N.C.C. Notes on Prevention/Training Subcommittee 

1/24/14 

Was not able to note all attendees’ names due to some broken-up sound on my phone line and some 

folks who joined the call after we had moved to discussing our agenda. 

We discussed the following items (not necessarily in the order listed) and decided on the following next 

steps: 

a. Both Brian Siegel from the Dept of Education (ED)’s Office of General Counsel and Latinisha 

Lewis from DOJ’s Office on Violence against Women (OVW) made clarifying remarks about 

issues related to the subcommittee’s discussion: 

a. Brian clarified that ED is in the process of determining how prescriptive it should be in 

regulations written under the provisions that we discussed. He stated that schools 

would be required to provide the programs and training specified by VAWA/Clery, and 

could not simply state in their policies that they do not provide the programs specified 

in the provisions that we are discussing. 

b. Latinisha told us a bit about the best practices that OVW encourages through its grant 

program, which funds school grantees to develop their campus responses and programs 

around sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. She stated that 

OVW requires that grantees provide prevention programs to incoming campus 

community members and training to those members involved in institutional response 

and education programs. She also mentioned that OVW provides grantees with 

technical assistance that helps make their prevention and training programs 

comprehensive, including lists of core competencies for those involved in institutional 

responses and educational programming. Finally, she spoke about the importance that 

OVW puts on coordination throughout the campus in addressing this violence, as well as 

the need to work with off-campus, community experts and organizations addressing 

sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. 

b. Term definitions for those terms used in the prevention-related provisions; fitting the terms 

together: 

a. The group agreed that the various prevention-related terms used in subsections 

(8)(A)(i)) and (8)(B)(i) indicate an intention to have schools create prevention programs 

that are comprehensive and intentional. 

b. The group also agreed that certain types of programs should be clearly defined as not 

qualifying as “prevention,” especially if not a part of a comprehensive prevention 

program. Self-defense classes, speak outs, marches, and similar awareness raising 

events were mentioned specifically as needing inclusion on this list. 
c. We discussed the term “bystander intervention” (subsection (8)(B)(i)(I)(dd)) and 

whether the term should be broadened beyond domestic violence, dating violence, 

sexual assault and stalking. The group discussed the dangers of broadening the term 

because schools might be confused about the nature of acceptable bystander 

intervention programs under this provision—that schools might believe that bystander 

intervention programs primarily targeting such behaviors as alcohol or drug use could 

satisfy this provision, when such programs would be insufficient. The group decided that 

the ideal definition would acknowledge that bystander intervention programs can 

address other behaviors, but that satisfying the VAWA/Clery provisions means providing 

bystander intervention programs specifically addressed to domestic violence, dating 

violence, sexual assault and stalking. 

d. We discussed the difficulties of the placement of “risk reduction” (subsection 

(8)(B)(i)(I)(ee)) under “primary prevention” because the group agreed that risk reduction 

is not prevention and can often be incorrectly used by schools as synonymous with 

prevention, a use that is victim-blaming, since it suggests that the victim of violence can 

“prevent” the violence. The group talked about how the risk reduction methods that 

could be acceptably included in a school’s educational programs are really methods 

designed to reduce risk of becoming a victim of crime generally, so are not specifically 

about the violence addressed by this statute. The group suggested that the term be 

defined so that it makes clear its distinction from prevention and that its inclusion in 

VAWA/Clery is intended to make risk reduction only one minor aspect of a 

comprehensive program. 

e. NEXT STEPS: 

i. Jill Dunlap, Denice Labertew, Jen Messina, Holly Rider-Milkovich, and Teresa 

Wroe agreed to work to come up with draft definitions for all of these terms. 

ii. This group will work over email or phone to agree on some initial definitions and 

any other regulatory language they think ED should consider to articulate the 

points made during the discussion on Friday, including about 

comprehensiveness, intentionality, programs that do not constitute prevention 

and the parameters of bystander intervention programming. 

c. We also discussed the provision that requires schools to provide “annual training on the issues 

related to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking and how to conduct an 

investigation and hearing process that protects the safety of victims and promotes 

accountability.” 

a. The group developed an initial list of topics that should be included in such an annual 

training, including: 

i. Understanding the effects of trauma on victims 

ii. Integrating community resources in the training 

iii. Explaining the victims’ rights in all processes and procedures 

iv. Developing and using equitable investigation and other processes 

v. Identifying and becoming skilled in the OVW core competencies 

vi. Understanding the reactions of perpetrators and accused perpetrators 

vii. Various “nuts & bolts” categories (to be provided by Gina Smith) 

viii. The regulatory framework 

ix. Linking this training to educational and prevention programs being offered more 

widely to the campus as a whole. 
b. The groups spoke briefly about who should be included in creating, contributing to, and 

implementing training, as well as prevention programs. The importance of drawing from 

expertise both on and off-campus was emphasized. 

c. NEXT STEPS: 

i. Nancy Cantalupo, Andrea Goldblum, Denice Labertew, Jen Messina, Gina 

Smith and Daniel Swinton will work together to complete the list above. 

ii. Gina Smith will circulate the list of nuts and bolts categories she mentioned at 

Friday’s meeting, as well as a table of training requirements incorporating 

existing training requirements from ED Office for Civil Rights proactive guidance 

and prominent investigations under Clery and Title IX. 

d) Prevention- and training-related topics for future revisions and/or expansions of the handbook. 

a. Recognizing that some of the topics we discussed above may ultimately end up in the handbook, 

we did not get very far discussing this topic. 

b. One topic that was identified for the handbook was that schools should think through and very 

intentionally identify which persons should deliver which messages in prevention and training 

programs. E.g. campus or other police should deliver messages regarding methods students 

should use to increase their safety and reduce their risk of crime, generally. 

c. NEXT STEPS: Please send other topics that should be included in the handbook to Nancy

Cantalupo via email. 

A doodle will be circulated with or slightly after circulation of these notes to set-up our second and final 

call.