This project was supported by Grant No. 1999-WA-VX-0008 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Contrary
to the traditional image of college campuses as safe havens for young adults,
students, and women in particular, are exposed to high risks of sexual
victimization on campus (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Fisher et al.,
1998; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987). Obtaining a postsecondary education should be a time for
healthy risk-taking and for social, intellectual and vocational maturation. Victims of campus sexual assault,
however, face potential traumatizationÑintense fear and emotional numbing, loss
of control, and the shattering of their trust and their belief in their ability
to make sound judgements about the people and the world around them. The cost of this potential loss is
inestimable.
During
the last fifteen years, the issue of sexual victimization of students has
attracted much needed attention partially through highly publicized campus
sexual assault trials and allegations of reports being mishandled by school
officials (Bohmer & Parrot, 1993; Sanday, 1990, 1996; Warshaw, 1988). In response to public pressure, Federal legislation has
mandated that institutions of higher education grapple withÑand respond toÑthe
massive problem of young menÕs sexual violence toward their coeducational
peers. (In
this summary, we will refer to institutions of high education with the acronym,
ÒIHEÓ).
Congress
passed the Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act (20 U.S.C. ¤1092) in 1990 to require all Title IV
eligible IHEs to publicly disclose crime statistics and crime prevention and
security policies and procedures on campus. The law was amended in 1992 to require that schools afford
victims specific basic rights and again in 1998 to emphasize reporting obligations
regarding sexual assault on campus[1]. This most recent amendment is commonly
known as the Clery Act.
Despite
the emergence of concern about sexual victimization among postsecondary
students, little systematic information has been published about the content of
sexual assault policies, protocols, and programs that currently exist in
IHEs. In Public Law 105-244, the
United States Congress mandated a study designed to address nine issues
relating to prevention efforts, victim support services, reporting policies,
protocols, barriers, and facilitators, adjudication procedures, and sanctions
for sexual assault. On
1 November 1999, the National Institute of Justice awarded a grant to Education
Development Center, Inc., and its partnersÑUniversity of Cincinnati and Police
Executive Research ForumÑto carry out this study.
To
comprehensively investigate the wide array of issues and institutional contexts
mandated in this research, multiple forms of data were used to address each
issue. These data included a
content analysis of published sexual assault policy materials from a nationally
representative sample of IHEs, mail surveys of campus administrators from a
nationally representative sample of IHEs, field research at eight colleges and
universities, electronic focus groups conducted with campus administrators, and
legal research of state-level legislation.
Our
national sample comprises 2,438 institutions in the United States and Puerto
Rico, including all HBCUs (N=98) and all Native American tribal schools
(N=28). All nine types of schools
eligible for Title IV funding were represented in the sample: four-year public,
four-year private nonprofit, two- to four-year private for profit, two-year
public, two-year private nonprofit, less-than-two-year public and private nonprofit,
less-than-two-year private for profit, Native American tribal schools, and
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (hereinafter
referred to as HBCU). Field
research schools exhibiting promising practices were chosen from the sample on
the basis of nineteen primary criteria (i.e., utilize a coordinated response to
reports, offer an anonymous reporting option) and ten secondary criteria.
All schools in the sample were contacted, by mail, twice, with requests for the survey of campus administrators and published policy materials. Telephone calls were placed to a portion of nonrespondent IHEs and the Internet was used to augment materials for schools that submitted incomplete sets of policy material. Field research schools were notified by mail that they were found to be exhibiting promising practices and invited by telephone to participate in the field research component of the study.
Response
rates varied greatly by type of data collected and by type of school, with an
overall response rate of 41 percent (41.6 percent for the policy materials, and
41.1 percent for the surveys). For
four-year public and four-year private nonprofit IHEsÑthe school types which
educate the majority of post-secondary students (Barbett, 1999)Ñthe policy
materials and survey components generated a 65.9 percent and a 49.1 percent
response rate respectively.
Response rate for field research schools was similar: six of the original ten promising
practice schools declined, for a variety of reasons, to participate in the field
research component of the study.
Challenging popular belief in stranger-rape myths, the vast
majority of sexual assaults against studentsÑ84 to 97.8 percentÑare perpetrated
by young men known to the victim (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Kahn
& Andreoli Mathie, 2000; Kahn, Andreoli Mathie, & Torgler, 1994; Koss,
Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987). A
substantial majority of these victims, however, do not define their experiences
using legal terms. That is,
even though the incident is legally a criminal offense, they do not call their
victimization a ÒrapeÓ (Bondurant, 2001; Fisher, Cullen & Turner 2000; Kahn
& Andreoli Mathie, 2000; Kahn, et al., 1994; Koss et al., 1988; Schwartz
& Leggett, 1999). This is
particularly true when weapons are absent,
alcohol is present, and/or physical injury (e.g., choke marks, bruises) is not
apparentÑthe characteristics that are most often found in acquaintance rapes
(Bondurant, 2001; Warshaw, 1988).
Victims not identifying and naming events that meet legal
definitions of rape and sexual assault has serious implications for reporting
campus sexual assault since one must conceptualize an event a crime before she,
or he, attempts to seek justice, or heal.
Underreporting
by victims of acquaintance sexual assault is one of the most, if not the most,
significant factors in low reporting rates on IHE campuses (Fisher et al.,
forthcoming).
This
Final Report looks at how the nationÕs IHEs are responding to reports of sexual
assault and offers a comprehensive descriptive baseline. Nine major issues were
investigated. Many of the topic
areas addressed have not been previously examined, which underscores the importance
of findings that are contained in this Final Report. Below, the findingsÑpresented by the nine issuesÑare
summarized.
Issue I: The Existence and Publication of IHEÕs and StateÕs Definitions of Sexual Assault
The main findings for this issue are that most
campuses that reported back did articulate some definition of rape and other forms
of sexual assault that helped inform their response and reporting
policies. Nonetheless, there are
no standard definitions of rape and sexual assault. In other words, the ways in which rape and sexual assault
are defined varies across institutions and states. For the most part, campuses draw on federal and/or state
language, although most do not include the offenses of statutory rape and
incest. It is important to
reiterate that no matter which definition of sexual assault is being used, the
IHEs or the stateÕs, the majority of students do not define their experience of
rape as a crime.
Currently, only 18 states have laws
pertaining to campus security and campus crime statistics reporting.
Only 36.5 percent of schools reported
crime statistics in a manner that was fully consistent with the Clery Act. Of the
schools that responded to our request for materials, 77.9 percent sentÑas
requestedÑtheir annual security reports (ASR). This suggests that a large proportion of IHEs are complying
with this aspect of the Clery Act. While over 8 in 10 schools which
provided ASRs included three years of crime statistics in the ASR, there was
less apparent compliance with the Clery ActÕs stipulation that sexual offenses should be divided
into ÒforcibleÓ offenses and ÒnonforcibleÓ offenses, however. Nearly half (48.5 percent) of the
four-year public schools and 43 percent of the four-year private nonprofit
schools included forcible and nonforcible sexual offenses in their crime
statistics.
Ninety-seven percent of schools that had
a sexual assault policy did not mention stalking in their sexual assault
policies whereas two-thirds of these same schools either had a separate sexual
harassment policy (45.9 percent) or mentioned harassment in their policy
statement (19.6 percent).
Only 13.7 percent of schools collect
statistical information on the use of drugs in the commission of rapes,
although this figure raises to more than 1 in 3 in HBCUs and four-year public
schools.
Issue II: The
Existence and Publication of IHEsÕ Policies for Campus Sexual Assault
The main finding here is that four-year public and
private nonprofit institutions, those IHEs which educate a majority of
postsecondary students (Barbett, 1999), have made substantial strides in the
direction of developing explicit sexual assault policies. Other types of schoolsÑsmaller, for
profit, non-residential IHEsÑare lagging behind in developing and/or making
accessible these policies.
Approximately 60 percent of schools sent
a written sexual assault policy as requested. The likelihood of sending a written policy varied
considerably by school type.
Four-year public (82.2 percent), four-year private nonprofit (70.4 percent)
and two-year public (59.4 percent) were most likely to have a sexual assault
policy whereas the percentage of all other types of schools having a policy
fell below significantly below 50 percent.
Sexual assault policies were included in
either the ASR (38.6 percent)Ña document that all Title IV eligible
institutions must compile per the Clery ActÑor their student handbook (19.3 percent).
Almost three-quarters of schools
mentioned in their sexual assault policies contact procedures in the event a
victimization occurred. Almost all
the schools included a telephone number to contact, although less than half of
the schools states that that person could be reached 24 hours a dayÑa problem
given that most campus sexual assaults take place during the evening and early
morning hours (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000). Campus police or local police were the most frequently named
contact persons.
Issue III: The
Individuals to Whom Reports of Sexual Assault are Given Most Often and the
Extent to Which These Individuals are Trained to Respond to the Reports
On the whole, few campuses provide
sexual assault response and/or sensitivity training to those most likely to
first hear of sexual assaults on their campus: friends and fellow students, campus law enforcement/security
officers, and faculty members.
Very few female victims of rape (3.2
percent) or attempted rape (2.3 percent) report their victimization to the
police or to campus authorities.
However, two-thirds of rape victims disclosed their experience to a
friend or someone else (e.g., family member) (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner
2000; Fisher et al., forthcoming).
Active support of friends was found to be the primary factor that
distinguishes those victims who report the crime to campus and/or local
authorities and those that remain silent.
On the whole, 60 percent of schools
provide no training to students.
Four-year residential IHEs are, however, more likely to provide students
sexual assault response training:
77 percent of four-year public schools, 65 percent of four-year private
nonprofit schools and 61 percent of HBCUs. When training occurs, it is most often directed at residence
hall assistants and student security officers rather than the general student
population.
Only 37.6 percent of all schools require
sexual assault training for campus law enforcement/ security officers. While sexual assault training for
campus law enforcement/security officers is fairly standard at four-year public
(80.3 percent) and HBCUs (72.7 percent), which rely primarily on sworn officers
employed by the school, at many other institutions training is not provided to
the people to whom formal complaints are likely to be submitted.
About half of all schoolsÑincluding 3 in
10 four-year public schoolsÑprovide no training to faculty and staff about Òhow
to respond to disclosures of sexual assault.Ó Training is mandatory in about 1 in 3 schools (33.7 percent)
and voluntary in less than 1 in 5 (17.3 percent) of schools.
Issue IV: The
On- and Off-Campus Reporting Options and Procedures (including Confidentiality)
that are Articulated to Victims of Sexual Assault
The main finding regarding reporting options is that
more than three quarters of the nationÕs IHEs offer campus sexual assault
victims confidential reporting options (84.3 percent). Anonymous (45.8 percent), anonymous
internet (3.7 percent), and third party (34.6 percent) are also recognized
reporting options, although at significantly less schools.
An anonymous reporting option was found
at significantly less than half of small, non-residential, non-traditional
school types and only slightly above half of four-year public, four-year
private nonprofit and HBCUs. While
a third of schools reported the use of a third party reporting option, only 6.5
percent of schools specifically mentioned a third-party reporting option in
their sexual assault materials.
Although the figures are higher for
four-year public and private nonprofit institutions, less than half of the
schools (44.7 percent) have policies that include statements on the legal and
disciplinary system options available to students. When such statements are available, the options most often
listed are filing criminal charges (91 percent), filing a complaint with the
campus judicial system (88.8 percent), and deciding not to file charges (58.1
percent).
Only half of schoolsÕ sexual assault policies list procedures
for reporting a sexual assault to on-campus and/or off-campus police (46.1 and
49.1 percent respectively). The
majority of four-year public (78.8 percent), four-year private nonprofit
schools (54.1 percent), and HBCUs (53.3 percent) have procedures for reporting
a sexual assault to on-campus police. The
majority of four-year private nonprofit (59.2 percent), two- and four-year
private for-profit (74.6 percent), and Native American tribal schools (71.4
percent) have procedures for reporting to off-campus police.
The sexual assault policies for about 1
in 3 IHEs contain a statement concerning the importance of victims obtaining a
(forensic) medical examination, and about 4 in 10 schools had a statement
concerning the importance of preserving evidence that a sexual assault had
transpired. Again, four-year
public schools were higher than other institutions, with 6 in 10 providing such
information. Of schools that did
provide steps on how to preserve evidence, a majority of the schoolsÕ policies
(61.3 percent) detailed specific steps for victims to take, such as not
cleaning up the area in which the victimization took place, not bathing, and
not changing clothes.
Issue V: The
Resources Available on Campus and Within the Community for VictimsÕ Safety,
Support, and Medical Treatment and Counseling, Including How Well the Resources
are Articulated to Sexual Assault Victims and the Campus at Large
Less than half of IHEs report providing new students
with sexual assault awareness education.
Less than half of any type of school
provides an acquaintance rape prevention program.
57.8 percent of schools notify victims
of the availability of on- and off-campus counseling, medical treatment, or
other student services in their published documentation. Schools listed student counseling (70.2
percent), campus law enforcement (62.8 percent), the deanÕs office (48.7
percent), student health services (47.7 percent), and campus housing services
(28.1 percent) as on-campus resources provided to student victims of sexual
assault. Of those that mentioned
off-campus resources (33.4 percent), the most commonly noted resources were
rape crisis centers (70.2 percent), police agencies (65.8 percent), medical
services (56.4 percent), womenÕs centers (26.3 percent), mental health services
(26.1 percent), and victim advocacy offices (26.1 percent).
Roughly one quarterÑthough about 6 in 10
four-year public schools and 4 in 10 HBCUsÑprovide victim-related support
services to special populations of students (e.g., living off campus,
non-native English speaking, sexual minority, physically challenged, etc.).
Only 3.2 percent of schools report
providing victims with legal support, such as access to legal services, or even
a student law clinic. In four-year
public institutions, the percentage is three times higher, but the proportion
furnishing legal assistance is still less than 1 in 10 schools.
Issue VI: Policies
and Practices that May Prevent or Discourage Reporting of Campus Sexual
Assaults
Underreporting by campus sexual assault
victims stems from a combination of individual, institutional and
socio-cultural factors.
While stranger-rape myths have been
largely eradicated throughout society, acquaintance rape myths have only
recently begun to be challenged.
Student victims of rape by someone they know fear that people will hold
them responsible for their own criminal victimization--and are far less likely
to report their victimization to campus or criminal authorities than victims
raped by a strangers on their campus.
When acquaintance rape victims name
their experience Òrape,Ó they are often naming a classmate or friend a
ÒcriminalÓÑa Òrapist.Ó Such
labeling requires a radical redefinition of their previous relationship in a
way that politicizes that relationship.
Avoiding this process is one reason student sexual assault victims
neither name nor report the crime they suffered.
IHEs unintentionally condone
victim-blaming when they circulate materials that focus primarily on the
individual victimÕs responsibility to avoid sexual assault without balancing
this risk management information with prevention education targeted toward men
that stresses the perpetratorÕs responsibility for committing the crime.
Any policy or procedure that
compromises, or worse, eliminates the student victimÕs ability to make her or
his own informed choices about proceeding through the reporting and
adjudication processÑsuch as mandatory reporting requirements that do not
include an anonymous reporting option or require the victim to participate in the
adjudication process if the report is filedÑnot only reduces reporting rates
but may be counter productive to the victimÕs healing process.
Confidentiality issuesÑthat is how
information regarding the studentÕs victimization will circulateÑfunction as significant
barriers to reporting and following through with adjudication on campus. Policies or procedures which students,
moreover student victims, perceive as a risk to their ability to control
information about their victimization experience function as barriers to the
reporting and adjudication of the crime.
For example, the establishment of reporting Memorandums of Understanding
between a school and its local prosecutorÕs office that preclude the victimÕs consent
to release her or his name.
Seeking to avoid a lengthy adjudication
processÑwhether in the campus or the criminal justice systemÑthat threatens to
dominate the victimÕs college experience is one way some victims begin to
assert control over their lives to begin healing from their rape trauma.
The victimÕs lack of belief in the
system that the perpetrator, especially acquaintance rapists, will be punished,
functions as a barrier to reporting.
Institutional-level aspects of this perception are complex. Increased
attempts made by campus judicial systemsÑor the legal systemÑto investigate and
adjudicate an allegation, and subsequently punish a perpetrator, exacts an
unavoidable cost on victims. The
more schools try to punish perpetrators of sexual assault, the more likely it
is that they will be sued civilly and forcedÑas they have beenÑto give
perpetrators more due process. Due
process, however, is the very thing that exacts costs on victims of sexual
assault, because it treats the perpetrator as an ÒequalÓ party in the complaint
(with the IHE functioning as neutral arbiter). Forensic evidence collection may thereby be crucial in
providing the victim evidence corroborating her or his account of the
events.
Issue VII: Policies
and Practices Found Successful in Aiding the Report and any Ensuing
Investigation or Prosecution of a Campus Sexual Assault
The most commonly mentioned policies and
practices thought to facilitate reporting of sexual assault and participation
in the investigation and adjudication process include
á
provisions for
confidential reporting,
á
provisions for anonymous
reporting,
á
written law enforcement
protocols for responding to reports,
á
coordinated crisis
response across campus and community,
á
forensic medical
evidence collection by trained and certified forensic nurses, such as sexual
assault nurse examiners,
á
on-campus victim
assistance services office,
á
sexual assault peer
educators, and
á
first year and new
student orientation programs.
Issue VIII: On-Campus
Procedures for Investigating, Adjudicating and Disciplining Perpetrators of
Sexual Assault
The main findings here are that although
the majority of schools report the use of some form of formal grievance
procedure, the majority of sexual assault cases reported to campus
administrators and/or law enforcement officials are dealt with, at the victimÕs
request, through binding administrative actions (such as establishing
Òno-contactÓ orders and changing residences and classes). In the small percentage of complaints
that do receive formal review by campus adjudication boards, the hearing
processes utilized vary widely.
Over 7 in 10 schools report that they
have Òdisciplinary procedures,Ó a Òjudicial system,Ó Ògrievance procedures,Ó or
some similarly named adjudication process, although they are less likely to be
found in nonresidential, for-profit and in less-than-two-year IHEs.
Almost 6 in 10 schools provide students
with information as to the existence of a process that a student could use to
file a written complain concerning an alleged sexual assault. Whereas four-year public (77.6
percent), HBCUs (74.3 percent) and four-year private nonprofit (72.9 percent)
are more than likely to provide such an option, less-than-two-year public
nonprofit (10.7 percent) and two and four year private for profit schools (14
percent) provide student victims this option.
Almost half of four-year public schools
utilize an Òinvestigation stageÓ to gather evidence in order to substantiate or
dismiss the complaint; only about one quarter of all IHEs demarcate an
investigation stage.
Only 1 in 4 schools report using written
protocols to coordinate the investigation efforts of campus and local law
enforcement, although this figure is twice as high for four-year public and
HBCUs.
Student judicial committees use a
variety of hearing processes.
Hearing boards may contain as few as a single board member and as many
as 24. The Ôburden of proofÕ
ranges from Ôpreponderance of the evidenceÕ to Ôbeyond a reasonable
doubt.Õ
Only 52.6 percent of schoolsÕ policy
materials mention that the complainant will be notified of the procedures that
will be used in, and the outcome of, the complaint. The majority of IHEs (61.9 percent) with a disciplinary
process notify the accused of the existence and nature of a complaint filed
against them.
Due process procedures for the accused
are utilized at only 37.3 percent of IHEs.
In 2000-2001, the bulk of cases of
acquaintance rape involving college students were largely resolved out of court
and never formally reported to criminal justice personnel.
Issue IX: The
Types of and Procedures for Punishment for Offenders
For students found responsible for
violating the schoolÕs code of conduct and/or found guilty of rape or sexual
assault, sanctions range from loss of privileges to expulsion.
Of the schools with a disciplinary
process, the most common sanctions employed by a school are expulsion (84.3
percent), suspension (77.3 percent), probation (63.1 percent), censure (56.3
percent), restitution (47.8 percent), and loss of privileges (35.7 percent).
The most common penalties employed by
four-year institutions include expulsion, suspension, counseling, and
administrative no-contact orders.
Only a minority of institutions impose sanctions on fraternities and
athletic teams.
á There are no standard institutional
or state definitions of Òsexual assaultÓ and Òrape.Ó No matter which definitions are used, the majority of
student victims do not define their experience of rape as a crime.
á Only 36.5 percent of schools
reported crime statistics in a manner fully consistent with the Clery Act which requires the reporting of
forcible and non-forcible rape and sexual assault in Annual Security Reports
(ASRs).
á Whereas about 3 in 4 traditional
four-year public schools, four-year private nonprofit schools, and HBCUs
provide information on the process to file a written complaint alleging sexual
assault, only slightly more than 1 in 10 small, non-residential, for profit
schools provide students with such information.
á IHEs utilize a variety of options
to report sexual assaults and rapes on campus: confidential (84.3 percent), anonymous (45.8 percent),
anonymous internet (3.7 percent), and third party (34.6 percent).
á Active support from friends is the
primary factor that distinguishes victims who report the crime to campus and/or
local authorities from those who remain silent. Yet, less than half of all IHEs provide new students with
sexual assault awareness education; less than half of all IHEs provide students
with acquaintance rape prevention programming.
á Only 37.6 percent of IHEs require
sexual assault sensitivity training for campus law enforcement/security
officers, although this training is fairly standard at four-year public schools
and HBCUs.
á Only 40 percent of schools provide
students with sexual assault response training (e.g., resident hall assistants
and student security officers).
á Any policy or procedure that
compromises, or worse, eliminates the victimÕs ability to make her or his own
choices about proceeding through the reporting and adjudication process--such
as mandatory reporting requirements without an anonymous reporting option--not
only reduces reporting rates but may be counter-productive to the victimÕs
healing process.
á Recognition of anonymous reporting,
use of written law enforcement protocols for responding to sexual assault
reports, coordination of crisis response procedures, access to forensic medical
evidence collection, and sexual assault peer education are widely perceived by
administrators, victim advocates, law enforcement officers and students
activists to be strategies that facilitate the reporting of sexual assaults on
campus.
á Roughly one quarter--though about 6
in 10 four-year public schools and 4 in 10 HBCUs--provide victim-related support
services to special populations of students (e.g., non-native English speaking,
living off-campus, sexual minority, physically challenged).
á Due process procedures for the
accused are utilized at only 37.3 percent of IHEs.
á The most common penalties employed
by four-year (residential) institutions include expulsion, suspension, and
administrative actions such as no-contact orders. Only a minority of IHEs impose sanctions of fraternities and
athletic teams.
Based on these study findings, we offer two types of
recommendations: those aimed at
providing support to IHEs and in creating comprehensive sexual assault policies
that are specific to their school type, and those that suggest areas in need of
further examination.
á Investigate Barriers and
Facilitators to VictimÕs Ability to Identify Rape as Crime.
á Investigate Ethnic and Other
Cultural Factors in Campus Sexual Assault.
á Evaluate Policies Perceived to Be
Barriers or Facilitators to Reporting.
á Develop Guidelines for Meeting Clery
Act Reporting
Mandates.
á Develop a Model Sexual Assault
Policy Manual.
á Develop a Model Sexual Assault
Education Pamphlet for Students.
á Develop a Set of Model Services for
Victims of Campus Sexual Assault.
á Design Policies and Protocols That
Prioritize VictimsÕ Needs.
These findings and recommendations should be useful not only to legislators and campus leaders, but also to a wide range of criminal justice professionals, health and mental health service providers, womenÕs and victimsÕ advocates. As the study findings are applied by IHEs to improve sexual assault prevention, response and reporting efforts, and recommendations are adapted by national educational funding agencies, studentsÑin fact, all citizensÑwill benefit from safer learning environments at the nationÕs institutions of higher education.
Bohmer, C. and Parrot, A. (1993). Sexual assault on campus: The problem and the solution. NY: Lexington Books.
Bondurant, B. (2001). University womenÕs acknowledgement of rape: Individual, situational, and social
factors. Violence Against
Women, 7(3): 294-314.
Fisher, B., Cullen, F., and Turner, M. (2000). The sexual victimization of college
women: Findings from two
national-level studies. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Fisher, B.,
Diagle, L., Cullen, F. and Turner, M. (forthcoming). Reporting sexual victimization to the police and
others: Results from a
national-level study of college women.
Criminal Justice and Behavior.
Fisher, B., Sloan, J., Cullen, F., and Lu, C.
(1998). Crime in the ivory
tower: The level and sources of
student victimization. Criminology, 36(3): 671Ð710.
Kahn, A. and Andreoli Mathie, V. (2000). Understanding the unacknowledged rape
victim. In C. Travis and J. White
(Eds.), Sexuality, society, and feminism (pp. 377Ð403). Washington,
DC: American Psychological
Association.
Kahn, A., Andreoli Mathie, V., and Torgler, C.
(1994). Rape scripts and rape
acknowledgment. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 18: 53Ð66.
Koss, M., Dinero, T., Seibel, C., and Cox, S.
(1988). Stranger and acquaintance
rape: Are there differences in the
victimsÕ experience? Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 12: 1Ð24.
Koss, M., Gidycz, C., and Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual
aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students.
Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 55(2): 162Ð170.
Pitts, V. and Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-blame in hidden rape cases. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Researching
sexual violence against women:
Methodological and personal perspectives (pp. 65Ð70).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Sanday, P. (1990). Fraternity gang rape. NY: New York University Press.
Sanday, P. (1996). A woman scorned:
Acquaintance rape on trial. NY: Doubleday.
Schwartz, M. and Leggett, M. (1999). Bad dates or emotional trauma? The aftermath of campus sexual
assault. Violence Against Women, 5(3): 251Ð271.
Schwartz, M. and DeKeseredy, W. (1997). Sexual assault on the college
campus: The role of the male peer
model. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Warshaw, R. (1988). I never called it rape. NY: Harper & Row.
[1] More recently, the Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act was enacted 28 October 2000. As changes pertaining to this act are not in effect until 28 October 2002, they are not reflected in this report.