**National Council on Disability**

An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families.

# Letter of Transmittal

January 30, 2018

The President

The White House

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of the National Council on Disability (NCD), I am pleased to submit this report titled *Not on the Radar:**Sexual Assault of College Students with Disabilities*. Sexual assault is a public health and public safety concern with far-reaching implications, and it is well documented that this deeply personal violation leaves physical and emotional impacts that change the lives of victims. This report is the first to examine how the needs of sexual assault victims with disabilities are included in college policies and procedures and to make recommendations to Congress, federal agencies, and colleges for improvement.

Research has shown that students with disabilities are more likely than their peers without disabilities to experience sexual assault. Most recently, a study examining the prevalence of sexual assault across 27 universities and 150,000 participants found that 31.6 percent of female undergraduates with a disability were victims of sexual assault compared to 18.4 percent of undergraduate females without a disability. This means that one of every three female undergraduates with a disability had been sexually assaulted during their time at college.

NCD found, however, that students with disabilities are not “on the radar” of colleges in their sexual assault prevention efforts, policies, or procedures for response and support after an assault. This includes the absence of procedures to communicate with victims who are Deaf or hard of hearing and inaccessible support services for students with mobility disabilities. Similarly, NCD found that students with disabilities are invisible at the federal level in campus sexual assault research programs. For example, Department of Justice (DOJ) research on campus sexual assault, undertaken or funded by the Office on Violence Against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the National Institute of Justice, have not included disability as a demographic. 

NCD remains committed to advising the Administration on this issue of national significance, and in ensuring that federal policies, federally-funded research, and college sexual assault programs are inclusive of students with disabilities.

Clyde E. Terry

Chairperson

(The same letter of transmittal was sent to the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate and the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.)

National Council on Disability Members and Staff

**Members**

Clyde E. Terry, *Chairperson*

Benro T. Ogunyipe, *Vice Chairperson*

Billy W. Altom

Rabia Belt

James T. Brett

Bob Brown

Daniel M. Gade

Wendy S. Harbour

Neil Romano

**Staff**

*Vacant*, Executive Director

Joan M. Durocher, General Counsel & Director of Policy

Amy Nicholas, Attorney Advisor

Amged Soliman, Attorney Advisor

Ana Torres-Davis, Attorney Advisor

Anne Sommers, Director of Legislative Affairs & Outreach

Phoebe Ball, Legislative Affairs Specialist

Lisa Grubb, Director of Operations and Administration

Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant

Keith Woods, Financial Management Analyst

# Acknowledgments

The National Council on Disability wishes to thank Nitya Venkateswaran, Talia Shalev, and Jay Feldman of RTI International, and Deborah Tull, of VentionWorks, LLC for the research conducted in developing this report.

Contents

Acknowledgments	5Contents	7Executive Summary	9Methods	10Highlights of Findings and Recommendations	10Key Findings	10Recommendations	11Acronym Glossary	15Chapter 1: Introduction and Background	17Chapter 2: Purpose and Scope	21Chapter 3: Methods	25College Staff and Expert Interviews	25Questionnaires	26Literature and Policy Review	27Limitations	27Chapter 4: Overview of Federal Disability and Sexual Assault Laws	29Disability-Related Laws	29The Clery Act, Violence Against Women Act, and Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act	31Title IX	32Chapter 5: Accessibility of College Sexual Assault Programs and Services	35Accessibility of Education Programs and Information Related to Sexual Assault	36Accessibility of Online Prevention Training Programs	37Accessibility of In-Person Education or Prevention Programs	37Accessibility of Sexual Assault Information, Policies, and Reporting Options	39Accessibility of Printed Sexual Assault Materials	40Access to Sexual Assault Trauma or Support Services	41Physical Access to Sexual Assault Services	41Lack of Immediate Auxiliary Aids or Disability-Related Supports When Accessing Sexual Assault Supports	43Lack of Policies and Procedures Detailing Responses in Crisis Situations	46Recognition of the Lack of Policies and Procedures	48Accommodations Provided During the Conduct Process and Communication with Law Enforcement	49Access to Accessible Services Outside of Campus	53Chapter 6: “You’ve given me a lot to think about:” Existing Gaps in Services and Promising Practices	55Interactions Between Sexual Assault Support Services Offices and Disability Services	56Lack of Disability Training Among Staff and Faculty	58Disability Training for Law Enforcement	61Awareness of the Prevalence of Sexual Assault and Students with Disabilities	62Students with Disabilities Are Not Addressed in Sexual Assault Educational Programs	64Promising Practices for Colleges Adapted from Community Providers	67Chapter 7: Sexual Assault Policy Compliance and Responses	71Compliance with the Clery Act	71Compliance with Title IX	72State Legislative Responses to Sexual Assault	73Federal Legislative Response to Sexual Assault	75Chapter 8: Policy and Practice Recommendations	79Findings	79Federal	79Colleges	80Recommendations	81Congress	81Department of Education	82ED Office for Civil Rights (OCR)	82The National Center on Safe and Supportive Learning Environments (NCSSLE)	83The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)	83The Center for Campus Public Safety (CCPS)	83The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW)	83Colleges	84Endnotes	86

# Executive Summary

Sexual assault can be devastating to victims and cause long term physical, psychological, and emotional effects, including depression, post-traumatic stress, thoughts of suicide, flashbacks, and sleep disorders.[endnoteRef:1] The issue of sexual assault on college campuses has received increased attention since the 2007 publication of the federally funded College Sexual Assault study, which found that 19 percent of female undergraduates were victims[endnoteRef:2] of sexual assault during their time in college. Another recent federally funded study surveyed 23,000 students across nine colleges and universities[endnoteRef:3] and found that the prevalence of sexual assault averaged 21 percent for females across the schools.[endnoteRef:4] Neither of these studies included disability status as a demographic and, as such, no data was gathered on the prevalence of sexual assault on students with disabilities. However, a recent large-scale study on campus sexual assault by the Association of American Universities revealed that college students with disabilities were victims of sexual violence at higher rates than students without disabilities—31.6 percent of undergraduate females with disabilities reported nonconsensual sexual contact involving physical force or incapacitation, compared to 18.4 percent of undergraduate females without a disability.[endnoteRef:5] This means one out of every three undergraduate students *with a disability* was a victim of sexual violence on campus. [1:  RAINN, Effects of Sexual Violence, accessed November 18, 2017, https://www.rainn.org/effects-sexual-violence.]  [2:  Although many advocates prefer to use the term survivor to describe an individual who has been sexually assaulted, the term victim is also widely used. These terms are used interchangeably throughout this document. ]  [3:  This report focuses on sexual assault at postsecondary institutions—such as colleges, universities, community colleges, graduate and professional schools, and trade schools—we use the term colleges to refer to these institutions.]  [4:  Christopher Krebs et al., Campus Climate Survey Validation Study Final Technical Report (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. January 20, 2016).]  [5:  David Cantor et al., Report on the AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct (University of Pennsylvania, 2015) at 35,102.] 

As campuses across the United States work to prevent assaults, educate students on assault prevention, and provide supports for survivors, little is known about how colleges address the accessibility needs of students with disabilities who have suffered a sexual assault, or about the inclusivity of college programs, services, and policies to victims of assault with disabilities. This study set out to investigate the current state of campus sexual assault programs and policies and uncovered multiple barriers to students with disabilities, from reporting crime to receiving needed assistance afterward. The report includes recommendations for Congress, federal agencies, and colleges to improve reporting requirements, training, and policies and procedures to better serve students with disabilities who have experienced sexual assault on campus.

## Methods

To understand how colleges respond to, prevent, and support survivors of sexual assault with disabilities and the challenges that can emerge when providing accessible services, 30- to 60-minute telephone interviews were conducted with 34 informants, including experts on the topic of sexual assault on college campuses or sexual abuse against people with disabilities; college professionals and staff, such as disability services administrators; Title IX coordinators; and sexual assault services administrators. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia were represented across seven of the 10 federal regions.[endnoteRef:6] The National Council on Disability (NCD) also fielded two national questionnaires, through listservs and social media, and received 100 responses from college professionals and 34 college students with disabilities.  [6:  U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD’s Regions, accessed November 9, 2017, https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/localoffices/regions.] 

NCD offers full-length and comprehensive report findings and policy recommendations in Chapter 8. However, highlights of the report’s key findings and recommendations include the following:

## Highlights of Findings and Recommendations

### Key Findings

#### Federal

Federal-level research studies on sexual assault on college campuses, funded by the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women and the National Institute of Justice, have not included disability as a demographic as they have race/nationality and sexual orientation. 

The 2014 White House Task Force report, *Not Alone*, did not include disability as a demographic in its sample campus climate survey, setting the tone for colleges and researchers to omit disability in campus climate studies as well.

#### Colleges

Campus assault prevention and education programs are not inclusive of students with disabilities, and college staff lack awareness that such programs should be accessible to students with disabilities, and staff are not trained in disability accommodations.

College sexual assault prevention and education programs are not fully accessible to students with disabilities. 

College websites and printed information about sexual assault resources and information are not accessible to students with visual impairments and students with print-based disabilities (e.g., dyslexia). 

### Recommendations

#### Congress

Congress should amend the Clery Act including to:

a. Require colleges to collect the number of all reported sexual assaults on students with disabilities (not just when the assaults are hate crimes) and include this information in their annual security report.

b. Require colleges to include a statement regarding the disability-related accommodations that will be made available to students with disabilities during the reporting and disciplinary process, such as auxiliary communication aids or interpreters, and how to request those accommodations.

Congress should pass the Campus Accountability and Safety Act (S. 856) with the following additions:

1. Require grant applicants under proposed Section 8, part BB, to describe how they will serve students with disabilities in their description of how underserved populations on campus will be served.

1. Add a survey question to proposed Section 19 on whether the victim had a disability at the time of the assault, and what type of disability.

Congress should require that research funded by the Office on Violence Against Women on campus sexual assault include students with disabilities to gather data on the problem as it pertains to students with disabilities, and to develop strategies for preventing and reducing the risk of sexual assault and effectively responding to victims with disabilities. 

#### Department of Education (ED)

1. ED should develop and publish a technical assistance document or training for colleges on the rights of students with disabilities to have necessary accommodations in the process of reporting assault, utilizing sexual assault support services, and in the institutional disciplinary process.

#### ED Office for Civil Rights

OCR should

1. Inform colleges that they must provide required Title IX information in accessible formats to students with disabilities.

1. Encourage colleges to include information on how students can request disability-related accommodations on their Title IX web pages. 

1. Encourage colleges to make outreach and educational materials regarding sexual assault services available in accessible formats, and through various outlets accessible to students.

#### National Center on Safe and Supportive Learning Environments

1. NCSSLE should include information on disability, including communicating with victims with disabilities who are Deaf or hard of hearing, in its trauma-informed training programs. 

#### The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

1. BJS should include students with disabilities as a demographic when conducting research on sexual assault on college campuses.

#### The Center for Campus Public Safety (CCPS)

1. CCPS should include information on disability, including communicating with victims with disabilities who are Deaf or hard of hearing, in their trauma-informed training programs for school officials and campus and local law enforcement. 

#### The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW)

1. OVW should include information on disability, including communicating with victims with disabilities who are Deaf or hard of hearing, in its trauma-informed training programs for school officials and campus and local law enforcement.

OVW should require all colleges that submit proposals under the *Grants to Reduce Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and Stalking on Campus Program* to

a. Require grantees that provide outreach and educational materials regarding sexual assault services to students to provide them in accessible formats and inform the college community that these are available. 

When OVW funds research on sexual assault on college campuses, require researchers to include students with disabilities as a demographic. For example, allow students to identify if they have a disability in surveys/questionnaires, etc.

#### Colleges

Recommendations to ensure access to sexual assault supports and services include the following:

1. Include students with disabilities as a demographic in campus climate surveys on sexual assault.

1. Create crisis policies and procedures on how to provide sexual assault services to students with sensory disabilities, especially Deaf or hard of hearing students, so that students receive services within 24 hours.

1. Guarantee that sexual assault first responders and support providers have access to emergency interpreter services or other communication methods (i.e., Communication Access Real-Time Translation) so that students can communicate with staff immediately.

1. Create formal agreements with community-based providers with the expertise to support survivors with disabilities.

Recommendations to address the unique needs of survivors of sexual assault with disabilities include the following:

Develop and implement sexual assault prevention and support service training with messaging campaigns that are inclusive and welcoming to students with disabilities on college campuses. 

Provide disability-related and trauma-informed practice training to prevention and first responder staff and campus security so that they understand how to effectively prevent and support students with disabilities after an incident of sexual assault. 

Establish and maintain active collaborative relationships between Title IX, sexual assault services, counseling and health services, and disability services. 

College Disability Service Center staff should be actively involved in college sexual assault prevention and support efforts and trained on Title IX procedures. 

# Acronym Glossary

ADA		Americans with Disabilities Act

ASL		American Sign Language 

ASR		campus annual security reports 

CARE		communication, action, response, evaluation 

CART		Communication Access Real-Time Translation

DSS		Disability Student Services 

ED 		U.S. Department of Education

FERPA 	Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 

MOU		memoranda of understanding 

OVW		Office on Violence Against Women

SaVE Act	Campus Sexual Violence Act 

SUNY		State University of New York 

VAWA		Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 

# Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Sexual assault is a public health and public safety concern with far-reaching implications, and it is well documented that this deeply personal violation leaves physical and emotional impacts that change the lives of victims across all areas of their lives.

The subject of sexual assault on college campuses has received increased attention over the past eleven years with the federal government funding research studies seeking to gauge the prevalence of sexual assault and reporting on campuses to inform intervention strategies. But, as described later in this section, these studies have not included disability as a demographic and provide no insight into the prevalence of sexual assault on campus for students with disabilities.

A recent Association of American Universities’ (AAU) study that examined the prevalence of sexual assault against students across 27 universities and 150,0000 participants included disability as a demographic and found that students with disabilities were victims of sexual assault on campus more often than students without disabilities: 31.6 percent of female undergraduates with a disability reported nonconsensual sexual contact involving physical force or incapacitation compared to 18.4 percent of the undergraduate females without a disability.[endnoteRef:7] This means that one of every three students with a disability has been sexually assaulted during their time at college.  [7:  David Cantor et al., at 35, 102. See also AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct Fact Sheet, https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/%40%20Files/Climate%20Survey/Fact%20Sheet%20for%20AAU%20Climate%20Survey%209-21-15_0.pdf, accessed November 17, 2017.] 

The *AAU Campus Climate Survey* is notable because it is one of the largest surveys on sexual assault and sexual misconduct in terms of both number of schools and number of students participating. Prior studies of campus sexual assault and misconduct have been implemented for a small number of colleges or for a national sample of students with relatively small samples for any particular college. Also, comparisons across surveys have been problematic because of different methodologies and different definitions. The AAU was one of the first to implement a uniform methodology across multiple colleges and to produce statistically reliable estimates for each college.[endnoteRef:8]  [8:  Id. at III.] 

The title of this report makes clear that students with disabilities are not “on the radar” of colleges in regard to policies and procedures regarding sexual assault. Similarly, students with disabilities are seemingly invisible to the Department of Justice offices that have undertaken, or funded, research studies on campus sexual assault (Office on Violence Against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, and National Institute of Justice), just as they were to the White House Task Force in the 2014 sample campus climate survey.

The federally funded (National Institute of Justice) College Sexual Assault Study (CSA)[endnoteRef:9] was a survey conducted with 6,800 undergraduate students attending two large public universities during 2005 that examined the prevalence, nature, and reporting of sexual assault experienced by students to inform the development of targeted intervention strategies. The oft quoted figure from this study represents the experience of females since entering college: 19.8 percent of female college seniors (“1 in 5”) responded that they had experienced nonconsensual sexual contact involving force or incapacitation during their time in college. This study, however, did not include disability as a demographic and, as such, did not yield data on the prevalence of sexual assault on students with disabilities. [9:  Christopher Krebs et al., The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study: Final Report (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 2007).] 

In 2014, White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault published a report that offered action steps and recommendations to address sexual assault on college campuses.[endnoteRef:10] One was that colleges conduct “campus climate surveys” to help schools understand the magnitude and nature of sexual victimization experienced by students. The report included a sample campus climate survey. Unfortunately, the sample climate survey did not include disability as a demographic but did include many other categories including gender identity, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.[endnoteRef:11] Had the survey included disability as a demographic, colleges would likely have included it with the other categories to include in their own climate surveys.[endnoteRef:12] [10:  Not Alone, The First Report of the White House Task Force (Washington, DC: The white House, 2014), https://www.justice.gov/ovw/page/file/905942/download.]  [11:  Id. at 21.]  [12:  The Task Force report also charged the Justice Department, through both its Center for Campus Public Safety and its Office on Violence Against Women, to develop trauma-informed training programs for school officials and campus and local law enforcement, and charged the Department of Education’s National Center on Safe and Supportive Learning with the same task for campus health centers. NCD has not been able to access these trainings to see if they include information on assisting sexual assault survivors with disabilities. ] 

Just two years later, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) released the *Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS) Final Technical Report*, described as a key deliverable of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault.[endnoteRef:13] Funded by the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW), BJS revised the sample climate survey developed by the White House Task Force, and pilot tested it at nine diverse colleges.[endnoteRef:14] BJS did not include disability as a demographic as it did race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity.[endnoteRef:15] This is noteworthy because BJS had broad input. In developing the revised survey, “a series of listening sessions were held with academic experts in campus sexual assault research, federal partners, and school administrators to obtain feedback on the survey’s content and data collection methodology. In addition, a web-based instrument to be used in the CCSVS Pilot Test was drafted and reviewed by representatives from several federal agencies.”[endnoteRef:16]  [13:  Christopher Krebs et al. (2016).]  [14:  Understanding the Campus Climate Validation Study Final Technical Report, accessed November 18, 2017, https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/understanding-campus-climate-survey-validation-study-final-technical-report.]  [15:  Christopher Krebs et al., at 177.]  [16:  Christopher Krebs et al., at ES-2.] 

Federal and state agencies have responded to the crisis of college sexual assault by enacting policies and encouraging colleges and universities to adopt recommendations and practices prescribed by research and advocacy groups. In the last 20 years, federal laws were enacted to require colleges and universities to develop policies, provide prevention activities, and respond to sexual assault.[endnoteRef:17] The U.S. Department of Justice defines sexual assault as “any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.”[endnoteRef:18] Contact or behavior without consent includes “forced touching of a sexual nature (i.e., forced kissing, touching of private parts, grabbing, fondling), oral sex, sexual intercourse, anal sex, and/or sexual penetration with a finger or object.”[endnoteRef:19]  [17:  Office for Civil Rights, Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance (66 Fed. Reg. 5512, Jan. 19, 2001), accessed November 1, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.pdf. See also 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f). ]  [18:  U.S. Department of Justice, “Sexual Assault,” accessed August 10, 2017, https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault#sa.]  [19:  Christopher P. Krebs et al. (2007).] 

Colleges are required to collect data on the prevalence of sexual misconduct and assault, develop specific policies to address sexual assault, and implement prevention programs and support services. In its last report in 2017, the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault outlined a series of recommended practices and guidelines to reduce the number of assaults and support survivors. Included in these guidelines are specific recommendations for campuses to consider the needs of diverse groups of students, including students with disabilities, and that materials and services be accessible and comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).[endnoteRef:20] The Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights also issued a Dear Colleague Letter that outlines colleges’ responsibilities to address disability in cases of sexual violence, specifically outlining issues campuses should consider and that colleges should ensure accessibility of information and training related to sexual assault.[endnoteRef:21]  [20:  White House Task Force to Prevent Sexual Assault, Preventing and Addressing Campus Sexual Misconduct: A Guide for University and College Presidents, Chancellors, and Senior Administrators (Washington, DC: White House Task Force to Prevent Sexual Assault, 2017).]  [21:  Catherine Lahmon, Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, 2014), accessed August 10, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf.] 

However, little is known about colleges’ current sexual assault practices and services to support survivors with disabilities that would give colleges a clear guide on how to translate the White House Task Force’s recommendations into action steps. At the time of publication, NCD found only four research articles focused on the prevalence of sexual assault on college students with disabilities.[endnoteRef:22] None of these studies focused on how colleges served students. If colleges are to equitably prevent and respond to sexual assault incidents, the lack of research on what types of accommodations and supports students with disabilities need and/or lack may perpetuate discrimination against these students.  [22:  J. Porter and L. M. Williams, “Intimate Violence among Underrepresented Groups on a College Campus,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 26, no.16 (2011): 3210–3224. Finding statistically significant associations between Deaf and Hard of Hearing students and psychological abuse and physical abuse; J. L. Porter and L. M. Williams, “Dual Marginality: The Impact of Auditory Status and Sexual Orientation on Abuse in a College Sample of Women and Men,” Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma 22, no. 6 (2013): 577–589. Finding that gay, lesbian, and bisexual students who also were Deaf or hard of hearing were more likely to experience sexual, physical, and psychological abuse than those in mainstream majority groups; R. A. Elliott Smith and L. H. Pick, “Sexual Assault Experienced by Deaf Female Undergraduates: Prevalence and Characteristics,” Violence and Victims 30, no. 6 (2015): 948–959. Finding that more than two-thirds of the participants (69%) reported experiencing at least one assault and more than half (56%) experienced multiple types of assault; B. W. Reyns and H. Scherer, “Stalking Victimization Among College Students: The Role of Disability Within a Lifestyle-Routine Activity Framework,” Crime & Delinquency (2017). Finding that disability was a significant risk factor for victimization; over 10 percent of students with disabilities reported experiencing a stalking victimization compared with only 5 percent of students without disabilities.] 

The purpose of this study is to explore and raise awareness of how students with disabilities fare under existing college practices and services related to sexual assault. After examining the current landscape, potential policy solutions and action steps are proposed, which Congress, the Federal Government, and colleges can take to support survivors with disabilities and reduce their trauma. 

# Chapter 2: Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to raise awareness of sexual assault against students with disabilities on college campuses by examining college policies and practices that should protect students with disabilities who have experienced sexual assault, college policies and practices aimed at educating students on sexual assault prevention, and the availability of survivor services on campus that are physically and programmatically accessible to students with disabilities who are victims of sexual assault. This report also provides recommendations for reform. 

Based upon interviews and questionnaires with experts, college professional staff, and students, as well as a review of recent research, policy reports, and college policies, this report documents the gaps and weaknesses in college services and outreach to students with disabilities who have experienced sexual assault. Recommendations include strategies to strengthen compliance with federal disability laws and to build capacity to meet the needs of students with disabilities. 

Due to limited research on how colleges are serving students with disabilities across the nation, the study focuses on the provision of accommodations to students with physical and sensory disabilities. These students have the longest history of service provision in higher education, and a significant proportion of students with these types of disabilities are registered with campus disability services offices.[endnoteRef:23] Furthermore, many of the accommodations these students require can be measured in pragmatic and objective terms (e.g., whether sign language interpreters are available, reading matter is accessible to screen readers, or training courses are in physically accessible buildings). This narrowed scope limits findings because students with invisible disabilities, especially mental health disabilities, are a growing population at college campuses,[endnoteRef:24] and these students are often underserved.[endnoteRef:25] However, given the dearth of data on the topic, a starting point was chosen for this report to begin illuminating the difficulties colleges face in complying with federal laws and meeting the needs of sexual assault survivors with disabilities. Further research on this issue can use the findings in this report as a jumping off point to investigate the specific needs of students with cognitive or mental health disabilities when accessing services for sexual assault prevention or support. [23:  Joseph W. Madaus, “The History of Disability Services in Higher Education,” New Directions for Higher Education, no. 154 (2011): 5–15.]  [24:  Thomas D. Snyder, Cristobal de Brey, and Sally A. Dillow, “Table 311.1. Number and Percentage Distribution of Students Enrolled in Postsecondary Institutions, by Level, Disability Status, and Selected Student Characteristics: 2007–08 and 2011–12,” in Digest of Education Statistics 2014 (NCES 2016-006) (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 2016), accessed on September 1, 2017, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_311.10.asp; Robert Gallagher, National Survey of College Counseling Centers 2014 (Alexandria, VA: The International Association of Counseling Services, 2015).]  [25:  National Council on Disability, Mental Health on College Campuses: Investments, Accommodations Needed to Address Student Needs (Washington, DC: National Council on Disability, 2017), accessed September 1, 2017, https://www.ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_Mental_Health_Report_508.pdf.] 

Students with disabilities may also be accused of sexual violence, as well as being victims of such violence, and may require accommodations during Title IX hearings, judicial procedures, suspensions, and other procedures and actions on campus. While this is an important topic for further study, people with disabilities are far more likely to be victims of violence than instigators of it, and they are more likely to suffer physical and mental illnesses because of violence. In addition, students may experience mental health disabilities after an incident of sexual assault. The National Council on Disability (NCD) has addressed the difficulties colleges face when effectively supporting students with mental health disabilities in a recent report.[endnoteRef:26] This report maintains a narrower focus, prioritizing work with survivors and prevention efforts. [26:  Ibid. ] 

**Research Questions**

This study was guided by the following questions:

1. What is the current landscape of college policies and programs regarding sexual assault prevention and response? 

2. Do colleges comply with the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by ensuring that assault services are physically and programmatically accessible to students with physical and sensory disabilities?

3. Do colleges comply with the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by providing reasonable accommodations so students with****disabilities can access and utilize support services if they have experienced sexual assault?

4. Are interpreters or other disability-related supports readily available to students who are Deaf or hard of hearing when making reports to campus law enforcement?

5. Do colleges maintain relationships with trauma and mental health providers in the community that provide similarly accessible services?

6. What gaps, weaknesses, and discriminatory policies exist in campus sexual assault services? 

7. What are the current most promising and best practices and emerging trends (e.g., healthy sexual relationship training for incoming freshmen, bystander awareness training to teach students to step in to stop sexual assault, climate surveys, and changes in college disciplinary board rules)?

8. Are disability student organizations connected to sexual assault survivor groups on campus? Are campus disability services and resource offices connected to mental health services to ensure students with disabilities are getting the ongoing services they need after an assault (e.g., therapy)?

9. Have college staff and faculty received training to provide support for students with disabilities who have experienced sexual assault?

10. Has campus law enforcement received disability awareness training in taking reports from victims/witnesses with disabilities? 

11. Are the policies of colleges compliant with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the Clery Act, and Title IX? 

12. What are the federal and state legislative responses to campus sexual violence?

13. What policy and system reforms are needed in postsecondary educational settings? 

# Chapter 3: Methods

## College Staff and Expert Interviews

To understand how colleges prevent sexual violence, support student sexual assault survivors with disabilities, and address the challenges that can emerge when providing accessible services, 30- to 60-minute telephone interviews were conducted with 9 experts and 27 higher education professionals from December 2016 through July 2017. Experts included researchers or advocates examining sexual assault or violence against people with disabilities and college sexual assault prevention and compliance consultants. College professionals were chosen because they worked with sexual assault or disability services and could speak to college policies and procedures. Roles of professionals targeted for interviews included student program administrators who provide disability services and accommodations, ADA/504 coordinators, administrators or staff in sexual assault service centers, and Title IX coordinators or investigators. Four disabled student program administrators also participated in Title IX investigations or conducted processes, and one Title IX coordinator also served as an ADA/504 coordinator. Professionals represented 6 two-year community colleges, 6 four-year private universities, 11 four-year public colleges, and one regional center for a public state institution. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia were represented across seven of the 10 federal regions (Table 1).[endnoteRef:27] Interviews were transcribed and audio recordings were immediately deleted after the study was completed. To protect the confidentiality of the participants, names of interviewees, organizations, and colleges are not mentioned in this report.  [27:  “HUD’s Regions,” accessed September 1, 2017, https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/localoffices/regions. ] 

**Table 1. College Representation Among Interviewee Participants**

## Questionnaires

Open-ended online questionnaires were administered through SurveyGizmo to college staff and students to supplement findings from college professionals and staff interviewees. These questionnaires were administered from April 2017 through June 2017. College staff members were also able to indicate interest in participating in an interview or focus group to further elaborate on their survey responses. The college professional staff questionnaires were distributed through three listservs for the Association on Higher Education and Disability, Title IX coordinators, and the Disabled Student Programs and Services of the California Community College Chancellor’s Office. NCD received 100 responses from college professional staff. The student questionnaire was distributed through social media and listservs for students with disabilities, such as the Disability, Rights, Education, Activism, and Mentoring group through the National Center for College Students with Disabilities. NCD received 34 responses from students. 

## Literature and Policy Review

Research findings and current trends from scientific research, policy reports, white papers, and articles supplemented the interview and questionnaire findings. 

## Limitations

Claims regarding existing college services for students with disabilities and compliance with federal disability laws are self-reports from college professionals and staff. Self-reports may not reflect the actual policies and practices at college campuses. However, researchers interviewed staff members who were most knowledgeable about the policies and practices and indicated the level of certainty of staff responses. Researchers gave college staff the interview questions prior to the scheduled interview. If unfamiliar with certain college policies or procedures, staff researched the information or recommended additional staff to include in the interview to accurately answer the questions. In addition, only barriers or challenges mentioned by three or more college professionals and/or students were reported, to indicate a trend across colleges. The validity of self-reported data was also strengthened by using existing research, policy, and media reports when possible, to elaborate on the prevalence of the finding. 

# Chapter 4: Overview of Federal Disability and Sexual Assault Laws

## Disability-Related Laws

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973[endnoteRef:28] and the ADA[endnoteRef:29] of 1990 are civil rights laws that protect people with disabilities from discrimination.  [28:  Pub. L. 93-112, 87 Stat. 394 (29 U.S.C. 794), as amended.]  [29:  42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12300.] 

Section 504 prohibits any program receiving federal financial assistance from discriminating against a person because of his or her disability. Section 504 applies to institutions of higher education that receive direct or indirect federal financial assistance,[endnoteRef:30] including institutions that receive no other federal financial assistance other than federal student financial aid.  [30:  34 C.F.R.§ 104.3 (k)(2)(i).] 

Section 504 states that, “No qualified handicapped student shall, on the basis of handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any academic, research, occupational training, housing, health insurance, counseling, financial aid, physical education, athletics, recreation, transportation, other extracurricular, or other postsecondary education aid, benefits, or services to which this subpart applies.”[endnoteRef:31] Section 504 covers qualified students with disabilities[endnoteRef:32] who have a physical or mental disability that substantially limits one or more major life activities; or have a record of such a disability; or are regarded as having such a disability.[endnoteRef:33] [31:  34 C.F.R. § 104.43 (a).]  [32:  At the postsecondary educational level, a qualified student with a disability is a student with a disability who meets the academic and technical standards requisite for admission or participation in the institution's educational program or activity. 34 C.F.R. § 104.3(l)(2). ]  [33:  34 C.F.R. 104.3(j)(2)(i) defines a physical or mental impairment as any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological; musculoskeletal; special sense organs; respiratory, including speech organs; cardiovascular; reproductive; digestive; genito-urinary; hemic and lymphatic; skin; and endocrine; or any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.] 

Institutions of higher education covered by Section 504 must provide effective auxiliary aids to students with disabilities (e.g., sign-language interpreters, captioning services, assistive listening devices, assistive listening systems, telecommunications devices).[endnoteRef:34] If an aid is necessary for an appropriate (nonpersonal) use, the institution must make it available, unless provision of the aid would cause undue burden. A student with a disability may not be required to pay any of the costs of the aid or service, and an institution may not limit what it spends for such aids or services or refuse to provide them because other providers of these services exist. Institutions cannot condition the provision of such aids on the availability of funds.[endnoteRef:35] [34:  U.S. Department of Education, “Auxiliary Aids and Services for Postsecondary Students with Disabilities,” accessed October 31, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/auxaids.html. ]  [35:  U.S. Dept. of Education, “Auxiliary Aids,” https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/auxaids.html.] 

Title II of the ADA prohibits state and local governments from discriminating on the basis of disability and, like Section 504, applies to public colleges, universities, and graduate and professional schools. Title II applies to such institutions whether or not they receive federal financial assistance, and the requirements regarding the provision of auxiliary aids and services under Section 504 are generally included under Title II. 

Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in “places of public accommodation,” which includes colleges and universities.[endnoteRef:36] Titles II and III require that new facilities are fully accessible to people with disabilities. Title II emphasizes that colleges are not required to make structural changes to existing facilities that were built prior to enactment of federal accessibility requirements, where other methods are effective in achieving compliance; for example, colleges may make modifications to programs or relocate them to make them accessible.[endnoteRef:37] Similarly, if buildings have been constructed before 1977, Section 504 allows campuses to relocate programs or services to achieve accessibility. [36:  42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(j); 28 C.F.R. Part 36.]  [37:  28 C.F.R.§ 35.150(b).] 

Another foundational law is Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act[endnoteRef:38] as amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998[endnoteRef:39] (P.L.105-220), which requires federal agencies and other entities receiving federal funds to make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities. The standard applies to desktop and laptop computers, websites, and other Internet resources, videotapes and multimedia products, software, telecommunication products, and other electronic and information technology. While Section 508 does not apply to colleges, many campuses use Section 508 and Web Accessibility Initiative guidelines to determine definitions of accessibility for electronic and information technology.  [38:  29 U.S.C. §794(d).]  [39:  Pub.L.105-220, 112 Stat. 936 (August 7, 1998).] 

The requirements to provide needed auxiliary aids and have accessible facilities under Section 504 and Titles II and III of the ADA are important protections for students with disabilities who experience sexual assault. For example, after surviving a sexual assault, students who are wheelchair users or have limited mobility need physical access to victims’ services and other campus offices, and students who are Deaf or hard of hearing need interpreters or other auxiliary aids to communicate after such a trauma. 

## The Clery Act, Violence Against Women Act, and Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act 

The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act), a consumer protection law passed in 1990, requires all colleges and universities that receive federal funding to share information about crime on or around campus and their efforts to improve campus safety.[endnoteRef:40] This information is published in campus annual security reports (ASRs). Throughout the past 25 years, the Clery Act has been amended various times to increase reporting and college responses specific to sexual violence. Most recently, it was amended by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA),[endnoteRef:41] which imposed new obligations on colleges and universities under its Campus Sexual Violence Act (“SaVE Act”) provision, Section 304.  [40:  20 U.S.C. § 1092(f).]  [41:  Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act Of 2013, Pub. L. 113-4 (March 7, 2013.)] 

The Clery Act outlines how information about crime must be reported. Colleges are required to make information publicly accessible through ASRs that provide data regarding incidents of sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, stalking, and hate crimes occurring on campus, any building off campus that is owned or controlled by a student organization or by the college that is used in support of educational purposes, and public property within the campus area that is adjacent to the institution (such as sidewalks, streets, or parking facilities). The VAWA amendments added gender identity and national origin to the categories of bias that institutions must reflect within their statistics. Under the Clery Act, colleges must disseminate timely warnings and notification of crimes. College compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) does not prevent the institution from providing timely warnings about crimes. Under FERPA, in an emergency, crime information can be released without consent and the information is not protected. However, victims’ individual information must be kept confidential. 

The Clery Act also requires colleges to describe their policies regarding procedures to follow after an incident of sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, or stalking. It requires colleges to identify their policies on how students report crimes and provides rights to both parties (the accused and the accuser) in the campus disciplinary process. It also identifies the rights and options available to survivors, including changes to academic transportation and living or work situations as well as assistance in notifying local law enforcement. The Campus SaVE Act amended the Clery Act and further elaborated procedures for victims and standards of investigation, such as requiring colleges to create policies addressing victims’ confidentiality and training of officials to ensure hearings are conducted in a way that protects victims. Regarding law enforcement, the Campus SaVE Act requires institutions to have a policy statement that describes the jurisdiction of security personnel and identifies any agreements that are in place for the investigation of alleged criminal offenses (such as written memoranda of understanding [MOU] with local law enforcement). 

Lastly, the Clery Act requires education and prevention. The Campus SaVE Act mandates that colleges provide prevention and awareness programs regarding sexual misconduct that educate students on consent definitions, promote positive and healthy behaviors, and encourage safe bystander intervention. Campuses are to provide education programs to students and employees when first enrolled or hired and on an ongoing basis. 

## Title IX

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity that receives federal funding.[endnoteRef:42] Under Title IX, discrimination on the basis of sex can include sexual harassment, rape, and sexual assault.[endnoteRef:43] A college or university that receives federal funds may be held legally responsible when it knows about and ignores sexual harassment or assault in its programs or activities. As of September 22, 2017, colleges can adopt various standards of proof in sexual assault cases, from the lowest standard of proof (preponderance of evidence) to a higher standard of proof (clear and convincing evidence).[endnoteRef:44] Colleges are also required to appoint a Title IX coordinator who ensures that schools are in compliance with the law and oversees investigations and the disciplinary process.  [42:  20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq.]  [43:  U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, “Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972,” accessed July 24, 2017, https://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm. ]  [44:  Office for Civil Rights, Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance (66 Fed. Reg. 5512, Jan. 19, 2001), accessed November 1, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.pdf. See also OCR’s September 2017 Q&A documents, accessed November 9, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-title-ix-201709.pdf.] 

Like the Clery Act, Title IX requires colleges to adopt and publish grievance procedures that outline the complaint, investigation, and disciplinary process. These processes must be prompt (but no specific time frame is indicated), equitable, and allow for impartial investigation.[endnoteRef:45] Title IX, like the Clery Act, also requires college employers that address sexual assault to have proper training and to train the campus community in its policies and procedures regarding sexual assault.  [45:  34 C.F.R. § 106.8(b) ] 

# Chapter 5: Accessibility of College Sexual Assault Programs and Services

Colleges are responding in multiple ways to prevent and respond to sexual assault incidents in adherence to federal laws. Colleges provide educational and training programs to prevent sexual assault, post and disseminate information on sexual assault to encourage reporting, provide multiple sexual assault reporting options, and offer trauma or victim advocate services, mental health counseling, and/or support groups. Colleges also conduct investigations for instances of sexual assault to comply with Title IX. 

Whether all these programs and services are accessible to students with disabilities is questionable. NCD found that many colleges are not fully complying with the ADA or Section 504 and not making web materials accessible, and this noncompliance can prevent students with disabilities from accessing sexual assault programs, services, and information. Even if students with disabilities can access these services, they may experience a delay while they wait to receive disability accommodations that will ensure full participation. 

This chapter addresses research questions examining college policies and practices related to sexual assault and whether colleges are in compliance with federal disability laws. Questions are addressed as a cohesive set because responses to questions by college professional staff overlapped.

1. What is the current landscape of college policies and programs regarding sexual assault prevention and response? 

Do colleges comply with the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by ensuring that assault services are physically and programmatically accessible to students with physical and sensory disabilities?

Do colleges comply with the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by providing reasonable accommodations so students with disabilities can access and utilize support services if they have experienced sexual assault?

Are interpreters or other disability-related supports readily available to students who are Deaf or hard of hearing when making reports to campus law enforcement?

Do colleges maintain relationships with trauma and mental health providers in the community that provide similarly accessible services?

What gaps, weaknesses, and discriminatory policies exist in campus sexual assault services? 

## Accessibility of Education Programs and Information Related to Sexual Assault

Colleges are implementing a variety of education and prevention programs on their campuses and making information related to sexual assault readily available to students. Educational programs help develop students understanding of consent and healthy sexual relationships and support the prevention of alcohol abuse.[endnoteRef:46] Colleges use a range of online education prevention programs to reach all first-year students and other targeted populations, while complying with federal mandates for sexual assault prevention training. Colleges also organize in-person educational events facilitated by experts and peer educators throughout the year.[endnoteRef:47] Research suggests that education is the most effective method for preventing sexual assaults[endnoteRef:48] and increases students’ awareness of reporting options and supports. Students are more likely to report and access supports for sexual assault if they know the college policies, how to report the assault and access services, and that they have confidential reporting options.[endnoteRef:49] Improving awareness of college policies and procedures among students with disabilities can be a promising strategy to support them, because students with disabilities (similar to current trends for the undergraduate population at large) report not knowing about available resources and that they are more likely not to report abuse.[endnoteRef:50] The next section discusses whether colleges make online and in-person educational programs and educational information related to sexual assault services accessible to students with disabilities.  [46:  Association of American Universities, AAU Campus Activities Report: Combating Sexual Assault and Misconduct (Washington, DC: Association of American Universities, 2017), accessed July 24, 2017, https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Images/Key-Issues/Campus-Safety/AAU%20Climate%20Activities%20Full%20Report.pdf.]  [47:  Holly Rider-Milkovich, Charting the Path Forward: National Data Highlights on Promising Trends and Continuing Challenges in Campus Sexual Assault Prevention (Campus Prevention Network, It's on Us, 2017), accessed July 26, 2017, http://vawnet.org/material/charting-path-forward-national-data-highlights-promising-trends-and-continuing-challenges.]  [48:  Victoria L. Banyard, “Improving College Campus–Based Prevention of Violence Against Women: A Strategic Plan for Research Built on Multipronged Practices and Policies,” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 15, no. 4 (2014): 339–351.]  [49:  Jane E. Palmer and Erik Alda, “Examining the Impact of Federal Grants to Reduce Violent Crimes Against Women on Campus,” The Review of Higher Education 40, no. 1 (2016): 63–89.]  [50:  Patricia A. Findley, Sara-Beth Plummer, and Sarah McMahon, “Exploring the Experiences of Abuse of College Students with Disabilities,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 31, no. 17 (2015): 2801–2823.] 

### Accessibility of Online Prevention Training Programs 

College campuses often use predeveloped online prevention programs that address various aspects of effective prevention, such as alcohol abuse, consent and rape myths, and bystander education.[endnoteRef:51] Twenty-seven percent of interviewees and 24 percent of questionnaire responses indicated that some or all online prevention training programs were accessible to students with disabilities. For example, professionals reported that online videos were captioned or students were provided transcripts. One professional explained that staff members from the office of services for students with disabilities were included in the selection of online programs, and therefore, they should be accessible to students.  [51:  Colleges can select a range of online education programs to provide mandated prevention educational programs. A list of potential programs can be found at https://cultureofrespect.org/colleges-universities/programs, accessed July 26, 2017.] 

However, 5 (19 percent) college professional staff said in interviews, and 12 college professional staff (12 percent) indicated in their questionnaire responses that all or some of their online education programs were not accessible. Two interviewees and two questionnaire responses indicated that they were unsure that these training courses were accessible. Staff lamented that videos *should* be captioned and two staff members explained that they were in the process of making the programs accessible. Two college staff members explained that programs purchased by their college were inaccessible, but they worked extensively with the online program provider to make these programs accessible. One ADA/504 coordinator explained, “[The online program] was not fully accessible, and we have worked very hard with the company to provide them feedback regarding what is accessible and what is not. We let them know what the accessibility challenges are. They’ve complied with most of it.” An administrator for disability services explained that staff members evaluated their college’s online program to ensure it was “accessible to many needs” because students are penalized for not watching the video. 

### Accessibility of In-Person Education or Prevention Programs

When asked about the accessibility of in-person education programs or events for students who are Deaf or hard of hearing or have visual impairments, 7 interviewees (26 percent) and 14 questionnaire respondents (14 percent) explained that students could request accommodations for these events in advance and information about this process is given to students. A review of college disability services websites yielded similar results. Of the 27 colleges with staff participating in interviews, 11 of these colleges posted policies on their websites informing students about the advance time needed to arrange accommodations for activities for nonclassroom requests. Request periods for the 10 colleges ranged from 24 hours to 14 days. The one college with a 24-hour request period noted that accommodations could be arranged for tutoring, review sessions, or meetings with instructors. Other colleges did not list a time period. 

Interviewees also mentioned that information about how to request accommodations are reportedly posted on event fliers or notices, and students contacted whomever oversees the event to request accommodations. For example, one questionnaire respondent wrote that all event and program flyers stated, “For accommodations or information, please contact [email address].” Most but not all college staff and students reported minimal issues for students with physical disabilities to access sexual assault training and resources. 

While most college staff members indicated that they are complying with federal law regarding reasonable accommodations, seven staff members acknowledged challenges at their campuses with providing accommodations during in-person training. One college staff respondent to the questionnaire stated, “There is no formal process for accommodations in place for the in-person training.” Another staff member mentioned not being able to provide interpreters during in-person training, while a third staff member commented about the challenge of securing interpreters in a “timely” manner. 

Responses from four students concurred with responses from college professionals’ reports on inaccessibility. When asked if educational programs at their schools were accessible to students with disabilities, one student explained, “I would like to say yes for the most part, but the events that I have been to have often been in areas that are too hard to get to with a wheelchair, or no interpreters for [students].” Another student reported, “There were no interpreters in the freshman seminar, and the classroom wasn’t wheelchair accessible.” 

Two college staff members reported that students often do not know the process for requesting accommodations, and two students agreed with this assessment. One of these students stated in the questionnaire that asking for accommodations was a “complicated” process. A disability services administrator acknowledged that this process places the “onus” on the student to request the accommodation in advance, which is standard procedure on most campuses. One student commented that asking for accommodations in advance makes students feel like an “inconvenience.” Another student commented that schedules for events were not provided early enough to request accommodations. Because the policy requires students to ask for accommodations in advance, students must be knowledgeable about events, understand the procedures for requesting services, and know that services will not be provided unless requested. This speaks to the importance of colleges ensuring that they provide information on the accommodations process to incoming students and all students in a widespread and repetitive manner, posting the information on college websites and administrative offices as well as disseminating the information through instructors and staff.

### Accessibility of Sexual Assault Information, Policies, and Reporting Options 

When asked whether sexual assault information was accessible to students with visual impairments using a computerized screen reader to access text and images, staff from five colleges replied in the negative. Staff at one college reported that campus professionals have limited awareness of accessibility standards for websites and online information at the campus. For example, two disability services administrators reported that online forms to report sexual assault or conduct intake for counseling are not screen reader accessible. One Title IX coordinator explained how most materials at the coordinator’s college, including websites, were not accessible to students with visual impairments. Another staff member mentioned that his or her college is beginning to review the Title IX website for readability and challenges with accessibility. This college’s Title IX website includes all information related to accessing sexual assault services, such as policy language, reporting options, and resources for students to access as well as how to contact various staff, including the Title IX coordinator. One disability services administrator was certain the Title IX website was accessible because staff from technology services regularly “spot check” the college websites for screen reader accessibility. 

Website accessibility, not solely those websites related to sexual assault information, continues to be a challenge on college campuses across the nation. Complaints to the Office of Civil Rights regarding web accessibility for student with disabilities are growing every year.[endnoteRef:52] In 2017, disability rights advocates have filed lawsuits against approximately 30 colleges whose websites fail to meet accessibility standards for students with disabilities, including students who are Deaf or hard of hearing or who have visual impairments.[endnoteRef:53] In a 2015 audit, 27 out of 58 web pages selected for review in the California community colleges’ online enrollment system were found to have distinct violations of the California accessibility standards.[endnoteRef:54] Three common violations were found across multiple websites. Critical violations were those that made content completely inaccessible to users, and significant violations resulted in serious barriers, making some but not all the content accessible. This audit found that the 27 web pages had 26 critical violations and 64 serious violations.  [52:  U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Delivering Justice: Report to the President and Secretary of Education Under Section 203(b)(1) of the Department of Education Organization Act, FY 2015 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2016).]  [53:  Peter Schmidt, “One Activist Has Hundreds of Colleges under the Gun to Fix Their Websites,” Chronicle of Higher Education (July 2017), accessed August 10, 2017, http://www.chronicle.com/article/One-Activist-Has-Hundreds-of/240551.]  [54:  California State Auditor, California State Government Websites: Departments Must Improve Website Accessibility So That Persons with Disabilities Have Comparable Access to State Services Online (Sacramento, CA: California State Auditor, 2015), accessed August 5, 2017, http://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2014-131.pdf.] 

### Accessibility of Printed Sexual Assault Materials 

Many of our interviewees commented on the lack of printed sexual assault information, such as reporting procedures or counseling resource options, for students with visual impairments. College staff from six colleges reported that materials were not available in braille or large print, and college staff members from seven colleges indicated that their colleges do not provide this accommodation in relation to sexual assault services. Specifically, one Title IX coordinator explained that accessible materials about sexual assault reporting procedures were not available. Another Title IX coordinator explained that neither the Title IX brochure nor materials about off-campus and on-campus resources for sexual assault were available in various formats. Two staff members explained that their college would only provide such materials when it was requested. One Title IX coordinator explained, “We don’t have things proactively in place for that . . . We would be reactive versus proactive.” One 504/ADA coordinator elaborated that access to information remained the biggest access challenge at their college: “There is no ease of accessing information. The places where we fall into things where we’re not compliant and potentially discriminatory are mostly around the accessibility of information being provided.” 

When asked about accessibility of print information for students with visual disabilities, three college staff members reported that their college is attempting to adhere to the concept of universal design to make sure that all materials are accessible to all students. The Center for Universal Design defines *universal design* as "the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.”[endnoteRef:55] For example, one college staff member reported that their counseling center provides both paper and online intake forms (although neither of these formats guarantees accessibility for people with visual or print-related disabilities).  [55:  North Carolina State University, “The Principles of Universal Design,” accessed July 9, 2017, https://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm.] 

## Access to Sexual Assault Trauma or Support Services

In response to students who have experienced sexual assault, colleges are providing support and trauma services, such as making confidential sources available to students who may not want to report an assault immediately, victim advocates (including peer advocates) who guide students through accessing immediate resources after an incident, mental health counseling, and support groups. Students are also given various options to report sexual assault if they choose. But again, access to these services for students with disabilities at all colleges is questionable. College professionals and students report that buildings housing these services can be inaccessible. Furthermore, disability-related supports, such as interpreters, may not be available immediately for students who need them. This section reports issues with physical access and explains challenges with providing disability-related supports in a timely manner. It also explains how colleges lack policies and procedures for personnel responding to crisis situations. 

### Physical Access to Sexual Assault Services

As reported previously in the section explaining physical access to in-person training, most college staff and students note that buildings at their colleges are physically accessible. But four staff members and three students reported challenges with physically accessing sexual assault services. A Title IX coordinator remarked on the culture on campus to make buildings accessible. This person explained that because the college does not have a lot of students with physical disabilities, the “argument” made by others is that a lot of students “don’t need those services.” These barriers can prevent students from receiving services if they have experienced sexual assault. For example, a sexual assault counselor at a college mentioned that the student counseling center does not have an automatic door opener for a student with physical disabilities. Further, this counselor explained that some counseling center rooms “are too small” for someone in a wheelchair or someone using an assisted-walking device. A college staff member responded in the questionnaire that while the Women’s Center was “as accessible as it can be,” access issues remain because students with mobility issues can only enter through the back door. Another sexual assault services administrator acknowledged similar access difficulties to the victim services building, and that wheelchair users would not be able to access the wheelchair lift located on the bottom floor because the floor was only accessible via stairs. This coordinator also acknowledged that the location of the building on the edge of campus acted as an access barrier for all students, including students with physical disabilities or mobility issues. One student reported similar access challenges. This student explained that not only is the sexual assault resource center located on the third floor in the student health office, that office is far from “other parts of campus,” making the office “so difficult to get to, and far from counselling, so difficult for those with mobility disabilities.”

One sexual assault services administrator described an additional challenge posed by the college’s lack of focus on accessibility issues for students with disabilities when accessing trauma services—the process of transporting a student with a physical disability for immediate medical attention after a sexual assault. Although the campus has a shuttle used to transport students who use wheelchairs, the shuttle is not accessible in crisis situations. The only option to transport a student using a wheelchair would be an ambulance. The staff member bemoaned how transporting a student in an ambulance would add another layer of trauma to the survivor. Because the college would need to use an ambulance and not regular transport, the coordinator hypothesized that the student may receive substandard trauma care, because in that community, emergency medical services would be required to bring the student to the local hospital instead of a hospital specializing in treating survivors of assault, as preferred by the victim services center.

### Lack of Immediate Auxiliary Aids or Disability-Related Supports When Accessing Sexual Assault Supports

In interviews, college professionals gave varied responses about the availability of American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters or other auxiliary aides for Deaf or hard of hearing students seeking crisis support, such as reporting sexual assault to a Title IX coordinator, confidential source, or campus security and accessing trauma or counseling services. 

Staff members from eight colleges explained that their colleges had some type of communication support immediately available for students, especially for those students who do not know ASL, or that they could access an ASL interpreter within a day. Five colleges reported having assistive technology available to communicate with students if ASL interpreters were not available. Two colleges reported having Communication Access Real-Time Translation (CART) systems that would provide real-time captioning for communication, two colleges had UbiDuo keyboarding systems where people could type to each other, and one college had both an UbiDuo and an FM system that provides portable amplification of sounds. One Title IX coordinator explained the varied resources at hand if a Deaf or hard of hearing student was assaulted and needed immediate assistance: “We do have staff that can sign and in emergencies could access them. We do have a gatekeeper at student services who would use UbiDuo to get them situated immediately. We subscribe to other services . . . immediate video relay. If I needed something right away, we could dial into the relay. It’s imperfect and I prefer to have trained interpreters but would have alternatives if that occurred.” One disability services director explained that a sexual assault helpline was accessible if a student had access to a TTY (a typewriter that can be used to make phone calls via a relay service) if the counseling services office was closed. This assumes, however, that a student has access to telecommunication equipment. 

On the other hand, professionals from nine college campuses indicated that ASL interpreters were not “readily available” and a request would involve unknown wait times. The White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault’s key components of sexual assault crisis intervention and victim services suggests that advocacy services should be available 24 hours a day for immediate response, but whether colleges could adhere to this guideline was doubtful. When asked how colleges would respond if a student with disabilities or a Deaf or hard of hearing student wanted to make a report or access services, one disability services director said that, in general, “accommodations are not immediately available—it depends on what’s needed. There are no interpreters on campus. They must be arranged. It really depends.” One counselor mentioned that if a Deaf or hard of hearing student came to the center requesting services, the staff would be “scrambling” to figure out how to serve the student. No specific procedures were written about access for a Deaf or hard of hearing survivor of sexual assault. Instead, the counselor mentioned having to consult a supervisor and calling the disability services office on campus. This staff member concluded that a Deaf or hard of hearing student would have to wait much longer to be served than a student who was not Deaf or hard of hearing. At another college, one sexual assault services administrator believed no interpreters were available for therapy and students would need to see community providers. This staff member provided no response about how the sexual assault services center would accommodate a Deaf or hard of hearing student. 

In contrast, three disability services administrators reported having interpreters on staff that could be used immediately in a crisis, such as accessing counseling services or reporting sexual assault. Two administrators suggested they would “pull” the staff interpreter from a current assignment in the case of a situation that needed immediate support, such as responding to a sexual assault incident. One administrator reported having done this before in crisis situations. A third administrator reported, however, that if no staff interpreters nor CART services were available, then the wait time for an interpreter would be unclear: “There would be no guarantee we would do it as fast as we could.” Instead, staff would resort to writing notes back and forth on a “pad of paper” with the student, if the student could write.[endnoteRef:56] This staff member acknowledged the unsuitability of this approach but had used it before in emergencies and considered it valid in the case of supporting a survivor of sexual assault. However, such ad hoc communication support strategies are not recommended by Deaf or hard of hearing advocates. This is especially true if the student’s first language is ASL, because interactions would occur in the student’s non-native language, which can lead to confusion and frustration.[endnoteRef:57]  [56:  This staff member did not report how they dealt with the transcript of the conversation. ]  [57:  Nancy Smith and Charity Hope, Culture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence (New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, 2015), accessed August 15, 2017, https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/culture-language-and-access-key-considerations-for-serving-deaf-survivors-of-domestic-and-sexual-violence/legacy_downloads/serving-deaf-survivors-domestic-sexual-violence.pdf.] 

Staff at four colleges also acknowledged the problematic nature of not having immediate disability-related supports in place for students, especially when relying on on-campus staff, because many incidents happen on nights or on weekends. One staff member explained, “If [students] need accommodations immediately, or after hours, or [they are] reporting to police directly, that would be challenging.” One sexual assault services administrator elaborated on this challenge: “I think especially when it comes to ASL interpreters . . . How are we going to access them? I think traditionally, in theory, that if health services is open, we will contact them and they have a [interpreting] service we can use. They have a provider with interpreters for the [Deaf or hard of hearing population]. But the reality is that they are not open 24/7 and we get things during the time when they are not open.” A student elaborated on an experience with securing supports after business hours, saying, “It is not my job to figure out how to schedule an interpreter outside of the normal hours; it is yours.”

Even if interpreters are available, they may not have the language skills or preparation to interpret for survivors of sexual assault, especially in disciplinary proceedings, in a way that minimizes trauma and considers survivors’ safety. Interpreters who interpret for academic classes or remote interpreters may not be familiar with supporting survivors’ needs. In addition, using interpreters personally known to the student can compromise the confidentiality and objectivity of the interpreter.[endnoteRef:58] The Vera Center on Victimization and Safety names a lack of qualified interpreters as an additional communication access barrier faced by Deaf or hard of hearing survivors, in addition to the barriers named previously, and recommends that interpreters are trained in “vocabulary specific to domestic and sexual violence, trauma and communication, ethics, safety planning, and self-care” to support Deaf or hard of hearing survivors.[endnoteRef:59] Without this training, Vera Center on Victimization and Safety suggests supports may not be tailored to survivors’ needs and that “imprecise” communication can harm the accuracy of reports used in legal proceedings.[endnoteRef:60] The New York Office of the Prevention of Domestic Violence recommends survivor groups recruit and train Trauma-Informed Qualified Interpreters who could be shared across communities to provide effective communication for Deaf or hard of hearing survivors.[endnoteRef:61] One expert researching the prevalence of sexual assault among Deaf or hard of hearing students commented in interviews that interpreters who support Deaf or hard of hearing survivors should be familiar with the necessary language or procedures related to sexual assault services processes. This expert recommended that certified interpreters familiar with the legal process and language be available to interpret for sexual assault cases, similar to how federal courts and some state courts require these interpreters to have specialized training.[endnoteRef:62]  [58:  Kelly Stewart, Anna Witter-Merithew, and Margaret Cobb, Best Practices: American Sign Language and English Interpretation within Legal Settings (The National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers, 2009), accessed August 15, 2017, http://www.interpretereducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/LegalBestPractices_NCIEC2009.pdf.]  [59:  Stewart et al., Best Practices, 17. ]  [60:  Stewart et al., Best Practices, 16. ]  [61:  Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, “Bulletins – Summer 2013 OPDV Bulletin,” accessed August 15, 2017, http://www.opdv.ny.gov/public_awareness/bulletins/summer2013/deafdvsurvivors.html.]  [62:  Stewart et al., Best Practices. Supra at 43.] 

### Lack of Policies and Procedures Detailing Responses in Crisis Situations

Professionals recognized that much of their inability to immediately provide disability-related supports was due to the lack of explicit procedures. Interviewees from 14 colleges (52 percent) reported that their colleges had no policies or procedures in place to support survivors of sexual assault who may need immediate disability-related accommodations. Instead, their responses would be determined “on the fly.” While the questionnaires did not ask specifically about crisis procedures, four questionnaire responses noted the lack of policies and procedures. One disability services administrator commented, “We haven't discussed accommodations for those who have experienced assault.” Seventeen other questionnaire respondents indicated that the procedure for providing accommodations for sexual assault services was for students to disclose their disabilities or accommodation need to the Title IX office (which would then contact the disability services office) or the student would contact the disability services office directly. No responses indicated flexible accommodation processes with a variety of options during the sexual assault reporting and follow-up process. 

Only three interviewees (11 percent) responded with specificity about their procedures on providing disability supports during a crisis. One Title IX investigator said, “We have a contact person at interpreting services. I haven’t needed them that fast yet. I haven’t had to test it, but we have an agreement for that to happen. [There is an] awareness of who to call and how to access.” Another disability services administrator mentioned that the disability manual had a policy specific for crisis situations but that this was not a college-wide policy. 

The rest of the interviewee responses about procedures were hypothetical or adapted from other crisis situations when supports were needed immediately. These interviewees used uncertain language such as “what we would probably do” or “I assume that” when asked how the college would respond if a Deaf or hard of hearing student or student with visual impairments was assaulted and required immediate support. One Title IX coordinator explained that because the “situation has never come up,” his or her college lacks appropriate accommodations or policies that outline how to respond. 

Interviewees transparently stated that their college lacked policies and procedures and acknowledged that these policies should be created. One sexual assault services director explained, “How do we ensure that students can get these accommodations, which are critical but are also engaged in supports for themselves as well? Some of these things we don’t have in place but it would be ideal.” A Title IX coordinator mentioned that although the college website states that students can request accommodations, it was insufficient to meaningfully support survivors with disabilities. This coordinator explained that the college’s current policy is “way below standard here. We have tag lines that say that if you are a person who needs accommodations it says who to contact. It’s not very proactive.” One sexual assault services administrator mentioned that upon receiving the interview questions for this research project, it was clear that the college needed to “put some things in motion to realistically address the needs of students [with disabilities]” despite recognizing publicly on the college website that students with disabilities are a population requiring more attention. This staff member had only recognized the importance of students with disabilities in writing but had not thought about how to translate the language of the website into action steps. 

During phone interviews, two disability services administrators said they recognized current gaps in their colleges’ policy language on the website. While explaining a specific procedure for requesting interpreters in crisis situations, one administrator recognized that crisis procedures were not mentioned on the college website, even though the college is able to secure interpreters within 24 hours (in contrast to the normal one-week notice needed for other requests). Another administrator reviewed the sexual assault policy page and noticed a lack of language pertaining to students requesting accommodations. The administrator acknowledged this misstep, saying, “I just looked at our new sexual assault policy again, and there are tons of resources, but nothing that says, ‘if you wish to have accommodations’ (which is my bad), for students or staff. Nothing here about the need for accommodations, which is **not** okay.” 

Five students also commented on the lack of transparency and awareness about the accommodation process, as well as the inclusivity of college support services. Four of these students made the challenges known in their recommendations. One student mentioned, “Put info on what can be done for survivors. Share information on exactly what [disability services] can/would do for survivors [with disabilities] (on the website for example).” Another student suggested, “Advertise, clarify that access needs will be met, offer material in alternate formats/interpreters/buddies/etc.” One student elaborated on a sentiment explained earlier in this chapter about the burden students may feel when requesting accommodations and wrote, “Provide examples of accommodations instead of making it seem like a weird edge case.”

A search for accommodation policies in crisis situations and contact information for disability services on Title IX or sexual assault resources websites of 27 of the colleges that participated in phone interviews yielded similar findings. First, only 1 of the 27 colleges in which staff were interviewed mentioned on their websites that information about sexual assault reporting or resources was provided in alternate formats. No policies for accommodations in crisis situations were posted. As mentioned in the section on “Accessibility of In-Person Education or Prevention Programs,” only 10 of the colleges posted the request period for students to request accommodations in advance for nonclassroom accommodations. The average wait time was 5.5 days. Furthermore, only two colleges mentioned disability resources as a support on their sexual assault services or Title IX websites. One of these colleges mentioned this in in a downloadable PDF brochure, which may or may not be accessible by screen readers.

### Recognition of the Lack of Policies and Procedures

Many respondents mentioned that participation in the NCD data collection process raised awareness of their colleges’ lack of policies and procedures related to sexual assault services and thus inattention to serving students with disabilities. With their new awareness, they could begin identifying policies or procedures to put in place. For example, one sexual assault counselor explained during an interview, “We need to revise the policy and procedures manual. It would depend on the type of accommodation needed and the need to involve the access center and the challenges with confidentiality. There is nothing that is written. There is nothing that is written in the procedure.” Another sexual assault services coordinator reported that participating in the interview made the coordinator more “conscientious” about the lack of procedures at the college for students with disabilities. 

In interview and questionnaire responses, college staff members mentioned potential changes or modifications to their campus practices, based upon their increased awareness during participation in this study. One counseling center staff member explained that they would revise the policy and procedures manual to include provision of disability accommodations, based on existing barriers that were unearthed during the interview. One Title IX coordinator mentioned various steps that would follow: 

I think first, look within sexual assault policy, [to include] a piece about disability services being offered. It needs to be brought up before. Put [an explanation] in email about those services. [We need to] talk with disability services and let them know about the email, and put together a protocol or memorandum of understanding with disability services, and working with disability services to help draft an accommodations letter for any student receiving accommodations through Title IX, and doing some training with all of campus or first those people who have direct interactions with those working directly with those students. 

## Accommodations Provided During the Conduct Process and Communication with Law Enforcement

Compliance with Title IX laws require colleges to investigate sexual assault or misconduct incidents. Eight interviewees reported that if students with disabilities go through these processes as claimants, the campus disability services office would work with the coordinator of the conduct process to provide the necessary accommodations to students. Five of these interviewees explained that if law enforcement or campus security were involved during the investigation phase, they would be able to provide needed accommodations if students disclosed their disability status to the Title IX coordinator at the start of this process. The Title IX coordinator would then request appropriate accommodations. However, no Title IX coordinator or disability services administrator mentioned that students would know how to request disability accommodations while also disclosing a disability during this process. Typically, students should not need to disclose their disabilities to anyone outside of disability services when requesting accommodations, because a diagnosis is protected health information under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. All interviewees indicated that disability services or an ADA coordinator would be called once a student disclosed a disability or need for accommodations. For example, one disability services administrator explained, “While we don’t have anything formal in place, our staff who are deans who coordinate the process would be contacting us and asking if they have accommodation needs.” However, this director had only participated in one process where both the victim and perpetrator had physical disabilities and could not speak to what would occur with a student who was Deaf or hard of hearing, but the director assumed that accommodations would be made. Another disability services administrator explained, “Every time a student with a disability identifies, Title IX thinks [the person has a disability], I get called to consult.”

Five disability services administrators reported in interviews that students were being given the appropriate accommodations at their colleges because staff participated in conduct management teams (Communication, Action, Response, Evaluation [CARE] teams) or students’ needs were addressed through collaboration between a diverse group of campus staff, including campus law enforcement. According to the National Behavioral Intervention Team Association, a CARE team is “a multidisciplinary group whose purpose is meeting regularly . . . track[ing] ‘red flags’ over time, detecting patterns, trends, and disturbances in individual or group behavior.” The teams are a “proactive way to address the growing need in the college and university community for a centralized, coordinated, caring, developmental intervention for those in need, prior to crisis.”[endnoteRef:63] One disability services administrator explained the process of collaboration between the disability services department and the student conduct office by saying, “The conduct manager serves on the CARE team. Any time one of my students goes through the [disciplinary] process, we consult on what that student might need. There is a letter that goes out to students—[it] indicates getting in touch with student conduct [department] or [disability services] if they need accommodations, and [students] can reach out during any time during the process for accommodations.” [63:  The National Behavioral Intervention Team Association, “Behavioral Intervention Teams,” accessed July 20, 2017, https://nabita.org/behavioral-intervention-teams. ] 

Another staff member explained how the CARE team collaborates to support students who are going through this process to ensure the team accommodates their needs and does not traumatize them: 

The director of disability services sits on our case management team for Title IX issues, so when names [of students] arrive, he could know . . . the student’s name, any additional challenges that the student might have presented. Our behavioral intervention manger sits in, as well. We would have a holistic view of a student’s needs before they get interviewed.

This staff member explained how these collaborative relationships came into play when supporting a student who had witnessed an incident of sexual assault and another traumatic incident after experiencing registering for disability services due to a prior incident of sexual assault. Because the team knew the student’s prior experiences, it was able to tailor its support. The staff member explained that the CARE team “knew [the student] was going to need more supports above what just happened. We did some real triage to make sure [the student] didn’t have to interact with new individuals.”

One interviewee reported how the conduct process can be problematic if the student has an invisible disability and has not made this known to the disability services office. If a student does not identify a medical or mental health condition as a disability or is not aware of the process for requesting accommodations during the conduct process, then the student may not receive equitable treatment. Only one staff member described a standard practice of proactively informing students about their right to request accommodations during the conduct process. At this college, the student conduct letter specifically mentions how to request accommodations, although the letter presumes students understand the campus definition of “disability” and have documented their disabilities with the disability services office. An adapted version of that statement follows: 

You may choose to have a non-attorney support person attend any of the meetings. Please notify the college if you plan to have a support person attend; if you are a limited-English-speaking or hearing-impaired individual you may request an interpreter and it will be provided. You may also request other disability-related accommodations. We will work with the Disability Resource Center to guarantee equal access in this process. Please contact the college immediately if an interpreter or other accommodation is needed.

Three interviewees commented on the challenges that students with disabilities would face in the conduct process, specifically students with autism or students with visual impairments. One interviewee explained that in one situation, a conduct process went “better than they could have expected” because the dean of students knew the student with autism. The disability services administrator explained the potential challenges that can arise if a student cannot understand subtle or complex questions asked of them during this process, or how behaviors could be misinterpreted by others and affect the outcome of the investigation, noting, “As the investigators, [they] are looking for that pattern and was this person preyed upon? It’s because [the decision] is based on a preponderance of evidence.”[endnoteRef:64] [64:  Data collection for this study was completed prior to the Department of Education’s rescinding of the Obama administration’s guidelines on the standard of proof. ] 

Another disability services administrator explained the potential challenge if a student with a visual impairment was participating in this process, because there is an unchallenged assumption that claimants and witnesses must be able to see: “Our trainers and investigators are trying to figure out what happened. But if you can’t see what happened, how do they know to ask questions that aren’t visual to get the info you need? And I think that is the critical piece, and looking at these different populations to get to the information you need. And then relying on witnesses. If no witnesses, then you can get in a tricky position.” However, none of the staff interviewed had provided accommodations for a person with visual impairments and could not speak to how this process would unfold during a conduct process. As with other scenarios, staff could only guess what might occur in hypothetical situations when no procedures or policies were in place to provide guidance.

## **Access to Accessible Services Outside of Campus**

Staff members from seven colleges reported that their colleges maintain relationships with off-campus sexual assault providers. Of those seven, only two staff members were certain that the providers could offer accessible services to Deaf or hard of hearing students, with one staff member explaining that the community provider would experience a “lag” in securing an interpreter. Other college professional staff members were unsure about the accessibility of these services to students with disabilities. Maintaining relationships with community-based providers is critical because students may be wary of stigma and may not want to access services on campus.[endnoteRef:65] In addition, campus mental health services can be at capacity and students may not be able to receive services in a timely manner, if at all.[endnoteRef:66] One staff member did not know if local services were accessible, while acknowledging that many students received sexual assault services from a local community provider because of the lack of assault services on campus. One Title IX coordinator believed that the community providers are not “equipped” to deal with a student with visual impairments, but that the provider can provide supports to Deaf or hard of hearing students.[endnoteRef:67] These responses by college professional staff suggest that creating relationships with community providers, especially providers with accessible services, is an afterthought.  [65:  Chiara Sabina and Lavina Y. Ho, “Campus and College Victim Responses to Sexual Assault and Dating Violence: Disclosure, Service Utilization, and Service Provision,” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 15, no. 3 (2014): 201–226.]  [66:  National Council on Disability, Mental Health on College Campuses. Supra at 16.]  [67:  None of these respondents were asked for or provided information on how students’ insurance plans would cover such services. ] 

# Chapter 6: “You’ve given me a lot to think about:” Existing Gaps in Services and Promising Practices

Responses by college professional staff in interviews and questionnaires indicate that colleges do not have policies and procedures in place for situations in which victims of assault have a disability—in particular students who are Deaf or hard of hearing. Students with disabilities remain on the periphery and are not addressed regarding sexual assault prevention, outreach, and services. In many cases, staff members are confident they could address any situation that may arise, but their confidence is based on numerous assumptions about on-campus and off-campus providers as well as assumptions about students’ shared definitions of disability and ability to articulate disability-related needs, prior knowledge of campus procedures and legalities, and ability to calmly and rationally self-advocate while participating in a traumatic crisis and its aftermath. Chapter 5 addressed two major gaps: the lack of college compliance with federal disability laws and the lack of policies or procedures that outline how staff are to respond when serving students with disabilities. With a heightened awareness from participation in the NCD study, many staff members identified new procedures or language to include in their sexual assault policies and additional ways to make programs or information accessible to students with disabilities. 

This chapter explains additional gaps in colleges’ programming and policies, focusing on educational programs and college staff members’ understanding of disability. This chapter addresses collaboration between campus programs to ensure access for students with disabilities, how data collection and reporting marginalizes students with disabilities, and these students’ experiences with campus violence and sexual assault. This chapter also identifies some promising practices that may be replicated or scaled up nationally and also addresses the following research questions:

What gaps, weaknesses, and discriminatory policies exist in campus sexual assault services? 

What are the current most promising and best practices and emerging trends (e.g., healthy sexual relationship training for incoming freshmen, bystander awareness training to teach students to step in to stop sexual assault, climate surveys, and changes in college disciplinary board rules)?

Are disability student organizations connected to sexual assault survivor groups on campus? Are campus disability services and resource offices connected to mental health services to ensure students with disabilities are getting the ongoing services they need after an assault (e.g., therapy)?

Have college staff and faculty received training to provide support for students with disabilities who have experienced sexual assault?

Has campus law enforcement received disability awareness training in taking reports from victims/witnesses with disabilities? 

## Interactions Between Sexual Assault Support Services Offices and Disability Services 

Lack of policies or procedures to address the needs of students with disabilities may be due to what some college staff consider the “siloing” of disability services and sexual assault services offices, such as the Title IX office. Seven college staff members and one student mentioned the separation of these campus services when explaining why their colleges may not be considering students with disabilities in sexual assault services. For example, one staff member of a disability services office explained the effects of this separation on college practice: “There is no training to the staff at the women's center, no discernment of disability as one of the [students’] identities. There is not much contact between our office and the sexual assault people and protocols.” One student explained that their college could “improve” the sexual assault supports for students with disabilities and recommended that the college “significantly improve communication between the Title IX Coordinator/staff and Disability Services.” 

A college professional explained, in questionnaire responses, how interactions between these groups may not occur because it is not part of the college culture: “As the disability service provider, we have worked with student services and other units (e.g., counseling and the health center) to provide suggestions, etc. However, this is done when we reach out. It is not something they automatically consider.” Another college professional mirrored these sentiments: “The problem that I’m seeing is that there’s a complete disconnect between sexual assault and disability services. Within disability services, they have an understanding that they are only there to provide accommodations for classroom learning. They don’t talk to each other and also understand themselves in limited ways and capacities. To my knowledge, [they] don’t have procedures or policies for it.” 

In contrast, some colleges report that intentional interactions happen between Title IX and ADA/disability services and mental health services, and because of this, they are better able to serve students with disabilities when and if a sexual assault incident occurs. For some college professionals, these intentional interactions occur in CARE teams that were explained in detail in Chapter 5 under the section titled “Accommodations Provided During the Conduct Process and Communication with Law Enforcement.” A greater awareness of students’ needs may come about because these teams bring together staff from these offices, campus law enforcement, and mental health service providers to support students. These teams provide connections where college professionals could ensure that students receive needed counseling or supports. One Title IX coordinator mentioned that whether or not disability services is involved, the Title IX process ensures that students who are on “either side of the complaint” are receiving mental health services either on campus or from off-campus providers. CARE teams with disability services professionals may have a heightened awareness, however, that students receiving mental health services off campus are aware of their rights to disability accommodations on campus, including services for academic courses. 

These teams can also create relationships between the disability services office and Title IX, which can be utilized in future incidents. One Title IX coordinator elaborated, “We have a partnership with the office of disability services, and we are both housed within the office of the dean of students. Coming out of that, we have a level of trust. And having led the behavioral intervention team, I know that many students with disabilities tend to be a higher percentage of complainants/victims/survivors (however they identify). [Student disability] ranges from psych, medical, physical, and other impairments. Seeing other disability services connected in that way, I had access.” Another disability director sits on a CARE team with the conduct officer and reported that they “collaborate closely.” Although they have not had a Title IX “incident” yet with a student with a disability, the two collaborate on other conduct issues and providing the appropriate accommodations to students. For example, a disability services director explained, “The conduct manager serves on [the] CARE team. Anytime [a student with a disability] goes through the process, we consult on what that student might need . . . I sent [the conduct officer] something for how to keep in mind disability services when thinking through sanctions and timing for those.”

Other staff members who report closer connections between sexual assault and disability services serve on conduct boards or collaborate as Title IX investigators and therefore are part of the Title IX process. Five of those who served in disability services roles at their colleges also participated in Title IX or student conduct process. When explaining promising college practices, college staff mentioned these tighter collaborations. Two colleges also mentioned that their disability staff is trained as sexual assault advocates. Sexual assault advocates provide confidential guidance and support to students who have experienced sexual assault and assist with filing reports and obtaining medical or trauma care. 

Unfortunately, college staff did not report collaboration between organizations for students with disabilities (i.e., ASL clubs, disability cultural centers) and survivor groups. Professionals from 11 colleges reported that they did not have on-campus support groups for students due to a lack of enough students to form the groups. Only staff from nine colleges reported having campus sexual assault support groups. One respondent reporting on support groups explained that the connection with disability services was more of an awareness as opposed to actual collaboration around support group programming. 

## Lack of Disability Training Among Staff and Faculty

Lack of policies and procedures for students with disabilities may be due to the lack of staff understanding of disability. College staff from 12 colleges reported in interviews that the counselors, sexual assault advocates, faculty, or other staff that may interact with students after an incident of sexual assault are not trained in disability issues, or they have only a limited understanding given what would be necessary when supporting students with disabilities in a crisis. Seven questionnaire respondents reported that disability training was not provided to staff that support survivors (i.e., wellness center staff, counselors) on their campus. Only four staff indicated in the questionnaires that peer advocates were trained in understanding disability, and five college staff reported being unsure about the level of training. Considering the prevalence of colleges using peer educators to support prevention efforts, a recent report highlighted the dearth of training peer educators receive in general.[endnoteRef:68] If most peer educators surveyed only receive up to 10 hours of training, then whether disability is included in that training is up for question.[endnoteRef:69] Only staff from two colleges reported that the disability services department partnered with sexual assault service providers to offer disability-related training. One disability services administrator reported being “very comfortable” sending students with disabilities to receive counseling services due to this partnership. The other college’s disability services office provided training to sexual assault advocates but not to staff at the counseling center who may provide more long-term counseling to survivors.  [68:  Rider-Milkovich, Charting the Path Forward. Supra at 32.]  [69:  Rider-Milkovich, Charting the Path Forward, 11. Supra at 32.] 

Disability training was not provided on most campuses, or disability training was focused on compliance with the ADA and Section 504 and the process for requesting disability accommodations and services. One Title IX coordinator said disability gets “swept under the rug.” A sexual assault services coordinator concurred, reporting that the only disability training that crisis center advocates received was probably during their credentialing programs. This staff member recommended that the college provide a disability training similar to the two-hour training that staff received about supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) students. Another disability services administrator reported that their college needed to shift the campus culture to be more aware of disability, which will come with more education and training across the board, to faculty, staff, and students.[endnoteRef:70] In commenting on the lack of disability training provided to staff, the disability services administrator said, “I'd like a copy of this [questionnaire from the research study] so that I can bring up the training issue for the campus.” [70:  Wendy Harbour and Daniel Greenberg, “Campus Climate and Students with Disabilities,” National Center for College Students with Disabilities 1, no. 2 (2017), accessed August 11, 2017, http://www.nccsdonline.org/research-briefs.html.] 

When interviewees reported that college sexual assault services staff received training about disability, the training primarily focused on how to refer students to the disability services office and accommodations, instead of information about disability itself. The unique needs of students with disabilities, an understanding of different types of disabilities and how individuals may experience them, how students may define *disability*, or framing disability as an identity beyond a diagnosis were not necessarily part of training courses. A disability services administrator explained how their college needed to do more because training focused on “disability compliance.” Another interviewee concurred and explained that counselors or staff members think about disability as centered on the “diagnosis” and accommodations as opposed to “ongoing adjustments” to support a student. This interviewee elaborated, “Their [counselors’] awareness about these [disability] issues would just be writing up documentation. There’s a need for awareness in terms of the ongoing impact on our students and how that might interact with other issues regarding why students have come to counseling in the first place.” Such training courses are recommended by college staff.[endnoteRef:71] Similarly, an expert that works with survivors with disabilities explained that such training courses should include topics beyond providing accommodations that discuss disability in broader ways, especially how trauma may affect students with disabilities:  [71:  Lauren Shallish, “A Different Diversity? Challenging the Exclusion of Disability Studies from Higher Education Research and Practice,” in Disability as Diversity in Higher Education: Policies and Practices to Enhance Student Success, ed. Eunyoung Kim and Katherine C. Aquino (New York, NY: Routledge, 2017), 19–30.] 

[The training should develop] an understanding and having a good grounding in trauma-informed practices, interactions informed by what has happened not only physically but also neurobiologically. Using more basic speech to interact [with a student] if the student has a cognitive disability. . . . Our focus is working with someone not only to explore rights to due process but also looking at their healing process—understanding the impacts of them coming forward or having a sexual assault, and that if they live in a mandatory reporting state, [the process] will influence a lot of other people. It can be very disruptive. [Within the process] of investigation and deciding to report, survivors’ need for support and healing gets lost in the whirlwind of all the other activities. We need to not lose sight that [students with disabilities] have the same needs of healing and connection and support around the healing as any other students. 

Another expert who conducts research on abuse among people with disabilities elaborated on the need for support providers to understand trauma and trauma-informed practices, since many students with disabilities have experienced trauma before arriving at college. This expert explained, “In terms of how students are impacted by violence, the research seems to be that we are talking about people that [sexual assault] is not their first traumatic event. What does this mean, a layer of trauma that is on top of previous experiences?” 

Colleges and sexual assault services providers seem to have a nascent recognition of the need for training courses on disability related to sexual assault prevention and support practices. In interviews, college professional staff mentioned two training courses that were provided to college staff focused on understanding disability and sexual assault. One interviewee described a community college system seeking specialized training to understand the needs of students with disabilities and how to support them if they were survivors of sexual assault. This two-day training was provided by a sexual assault services director and a sexual assault support provider specializing in disability. The 2017 Campus Sexual Violence Prevention Summit hosted by the Minnesota Department of Health also included a presentation titled “People with Disabilities on Your Campus Are Victims/Survivors of Sexual Violence Too: Engaging in Inclusive Prevention and Response, Awareness, and Understanding.” Reportedly, this summit focused on supporting diverse populations and included presentations reflecting the racial and gender diversity on college campuses. However, both these presenters adapted research on adults with disabilities and sexual abuse and were not reporting research or data on college students. As stated previously in this report, no research exists to inform specific prevention and support practices on a college campus. 

### ***Disability Training for Law Enforcement***

College professionals report that law enforcement receives more specific training regarding working with students with disabilities than other staff. Seven college staff interviewees and five questionnaire respondents reported that campus law enforcement are trained in disability. Two disability services directors reported their personal involvement in training law enforcement about this topic. The interviewees elaborated, however, that training may not be inclusive of all types of disabilities. Two interviewees said the training focused on either mental health disabilities or autism. One disability services director elaborated on the nature of the presentation: “Our on-campus and county police departments have all gone through a sensitivity training for students with disabilities, specifically intellectual disabilities. Like how body language looks, that sort of thing. All that would interact with students on our campus have had that training.” One interviewee suggested that due to training, law enforcement could be more competent interacting with a Deaf or hard of hearing student, but not someone who was deaf-blind or someone who had a physical disability because the training did not focus on those disabilities or disability in a broader sense.

Six disability service directors reported close relationships with campus law enforcement and suggested that, despite the lack of specific disability training for law enforcement, law enforcement would be open to receiving advice and support on how to interact with a student with a disability. One disability services administrator referred to a specific instance in which a student with autism was charged with stalking, and campus police “worked closely” with the disability office “to understand [the student’s] communication style and behavior to understand if [the student] was really a threat.”

## Awareness of the Prevalence of Sexual Assault and Students with Disabilities 

Another reason colleges may not have prioritized students with disabilities in their sexual assault policies is the lack of awareness of the higher risk of assault that students with disabilities face. One college staff member regretted the lack of focus on students with disabilities prior to participating in the study: “Sorry to admit that this subset of students had not really been a focus on sexual assault awareness, but it is now on my radar.” Another staff member suggested that concern about students with disabilities has not been “raised as an issue.” This is problematic because students with disabilities are likely to underreport incidents of sexual assault,[endnoteRef:72] and lack of reporting does not mean that students with disabilities are not experiencing assault at their campuses. Yet this lack of awareness is not surprising when even national advocacy organizations such as Center for Changing Campus Culture,[endnoteRef:73] the Campus Prevention Network, and It’s on Us[endnoteRef:74] do not include college students with disabilities as groups at higher risk for sexual assault.  [72:  Findley et al., Exploring the Experiences of Abuse. Supra at 35.]  [73:  Center for Changing our Campus Culture, Addressing Gender-Based Violence on College Campuses: Guide to a Comprehensive Model (Center for Changing our Campus Culture, 2017).]  [74:  Rider-Milkovich, Charting the Path Forward.] 

While many college staff members indicated that focusing on sexual assault services and students with disabilities is not on their radar, college staff members from 13 colleges reported that they are conducting climate surveys on sexual assault, which can be a first step to gain greater awareness about the prevalence of sexual assault among different demographics. Climate surveys are becoming a more common practice after the White House Task Force, in their 2014 report, recommended that colleges institute these surveys to assess the magnitude of sexual assault at their college and campus attitudes on sexual assault. Colleges can tailor existing climate surveys that have been developed over the past few years or develop their own,[endnoteRef:75] and college administrators can use the guidance of the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women to develop and use climate surveys.[endnoteRef:76] The National Center for College Students with Disabilities also recommends that colleges use campus climate surveys to understand the needs of college students with disabilities in general.[endnoteRef:77] The Association of American Universities found that when campuses administered surveys, they used the results to inform programming and student support services.[endnoteRef:78] If colleges are aware of the statistics around students with disabilities, they may be more likely to increase support and services for students.  [75:  Jake New, “Creating the Right Climate Survey,” Inside Higher Ed (July 29, 2016), accessed June 17, 2017, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/29/campus-climate-surveys-abound-does-disagreement-over-what-works-best?width=775&height=500&iframe=true.]  [76:  U.S. Department of Justice, Administrator Information Packet on Campus Climate Surveys (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2017), accessed June 16, 2017, https://www.justice.gov/ovw/page/file/929846/download.]  [77:  Harbour, “Campus Climate.” Supra at 54.]  [78:  Association of American Universities, AAU Campus Activities Report. Supra at 31.] 

However, not all climate surveys automatically include students with disabilities or aggregate findings using disability as a demographic. A disability services administrator at a college reported that the college’s first campus climate survey did not ask students to identify by disability. The college plans to administer a new survey that will include this demographic for further examination, including specific questions about level of support, such as “whether [students with disabilities] are registered or not and level of support [students with disabilities] are receiving.” The administrator hopes that conducting this revised survey will give the college a sense of the gaps regarding sexual assault services. 

One ADA/504 coordinator explained that the campus institutional research office worked with the Title IX office to tailor a survey and that it was not “off the shelf.” Including questions about disability may help campuses understand the scope of under-reporting, because after including these questions on a survey, that campus found that 21 percent of students with disabilities on campus reported experiencing nonconsensual touching or nonconsensual intercourse. The coordinator explained the implications of the survey on the college’s sexual assault programming as “being able to go in and look at what education we’re going to do generically, but we have to look at subpopulations: Greek life, men, disability, etc. We have these breakdowns in our climate survey. Educational practices at some level need to be tailored to hit people where they live.”

## Students with Disabilities Are Not Addressed in Sexual Assault Educational Programs

A failure to develop clear sexual assault policies and procedures to serve students with disabilities is a distinct weakness in higher education, and it is discriminatory under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The lack of access to educational and outreach programming for students with disabilities reflects another problem in services. Thirty-one college staff members and four students reported that programs at their colleges did not specifically address students with disabilities. Only three staff members reported educational programs specific to students with disabilities.

The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention set forth guidelines in their report titled *Sexual Violence on Campus: Strategies for Prevention*.**This report suggests that college orientation and training should be tailored to different populations, including students with disabilities.[endnoteRef:79] Two prevention research experts who provide technical assistance to colleges suggested that prevention programs are only effective when they are developed specifically to a target audience, including groups representing specific types of geographic and demographic diversity. For example, the experts explained that programs developed at a college in one region of the United States may not translate well to a college at a different region with a more diverse student population, where students dress differently or perhaps use different terminology or language. These experts elaborated that to make training courses accessible to students with disabilities, campuses need to move beyond a focus on accommodations, such as captioning or interpretation, and include situations or scenarios specific to students with disabilities. For example, they are developing an educational messaging campaign that includes a scenario with a woman with a physical disability who is in an abusive relationship with a male partner. They also recommend such scenarios be included in bystander programs to increase awareness among students without disabilities. The researchers elaborated on the importance of including students with disabilities: [79:  Jenny Dills, Dawn Fowler, and Gayle Payne, Sexual Violence on Campus: Strategies for Prevention (Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016).] 

We did a series of focus groups five years ago for social marketing bystander intervention images to identify a student with a disability who is a victim of intimate partner violence. One of the challenges for developing prevention to develop awareness and skills around victimization of students with disabilities [is that] we have a very narrow view of what a disability is. There are multiple layers that need to be unpacked when you say disability—you are not just referring to someone in a wheelchair or someone who is visually impaired, and then you’ve got to unpack the uneasiness that many people in general have in approaching people with disabilities and offering assistance. They think, “Is this my role? Do they feel singled out?” 

One disability services administrator explained that the effectiveness of generic educational programs may not resonate with students with disabilities because scenarios or examples do not include situations that students with disabilities may face more often, such as intimate partner violence. This director worked with a survivor with a disability who expressed confusion about how a situation reflected nonconsensual interaction. 

The three colleges that reported providing tailored programming described the training as reflecting some of the principles noted earlier. One disability services director provided students with disabilities a disability-only space to discuss and ask questions about consent and assault so that students would feel comfortable asking questions that they may not feel comfortable asking in broader spaces with peers without disabilities. Another disability services director focused specifically on talking with students with autism to explain “appropriate behavior” and to help them understand how others might perceive specific behaviors. One questionnaire respondent elaborated that educational programs were tailored specifically to address the diversity of the college, which included students with disabilities, and that the college is “intentional about providing education and outreach that is intersectional,” assuming students may have multiple emerging and established identities that interact in complex ways. 

Questionnaire responses from five students elevate the importance of developing prevention programs that are inclusive of students with disabilities. One student reported, “They don't talk about students with disabilities in the context of sexual assault.” Another student commented that the assumption at their college is that “[students with disabilities] don't get raped.” A different student elaborated on this theme and included a suggestion for campuses to “improve sex education for [students with disabilities] that is relevant to us. Use examples of real-life [people with disabilities]. Talk about the specific ways that a [person with a disability] might be targeted for sexual assault and abuse. Sometimes not just one assault, but people can be hurt again and again by the same person.” A fourth student highlighted the intersectionality of identities, such as students with disabilities who are LGBTQ or people of color, and how their college’s support and services providers lack this perspective. 

One expert in sexual assault prevention who works with colleges explained that the disability community is not considered part of cultural competency training and does not fall under the definition of “diversity” groups. This expert suggested that colleges are successful with including the transgendered community and racial and ethnic groups, but not students with disabilities. One Title IX coordinator echoed similar sentiments when describing the focus of the student task force on sexual assault. When asked whether the task force considered students with disabilities, the director explained, “not directly,” but the group talked about “inclusivity.” The coordinator further elaborated that the group has discussed “racial inclusivity” and “transgendered or other LGBT” groups as well as “parents, nontraditional, young, [and those] trying to find partner companions.” Another interviewee who is also on a campus sexual assault working group reported that students with disabilities have not been a focus of the working group’s efforts. 

These findings mirror nationwide trends. Rider-Milkovich found that only 10 percent (*n* = 68) of colleges implementing prevention programs are tailoring these to students with disabilities. In contrast, 33 percent of colleges are tailoring programs to international students, and 26.5 percent tailor educational programs to LGBTQ students.[endnoteRef:80] [80:  Holly Rider-Milkovich, “Are We in Oz?: The 2017 State of Sexual Assault on College Campuses” (webinar presentation, July 20, 2017), accessed July 8, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CWzt-nkPGI&feature=youtu.be. ] 

One reason for the lack of targeted educational programming at colleges may be due to the lack of research and best practices on effective prevention programs for students with disabilities. Experts in sexual assault prevention research interviewed for this study (who also provide technical assistance to colleges) report that the development of targeted programs for students with disabilities is “totally uncharted territory.” Consistent with the findings in this report, they noted that most colleges where they have worked are not identifying students with disabilities as a population at risk and therefore are not developing programs to address these students’ needs. The researchers caution that programs should not assume uniformity of experiences within the broad category of “disability” either. 

While three colleges reported tailoring training courses to students with disabilities, 24 college professionals reported that they had not even considered creating programs and services to address students with disabilities. One sexual assault coordinator commented, “You’ve given me a lot to think about.” Another explained, “As far as students with disabilities are concerned, it’s a critical point, and I am so glad we are having this conversation.”**These staff members commented on an individual or campus-wide lack of awareness about the importance of addressing students with disabilities when developing sexual assault programming and services. For example, one staff member explained, “I’m not sure it’s on our radar to have programming specific to students with disabilities, so awareness would be one factor.” One sexual assault advocate who works closely with colleges noted,

So I think that we as a movement and in general are not even really asking this question and it’s really horrible. I think we need to. I think that [people with disabilities have] not been at the forefront of the campus movement to end sexual violence and those folks are more vulnerable to sexual assault and less likely to be able to access the systems and resources that we have made available.

## Promising Practices for Colleges Adapted from Community Providers

Because of the lack of research on how college campuses can effectively support students with disabilities, practices from community providers can be used to guide college campus practices. The California Coalition of Sexual Assault explains numerous considerations when supporting survivors who have various disabilities, such as learning disabilities or physical disabilities.[endnoteRef:81] The Vera Institute of Justice provides programmatic guidelines explaining how community sexual assault providers can make their services accessible both physically and programmatically for survivors with disabilities, such as ensuring sexual assault services have a budget for accessibility, making buildings and materials physically accessible, making policies and programs inclusive of people with disabilities, representing people with disabilities in their materials and information, collaborating with disability organizations and providers in the community, and providing training on violence against people with disabilities.[endnoteRef:82] These guidelines can be used by sexual assault providers at college campuses as they develop inclusive and accessible programs and services.  [81:  California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Creating Access: Supporting Survivors of Sexual Assault with Disabilities (Sacramento, CA: California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 2010), accessed July 20, 2017, http://www.calcasa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Disabilities-Info-Packet-Final-Upload-12.29.10.pdf.]  [82:  Nancy Smith, Sandra Harrell, Jaclyn Smith, and Ashley Demyan, Measuring Capacity to Serve Sexual Assault Survivors with Disabilities: Rape Crisis Centers (New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, 2015), accessed November 9, 2017, https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/measuring-capacity-to-serve-survivors-with-disabilities/legacy_downloads/Rape-Crisis-Center-Implementation-Guide.pdf.] 

In addition to providing guidelines to sexual assault providers to make sexual assault services inclusive of students with disabilities, the Vera Institute of Justice includes guidelines for disability organizations to make their staff and group more aware of people with disabilities who have experienced sexual assault. Disability services offices can adapt these programmatic guidelines to better equip their staff to service survivors with disabilities.[endnoteRef:83] Adapted practices include sponsoring training for staff about sexual assault policies and procedures, training other college professionals about disability and responding to sexual assault, providing clear and accessible materials at the office that outline students’ rights and reporting procedures, encouraging participation of office staff and students with disabilities in campus-wide conversations about sexual assault, and supporting the development of partnerships with community providers.  [83:  Nancy Smith, Sandra Harrell, Jaclyn Smith, and Ashley Demyan, Measuring Capacity to Serve Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Survivors with Disabilities: Disability Organizations, (New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, 2015), accessed July 20, 2017, https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/measuring-capacity-to-serve-survivors-with-disabilities/legacy_downloads/Disability-Organization-Implementation-Guide.pdf.] 

Further, while no college reported specific guidelines to be used in creating effective Title IX services or programs for students with disabilities, other groups are beginning to fill this gap. Janet Elie Faulkner, an attorney, outlined several recommendations for Title IX proceedings in a blog entry from March 2017.[endnoteRef:84] These mirror several recommendations or ideas from students and professionals in the NCD research: [84:  Janet Elie Faulkner, “Accommodating Students with Disabilities in the Title IX Process,” EduRisk (blog) (March 2017), accessed August 1, 2017, https://www.edurisksolutions.org/Templates/template-blogs.aspx?pageid=47&id=3277&blogid=100.] 

List the disability services office as an available resource

Link to disability services in Title IX FAQs

Offer assistance in complaint filing instructions to qualified disabled students 

Adopt language from the school’s general student conduct procedure stating that accommodations may be available in a Title IX grievance setting

As noted previously, however, a more universally designed approach may be appropriate. While inclusive of people with disabilities, these recommendations still rely on students’ understanding of what a “disability” is, identifying as a student with a disability, being registered at disability services, being able to disclose a disability using that terminology, and knowing how to request accommodations. Putting these additional burdens on sexual assault survivors may be unreasonable. Furthermore, some “accommodations” (e.g., help filling out forms, copies of printed materials in digital format so they can be downloaded again later) may be helpful for students without disabilities, as well. Consideration of what students with disabilities may need could potentially lead to more compassionate and accessible services for all students. 

# Chapter 7: Sexual Assault Policy Compliance and Responses 

Colleges must also comply with federal sexual assault laws when developing inclusive sexual assault policies and programming. Further, the Federal Government and individual states continue to devise new legislation to combat sexual assault on college campuses that can further colleges’ supports for students with disabilities. This chapter addresses the research questions related to policy compliance and response. Because many groups and advocates are currently working on addressing compliance to federal policies on sexual assault and making recommendations to improve services and compliance at the state and federal level, the broad themes will be reviewed and how students with disabilities are considered will be explored. This chapter addresses the following research questions:

Are college policies compliant with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the Clery Act, and Title IX? 

What are the federal and state legislative responses to campus sexual violence?

## Compliance with the Clery Act

Several existing reports or audits suggest that campuses are struggling with Clery Act compliance. Missing policy statements or procedures are the main violation reported across the audits. For example, a review of 105 college websites in Ohio found that only 66 percent of colleges posted their sexual assault policies online.[endnoteRef:85] None of the six California colleges under review (two community colleges and four 4-year colleges) disclosed all campus policies in the 2014 ASR. In those reports, VAWA policy statements were the most frequently incomplete or missing documents. Similarly, a 2013 audit of State University of New York (SUNY) colleges found that 19 of the 29 colleges published ASRs with missing and/or incomplete policy and procedure statements. A review of six California colleges found that all six colleges were out of compliance with the Clery Act. As noted in Chapter 5, policy statements need to be available to all students, clearly outlining the campus response to sexual assault and encouraging awareness of the procedures for reporting sexual assaults. And as noted by interviewees, policy statements should be accessible to students with disabilities, including any online statements. [85:  Mira S. Krivoshey et al., “Sexual Assault Reporting Procedures at Ohio Colleges,” Journal of American College Health 61 (2013): 142–47.] 

Colleges violate the Clery Act when they do not report accurate crime statistics. However, the Clery Act does not require that the crimes be identified as crimes against students with disabilities. Five of the six California colleges reported inaccurate crime statistics in 2013. Thirteen of the 29 SUNY colleges also improperly reported crime statistics.[endnoteRef:86] A 2014 audit of 10 Minnesota colleges found that they violated many aspects of the Clery Act. Six institutions did not properly identify “Clery Geography,” all colleges failed to obtain complete crime data from law enforcement agencies, half did not maintain and allow access to crime or fire logs, four did not address new requirements related to VAWA legislation, nine ASRs were missing policy statements, and seven did not provide sufficient information about the availability of the report to students and employees.[endnoteRef:87] The U.S. Department of Education levies fines on campuses that violate any aspect of the Clery Act.[endnoteRef:88]  [86:  Office of the New York State Comptroller, State University of New York: Compliance with the Clery Act (New York, NY: Office of the New York State Comptroller, 2013), accessed August 7, 2017, http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093009/07s121.pdf.]  [87:  Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, Office of Internal Auditing, Clery Act: Internal Control and Compliance Audit (St Paul, MN: Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, Office of Internal Auditing, 2015).]  [88:  Zach Winn, “Clery Act Fines Increase Per Violation,” Campus Safety Magazine (June 14, 2017), accessed July 5, 2017, http://www.campussafetymagazine.com/clery/clery_act_fines_increase_violations_colleges.] 

## Compliance with Title IX

Numerous colleges were found in violation of Title IX between 2011 and September 2017, according to the previous guidance on how sexual violence and harassment are covered under Title IX.[endnoteRef:89] In January 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice released a list of 304 colleges and universities that were under investigation for violating Title IX by incorrectly handling sexual misconduct or assault issues.[endnoteRef:90] For example, the Office of Civil Rights found Harvard Law School in violation of Title IX because of the college’s failure to appropriately respond to two students who made complaints about sexual assault.[endnoteRef:91] Princeton University was also found in violation of Title IX because of failure to provide prompt responses to sexual assault.[endnoteRef:92] [89:  Under President Obama’s Title IX guidance outlined in the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter, investigations could take no more than 60 calendar days but policy allowed complex cases to be addressed within a reasonable time frame. The amount of Title IX violations that may reduce due to the current administration reverting to the 2001 Office for Civil Rights, Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance that does not define “prompt” is unclear.]  [90:  Nick Anderson, “At First, 55 Schools Faced Sexual Violence Investigations. Now the List Has Quadrupled,” The Washington Post (January 18, 2017), accessed July 21, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/01/18/at-first-55-schools-faced-sexual-violence-investigations-now-the-list-has-quadrupled/?utm_term=.f780cd8bc08f.]  [91:  U.S. Department of Education, Delivering Justice, 2016. Supra at 15.]  [92:  U.S. Department of Education, Delivering Justice, 2016. ] 

An audit conducted in 2014 of four California colleges and universities did not examine violations due to the investigation process but did investigate other violations of Title IX law. This audit found that all four colleges were not complying with Title IX.[endnoteRef:93] Specifically, these colleges did not ensure that faculty and staff (including coaches and resident advisors) were trained to respond and report on incidents of sexual harassment or sexual assault. While these four campuses seemed to comply with the prevention and education component of Title IX, the audit found inconsistencies. Students were supposed to receive information about reporting procedures and services as incoming students, but the audit found that content of the education did not align with updated policies. Similarly, reporting policies and resources were made available to students in brochures and listed online. However, a student survey conducted through the auditing process found that students were still unaware of the policies and resources available. Of the 208 students surveyed, 22 percent indicated that they were not aware of resources on campus if they experienced sexual assault.[endnoteRef:94] Of these students, 35 percent (*n* = 208) reported experiencing 85 incidents of sexual assault or harassment by a person of the campus community, but only filed Title IX complaints for 13 percent of these incidents.  [93:  California State Auditor, Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence: California Universities Must Better Protect Students by Doing More to Prevent, Respond to, and Resolve Incidents, (Sacramento, CA: California State Auditor, 2014), accessed July 8, 2017, https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2013-124.pdf.]  [94:  California State Auditor, Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence.] 

This examination did not disaggregate the data on different demographics of students to examine whether different groups, such as students with disabilities, and the degree of understanding of policies and procedures differed. However, these audit findings suggest that even when colleges provide education programs, those programs may not be effectively educating students about the resources and process available at their colleges. The findings indicate that colleges should tailor informational campaigns and education programs using research about effective prevention and supports, and make sure they are accessible to all, including students with disabilities. 

## State Legislative Responses to Sexual Assault

Various states have responded to campus sexual violence by adding specific policies in tandem with federal laws. None of these laws specifically address students with disabilities, but some may have implications for how students with disabilities fare on college campuses. More specifically, states’ responses to campus sexual assaults center on four policy areas: defining affirmative consent (i.e., “yes means yes”), describing the role of law enforcement, noting violations of student conduct on student transcripts, and addressing the role of counsel in the legal process.[endnoteRef:95] During legislative sessions from 2013 to 2015, 23 states introduced or enacted legislation concerning campus sexual violence.[endnoteRef:96] Of the 16 states that introduced policies around affirmative consent, policies were enacted in 4 states: California, Hawaii, Illinois, and New York. California and New York have the highest state standards for consent, in which consent not only has to be given voluntarily and freely but also consciously. These consent laws outline four specific circumstances under which consent cannot be given, and people incapacitated by mental health disabilities are included as such a circumstance. This was the only place where disability was mentioned, and the effects of this wording on the sexual behavior of college students with mental health disabilities are unknown at this time.  [95:  Andrew Morse, Brian A. Sponsler, and Mary Fulton, State Legislative Developments on Campus Sexual Violence: Issues in the Context of Safety (Washington, DC: NASPA–Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, 2015).]  [96:  Morse et al., State Legislative Developments on Campus Sexual Violence.] 

Other laws may impact the experiences of students with disabilities in the sexual assault process. For example, four state policies focus on the role of law enforcement in sexual assault proceedings, such as informing survivors of their right to report to local law enforcement, entering in MOUs with law enforcement or requiring that law enforcement is informed, and/or giving rights to survivors to decide whether to refer to law enforcement. Whether local law enforcement is trained in disability may matter in how students experience these interactions and the extent to which students trust law enforcement. 

California laws enact additional policies that require colleges to take specific actions to prevent sexual assault, not solely directing how colleges respond. California state universities are required to provide orientation programs that educate students and prevent sexual assault.[endnoteRef:97] California state laws also require colleges to adopt “victim-centered” protocols when addressing sexual violence that go beyond federal laws.[endnoteRef:98] Victim-centered protocols are those that elevate safety and concern for the victim and ensure compassionate delivery of services.[endnoteRef:99] This approach differs from most state responses, which one researcher believes do not “reflect the needs of survivors of sexual violence or the best interests of survivors of sexual violence.”[endnoteRef:100] Two interviewees mentioned that California is one of the exemplars of state policy in regard to sexual assault consent and related policies, and other colleges are attempting to model their policies after California. However, none of these campuses have specifically addressed the needs of people with disabilities in regard to services or due process.  [97:  California State Auditor, Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence. Supra at 76.]  [98:  Emily Austin, Legal Intersections: An Outline of Federal Laws, Guidelines, and California State Law on Campus Sexual Assault (Sacramento, CA: California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 2016).]  [99:  Human Rights Watch, Improving Police Response to Sexual Assault (New York, NY: Human Rights Watch, 2013), accessed August 10, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/improvingSAInvest_0.pdf.]  [100:  Haley Glatter, “How Do States Handle Sexual Assault on Campus?” The Atlantic (January 29, 2017), accessed August 10, 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/01/how-do-states-handle-sexual-assault-on-campus/514811.] 

In 2016, two other states also introduced and passed specific policies on college supports. Illinois passed a bill that mandates not only that colleges develop clear sexual assault policies but also that colleges provide confidential advisors that can guide survivors through the process of reporting and seeking assistance. Another promising law that may prevent sexual assault was passed in Maryland. This law requires colleges to conduct climate surveys on sexual assault. As mentioned in Chapter 6, conducting climate surveys seems to be a promising practice. However, disability should be included as a demographic characteristic in these climate surveys for college campuses to understand the increased risk for students with disabilities.

## Federal Legislative Response to Sexual Assault

Since amending the Clery Act with the Campus SaVE Act in 2013, the Federal Government has not passed any additional legislation or amendments to direct campus sexual assault responses, but has made recommendations to colleges about prevention and supports. In January 2017, the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault recommended six areas for college administrators to consider when preventing and addressing sexual misconduct on their campuses: 1. Coordinated Campus and Community Response; 2. Prevention and Education; 3. Policy Development and Implementation; 4. Reporting Options, Advocacy, and Support Services; 5. Climate Surveys, Performance Measurement, and Evaluation; 6. Transparency. Only a few of these areas mention students with disabilities. 

Congress is currently considering one bill that addresses campus sexual assault. Senators reintroduced the bipartisan Campus Accountability and Safety Act[endnoteRef:101] Senate Bill 856 in April 2017,[endnoteRef:102] which mirrors policies already passed at the state level, such as mandating confidential advisors for students and campus climate surveys. As of August 2017, the bill has been in the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions from April 5, 2017.[endnoteRef:103] This Bill has the potential to increase supports to survivors with disabilities if passed. This report makes several recommendations to that end and encourages passage of the Bill with the suggested language.  [101:  Claire McCaskill, The Bipartisan Campus Accountability and Safety Act (2017), accessed September 10, 2017, https://www.mccaskill.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CampusAccountabilityAndSafetyAct.pdf.]  [102:  Claire McCaskill, Bipartisan Coalition of Senators Renew Legislation to Combat Sexual Assault on College & University Campuses (2017), accessed September 10, 2017, https://www.mccaskill.senate.gov/media-center/news-releases/bipartisan-coalition-of-senators-renew-legislation-to-combat-sexual-assault-on-college-and-university-campuses.]  [103:  U.S. Congress, S. 856 - Campus Accountability and Safety Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018), accessed September 10, 2017, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/856/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs.] 

State laws, as well as federal laws and recommendations, are addressing various prevention and support strategies highlighted as best practices in current research and advocacy organizations, such as increasing confidential reporting options and encouraging educational programs. However, states’ responses to sexual assault are still limited in their approach to actively prevent sexual assault. In addition, students with disabilities are not addressed in state laws and are tangentially addressed in federal recommendations. Taking a victim- or survivor-centered approach is a first step to address the needs of students with disabilities because this elevates the needs of the students first. However, first responders and other college staff have limited awareness of the disability and the specific needs of students with disabilities who have encountered sexual assault. Therefore, policies or recommendations that outline resources for students, such as availability of legal counsel or creating MOUs with local rape crisis centers, should also consider the support and training needed to ensure students with disabilities are equitably served. People with disabilities and/or disability advocacy organizations should be included in the application of these policies at colleges to ensure that programs are accessible and the language addresses the needs of people with disabilities.

**Recommendations from the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (January 2017)**

1. The task force recommends that campuses use a framework that outlines coordinated campus and community responses to sexual assault, designate a fully accessible Title IX coordinator, include relevant stakeholders in these efforts, establish a task force to monitor the campus approach, support student groups that engage in education prevention programs, and establish MOUs with community providers, such as rape crisis centers. This section does not mention students with disabilities.

The task force recommends that campuses provide education programs to students that consider the needs of diverse populations, including students with disabilities; reinforce positive behaviors and messages throughout the campus; make information about resources widely available to all students (including web accessibility); provide annual training courses to all staff at the college on sexual misconduct policies; offer training courses on how to respond when friends or family members disclose an incident of sexual assault; implement awareness campaigns and development; and implement a campus-wide communication plan addressed to all stakeholders about the college’s sexual assault programs. 

The task force recommends that colleges develop a comprehensive grievance policy that defines the process for investigation and resolutions, defines remedies and sanctions, and keeps complainants and respondents abreast of the process in a timely manner. No mention of ensuring accommodations for students with disabilities is made in this section.

The task force recommends that colleges encourage reporting, including making options clear and accessible; consider implementing an online reporting system; designate full-time victim advocates; provide or refer students to a range of support services; institute or have relationships with hospitals that have a sexual assault nurse examiner; and ensure that services and accommodations are responsive to diverse populations, including students with disabilities. 

The task force recommends that colleges administer sexual misconduct climate surveys and maintain accurate statistics on sexual misconduct incidents, communicate findings from the climate survey, evaluate the college’s practices using a third-party evaluator, revise and adapt campus policy and procedures, and understand survivors’ experiences participating in the grievance process. No mention is made of demographics or including students with disabilities.

The task force calls for colleges to maintain accessible websites with college and community sexual assault supports, publish evaluations on the college’s policies and practices, comply with ADA by ensuring policies and procedures are available in multiple formats with easy accessibility, and provide information on the policies and practices and publish data relevant to sexual misconduct on the college’s website, including the ASR that is required by Clery.

# Chapter 8: Policy and Practice Recommendations

This report highlights that federally funded research on sexual assault on college campuses has ignored students with disabilities while examining other demographics such as race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity. It also finds that colleges are struggling to provide accessible and inclusive sexual assault programming and services to students with disabilities. Students with disabilities are not on the radar of many colleges’ sexual assault services and programs, and inclusion of training on sexual assault services is not on the radar of many disability services offices. Many college staff members seem unaware of the gaps or disconnects in services and reported that this study illuminated those problems simply by asking questions they had never asked. Staff seem to be making assumptions about how their college would respond when a student with a disability attempts to access sexual assault services, instead of operating from a place of certainty. Cobbling together attempts at the last minute to provide accessible services may delay students from receiving critical services in a timely manner. Further, by not considering students with disabilities more centrally in sexual assault prevention programming, colleges are ignoring a key student population that may be more at risk. The policy and practice recommendations that follow capitalize on existing laws and recommendations by including disability, considering universal design, and incorporating recommendations to ensure federal compliance as a minimum for all programming. 

This chapter addresses the final research question for this report through its listings of research findings and policy recommendations:

What policy and system reforms are needed in postsecondary educational settings? 

## Findings

### Federal

Federal-level research studies on sexual assault on college campuses, funded by the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women and the National Institute of Justice, have not included disability as a demographic as they have race/nationality, and sexual orientation. This includes the Justice Department’s 2016 Campus Climate Survey Validation Study—funded by the Office of Violence Against Women and conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which did not include disability as a demographic, missing the opportunity to gather data on the prevalence of sexual assault on students with disabilities.

The 2014 White House Task Force report,*Not Alone*, did not include disability as a demographic in its sample campus climate survey, setting the tone for colleges and researchers to omit disability in campus climate studies as well.

### Colleges

Colleges lack policies and procedures to ensure disability-related supports are readily available to students to communicate with sexual assault first responders. This includes informing students that disability-related accommodations are available and providing appropriate contact information for students or staff to request accommodations. 

College sexual assault prevention and education programs are not fully accessible to students with disabilities. Online training courses may not be captioned, and in-person training courses may be held in college buildings that are not physically accessible to students. 

College websites and printed information about sexual assault resources and information are not accessible to students with visual impairments and students with print-based disabilities (e.g., dyslexia). Some websites and online forms are not screen reader accessible, and do not adhere to guidelines of web accessibility (i.e., not accessible to people with limited vision or blindness).

Campus assault prevention and education programs are not inclusive of students with disabilities, and college staff lack awareness that such programs should be accessible to students with disabilities, and staff are not trained in disability accommodations.

## Recommendations

### Congress

1. Congress should amend the Clery Act as follows:

a. Require colleges to collect the number of all reported sexual assaults on students with disabilities (not just when the assaults are hate crimes) and include this information in their annual security report.

b. Require colleges to include a description of the disability-related accommodations available to students with disabilities who have experienced sexual assault in their description of the procedures that they will follow once an incident of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking occurs.

c. Require colleges to include a statement regarding the disability-related accommodations that will be made available to students with disabilities during the reporting and disciplinary process, such as auxiliary communication aids or interpreters, and how to request those accommodations.

d. Require memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between colleges and local law enforcement to include protocols for communicating with students who are Deaf.

e. Require college websites to include information on services and accommodations for victims of sexual assault with disabilities, including who to contact to request accommodations. 

Congress should pass the Campus Accountability and Safety Act (S. 856) with the following additions:

1. Require grant applicants under proposed Section 8, part BB, to describe how they will serve students with disabilities in their description of how underserved populations on campus will be served.

1. Add a survey question to proposed Section 19 on whether the victim had a disability at the time of the assault, and what type of disability.

1. Require colleges to provide information on how to request disability-related reasonable accommodations in their Written Notice of Institutional Disciplinary Process.

Congress should require that research funded by the Office on Violence Against Women on campus sexual assault include students with disabilities to gather data on the problem as it pertains to students with disabilities, and to develop strategies for preventing and reducing the risk of sexual assault and effectively responding to victims with disabilities.

### Department of Education

1. The ED should develop and publish a technical assistance document or training for colleges on the rights of students with disabilities to have necessary accommodations in the process of reporting assault, utilizing sexual assault support services, and in the institutional disciplinary process. This training should include information on various types of disability-related accommodations, including captioning services and sign-language interpreter services.

### ED Office for Civil Rights (OCR)

1. OCR should

1. Inform colleges that they must provide required Title IX information in accessible formats to students with disabilities, specifically information on their rights under Title IX, the contact information for the Title IX coordinator, how to file a complaint alleging a violation of Title IX, and how to request disability-related accommodations.

1. Encourage colleges to reach out to students with disabilities about sexual assault educational programs, available support services, and available disability-related accommodations available to access them.

1. Encourage colleges to provide disability-awareness training for campus security first responders. 

1. Encourage colleges to include information on how to request disability-related accommodations on their Title IX web pages. 

1. Encourage colleges to make outreach and educational materials regarding sexual assault services available in accessible formats, and through various outlets accessible to students.

### The National Center on Safe and Supportive Learning Environments (NCSSLE)

1. NCSSLE should include information on disability, including communicating with victims with disabilities who are Deaf or hard of hearing, in its trauma-informed training programs. 

### The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

1. BJS should include students with disabilities as a demographic when conducting research on sexual assault on college campuses.

### The Center for Campus Public Safety (CCPS)

1. CCPS should include information on disability, including communicating with victims with disabilities who are Deaf or hard of hearing, in their trauma-informed training programs for school officials and campus and local law enforcement. 

### The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW)

1. OVW should include information on disability, including communicating with victims with disabilities who are Deaf or hard of hearing, in its trauma-informed training programs for school officials and campus and local law enforcement.

OVW should require all colleges that submit proposals under the *Grants to Reduce Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and Stalking on Campus Program* to

1. Require grantees that provide outreach and educational materials regarding sexual assault services to students, to provide them in accessible formats and inform the college community that these are available. 

1. When OVW funds research on sexual assault on college campuses, require researchers to include students with disabilities as a demographic. For example, allow students to identify if they have a disability in surveys/questionnaires, etc.

### Colleges

To ensure access to sexual assault supports and services, colleges should:

1. Include students with disabilities as a demographic in campus climate surveys on sexual assault.

Create crisis policies and procedures on how to provide sexual assault services to students with sensory disabilities, especially Deaf or hard of hearing students, so that students receive services within 24 hours.

Guarantee that sexual assault first responders and support providers have access to emergency interpreter services or other communication methods (i.e., Communication Access Real-Time Translation) so that students can communicate with staff immediately.

Ensure that sexual assault information (i.e., fliers, posters, websites) are accessible to students with visual disabilities, learning disabilities, and cognitive deficits.

Ensure that students can access sexual assault reporting or connect with crisis counseling or other supports through various modes of communication (i.e., online, text messages, or phone). 

Create formal agreements with community-based providers with the expertise to support survivors with disabilities.

Include information about disability and accommodations on the Title IX web page and related information. 

Include contact information in Title IX policies and related materials for anyone to request disability services and accommodations. 

To address the unique needs of survivors of sexual assault with disabilities, colleges should: 

1. Develop and implement sexual assault prevention and support service training with messaging campaigns that are inclusive and welcoming to students with disabilities on college campuses. 

2. Provide disability-related and trauma-informed practice training to prevention and first responder staff (i.e., advocates, crisis counselors, peer advocates, sexual assault nurse examiners) and campus security so that they understand how to effectively prevent and support students with disabilities after an incident of sexual assault.**

3. Establish and maintain active collaborative relationships between Title IX, sexual assault services, counseling and health services, and disability services. 

4. College Disability Service Center staff should be actively involved in college sexual assault prevention and support efforts and trained on Title IX procedures. 

5. If colleges are using White House Task Force guidelines to enhance services and programs, ensure that disability services, organizations for student with disabilities, and academic fields related to disability (e.g., disability studies, Deaf studies, and American Sign Language programs) are included in discussions and the development of recommendations.

# Endnotes

92

# image2.png

# image1.png