Sexual Assault Climate Surveys: Methodological Issues and Innovations, Introduction to the Special Edition

ABSTRACT

Decades of research demonstrate the widespread nature of campus sexual violence and its negative impact on students’ well-being. Attention to the issue has increased significantly over the last several years with a focus on the responsibility of institutions of higher education to both respond to and prevent campus sexual violence. A key recommendation from multiple entities is the use of campus climate surveys, to help more accurately ascertain students’ victimization experiences, perceptions of the institution’s response, attitudes related to sexual violence, awareness of resources, and more. The recent Violence against Women Reauthorization Act of 2022 mandates the use of climate surveys for all institutions receiving federal funds. The science of constructing, implementing, and using campus climate surveys has evolved over recent years but there still remain several methodological issues. Social workers have an important role to play in the administration, analysis, and interpretation of campus climate surveys, and the work is aligned with the values expressed in the Social Work Code of Ethics and the Grand Challenge to Build Healthy Relationships to End Violence. This introduction describes the articles included in this special issue that will help advance our knowledge related to the measurement of forms of victimization that occur on college campuses, increase the usability and inclusivity of campus climate data, and ultimately, serve to inform the development of innovative intervention and prevention initiatives.

Decades of research have documented the widespread prevalence of sexual violence affecting college students, particularly women and to a lesser extent men (Fedina et al., 2016), and more recent research has documented the impact on students with marginalized sexual and gender identities (Cantor et al., 2015; Kammer-Kerwick et al., 2019). While emerging adulthood (age 18–25) in general is a time of high risk for sexual violence (Langton & Sinozich, 2014; Wood et al., 2017), college campuses have been identified as settings particularly associated with sexual violence perpetration and victimization. Risk factors vary by campus, but can include the widespread use of alcohol, the influence of peer groups and subcultures such as fraternities and affinity groups, social norms such as party and hookup culture, campus policies and values, campus size and type (e.g., residential or commuter) and even the physical spaces and architecture of campuses (Hirsch & Khan, 2020; McMahon et al., 2022; Moylan et al., 2019, 2021). The detrimental impact of campus sexual violence includes negative mental health, economic, and academic outcomes (Banyard et al., 2020; Dilip & Bates, 2020; Voth Schrag et al., 2020) with more intensive impacts for sexual and gender minority students (Kammer-Kerwick et al., 2019). Not only does campus sexual violence impact individual survivors, but also their extended social networks and ultimately, the campus community as a whole (Banyard, 2014; Smith & Freyd, 2014).

Attention to the issue of campus sexual violence has increased exponentially over the past decade, due to a combination of factors including student activism, increased federal involvement calling for institutional accountability, and greater visibility in the media and public discourse facilitated by social media (e.g., #metoo). As a result, many institutions of higher education (IHE) implemented new efforts to both prevent and respond to sexual violence. As a part of these efforts, the use of campus climate surveys is increasingly regarded as a useful practice to help institutions better understand student experiences, address needs, and monitor progress in reaching survivors and preventing violence (Wood et al., 2017). Conducting campus climate surveys was a central recommendation by the Obama Administration’s Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, 2011) and was recently included as a mandate for IHE receiving federal funds in the recent Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022 (2022). This bipartisan legislation includes renewed attention to addressing campus sexual assault, with directions for the Department of Education to review Title IX regulations to promote a safe learning environment free of discrimination for students. It stipulates that IHE will need to conduct campus climate surveys every 2 years.

Campus climate surveys provide an anonymous or confidential means of asking students about their experiences with sexual violence, including victimization incidents, information about post assault behaviors such as help-seeking and reporting, and the associated outcomes of victimization (mental health, substance misuse, academics, etc.). Climate surveys may also assess students’ perceptions of institutional response and bystander intervention attitudes and behaviors. These surveys can help IHE benchmark and assess victimization rates for survivor service and prevention program planning, provide insight into student perceptions of university response, and examine student reporting and resource knowledge and utilization. There is also evidence that campus climate surveys allow IHE to gather more precise data on the prevalence of sexual victimization, as compared to relying on official reports (C. Krebs et al., 2022).

Although campus climate surveys are used extensively at IHE, they are not without limitations, many of which are common to self-report surveys. Reviews of campus climate tools indicate inconsistencies in definitions and measurement, and published reports often do not describe validity, reliability, or other psychometric properties (Krause et al., 2019; Moylan et al., 2018; Wood et al., 2017). Other methodological issues include finding a balance between using standardized, validated scales yet providing customization to meet the needs of various campus communities; measuring social desirability, non-response, or other participant biases; and determining potential differences between sample survey designs (i.e., random sampling versus census sampling; Giroux et al., 2020; Krause et al., 2019). Survey administration issues are complex, including recruitment, survey length, obtaining acceptable response rates and representative samples, and ensuring that experiences of students with marginalized identities are included (Berzofsky et al., 2019; De Heer & Jones, 2017; C. P. Krebs et al., 2016).

Because self-report campus climate surveys will continue to be used to assess the prevalence of victimization on college campuses and provide a foundation for developing appropriate intervention and prevention efforts, it is essential to address the methodological and administrative concerns raised by these surveys. Social workers in particular have contributed to the advancement of campus climate surveys and are well positioned to help lead further work in this area.

Campus climate surveys and social work

Given their professional focus on viewing human experiences from a socio-ecological lens, an emphasis on diversity and equity, and engagement in both micro and macro settings, social workers can uniquely contribute to campus climate assessment. Aligned with the Grand Challenge for Social Work to Build Healthy Relationships to End Violence (Barth et al., 2020; Edelson et al., 2015) campus climate evaluation offers an important opportunity for the profession to contribute to the assessment of and response to interpersonal violence. Social work faculty, staff, and students are poised to collaborate with institutional leadership in higher education to coordinate the administration, analysis, and dissemination of campus climate surveys and data, as well as help translate results into actionable plans for changes in policies, services, and educational programs. Working to improve campus climate data on interpersonal violence and other types of harm is aligned with the Social Work Code of Ethics, particularly the code’s expressed core values of service, social justice, dignity and worth of a person, importance of human relationships, integrity, and competence (National Association of Social Workers, 2021). See Table 1 for examples of this application.

Table 1. Social Work Values Applied to Campus Climate Assessment Work.

Social Work Code of Ethics Values	Applications to Campus Climate Assessment
Service^1: “Social workers’ primary goal is to help people in need and to address social problems.”	The results and process of campus climate assessments can lead to the development of effective interventions to promote healthy relationships and reduce violence. Climate assessment is service to the university as well as the local, state, and national community.
Social Justice: “Social workers challenge social injustice.”	Campus climate assessments, especially when designed with attention to existing disparities and inclusive of diverse campus community members, can bring to light differences in victimization, reporting, impact, and service experiences of different groups on campus. These data can illuminate structural inequities to bring needed supports and advocacy action steps. Campus climate assessments further the civil rights protections offered to students under Title IX and related policy.
Dignity and Worth of a Person: “Social workers respect the inherent dignity and worth of the person.”	Campus climate measurement, methodology, and dissemination honors the worth of all members of the campus community and brings to light their unique perspectives and experiences individually and collectively. Effective prevention approaches and interventions developed from the results of campus climate assessments are to be delivered in a manner that is respectful to individuals and groups in the campus community and help to educate the university about the needs of survivors.
Importance of Human Relationships: “Social workers recognize the central importance of human relationships.”	Data collection and dissemination are designed to strengthen human relationships and support healthy connections. Campus climate assessments often include measures of community-level climate and peer supports, which provide information about relational needs of students and data to improve institutional responses.
Integrity: “Social workers behave in a trustworthy manner.”	Campus climate assessments transform a once hidden and “private” matter of sexual violence to a transparent discourse. Data provided by campus climate assessment, especially when shared publicly, can bring integrity and transparency to what have historically been considered private matters, and determine areas of growth and challenge.
Competence: “Social workers practice within their areas of competence and develop and enhance their professional expertise.”	Campus climate data, when rigorously collected with constituents’ input, provides a strong empirical foundation by which to develop and implement evidence-based practices to address violence, prevent harm, and increase equity. Data from campus climate surveys can also highlight the impact of programming and outreach, and result in modifications to improve efficacy and impact, thus increasing the competency of campus personnel in their response to violence.

Note: Values from the National Association of Social Workers (2021).

Social workers on college campuses have a unique role to play in improving the science of campus climate assessment and can also contribute to the broader implications of this work for shaping institutional, statewide, and federal policy. As brokers of relationships and facilitators of connections, social workers can help install practices that promote institutional growth and trust, making campuses more trauma-informed and survivor-centered. Campus climate assessments also provide opportunities to forge partnerships between IHE and community-based agencies focused on violence prevention and intervention. Social workers may also be able to adapt the tools used to measure climate on college campuses to other organizational and community-based settings and advocate for civil rights and social justice needs for survivors of violence.

Improving the methodology of campus climate surveys

As social workers and other professionals engage in campus climate assessment work, it is essential to strengthen the methods used to provide accurate and actionable data. In this special issue, the authors address a range of methodological challenges and opportunities related to campus climate assessment. We have organized the articles into three groups. The first two articles focus on survey design and its implications for response rates and representativeness. The second two articles draw our attention to the need to collect data on the sexual violence experiences of students with marginalized identities. The final two articles address the role of the larger institution in addressing campus climate.

The first two articles address campus climate survey design and operations. As climate surveys become increasingly common in IHE, it is important to understand how methodological and design differences may impact results. In the article “Sexual Assault Climate Survey Sample Design Methods: Review and Recommendations to Improve Response and Reduce Bias,” Berzofsky et al., 2019) synthesizes evidence from more than 100 campus climate survey reports across 68 institutions. This review examined five overarching design features including 1) incentive structures, 2) sample selection methods, 3) fielding period, 4) reminders and follow-up, and 5) survey time points to identify ways to best minimize bias. Incentive structures, such as those incorporating a set monetary amount along with a lottery are associated with better response rates. Incorporating frequent reminders (e.g., more than weekly) to participants can enhance participation. As new guidance is developed to implement climate surveys across the country (e.g., Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022, 2022), this article is an important contribution to the extant literature and provides a framework for survey design and administration.

The second article addressing methodological and design challenges examines sampling procedures related to response rate biases. In “Sexual Violence Among Postsecondary Students: No Evidence That a Low Response Rate Biases Victimization or Perpetration Rates in a Well-Designed Climate Survey,” Jeffrey and colleagues (2022) find that as long as climate surveys are well-designed and aligned with current recommended measurement practices, accurate estimates of sexual victimization and perpetration can be found for men and women regardless of sampling framework. When comparing census-based sampling to randomized sampling methods, no noticeable differences were found in sexual victimization or perpetration estimates. Census-based samples are often criticized for low response rates or having social desirability bias, but this paper offers support for their continued use in gathering accurate data and offering institutions an option that will produce valid results while requiring little effort to administer. In this study, victimization and perpetration estimates for men and women were comparable across sampling approaches and similar to estimates from other campus studies; however it is less clear if the two sampling approaches would produce similar victimization and perpetration data for students with minoritized gender and sexual identities.

The second set of articles centers on the need to address the role of students with minoritized identities, an issue that has received increased attention in recent years (Harris & Linder, 2017; De Heer & Jones, 2017; Klein et al., 2020; McCauley et al., 2019). In their article “Campus Climate Assessments: Limitations of Siloing Diversity and Sexual Violence Surveys,” Leskinen et al. (2022) highlight the importance of integrating diversity and sexual violence in campus climate surveys. This article notes that “the failure of integrating diversity and sexual violence campus climate surveys has resulted in IHE not being able to adequately address patterns of injustice and inequity that cut across campus climate domains.” (page # to be inserted upon publication). The authors refer to the failure of integrating these types of surveys as “siloing,” and they summarize the limitations of this practice. The authors propose two frameworks that can be used to integrate diversity and sexual violence in campus climate surveys. The first suggests that sexual violence, discrimination, and harassment can be viewed as a form of polyvictimization. Polyvictimization is a term used to describe when a person experiences multiple types of victimization (Finkelhor et al., 2007). The second framework is intersectionality, a term coined by Crenshaw (1990). Taking an intersectional approach to integrating diversity and sexual violence in campus climate surveys requires one to consider the various ways in which violence, discrimination, and harassment manifest for an individual. The authors conclude by making recommendations to address the limitations of siloing diversity and sexual violence campus climate surveys. This is aligned with the call from other scholars to de-silo sexual violence from other types of social injustice, discrimination, and harm. For example, Rothman (2019) urges consideration of moving away from a single-issue focus to address “instances of inequity and injustice in whatever form they took locally” (p. 178).

In their article, “Sexual Violence Victimization and Perceptions of Campus Climate Among Gender and Sexual Minoritized Men,” Hoxmeier et al. (2022) provide us with insights about the experiences of sexual violence among gender and sexual minoritized men, in comparison to their cis/heterosexual counterparts. Their article concludes by outlining strategies to recruit students with minoritized gender and sexual identities into campus climate studies and approaches for collecting information on sexual and gender identities. Similar to Leskinen et al. (2022, in this edition), Hoxmeier et al. stress the importance of using an intersectional approach to enhance our knowledge about the experiences of sexual violence among college students.

The final two articles address the role of the larger institution in developing a more inclusive, comprehensive understanding of campus climate. In their article, “The Sum of All Parts: Enhancing the Value of Campus Climate Surveys by Including Faculty and Staff Perspectives,” Moylan et al. (2022) highlight the need for campus climate surveys to expand beyond an exclusive focus on students to also assess the experiences and perspectives of faculty and staff. They provide a case study that outlines their approach to survey measurement, implementation, and dissemination of findings for faculty and staff campus climate surveys. As demonstrated in their article, designing a meaningful assessment for faculty and staff does not merely entail modifying tools and processes used with students, but rather, requires a different set of processes and logistics and presents new challenges and opportunities. Finally, Pinchevsky and Hayes (2022) explore what campus climate data can teach us about students’ understanding of university policy by examining differences in perceived and factual knowledge of misconduct policies at one university in their article, “College Students’ Knowledge of Policies, Procedure, and Reporting Options for Sexual Violence: Gaps, Disconnects, and Suggestions for Moving Forward.” While many students who stated that they knew campus misconduct policies were able to accurately answer factual questions, between one in five and one in three students answered incorrectly despite stating that they had the information. Further, a significant portion of students – ranging from 20–46% – were not aware of different elements of reporting or response related to experiences of interpersonal violence on campus. Pinchevsky and Hayes recommend that campus climate assessments on reporting and procedures must be factually based to more accurately assess student knowledge. Taken together, the articles in this special edition, across three themes, call our attention to the issue of survey design, the need to collect data from students with marginalized identities, and to address campus climate at the institutional level.

Future directions

The articles presented in this issue highlight important considerations related to campus climate methodology and areas where social workers can actively engage. In addition to the areas addressed in this special issue, several other issues warrant further exploration to move the field forward and to improve the science and impact of campus climate assessment, including measurement variation, survey length, sampling approaches, measuring other domains of climate, and developing data ecosystems.

Measurement variation

Related to the content and methodology of campus climate surveys, the variation in measurement (e.g., assessments of sexual harassment and assault) raises questions about the ability to benchmark and compare results across institutions. Currently, there are several tools being used by IHE and these vary widely in their definition, wording, and content, which prevents comparison and raises questions about the accuracy of prevalence estimates (Krause et al., 2019; Moylan et al., 2018; Swartout et al., 2019; Wood et al., 2017). At the same time, there is recognition that a one-size-fits-all approach to survey design is not necessarily useful given the varying characteristics of campuses (e.g., commuter versus residential, 2-year versus 4-year) and the subsequent need to tailor questions to the particular institution (Swartout et al., 2019; Voth Schrag & Edmond, 2018). Work is needed to understand how measurement and/or research design may need to vary depending on the status of participants (e.g., undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty, staff, postdoctoral associates, part-time lecturers, etc.). Institutions may also have different priorities in terms of their research questions, which may depend on their stage of readiness and how engaged they have been in the work (Edwards et al., 2015). For example, while prevalence data are important to collect as a critical indicator of climate, so too is awareness and utilization of campus-specific resources and programs to provide data that can be used to inform the development of programs and policies. Thus, some institutions may use campus climate assessments as more of a self-study tool than for a way to compare prevalence rates with other institutions. Further research can explore the feasibility of developing a core set of questions that could be asked consistently across institutions to provide some type of benchmarking while also allowing customization to the particular campus).

Survey length

Relatedly, the length of campus climate surveys can be burdensome and contribute to low response rates and reduce the representativeness of the sample (Berzofsky et al., 2019; Follingstad et al., 2021; C. Krebs et al., 2022). Work is needed to test innovative approaches to address the length of the survey such as using modular approaches (see the CLASE [The University of Texas System, 2017] and iSPEAK [Rutgers University, 2018] studies as examples), as well as determining whether questions can be distilled through factor analysis, item-response analysis, and/or other techniques. Follingstad et al. (2021) developed scales to streamline questions about victimization to better reflect the types of experiences that would be most useful for administrators to know rather than asking about a more exhaustive list of behaviors. Similar work to test shorter scales would be useful for the field. It would be helpful to hear from those administrators and practitioners who use campus climate data as to what questions are most important and useful, and what is currently missing.

Sampling approaches

Further work is also needed to measure the implications of using census versus random sampling and what is possible with limited resources at institutions and given the size of the campus. Jeffrey et al. (2022, in this edition) found no significant differences in victimization and perpetration rates when comparing census and randomized sampling methods. However, census approaches may align with the philosophical approach of an institution to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate and share their experiences, and this may be especially important for groups that may be underrepresented. Random sampling potentially offers the ability to stratify based on certain factors but may be more time intensive. Work is needed to compare the two processes to determine the significance of employing one method over the other to understand if one approach produces more of a representative sample.

Measuring other critical domains of climate

While on one hand there is a need to shorten campus climate surveys and address potential survey fatigue, there are also important domains related to sexual violence that are typically not included on current surveys, such as alcohol use or consent (Scott Tilley et al., 2020). Other forms of interpersonal violence including dating violence, harassment, stalking, and other forms of discrimination, harm, and oppression are also important to measure. The articles in this collection emphasize the critical need to include a range of violence and harm types from multiple perspectives in the assessment of climate, acknowledging that the impact and experience of violence may vary by group, and that all members of the community need accessible and relevant resources.

Most surveys also focus exclusively on measuring victimization, yet a reduction in the perpetration of sexual violence and other forms of violence is one of the most important indicators as it represents a key goal for campus efforts. Other researchers have previously highlighted the need to focus on perpetration to prevent sexual violence (DeGue et al., 2014; McMahon et al., 2019; C. P. Krebs et al., 2016; Swartout et al., 2019; Wood et al., 2017) yet it remains a major gap and is fraught, as there are issues with accuracy based on self-report measures and hesitancy by administration to collect this type of data. Work is urgently needed to determine how to better measure perpetration, including a determination as to whether it is appropriate to include on climate measures or should be assessed separately. There is also a need for developing best practices to ensure that campus administrators support its inclusion in assessment work, while maintaining adherence to any policies or regulations.

Creating data ecosystems

While campus climate surveys represent a critical step for assessing an institution’s response to sexual violence, these should be regarded as only one method of data collection to consider. Other types of data collection approaches are needed to gain a more comprehensive picture of the climate, such as program evaluation, service utilization monitoring, qualitative data to gather more in-depth information, and environmental scans to assess the breadth of services provided and their alignment with best practices. Qualitative methods have been underapplied, diminishing our understanding of the lived experience of climate and survivor experience. Qualitative methods may help illuminate the experience of students and other community members who represent a numerically smaller number of participants and thus may be omitted from quantitative assessment. In this sense, campus climate surveys can be viewed as one part of a larger data ecosystem (Driver-Linn & Svensen, 2017; McMahon et al., 2022). Models are needed for synthesizing these various data points to better understand the campus climate and to work collaboratively with other campus departments that collect information about other dimensions of climate (e.g., racial climate, LGBTQA climate) to determine how these intersect and ultimately paint a more complete picture of climate. Moylan et al. (2021) propose that conceptualizations and measurement of campus sexual assault climate include five dimensions: behavioral (e.g., the prevalence of various forms of violence, microaggressions, and harm), perceived (e.g., perceptions of bias throughout campus settings such as classrooms and workplace), felt (e.g., sense of belonging and safety), structural (e.g., the effectiveness of programs and institutional commitment of resources) and historical (e.g., reviewing the evolution of an institution’s response to sexual assault and attention to structural inequities).

Conclusion

The recent attention to campus climate surveys in Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022 (2022) highlights the importance of assessing and responding to the campus climate in order to build safe, inclusive learning environments at IHE. Social workers have an important role to play in the development, implementation, analysis, and dissemination of campus climate assessment, as well as providing critical voices to translate the data into action for social change. As emphasized in this special issue, it is essential to improve our methodology to capture the experiences of sexual violence among a variety of college students and to consider how these can be integrated with diversity campus climate work. There are opportunities for social work scholars, practitioners, and students to conduct research in the areas identified by the authors who contributed to this issue. Such research will have a profound effect on how we measure sexual violence and how campus climate surveys are developed.

Acknowldgement

The authors would like to acknowledge Jennifer Perillo for her copyediting assistance.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.