Overview of a 

Comprehensive Approach

The Higher Education Center 

for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse 

and Violence Prevention

Funded by the U.S. Department of Education

Preventing Violence

and Promoting

Safety in Higher

Education Settings
Institutions of higher education

(IHEs) are often regarded as sanctuaries, protected environments where

young people explore great ideas in a

collegial atmosphere and make lifelong

friendships. Consequently, incidents of

violence on campus are particularly

shocking for the extended campus

community, evoking questions about

whether there is any safe haven. An

abundance of evidence indicates that

in fact campuses are not immune from

such incidents. There are many types

of campus violence—including rape,

assault, fighting, hazing, dating violence, sexual harassment, hate and

bias-related violence, stalking, rioting,

disorderly conduct, property crime,

and even self-harm and suicide. While

grappling with these complex problems is challenging, lessons learned

from community-based prevention

research point to a set of best practices

to guide the development, implementation, and evaluation of interventions

to improve campus health and safety. 

This publication was developed to help

campuses prevent violence and promote

safety. It reviews the scope of campus

violence problems, describes the wide

array of factors that cause and contribute to violence, outlines a comprehensive approach to reducing violence

and promoting safety on campus, and

lists specific recommendations that

administrators, students, faculty, staff,

and community members can follow to

review and improve their policies and

strengthen their programs and services.

The document concludes with vignettes

describing initiatives specific campuses

have undertaken to reduce violence and

promote a safe environment.

Scope of the Problem

Estimates of campus violence range

widely due to both the underreporting

that skews official statistics and the use

of differing definitions and data collection methodologies in surveys. Existing data indicate, however, that a

substantial minority of college students

experience some type of violence and

related consequences. According to

one nationally representative survey 

of college students, approximately 

17 percent of students reported 

experiencing some form of violence 

or harassment in the previous year.1

Common forms of campus violence

include sexual and interpersonal violence. A 1997 national telephone survey found that 1.7 percent of college

women had experienced a completed

rape and 1.1 percent an attempted

rape in the seven months prior to the

study. Projecting these figures over an

entire calendar year, the survey’s

authors concluded that nearly 5 percent of college women might be victimized annually and that up to 25

percent might be assaulted by the end

of their college years. In the same

study, 13 percent of college women

reported they had been stalked during

the seven-month period.2 Other studies, using varying definitions, estimate

that from 20 to 50 percent of students

experience dating violence by the end

of college.3, 4 In addition, 13.2 percent

of college students report having been

in a physical fight in the past 12

months,5 8.5 percent report carrying a

weapon in the past 30 days,5 and 4.3

percent report “having a working

firearm with them at college.”6

Hazing is also a common concern. Of

the 25 percent of National Collegiate

Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes

who responded to a 1999 Alfred

University survey, 79 percent had

experienced some form of hazing, and

51 percent of respondents had been

required to participate in drinking

contests or alcohol-related hazing.

Approximately 20 percent of the

respondents reported what the authors

called “unacceptable and potentially

illegal” hazing.7

Hate and bias crimes occur all too 

frequently on campus. A 1998 study

estimated that an average of 3.8 hate

crimes per campus occurred that year,

80 percent of them motivated by the

victim’s race or sexual orientation.8 In

a study of gay and lesbian students, 

42 percent reported experiencing some

level of physical aggression due to their

sexual orientation.9

Victims of violence experience a wide

variety of physical and emotional consequences, often leading to social and academic difficulties.10 Violence can lower

the quality of life for all campus constituents, who may become fearful and

2

Preventing Violence and Promoting Safety in 

Higher Education Settings: Overview of a

Comprehensive Approach

by Linda Langford, Sc.D.

This publication was funded by the Office of Safe and

Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education

under contract number ED-04-CO-0137 with Education

Development Center, Inc. The contracting officer’s representative was Richard Lucey, Jr. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of

the U.S. Department of Education, nor does the mention

of trade names, commercial products, or organizations

imply endorsement by the U.S. government. This publication also contains hyperlinks and URLs for information created and maintained by private organizations.

This information is provided for the reader’s convenience.

The U.S. Department of Education is not responsible for

controlling or guaranteeing the accuracy, relevance,

timeliness, or completeness of this outside information.

Further, the inclusion of information or a hyperlink or

URL does not reflect the importance of the organization,

nor is it intended to endorse any views expressed, or

products or services offered.
restrict their activities out of concern for

safety. In addition, violence affects the

bottom line for colleges by increasing

costs, lowering retention, and absorbing

resources that could otherwise be used

to further the academic mission.

What Causes Violence?

Studies have found that no single factor causes violence. Researchers have

identified many determinants, including both individual characteristics and

attributes of campus and community

environments.11 These factors can be

organized according to a “social ecological framework,” a commonly used

public health model. This model recognizes that health- and safety-related

behaviors are shaped through multiple

levels of influence—individual, group,

institutional, and community as well

as public policy and societal factors.12, 13

The nature and strength of these factors will vary across settings and by

type of violence.11

In a campus community, the following

are examples of possible influences at

each level:

• Individual factors, such as student,

faculty, and staff attitudes and

beliefs about violence; skills for

negotiating conflict.

• Interpersonal or group processes,

such as group norms regarding

appropriate behavior; responses of

bystanders to violence.

• Institutional factors, such as campus

policies and procedures; existence

of high-risk settings that contribute

to violence; high levels of alcohol

consumption in the campus environment.

• Community factors, such as high

rates of violence and drug selling in

the surrounding community; extent

of community law enforcement.

• Public policy and societal influences

that influence campus life and students, including the existence and

enforcement of federal, state, and

local laws and statutes; cultural

contributors such as male gender

role socialization and media images

that glamorize violence. 

Any given violent event typically results

from a convergence of some or all of

the above factors. The National

Research Council concluded: “A violent

event requires the conjunction of a 

person with some (high or low) predisposing potential for violent behavior, a

situation with elements that create some

risk of violent events, and usually a 

triggering event” (emphasis added).*, 11

The complexity of violence suggests

that efforts to reduce violence will

require multicomponent initiatives

designed to address the array of contributing factors. In addition, efforts

should take into account the typical

dynamics of campus violence. For

example, most incidents of campus

sexual assault are perpetrated not by a

stranger who jumps out of the bushes

but by someone known to the victim.2

Addressing Campus Violence

Campus administrators understandably

struggle with their roles and responsibilities with respect to influencing student behavior. While some incidents of

violence are unpredictable, it is possible

to identify and reduce the factors that

make violence more likely. Recent

court decisions reflect a growing expectation that campuses will deal proactively with these foreseeable risks to

students.14 Thus, campuses must consider whether there are factors within

their control that might contribute to

the likelihood of violence or injury.

Failure to institute basic measures such

as educating students about common

types of violence, creating and enforcing strong policies, implementing comprehensive alcohol prevention efforts,

and reviewing incidents with the aim

of preventing future problems may

expose institutions to legal action. By

identifying and adequately addressing

local conditions that contribute to violence, individual campuses reduce both

the probability of harm and the likelihood of a successful lawsuit, while also

enhancing the learning environment.

While avoiding liability is desirable,

recent legal and scientific work urges

administrators to broaden their view

beyond a “rules and regulations” orientation in order to foster a safe, healthy,

and civil campus environment.14, 15

Violence prevention and safety promotion should be seen as part of the

broader mission of any institution of

higher education, namely, to create a

context in which all campus constituents flourish both academically

and personally.

The Need for Prevention

Often, responses to violence focus on

reacting to specific incidents, typically

relying on disciplinary measures or the

criminal justice system. Such efforts

are essential to maintain a safe environment, and strong enforcement

sends a clear message about an institution’s intolerance for violent behavior.

A comprehensive approach to violence,

however, also includes complementary

measures aimed at early intervention

and prevention. As the social ecological model suggests, campuses must

seek to minimize the broad spectrum

of factors that contribute to violence,

as identified through a local assessment

of campus conditions. A comprehensive program will include approaches

such as the following:

• Addressing attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and skills that contribute

3

Preventing Violence

*A “triggering event” is a description of the

immediate circumstances surrounding an act of

violence and is not intended to convey a lack of

agency or responsibility by perpetrators. A triggering event can occur at a social level, e.g., the

football game that precedes a riot, or within an

individual, e.g., a cognitive error in information processing that impairs decision-making.
to violence through education, skill

building, curriculum infusion, and

other efforts.

• Supporting healthy group norms

and promoting bystander intervention.

• Conveying clear expectations for

conduct among students, faculty,

staff, and visitors.

• Creating and disseminating comprehensive policies and procedures

addressing each type of violent

behavior, and instituting training

programs to ensure that policies are

followed and enforced.

• Providing a range of support services for students, including mental

health services, crisis management,

and comprehensive and compassionate services for victims.

• Helping students to avoid harm

through such measures as escort

services and self-defense classes.

• Establishing comprehensive alcohol

and other drug prevention programs.

Some of these approaches, such as

escort services and self-defense classes,

are already common on campuses.

While such risk reduction efforts can

be an important part of an overall

approach, they focus on protection

against assaults by strangers and target

only potential victims. Therefore, these

measures must be supplemented with

other programs and policies targeting

violence among acquaintances, friends,

and intimates and addressing potential

perpetrators and bystanders.

Given the complexity of violent behavior and the diversity of settings, structures, cultures, and students among

campuses, there is no simple, one-sizefits-all solution for violence in higher

education settings. Officials at each

institution must design a program that

meets their particular circumstances

and needs. 

Recommendations

In recent years a consensus has

emerged from community-based prevention research about the best practices for developing, implementing,

and evaluating interventions designed

to reduce health and safety problems.

Taken together, these lessons from prevention science suggest a number of

clear principles that should govern

efforts to address campus violence. 

Principles for Designing

Effective Campus Violence

Interventions

Interventions should be 

• prevention-focused in addition to

response-focused

• comprehensive, addressing multiple types of violence, all campus

constituents, and on- and off-campus settings 

• planned and evaluated, using a

systematic process to design, implement, and evaluate the initiative

• strategic and targeted, addressing

priority problems (and their risk

and protective factors) identified

through an assessment of local

problems and assets

• research-based, informed by current research literature and theory

• multicomponent, using multiple

strategies

• coordinated and synergistic,

ensuring that efforts complement

and reinforce one another

• multisectoral and collaborative,

involving key campus stakeholders

and disciplines 

• supported by infrastructure, institutional commitment, and systems

The following recommendations build

upon the above principles, providing

concrete actions that individual campus and community teams can use to

assess their campus and community

conditions, set priorities, and implement well-designed strategies. 

Campus and community teams should

do the following:

1. Use multiple, coordinated, and

sustained intervention approaches

designed to achieve synergy among

program components. 

Most campuses already have some programs, policies, and systems in place to

address violence. However, many educational efforts are one-time programs,

and they are rarely coordinated with

other policies or services. Some may

even present conflicting or confusing

messages. Prevention research shows

that coordinated and sustained activities are more effective than one-time

programs. Ensuring that multiple

efforts are coordinated and synergistic

is thesingle most important way in

which practitioners can improve their

initiatives against violence. For example, programs such as staff training on

policies and procedures, student educational programs, and disciplinary

actions for policy violations should all

be examined to ensure that their messages are consistent. The remainder of

these recommendations provide additional guidance for coordinating and

integrating multiple strategies. 

2. Engage in a “problem analysis” to

assess local problems and resources,

which will inform specific goals and

objectives. 

To be effective, programs must be

based on data that reveal the most serious local problems and the factors that

contribute to them. For example, one

campus may experience problems with

fights outside bars in the local community, whereas another may be faced

with high rates of sexual assault in oncampus fraternity houses. Such dissimilar problems require very different sets

4
of intervention strategies. A thorough

review of campus conditions also can

help college administrators identify

campus assets and existing initiatives

that can be mobilized as part of a coordinated and comprehensive campus

response. Helpful sources for the problem analysis include statistics, policies,

and programs compiled to comply

with the Clery Act16 and the Drug-Free

Schools and Communities Act

(DFSCA).17 Additionally, campuses

may (1) survey students to obtain

information about behaviors, knowledge, norms, and skills; (2) perform

environmental scans;18 (3) conduct 

regular safety audits;19, 20 and (4) collect

information from key campus stakeholders to document existing efforts

and priority concerns. The planning

team should analyze the collected data

to identify specific problems and their

contributors, articulate the conditions

that need to be changed, and translate

the campus’s needs into concrete goals

and objectives.

3. Draw on existing research, theory,

and logic to decide what strategies

might work to solve the targeted

problems.

Keeping in mind the specific problems

and their contributors identified in step

2, planners should examine existing

research and theory to determine how

best to make changes. The key is to

remain focused on local problems

rather than to adopt initiatives that

seem generally promising but do not

address the locally identified issues. For

example, if the problem analysis found

that fights in residence halls usually

involved unaccompanied outside visitors, the planning team would look for

programs, policies, and procedures that

have been effective in monitoring and

supervising visitors to campus. 

Good sources for such promising

strategies are evaluations of efforts

designed to address similar problems

in both campus and community settings. Reviews of “best practices” for

community and youth violence prevention compiled by federal agencies

may provide programs, policies, and

services that can be adapted to campus

settings (see “Non-Campus Best

Practice Reviews” in the Resources section of this publication). In the

absence of evaluated strategies, intervention approaches may be based on

behavioral or other theories.21, 22

While practitioners at other campuses

can be an invaluable source of information to help generate ideas and avoid

stumbling blocks, it is advisable not to

adopt programs and policies from

other campuses uncritically. Planners

should examine any strategy under

consideration to determine whether it

has empirical or theoretical support

and whether it is a match for their own

local problems and conditions. 

4. Create a logic model and program

plan.

Regardless of the source of programming ideas, planners should choose

programs and policies based on the

likelihood of their achieving the

defined goals and objectives. There

should be a logical connection

between program activities and desired

results. Many campus teams find it

useful to create a “logic model,” a diagram illustrating how each planned

activity will contribute to the longterm goal of reducing campus violence.23 In addition, to ensure that the

initiative stays on track, it is helpful to

create a detailed work plan that lists

specific tasks, states who is responsible

for each, and sets out a timeline for

completing those tasks. 

5. Build infrastructure to support

planning and implementation

efforts, including partnerships and

collaborations, institutional support,

and systems.

In order to succeed, planned initiatives

require supportive infrastructure,

defined here as the broad range of

resources, systems, and processes needed to develop, implement, and evaluate

interventions. While developing infrastructure will not by itself reduce violence, these components are critical for

creating the strategic changes needed to

improve campus safety. Important types

of infrastructure for such efforts include

partnerships and collaborations, institutional support, and systems.

Partnerships and Collaborations.

Because violence is a multifaceted

problem, solutions must engage multiple campus and community stakeholders. Most violence-related issues will

require consultation with numerous

stakeholders, including representatives

from campus law enforcement, campus judicial or disciplinary systems,

student affairs, health services, counseling, health education, victim advocacy, students, faculty, and parents.

Campus legal counsel and risk managers should ensure that policies and

programs comply with federal, state,

and local laws. Other departments that

may be involved include equity, diversity, or social justice offices; residence

life; admissions; fraternities and sororities; athletics departments; and human

resources. Some initiatives, such as

those involving threat assessment or

crisis management teams, also might

draw on multiple departments.

Because many violent offenses on campuses involve alcohol, some campuses

have developed task forces specifically

to coordinate violence interventions

with alcohol and other drug prevention efforts. In addition, because 

problems are rarely confined within

campus boundaries, campus officials

will need to engage members of the

surrounding community in order to

make systematic and lasting changes. 

Research suggests that successful partnerships share such qualities as an

inclusive and broad-based membership;

a strong core of committed partners; a

shared vision for the group’s work;

effective and stable leadership; adequate

staff support; clearly defined roles and

5

Preventing Violence
responsibilities; concrete goals and

objectives; and avoidance or resolution

of severe conflict.24, 25 There is, however,

no one partnership structure that will

work for every campus at all times, and

campus officials are encouraged to

think strategically about which structure best meets their current needs. For

example, an institution addressing offcampus student riots would need to

work with a broadly inclusive campus

and community coalition from the

start, whereas a campus that is revising

the student conduct code may start

with a campus-based task force,

expanding the group’s membership or

consulting community representatives

to address off-campus issues. To facilitate cooperative working relationships

and information sharing across departments and agencies, campuses should

consider creating formal and informal

interagency agreements.

Institutional Support. Without highlevel support, efforts to address violence will languish. College presidents

must establish campus violence prevention as a priority and to that end

provide support and funding for planning, implementation, and evaluation

processes. Administrators also should

assist program directors in their efforts

to obtain external funding.

A common barrier to implementing

proposed initiatives is lack of staff

time. Simply put, efforts that are 

inadequately staffed are unlikely to

succeed. It is essential for planning

teams to specify whose staff will implement each effort and to create a system

of accountability for follow-through.

Ideally, every campus should have a

dedicated office or staff person to

coordinate programs, policies, and 

services addressing violence. 

Systems. In some cases, institutional

systems may actually hinder violence

intervention efforts. For example, the

problem analysis may reveal that data

sharing is difficult. In this case, campus

officials might create a new data system,

shared between campus security and

judicial systems, to facilitate the collection and use of crime and disciplinary

data by both departments. Other strategies may require creation of specialized

infrastructure, for example, crossdepartmental teams devoted to crisis

management or threat assessment.

6. Evaluate programs, policies, and

services, and use results for improvement.

Given that resources are scarce, it is

imperative to use them both efficiently

and effectively. The key to ensuring

accountability is to evaluate whether

initiatives are achieving their intended

outcomes. Long-term financial support

for violence intervention, whether it

comes from outside sources or is part of

a college’s regular budget, will be available only if evaluation results warrant it. 

Because most program planners associate evaluation with measuring results,

they often delay thinking about it until

after a program is up and running. To

be most effective and useful, however,

the evaluation should be planned as the

program is being developed. Building

this component into the process from

the outset will sharpen everyone’s

thinking about the program—its mission, goals, objectives, and tactics.

Additionally, planning teams can use

evaluation results to revise and improve

their programs to maximize their effectiveness. Including a professional evaluator on a project team helps to ensure

that outcome-based thinking is an integral part of the project’s design and

implementation.26

Conclusion

Campus violence is a complex problem,

and there are no easy answers. It cannot

be solved by a one-time program or a

single department, nor is there a onesize-fits-all blueprint for successful

efforts. Rather, prevention science suggests a set of principles and a process that

campus and community stakeholders

can use to guide their work. Senior

administrators must exercise leadership

by establishing and supporting a longterm, collaborative process to create and

sustain a comprehensive, strategic, multicomponent, coordinated approach to

preventing violence and promoting

safety on campus. This process will

bring together multiple partners in

order to examine local data; identify

and prioritize local problems; target

those problems with an appropriate mix

of strategies; construct a logic model,

work plan, and evaluation plan; create

infrastructure to support implementation; and evaluate the effectiveness of

these efforts. This strategic planning

process can be used to formulate integrated initiatives addressing specific

subtypes of violence and to coordinate

efforts across different types of violence. 

While this process may seem burdensome, ultimately there is no other way

to ensure that scarce campus resources

are well spent. Despite the challenges,

many campus communities have

begun to establish long-term initiatives

and share lessons they have learned.

Ongoing efforts to prevent violence and

promote campus safety require dedication, commitment, resources, and 

persistence, but they are a necessary

investment if all campus constituents are

to reach their full potential. This view is

summarized eloquently by the National

Association of Student Personnel

Administrators: “A safe campus environment is one in which students, faculty,

and staff are free to conduct their daily

affairs, both inside and outside the classroom, without fear of physical, emotional, or psychological harm. Personal

safety is a basic human need that must

be preserved if the mission of the university is to be pursued.”27

6

Linda Langford, Sc.D., is associate

director for violence prevention initiatives at the Higher Education Center for

Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and

Violence Prevention.
7

Preventing Violence

What Campuses Are Doing

Given that no single approach to

violence and safety will work for

every campus, the following

vignettes illustrate targeted interventions implemented by individual campuses in response to an

identified need or problem. Each of

these programs follows the principles and process described above

for developing successful initiatives.

Multicomponent Approach to

Campus Violence

University of Northern Colorado 

The University of Northern

Colorado’s (UNC) approach to violence includes complementary and

coordinated initiatives designed to

support victims, hold perpetrators

accountable, and minimize violent

incidents. The university has introduced strong administrative policies

and procedures, rigorous admissions

standards, crime prevention and

awareness programs, proactive policing, management of the physical

environment (lighting, vegetation,

emergency telephones), and other

prevention and intervention initiatives such as peer education, a men’s

program, and services for survivors. 

“Stop, Look, Listen” (SLL), UNC’s

unique and comprehensive safety

program, is a two-hour workshop

required for all incoming freshmen.

SLL explores a variety of health and

safety issues geared toward promoting personal health and safety, and

it emphasizes discussions concerning sexual assault and alcohol consumption.

These measures are strengthened

further by ongoing review of incidents and potential problems, campus and community partnerships,

coordinated alcohol and violence

reduction efforts, and a strong

emphasis on victim support. 

UNC’s efforts are based on firm

policies combined with rapid and

consistent enforcement. All campus

constituents are urged to report

incidents. Campus policy requires

all alleged sexual offenses to be

investigated; when appropriate,

cases also are referred to the local

district attorney. Graduated administrative sanctions are based on the

principle of student accountability,

and penalties provide for potential

removal of problem individuals if

deemed appropriate. Emphasis is

placed on supporting and protecting victims during the disciplinary

process. A cross-departmental committee meets regularly to ensure

that policies and procedures are

appropriate, to locate loopholes in

existing policies, and to revise and

initiate policies as needed. 

UNC holds a variety of prevention

education programs throughout the

year, including a required workshop

for first-year students at summer

orientation. To ensure that messages concerning the need to prevent alcohol use and sexual assault

are consistent, these sessions are led

jointly by campus law enforcement

and alcohol and other drug prevention staff. The Student Code of

Conduct further highlights the link

between alcohol and sexual assault

by noting that “voluntary intoxication is NOT an excusable justification for inappropriate or illegal

behavior.” Victims of crime, however, are rarely sanctioned for alcohol

consumption or possession, and

sexual assault victims, in particular,

are never sanctioned.

Additional personal safety, sexual

assault prevention, and alcohol prevention education programs are

held throughout the year. These

educational efforts include information about advocacy services available to victims.

Other initiatives address the physical environment. Each year, campus

police conduct visual security surveys and facility audits to scan for

physical hazards and unsafe areas.

An array of measures has been

instituted as a result: emergency

telephones, electronic alarm systems, a high-security lock/key 

system, regular trimming of vegetation, and registration for bicycles

and other items of value. Walking

and golf cart escort services are

available.

UNC police take a proactive

approach to crime prevention.

Campus areas are actively patrolled

by police officers, and officers participate in the ongoing safety audits

and educational programs described

above. In addition, mutual aid

agreements between UNC and local

police allow for shared training,

mutual assistance, and systematic

reporting to campus officials of incidents in areas adjacent to campus. 

A campus and community committee, Sexual Assault Free Environment (SAFE), which meets

monthly, includes representatives

from the assault survivors advocacy

program (ASAP), the counseling

center, the dean of students, residential life, campus police, the

alcohol and drug office, Greek life,

and the district attorney’s office.

UNC’s crisis response committee

also meets weekly. The staff who
8

serve on this team regularly share

information about new and ongoing safety issues and concerns. 

Consequently, the structures

described allow campus and community officials to coordinate policies and programs, ensure that they

remain effective, and respond to

new mandates as required. For

example, Colorado recently passed

a state law forbidding any student

convicted of riotous behavior from

enrolling in a state institution.

Because UNC’s admissions standards already allowed for a special

committee to review applicants

with felony and sex crime convictions, they were more easily able to

respond to this new law.28, 29

The Center for the Prevention

of Violence Against Women

Marshall University 

(West Virginia)

Because Marshall University serves

the area of West Virginia with the

state’s highest reported rates of

domestic violence and sexual assault,

it is likely that many students on

campus have witnessed violence in

their families. Within the context of

this high-risk environment, the university’s Office of Women’s Programs

noted that the number of crimes

against women reported was lower

than expected, suggesting underreporting. This information, taken

together, indicated the need for a

more comprehensive campus program addressing both domestic 

violence and sexual assault.

In the year 2000, the Office of

Women’s Programs applied for and

received funding from the federal

Violence Against Women Office

(VAWO) to establish a campusbased Center for the Prevention of

Violence Against Women. The center developed a multifaceted set of

initiatives aimed at reducing the

incidence of violence and ensuring

that perpetrators are held accountable for their actions. The project

involves collaborations among judicial affairs, the counseling center,

the women’s center, and public

safety. The program is designed to

do the following: 

1. Provide advocacy services for victims and increase student awareness of the availability of these

services. 

2. Educate students about how to

report these crimes.

3. Establish networks of advisers

and mentors to students among

faculty, staff, and other university personnel. 

4. Increase awareness of violence

against women on campus

among university and local

police departments through a

media campaign and training

programs for officers. 

5. Develop educational content

about violence against women

and incorporate this material

into existing courses and freshman orientation. 

While many campus programs

focus primarily on preventing sexual

assaults, Marshall staff responded to

the particular needs of their students by also including extensive

information and education about all

forms of intimate partner violence.

Educational efforts include separate

programs for men and women.

The project also has allowed the

university to create partnerships and

initiatives to solve newly identified

problems. For example, the Center

for the Prevention of Violence

Against Women teamed up with the

office of judicial affairs, the counseling center, and public safety to

develop an antistalking policy to

increase the accountability of perpetrators for their stalking behaviors. 

As a result of these combined

efforts, referrals to the women’s

center and counseling center have

increased dramatically.30, 31

University Counseling and

Advising Network (U-CAN)

Cornell University

Cornell University has created a

problem-focused early intervention

program characterized by cross-disciplinary collaboration and coordination of existing services. While

not specifically focused on violence,

this initiative is designed to facilitate early identification of problems

that might lead to aggression or

self-harm. Cornell’s University

Counseling and Advising Network

(U-CAN) grew out of five interrelated observations: 

1. Cornell’s counseling center staff

noted a growing demand for

counseling services locally and

among college students nationwide.

2. Campus-specific survey data

revealed a wide array of student

mental health and substance

abuse problems at Cornell for

which students were not seeking

assistance, indicating that unmet

needs for service were high.

3. Staff noted that students experiencing difficulty manifested a

range of symptoms, which in

some cases probably reflected

more serious underlying problems (e.g., substance abuse, 
9

Preventing Violence

eating disorders, self-harm,

depression, aggression).

4. Many staff, faculty, and students

were aware of student distress but

were unsure of whether or how to

respond. 

5. Campus prevention and intervention responses were characterized

by departmental fragmentation

and other institutional barriers to

integrated efforts, as well as lack of

funding for program staff.

In 1999 the director of health services

at Cornell University responded by

initiating a program designed to

increase early identification and referral of a broadly defined category of

“students in distress.” With funding

from supportive alumni, two fulltime staff members worked with

cross-departmental teams from medical, nursing, counseling, health promotion, academic advising, and other

departments to create a network to

facilitate, coordinate, and enhance the

work of the many service providers

who were already supporting students. U-CAN accomplished this

goal through five basic initiatives: 

1. Training faculty, teaching assistants, secretaries, and other people

not in formal helping roles as the

system’s “eyes and ears” by increasing their ability to identify and

reach out to students in distress.

2. Offering student-centered consultation by U-CAN staff to

guide and support faculty and

staff in working with individual

students. 

3. Providing program-centered

consultation to assist departments and divisions in developing organizational practices and

protocols—for example, U-CAN

works with Cornell’s “advising

offices” to develop guidelines and

procedures for when and how

advisers should share information

with U-CAN staff about students

in distress. 

4. Instituting a “network forum”

to enable networking and continuing education for student services professionals. 

5. Outreach by U-CAN staff to

identified students in distress who

might be reluctant to accept referrals to formal counseling services. 

During the development of these

programs, a postdoctoral fellow and

graduate student were hired as parttime evaluators to help clarify the

program’s goals and objectives and

to design appropriate process and

outcome evaluation measures.32

References

1 Personal communication with Cheryl Presley, Ph.D., executive director

of the Core Institute, e-mail January 29, 2004. (National Probability

Sample Study, Core Institute, Student Health Programs, Southern

Illinois University, Carbondale, Ill.)

2 Fisher, B. S.; Cullen, F. T.; and Turner, M. G. The Sexual Victimization

of College Women. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 2000.

3 Makepeace, J. M. “Courtship Violence among College Students.”

Family Relations 30: 97–101, 1981.

4 Arias, I.; Samios, M.; and O’Leary, K. D. “Prevalence and Correlates of

Physical Aggression during Courtship.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence

2: 82–90, 1987.

5 Barrios, L. C.; Everett, S. A.; Simon, T. R.; Brener, N. D. “Suicide

Ideation among U.S. College Students: Associations with Other Injury

Risk Behaviors.” Journal of American College Health 48 (5):195–198,

2000.

6 Miller, M.; Hemenway, D.; and Wechsler, H. “Guns and Gun Threats at

College.” Journal of American College Health 51 (2): 57–65, 2002.

7 Alfred University. Initiation Rites and Athletics: A National Study of

NCAA Sports Teams. Alfred, N.Y.: Alfred University, 1999.

8 Wessler, S., and Moss, M. Hate Crimes on Campus: The Problem and

Efforts to Confront It. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, 2001.

9 Herek, G. M. “Documenting Prejudice against Lesbians and Gay Men

on Campus: The Yale Sexual Orientation Survey.” Journal of

Homosexuality 25 (4 ): 15–30, 1993.

10Cohen, M. A.; Miller, T. R.; and Rossman, S. B. “The Costs and

Consequences of Violent Behavior in the United States.” In Reiss, A. J.

Jr., and Roth, J. A. eds. Understanding and Preventing Violence, Volume

4: Consequences and Control Panel on the Understanding and Control of

Violent Behavior. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, National

Research Council, 1994.

11Reiss, A. J., Jr., and Roth, J. A. Understanding and Preventing Violence,

Volume 1. Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior:

Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, National Research Council,

1993.

12 Stokols, D. “Translating Social Ecological Theory into Guidelines for

Community Health Promotion.” American Journal of Health Promotion

10: 282–98, 1996.

13Chalk, R., and King, P. A. Violence in Families: Assessing Prevention and

Treatment Programs. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998.

14 Bickel, R. D., and Lake, P. F. The Rights and Responsibilities of the

Modern University: Who Assumes the Risks of College Life? Durham, N.C.:

Carolina Academic Press, 1999.

15Roark, M. L. “Conceptualizing Campus Violence: Definitions,

Underlying Factors, and Effects.” Journal of College Student Psychotherapy

8 (1/2):1–27, 1993.
10

16 Security On Campus, Inc. Complying with the Jeanne Clery Act.

Retrieved February 2, 2004, from 

www.securityoncampus.org/schools/cleryact/index.html.

17 Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA), and Drug-Free Schools

and Campuses Regulations. Higher Education Center for Alcohol and

Other Drug Prevention. Retrieved July 29, 2003, from

www.edc.org/hec/dfsca/.

18Ryan, B. E.; Colthurst, T.; and Segars, L. College Alcohol Risk Assessment

Guide: Environmental Approaches to Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and

Other Drug Prevention, revised 1997.

19 Security On Campus, Inc. “Campus Safety Audit.” Retrieved February

2, 2004, from www.securityoncampus.org/students/audit.pdf.

20Winnipeg Committee for Safety. “Winnipeg Safety Audit Manual.” In

Safety Tool Box. Winnipeg, Canada: Winnipeg Committee for Safety,

January 2001. Retrieved February 2, 2004, from www.winnipeg 

committeeforsafety.org/wcfs2003pdfs/Safety_Audit_Manuals.pdf.

21The Communication Initiative. Change Theories. Retrieved February 2,

2004, from www.comminit.com/change_theories.html.

22 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity

Evaluation Handbook: Appendix 3 Theories and Models Used in Physical

Activity Promotion. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2002. Retrieved February

11, 2004, from 

www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/physical/handbook/appendix3.htm.

23Weiss, C. H. “Understanding the Program.” In Weiss, C. H. Evaluation:

Methods for Studying Programs and Policies, 46–71. Upper Saddle River,

N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1998.

24 Mattessich, P. W., and Monsey, B. R. Collaboration: What Makes It Work.

St. Paul, Minn.: Wilder Research Center and Wilder’s Community

Collaboration Venture, 1992.

25 National Evaluation Findings Sheets: Community Partnerships. U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services and SAMHSA’s National

Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Other Drug Information. 

www.health.org/govstudy/ms666/nefsheets.aspx.

26 Langford, L., and DeJong, W. “Prevention Update: How to Select a

Program Evaluator.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,

Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 2001.

27 National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. In Roark, M.

L. “Conceptualizing Campus Violence: Definitions, Underlying Factors,

and Effects.” Journal of College Student Psychotherapy 8 (1/2): 1–27, 1993.

28 University of Northern Colorado. Student Handbook, June 2002.

Retrieved February 2, 2004, from 

www.unco.edu/dos/handbook/stuhndbk.htm.

29 University of Northern Colorado. University of Northern Colorado Safety

and Security Information 2002. Retrieved December 5, 2002, from

www.unco.edu/finadmin/uncpd/securityreport.htm.

30 Interview with Carla Lapelle, coordinator, Student Health Education

Programs, Marshall University, summer 2002.

31 West Virginia Grants to Combat Violent Crimes Against Women on

Campuses. Office on Violence Against Women, Office of Justice

Programs. U.S. Department of Justice, 2000. 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo/map/campus/2000/wvgtcv.htm.

32 Marchell, T. “In the Spotlight: Reaching Out to Students in Distress.”

Student Health Spectrum. The Chickering Group, fall 2001.

Resources

The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and

Violence Prevention

The U.S. Department of Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol

and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention provides nationwide support for campus alcohol, other drug, and violence prevention efforts. 

The Higher Education Center offers training and professional development activities; technical assistance; publications; support for the Network

Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues; and assessment,

evaluation, and analysis activities. 

The Higher Education Center lists resources addressing campus violence at

http://www.higheredcenter.org/violence. Its Campuses and Other Drugs

Web page, found at http://www.higheredcenter.org/drugs, includes

resources on date rape and club drugs. For contact information, please see

back cover.

Federal Resources

Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS)

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Ave, SW

Washington, DC 20202-6123

(202) 260-3954

http://www.ed.gov/osdfs

OSDFS supports efforts to create safe schools, respond to crises, prevent

alcohol and other drug abuse, ensure the health and well-being of students,

and teach students good citizenship and character. The agency provides

financial assistance for drug abuse and violence prevention activities and

activities that promote the health and well-being of students in elementary

and secondary schools and institutions of higher education. OSDFS participates in the development of Department program policy and legislative proposals and in overall administration policies related to drug abuse and

violence prevention. It also participates with other federal agencies in the

development of a national research agenda for such prevention.

Office for Civil Rights

U.S. Department of Education

Customer Service Team

Mary E. Switzer Building

330 C Street, SW

Washington, DC 20202

(800) 421-3481

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/index.html

Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination prohibited in schools by

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. In 2001, the U.S.

Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights published guidelines to

assist institutions with Title IX compliance related to sexual harassment,

titled “Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School

Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties.”

Office of Postsecondary Education Campus Security Statistics 

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Postsecondary Education

1990 K Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 401-1576

http://www.ope.ed.gov/security

The Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) maintains a Web site for

campus security statistics, authorized by Congress with the 1998 amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965 to help potential college students and parents research criminal offenses on college campuses.
11

Preventing Violence

National Organizations

The National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC)

123 North Enola Drive 

Enola, PA 17025

(877) 739-3895 (717) 909-0710

http://www.nsvrc.org

The National Sexual Violence Resource Center serves as an information

clearinghouse, provides information and technical assistance to people

working to prevent sexual violence, and identifies emerging policy issues

and research needs to support the development of policies and practices

specific to the intervention and prevention of sexual violence. The Web

site includes campus-specific resources.

Security On Campus, Inc.

133 Ivy Lane, Suite 200

King of Prussia, PA 19406-2101

(888) 251-7959

http://www.securityoncampus.org

Security On Campus, Inc. (SOC), founded in 1987, is a nonprofit grassroots organization dedicated to fostering safe campus environments. SOC

educates prospective students, parents, and the campus community about

the prevalence of crime on campus and assists victims with information

about laws, advocacy organizations, legal counsel, and other resources.

SOC also provides guidance to campuses regarding compliance with the

Clery Act and other federal laws. 

Stophazing.org

http://www.stophazing.org

Established in 1992, Stophazing.org is a Web-based resource committed 

to providing students, parents, and educators with resources and up-todate statistics on the problem of hazing in America. The site lists books, 

articles, and hazing prevention programs.

Stop the Hate

Association of College Unions International (ACUI)

One City Centre, Suite 200

120 West Seventh Street 

Bloomington, IN 47404-3925

http://www.stophate.org

The Association of College Unions International (ACUI) created the Stop

the Hate initiative to provide training and other resources to aid colleges in

addressing hate and bias-related crimes and incidents.

Campus Organization

Indiana Campus Sexual Assault Prevention Project (INCSAPP)

Student Wellness Office

601 Stadium Mall Drive

West Lafayette, IN 47907

(765) 496-3363

http://www.purdue.edu/incsapp

The Indiana Campus Sexual Assault Prevention Project is the campus

component of the Communities Against Rape (CARe) Initiative of the

Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service. While INCSAPP’s Web

site is designed to promote collaboration between campus and community

organizations in the state of Indiana, it also offers generally helpful

resources related to sexual assault , including bibliographies, campus 

policies, and victim advocacy information.

Non-Campus Best Practice Reviews

Although not specific to college and university campuses, the following reviews

of “best practices” for community and youth violence prevention compiled by

federal agencies may provide programs, policies, and services that can be 

adapted to campus settings.

Best Practices of Youth Violence Prevention: 

A Sourcebook for Community Action 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/bestpractices.htm

This sourcebook presents effective violence prevention practices in four

areas: parents and families; home visiting; social and conflict resolution

skills; and mentoring. The resource also discusses the science behind each

program and provides a directory of additional resources. 

Blueprints for Violence Prevention

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence 

http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/index.html

Blueprints for Violence Prevention is an initiative that describes effective

and promising youth violence prevention and intervention programs.

Eleven model programs and 21 promising programs were identified for

their effectiveness in reducing adolescent violent crime, aggression, delinquency, and substance abuse. 

Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools

U.S. Department of Education 

Special Education and Rehabilitation Services

http://cecp.air.org/guide/guide.pdf

This guide offers research-based practices designed to help school communities identify early warning signs of violence and develop prevention and

intervention programs and crisis response plans. Although the recommendations are aimed at primary and secondary schools, many of the resources

are adaptable for higher education.

“Youth Violence Prevention: Descriptions and Baseline Data from 13

Evaluation Projects,” by Powell, E., and Hawkins, F. (American Journal of

Preventive Medicine 12 (5S): 1996) 

This issue of American Journal of Preventive Medicine includes articles

describing 13 school, hospital, and community violence prevention projects and their initial evaluation results.

Preventing School Violence: Plenary Papers of the 1999 Conference on

Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation—Enhancing Policy and

Practice Through Research, Volume 2.

National Institute of Justice

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/180972.pdf

This publication includes three papers describing current efforts and

promising practices for school violence prevention.

Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Office of the Surgeon General

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence

This report summarizes the research on youth violence in the United States,

including the scope of the problem, causes of violence, risk and protective factors, and effective strategies and programs to reduce and prevent youth violence.

World Report on Violence and Health

World Health Organization 

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/wrvh/en

This publication examines various types of violence as an international

public health problem, including youth violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual violence. It describes the magnitude and impact of 

violence, key risk factors, the effectiveness of intervention and policy

responses to violence, and recommendations for action.
Our Mission

The mission of the U.S. Department of Education’s

Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other

Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention is to assist

institutions of higher education in developing,

implementing, and evaluating alcohol and

other drug abuse and violence prevention

policies and programs that will foster students’

academic and social development and promote

campus and community safety.

How We Can Help

The Higher Education Center offers an integrated array of services to help people at 

colleges and universities adopt effective prevention strategies:

• Training and professional development activities

• Resources, referrals, and consultations

• Publication and dissemination of prevention materials

• Support for the Network Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues

• Assessment, evaluation, and analysis activities

Get in Touch

Additional information can be obtained by contacting:

The Higher Education Center 

for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse 

and Violence Prevention

Education Development Center, Inc.

55 Chapel Street

Newton, MA 02458-1060

Web site: http://www.higheredcenter.org

Phone: 1-800-676-1730; TDD Relay-friendly, Dial 711

E-mail: HigherEdCtr@edc.org

Funded by the U.S. Department of Education

H

igher

Education Cent

e

r

for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse

and Violence Prevention