Building a culture of support: The use of a social norms campaign to create a trauma-informed campus community

Abstract

In 2019, (Michigan State University) conducted a campus-wide climate survey on relationship violence and sexual misconduct (RVSM; the ‘Know More’ Survey), which revealed that many students, faculty, and staff did not know where to go for help or how to support survivors. Objective: The authors collaborated on the design and launch of the ‘Support More’ Campaign in 2021-2022, a trauma-informed social norms campaign created to educate the campus community on how to respond to disclosures of RVSM and how to access campus-based services. Methods: Undergraduate students, graduate/professional students, faculty, and staff (n = 10,993) completed another ‘Know More’ Survey in spring 2022. Results: Nearly one-half of respondents reported being very or somewhat aware of the ‘Support More’ campaign. Respondents who had utilized campaign materials found them helpful. Conclusions: Social norm campaigns can help campus communities become aware of RVSM services and how to support survivors.

Keywords:

• Sexual assault
• relationship violence
• college campuses
• social norms

Relationship violence and sexual misconduct (RVSM) are alarmingly common at institutions of higher education (IHEs),¹ yet few survivors use campus-based service programs.² Underutilization may be in part due to major shifts in federal Title IX policy, which have left survivors unsure what may happen if they reach out for help.³ Current IHE policies emphasize mandatory reporting to Title IX offices, human resources, and/or law enforcement,⁴ which may feel disempowering and deter help-seeking because survivors do not want to be forced to report.⁵ Furthermore, students are often unclear what services are available, how to access them, and how to distinguish confidential resources from those that will require mandatory reporting.⁶

These findings suggest a need for interventions that can connect campus survivors to confidential resources so they can make informed decisions about seeking help. For such work, it may be helpful to leverage principles of trauma-informed practice, defined by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration⁷ as practices that realize the impact of trauma and potential paths for recovery, recognize signs and symptoms of trauma, respond by integrating knowledge about trauma into their approach, and resist re-traumatization. The Institute on Trauma and Trauma-Informed Care⁸ calls for applying these concepts to develop trauma-informed organizations whereby all community members are trained to respond to disclosures empathically and connect survivors to supportive services.

Incorporating these ideas with ongoing calls to improve IHE’s climate, we wanted to create a trauma-informed campus, which we define as a culture of care and support whereby survivors are not revictimized when they disclose, and instead, they are believed and supported. Consistent with current recommendations for trauma-informed practice,^7,8 one approach for fostering such a climate is developing a social norms campaign to teach trauma-informed principles. On a trauma-informed campus, when survivors disclose assaults, they would be met first and foremost with care and concern, and then connected to resources that can help them make informed decisions about next steps. Campus members who have mandatory reporting obligations would first offer care and connection, and then address their reporting obligations in a trauma-informed way.

We brought these ideas into action at (Michigan State University) in the wake of a large-scale institutional crisis.⁹ As part of its institutional response to this failure, (Michigan State University) conducted a campus-wide climate survey in 2019, which was named the ‘Know More’ Survey.¹⁰ Findings indicated that many students, faculty, and staff were unsure where to go for help or how to support survivors. The data from this survey informed the creation of a five-year RVSM strategic plan, the ‘Do More’ Strategic Plan, which launched in 2020 to decrease incidence and increase help-seeking.⁹ A focal initiative of that plan was the creation of the ‘Support More’ Campaign, a trauma-informed social norms campaign. The campaign’s two primary goals were: 1) to provide guidance on how to respond to disclosures in a trauma-informed way, including how to connect survivors to campus-based resources when desired; and 2) to advertise the availability of campus-based survivor services and simplify how to access them.

Development of the support more campaign

The ‘Support More’ Campaign was developed by a core project team of RVSM researchers, working with an advisory board of campus stakeholders (service providers, legal counsel, communications), and a marketing firm. We developed four sets of interrelated materials (i.e., website, print materials, videos, advertisements) to build trauma-informed skills and educate the community on available resources. All materials went through an extensive review and revision process using feedback from multiple student, staff, administration, and faculty groups (e.g., shared governance groups, unions, identity groups).

First, we established a new ‘Support More’ website (https://supportmore.msu.edu/) to serve as a hub for resources. The focal message on the website is, “(Michigan State University) is striving to create a trauma-informed culture and to help our community respond to survivors of relationship violence, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and/or stalking in an informed and caring way.” Rather than simply listing help-seeking options, which we learned from community feedback is not helpful for people who do not know what they want to do, the home page guides users through the site with prompts of five core thoughts and feelings: “I’m worried about my safety,” “I want to talk to someone about what happened,” “I want to file a report,” “I’m not exactly sure what happened or what I want to do,” and “I am looking for a list of resources.” Additional pages, such as, “Where to go for help” with all available survivor support resources, and “How you can help someone,” provide language and strategies for responding to a disclosure in a trauma-informed way. The website is consistent with best practices outlined by Eno et al. ¹¹ in centering support over reporting, bolstering survivor agency by providing multiple help-seeking pathways, and using clear, easy to understand language.

Second, we developed posters and brochures with Quick Response (QR) codes that connect to the hub website (digital versions can be downloaded from the website). One poster was designed to educate community members how to respond to disclosures with the focal message: “If someone tells you they have experienced relationship violence, sexual assault, stalking, or sexual harassment, here’s how you can help.” Visual elements of the poster illustrate three key steps, accompanied by example language in dialog boxes: 1) Show support (e.g., “I believe you, I’m here for you”); 2) Offer help (e.g., “I know this isn’t easy but I am wondering if you want to talk to someone about what happened;” “I can go with you if you’d like); and 3) Connect to resources with a list of primary, ‘where to start resources,’ with clear distinctions for confidential programs. A companion poster was designed to promote resources, with the focal message: “Whether it’s been a few hours or several years, there are resources here to help.” The graphics strategically guide viewers to programs based on their needs: 1) How to get immediate support; 2) Where you can go if you want to talk (confidential resources); and 3) Who to contact to file a report.

We developed three versions of a resource brochure with guidance on responding to: 1) student to student disclosures; 2) employee to employee disclosures; and 3) student to employee disclosures. Each brochure offers examples of supportive language and resource options, with the focal message, “What do I do if a friend/student/colleague tells me about relationship violence, sexual assault, stalking, or sexual harassment? How you respond is important. You can show you care.” The brochures also include information on mandatory reporting, the importance of transparency regarding employee obligations, and sample language for how to discuss reporting obligations with survivors: “Because of my role at (Michigan State University), I’m required to share what you’ve told me with the (Office of Institutional Equity). They will listen to what you want to happen next and honor your decisions, as long as you and others aren’t at risk or in danger. Even if there is no formal investigation, there may be things they can do to help you feel safe and continue to succeed as a student here at (Michigan State University).”

Third, to model trauma-informed responses to disclosures, we created a video of campus services providers saying phrases featured in the supportive language posters and brochures. The video opens with the message, “There are many ways to support someone when they disclose to you.” We filmed service providers for this video so the campus community could ‘meet’ the people with whom they might interact, should they reach out for help. Because IHEs are international, multicultural spaces, we wanted people to hear words of support in their native languages; thus, we collaborated with students, faculty, and staff who are native speakers to model these phrases in multiple languages (e.g., Mandarin, Spanish, Korean, Nepali, Portuguese, French, American Sign Language). Additionally, we produced a video series introducing each of the service programs highlighted on the website/posters/brochures by taking viewers on a detailed tour of how to access the program and what to expect if they reach out for help.

Fourth, to advertise the campaign and its materials, we developed social media posts, table tents, bus advertisements, billboards, and flyers for distribution throughout campus. These materials repeated key messages of the campaign and contained QR codes linking to the ‘Support More’ website.

Implementation of support more campaign

The campaign began with a soft launch of the website and informative sessions for campus leaders and essential stakeholder groups during the fall semester of 2021. Over winter break, the resource brochures and a letter from the University President and President’s RVSM advisors explaining the campaign were mailed to all students, faculty, and staff at their permanent addresses. Over break, facilities staff hung posters throughout campus residence halls, classroom buildings, and administrative offices. When the spring 2022 semester began, University Communications executed a strategic communications plan, which included news releases, media tour, social media plan, and podcast appearances—all amplified through the university’s internal communications platforms. Campaign booster promotions occurred throughout the spring semester, and the campaign developers conducted presentations and shared materials with multiple student, faculty, and staff groups.

Evaluation of the support more campaign

The launch of the ‘Support More’ campaign coincided with another administration of the campus-wide ‘Know More’ climate survey in spring 2022, so we explored how we could conduct a limited-scale evaluation of the campaign as part of this survey. As with our first ‘Know More’ survey in 2019, we contracted a nonprofit research firm, (RTI International), to administer the campus climate survey. Given our institutional history and context,⁹ we felt it was necessary and appropriate that an independent entity be responsible for data collection, analysis, interpretation, and report writing, and that all findings are shared publicly.¹⁰ The independent research firm was amenable to adding some questions to the 2022 ‘Know More’ survey to evaluate the ‘Support More’ campaign. However, given that this climate survey was already quite long and included assessments of RVSM victimization and workplace incivility, service utilization, service helpfulness, and campus climate, we added only three evaluation questions: (1) The extent to which respondents were aware of the ‘Support More’ website (1-4 scale, very aware to not at all aware); (2) Whether respondents utilized campaign materials (yes/no); and (3) If they utilized materials, how helpful they were (1-4 scale, very helpful to not at all helpful).¹²

The full methodology and results of the 2022 ‘Know More’ survey are publicly available,¹² but briefly, a census approach was used whereby all undergraduate students, graduate/professional students, faculty and staff received an email link from the independent research firm requesting their participation in the survey. A total of 6,410 of 35,354 undergraduates participated (18.1% response rate), 888 of 9,542 graduate/professional students (9.3% response rate), and 3,695 of 26,264 faculty and staff (14.1% response rate). Those who did and did not take the survey were compared using available administrative data, which revealed some significant differences: characteristics associated with greater likelihood of participation among undergraduates included higher GPA and standardized test scores, being white, Hispanic, or Asian; among graduate and professional students, higher GPA, older, being white, Hispanic, or more than two races; among faculty, older, more years of service, higher rank; and among staff, older, more years of service, in a union. The data were weighted to account for non-response bias and improve the accuracy of the estimates. Results were analyzed and reported by stakeholder group (undergraduates, graduate and professional students, faculty, staff) and gender (cisgender women, cisgender men, transgender and/or nonbinary) to allow for comparisons across groups that typically experience differing rates of RVSM. Descriptive statistics were reported for all measures, and significant differences were determined by examining 95% confidence intervals.

Regarding the evaluation of the ‘Support More’ campaign, Figure 1 summarizes the findings organized by stakeholder group and gender. As shown in Panel A (top of Figure 1), 34-47% of respondents were somewhat or very aware of the ‘Support More’ website, and rates varied significantly by stakeholder group. Among undergraduate students, cisgender men reported being significantly more aware of the ‘Support More’ website than cisgender women as well as transgender and/or nonbinary students. Cisgender women undergraduate students and cisgender women staff were more aware of the website than cisgender women graduate/professional students; cisgender men undergraduate students were more aware of the website than cisgender men graduate/professional students. Cisgender men staff were more aware than cisgender men faculty and cisgender women faculty; by contrast, cisgender women staff were more aware than cisgender women faculty.

Figure 1. Awareness, utilization, and perceived helpfulness of support more materials.

NOTE: A combined group of faculty and staff trans/non-binary respondents was created to maximize group sample size and protect participants’ privacy. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals in panels A and B; there are statistically significant differences in figures for which error bars do not overlap.

Panel B (middle of Figure 1) summarizes utilization of the ‘Support More’ campaign materials: 24-39% of respondents had used the materials, and rates varied significantly by stakeholder group. Transgender and/or nonbinary faculty and staff, cisgender men staff, cisgender women faculty, and cisgender men staff used ‘Support More’ materials at higher rates than cisgender women graduate/professional students as well as cisgender women and cisgender men undergraduate students. Cisgender women staff used ‘Support More’ materials at higher rates than cisgender women and cisgender men graduate/professional students as well as cisgender women and cisgender men undergraduate students. Within stakeholder groups (undergraduate students, graduate/professional students, faculty and staff) there were no differences in ‘Support More’ material use by gender.

Finally, Panel C (bottom of Figure 1) highlights that 71-96% of the respondents who utilized ‘Support More’ materials rated them as somewhat or very helpful. Ratings were not significantly different by stakeholder group.

Limitations and conclusions

Our goal in this project was to educate our campus community about trauma resources as a step toward creating a trauma-informed campus. The ‘Support More’ materials were helpful to those who utilized them, but we acknowledge several limitations of our evaluation of this campaign. The scope of the evaluation was constrained by our desire to reduce survey fatigue, and thus we included only a limited number of questions in a larger campus climate survey. As such, we did not assess which distribution methods were most effective at reaching stakeholders, or whether campaign materials had helped those who experienced RVSM victimization connect with services. In addition, we did not utilize other methods to evaluate the campaign, such as tracking how many people utilized the QR codes.

With these limitations of the evaluation methodology noted, we highlight that the results indicated a need for ongoing efforts to promote the campaign. The breadth and depth of the campaign’s saturation was lower than we had hoped, and the initial awareness rates were lower than those obtained in other social norms campaign projects^13,14 Promoting this campaign during 2021-2022 was challenging, as our campus was transitioning from COVID remote operations to in-person work, and campus members were fatigued from the volume of campus communications. In addition, vacillations in Title IX policy over the last three presidential administrations⁴ and national news coverage of institutional failures to address RVSM have created a complicated landscape for college student survivors and their decisions whether to seek help. Social norms campaigns such as this can be tailored to the unique circumstances of institutions based on their histories, available resources, and campus demographics to make RVSM services more accessible. At our campus, this campaign has laid the groundwork for building additional outreach via localized networks (e.g., residence halls, clubs, academic advising, and integration into pre-campus orientations for students, and employee orientations for faculty and staff). Ongoing contact with these groups may help us reach more members of our campus community. For other IHEs interested in building RVSM social norm campaigns, we encourage planning groups to work closely with organizations that represent diverse groups to determine how best to tailor and market campaign materials to different audiences. The mass distribution methods we used in this project do not reach all audiences equally, and we recommend creating multiple dissemination strategies tailored to different sub-communities.

Author’s note

The opinions or points of view expressed in this document are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the official positions of any participating organization.

Conflict of interest disclosure

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. The authors confirm that the research presented in this article met the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements, of the United States of America and received approval from the Institutional Review Board of Michigan State University.

Additional information

Funding

This project was supported by Federal Award 2018-V2-GX-0067 from the Department of Justice, administered by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Victim Services. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of MSU and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice or Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.