1

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The findings 

and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

Preventing Sexual Violence on College Campuses: 

Lessons from Research and Practice

Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Part One

Evidence-Based Strategies for the Primary Prevention of Sexual Violence 

Perpetration (Page 2)

Part Two

Prevention Activities Implemented by CDC’s Rape Prevention and Education 

Program (Page 14)

Part Three

Campus Prevention Activities Funded by DOJ’s Office of Violence against Women

(Page 16)

Suggested citation:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014). Preventing sexual violence on 

college campuses: Lessons from research and practice. Retrieved [date] from 

https://www.notalone.gov/schools/.
2

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The findings 

and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

Highlights

 Sexual violence is a serious and complex public health problem. 

 CDC focuses on preventing sexual violence perpetration before it happens to achieve the 

greatest population level impact.

 Effective prevention strategies are comprehensive—addressing the multiple levels of influence 

for sexual violence victimization and perpetration in the social ecology. These levels include 

characteristics of individuals, their relationships, and their physical, social and cultural 

environments.

 Prevention strategies should be based on the best available evidence, with emphasis on rigorous 

evaluation that measures changes in behavior.

 Prevention strategies that are consistent with best practices—such as being theory-based and 

including multiple skill-based sessions—have the greatest potential in reducing rates of sexual 

violence.

 Only two programs have rigorous evidence of effectiveness for preventing sexual violence: Safe 

Dates and the building-level intervention of Shifting Boundaries. Both were developed with 

middle/ high school students but may provide useful models for the development of college 

prevention strategies.

 Other strategies hold some promise for changing related behaviors or modifying risk factors. 

These include:

o Building relationship skills;

o Organizational policies or practices to improve safety or climate;

o Addressing social norms and behavior with messages from trusted and influential voices; 

and

o Training student bystanders to intervene or speak up against violence.

 Brief, one-session educational programs focused on increasing awareness or changing beliefs 

and attitudes are not effective at changing behavior in the long-term. These approaches may be 

useful as one component of a comprehensive strategy. However, they are not likely to have any 

impact on rates of violence if implemented as a stand-alone strategy or as a primary component 

of a prevention plan.

 There are steps that college campuses can take now to better address sexual violence. These 

include:

o Using data to better understand sexual violence and student needs; 

o Developing comprehensive prevention plans that include campus-wide policy, structural 

and social norms components; 

o Selecting prevention strategies based on best practices and available evidence; 

o Evaluating strategies that are implemented; and

o Sharing lessons learned.

Part One

Evidence-Based Strategies for the

Primary Prevention of Sexual Violence Perpetration

Sarah DeGue, Ph.D.

Division of Violence Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
3

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The findings 

and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

Introduction

This document describes the best practices in developing, selecting, and implementing 

prevention strategies with the highest chance of successfully changing sexual violence in communities. 

A description of programs that work, programs that may work, and programs that don’t work for 

preventing sexual violence perpetration are also included. Parts Two and Three include examples of 

what college campuses are currently implementing to prevent sexual violence. While we have a lot to 

learn about how best to stop campus sexual violence before it starts, there are important steps that 

college campuses can take now to better address sexual violence. The final section of Part One (pages

12 and 13) provides guidance to college campuses on what they can do now to prevent sexual violence. 

Campuses should consider: using data to better understand sexual violence and student needs; 

developing comprehensive prevention plans that include campus-wide policy, structural and social 

norms components; selecting prevention strategies based on best practices and available evidence; 

evaluating strategies that are implemented; and sharing lessons learned.

A Framework for Effective Prevention

Sexual violence is a serious public health problem affecting the health and well-being of millions 

of individuals each year in the United States and throughout the world, with notably high rates among

college students (Black et al., 2011; Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000). The Division of Violence 

Prevention in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) addresses sexual violence with a 

focus on primary prevention, or preventing violence before it occurs, and emphasizes reducing rates of 

sexual violence at the population level rather than focusing solely on the health or safety of the 

individual. Over time, CDC has shifted the focus of research and prevention efforts from victims to 

perpetrators to reduce rates of sexual violence (DeGue, Simon, et al., 2012) at the population level, 

rather than focusing solely on the health or safety of the individual. Of course, primary prevention is 

only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to reducing rates of sexual violence. These efforts 

complement and work in tandem with other important work focused on risk reduction, criminal justice,

recidivism prevention, and victim services.

Sexual violence perpetration is a product of multiple, interacting levels of influence. CDC uses a 

four-level social-ecological model to better understand violence and the effects of potential prevention 
4

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The findings 

and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

strategies. This model considers the characteristics of the individual, their relationships, their

community, and the larger cultural and societal contexts in which they exist (DeGue, Holt, et al., 2012). 

Framing violence within the context of this social-ecological model highlights the need for 

comprehensive prevention strategies that focus on risk and protective factors at each of these levels. It is 

unlikely that approaches that only focus on the individual, when implemented in isolation, will have a 

broad public health impact (DeGue, Holt, et al., 2012; Dodge, 2009). Figure 1 provides one

hypothetical example of a comprehensive campus-based prevention strategy that includes components 

addressing risk and protective factors at multiple levels of influence. This example illustrates what a 

comprehensive prevention strategy might look like, but other combinations of strategies may be better 

suited to the needs of individual campuses and communities. The example also shows how to build a 

coordinated strategy that addresses multiple influencers, multiple sources of risk within the social and 

organizational environment, and uses consistent messaging to reinforce positive behavioral norms.
5

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The findings 

and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

A comprehensive prevention strategy should be informed by the best available research evidence 

and should identify strategies that work to prevent sexually violent behavior. Rigorous research 

methods, like randomized controlled trials, that examine the impact of prevention strategies on sexually 

violent behavior provide the strongest evidence of effectiveness. Research that uses less rigorous 

methods or only examines risk factors for sexual violence, like attitudes, can be helpful in identifying 

promising strategies, but need additional research to determine effectiveness. These studies provide 

weaker evidence than those that examine actual effects on sexual violence behavior.

When sufficient research evidence is not available to guide decision-making, selecting

prevention strategies can also be informed by theory and knowledge about the components or 

characteristics of effective prevention for other similar behaviors. A Task Force of the American 

Psychological Association (APA) conducted a review of effective programs for delinquency, youth 

violence, substance use, and sexual risk behaviors and identified nine characteristics of effective 

prevention strategies or “principles of prevention” (Nation et al., 2003). Specifically, they found that 

effective prevention strategies are:

 Comprehensive;

 Appropriately timed in development;

 Have sufficient dosage (i.e., multiple sessions tend to be better than single sessions);

 Administered by well-trained staff;

 Socio-culturally relevant;

 Based in a sound theory of change;

 Build on or support positive relationships (i.e., between the participants and their peers, 

families or communities);

 Utilize varied teaching methods; and

 Include outcome evaluation.

As part of the same APA Task Force, Wandersman and Florin (2003) reviewed community-level

prevention strategies across health domains and found that the involvement of prevention practitioners 

and community members was important to the success of community interventions. They highlight

lessons learned from other areas of prevention that can inform the development of community-level 

sexual violence prevention efforts.
6

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The findings 

and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

CDC’s Systematic Review of Primary Prevention Strategies 

for Sexual Violence Perpetration

CDC recently completed a systematic review of 140 studies examining the effectiveness of 

primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration1. One goal of this review was to 

summarize the best available research evidence for sexual violence prevention practitioners. Programs 

were categorized by their evidence of effectiveness on sexual violence behavioral outcomes in a 

rigorous evaluation. A brief summary of key selected findings from this review regarding “what works” 

to prevent sexual violence perpetration is presented here in advance of the full publication (See Figure 2 

for highlights). More detailed information on the methodology and findings from this review are

available in the full report (See DeGue et al., 2014).

What works?

Only two primary prevention strategies, to date, have demonstrated significant reductions in 

sexual violence behaviors using a rigorous evaluation design2. Both programs were developed for and 

implemented with middle school students. Safe Dates (Foshee et al., 1996) is a universal dating 

violence prevention program for middle- and high-school students. Safe dates includes a 10-session

curriculum addressing attitudes, social norms, and healthy relationship skills, a 45-minute student play 

about dating violence, and a poster contest. Results from one rigorous evaluation showed that four years 

after receiving the program, students in the intervention group were significantly less likely to be victims 

or perpetrators of sexual violence involving a dating partner (Foshee et al., 2004). The second program,

Shifting Boundaries (Taylor, Stein, Woods, & Mumford, 2011), is a building-level intervention. The 

program is part of a universal, 6-10 week school-based dating violence prevention strategy for middle 

school students that addresses policy and safety concerns in schools through the use of temporary 

building-based restraining orders, a poster campaign to increase awareness of dating violence, and 

“hotspot” mapping to identify unsafe areas of the school for increased monitoring. Results from one 

rigorous evaluation indicated that the building-level intervention was effective in reducing perpetration 

 

1 Victimization prevention (e.g., risk reduction) interventions were not included in this systematic review. 

2

For the purposes of this review, rigorous evaluation designs include experimental studies with random assignment to an 

intervention or control condition (e.g., randomized controlled trial [RCT], cluster RCT) or rigorous quasi-experimental 

designs, such as interrupted time series or regression-discontinuity, for strategies where random assignment is not possible 

due to implementation restrictions (e.g., evaluation of policy). Other quasi-experimental designs (e.g., comparison groups 

without randomization to condition, including matched groups) and pre-post designs are considered to be non-rigorous 

designs for the purposes of examining effectiveness. See (DeGue et al., 2014), when available, for more details. 
7

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The findings 

and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

and victimization of sexual harassment and peer sexual violence, as well as sexual violence 

victimization (but not perpetration) by a dating partner (Taylor et al., 2011; Taylor, Stein, Mumford, & 

Woods, 2013). 

Notably, neither of these strategies were developed for or evaluated in college populations. 

However, these approaches may provide opportunities for adaptation to college settings as part of a 

comprehensive strategy. In addition, prevention developers can use these evidence-based approaches to 

guide development and evaluation of strategies that address risk for sexual violence in college dating 

relationships. These strategies could include:

 Developing organizational policies and environmental interventions to reduce risk;

 Strengthening existing policies or services on campus related to reporting and responding 

to sexual violence;

 Increasing negative consequences for perpetrators; and

 Decreasing social norms that facilitate sexual violence.

The shortage of effective strategies for sexual violence prevention reflects, in part, a lack of 

rigorous evaluation research examining sexual violence behaviors instead of only attitudes. However, 

the shortage of effective approaches may also reflect a poor fit between the types of strategies being 

developed, implemented and evaluated most often—including in college populations—and what we 

know about the characteristics of effective prevention. This is discussed further below.

What might work?

Several primary prevention programs for sexual violence perpetration have demonstrated 

increases in sexual violence protective factors and/or decreases in risk factors for sexual violence in a 

rigorous outcome evaluation (DeGue et al., 2014). However, these studies did not measure sexual 

violence behaviors as evaluation outcomes. More research is needed to determine whether the strategies 

are effective for these key outcomes. Two programs in this category, Coaching Boys Into Men (Miller 

et al., 2012a) and Bringing in the Bystander (Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante, 2007), stand out as 

particularly promising based on how well their prevention approach aligns with the principles of 

effective prevention (Nation et al., 2003). In addition, both programs have promising evidence from 

large randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up periods. Coaching Boys Into Men (Miller et al., 

2012a) is based on social norms theory and utilizes high school coaches to engage male athletes in 11 
8

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The findings 

and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

brief (10-15 minutes each), structured discussions throughout the sports season. The sessions cover

dating violence and respectful relationships, gender equity, positive and non-violent forms of 

masculinity, and bystander intervention. At one-year follow-up the program showed positive effects on 

a general measure of dating violence perpetration, but effects on sexual violence specifically were not 

measured (Miller et al., 2012b). Bringing in the Bystander (Banyard et al., 2007) is a bystander 

education and training program developed for college students and delivered in 4.5 hours over 1 to 3 

sessions. This program provides participants with skills to help them act when they see behavior that 

puts others at risk for violence victimization or perpetration. These skills include speaking out against 

rape myths and sexist language, supporting victims, and intervening in potentially violent situations. 

Two rigorous evaluations with college student samples found a mix of positive and null effects on risk 

factors for sexual violence (including attitudes about violence and bystander skills, intentions and 

behavior). Sexual violence behaviors were not measured (Banyard et al., 2007; Moynihan, Banyard, 

Arnold, Eckstein, & Stapleton, 2010). More evidence is needed, but the bystander approach to 

prevention is already gaining traction in the field. Other programs using a bystander engagement 

approach, such as Green Dot (Coker et al., under review; Cook-Craig et al., in press), are also being 

evaluated in high school and college populations, but these findings have not yet been published.

Both Bringing in the Bystander and Green Dot were initially developed for implementation in 

college settings. Although not yet adapted for college athletes, coach-based prevention approaches, like 

Coaching Boys Into Men, may provide a useful model for reaching this at-risk group in campus settings. 

See Appendix A for more information on the programs that work and the programs that may work.

What doesn’t work?

Brief, one-session educational programs conducted with college students, typically aimed at 

increasing knowledge or awareness about rape or reducing belief in rape myths, comprise the bulk of the 

sexual violence prevention literature (See DeGue et al., 2014). However, across dozens of studies using 

various methods and outcome measures, none have demonstrated lasting effects on risk factors or 

behavior. Although these brief programs may increase awareness of the issue, it is unlikely that such 

programs are sufficient to change behavioral patterns that are developed and continually influenced and 

reinforced across the lifespan. Programs that fit within one class period or that can be delivered at low 

cost via video or in large group settings are appealing in educational and other settings. However, 

continuing to invest scarce resources in low- or no-impact strategies detracts from potential investments 
9

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The findings 

and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

in more effective approaches and may be counter-productive. For these reasons, preventing sexual 

violence may require a shift away from low-dose educational programming to development and 

investment in more comprehensive strategies that address risk factors at multiple levels of influence, 

including those at the community level.

Emerging Research: 

Community-Level Interventions for Sexual Violence Prevention

Comprehensive, evidence-based sexual violence prevention plans that address risk and protective 

factors at the community or organization level have the greatest potential for population-level impact. 

However, very little is known about risk factors at these levels or strategies that are effective (DeGue, 

Holt, et al., 2012; Tharp et al., 2013). To support innovation in this area, CDC recently released a 

Funding Opportunity Announcement that would provide funding for the rigorous evaluation of policy, 

structural or environmental approaches to sexual violence prevention (See RFA-CE-14-005 Evaluating 

Figure 2. What Works to Prevent Sexual Violence Perpetration?

Findings based on CDC’s Systematic Review of Primary Prevention Strategies for Sexual Violence 

Perpetration; for more information, see: DeGue, S., Valle, L. A., Holt, M., Massetti, G., Matjasko, J., & Tharp, 

A. T. (2014). A systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggression 

and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 346-362. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.004

*These selected programs were identified as having particular promise given their alignment with the 

Principles of Prevention (Nation et al., 2003). For more information on the programs listed here, see 

Resources on Selected Prevention Programs in the Appendix.

• Safe Dates

• Shifting Boundaries building-level 

intervention

What works?

Programs found to be effective in 

reducing sexual violence using a 

rigorous evaluation design 

• Coaching Boys Into Men

• Bringing in the Bystander

What might work? 

Selected programs found to be 

effective in reducing risk factors for 

sexual violence or related outcomes 

using a rigorous evaluation design* 

• Brief, one-session educational 

interventions to change awareness, 

knowledge, or attitudes/beliefs

What doesn’t work?

Strategies consistently found to have 

no evidence of lasting effects on 

sexual violence behavioral outcomes 

using a rigorous evaluation design
10

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The findings 

and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

Promising Strategies to Build the Evidence Base for Sexual Violence Prevention). We can draw clues 

about potential community-level factors or interventions from related prevention efforts. For example, 

Wandersman and Florin (2003) reviewed successful community-level strategies from other areas of 

public health and documented the impact of community organizing. Sulkowski (2011) found that

college students indicated greater intent to report concerns about violence when they trusted the

university support system (e.g., campus police, administrators). A recent study by Edwards, Mattingly, 

Dixon, and Banyard (2014) also found that communities with higher levels of collective efficacy had 

young adults who reported greater bystander action to address intimate partner violence. 

CDC recently completed a review of research on selected alcohol policies to examine their 

potential use in the primary prevention of sexual violence perpetration. A full report of these findings is 

currently under review for publication and is expected to be publicly available by late 2014 (See Lippy 

& DeGue, under review). Research has shown that alcohol use and sexual violence are associated. 

Specifically, a systematic review by Tharp and colleagues (2013) found that alcohol use was 

significantly associated with sexual violence perpetration in high school students, college populations, 

and adults. However, in some studies included in the review the relationship between alcohol use and 

sexual violence changed when the researchers also took into account other factors such as individual 

attitudes and peer group beliefs. That said, alcohol policy has the potential to prevent or reduce sexual 

violence perpetration, but only as one component of a comprehensive prevention strategy.

Alcohol policy may directly affect excessive alcohol consumption or may indirectly impact 

alcohol use by decreasing alcohol outlets. Although more research is needed, findings from this review 

suggest that policies affecting alcohol pricing, alcohol outlet density, bar management, sexist content in 

alcohol marketing, and bans of alcohol on college campuses and in substance-free dorms may have 

potential for reducing risk for sexual violence perpetration. Notably, there is evidence that the effects of 

alcohol policies and programs on college campuses are influenced by characteristics in the surrounding 

community. For example DeJong and colleagues (2006, 2009) examined the effects of a college social 

norms campaign on drinking and found that these strategies were less effective on campuses with 

greater initial levels of drinking and in areas with greater alcohol outlet density (DeJong et al., 2009). 

Scribner (2011) also found that the density of alcohol outlets near a university significantly reduced the 

positive effects of a campus-based social norms campaign about drinking. 
11

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The findings 

and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

A recent paper by Banyard (2014) highlights some potential opportunities to implement and 

evaluate policy approaches to prevent violence on college campuses, including policies related to 

alcohol, reporting of incidents and response, and training of faculty and administrators. For campus 

policies to be effective, they must be easily accessible to campus community members with training 

provided to specific sub-communities on campus (e.g., students, faculty, staff, administrators) to ensure 

policies are implemented. More research is needed to investigate specific college policies and identify 

components of effective training and implementation. 

Directions for Future Research

The success of sexual violence prevention efforts on college campuses is dependent on 

identifying and implementing effective prevention strategies. Comprehensive strategies should operate 

across the developmental stages (including at earlier ages before perpetration is initiated), across 

environments (e.g., school, home, community), and have meaningful impact on risk and protective 

factors at all levels of the social ecology (DeGue et al., 2014). To achieve this, additional rigorous 

research is needed that utilizes strong methodologies to identify sexual violence behavioral outcomes

(Tharp et al., 2011). In addition, innovative approaches to prevention that address risk beyond the 

individual-level, including factors at the relationship, community, and societal levels are needed (Casey 

& Lindhorst, 2009; DeGue, Holt, et al., 2012). Bystander strategies may represent one such approach by 

addressing behaviors and skills of the individuals, interactions with peers, and potentially social norms 

with the peer group or community, but more research is needed to understand the impacts of these 

approaches on sexual violence behaviors. Prevention strategies often work differently for different 

individuals or groups (Banyard, 2014). More research is needed to understand how strategies affect 

specific subgroups and whether effective strategies tested in one community can be translated to work in

other communities. For example, college campuses may vary in their specific mix of risk and protective 

factors, as well as the needs and strengths of their student population and the surrounding community. 

Research is also clear that many individuals and communities experience more than one type of violence 

and that some risk factors overlap across forms of violence (e.g., DeGue, Massetti, et al., 2012; Hamby 

& Grych, 2013). Strategically linking sexual violence prevention efforts on college campuses to other 

prevention efforts may improve effectiveness and efficiency while also moving the field more quickly 

towards the protection of students from sexual violence.
12

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The findings 

and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

A summary of best practices is provided in Appendix B to help guide the selection or 

development of prevention strategies at college and universities based on the best available research 

evidence and the principles of effective prevention. 

Implications for Sexual Violence Prevention on College Campuses

College campuses can begin to take steps to implement sexual violence prevention strategies 

based on the best available research evidence. More rigorous evaluation of prevention strategies with 

college-aged students is needed, but what we know now about the prevention of sexual violence 

perpetration has implications for immediate actions that college campuses can take. 

 Identify opportunities to better understand the nature of sexual violence on your campus. This may 

include using existing data on reports of sexual violence or harassment, information from student 

surveys or focus groups, or other innovative approaches to gather or identify the most relevant risks 

and needs. Data can inform the selection of prevention strategies that best address the needs of 

students and key risk indicators. Data sources could also be used to assess the impact of 

implemented prevention strategies.

 Create a campus climate that supports safety, respect, and trust. Research suggests that students 

who trust their college system and administrators will be more likely to report and seek help with 

violence-related concerns. Campus climate can be assessed with ongoing surveys to monitor 

improvement and changes over time. Monitoring these data can facilitate, inform, and track the 

success of efforts to improve the climate and safety on campus.

 Create a comprehensive prevention plan to address sexual violence. Comprehensive prevention 

strategies should include multiple components and interventions that work together to address risk 

and protective factors across the social ecology. Cohesive strategies that include consistent 

messaging and reinforce consistent standards and norms across multiple levels and contexts are 

ideal. 

 Select or develop strategies based on the best available research evidence. Consider first those 

approaches that have the strongest evidence of effectiveness, such as those listed in Figure 2.

Although existing evidence-based strategies have not been developed for or tested with college 

students, they might provide useful models for the development or adaptation of approaches with 

more relevance to college populations.

 Consider best practices for effective prevention when identifying strategies to implement. Given 

limitations of the current evidence base for sexual violence prevention, using best practices for 

effective prevention efforts more generally can help inform violence prevention approaches and have

greater potential for resulting in meaningful behavior change. Specifically, effective programs tend 

to be comprehensive, appropriately timed in development, of sufficient dose, administered by well-
13

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The findings 

and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

trained staff, socio-culturally relevant, theory-driven, provide opportunities for positive 

relationships, and utilize varied teaching methods. 

 Evaluate prevention strategies being implemented on campus using the most rigorous research 

design possible. Strong evaluation designs help to determine effective programs. In evaluations, 

surveys should measure sexual violence risk and protective factors, but more importantly, must 

include measures of sexual violence behavior. These behavior measures provide direct evidence 

about whether implemented strategies have the intended effects on sexual violence. Strong 

evaluations also include long-term survey follow-up to determine if impacts are sustained, and 

research designs that allow us to understand causal relationships. Rigorous outcome evaluation 

research benefits the field as a whole and can provide valuable feedback to individual campuses on 

the impact of their initiatives. 

 Share lessons learned on your campus with the sexual violence prevention research field and other 

colleges. Sharing lessons learned and knowledge gained from implementing and evaluating sexual 

violence prevention initiatives helps build the evidence base. Connecting with the field and other 

colleagues through scientific publications, conferences and networks of college administrators and 

prevention staff help ensure that investments made in prevention will have a positive impact on the 

lives of students across the nation.
14

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The findings 

and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

PART TWO

Prevention Activities Implemented by 

CDC’s Rape Prevention and Education Program

Dawn Fowler, Ph.D.

Division of Violence Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

RPE Efforts on College and University Campuses

CDC supports the Rape Prevention and Education (RPE) program as its major initiative to 

advance primary prevention efforts of sexual violence at the national, state, and local levels. RPE 

grantees work with various stakeholders across settings on sexual violence prevention in all 50 states 

and six territories, including colleges and universities. Table 1 identifies the colleges and universities by 

state that have known participation in RPE-funded and facilitated sexual violence prevention efforts. 

Colleges and universities working with RPE in the state of New York (20+) are listed in Table 2. The 

Highlights

 Over 125 college and university campuses across the U.S. have affiliations with 

CDC’s Rape Prevention and Education (RPE) program to facilitate the 

implementation of sexual violence prevention strategies and activities. 

 Some colleges and universities are implementing various sexual violence 

prevention strategies, including, but not limited to, social norms campaigns and 

bystander interventions.

 Some colleges and universities have the capacity to evaluate their sexual 

violence prevention strategies and conduct sexual violence research as numerous 

faculty have sexual violence research expertise. In a limited number of cases, 

faculty are working with RPE coordinators to develop sexual violence-related 

materials and evaluate prevention strategies.

 The RPE program can be utilized to provide campus-based sexual violence 

prevention knowledge and feedback on the prevention strategies to colleges and 

universities.
15

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The findings 

and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

content in Tables 1 and 2 was abstracted directly from RPE grantee representatives and grantees’ annual 

reports and other documentation.

Table 1 shows the campus-based approaches and strategies implemented to prevent sexual 

violence perpetration and victimization among college and university students. Over 125 campuses 

across 24 states and one territory either indirectly receive RPE funding for these efforts or are in some 

way affiliated with the RPE program in their state. These institutions include public (e.g., state and 

community) and private colleges and universities across the U.S. with each geographic region 

represented. 

Strategies and Activities

There are specific types of prevention strategies and other program activities being implemented 

by the colleges and universities listed in Tables 1 and 2. The majority of campuses implement social 

media campaigns as a prevention strategy designed to raise awareness and change social norms related 

to sexual violence. Some examples of the campaigns implemented include the Red Flag Campaign, the 

White Ribbon Campaign, and Walk a Mile in Her Shoes. The second most common strategies being 

implemented are bystander interventions. Green Dot and Bringing in the Bystander are the most 

commonly used bystander programs among the RPE funded or facilitated campus-based efforts. 

Resident assistants, faculty, staff, fraternities, sororities, and athletes are the likely campus-based groups

trained on bystander interventions. In addition, potentially due to their value toward awareness raising, 

campus-based implementation of educational sessions, presentations, or courses continues despite the 

lack of demonstrated effects of these activities on risk factors or behavior. These activities often target

specific student groups that may be at higher risk for sexual violence victimization and perpetration, 

such as incoming freshmen and athletes. These are typically administered as sessions during freshman 

orientation. 

Finally, it is important to note that some college and university campuses are looking to adapt 

and implement strategies that have been shown to be effective in other populations, such as the middle 

school-based program SafeDates, as described in Part One above (Foshee et al., 1996). Further, 

institution-based capacity exists within many colleges and universities to evaluate their sexual violence

prevention strategies and conduct sexual violence research as numerous faculty have sexual violence

research expertise. In a limited number of cases, faculty are working with RPE coordinators to develop 

sexual violence-related materials and evaluate sexual violence strategies.
16

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The findings 

and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

PART THREE

Campus Prevention Activities 

Funded by DOJ’s Office of Violence Against Women 

Allison Randall

Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice

The Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) also funds campus 

prevention programming. OVW administers grant programs authorized by the Violence Against 

Women Act of 1994 and subsequent legislation. These grant programs help reduce domestic violence, 

dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking by strengthening services to victims and holding offenders 

accountable for their actions. OVW’s Grants to Reduce Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating 

Violence, and Stalking on Campus Program (“Campus Program”) funds are often used by grantees to 

establish or supplement prevention programs. The OVW Campus Program strengthens on-campus 

victim services, advocacy, security and investigation, improving both prosecution and prevention of 

these crimes. Campus Program grantees must:

 Provide prevention programs for all incoming students; 

 Train campus law enforcement or security staff; 

 Educate campus judicial or disciplinary boards on the unique dynamics of these crimes; and 

 Create a coordinated community response to enhance victim assistance and safety while 

holding offenders accountable. 

Since 1999, OVW has funded approximately 388 projects, totaling more than $139 million, for 

grantees addressing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking on campuses. OVW 

is particularly interested in supporting projects submitted by: Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities; Tribal Colleges and Universities; Universities and Colleges that serve primarily Latino or 

Hispanic populations; and Universities and Colleges based in the five U.S. territories. For a complete list 

of OVW grant awards by state, visit OVW’s website: http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/grantactivities.htm.

The ultimate objective of the Campus Program is to help colleges and universities create 

effective, comprehensive responses to sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking. 

Such an approach must include both prevention and intervention and requires a multi-faceted, 
17

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The findings 

and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

coordinated effort that engages key stakeholders from the surrounding community and throughout the 

campus, including students, faculty, staff, and administrators. A successful prevention and intervention 

strategy is informed by research and promising practices, and effectively communicates to the entire 

campus body that sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking will not be tolerated. 

Since 2012, OVW has required that all grantees include evidence-informed bystander prevention 

programming in their work, and now requires all grantees to develop both targeted and universal 

prevention strategies. To help campuses accomplish this, OVW provides technical assistance through a 

cooperative agreement with Green Dot, Inc.

However, OVW grantees are still working toward this requirement and currently offer a wide 

array of programming, which may or may not include a bystander component. The data in Table 3 are

taken from information provided by grantees regarding current prevention initiatives taking place on 

their campuses. To get a broader sample of prevention activities, Table 3 includes all prevention 

conducted by the responding schools, including programming not funded by OVW. In fact, many 

schools fund the majority of their prevention work through other sources. As is evident by this list, 

OVW-funded schools are implementing promising programs as described in this paper, as well as 

similar strategies that may work but have not yet been tested. OVW grantees also report that they are 

exploring online prevention curricula, such as Haven, Campus Clarity, Unless There is Consent, and 

Every Choice.

OVW received suggestions from the public during listening sessions and a call for written 

comments as part of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. OVW has 

little information about these programs other than that they were endorsed by commenters who wished 

to draw attention to promising prevention programs. They are included here in Table 4 to provide an 

additional sample of the wide variety of prevention programs conducted on campuses around the 

country. 

Overall, campuses are engaged in a wide variety of prevention strategies falling into the broad 

categories of bystander intervention, engaging men, healthy sexuality education, and public awareness, 

though many overlap over several categories. Many of these programs may be promising, but need to be 

evaluated. Public awareness represents the majority of prevention efforts, which range from handing out 

pamphlets to more extensive, mandatory training programs. Many campuses have chapters of national 

prevention campaigns or programs such as Green Dot, Men Against Rape, and the White Ribbon 
18

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The findings 

and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

Campaign. However, many have also developed independent school-specific or customized campaigns 

and programs. The large number of public awareness campaigns and the great variety of school-specific 

programming indicates the need for more evaluation of prevention programming and broad 

dissemination of the findings, along with technical assistance to help schools adopt effective programs.
19

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

Table 1: Rape Prevention and Education (RPE) Efforts on College Campuses

RPE

State

Colleges/Universities Approach/Strategy Curricula/Products

AK University of AK- Anchorage 

Justice Center

-Faculty and Health 

Department collaborate on 

state SV prevention plan. 

-Faculty developed statewide 

Random Digit Dial phone 

survey modeled after 

National Intimate Partner and 

Sexual Violence Survey 

(NISVS).

AR University of AR-Fayetteville -Social Norms Campaigns -Mentors in Violence 

Prevention (MVP)

-Certified Peer Education 

through Boosting Alcohol 

Consciousness Concerning 

the Health of University

Students (BACCHUS)

AZ Arizona State University -Social Norms Campaigns

University of AZ- College of

Public Health

-Policy Efforts on SV 

prevention 

-Faculty and health 

department collaborate to 

develop materials, stats 

summaries, for HD website

CA Allan Hancock College

Cabrillo College

California Institute of 

Technology

California State University, 

Humboldt

California State University, 

Monterey Bay

California State University, 

San Diego

California State University, 

San Jose 

California State University, 

Sonoma

Chapman University

College of Marin

College of the Redwoods

Contra Costa College

De Anza College

-Working with school 

administrators to strengthen 

school policies and 

procedures 

-Training college students as 

mentors/educators for high 

school students 

-Training college students as 

leaders for prevention 

programs and campaigns on 

campus 

-Working with fraternities to 

engage men as leaders in 

prevention 

-Conducting campus 

workshops on how to be an 

active bystander to prevent 

sexual violence 

-Professional Education for 

Campus Personnel 

-Engaging Men and Boys

-Bystander Empowerment
20

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

Diablo Valley College

Dominican University

El Camino Community 

College

Imperial Valley College

Los Medanos College

Loyola Marymount University

Merced Community College

Mills College

Mira Costa College

Mount Saint Mary’s 

University

Occidental College

Pepperdine University

Saint Mary's College of 

California

Santa Clara University

Santa Rosa Junior College

Stanford University

University of California, Los 

Angeles

University of California, 

Merced

University of Phoenix

University of Southern 

California 

West Valley College

UCLA Medical Center, Santa 

Monica

-Social Media Campaign -Published a book, “Sexual 

Assault on Campus: What 

Colleges Can Do.” Sent to all 

U.S. College Presidents

FL Florida State University -SV prevention social norms 

campaigns

University of Central Florida -Developed online education

module for incoming 

Freshman and other new 

students 

University of South Florida -Bar Bystander Project -BarTab project

Florida A&M (HBCU) -Male student engagement 

through MOST Club (Men of 

Strength)

-MOST program
21

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

IL Eastern IL University

Charleston

University of IL, Champaign

University of IL, Springfield

Southern IL University,

Carbondale

IL College, Jacksonville

-Campuses partner with local 

rape crisis centers to provide 

campus-based victim services

IN Oakland City University

Ball State University

Purdue: North Central, 

Calumet, West Lafayette

Indiana University -Purdue 

University: Indianapolis, Fort 

Wayne

St. Joseph’s College

Indiana State

-Social Marketing Campaigns

-Coalition-building

-Policy analysis and 

development

-Bystander intervention

-Male engagement

-Some focus on athletes, 

fraternities, ROTC, and male 

students

-Step Up! Bystander 

Intervention

-Media literacy education 

based on the Bro Code

LA Louisiana State University -Bystander engagement -No Zebras

MD Towson University -Bystander engagement of 

male students

-Mentors in Violence 

Prevention (MVP) Program 

Morgan State University

(HBCU)

-Bystander engagement of 

male students

-Green Dot

MI MI Tech, Houghton

Lake Superior State

Alma College

Central MI University

Olivet College

Saginaw Valley State 

University

Delta College

Oakland University

North Central MI College

-Bystander programs

-Social Norms campaigns

-Addressing organizational 

practices and providing policy 

guidance

-Targets groups, incl. 

fraternities/sororities, student 

housing, faculty/staff in 

schools of social work, 

education, and public health, 

and campus health services

-Mentors in Violence 

Prevention (MVP)

MS Statewide college and 

university campuses

-Bystander engagement of 

male students

-social norms campaigns

MT University of Montana -Development of Screening 

Tools: Used for victims and 

perpetrators (self-identify)

-Screening Tool Catalogue of 

Evidence Based Practices for 

Colleges & Universities
22

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

NJ Rutgers University

University of Medicine &

Dentistry of New Jersey

-Policy and Social Norms 

Change 

-Bystander Approaches

-Media Literacy

-Social Norms Change

-NJ Gender Norms Survey

-Prevention Strategy Toolbox

NV University of NV, Reno 

Campus

-Bystander intervention -Green Dot

NY See Table 3 -- RPE-funded efforts with 20+ colleges/universities.

PA Gettysburg College

Robert Morris University

Clarion University

Dickinson College

Mercyhurst University

Edinboro University

Penn State, Fayette

Lebanon Valley College

Lehigh University

Kings College

Wilkes University

PA College of Technology

Seton Hill University

-Campus readiness 

assessments

-Social norms campaigns

-Peer-based outreach and 

prevention education

-Bystander intervention

-Bringing in the Bystander

-Mentors in Violence 

Prevention (MVP)

OK Northeastern State University

University of OK

OK State University.

Rose State College

-Educational Sessions during 

Freshman Orientation

-Bystander interventions

-SafeDates

-Ending Violence curriculum

-Expect Respect

Puerto 

Rico

Sacred Heart University

University of PR

-Awareness Campaigns

SD Northern State University -Bystander engagement of 

male students

-Awareness Campaigns

TX San Angelo State -Bystander program -Men Can Stop Rape

Baylor University, Waco

Rice University, Houston

-Bystander programs

VA VA Commonwealth -Red Flag and White Ribbon 

Campaigns

-SafeDates

WI University of WI state system -Educational Sessions -SafeDates

WV David & Elkins College 

Shepherd University WV 

State University

-Bystander training to 

Resident Assistants

Marshall University

WV Sch of Osteopathic Med

-Prevention presentation to 

incoming students

Concord University -SART training to on-campus 

team

Fairmont State University -Candlelight vigil

WY University of WY -Training provided to 

university’s STOP Violence 

program
23

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

Table 2: CDC-funded Rape Prevention and Education (RPE) in New York 

State Department of Health

Agency Name County College Name Description

Safe Harbors of 

the Finger Lakes

Ontario Hobart and 

William Smith 

Colleges

Conduct the Bringing In The Bystander 

curriculum with students.

Safe Harbors of 

the Finger Lakes

Yates Keuka College Conduct the Bringing In The Bystander 

curriculum with students.

Safe Harbors of 

the Finger Lakes

Seneca New York 

Chiropractic 

College

Conduct the Bringing In The Bystander 

curriculum with students, staff and faculty.

Cattaraugus 

County 

Community 

Action, Inc.

Allegany Houghton 

University

Provide training to students related to healthy 

relationships, sexual assault awareness and 

safety planning.

Cattaraugus 

County 

Community 

Action, Inc.

Cattaraugus St. Bonaventure 

University

Train Resident Assistant (RA) staff on sexual 

assault prevention and bystander 

intervention.

Cattaraugus 

County 

Community 

Action, Inc.

Cattaraugus Junior College of 

Cattaraugus

County

Provide training to students on bystander 

intervention, gender stereotypes and 

date/acquaintance rape.

Oswego County 

Opportunities, 

Inc.

Oswego State University of 

New York (SUNY) 

Oswego 

Collaborate with current partners at the 

college to identify outreach events and 

activities to participate in that focus on 

primary prevention of sexual violence.

Mental Health 

Association of 

Columbia Greene 

Counties

Columbia 

and Greene

Columbia Greene 

Community 

College

Engage men on campus to promote and 

model healthy non-violent masculinity and to 

organize and promote events to raise 

awareness about sexual violence prevention. 

Planned 

Parenthood of the 

Rochester 

Syracuse Region

Livingston SUNY Geneseo Provide training to students on sexual 

violence prevention and provide outreach 

events on campus.

Planned 

Parenthood of the 

Rochester 

Syracuse Region

Orleans SUNY Brockport Provide sexual violence prevention training 

to Resident Assistants and provide outreach 

events on campus.

Planned 

Parenthood of the 

Rochester 

Syracuse Region

Genesee Genesee 

Community 

College

Provide Bringing In The Bystander 

curriculum training to Resident Assistants. 

Provide sexual violence prevention education 

to the Athletic Department. 

Suicide Erie University of Collaborate with the colleges on various 
24

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

Prevention and 

Crisis Services 

Buffalo, Buffalo 

State College, 

Medaille College

campus activities focused on primary 

prevention of sexual violence.

Safe Horizon Richmond College of Staten 

Island

Implement the Bringing In the Bystander 

curriculum and train peer educators to 

provide the curriculum.

Safe Horizon Queens Plaza College Implement the Bringing In the Bystander 

curriculum and train peer educators to 

provide the curriculum.

Albany County 

Crime Victim and 

Sexual Violence 

Center

Albany SUNY Albany,

College of St. 

Rose, Russell Sage 

College

A men’s group at SUNY Albany has created 

five public service announcements (PSAs). 

Students will design posters from the PSA’s. 

The Albany County District Attorney’s 

Office will partner with SUNY Albany on the 

release and promotion of the PSAs and 

posters. The contractor will also conduct a 

White Ribbon Campaign event at a Siena 

College vs. SUNY Albany basketball game. 

The contractor provides a student orientation 

at the College of St. Rose to educate new 

students about intimate partner violence, 

drug-facilitated rape and healthy 

relationships. The contractor also provides 

sexual violence prevention education in a 

College of St. Rose’s Family Violence class 

and in Siena College’s Sexual Assault, 

Dating Violence and Healthy Relationships: 

Peer Advocacy class, spending six days at the 

college in September 2013.

Crime Victims 

Assistance Center, 

Inc.

Broome Broome County 

Community 

College

Contractor provides the Green Dot 

prevention education trainings to students, 

faculty and staff in order to gain support for a 

community mobilization project. Trained 

students will become involved in bystander 

intervention activities on campus and 

participate in coalition meetings.

Cayuga 

Counseling

Services

Cayuga Cayuga 

Community 

College, Wells 

College

Contractor provides the Mentors in Violence 

Prevention (MVP) curriculum to students, 

faculty and staff in the Criminal Justice 

program and encourages them to promote the 

message of non-violence to the campus 

community and beyond. College students 

participate in community events, including 

Take Back the Night to promote healthy 

relationships, sexual assault awareness and 

bystander intervention.

Catholic Charities Chenango Morrisville State Contractor will provide prevention education 
25

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

of Chenango 

County

College training, materials and local statistics on 

sexual violence to students.

YWCA of 

Cortland

Cortland SUNY Cortland Contractor will conduct four events/activities 

at the college to promote healthy 

relationships, sexual assault awareness and 

safe dating practices.

Delaware 

Opportunities 

Safe Against 

Violence

Delaware SUNY Delhi Contractor will schedule four trainings with 

Resident Directors (RDs) on sexual violence 

prevention. RDs will conduct 

activities/events with the student population. 

A theatre performance addressing dating 

violence will also be presented at the college. 

The RDs will develop materials and flyers to 

promote the events.

Family Services Dutchess Marist College Contractor provides the Mentors in Violence 

Prevention (MVP) training on campus to the 

Athletic Department, Counseling Center 

staff, Student Development staff and Housing 

staff. They have requested that professors 

offer extra credit to students participating in 

the MVP trainings. Each training will be cofacilitated by at least one male and one 

female facilitator. The contractor will also 

recruit staff, students and off-campus allies to 

participate in the college’s Interpersonal 

Violence Prevention Committee (IVPC). 

They provide a social networking site 

(Facebook) to increase interactivity on 

violence prevention and awareness.

YWCA of the 

Mohawk Valley

Herkimer Herkimer County 

Community 

College

Contractor will recruit a student intern to 

mentor in the Girls’ Circle prevention 

education programs in middle schools in 

Herkimer county.

Liberty Resources 

Inc.

Madison Colgate University, 

SUNY Morrisville, 

Cazenovia College

The contractor will meet with the Resident 

Assistants, Resident Directors and student 

groups at the three colleges to increase 

knowledge about primary prevention of 

sexual violence on each campus.

Planned 

Parenthood 

Mohawk Hudson 

Inc.

Schoharie SUNY Cobleskill The contractor will recruit 30 students to 

participate in the Mentors in Violence 

Prevention (MVP) curriculum. They will 

also provide two campus events to promote 

healthy relationships, sexual assault 

awareness and bystander intervention.

Planned 

Parenthood 

Mohawk Hudson 

Inc.

Essex North Country 

Community 

College

The contractor will recruit and train students 

as peer educators and plan activities to 

promote campus-wide awareness of sexual 

violence prevention. Extra credit is given to 
26

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

students who participate through the 

Women’s Services Program, which has been 

a successful way to recruit in the past.

Planned 

Parenthood 

Mohawk Hudson 

Inc.

Schenectady Union College, 

Schenectady 

County 

Community 

College

Contractor provides prevention education to 

students in classes, dorm activities, fraternity 

and athletic groups to encourage them to join 

as allies and to form their own campus 

groups to address sexual violence and 

promote prevention strategies.

Nassau County 

Coalition Against 

Domestic Violence 

Inc.

Nassau Molloy University, 

Adelphi 

University, Hofstra 

University, Nassau 

County 

Community 

College

Contractor provides trainings to Resident 

Assistants, Resident Directors, classes and 

other campus groups on healthy relationships 

and safety. The contractor will also be 

conducting a Clothesline Project at Nassau 

County Community College.

Opportunities for 

Otsego

Otsego SUNY Oneonta, 

Hartwick College

The contractor conducts events and activities 

on campus to promote healthy relationships, 

sexual assault awareness and safe dating 

practices. The contractor will conduct a 

Clothesline Project with both colleges. The 

contractor will utilize the A Call To Men 

program to re-educate males to challenge

sexism.

Samaritan 

Hospital

Rensselaer Russell Sage 

College, 

Rensselaer 

Polytechnic 

Institute (RPI)

The contractor will offer Mentors in Violence 

Prevention (MVP) training to student leaders 

and faculty at the two colleges. The 

contractor will promote coalition 

participation among the college staff with 

county stakeholders and other organizations 

that will develop a media guide on primary 

prevention. The guide will target male 

bystanders, promote male accountability and 

encourage males to challenge beliefs and 

attitudes they witness which promote sexual 

violence and intimate partner violence. 

VIBs Family 

Violence and 

Rape Crisis 

Center

Suffolk Suffolk County 

Community 

College, St. 

Joseph's College, 

SUNY Old 

Westbury

Contractor will provide presentations to 

college students on domestic and sexual 

violence. Topics will include types of abuse, 

the cycle of violence, consent, and what to do 

if sexually assaulted. In order to overcome 

the barrier of limited allowed classroom time, 

professors have pledged to continue 

discussing these issues throughout the 

semester. 

Catskill Regional 

Medical Center

Sullivan Sullivan County 

Community 

College

The contractor collaborates with a women’s 

group on campus that provides training on 

healthy relationships and safety planning. 
27

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

Students assist to identify steps to heighten 

awareness and increase safety on campus, 

which will be shared with the college 

administration. A “Walk a Mile in Her 

Shoes” event is also planned on campus.

Domestic Violence 

and Rape Crisis 

Services of 

Saratoga County

Saratoga Skidmore College The contractor met with peer mentors to 

discuss dating violence and sexual assault 

and how they can help students experiencing 

sexual violence.

Advocacy Center 

of Tompkins 

County

Tompkins Tompkins Cortland 

Community 

College

The contractor is implementing the Bringing 

in the Bystander curriculum with three 

college groups and will plan outreach events 

at each college. A coalition comprised of 

community members and college students 

will attend meetings to promote community 

investment in primary prevention of sexual 

violence.

Victim Resource 

Center of the 

Finger Lakes

Wayne Finger Lakes 

Community

College

The contractor provides three 90-minute 

sessions of the Bringing in the Bystander 

curriculum to students who will serve as 

role models for other students during 

Sexual Assault Awareness Month. 

Students will plan a sexual violence 

prevention campaign which will include a 

workshop, information booth and media 

coverage. Additional written information 

will be made available to all students 

throughout the year. Resources from 

RAINN will help to plan the campaign. 
28

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

Table 3. Prevention Programming Conducted by Currently or Previously 

OVW-funded Colleges and Universities.

Table 3 lists prevention programming conducted by responding schools, including programming not 

directly funded by OVW’s Campus Program. Sample school-specific examples are provided, but many 

more exist. This list includes a range of programs with various levels of evaluation.

Prevention 

Strategies

Colleges/Universities National 

Programs and 

Curricula

Sample SchoolCustomized 

Programming 

(Not Inclusive)

Bystander 

Intervention

 A&M University 

 Clark University 

 Gallaudet University 

 Humboldt State University 

 North Central College

 Northwestern University 

 Ohio University 

 San Diego

 Southern University

 St. John's University 

 University of California, 

 University of Delaware

 University of Illinois, Chicago 

 University of Mississippi 

 University of New Hampshire

 University of North Carolina, 

Wilmington

 University of Portland 

 University of Richmond 

 Washington State University, 

Pullman

 Western Oregon University 

 Green Dot 

 Step UP!

 Bringing in the 

Bystander

 Mentors in Violence 

Prevention (MVP)

 Training programs at 

freshmen orientation

 Training peeradvocates

 Check IT 

(Humboldt 

University)

 Clark Anti-Violence 

Education (CAVE) 

Program 

(Clark University)

 My Stand Mentor 

Program 

(University of North 

Carolina at 

Wilmington)

 Bystander 

Intervention Training 

(BIT)

(University of 

California, San 

Diego)

Engaging Men  Angelo State University 

 Cal State Poly at Pomona

 DePauw University 

 Dickinson College

 Elizabeth City State University 

 Grand Valley State University

 Howard University 

 Humboldt State University 

 Loyola University of Chicago 

 Middlebury College 

 Nassau Community College

 North Carolina Central University 

 North Carolina State University 

 Walk a Mile in Her 

Shoes

 Coaching Boys into 

Men

 Beyond Tough Guise

 White Ribbon 

Campaign 

 School chapters of 

Men Against Rape

 V-Men 

 Men of Strength 

(MOST)

 Healthy masculinity 

 Men Creating Change 

(North Carolina 

Central University)

 Northwestern 

University’s Men 

Against Rape and 

Sexual Assault 

(MARS) 

(Northwestern 

University)

 Oxy Men Against 

Rape (OMAR)

(Occidental College)
29

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

Engaging 

Men, Cont.

 North Central College 

 Northwestern University 

 Occidental College

 Ohio University 

 Old Dominion University 

 Pacific Lutheran University 

 Samford University 

 University of Colorado, Colorado 

Springs 

 University of Delaware

 University of Houston

 University of Massachusetts, 

Dartmouth 

 University of Mississippi 

 University of Missouri Kansas 

City

 University of Montana 

 University of North Carolina, 

Wilmington 

 University of Vermont and State 

Agricultural College 

 Western Illinois University

 William Paterson University 

 Winona State University 

presentations

 “Bro Code” workshops 

 A Call to Men 

presentations

 Academic courses on 

men and masculinity 

 Presentations at 

freshman orientation

 Voices of Men

(University of 

Colorado, Colorado 

Springs)

 Men Advocating 

Nonviolence (MAN)

(Western Illinois 

University)

 Men’s Project

(Loyola University 

Chicago)

Healthy 

Sexuality 

Education

 Alabama State University

 Clark University 

 North Central College 

 Ohio University 

 Old Dominion University 

 St. John's University 

 University of California, San 

Diego 

 University of Delaware

 University of New Hampshire 

 University of Southern Maine

 Western Illinois University 

 Western Oregon University 

 Winthrop University 

 Vagina Monologues

 Healthy gender 

identity workshops

 Healthy relationships 

workshops

 Presentations at 

incoming student 

orientation

 Prevention 

Innovations 

(University of New 

Hampshire)

 Peer Health Educators 

(North Central 

College)

Public 

Awareness

 Alabama State University 

 Bucknell University

 Cal State Poly at Pomona 

 Clark University 

 Connecticut College 

 DePauw University 

 East Central University

 East Stroudsburg University

 Elizabeth City State University

 Fairmont State University

 Take Back the Night

 “These Hands Don’t 

Hurt” Campaign

 V-Day

 Greeks Against Sexual 

Assault

 Silent Witness Project

 The Clothesline 

Project

 The Red Flag 

 Sexual Assault 

Prevention and 

Education (SAPE) 

(University of 

Delaware)

 Oxy Sexual Assault 

Coalition 

(Occidental College)

 Project SAFE 

(Occidental College)
30

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

Public 

Awareness, 

Cont.

 Fitchburg State University 

 Gallaudet University 

 Gannon University

 Gateway Community and 

Technical College 

 Georgia College and State 

University 

 Grand Valley State University 

 Howard University 

 Humboldt State University 

 Jefferson College of Health 

Sciences

 Lone Star College System

 Loyola University of Chicago 

 Minot State University

 Mississippi State University

 Nassau Community College

 Norfolk State University

 North Carolina Central University

 North Carolina State University

 North Central College

 North Central Texas College

 Northwestern University 

 Occidental College 

 Ohio University

 Old Dominion University

 Pacific Lutheran University

 Prairie View A&M University

 Saint Mary's College 

 Samford University 

 Shaw University

 Slippery Rock University of 

Pennsylvania

 Southeast Missouri State 

University 

 St. John’s University

 University of California, San 

Diego 

 University of Colorado, Colorado 

Springs 

 University of Delaware 

 University of Louisiana Monroe 

 University of Massachusetts, 

Dartmouth 

 University of Mississippi

 University of Missouri Kansas City 

 University of Montana

 University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Campaign 

 Sexual Assault 

Awareness Month 

programming

 Turn Off the Violence 

Week

 Students Against 

Violence Everywhere

 Educational video 

screenings

 Pamphlet distribution

 Mandatory online 

tutorials such as Haven 

 Posting informative 

posters around campus

 Incoming student 

orientation sessions

 The Consent Project 

(Humboldt 

University)

 Fitchburg AntiViolence Education 

(FAVE) 

(Fitchburg State 

University)

 Belles Against 

Violence 

(St. Mary’s College)

 Eyes Wide Open 

(Grand Valley State 

University)

 Sexual Harassment 

and Rape Prevention 

Program (SHARPP) 

(University of New 

Hampshire)

 Relationship & Sexual 

Violence Prevention 

(RSVP) Program 

(Prairie View A&M)

 It Ends Now 

(University of 

Richmond)
31

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

 University of New Hampshire

 University of North Carolina, 

Wilmington

 University of Puerto Rico Carolina

 University of Richmond

 University of Texas Pan American

 University of Vermont and State 

Agricultural College

 Utah State University

 Virginia State University

 Voorhees College

 West Virginia State University

 Western Illinois University 

 William Paterson University

 Winona State University 

 Winthrop University
32

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

Table 4. Prevention Programs Suggested as Promising by Public Commenters 

to the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault 

Table 4 lists prevention programs suggested by public commenters in chat sessions or written comments. 

OVW has not reviewed these programs.

Prevention 

Strategies

Colleges/Universities Programs – National or SchoolSpecific/Customized

Bystander 

Intervention

Binghamton University Interpersonal Violence Prevention Team

Keene State College Mentors in Violence Prevention

The College of St. Scholastica BEST Party Model

Arizona (statewide) The Arizona Safer Bars Alliance

Indiana University ABCD Model

University of Kentucky (and 

national)

Green Dot

University of Arizona Step Up!

National social marketing 

campaign

Know Your Power

National Marie Testa’s parent-student model

Engaging Men Williams College Men for Consent

Duke University XY Campaign;

Duke’s Men Acting for Change

Tulane University Tulane Men Against Violence

Harvard University Harvard Men Against Rape

Tufts University Tufts Men Against Violence; 

In the SACK (Safety, Awareness, Consent, 

Knowledge)

Northwestern University Men Against Rape and Sexual Assault (MARS)*

Pacific Lutheran University “Healthy Masculinity”

Loyola University Chicago Men’s Project*

Healthy Sexuality 

Education

Virginia Commonwealth 

University

“Can I Wear Your Hat” Video

Yale University Communication and Consent Educators

Indiana University RAISE: He Said, She Said Program

Public Awareness University of North Carolina Helping Advocates for Violence Ending Now 

(HAVEN);

Injury Prevention Research Center’s PREVENT 

project
33

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

Public Awareness, 

Cont.

Middlebury College It Happens Here

Colby College, Williams College Party With Consent

Hamilton College Sexual Assault and Misconduct Information

Eastern Oregon University Sex Matters: Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response Program

University of Texas at Austin Voices Against Violence

Emory University Greeks Against Sexual Assault;

Project Unspoken

Dartmouth College Dartmouth Change

University of Akron Defined Lines

University of Northern Colorado Sexual Assault Free Environment

Marshall University The Center for the Prevention of Violence 

Against Women

Indiana (statewide) Indiana Campus Sexual Assault Prevention 

Project

Ohio (statewide) The Ohio Board of Regents Office of Campus 

Safety and Security

University of Montana Personal Empowerment Through Self Awareness 

(PETSA)

Old Dominion University Sexual Assault Free Environment (SAFE)*

Occidental College Project SAFE*

Michigan State University Sexual Assault Program

Howard University Interpersonal Violence Prevention Program

National Sex Signals

University of Illinois, Chicago Campus Advocacy Network

Cornell University University Counseling and Advising Network 

(U-CAN)

* Program is also listed in Table 3.
34

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

Appendix A. Resources on Selected Prevention Programs

Below are resources for locating additional information about the selected evidence-based and 

promising prevention strategies mentioned in Part One of this report. Provision of this 

information does not constitute endorsement of these programs by the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention or the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. 

Not all programs are publicly available for implementation at no-cost. Some programs are 

proprietary and may be available only for a fee or directly from the program developer.

Program Resources for more information

Safe Dates http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=141

https://www.hazelden.org/web/go/safedates

Foshee, V. A., Linder, G. F., Bauman, K. E., Langwick, S. A., Arriaga, X. B., Heath, J. L., . . .

Bangdiwala, S. (1996). The Safe Dates project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, and selected 

baseline findings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(5, Suppl), 39-47. 

Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Linder, G. F., Benefield, T., & Suchindran, C. 

(2004). Assessing the long-term effects of the Safe Dates program and a booster in preventing and 

reducing adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration. American Journal of Public 

Health, 94(4), 619-624.

Shifting 

Boundaries

http://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=226

http://www.preventconnect.org/2013/05/shifting_boundaries/

Taylor, B., Stein, N., Woods, D., & Mumford, E. (2011). Shifting Boundaries: Final report on an 

experimental evaluation of a youth dating violence prevention program in New York city middle 

schools. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

Coaching 

Boys into 

Men

http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/section/our_work/men_and_boys/_coaching_leadership/

http://www.preventconnect.org/2012/03/web-conference-coaching-boys-into-men/

Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Decker, M. R., Virata, M. C. D., Anderson, H. A., . . 

. Silverman, J. G. (2013). One-year follow-up of a coach-delivered dating violence prevention 

program: A cluster randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45(1), 

108-112

Bringing 

in the 

Bystander

http://cola.unh.edu/prevention-innovations/bystander

https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=159

Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Plante, E. G. (2007). Sexual violence prevention through 

bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(4), 463-

481.
35

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

Appendix B. Best Practices for Sexual Violence Prevention: A 

Summary Guide for Colleges and Universities 

This brief summary of best practices can help colleges and universities select or develop sexual

violence prevention programs and comprehensive campus-wide strategies for implementation on 

campus. Programs and strategies that align with the principles for effective prevention (Nation 

et al., 2003) and are consistent with the best available evidence (DeGue et al., 2014) have a 

better chance of succeeding. This guide serves as a resource to prevention planners on campus 

to help identify key factors to consider when developing or selecting a strategy to implement. 

When selecting a prevention strategy, also consider the strengths and needs of the college and its 

students. Climate surveys or focus groups/listening sessions with students and staff can inform 

prevention efforts. For example, a college or university may experience specific challenges 

related to sexual harassment on campus, excessive alcohol use, or rape-supportive attitudes on 

certain athletic teams. A comprehensive strategy should incorporate components to address each 

of these issues based on the best available evidence and principles of effective prevention. 

Prioritize the Best Available Research Evidence

Implement prevention strategies with the best available research evidence whenever possible.

When assessing the strength of the available research, consider: 

 Research design: Look for outcome evaluations that utilize an experimental design.

Experimental designs that utilize random assignment and control groups typically provide 

the strongest evidence of effectiveness. Other well-conducted research designs, such as 

quasi-experimental and pre-post studies, can provide preliminary evidence showing 

promise but do not rule out other potential explanations for change. Strong research 

designs include longer-term measurement of outcomes (e.g., greater than 6 months); 

immediate post-test measures often produce unreliable results. 

 Outcome measures: Studies that measure sexual violence behavior as an outcome, 

including self-reported victimization or perpetration, are best. Measurement of risk 

factors and related behaviors (e.g., attitudes, bystanding behavior) is useful for 

understanding immediate effects, but it is not sufficient for determining overall 

effectiveness for preventing sexual violence.

 Study population: Select interventions that have been developed for or tested with 

college populations similar to your campus, when available. Because few programs with 

strong or promising evidence of effectiveness for college students currently exist, 

consider adapting evidence-based strategies from other populations (e.g., high-school). 
36

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

Alternatively, choose an existing, non-evidence-based strategy developed for college 

populations that reflects the principles of effective prevention. 

Consider the Principles of Effective Prevention

Implementing strategies consistent with the principles of effective prevention may boost the 

likelihood of preventing sexual violence. This may be especially true when rigorous evidence of 

effectiveness is unavailable to guide decision-making3. Research suggests that prevention

strategies are more likely to affect behavior when they are/have:

 Comprehensive: Comprehensive prevention plans should include components that

address risk and protective factors at multiple levels—including the behavior and risk 

characteristics of individuals, peer and partner relationships, social norms and campus 

climate, and structural and institutional factors and policies that contribute to risk for, or 

help prevent, sexual violence. See Part One of this report (Figure 1) for an example of 

comprehensive campus prevention strategy. 

 Appropriately timed in development: College prevention efforts should focus on risk 

and protective factors that are most relevant in young adulthood and in the college 

environment, such as social norms about sex and gender, alcohol use, changing peer and 

partner relationships, housing (e.g., fraternities, dorms, apartments), on- and off-campus 

social activities (e.g., parties, sporting events), and campus climate and safety. 

 Sufficient “dosage”: Longer, multi-session programs tend to be more effective than 

brief, single-session interventions. However, the specific length of exposure (e.g., 

contact hours) needed to change behavior depends on the nature and goals of the specific 

intervention. 

 Well-trained implementers: Implementers should be stable, committed, competent, and

able to connect effectively with students. “Buy-in” to the program model helps staff 

deliver and reinforce program messages with greater credibility.

 Socio-culturally relevant: Prevention programs and strategies should be culturally 

relevant and appropriate, in both content and approach, to the individuals and/or groups 

served. Climate surveys and focus groups with students can help college prevention 

 

3

Additional practical guidance regarding application of the Principles of Prevention is available here:

Applying the Principles of Prevention: What Do Prevention Practitioners Need to Know About What Works (2003). 

Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E., & Davino, K. American 

Psychologist, 58, 449-456. Prepared for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Violence 

Prevention. 
37

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

coordinators and administrators select or adapt strategies that will meet the needs of their 

student body.

 Sound theory of change: Prevention strategies should be supported by a logical theory 

of change. It is important to understand how the intervention components or content are

expected to impact evidence-based risk and protective factors and, ultimately, sexual 

violence. See Tharp et al. (2013) for a systematic review of risk and protective factors for 

sexual violence perpetration.

 Build on or support positive relationships: Prevention approaches that build on or 

foster positive relationships between students and their peers, families or communities

may have better outcomes. For example, programs may use trusted mentors, teachers, or 

coaches to deliver the intervention content or they could engage students in peerfacilitated activities or support groups designed to encourage and support positive 

behavior. 

 Varied teaching methods: Interactive instruction and opportunities for active, skillsbased learning help to engage participants in multiple ways (e.g., writing exercises, role 

plays) and may be associated with more positive outcomes than interventions which 

involve only passive audiences (e.g., lecture, films). Multiple interventions that reinforce 

the same messages or skills in different contexts and using different teaching methods 

may also improve outcomes.

 Outcome evaluation: Strategies that have been rigorously evaluated and shown to have 

effects on sexual violence or related outcomes are best bets when selecting a prevention 

approach to implement. Continuous monitoring and evaluation of implementation quality 

and key outcomes during program implementation can also provide important ongoing

feedback and may improve outcomes. The Getting to Outcomes® Toolkit can help 

campuses plan, implement, and evaluate the impact of their comprehensive strategy (See 

http://www.rand.org/health/projects/getting-to-outcomes.html). 
38

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

References

Banyard, V. L. (2014). Improving college campus–based prevention of violence against women a 

strategic plan for research built on multipronged practices and policies. Trauma, Violence, & 

Abuse, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/1524838014521027

Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Plante, E. G. (2007). Sexual violence prevention through bystander 

education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(4), 463-481. 

Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., . . . Stevens, M. R. 

(2011). National intimate partner and sexual violence survey. Atlanta, GA: CDC. Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention.

Casey, E. A., & Lindhorst, T. P. (2009). Toward a multi-level, ecological approach to the primary 

prevention of sexual assault prevention in peer and community contexts. Trauma, Violence, & 

Abuse, 10(2), 91-114. 

Coker, A. L., Fisher, B. S., Bush, H. M., Clear, E. R., Williams, C. M., Swan, S. C., & DeGue, S. (under 

review). Evaluation of the green dot bystander intervention to reduce dating violence and sexual 

violence on college campuses. 

Cook-Craig, P. G., Coker, A. L., Clear, E. R., Garcia, L. S., Bush, H. M., Brancato, C. J., . . . Fisher, B. S. (in 

press). Challenge and opportunity in evaluating a diffusion based active bystanding prevention 

program: Green dot in high schools. Violence Against Women. 

DeGue, S., Holt, M. K., Massetti, G. M., Matjasko, J. L., Tharp, A. T., & Valle, L. A. (2012). Looking ahead 

toward community-level strategies to prevent sexual violence. Journal of Women's Health, 

21(1), 1-3. 

DeGue, S., Massetti, G. M., Holt, M. K., Tharp, A. T., Valle, L. A., Matjasko, J. L., & Lippy, C. (2012). 

Identifying links between sexual violence and youth violence perpetration: New opportunities 

for sexual violence prevention. Psychology of Violence, 3(2), 140-156. doi: 10.1037/a0029084 

DeGue, S., Simon, T. R., Basile, K. C., Yee, S. L., Lang, K., & Spivak, H. (2012). Moving forward by looking 

back: Reflecting on a decade of cdc's work in sexual violence prevention, 2000–2010. Journal of 

Women's Health, 21(12), 1211-1218. 

DeGue, S., Valle, L. A., Holt, M., Massetti, G., Matjasko, J., & Tharp, A. T. (2014). A systematic review of 

primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 

19(4), 346-362. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.004

DeJong, W., Schneider, S. K., Towvim, L. G., Murphy, M., Doerr, E. E., Simonsen, N. R., . . . Scribner, R. A. 

(2006). A multsite randomized trial of social norms marketing campaigns to reduce college 

student drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol & Drugs, 67, 868-879. 

DeJong, W., Schneider, S. K., Towvim, L. G., Murphy, M., Doerr, E. E., Simonsen, N. R., . . . Scribner, R. A. 

(2009). A multisite randomized trial of social norms marketing campaigns to reduce college 

student drinking: A replication failure. Substance Abuse, 30(2), 127-140. 

Dodge, K. A. (2009). Community intervention and public policy in the prevention of antisocial behavior. 

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(1‐2), 194-200. 

Edwards, K., Mattingly, M., Dixon, K., & Banyard, V. (2014). Community matters: Intimate partner 

violence among rural young adults. American Journal of Community Psychology, 53(1-2), 198-

207. doi: 10.1007/s10464-014-9633-7

Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women. 

Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics.
39

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014

Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Linder, G. F., Benefield, T., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Assessing 

the long-term effects of the safe dates program and a booster in preventing and reducing 

adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration. American Journal of Public Health, 

94(4), 619-624. 

Foshee, V. A., Linder, G. F., Bauman, K. E., Langwick, S. A., Arriaga, X. B., Heath, J. L., . . . Bangdiwala, S. 

(1996). The safe dates project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, and selected baseline 

findings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(5, Suppl), 39-47. 

Hamby, S., & Grych, J. H. (2013). The web of violence: Exploring connections among different forms of 

interpersonal violence and abuse: Springer.

Lippy, C., & DeGue, S. (under review). Exploring alcohol policy approaches to the prevention of sexual 

violence perpetration. 

Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Decker, M. R., Virata, M. C. D., Anderson, H. A., . . . Silverman, 

J. G. (2012a). “Coaching boys into men”: A cluster-randomized controlled trial of a dating 

violence prevention program. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(5), 431-438. 

Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Decker, M. R., Virata, M. C. D., Anderson, H. A., . . . Silverman, 

J. G. (2012b). “Coaching boys into men”: A cluster-randomized controlled trial of a dating 

violence prevention program. Journal of Adolescent Health. 

Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. L., Arnold, J. S., Eckstein, R. P., & Stapleton, J. G. (2010). Engaging 

intercollegiate athletes in preventing and intervening in sexual and intimate partner violence. 

Journal of American College Health, 59(3), 197-204. 

Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E., & Davino, K. 

(2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs. American 

Psychologist, 58(6-7), 449. 

Scribner, R. A., Theall, K., Mason, K. E., Simonsen, N. R., Schneider, S. K., Towvim, L. G., & DeJong, W. 

(2011). Alcohol prevention on college campuses: The moderating effect of the alcohol 

environment on the effectiveness of social norms marketing campaigns. [Research Support, 

N.I.H., Extramural]. Journal of Studies on Alcohol & Drugs, 72(2), 232-239. 

Sulkowski, M. L. (2011). An investigation of students' willingness to report threats of violence in campus 

communities. Psychology of violence, 1(1), 53. 

Taylor, B., Stein, N., Woods, D., & Mumford, E. (2011). Shifting boundaries: Final report on an 

experimental evaluation of a youth dating violence prevention program in new york city middle 

schools. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

Taylor, B. G., Stein, N. D., Mumford, E. A., & Woods, D. (2013). Shifting boundaries: An experimental 

evaluation of a dating violence prevention program in middle schools. Prevention science, 14(1), 

64-76. 

Tharp, A. T., DeGue, S., Lang, K., Valle, L. A., Massetti, G., Holt, M., & Matjasko, J. (2011). Commentary 

on foubert, godin, & tatum (2010) the evolution of sexual violence prevention and the urgency 

for effectiveness. Journal of interpersonal violence, 26(16), 3383-3392. 

Tharp, A. T., DeGue, S., Valle, L. A., Brookmeyer, K. A., Massetti, G. M., & Matjasko, J. L. (2013). A 

systematic qualitative review of risk and protective factors for sexual violence perpetration. 

Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 14(2), 133-167. 

Wandersman, A., & Florin, P. (2003). Community interventions and effective prevention. American 

Psychologist, 58(6-7), 441. 
40

This report was prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (April 2014). The 

findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated: 6/18/2014