adopted. This suggests that campuses able to coalesce around a clear goal centered on student well-being might be best positioned to implement reforms. Practitioners could focus on helping campus administrators understand that victim-centered reforms and a focus on due process can coexist, and that focusing on both goals can lead to improvements in the overall response to campus sexual assault. Mechanisms such as federal grants or campus technical assistance mechanisms could provide the support and structure needed to engage in self-study and institutional change.

Research

Our findings suggest that the process of policy implementation varies on campuses and points toward some modifiable factors that might support policy implementation. However, we likely did not measure or include all relevant factors that support (or detract) from policy implementation. Further research that more comprehensively assesses the process of policy implementation would be helpful. Replicating this study with a larger and more representative sample could provide further information to inform our ability to generalize about campus sexual assault policy implementation across diverse institutions. In addition to further developing understanding of factors that support policy implementation, more research is needed to determine how effective these policies are for preventing campus sexual assault or improving the response for survivors. Future research could focus more specifically on the results of reforms over time for survivors and those in the campus environment to illuminate whether and how policy reforms led to improvements. Longitudinal data would need to be collected to tease out in institutions where more reforms were enacted earlier if this was due to decoupling or other factors such as employees perceiving their campus authorities as more supportive of reforms.

In addition, the regulatory context related to campus sexual assault has continued to shift since this data was collected, with much of the guidance issued before 2017 being rescinded and replaced by different policy guidance, which is at the time of this writing again poised to be replaced. Understanding how campuses have responded to rapidly shifting guidance and different regulatory focuses is an important topic for future research to explore. For example, decoupling could increase as regulations shift drastically as institutions might be incentivized to resist complying with regulations that either conflict with normative pressures or are likely to be revoked a short time later.

Limitations

Although this study provides important insight into decoupling and to the implementation and timing of reforms, there are limitations that are worth noting. Our sample includes a range of individuals and campuses, but it is not a nationally representative sample of campuses and therefore we recommend caution in making generalizations from our findings. In addition, we acknowledge the possibility that multiple individuals from the same institution responded to the survey, but this could not be accounted for statistically since we did not ask respondents to identify their institution to protect confidentiality. This is something future research may need to account for to further the analysis. Further research that seeks to replicate our findings in a more diverse and representative sample is thus needed. Most of the measures used in this study were created by the two primary investigators as there were no existing reliable and valid measures for the concepts we were interested in studying. While we have completed some measurement testing of the decoupling and other measures (Moylan & Hammock, 2021) which demonstrates some reliability and validity, further development of measures related to decoupling would be useful for replicating and extending our findings. It is also important to note that the reforms that were asked about in this survey were not comprehensive, nor were they intended to assess compliance with regulations, and therefore should not be interpreted as a proxy for whether campuses were in compliance with Title IX, Clery, or other regulations.

CONCLUSION

Survivors on campuses continue to demand that institutions be accountable for preventing and responding to campus sexual assault, making campus sexual assault policy reform a topic of continued interest. Federal regulatory guidance related to Title IX and other policies is likely to change with current and future administrations, and thus it is as important as ever to understand what factors influence reform. Having a better understanding of what factors might influence institutions of higher education to implement and maintain changes will assist policymakers, researchers, and practitioners in knowing best how to continue the campus sexual assault policy movement to support survivors and institutions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was not supported by any funding grant or agency.

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

    The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

    APPENDIX A

    Items included in each scale:

    Decoupling (mean of five items measured on a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, Cronbach's alpha = .84)
    • Campus leaders really value the importance of preventing sexual assault from occurring. ®
    • Campus leaders have taken steps to change culture that supports sexual assault on campus®.(R)
    • Campus leaders understand the complexities of sexual assault c®s. (R)
    • Campus leaders are more concerned with public relations than doing what is right for victims.
    • Once we have met all the legislative mandates, campus attention to sexual assault will wane.
    Improved (mean of four items measured on a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, Cronbach's alpha .79)
    • Attention to campus sexual assault has increased support for victims.
    • Attention to campus sexual assault has increased accountability for perpetrators.
    • Attention to campus sexual assault has increased the fairness of the investigation and adjudication process.
    • The changes on campus favor students who are accused over those who make a report of sexual assault. (R)
    • Campus sexual assault reforms have improved campus responses to victims of sexual assault.
    Exaggerated (mean of six items measured on a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, Cronbach's alpha .82)
    • Attention to campus sexual assault has led to campuses being too focused on victims.
    • Too much attention is currently devoted to the issue of campus sexual assault.
    • The prevalence of sexual assault on campuses has been exaggerated.
    • Recent national attention to campus sexual assault reform is long overdue. (R)
    • Sexual assault is a problem on my campus. (R)
    Due Process Priority (mean of two items measured on a five-point scale, ranging from highest priority to lowest priority, Cronbach's alpha .75)
    • Ensuring that the adjudication process is fair and equal for both complainants and respondents.
    • Protecting the due process rights of accused students.
    Victim Centered Priority (mean of 11 items measured on a five-point scale, ranging from highest priority to lowest priority, Cronbach's alpha .94)
    • Providing compassionate care to victims.
    • Ensuring victims have access to supportive resources.
    • Adopting a survivor-centered model of care.
    • Increasing the likelihood that offenders will be found responsible.
    • Protecting the safety of all students on campus.
    • Culture change within the university.
    • Ensuring that victims have some control over whether or not a complaint moves forward.
    • Using best available research to guide decision making about campus sexual assault.
    • Coordinating services for student victims.
    • Reducing the number of times a victim has to describe their experience(s).
    • Creating a trauma-informed system to respond to reports of sexual misconduct.
    • Protecting the privacy and confidentiality of victims.

    DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

    The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.