Report on the AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct Harvard University Authors David Cantor, Westat Bonnie Fisher, University of Cincinnati Susan Chibnall, Westat Carol Bruce, Westat Reanne Townsend, Westat Gail Thomas, Westat Hyunshik Lee, Westat September 21, 2015 Prepared for: Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts (City, State) Prepared by: Westat An Employee-Owned Research Corporation® 1600 Research Boulevard Rockville, Maryland 20850-3129 (301) 251-1500 Table of Contents Section Page 1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 2 Methodology........................................................................................ 1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3 Instrument Development ........................................................ 1 Survey Content......................................................................... 2 Sample and Incentives ............................................................. 2 Survey Procedures ................................................................... 3 Response Rates ........................................................................ 3 Brief Description of the Weighting Procedure for Harvard University ................................................................... 4 Survey Results ...................................................................................... 7 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Campus Climate around Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct .............................................................................. 7 Resources Related to Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct .............................................................................. 8 Frequency and Nature of Victimization by Physical Force or Incapacitation .......................................................... 13 Frequency and Nature of Victimization Due to Coercion or Absence of Affirmative Consent ........................................ 13 Frequency and Nature of Sexual Harassment, Intimate Partner Violence, and Stalking ............................................... 23 Appendixes 1 Instrument Development .................................................................. 28 2 Human Subjects Protections and Safeguards .................................. 102 3 Results by Individual Status Code .................................................... 115 4 Non-response Bias Analysis ............................................................. 118 5 Email Invitations and Reminders ..................................................... 126 i 1. Introduction This report describes the results of the 2015 Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct administered at Harvard University. The project was designed to address the concerns related to the incidence and prevalence of sexual assault and sexual misconduct at Harvard University. There were three overall goals of the survey. One was to estimate the incidence and prevalence of different forms of nonconsensual sexual contact, harassment, stalking, and intimate partner violence. The second goal was to collect information on student views related to the climate surrounding sexual assault and misconduct. The third goal was to assess student knowledge and evaluation of school resources and procedures when responding to instances of sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Addressing each of these goals will help Harvard University create a safer and more accepting campus environment. Harvard University participated as part of a consortium of 27 colleges and universities organized by the American Association for Universities (AAU). The research firm Westat led the design effort, carried out the survey, and conducted the analysis presented in this report. The content and methodology of the survey was developed in consultation with a committee of university representatives from the participating schools. This report includes a description of the survey design and methodology used to conduct the survey, as well as empirical results. For this report we have included descriptive information for selected tables. 2. Methodology 2.1 Instrument Development In early November 2014, the AAU Survey Design Team was formed and started on the survey development process. (For a list of Design Team members, see Table A1, Appendix 1.) The team met weekly, sometimes twice a week, to review progress and discuss sections of the questionnaire. Throughout the survey design process, the team received more than 700 comments about the survey for consideration, including those from the Survey Design Team and study coordinators. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. In addition, college students provided feedback on the instrument by participating in: (1) two rounds of cognitive testing conducted at Westat; and (2) pilot administration groups conducted at four participating institutions of higher education (IHEs). 1 2.2 Survey Content The survey structure is comprised of ten sections (A-J) and concludes with a final debriefing question about the survey experience. A core set of 53 questions was asked of every respondent, including Background (A), Perceptions of Risk (B), Resources (C), Harassment (D), Stalking (E), Sexual Violence (G), Sexual Misconduct Prevention Training (H), Perceptions of Responses to Reporting (I), and Bystander Behavior (J). Questions regarding Sexual Misconduct Prevention Training (H) were asked of students who had enrolled in the university in 2014 or 2015. Respondents in a partnered relationship or who had been in a partnered relationship since enrolling at the university were asked questions about Intimate Partner Violence/Domestic Violence (F). Additional questions were administered if respondents reported being victimized. For Harassment, Stalking, and Intimate Partner Violence/Domestic Violence (sections D, E and F), follow-up questions were asked for each type of misconduct. These follow-up questions collected information across all reported incidents for each form of victimization. For example, if someone was a victim of Intimate Partner Violence by two different partners, the follow-up questions asked for information across both partners. For Sexual Violence (section G), follow up questions, including a Detailed Incident Form (DIF), were asked for the items covering sexual assault (G1-G5), coercion (G6, G7) and lack of affirmative consent (G8, G9). (For the complete instrument, with annotations, see Appendix 1.) The Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct was administered as a web survey. The use of merge fields throughout the instrument allowed for frequent referencing of the respondent’s university within questions and framing language, personalizing the survey experience for students. Further, response options for five questions included university-specific responses: school of enrollment (A5), student organizations (A16), living situation (A17), services and resources (C1), and resources related to sexual assault and sexual misconduct (D10, E8, F8, GA16). Each page of the web survey included links to general and school-specific frequently asked questions (FAQs) and resources. (For FAQs and resources, see Appendix 2.) All web survey pages also included the Help Desk number to assist students who needed either technical assistance or additional resources. 2.3 Sample and Incentives Harvard University identified 20,880 enrolled students to participate in the Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct. 2 To encourage participation, students were offered a $5 incentive to complete the survey. Students were notified of their eligibility for the $5 Amazon gift card in the invitation and reminder emails. 2.4 Survey Procedures The Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct was launched at Harvard University on April 12, 2015 and closed three weeks later on May 2, 2015. All enrolled students were offered the opportunity to participate in the survey. Email invitations to participate in the survey were sent to students’ school email addresses through a Westat email account on the first day of data collection, April 12, 2015. Each email included a unique link to the student’s online survey and was signed by Harvard University President Drew Faust. Westat sent reminder emails, also signed by President Faust, on April 15, April 22, and April 29 to prompt completion of the survey before the deadline. The Harvard University Campus Climate Survey was due on May 3. (For email invitations and reminders, see Appendix 5.) 2.5 Response Rates At the close of data collection, Harvard University had an overall response rate of 53.2 percent. Table 1. Response rates N = 20,880 Female n resp % n Graduates or Professional 6,658 3,728 56.0 7,122 Undergraduates 3,364 2,113 62.8 3,736 10,022 5,841 58.3 10,858 Male Combined resp % n resp % 3,301 46.3 13,780 7,029 51.0 1,962 52.5 7,100 4,075 57.4 5,263 48.5 20,880 11,104 53.2 A completed survey was defined by two criteria: 1 • For those with timing information, did it take the respondent at least 5 minutes to fill out the questionnaire?1 • For everyone, did the respondent answer at least one question in each of the following sections: sexual harassment (D), stalking (E), and sexual assault/other misconduct (G)? Timing data was not available for anyone who did not get to the end of the survey and hit the ‘submit’ button. 3 The first criterion is to exclude those students who went through the survey so quickly that they could not possibly read and answer the questions.2 The second criterion brings in those cases that did not press the ‘submit’ button at the end of the survey, but did provide responses to most of the questionnaire. We used the victimization sections to define a ‘complete’ because of the importance of these items to the survey’s goals.3 2.6 Brief Description of the Weighting Procedure for Harvard University The initial step was to create a base-weight for each respondent. A census was conducted at Harvard University and a base weight of one [the inverse of the probability of selection] was assigned to each respondent. The base weight was adjusted to reflect nonresponse. This adjustment consisted of a raking procedure that adjusted the base weight to the demographic data available on the frame (Deming and Stephen, 1940; Deville, Särndal, and Sautory, 1993; Cervantes and Brick, 2008). The variables used in the raking procedure are as shown in the following table: Table 2. Variable Gender Age Group Variables used in the raking procedure Description Two-category gender variable (Male/Female). The frame data only had two categories (male and female), whereas the survey data had 8 categories. To make the frame and the survey data compatible, the survey responses to a nonmale/female category were imputed to a male or female category. Transgender male/female cases are coded as ordinary male/female. Student’s age was grouped into four categories, 18-20, 21-23, 24-26, and 27+. Variable Value 1: Male 2: Female 1: 18-20 2: 21-23 3: 24-26 4: 27+ 2 When testing the survey, we asked testers to go through the survey as quickly as possible (e.g., skimming the questions and not reading the introduction or instructions). Based on these findings, five minutes was chosen as a cutoff point, below which the survey was not counted as a complete. 3 This criterion could not be used for Intimate Partner Violence (section F) because of the skip pattern embedded in this section (i.e., student had to have been in a partnered relationship since a student at school). 4 Table 2. Variable Year in School Race/ Ethnicity Variables used in the raking procedure (continued) Description This is a combined variable of student affiliation (Undergraduate/Graduate/ Professional) and year of study or year in program. The questionnaire had separate questions on year of study for undergraduates (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior) and graduate/professional students (1st, 2nd, …,6+). This variable has 5 categories, Hispanic, White, Black, Other race, and Nonresident alien. The frame race/ethnicity categories are grouped this way, and the survey race/ethnicity variables were coded to conform to this categorization. Variable Value 1: Undergraduate freshman 2: Undergraduate sophomore 3: Undergraduate junior 4: Undergraduate senior 5: Graduate/Professional year 1 & 2 6: Graduate/Professional year 3 & 4 7: Graduate/Professional year 5 &6+ 1: Hispanic 2: White 3: Black 4: Other race 5: Nonresident alien Missing values in the demographic variables in the survey data were imputed using a hot-deck procedure that randomly allocated responses in the same proportion as those answered within each imputation class. On the average, 1.11 percent of survey respondents had to be imputed in this way. The raking procedure adjusts the base weight so that the sum of adjusted weights of the survey respondents for a subgroup is equal to the frame total for that subgroup. Subgroups are defined by each variable used in the raking procedure. Algebraically, this can be expressed as ௡ ෍ ‫ܫ‬௚௞ ‫ݓ‬௞ = ܰ௚ ௞ୀଵ where ݊ is the respondent sample size (11,104), ‫ܫ‬௚௞ is an indicator variable having 1 if respondent ݇ belongs to subgroup ݃, 0 otherwise, ‫ݓ‬௞ is the adjusted weight for respondent ݇, and ܰ௚ is the frame count of subgroup ݃. For example, the weight total for all female respondent students from the survey is equal to the total female count (10,022) in the frame. The same is true for subgroups defined by each variable listed in the above table. 5 References Deming, W.E., and Stephen, F.F. (1940). On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency table. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 14, 427-444. Cervantes, I. F., and Brick, M. (2008). Empirical Evaluation of Raking Ratio Adjustments for Nonresponse. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section of the American Statistical Association (CD-ROM). Deville, J.C., Särndal, E.E., and Sautory, O. (1993). Generalized raking procedure in survey sampling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88, 1013-1020. 6 3. Survey Results This chapter describes the results of the survey. The analyses were guided by the following research questions: 1. What is the campus climate around sexual assault and sexual misconduct? 2. What do students know about and think of resources related to sexual assault and sexual misconduct? 3. What is the frequency and nature of sexual assault? 4. What is the frequency and nature of misconduct because of coercion and absence of affirmative consent? 5. What is the frequency and nature of sexual harassment, intimate partner violence and stalking? The discussion and tables are organized by these research questions. There is discussion for the tables related to the attitudinal measures related to campus climate (section 3.1), knowledge of campus resources related to sexual assault and misconduct, the prevalence and incidence of nonconsensual sexual contact by physical force, incapacitation (section 3.3), coercion and absence of affirmative consent (section 3.4), harassment, stalking and intimate partner violence (section 3.5). There are tables included in the chapter, but are not explicitly discussed, the consequences of the victimization experiences, the relationship between the victim and the offender, the location of the incident, information about reporting to an agency/organization. Most of the discussion and tables are centered on rates by gender and enrollment status. For gender, respondents were asked to identify themselves into one of eight categories.4 For this analysis, respondents were classified into one of three groups: 1) female, 2) male, and 3) transgender, genderqueer or nonconforming, questioning or not listed (TGQN).5 Collapsing groups into TGQN helps to maintain adequate sample to generate estimates. Enrollment status was divided into two groups: 1) undergraduate and 2) graduate and professional. 4 These eight categories are: male, female, transgender male, transgender female, genderqueer or non-conforming gender, questioning, not listed and ‘decline to state’. 5 Those who declined to state their gender were randomly allocated using a hot-deck imputation procedure to the male or female categories. Approximately .5 percent of respondents declined to state their gender. 7 Prior surveys have shown that TGQN and females have significantly higher rates of victimization than males. However, very few campus surveys have produced statistically reliable estimates for those that identify as TGQN because they constitute a very small percentage of the campus population. For the AAU survey approximately 1 percent of the students selected a non-male/female category. While this is a small percentage, the large number of responses to the AAU survey permits estimating rates for this group with adequate statistical precision6. When interpreting the tables, please note the following: 1. An ‘s’ indicates the cell was suppressed for confidentiality reasons. 2. Any non-numeric symbol indicates there was no data for that cell. 3. Comparisons between gender or enrollment status categories are only discussed where those differences were statistically significant at p<0.05. Significance tests were conducted using a t-test assuming independent samples. 3.1 Campus Climate around Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct Students reported on several topics on the campus climate related to sexual assault and sexual misconduct. They were asked about their expectations regarding the response from the university and peers if they were to report a sexual assault or sexual misconduct; whether they had ever witnessed an incident and whether they intervened; whether they perceive sexual assault or sexual misconduct as a problem on campus; and the likelihood that they would be victimized. Response to a report of sexual assault or sexual misconduct. Students were asked about what might happen if someone were to report a sexual assault or sexual misconduct to an official at Harvard University (Table 1.1). Overall, 58.4 percent of all students believe that it is very or extremely likely that the victim would be supported by other students in making a report. Male students are more optimistic than females, with 65.3 percent of male undergraduate students and 64.0 percent of male graduate students indicating that it is very or extremely likely that other students would support the victim in making a report, compared to 53.8 percent of female undergraduate students and 51.3 percent of female graduate students. Students were asked about the likelihood that the alleged perpetrator or their associates would retaliate against the victim in response to a report of sexual assault or sexual 6 While the rates for TGQN students are generally sufficiently large to generate a reliable statistical estimate, the rates by enrollment status are based on relatively small sample sizes. This makes it difficult to compare across groups. In order to make comparisons with this gender group, the text below makes statements referencing estimates for TGQN students summing across enrollment status (referred to as ‘Overall’ in the text). This overall estimate is not shown in the tables. 8 misconduct. Overall, 22.5 percent indicated that it is very or extremely likely that retaliation would occur. Male students are less inclined to believe that a report would result in retaliation, with 18.4 percent of male undergraduate students and 15.6 percent of male graduate students indicating that it is very likely or extremely likely that this would occur, compared to 35.1 percent of female undergraduate students and 25.4 percent of female graduate students. Overall, a notably higher percentage of TGQN students believe that there would be retaliation against the victim in the event of a report. The survey contained several questions about how campus officials would react to a report of sexual assault or sexual misconduct. Students were asked whether campus officials would take the report seriously. Overall, 60.1 percent said that it is very or extremely likely that the report would be taken seriously by campus officials. Female students are less optimistic than male students in this regard, with 42.3 percent of female undergraduate students and 55.8 percent of female graduate students believing that it is very or extremely likely, compared to 61.0 percent of male undergraduate students and 72.6 percent of male graduate students. TGQN students were least likely to believe that a report of sexual assault or sexual misconduct would be taken seriously. Students were asked if campus officials would protect the safety of individuals making the report. Overall, 52.4 percent said that it is very or extremely likely that the individual’s safety would be protected. Females are less optimistic, with 39.4 percent of female undergraduate and 45.1 percent of female graduate students saying that it is very or extremely likely that the individual’s safety would be protected, compared to 57.5 percent of male undergraduate and 63.0 percent of male graduate students. Students were asked if they believe that campus officials would conduct a fair investigation in the event of a report. Overall, 38.6 percent indicated that it is very or extremely likely that this would occur. Females are less optimistic than males, with 28.6 percent of female undergraduate students and 37.2 percent of female graduate students saying that it is very or extremely likely that there would be a fair investigation, compared to 38.4 percent of male undergraduate students and 45.0 percent of male graduate students. Overall, 32.3 percent of students said it was very or extremely likely that campus officials would take action against the offender. Females are less likely than males to believe that campus officials would take action against the offender, with 15.6 percent of female undergraduate students and 26.5 percent of female graduate students saying that it is very or extremely likely that this would occur, compared to 34.9 percent of male undergraduate students and 44.5 percent of male graduate students. Fewer TGQN students, overall, believe that campus officials would take action against the offender. 9 Lastly, 28.0 percent said it was very or extremely likely that campus officials would take action to address factors that may have led to the sexual assault or sexual misconduct on campus. Female students are less inclined to believe this than males, with 18.6 percent of female undergraduate students and 26.0 percent of female graduate students saying that it is very or extremely likely that this would happen, compared to 28.5 percent of male undergraduates and 34.5 percent of male graduate students. Fewer TGQN students, overall, believe that this would very likely to happen. Bystander intervention. Students were asked about different situations related to being a bystander to the occurrence of sexual assault or misconduct, the extent to which they intervened, and the reason for their intervention decision (Table 1.2). Overall, 16.3 percent of the students said they have suspected that a friend may have been sexually assaulted. Female undergraduate students reported this in the highest proportions (39.0%), followed by undergraduate males and graduate females (22.5% and 10.5%, respectively), and male graduate students having the lowest percentage who had suspected that a friend may have been the victim of a sexual assault (7.3%). Overall, TGQN students indicated that they suspected a friend has been sexually assaulted in a higher proportion. Among the bystanders, 62.5 percent took some type of action, with most speaking to a friend or someone else to seek help (56.5%). Female undergraduate students were more likely to speak to a friend or someone else to seek help than male undergraduate students (60.7% vs. 55.3%). Overall, 46.6 percent of the students reported they had witnessed a drunken person heading for a sexual encounter. Gender differences are apparent among graduate students, where female graduate students (35.7%) reported seeing this in lower proportions compared to male graduate students (37.7%). Among the bystanders, a total of 79.8 percent indicated that they did nothing, with 21.4 percent saying they weren’t sure what to do and 58.4 percent saying they did nothing for another reason. Approximately 20.2 percent of the students did take some type of action. About 6.9 percent of the students directly intervened to stop the incident, 5.2 percent spoke to someone else to seek help and 8.1 percent did something else. Female undergraduates reported more often than male undergraduates that they directly intervened to stop the incident (13.0% vs. 7.0%). Within class, females more often than males reported that they spoke to someone else to seek help (9.6% of female undergraduate and 3.4% of female graduate students vs. 6.9% of male undergraduate and 1.6% of male graduate students) or did nothing because they weren’t sure what to do (27.8% of female undergraduate and 24.7% of female graduate students vs. 18.1% of male undergraduate and 16.1% of male graduate students). 10 Asked whether they had witnessed someone acting in a sexually violent or harassing manner, 17.8 percent indicated that they had witnessed such an incident. Female undergraduates reported this in the highest proportions (34.3%), followed by 24.8 percent of male undergraduate students and 14.1 percent of female graduate students, with male graduate students (9.3%) reporting this least often. More TGQN students, overall, witnessed someone acting in a sexually violent or harassing manner. Among the bystanders, a total of 53.9 percent indicated that they did nothing, with 24.4 percent saying they weren’t sure what to do and 29.5 percent saying they did nothing for another reason. Female undergraduates reported doing nothing because they weren’t sure what to do more often than male undergraduates (28.3% vs. 20.8%). Overall, 46.1 percent of the bystanders did take some type of action, with 16.4 percent directly intervening to stop the incident, 16.0 percent speaking to someone else to seek help and 13.7 percent doing something else. Male undergraduates reported directly intervening to stop the incident more often than undergraduate females (23.5% vs. 14.7%), whereas female undergraduates reported speaking to someone else to seek help more often than male undergraduates (21.7% vs. 12.0%). Opinions about prevalence and personal risk. Asked how problematic sexual assault or sexual misconduct is at Harvard University, 15.5 percent reported that it is very much or extremely problematic (Table 1.3). Female undergraduates were most likely to say this (31.9%), followed by undergraduate males (18.5%), graduate females (11.3%), with graduate males (9.4%) reporting this least often. Overall, a higher proportion of TGQN students believe that sexual assault or sexual misconduct is very or extremely problematic at this university. A relatively small proportion said that they believe that they are very or extremely likely to experience sexual assault or sexual misconduct on campus (4.3%) or off campus (3.3%). Females were more worried than males, with 14.5 percent of female undergraduates believing that it is very or extremely likely that they would experience sexual assault or sexual misconduct on campus, for example, vs. 1.9 percent of undergraduate males; and 3.9 percent of graduate females vs. 0.6 percent of graduate males. Overall, a larger proportion of TGQN students believe that it is very or extremely likely that they will be victims of sexual assault on campus. 3.2 Resources Related to Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct This section presents findings regarding the students’ awareness of services and resources offered by the university for those affected by sexual assault and sexual misconduct. The students were first asked if they were aware of specific university resources from a list provided by the university. Students were then asked four questions about their knowledge of 11 how the university defines sexual assault and sexual misconduct, how to get help if the student or a friend experienced sexual assault or sexual misconduct, where to make a report of sexual assault or sexual misconduct, and what happens when a student reports an incident of sexual assault or sexual misconduct. Students were also asked whether their initial orientation to the university included information about sexual assault and sexual misconduct on campus, and if so, how helpful it was. Awareness of resources. Table 2.1 presents the extent to which students are aware of specific resources provided by the university for victims of sexual assault or sexual misconduct. The students’ awareness of these services ranged from 91.6 percent to 8.5 percent. For nearly all of the services offered, undergraduate students are more aware than graduate students. Knowledgeable about university sexual assault policies and procedures. Overall, 14.5% of students at Harvard University are very or extremely knowledgeable about how the university defines sexual assault and sexual misconduct (Table 2.1). A larger proportion (24.1%) knows where to find help at the university if they or a friend are victims of sexual assault or sexual misconduct, and 19.1 percent know where to make a report of sexual assault or sexual misconduct. A smaller percentage (7.7%) knows what happens when a student makes a report of sexual assault or sexual misconduct. Undergraduate students tend to think they are more knowledgeable about the university’s sexual assault policies and procedures than graduate students. Female and male undergraduates indicate that they are very or extremely knowledgeable about where to get help if they or a friend are victims of sexual assault or sexual misconduct, with 36.6 percent of female undergraduates and 35.7 percent of male undergraduates indicating that they are very or extremely knowledgeable in this regard, compared to 19.0 percent of female graduate students and 16.9 percent of male graduate students. Additionally, undergraduates are more knowledgeable about where to report a sexual assault or sexual misconduct than female graduate students (20.5% female undergraduates and 25.84% male undergraduates vs. 15.9% female graduate students and 17.9 male graduate students). Regarding the university’s initial orientation, 66.6 percent indicated that they attended the orientation and it did include information about sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Additionally, 18.5 percent did not remember whether the orientation included this information, and 8.2 percent said that the orientation did not include information about sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Among the students who attended an orientation that included this information, 22.3 percent found the information very or extremely useful. Compared to graduate students, undergraduate students reported in higher proportions that the orientation did include information on sexual assault and sexual misconduct (88.4% 12 female undergraduates and 87.7% of male undergraduates vs. 61.1% female graduate students and 58.3% male graduate students). 3.3 Frequency and Nature of Victimization by Physical Force or Incapacitation Students were asked about victimization due to a wide range of tactics. This section summarizes the prevalence of victimization that was the result of physical force or incapacitation at Harvard University, as well as the characteristics of the victims, the number of times that students have been a victim of this type of assault and whether the incident was reported to an agency or another individual. To measure victimization involving physical force and incapacitation, students were asked five questions that covered two types of behaviors:7 Penetration: • When one person puts a penis, finger, or object inside someone else’s vagina or anus • When someone’s mouth or tongue makes contact with someone else’s genitals Sexual Touching: • kissing • touching someone’s breast, chest, crotch, groin, or buttocks • grabbing, groping or rubbing against the other in a sexual way, even if the touching is over the other’s clothes The estimates include events that were completed, as well as attempts to physically force the person to engage in acts involving penetration. When a student reported an event, they were asked which academic year it occurred and whether this was part of another assault that had already been reported. If it was part of a previously reported victimization, the respondent was asked which one. Events were only counted once. If both penetration and sexual touching were part of the same incident, the penetration was counted. This hierarchy rule was adopted to conform to the counting rules established by the FBI and in the Clery statistics. 7 See questions G1 – G5 of the questionnaire 13 Prevalence. Prevalence is estimated by counting the number of individuals that have been a victim at least once over the time period of interest. Tables 3.1a through 3.1d present the prevalence of nonconsensual penetration or sexual touching due to physical force or incapacitation for undergraduate females, graduate females, undergraduate males, and graduate males. Each table displays the prevalence for the current year and since entering Harvard University, as well as by the different behaviors and tactics. The tactics are further disaggregated by whether physical force, incapacitation or both were involved in the event. The discussion below primarily concentrates on rates since the student entered Harvard University. The patterns for the current year parallel these rates, but are lower because of the shorter time frame. First the patterns within each of the four groups are described, with female undergraduates being first. The patterns across groups are then summarized. Among female undergraduates, 25.5 percent experienced this type of assault since entering Harvard University and 12.5 percent experienced this type of assault during the current school year (Table 3.1a). Among female undergraduates 11.6 percent were victims of nonconsensual penetration involving force or incapacitation since entering Harvard University. Breaking this down further, 6.1% percent were victims of penetration with physical force (no incapacitation) 5.9 percent were victims of a sexual assault involving penetration by incapacitation (no physical force), and 1.4 percent were victims of this type of assault by both physical force and incapacitation. With respect to sexual touching, 19.9 percent of female undergraduates were victims since entering Harvard University, and 9.8 percent during the current school year. Since entering Harvard University, 13.8 percent were victims of this type of assault using physical force only, 7.6 percent using incapacitation only and 1.4 percent were victims of nonconsensual sexual touching, with both physical force and incapacitation. Of the incidents that involved physical force, about half were completed and half were attempted. Among graduate females, 7.6 percent were victims of sexual assault involving either nonconsensual penetration or sexual touching since entering Harvard University, and 3.5 percent in the current school year (Table 3.1b). Since entering Harvard University, 3.1 percent were victims of sexual assault with penetration. With respect to tactics for nonconsensual penetration, 1.6 percent was physical force, 1.4 percent was by incapacitation only, and 0.3 percent by both physical force and incapacitation. Since entering Harvard University, 5.5 percent of graduate female students were victims of nonconsensual sexual touching due to physical force or incapacitation. Physical force was reported by 4.1 percent of respondents, 1.7 percent indicated assault by incapacitation only, 14 and 0.2 percent indicated they experienced sexual touching both by physical force and incapacitation. Among undergraduate males 6.5 percent were victims of either nonconsensual penetration or sexual touching since entering Harvard University, and 3.8 percent in the current school year (Table 3.1c). Among male undergraduates, 2.7 percent were victims of assault involving penetration, 1.2 percent by physical force only and 1.5 percent were victims by incapacitation only and less than 1 percent (0.2%) by both physical force and incapacitation. Since entering Harvard University, 4.8 percent of undergraduate males were victims of nonconsensual sexual touching by force or incapacitation, and 3 percent in the current school year. Examining this by tactic, 2.1 percent were by physical force only, 3 percent by incapacitation only, and less than 1 percent (0.2%) by both physical force and incapacitation. Among male graduate students, 1.7 percent victims of nonconsensual penetration or sexual touching since entering college, and 1.1 percent in the current school year (Table 3.1d). When examining by behaviors, 0.5 percent were victims of penetration and 1.5 percent were victims of sexual touching. There are significant differences in the prevalence rates by gender. Females are much more likely to report this type of victimization. Female undergraduates have a rate that is approximately 4 times higher than male undergraduates. Similarly, female graduate students have rates that are 4 times higher than male graduate students. This pattern by gender is also true for each of the types of behaviors. Undergraduate students report higher rates than graduate students. For females the rate for undergraduates is about three times as high as for graduate students. For males, the rate for undergraduates is four times as high. Victim Characteristics. Table 3.2 presents prevalence rates by victim characteristics: sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, disability status, marital status, and year in school. There is a very large difference between the two categories of sexual orientation. Overall nonheterosexuals have a rate of 13.8 percent and heterosexuals 7.7 percent. There are similar differences when comparing rates by gender and across enrollment status. Students that reported having a disability registered with the university had a higher prevalence rate than those without a disability (14.2% vs. 8.3%). This pattern is the same across gender and enrollment status groups. The rates by year in school are disaggregated by time frame (current year vs. since entering Harvard University). These provide one of the first profiles from survey data on how 15 rates vary by school year. In prior publications, the information by year in school has been based on reports made to the school or the police. For female undergraduates, the highest rates are for freshman and sophomores. The rates then drop significantly in the junior year. For graduate and professional students, the patterns are much less pronounced and do not indicate a consistent decline by year in school. Patterns for undergraduates since entering Harvard University exhibit a steady increase by year in school, as would be expected given the increased time period when victimization could have occurred. By senior year, 29.2 percent of female undergraduates reported experiencing nonconsensual penetration or sexual touching by force or incapacitation Table 3.3 provides prevalence rates by the same set of characteristics for females disaggregated by whether the incident involved penetration or sexual touching.8 The results do not significantly differ by the two types of behaviors. Number of times assaulted. Tables 3.4a and 3.4b provide estimates of the number of times students have been victims of nonconsensual penetration or sexual touching involving physical force or incapacitation. This survey is one of the first to estimate rates of multiple victimizations. Table 3.4a provides rates by time period for acts involving penetration for females. Overall, 0.8 percent of females were victimized 2 or more times during the current school year and 2.3 percent reported being victimized 2 or more times since enrolling in college. Significantly more undergraduate females are multiply victimized by this type of nonconsensual act than graduate or professional students. For current year estimates 1.3 percent of the undergraduates report being victimized 2 or more time compared to 0.5 percent of graduate and professional students. Table 3.4b provides the number of times students have been victims of nonconsensual sexual touching due to physical force or incapacitation. Overall, 1.3 percent of students were victims at least twice during the current year and 3.3 percent since enrolling at Harvard University. There is significant variation by both gender and enrollment status. For example, among undergraduate females, 4.4 percent reported 2 or more incidents of sexual touching in the current year and 11 percent since enrolling in college. This compares to 1.1 percent and 2.6 percent for female graduate/professional students, respectively. Similar, but smaller, differences are evident for males when comparing across enrollment status. There are also differences between genders. For example, since enrolling at Harvard University, male 8 Estimates for males are not presented because of the low prevalence rates for this gender. 16 undergraduate students have lower rates of multiple victimizations than female undergraduates (4.4% vs. 1% for current year and 11% vs. 2.4%). Reporting and Reasons for Not Reporting. Students that said they were victimized were asked if he/she reported any of the incidents to several different agencies or organizations. Table 3.9a provides the estimates for females reporting nonconsensual acts of penetration or sexual touching involving physical force and incapacitation. Penetrative acts involving physical force were much more likely to be reported to an agency or organization when compared to penetration by incapacitation. Among penetrative acts, 30.6 percent of the victims reported an incident involving physical force was reported. This compares to 21.6 percent for penetrative acts involving incapacitation. Even fewer reported sexual touching incidents, with 7.7 percent of those by force and 6.9 percent by incapacitation. Several follow-up questions were asked on why the respondent did not report to an agency, as well as whether any of the incidents were reported to someone else. The primary reason why incidents were not reported to an agency or organization was that it was not considered serious enough. For the penetrative acts involving force, 64.6 percent did not think the incident was serious enough to report. This compares to 75.5 percent for victims of penetration due to incapacitation. A significant percentage of individuals said it was not reported because they did not think anything would be done about it (32.1%) or feared it would not be kept confidential (19.1%). A significant number of victims said she felt embarrassed or ashamed (37.9%). Fewer victims of penetrative acts involving incapacitation felt nothing would be done about it (23.7%) or felt embarrassed (32.7%). For victims of nonconsensual sexual touching due to physical force, 81.5 percent felt the incident was not serious enough to report, 14.9 percent felt embarrassed and 20.4 percent did not think anything could be done about it. Similar patterns occur for nonconsensual sexual touching involving incapacitation. The respondent was asked if they reported the incident to another person. The patterns of this type of reporting were similar across both types of behaviors (penetration, sexual touching) and tactics (force, incapacitation). Between 20 to 23 percent did not tell anyone else at all and 77 to 80 percent said she told a friend. Victims of forced penetration were more likely to have told a family member (e.g. 23.7% vs. 16.8% incapacitation), faculty member (e.g. 5.9% vs. 3.8% for incapacitation) or someone else (e.g. 7.5% vs. 5.4% for incapacitation). Table 3.9b provides the reporting patterns for male victims of nonconsensual Sexual Touching involving physical force or incapacitation. The standard errors for these estimates are considerably higher because of a relatively small proportion of males reporting a victimization. 17 The patterns resemble those displayed for females for this combination of behavior and tactic. Approximately 8.6 percent of victims of sexual touching by force report these types of incidents to an agency or organization. NOTE: TABLES 3.5 THROUGH 3.8 ARE NOT DISCUSSED 3.4 Frequency and Nature of Victimization Due to Coercion or Absence of Affirmative Consent This section summarizes the prevalence of nonconsensual sexual contact that was the result of coercion or the absence of affirmative consent at Harvard University. This section also provides the characteristics of the victims and the number of times that students have been a victim of this type of contact. For purposes of the survey, coercion is defined as nonconsensual contact that involve threats of serious non-physical harm or promise of rewards (e.g., threatening to give you bad grades or cause problems for you, promise of good grades or a promotion at work).9 The survey also included items asking about nonconsensual contact where there was an absence of affirmative consent (AAC). These items were developed to capture emerging regulations at other universities which make it a violation if both partners in a sexual encounter do not explicitly consent. To develop the questions, policies from AAU and COFHE schools on affirmative consent policies were reviewed. The question on affirmative consent was introduced with the following definition: Since you have been a student at [University], has someone had contact with you involving penetration or oral sex without your active, ongoing voluntary agreement? Examples include someone: • initiating sexual activity despite your refusal • ignoring your cues to stop or slow down • went ahead without checking in or while you were still deciding • otherwise failed to obtain your consent Respondents were asked about AAC that involved penetration and sexual touching.10 9 Section G of the questionnaire had two questions asking about the use of this tactic involving penetration and sexual touching (questions G6 and G7). 18 Each time an instance of coercion or AAC was reported by a respondent, follow-up questions were administered that asked about which year it occurred and whether this was part of another incident that already been reported during the survey. If a respondent reported that an instance of coercion was part of a previously reported incident involving physical force or incapacitation, the event was not counted in the coercion prevalence rate. If a respondent reported an instance of AAC was part of a previously reported incident involving physical force, incapacitation or coercion, the event was not counted in the AAC prevalence rate. Prevalence. Table 4.1 presents the prevalence of nonconsensual contact due to coercion or AAC for the current year and since entering Harvard University by the different behaviors and tactics. The discussion below primarily concentrates on rates since the student entered Harvard University. The patterns for the current year parallel these rates, but are lower because of the shorter time frame. Since entering Harvard University, nonconsensual contact involving coercion was reported by well less than 1 percent of the students (.2%). Nominally, females are more likely to report this type of tactic than males, but it is not statistically significant. Similarly, undergraduates are more likely to report this than graduate and professional students, but the difference is not significant. The very low rate makes it difficult to precisely estimate this for these subgroups. The percent of students reporting AAC as a tactic is much higher than coercion, with 6.1 percent of the students reporting this type of incident since entering Harvard University. More than half of these incidents involve sexual touching (4.5%) compared to penetration (2.4%). There is significant variation by gender. A much higher percentage of females reported this than males (e.g. 17.2% female undergraduates compared to 4.0% male undergraduates). For females, there is also a difference between undergraduates (17.2%) and graduate students (6.6%). Overall, TGQN students also report AAC in higher proportions. Number of times assaulted. Table 4.2 contains estimates for the number of times that students were victimized due to coercion or AAC. As noted above, victimization due to coercion was very rare. Consequently it is difficult to note any significant multiple victimization patterns for this type of tactic. Contact involving AAC is more prevalent and does exhibit significant percentages who are victimized more than once. For victims of sexual touching, almost as many individuals were victimized once (2.5%) since entering Harvard University when compared to being victimized two or more times (2.0%). The pattern is similar for female undergraduates where the rates of AAC are almost as high for those who report multiple victimizations by sexual touching (6.1%) as those who report a single victimization (6.6%). For female 10 See questions G8 and G9 19 undergraduates, this pattern is also apparent, although to a lesser degree, for contact involving penetration (2.9% vs. 4.4%). Victim Characteristics. Table 4.3 presents prevalence rates for AAC by victim characteristics: sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, disability status, marital status, and year in school.11 The rates for males are comparatively low and disaggregating by these characteristics stretches the sample size. For females, there is a very large difference in prevalence rates between the two categories of sexual orientation. For female undergraduates, non-heterosexuals have a rate of 23.2 percent and heterosexuals a rate of 16.6 percent. For male undergraduates, there is also a significant difference between the non-heterosexuals (13.0%) and heterosexuals (2.7%). There is a similar pattern for female graduate and professional students (14.4% vs. 5.8%), as well as for male graduate and professional students (4.8% vs. 1.0%). For all students, not just females, those that reported having a disability registered with the university had a higher prevalence rate than those without a disability (10.0% vs. 6.1%). This pattern is apparent across gender and enrollment status categories. These differences are not significant though. Students that are married have significantly lower rates than those that are not married. For example, female graduate and professional students that have never been married have a rate of 7.8 percent, compared to 2.2 percent for those that are married. Male graduate and professional students that never been married have a rate of 2.0 percent compared to 0.6 percent for those that are married. There is also a difference between those female graduate or professional students that have never been married and those that are not married but living with a partner (7.8% vs. 6.0%). The rates by year in school are disaggregated by time frame (current year vs. since entering Harvard University). There is significant change in the current year risk of AAC victimization by year of undergraduate enrollment. For females, those are currently in the freshman year reported a rate of 11.6% while those in the senior year reported a rate of 6.3%. Patterns for undergraduates since entering Harvard University exhibit an increase by year in school until junior year and stay about the same in senior year, as would be expected given the increased time period when victimization could have occurred. By senior year, 19.5 percent of female undergraduates reported experiencing nonconsensual penetration or sexual touching by AAC. This compares to 11.9 percent for freshman. 11 Estimates for coercion by victim characteristics were not estimated because of the low prevalence of this type of victimization. 20 The prevalence of AAC victimization for these same characteristics for females are presented in Table 4.4 for the two types of behaviors (penetration, sexual touching). Overall, the patterns are very similar across the two behaviors. Significant differences are observed for both behaviors by categories of sexual orientation, race and marital status. The pattern for current year rates by year in school are somewhat different by behavior. For penetration there does not seem to be a clear pattern by year. The rate stays about the same until junior year and drops in the senior year where it reaches a minimum (2.6%). For sexual touching, however, there is a steady decline going from 9.1 percent freshman year to 4.5 percent senior year. What is the total experience with nonconsensual sexual contact measured by the AAU survey? To assess the overall risk of nonconsensual sexual contact, prevalence measures were estimated that combine the two behaviors that constitute sexual contact (penetration and sexual touching) and the four tactics discussed above (physical or threat of physical force; incapacitation; coercion; AAC). We provide estimates that combine these behaviors and tactics in several different ways. We first present rates that include two of the four tactics (i.e. physical force and incapacitation) for the two behaviors (penetration and sexual touching or kissing). To narrow the definition further, estimates are presented for those events that were completed; this excludes attempts at forcible penetration which were not completed. Some of the estimates provided in prior sections were for all students for the time period since entering Harvard University. This mixes students who have been at the university for different periods of time and, therefore, are at risk of campus sexual assault or misconduct for different periods of time. To largely standardize for the time period, and get an overall picture of the risk for a student’s entire stay on the campus, estimates were also made for seniors since entering Harvard University. This provides the prevalence for the period while attending Harvard University, which for many is a four-year period.12 According to the survey, 17.5 percent of seniors experienced sexual contact involving penetration or sexual touching involving physical force or incapacitation since entering Harvard University (Table 4.8). Among senior females, 27.3 percent reported this type of victimization. Among senior males, 7.7 percent reported this type of victimization since entering Harvard University. There were not enough respondents in the TGQN group to generate reliable estimates. Among senior females, 12.1 percent reported being a victim of nonconsensual penetration involving physical force or incapacitation since first enrolling at Harvard University. 12 The exception are those that transferred to the college or university after their freshman year. 21 The above estimates exclude attempted, but not completed, sexual contact. However, attempted acts are also part of the legal definition of rape and sexual assault. They also have been included in a number of different studies on victimization of college students.13 The AAU survey measured attempts of forcible penetration. If these are also included, the estimates increase by approximately one to two percentage points (e.g., 29.2% for females). The survey measured two additional tactics—coercion and AAC. If we include these in an overall prevalence measure, the estimate increases to 26.1 percent of seniors who are victims of some type of nonconsensual sexual contact since first enrolling at the university or college. Among seniors, 39.8 percent of females and 12.2 percent of males report being a victim of nonconsensual sexual contact at least once. A second important summary measure is the prevalence during the 2014-2015 academic year. This is the most current measure of risk and might be seen as most relevant when developing policies. The prevalence for the 2014-2015 year for all undergraduates is 4.1 percent for completed acts of nonconsensual sexual contact involving physical force or incapacitation (Table 4.9). Females have higher rates than males (6.4% for females vs. 2.0% for males). Among females, 1.9 percent report being victims of completed penetration involving physical force or incapacitation. When adding in attempted, but not completed, acts of penetration using physical force, 2.2 percent report being victims of penetration involving physical force or incapacitation. Once including all types of nonconsensual sexual contact measured on the survey, 6.7 percent of undergraduates reported being a victim during the 2014 – 2015 academic year. Females when compared to males are most likely to be a victim at least once (10.6% for females vs. 3.1% for males). How do the estimates compare with surveys of college students on sexual assault and sexual misconduct? To better understand the implications of the above results, it is useful to place them within the context of prior surveys on nonconsensual sexual contact. There are many differences in methodology among the different campus climate surveys, including the composition of the sample, the mode of survey administration, the response rate and, perhaps most importantly, the definitions of nonconsensual activity. Nonetheless, the detailed questions included on the AAU survey allow making selected comparisons. Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C.A., 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 Counseling and Clinical Psychology 55: 162–70; Krebs, et al, Ibid; Fisher et al, Ibid 13 22 The College Sexual Assault study (CSA)14 was conducted with undergraduate students attending two large, public universities. It was a web survey and had a response rate of 42%. While the question wording between the AAU survey and the CSA are not identical, they are similar when asking about penetrative and sexual touching behaviors and tactics, including physical force and incapacitation.15 The CSA study estimated rates using several different definitions. Perhaps the most widely cited is that 19.8 percent of female college seniors had been victims of completed nonconsensual sexual contact involving physical force or incapacitation since entering college (“1 in 5”). A 95% confidence interval around this estimate is 17.8 percent to 21.8 percent.16 The estimate for the AAU survey is 27.3 percent, with a confidence interval of 24.5 percent to 30.1 percent. The estimates for penetration by force and incapacitation are not statistically different (12.1% for Harvard University and 14.3% for CSA). NOTE: TABLE 4.5 IS NOT DISCUSSED 3.5 Frequency and Nature of Sexual Harassment, Intimate Partner Violence, and Stalking The survey included measures of three other forms of sexual misconduct: 1) sexual harassment, 2) stalking and 3) intimate partner violence. This section reviews the prevalence, incidence and characteristics associated with each of these behaviors. Sexual harassment. Harassment was defined as a series of behaviors that interfered with the victim’s academic or professional performances, limited the victim’s ability to participate in an academic program, or created an intimidating, hostile or offensive social, academic or work environment. This definition is in line with campus policies, as well as those of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s definition regarding “hostile environment” and the US Department of Education.17 The specific behaviors referenced were taken from several different scales measuring harassment18: Krebs, C. and Lindquist, C. (2014) “Setting the Record Straight on ‘1 in 5’”. http://time.com/3633903/campusrape-1-in-5-sexual-assault-setting-record-straight/; see also Krebs, C., Lindquist, C.H., Warner, T.D., Fisher, B.S. and S. Martin (2007) The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study. Report of project awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Award 2004-WG-BX-0010. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf. 14 15 The AAU survey was based, in part, on the CSA. 16 The standard error of the estimate is 1 percent. Data obtained via personal communication from Christopher Krebs. 17 For the EEOC definition, see http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm. For the Department of Education definition, see http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocrshpam.html#_t1a. 18 For example, see Leskinen, E.A., & Cortina, L.M. (2014) Dimensions of disrespect: Mapping and measuring gender harassment in organizations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(1), 107-123. 23 • made sexual remarks or told jokes or stories that were insulting or offensive to you? • made inappropriate or offensive comments about your or someone else’s body, appearance or sexual activities? • said crude or gross sexual things to you or tried to get you to talk about sexual matters when you didn’t want to? • emailed, texted, tweeted, phoned, or instant messaged offensive sexual remarks, jokes, stories, pictures or videos to you that you didn’t want? • continued to ask you to go out, get dinner, have drinks or have sex even though you said, “No”? Table 5.1a presents prevalence rates for victims of sexual harassment and characteristics of both the offenders and the victim. The table provides an overall estimate of prevalence, the specific behavior that occurred, number of times it occurred during the current academic year, the number of offenders involved, the association between the offender and the university, and the relationship between the offender and the victim. Overall, 48.5 percent of students indicated that they have been the victims of sexual harassment. Female undergraduates report this most often (72.7%), followed by male undergraduates and female graduate students (51.3% and 49.6%, respectively), and lastly by male graduate students (34.0%). Overall, a much larger proportion of TGQN students indicate that they have been sexually harassed while a student at Harvard University. The most common behavior cited was making inappropriate comments about their body, appearance or sexual activity (37.7%); followed by making sexual remarks, or insulting or offensive jokes or stories (32.2%). Students reporting harassment were asked how many times this has occurred in the last year. Approximately 81 (80.7%) percent of those who said they were subject to harassment said that it had happened in the last academic year. Most of these victims (59.6%) said that it had happened multiple times during the last year. Graduate students were less likely to report that harassment occurred in the last year (78.3% for female graduate students and 78.9% for male graduate students). The offender’s affiliation to the university was most often described as a student (91.2%). This was more common among undergraduate students (96.4% of female undergraduates and 97.5% of male undergraduates) than among graduate students (85.8 percent female graduate students and 88.3% male graduate students). Graduate students more often identified the offender as a faculty member (21.8% of female graduate students and 15.3% of male graduate students vs 6.5% of female undergraduates and 3.2% of male 24 undergraduates) or other member of the university staff or administration (7.0% of female graduate students and 5.6% of male graduate students vs. 3.5% of female undergraduates and 2.3% of male undergraduates). The most common response describing the relationship of the offender to the victim is a friend or acquaintance (79.0%), followed by a stranger (25.9%). Graduate students more frequently identified the relationship of the offender to the victim as teacher or advisor (16.6% of female graduate students and 11.2% of male graduate students vs. 5.1% of female undergraduates and 2.9% of male undergraduates) or a co-worker, boss or supervisor (10.5% of female graduate students and 10.9% of male graduate students vs. 2.9% of female undergraduates and 1.6% of male undergraduates). Undergraduate students more often identified their relationship to the offender as someone they had dated or had an intimate relationship with (11.0% of female undergraduates and 4.4% of male undergraduates vs. 4.6% of female graduate students and 2.6% of male graduate students) or a friend or acquaintance (81.2% of female undergraduates and 86.0% of male undergraduates vs. 75.2% of female graduate students and 76.6% of male graduate students). Intimate partner violence. Table 5.2a provides similar data for intimate partner violence (IPV). The IPV section was intended to capture violence associated with relationships that would not be captured in the sexual violence section (section G). This section was administered to anyone who said they had been in any partnered relationship since enrolling in college (Question A13): Partnered relationships include: • casual relationship or hook-up • steady or serious relationship • marriage, civil union, domestic partnership or cohabitation The question wording for the IPV items (Section F of the questionnaire) is a combination of wording used in the University of New Hampshire 2012 survey as cited in the White House Task Force Report and the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) conducted by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention.19 To be classified as a victim, respondents had to say that a partner had done one of the following: 19 Modified from Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 25 • controlled or tried to control you? Examples could be when someone: • kept you from going to classes or pursuing your educational goals • did not allow you to see or talk with friends or family • made decisions for you such as, where you go or what you wear or eat • threatened to “out” you to others • threatened to physically harm you, someone you love, or themselves? • used any kind of physical force against you? Examples could be when someone – bent your fingers or bit you – choked, slapped, punched or kicked you – hit you with something other than a fist – attacked you with a weapon, or otherwise physically hurt or injured you IPV was experienced by 6.7 percent of the student population who had been in a partnered relationship. This was reported most often by female undergraduates (11.4 percent), followed by male undergraduates and female graduate students (8.1% and 5.4%, respectively), and lastly by male graduate students (5.3%). Overall, the proportion of TGQN students that were victims of intimate partner violence is about the same as female undergraduates. The most common behavior was controlling or trying to control the victim (4.1%); followed by using physical force (2.5%) and threatening to harm the victim, family or themselves (2.4%). Approximately 38.5 percent of victims reported that the incident occurred multiple times since the beginning of the 2014 school year. Stalking. Stalking was based on definitions and behaviors used in the NISVS, the National Crime Victimization Survey and the National Violence Against Women’s Survey.20 Respondents were asked whether someone: 20 Black et al, Ibid; Catalano, S. (2012). Stalking victims in the Unites States--revised. (NCJ 224527). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings form the National Violence Against Women Survey. (NCJ 172837). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 26 • made unwanted phone calls, sent emails, voice, text or instant messages, or posted messages, pictures or videos on social networking sites in a way that made you afraid for your personal safety • showed up somewhere or waited for you when you did not want that person to be there in a way that made you afraid for your personal safety • spied on, watched or followed you either in person or using devices or software in a way that made you afraid for your personal safety To be considered stalking, the respondent had to additionally say that these behaviors, either singly or in combination, occurred more than once and was done by the same person. Three percent of students reported that they had been the victims of stalking while attending Harvard University (Table 5.3a). Female undergraduates reported being victims of stalking most often at 5.9 percent, followed by graduate females at 4.3 percent, and male students at 1 percent (1.8% male undergraduates and 1.0% male graduate students). A higher proportion of TGQN students, overall, were victims of stalking. Among the victims, approximately 70 percent (71.2%) reported that an incident occurred within the last year. More than one-half of students (58.2%) reported that within the last year they were stalked multiple times. Most often, the offender’s affiliation to the university was described as a student (47.7). In describing the relationship of the offender to the victim, students most often indicated that it was a friend or acquaintance (39.0%), followed by a stranger (32.2%), and someone they had dated or were intimate with (20.4%). Male undergraduates were particularly likely to indicate that the offender was a friend or acquaintance (36.2% of male undergraduates vs. 13.2% of male graduate students). Table 5.4 presents the prevalence of sexual harassment, intimate partner violence, and stalking by the characteristics of the victim. For all of these types of sexual misconduct, nonheterosexual students report having been victimized more often than heterosexual youth (63.7% vs. 46.5% for sexual harassment, 9.4% vs. 6.3% for intimate partner violence, and 4.8% vs 2.8% for stalking). NOTE: TABLES 5.1b through 5.3b ARE NOT DISCUSSED 27 Appendix 1. Instrument Development A1.1 Survey Design Teams and Questionnaire Development The survey development process was a collaboration between the Westat and AAU Survey Design Teams. The Westat team was co-chaired by Co-Principal Investigators, Dr. David Cantor, Senior Statistical Fellow at Westat and research professor at the Joint Program for Survey Methodology, and Dr. Bonnie Fisher, Professor, School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati. The AAU Survey Design Team was chaired by Dr. Sandy Martin, Professor and Associate Chair for Research, Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. They were joined by a multi-disciplinary group of university professors and administrators from participating IHEs with expertise in survey design and methodology and issues related to sexual assault and misconduct on campus. The members of the AAU Survey Design Team are presented in Table A1-1. To start the survey design process, in October 2014, the Westat team reviewed Not Alone: The First Report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault which included recommendations on using campus climate surveys to document the problem of sexual assault on college campuses. The team also systematically reviewed decades of research literature on how to measure sexual misconduct and sexual victimization in a student population (e.g., Koss et al., 1987; Koss, et al., 2007; Fisher and May, 2009; Kilpatrick et al., 2007; Krebs et al., 2009). In addition, the team reviewed procedures and surveys developed by other IHEs (e.g., Rutgers University, University of Oregon, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Columbia University). The team drew on other victimization surveys such as National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), NCVS Supplemental Victimization Survey on Stalking (SVS), and the Campus Safety and Security Survey. Finally the team drew from scales that measured specific attitudes and behaviors such as harassment and bystander intervention. The final survey provides the source material that was used for each of the major sections. In early November 2014, the AAU Survey Design Team was formed and started working on the survey development process. The first meeting, conducted via conference call, set the stage for the frequent and ongoing meetings needed to develop the survey. During the initial instrument development phase, from November 2014 to January 2015, the team had weekly conference calls. In February 2015, when final revisions were being made to the survey, the team met every other week. Meetings lasted, on average, two hours. In between formal meetings, team members were in frequent, sometimes daily, contact to provide technical expertise on survey design, review survey drafts and provide feedback, and resolve issues raised during meetings. 28 During these meetings, the AAU Survey Design Team members discussed at length conceptual and methodological issues underlying the measurement of sexual misconduct, sexual victimization and campus climate constructs. Team members made final decisions on how to define campus climate (e.g., nature and scope) and the types of victimization that would be covered, question wording, response set wording, and ordering of topics. All decisions were made with the goal of keeping the time to complete the survey to between 15 and 20 minutes. Survey items and topics were submitted by both the Westat team and the AAU Survey Design Team and considered as part of the multi-step, iterative process to develop the final instrument. The Design Team members provided information on the overall structure and constructs included in the survey, as well as the survey question, ordering of questions and sections, and other details. They also served as consultants at their respective universities who provided feedback to the entire group through their university liaisons; thus the survey was informed by a much wider group than the Design Team. In addition, some members of the Design Team assisted by pre-testing aspects of the draft survey with students at their respective universities. Throughout this process, the team received more than 700 comments about the survey for consideration. Each comment was reviewed individually and a decision was made about how best to handle each one with input from the AAU Survey Design Team. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Table A1-1. The AAU Survey Design Team Melanie Boyd Russell Carey Melissa A. Clark Nancy Deutsch Marne K. Einarson Lily Guillot Svensen Debra Kalmuss AAU Survey Design Team Members Yale University Assistant Dean of Student Affairs and Director of Office of Gender and Campus Culture Brown University Executive Vice President for Planning and Policy Brown University Professor of Epidemiology and Obstetrics and Gynecology; Associate Director, Center for Population and Health and Clinical Epidemiology University of Virginia Associate Professor Cornell University Assistant Director, Office Institutional Research & Planning Yale University Research Analyst for the Office of Institutional Research; member of Yale’s Title IX Steering Committee Columbia University Professor, Population and Family Health, Mailman School of Public Health 29 Table A1-1. The AAU Survey Design Team (continued) David Laibson Sandra Martin Stephen Minicucci Christina Morell Lindsay Orchowski Jagruti “Jag” Patel Nora Cate Schaeffer Sarah Schultz Robinson Stephanie S. Spangler AAU Survey Design Team Members Harvard University Robert I. Goldman Professor of Economics University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (Chair of Survey Design Team) Department of Maternal and Child Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health Consortium on Financing Higher Education (COFHE) Director of Research University of Virginia Associate Vice President for Student Affairs Brown University Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior (Research) MIT Associate Director of Institutional Research University of Wisconsin-Madison Sewell Bascom Professor of Sociology Faculty Director, University of Wisconsin Survey Center University of Virginia Institutional Assessment Office Yale University Deputy Provost for Health Affairs and Academic Integrity Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology A1.2 Student Input The team received feedback from students in three ways. One was from cognitive interviews with students currently attending colleges or universities. This was completed in two different locations with approximately 35 students. Second, the instrument was administered to students at two different IHEs. After the instrument was administered, the students were asked for feedback on the items. Comments were received from approximately 60 students. Third, a focus groups with 13 students was conducted at one IHE. The feedback from these activities included a wide range of comments on both the content and wording of the questions. For example, the cognitive interviews pointed to questions where the definitions and instructions were not clear or not being read. The Design Team modified these questions to incorporate the definitions into the stem of the question to increase the likelihood they would be seen by the respondent. Another example comes from feedback received by students who were administered the survey. They provided feedback on the wording of the question asking for the gender and sexual orientation of the students. The categories to these items were modified to account for a wider range of options. 30 A1.3 Survey Content and Sources Topics used in the survey instrument cover domains outlined by the AAU in response to the requests of the Presidents/Chancellors. These topics were split into several basic categories – 1) direct personal experience with sexual assault and sexual misconduct, 2) campus climate, 3) school resources and 4) student characteristics. This section describes the development of these items, as well as those topics that were considered but not included on the survey instrument. Personal Experience: Nonconsensual Sexual Contact Priority was given to collecting nonconsensual sexual contact by four types of tactics: 1) physical force, 2) incapacitation, 3) coercion and 4) absence of affirmative consent. The Design team wanted to collect information to: (1) estimate the prevalence and incidence of sexual assault and sexual misconduct experienced by university students (undergraduate, graduate and professional) on each participating campus, and (2) identify characteristics of these experiences (e.g., location, offender characteristics). The term “incident” was used in the survey as it is defined in the White House Task Force Report – meaning the number of times a particular type of sexual assault or sexual misconduct occurred over a period of time. These questions defined sexual contact as two behaviors—penetration and sexual touching. Penetration includes both sexual penetration of someone’s vagina or anus by a finger, penis, or object and oral sex by a mouth or tongue on someone’s genitals. Sexual touching includes kissing, touching someone’s breast, chest, crotch, groin or buttocks, or grabbing, groping or rubbing against the other in a sexual way, even if the touching is over the other’s clothes. To estimate the incidence and prevalence of nonconsensual sexual contact by each combination of behavior (penetration, sexual touching) and tactic (physical force, incapacitation, coercion, absence of affirmative consent), it was necessary to ask about each combination of behavior and tactics. The Design Committee felt it was important to distinguish between incidents that differed by the different types of tactics. Tactics Involving Physical force and Incapacitation. Five questionnaire items were developed that separated the different types of sexual contact for these two tactics. Physical force/attempted physical force includes someone being help down with his or her body weight, arms being pinned down, being hit or kicked, or a the use or threat of a weapon being used. Incapacitated refers to being unable to consent or stop what was happening due to being passed out, asleep, or incapacitated due to drugs or alcohol. These tactics were considered the most serious type of tactic and constitute the primary measures used on several other surveys (e.g., Krebs, et al 2009). As noted above, the questions 31 distinguished between different combinations of these tactics and the two types of sexual contact, including: Nonconsensual completed penetration that occurred as a result of physical force or attempted forced, Nonconsensual attempts but not completed, penetration as a result of physical force or attempted force, - Nonconsensual completed penetration that occurred as a result of incapacitation - Nonconsensual completed sexual touching that occurred as a result of physical force Nonconsensual completed sexual touching that occurred as a result of incapacitation The Design Team examined different definitions and ways to operationalize these types of incidents, including looking at questions from scholarly sources. There are two approaches advocated by researchers using behavior-specific questions. The first approach developed by Koss and colleagues (2007), is structured so that for each of the behavior a series of follow-up statements describing specific tactics are asked. The second approach puts both type of behavior and tactic in the same question (Krebs et al, 2009). There is no published empirical findings to make an evidence-informed choice about which of the two approaches produces a more valid and reliable measure. After discussions among members of the Design Team, the latter approach was selected to use because it takes up less questionnaire space and it has been successfully used in prior sexual victimization among college students research (e.g., Krebs et al., 2009). As a result, the Design Team developed five screen questions. Each screen question provided both a definition and examples of the behavior and use of one of the two tactics. Coercion and Absence of Affirmative Consent. Coercion was intended to capture nonconsensual sexual contact involving threats of serious non-physical harm or promising rewards such that the student felt s/he must comply. This tactic was intended to capture behaviors that were violations of the student’s personal or civil rights. It complemented the items asked in another section of the questionnaire on sexual harassment by focusing on nonconsensual sexual contact as opposed to verbal or other harassing behaviors. Several members of the Design Team suggested including questions that captured the emerging school conduct codes related to the absence of affirmative consent as a fourth tactic. According to research conducted the team members, seven out of the eight universities represented on the AAU Survey Design Team posted definitions of affirmative consent in their University’s student conduct code, Title IX office materials, or other formal channels. All eight 32 of the Ivy League, and the majority of the Consortium on Financing Higher Education (COFHE) (29 out of 30), and AAU (49 out of 62) universities also have posted definitions consistent with this tactic. Therefore, inclusion of the absence of affirmative consent in the questionnaire seemed to be the best means to estimate the prevalence and incidence of nonconsensual penetration and sexual touching among students at the participating universities. Collecting Details about the incidents. There was a strong desire by members of the design team to collect both incidence (number of times) and prevalence measures. Prior studies have primarily concentrated on prevalence. In addition to the team wanted to generate estimates that covered two different time periods. One would be the time since the student was enrolled at the IHE. The second was over the current academic year. To measure the timing and incidence of each type of nonconsensual sexual contact, a series of follow-up questions were developed to count the number of incidents and to place each incident with a particular year. This series followed up each yes response to the initial screening items asking about the occurrence of a specific combination of behavior and tactic. The follow-ups consisted of first asking how many times this type of incident occurred. For each incident the respondent was asked which year it occurred and whether the incident had already been reported in response to an earlier question. The latter was used to unduplicate events where the respondent reported more than one tactic. This structure allowed analysts to form prevalence and incidence rates for either the time period since enrolled, as well as the current academic year. Once counting all incidents reported during the screening, more details were collected about each type of incident. The follow-up items differed depending on the type of nonconsensual sexual contact that was reported: (1) tactics involving physical force or incapacitation (DIF1), and (2) tactics involving coercion and AAC (DIF2) The DIF1 was administered up to two times for four incident types with the following priority: (1) forcible and/or attempted nonconsensual penetration, (2) penetration due to incapacitation, (3) forcible sexual touching, and (4) sexual touching due to incapacitation. If, for example, a respondent reported incidents that fell into the types 1, 2 and 4, the DIF1 was administered for types 1 and 2. For DIF2, the priority was: (1) penetration and/or sexual touching by coercion, and (2) penetration and/or sexual touching without affirmative consent. A range of information about an incident is asked in the follow-up questions to understand the context of sexual assault. Based on extensive discussions within the Design Team, the content of the follow-up questions used in DIF1 includes: time of occurrence (year and semester; during an academic break of recess); location of incident (on or off campus, specific location; perpetrator characteristics (number of offenders, gender of offender, type of nonconsensual or unwanted behavior, offender affiliation with school, relationship to victim), context prior to incident; respondent’s voluntarily consumption of alcohol or drugs prior to 33 incident, respondent’s use of alcohol or drugs without their knowledge or consent prior to incident, offender’s use of alcohol or drugs prior to incident, disclosure and reporting actions; reasons for not disclosing or reporting; use and assessment of campus or local services; and outcomes (e.g., physical injuries, pregnancy, and physical and psychosomatic symptoms). Similar, but less detailed, information was collected for DIF2. The content of the followup questions used in the Sexual Misconduct DIF includes: perpetrator characteristics (number of offenders, gender of offender, type of nonconsensual or unwanted behavior, offender affiliation with school, relationship to victim). Personal Experience: Sexual Harassment, Intimate Partner Violence and Stalking The other measures of sexual assault and sexual misconduct collected were sexual harassment, intimate partner violence (IPV), and stalking. To meet the legal definition of harassment there are two criteria. First, as per the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)21 and Department of Education22, the behavior has to create a ‘hostile or offensive work or academic environment’. To measure these behaviors, the Design Team proposed using portions of the Leskinan and Kortina (2014) scale representing each of the major dimensions, with a few additional behaviors that are not covered by the scale. After discussions among the members of the Design Team, it was decided that questions on sexual harassment include the following behaviors: (1) made sexual remarks or told jokes or stories that were insulting or offensive to the victim; (2) made inappropriate or offensive comments about the victim or someone else’s body, appearance or sexual activities; (3) said crude or gross sexual things to the victim or tried to get the victim talk about sexual matters when she/he didn’t want to; (4) emailed, texted, tweeted, phoned, or instant messaged offensive sexual remarks, jokes, stories, pictures, or videos to the victim that she/he didn’t want; and (5) continued to ask the victim to go out, get dinner, have drinks or have sex even though the victim said “no”. A second question is how to use these items when operationalizing the EEOC concept of ‘hostile work environment’. According to legal definitions, to meet this standard, the behavior has to be either ‘frequent or severe’. Most of the prior studies do this by asking whether a behavior occurring a specific number of times (e.g., 2014 MIT Community Attitudes on Sexual Assault Survey). Other campus climate surveys do not measure frequency and it is not clear how one can determine when something rises to a “hostile work environment”. After multiple rounds of discussions with the Design Team, it was decided to provide an introduction at the beginning of the section which defines sexual harassment as something that interfered with the victim’s academic or professional performances, limited the victim’s ability to participate in an 21 (http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm) 22 (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocrshpam.html#_t1a) 34 academic program, or created an intimidating, hostile or offensive social, academic or work environment. This definition is more in line with campus life and policies as well as the EEOC‘s definition regarding “hostile environment” and the US Department of Education.23 The question wording for IPV is a combination of the University of New Hampshire 2012 survey as cited in the White House document and the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) conducted by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (Black et al., 2011).. The Design Team decided that these questions should only be asked of individuals who are currently in, or have been in, a partnered relationship. To determine this, the team developed a definition of partnered relationship to capture various forms of relationships for college students, including casual relationships or hook-ups, steady or serious relationships and marriage, civil union, domestic partnerships or cohabitations. This question was asked in the demographic section. Only those that said they were in a relationship were asked the IPV questions. Stalking was defined as repetitive behavior that caused fear in a reasonable person. Fear is the criterion that distinguishes sexual harassment from stalking (Catalano, 2012; Logan, 2010). The Design Team had discussions on what level of fear needed to be written into the question. The team eventually decided to use the criteria of fear for personal safety. Three repeated pursuit behaviors associated with stalking are used in the questionnaire, including (1) made unwanted phone calls, sent emails, voice, text, or instant messages, or posted messages, pictures or videos on social networking sites; (2) showed up somewhere or waited for the victim when she/he didn’t want that person to be there; and (3) having been spied on, watched or followed the victim, either in person or using devices or software. The use of new technologies for stalking is considered as the third tactic, for example, smartphone. This tactic is the third most frequently occurring stalking behavior in NISVS (39% for women and 31% for men). %)(Black et al., 2011). It is also the third most frequently occurring behavior experienced by stalking victims in NCVS (34.4%; Catalano, 2012). The same set of follow-up questions are asked for sexual harassment, IPV, and stalking. These questions include asking about: (1) the offender characteristics, including number of offenders, number of incidents, association with university, and relationship to the victim; (2) disclosure and to whom; and (3) use and assessment of campus-sponsored programs. The follow-up questions ask for the time period (e.g., Fall of 2013-Summer of 2014) 23 A federal law, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment, in education programs and activities. All public and private education institutions that receive any federal funds must comply with Title IX. Title IX protects students from harassment connected to any of the academic, educational, extracurricular, athletic, and other programs or activities of schools, regardless of the location. Title IX protects both male and female students from sexual harassment by any school employee, another student, or a non-employee third party. 35 of the most recent contact. For those who have not contacted any programs, the follow-up question asks for the reasons for not contacting the program. Campus Climate Measures At the beginning of questionnaire development, a list of topics and questions were drawn from five existing surveys which measured campus climate—the Rutgers Campus Climate Survey, the MIT Community Attitudes on Sexual Assault survey, the University of Oregon Sexual Violence and Institutional Behavior Campus Survey, the White House survey, and the Campus Sexual Assault Study—and circulated among members of the Design Team. The list includes topics on campus community attitudes toward each other, university efforts on informing students about sexual assault and sexual misconduct, perception of community safety, knowledge and use of police and resources, perceptions of leadership, policies and reporting, prevention training, and bystander intervention. Each member of the Design Team reviewed the list and selected a number of topics to prioritize given that the length of the survey would be 15-20 minutes. Further discussions within the Design Team narrowed down the number of topics on campus climate to the following five constructs: (1) perception regarding risk of sexual assault or sexual misconduct; (2) knowledge and perceptions about resources relating to sexual assault or sexual misconduct; (3) prevention trainings related to sexual assault or sexual misconduct for new students; (4) perceptions of responses to reporting sexual assault or sexual misconduct; and (5) bystander intervention upon suspecting or witnessing sexual assault or sexual misconduct. Two types of questions on risk perceptions were administered. One asked about the likelihood of being a victim of sexual assault or misconduct either on campus or at a universityaffiliated event off campus. The second asked students ‘how problematic’ they thought sexual assault and misconduct was at the IHE. Students were asked about their awareness of the services and resources offered by the university for those who are affected by sexual assault and sexual misconduct. These questions ask about knowledge of the definition of sexual assault and sexual misconduct at the IHE; where to get help at the university if the student or a friend experienced sexual assault or sexual misconduct; where to make a report of sexual assault or sexual misconduct at the university; and what happens when a student reports an incident of sexual assault or sexual misconduct at the university. First-year undergraduate and graduate/professional students and transfer students were asked two questions about the training or sessions related to sexual assault and sexual misconducts during their orientations and the helpfulness of these. 36 Additionally, all students were asked about their perceptions of what might happen if someone were to report a sexual assault or sexual misconduct. Students’ were asked to assess the likelihood of seven different scenarios ranging from student supporting the person making the report to retaliation against the person making the report to different actions by university officials (e.g., taking report seriously, protecting safety of the person making the report, taking against action the offender(s), taking action to address factors that may have led to incident). Two separate questions were proposed originally— one measured how the university responds to reporting and the other measured how students respond to reporting. Per comments from members of the design team, the two constructs were combined using the questions from the Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium HEDS Sexual Assault Campus Climate Survey. Members of the Design team suggested questions measuring bystander behaviors and interventions that were adapted from Banyard et al.’s (2005, 2014,) work and the Rutgers’ Campus Climate Survey. Respondents were asked if they had ever experienced three specific situations since being a student at the IHE (e.g., seen a drunken person heading off to what looked like a sexual encounter). If they had experienced the situation, they were asked what specific action, if any, they did. Actions ranged from did nothing to directly intervene to seek help. School Resources These items assessed student familiarity with University-specific and off-campus local resources and procedures related to sexual assault or sexual misconduct. Five Universityspecific questions were created to measure the following aspects: (1) school of enrollment (full name of schools or colleges within a particular university, e.g., Liberal Arts College , School of Engineering, School of Public Health); (2) participation in student organizations; (3) student living situation; and (4) awareness of on-and off-campus services resources related to sexual assault and sexual misconduct offered to students. Response options for these questions were customized to include the name of programs and services provided at each of the participating IHE. The same set of response options were used when asking students’ knowledge of and assessment of usefulness of resources for and reporting behaviors of sexual harassment, stalking, IPV; these response also were used in the follow-ups for incidents of nonconsensual sexual contact involving physical force or incapacitation (DIF1). Student Characteristics Questions asking about the students’ demographics are posed at the beginning of the survey. Background information was collected on age, current student affiliation (undergraduate, graduate, professional), class year, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, resident status, gender identity, sexual orientation, relationship status and registered disability. Some of the information was used in weighting procedure, such as age and class year in school. Other 37 demographic information was used to assess incidence and prevalence of sexual assault and sexual misconduct among students in a particular university for a particular demographic group (e.g., affiliation, gender identify, sexual orientation). A question asking about involvement in partnered relationships (casual or hookup, steady or serious, marriage, civil union, domestic partnership or cohabitation) also was included; it was used to screen students who have been in any partnered relationship since being a student at university into the IPV questions. Design Team members had multiple rounds of discussions on how to ask for sexual orientation and gender identity questions. These two questions were tested with student feedback. Response options used in the questionnaire take into consideration of existing research on gender and sexual identity, suggestions from the Design Team, and findings from the pilot studies on student feedback. Topics Discussed but not Included in the Final Instrument During the questionnaire development, some topics were discussed but dropped from the instrument due to concerns about the length of the survey. There were discussions on whether Rape Myth Acceptance questions (e.g. see the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale) should be included in measuring attitudes and views toward sexual assault and sexual misconduct on campus. Members of the Design Team expressed different opinions on this issue—some were in favor of rape myth questions, while others thought they are not very useful or valid. During the discussions, an alternative set of questions that measured students’ perception related to risks was proposed. Members of the Design Team reviewed both sets of questions and most of them favored the alternative to the rape myth acceptance questions. Two other topics were discussed but dropped from the instrument. Several researchers on the Design Team proposed adding questions on perpetration. A review of Krebs et al. (2009) found that the frequency was so small that they were not analyzed. Similarly, the 2014 MIT Community Attitudes on Sexual Assault Survey, which had an extensive section on perpetration, found that only 1.9% of the respondents reported ‘unwanted sexual behavior’ with 2.9% saying they were unsure. Given the limited space available to add questions to the survey instrument it was decided these were not high enough priority to include. A second request was to ask questions on being pressured to have sexual contact, such as verbal or other types of non-physical pressure. This came from some of the student feedback, as well as several Design Team members. The main argument to include this was to provide students a way to report behavior they see as problematic. The consensus was to not include this in the final instrument because they were seen as behaviors that could not be directly addressed by policymakers within the university. In addition, it was thought that the questions on the absence of affirmative consent overlapped with this type of tactic. References 38 Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., Cares, A. C., & Warner, R. (2014). How do we know if it works? Measuring outcomes in bystander-focused abuse prevention on campuses. Psychology of violence, 4(1), 101. Banyard, V. L., Plante, E. G., & Moynihan, M. M. (2005). Rape prevention through bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention. US Department of Justice. Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Catalano, S. (2012). Stalking victims in the United States – Revised. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Fisher, B. S. (2009). The Effects of Survey Question Wording on Rape Estimates Evidence from a Quasi-Experimental Design. Violence against women, 15(2), 133-147. Fisher, B., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (1999). The Extent and Nature of the Sexual Victimization of College Women: A National-Level Analysis. National Institute of Justice. Fisher, B. S., & May, D. (2009). College Students' Crime-Related Fears on Campus Are FearProvoking Cues Gendered? Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25(3), 300-321. Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., Ruggiero, K. J., Conoscenti, L. M., & McCauley, J. (2007). Drug facilitated, incapacitated, and forcible rape: A national study. Charleston, SC: Medical University of South Carolina, National Crime Victims Research & Treatment Center. Koss, M.P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., Ullman, S., West, C. & White, J. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(4), 357-370. Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & 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), 162-170. Krebs, C.P., Lindquist, C.H., Warner, T.D., Fisher, B.S., & Martin, S.L. (2009). College Women’s Experiences with Physically Forced, Alcohol- or Other Drug-Enabled, and Drug-Facilitated Sexual Assault Before and Since Entering College. Journal of American College Health, 57(6), 639-647. 39 Logan, T. (2010). Research on partner stalking: Putting the pieces together. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, Department of Behavioral Science & Center on Drug and Alcohol Research. McMahon, S., & Banyard, V. L. (2011). When can I help? A conceptual framework for the prevention of sexual violence through bystander intervention. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13(1), 3-14. 40 A1.4 The Instrument: The Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct Survey Flow and Logic The survey has a core set of 63 questions that are asked of every respondent. Additional questions are administered if respondents report being victimized. For Harassment, Stalking and Intimate Partner Violence (Question items D, E and F), approximately 7 follow-up questions are asked for each type of misconduct. These follow-up questions ask for information across all reported incidents for each form of victimization. For example, if someone was a victim of Intimate Partner Violence by two different partners, the follow-up questions ask for information across both partners. There is more complicated logic for the items covering sexual assault (G1-G5), coercion (G6, G7) and lack of affirmative consent (G8, G9). Across these items, there are two types of follow-up questions. First, there are follow-ups to each ‘yes’ response to questions G1 – G9 (Attachment 1). The purpose of these follow-ups is to count and date each of the incidents that occurred. This is done by following each ‘yes’ response to an individual screen item (G1 – G9) with questions that ask for the number of times (Attachment 1: G[X]a24) and the school year in which the incident occurred (Attachment 1: G[X]b – G[X]c). To finalize the count, there are additional follow-ups that ask if the incident is part of another incident that was already reported. If it had already been reported, the respondent is asked to indicate which other incident was involved (Attachment 1: G[X]d, G[X]e). After G1 – G9 were completed, a second type of follow up was used to collect details on the victimization that was reported (Attachment 2). These follow-ups were divided into two groups. One group is for the sexual assault items (G1-G5). If a respondent reported ‘yes’ to at least one of G1 – G5, a series of approximately 18 items were administered to collect the details (Attachment 2; Items GA). These follow-ups are administered separately for G1-G2 (completed and attempted penetration by physical force), G3 (sexual touching using physical force), G4 (penetration when incapacitated) and G5 (sexual touching when incapacitated). For example, if a respondent reports a penetration by force (G1) and sexual touching by force (G3), these items were administered twice, once for each type. As with the other types of victimization, these follow-up questions ask for a summary across all incidents of each type. For example if the individual was a victim of sexual touching 24 “X” goes from 1 to 9. For example, G[1]a is the follow-up to question G1; G[2]a is the follow-up to question G2, etc. 41 using physical force (G3) on two occasions, the items will ask for a summary across both occasions. Up to 2 forms were administered for those individuals that reported 2 or more types of assaults. If more than two types of assaults were reported, then the top two were selected using the following order: 1) G1-G2 (completed or attempted penetration with force), 2) G4 (penetration when incapacitated), 3) G3 (sexual touching by force), 4) G5 (sexual touching by incapacitation). The second group of follow-ups were administered for reports of coercion (G6, G7) and lack of affirmative consent (G8, G9; Attachment 2: Section GC). If a respondent reports both coercion and lack of affirmative consent, two forms were administered, one for each type. 42 SECTION A – BACKGROUND First, we’d like to ask you a few questions about your background. A1. How old are you? [DROP DOWN LIST] Under 18 18-29, by single year 30+ [IF AGE =Under 18] “We are sorry but the survey can only be completed by students who are at least 18 years old. Thank you for your interest in our study. We appreciate your time.” [EXIT SURVEY] A2. Which of the following best describes your current student affiliation with [University]? Undergraduate [CONTINUE] Graduate [GO TO A4] Professional [GO TO A4] [IF BLANK THEN GO TO A5] 43 A3. What is your class year in school? Answer on the basis of the number of credits you have earned. Freshman [GO TO A5] Sophomore [GO TO A5] Junior [GO TO A5] Senior [GO TO A5] [IF BLANK THEN GO TO A5] A4. What year are you in your program? Answer on the basis of the number of years enrolled in the graduate or professional academic program. 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year 5th year 6th year or higher A5. In which school at [University] are you enrolled? If you are enrolled in more than one choose the school that you consider your primary affiliation (ex. most credits, college of main advisor). [UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC LIST] 44 A6. In what year did you first enroll as a student at [University]? [DROP DOWN LIST] Prior to 1997 1997 – 2015 by single year A7. Do you take all of your courses on-line? Yes No A8. Are you Hispanic or Latino? Yes No A9. Select one or more of the following races that best describes you: (Mark all that apply) American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White A10. Are you a US citizen or permanent resident? Yes No 45 A11.25 Which best describes your gender identity? Woman Man Transgender woman Transgender man Genderqueer or gender non-conforming Questioning Not listed Decline to state A12.26 Do you consider yourself to be: Heterosexual or straight Gay or lesbian Bisexual Asexual Questioning Not listed Decline to state 25 Modified from The University of Oregon Sexual Violence and Institutional Behavior Campus Survey (2014). Retrieved from http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/campus/UO2014campussurveycontent.pdf 26 Badgett, M. V. “Best practices for asking questions about sexual orientation on surveys.” The Williams Institute (2009) 46 A13. Since you have been a student at [University], have you been in any partnered relationships? Partnered relationships include: • casual relationship or hook-up • steady or serious relationship • marriage, civil union, domestic partnership or cohabitation Yes No A14. Are you currently … Never married Not married but living with a partner Married Divorced or separated Other A15. Do you have a disability registered with [University]’s Disability Services or Office on Disabilities? Yes No A16. Since you have been a student at [University], have you been a member of or participated in any of the following? (Mark all that apply): [UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC LIST] A17. Which of the following best describes your living situation? [UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC LIST] 47 SECTION B – PERCEPTIONS OF RISK27 “Sexual assault” and “sexual misconduct” refer to a range of behaviors that are nonconsensual or unwanted. These behaviors could include remarks about physical appearance or persistent sexual advances. They also could include threats of force to get someone to engage in sexual behavior such as nonconsensual or unwanted touching, sexual penetration, oral sex, anal sex or attempts to engage in these behaviors . These behaviors could be initiated by someone known or unknown, including someone you are in or have been in a relationship with. These next questions ask about your perceptions related to the risks of experiencing sexual assault or sexual misconduct. B1. How problematic is sexual assault or sexual misconduct at [University] Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely B2. How likely do you think it is that you will experience sexual assault or sexual misconduct on campus? Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely 27 Adapted from Fisher, B. S., & Sloan III, J. J. (2003). Unraveling the fear of victimization among college women: Is the “shadow of sexual assault hypothesis” supported?. Justice Quarterly, 20(3), 633-659. 48 B3. How likely do you think it is that you will experience sexual assault or sexual misconduct during off-campus university sponsored events? Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely 49 SECTION C – RESOURCES The next questions ask about the services and resources offered by the university for those affected by sexual assault and sexual misconduct. C1.28 Are you aware of the services provided by the following? (Mark all that apply) [UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC LIST] None of the Above How knowledgeable are you about each of the following: C2a. How knowledgeable are you about how sexual assault and sexual misconduct are defined at [University]? Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely 28 Modified from #iSPEAK: Rutger Campus Climate Survey. New Brunswick, NJ: Center on Violence Against Women and Children, School of Social Work, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. Received from http://socialwork.rutgers.edu/Libraries/VAWC/new_doc_to_upload_for_ispeak.sflb.ashx 50 C2b.29 How knowledgeable are you about where to get help at [University] if you or a friend experienced sexual assault or sexual misconduct? Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely C2c.30 How knowledgeable are you about where to make a report of sexual assault or sexual misconduct at [University]? Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely C2d. How knowledgeable are you about what happens when a student reports an incident of sexual assault or sexual misconduct at [University]? Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely 29 Modified from Rankin & Associates Consulting. (2008). Carleton College Climate Assessment Project: Carleton Final Report. Retrieved from: https://apps.carleton.edu/governance/diversity/campus_climate_survey/results/. 30 Ibid. 51 SECTION D - HARASSMENT3132 These next questions ask about situations in which a student at [University], or someone employed by or otherwise associated with [University] said or did something that D1. • interfered with your academic or professional performance, • limited your ability to participate in an academic program, or • created an intimidating, hostile or offensive social, academic or work environment Since you have been a student at [University], has a student, or someone employed by or otherwise associated with [University] made sexual remarks or told jokes or stories that were insulting or offensive to you? Yes Never experienced These questions ask about situations in which someone said or did something that • interfered with your academic or professional performance, • limited your ability to participate in an academic program, or • created an intimidating, hostile or offensive social, academic or work environment 31 Modified from Leskinen, E.A., & Cortina, L.M. (2014) Dimensions of disrespect: Mapping and measuring gender harassment in organizations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(1), 107-123. 32 Modified from The University of Oregon Sexual Violence and Institutional Behavior Campus Survey (2014). Retrieved from http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/campus/UO2014campussurveycontent.pdf 52 D2. Since you have been a student at [University], has a student, or someone employed by or otherwise associated with [University] made inappropriate or offensive comments about your or someone else’s body, appearance or sexual activities? Yes, Never experienced These questions ask about situations in which someone said or did something that D3. • interfered with your academic or professional performance, • limited your ability to participate in an academic program, or • created an intimidating, hostile or offensive social, academic or work environment Since you have been a student at [University], has a student, or someone employed by or otherwise associated with [University]said crude or gross sexual things to you or tried to get you to talk about sexual matters when you didn’t want to? Yes Never experienced These questions ask about situations in which someone said or did something that D4. • interfered with your academic or professional performance, • limited your ability to participate in an academic program, or • created an intimidating, hostile or offensive social, academic or work environment Since you have been a student at [University], has a student, or someone employed by or otherwise associated with [University]emailed, texted, tweeted, phoned, or instant messaged offensive sexual remarks, jokes, stories, pictures or videos to you that you didn’t want? Yes Never experienced 53 These questions ask about situations where someone said or did something that D5. • interfered with your academic or professional performance, • limited your ability to participate in an academic program, or • created an intimidating, hostile or offensive social, academic or work environment Since you have been a student at [University], has a student, or someone employed by or otherwise associated with [University]continued to ask you to go out, get dinner, have drinks or have sex even though you said, “No”? Yes Never experienced BOX D1 IF YES TO ANY QUESTION D1 – D5, CONTINUE ELSE GO TO E1 You said that the following happened to you since you’ve been a student at [University]: • [IF D1 = YES] Someone made sexual remarks or jokes that were insulting or offensive • [IF D2 = YES]Someone made inappropriate offensive comments about your or someone else’s body, appearance or sexual activities • [IF D3 = YES] Someone said crude or gross sexual things to you or made unwelcomed attempts to get you to talk about sexual matters • [IF D4 = YES] Someone emailed, texted, tweeted, phoned, or instant messaged offensive sexual remarks, jokes, stories, pictures or videos to you • [IF D5 = YES] Someone continued to ask you to go out, get dinner, have drinks or have sex even though you said, “No” 54 D6. How many different people behaved this way? 1 person 2 persons 3 or more persons D7. How (was the person/were the persons) who behaved (this way/these ways) associated with [University]? (Mark all that apply) Student Faculty or instructor Coach or trainer Other staff or administrator Other person affiliated with a university program (ex. internship, study abroad) The person was not affiliated with [University] Don’t know association with [University] D8. At the time of (this event/these events), what (was the person’s/ were these persons’) relationship to you? (Mark all that apply) At the time, it was someone I was involved or intimate with Someone I had been involved or was intimate with Teacher or advisor Co-worker, boss or supervisor Friend or acquaintance Stranger Other Don’t know 55 D9. Since the beginning of the fall 2014 term, how many times has someone behaved this way? 0 times 1 time 2 times 3-5 times 6-9 times 10 or more times 56 D10. Since you have been a student at [University] have you contacted any of the following about (this experience/any of these experiences)? (Mark all that apply) [UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC LIST] None of the above [GO TO D13] [IF NO PROGRAM MARKED GO TO D13] BOX D2 IF D10= NONE OF THE ABOVE OR NO PROGRAM MARKED THEN GO TO D13 ELSE ADMINISTER ITEMS D11 AND D12 FOR EACH PROGRAM MARKED IN D10 (UP TO 10) D11 [A-J]. When did you most recently contact [Program] about (this experience/these experiences)? Fall of 2014 – present Fall of 2013 – Summer of 2014 Fall of 2012 – Summer of 2013 Prior to Fall of 2012 D12[A-J]. Thinking about the most recent time you contacted them, how useful was [Program] in helping you deal with (this experience/these experiences)? Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely 57 BOX D3 IF MORE PROGRAMS MARKED IN D10 THEN RETURN TO BOX D2 ELSE GO TO D14 D13. [IF NO PROGRAMS CONTACTED] Were any of the following reasons why you did not contact anyone at [University]? (Mark all that apply) Did not know where to go or who to tell Felt embarrassed, ashamed or that it would be too emotionally difficult I did not think anyone would believe me I did not think it was serious enough to report I did not want the person to get into trouble I feared negative social consequences I did not think anything would be done I feared it would not be kept confidential Incident was not on campus or associated with the school Incident did not occur while attending school Other D14. Did you (also) tell any of the following persons about this? (Mark all that apply) Friend Family member Faculty or instructor Someone else I didn’t tell anyone (else) 58 SECTION E – STALKING333435 The next questions ask about instances where someone behaved in a way that made you afraid for your personal safety. E1. Since you have been a student at [University], has someone made unwanted phone calls, sent emails, voice, text or instant messages, or posted messages, pictures or videos on social networking sites in a way that made you afraid for your personal safety? Yes, No [GO TO E2] [IF BLANK GO TO E2] E1a. Did the same person do this to you more than once since you have been a student at [University]? Yes No Don’t know 33 Modified from Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 34 Modified from Catalano, S. (2012). Stalking victims in the Unites States--revised. (NCJ 224527). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 35 Modified from Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Staking in America: Findings form the National Violence Against Women Survey. (NCJ 172837). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 59 E2. Since you have been a student at [University], has someone showed up somewhere or waited for you when you did not want that person to be there in a way that made you afraid for your personal safety? Yes No [GO TO E3] [IF BLANK THEN GO TO E3] E2a. Did the same person do this to you more than once since you have been a student at [University]? Yes No Don’t Know E3. Since you have been a student at [University], has someone spied on, watched or followed you, either in person or using devices or software in a way that made you afraid for your personal safety? Yes, No [GO TO BOX E1] [IF BLANK THEN GO TO BOX E1] E3a. Did the same person do this to you more than once since you have been a student at [University]? Yes No Don’t know 60 BOX E1 IF REPORTED “SAME PERSON DID THIS MORE THAN ONCE” TO ANY OF THE THREE TACTICS (E1a=yes or E2a=yes or E3a=yes), THEN GO TO E5 IF YES TO TWO OR MORE ITEMS E1-E3, AND NO TO ALL ITEMS E1a & E2a & E3a, THEN GO TO E4 IF ‘NO’ TO ALL ITEMS E1-E3, OR IF ‘YES’ TO EXACTLY 1 ITEM E1-E3 AND ‘NO’ OR BLANK TO ALL ITEMS E1a & E2a & E3a THEN GO TO BOX F0 You said that the following happened to you since you’ve been a student at [University]: E4. • [IF E1 = YES] Someone made unwanted phone calls, sent emails, voice, text or instant messages, or posted messages, pictures or videos on social networking sites in a way that made you afraid for your personal safety • [IF E2 = YES] Someone showed up somewhere or waited for you when you did not want that person to be there in a way that made you afraid for your personal safety • [IF E3 = YES] Someone spied on, watched or followed you either in person or using devices or software in a way that made you afraid for your personal safety Did the same person do more than one of these to you since you have been a student at [University]? Yes [GO TO E5] No [GO TO F1] Don’t Know [GO TO F1] 61 You said that the following happened to you since you’ve been a student at [University]: E5. • [IF E1 = YES] Someone made unwanted phone calls, sent emails, voice, text or instant messages, or posted messages, pictures or videos on social networking sites in a way that made you afraid for your personal safety • [IF E2 = YES] Someone showed up somewhere or waited for you when you did not want that person to be there in a way that made you afraid for your personal safety • [IF E3 = YES] Someone spied on, watched or followed you either in person or using devices or software in a way that made you afraid for your personal safety How (is the person/are the persons) who did these things to you associated with [University]? (Mark all that apply) Student Faculty or instructor Coach or trainer Other staff or administrator Other person affiliated with a university program (ex. internship, study abroad) The person was not affiliated with [University] Don’t know association with [University] 62 E6. At the time of these events, what (was the person’s/were the persons’) relationship to you? (Mark all that apply) At the time, it was someone I was involved or intimate with Someone I had been involved or was intimate with Teacher or advisor Co-worker, boss or supervisor Friend or acquaintance Stranger Other Don’t know E7. Since the beginning of the fall 2014 term, how many times have you had any of these experiences? 0 times 1 time 2 times 3-5 times 6-9 times 10 or more times E8. Since you have been a student at [UNIVERSITY], have you contacted any of the following about any of these experiences? (Mark all that apply) [UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC LIST] None of the above [GO TO E11] [IF NO PROGRAM MARKED GO TO E11] 63 BOX E2 IF E8= NONE OF THE ABOVE OR NO PROGRAM MARKED THEN GO TO E11 ELSE ADMINISTER ITEMS E9 AND E10 FOR EACH PROGRAM MARKED IN E8 (UP TO 10) E9[A-J]. When did you most recently contact [Program] about these experiences? Fall of 2014 – present Fall of 2013 – Summer of 2014 Fall of 2012 – Summer of 2013 Prior to Fall of 2012 E10[A-J]. Thinking about the most recent time you contacted them, how useful was [Program] in helping you deal with these experiences? Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely BOX E3 IF MORE PROGRAMS MARKED THEN RETURN TO BOX E2 ELSE SKIP TO E12 64 E11. Were any of the following reasons why you did not contact anyone at [University]? (Mark all that apply) Did not know where to go or who to tell Felt embarrassed, ashamed or that it would be too emotionally difficult I did not think anyone would believe me I did not think it was serious enough to report I did not want the person to get into trouble I feared negative social consequences I did not think anything would be done I feared it would not be kept confidential Incident was not on campus or associated with the school Incident did not occur while attending school Other E12. Did you (also) tell any of the following persons about this? (Mark all that apply) Friend Family member Faculty or instructor Someone else I didn’t tell anyone (else) 65 SECTION F – IPV/DV36 BOX F0 IF A13 = YES (PRIOR RELATIONSHIP) GO TO F1 ELSE SKIP TO G1 Earlier in the survey you indicated that you have been in a partnered relationship at least part of the time since you have been a student at [University]. People treat their partner in many different ways. The next section asks you questions about your relationship with your partner(s). Recall that partnered relationships include: F1. • casual relationship or hook-up • steady or serious relationship • marriage, civil union, domestic partnership or cohabitation Since you have been a student at [University], has a partner controlled or tried to control you? Examples could be when someone: • kept you from going to classes or pursuing your educational goals • did not allow you to see or talk with friends or family • made decisions for you such as, where you go or what you wear or eat • threatened to “out” you to others Yes No 36 Modified from Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 66 F2. Since you have been a student at [University], has a partner threatened to physically harm you, someone you love, or themselves? Yes No F3. Since you have been a student at [University], has a partner used any kind of physical force against you? Examples could be when someone • bent your fingers or bit you • choked, slapped, punched or kicked you • hit you with something other than a fist • attacked you with a weapon, or otherwise physically hurt or injured you Yes No BOX F1 IF F1=YES OR F2=YES OR F3=YES, THEN GO TO F4 ELSE GO TO G1 You said that the following happened to you since you’ve been a student at [University]: • [IF F1 = YES] A partner controlled or tried to control you • [IF F2 = YES] A partner threatened to physically harm you or someone you love • [IF F3 = YES] A partner used physical force against you 67 F4. How many different partners treated you this way? 1 partner 2 partners 3 or more partners F5. Were you physically injured as a result of (this incident/any of these incidents)? Yes No [GO TO F7] [IF BLANK THEN GO TO F7] F6. Did you ever seek medical attention as a result of (this incident/any of these incidents)? Yes No F7. Since the beginning of the fall 2014 term, how many times have you (had this experience/had any of these experiences)? 0 times 1 time 2 times 3-5 times 6-9 times 10 or more times 68 F8. Since you have been a student at [University], have you contacted any of the following about (this experience/any of these experiences)? (Mark all that apply) [UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC LIST] None of the above [GO TO F11] [IF NO PROGRAM MARKED GO TO F11] BOX F2 IF F8= NONE OF THE ABOVE OR NO PROGRAM MARKED THEN GO TO F11 ELSE ADMINISTER ITEMS F9 AND F10 FOR EACH PROGRAM MARKED IN F8 (UP TO 10) F9[A-J]. When did you most recently contact [Program] about (this experience/these experiences)? Fall of 2014 – present Fall of 2013 – Summer of 2014 Fall of 2012 – Summer of 2013 Prior to Fall of 2012 F10[A-J]. Thinking about the most recent time you contacted them, how useful was [Program] in helping you deal with (this experience/these experiences)? Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely 69 BOX F3 IF F8= NO PROGRAM MARKED THEN CONTINUE TO F11 ELSE SKIP TO F12 F11. [IF NO PROGRAMS CONTACTED] Were any of the following reasons why you did not contact anyone at [University]? (Mark all that apply) Did not know where to go or who to tell Felt embarrassed, ashamed or that it would be too emotionally difficult I did not think anyone would believe me I did not think it was serious enough to report I did not want the person to get into trouble I feared negative social consequences I did not think anything would be done I feared it would not be kept confidential Incident was not on campus or associated with the school Incident did not occur while attending school Other F12. Did you (also) tell any of the following persons about this? (Mark all that apply) Friend Family member Faculty or instructor Someone else I didn’t tell anyone (else) 70 SECTION G – SV SCREENER3738 ______________________________________________________________________________ This next section asks about nonconsensual or unwanted sexual contact you may have experienced while attending [University]. The person with whom you had the nonconsensual or unwanted contact could have been someone you know, such as someone you are currently or were in a relationship with, a co-worker, a professor, or a family member. Or it could be someone you do not know. The following questions separately ask about contact that occurred because of physical force, incapacitation due to alcohol or drugs, and other types of pressure. The first few questions ask about incidents that involved force or threats of force against you. Force could include someone holding you down with his or her body weight, pinning your arms, hitting or kicking you, or using or threatening to use a weapon against you. G1. Since you have been attending [University], has someone used physical force or threats of physical force to do the following with you: • Sexual penetration. When one person puts a penis, fingers, or object inside someone else’s vagina or anus, or • Oral sex. When someone’s mouth or tongue makes contact with someone else’s genitals Yes [GO TO Attachment 1] No 37 Modified from Krebs., C.P., Lindquist, C.H., Warner, T.D., Fisher, B.S., & Martin, S.L. (2007). The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study Final Report. Retrieved from: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf 38 Modified from Koss, M. P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., ... & White, J. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(4), 357-370. 71 G2. Since you have been attending [University], has someone used physical force or threats of physical force in an unsuccessful attempt to do any of the following with you: • Sexual penetration. When one person puts a penis, finger, or object inside someone else’s vagina or anus • Oral sex. When someone’s mouth or tongue makes contact with someone else’s genitals Yes [GO TO Attachment 1] No G3. Since you have been attending [University], has someone used physical force or threats of physical force to do any of the following with you: • kissing • touching someone’s breast, chest, crotch, groin or buttocks • grabbing, groping or rubbing against the other in a sexual way, even if the touching is over the other’s clothes Yes [GO TO Attachment 1] No The next questions ask about incidents when you were unable to consent or stop what was happening because you were passed out, asleep, or incapacitated due to drugs or alcohol. Please include incidents even if you are not sure what happened. G4. Since you have been attending [University], has any of the following happened to you while you were unable to consent or stop what was happening because you were passed out, asleep or incapacitated due to drugs or alcohol: • Sexual penetration. When one person puts a penis, finger, or object inside someone else’s vagina or anus • Oral sex. When someone’s mouth or tongue makes contact with someone else’s genitals Yes [GO TO Attachment 1] No 72 G5. Since you have been attending [University], has any of the following happened to you while you were unable to consent or stop what was happening because you were passed out, asleep or incapacitated due to drugs or alcohol: • kissing • touching someone’s breast, chest, crotch, groin, or buttocks • grabbing, groping or rubbing against the other in a sexual way, even if the touching is over the other’s clothes Yes [GO TO Attachment 1] No The next questions ask about incidents when someone coerced you by threatening serious nonphysical harm or promising rewards. G6. Since you have been a student at [University], has someone had contact with you involving penetration or oral sex by threatening serious non-physical harm or promising rewards such that you felt you must comply? Examples include: • Threatening to give you bad grades or cause trouble for you at work • Promising good grades or a promotion at work • Threatening to share damaging information about you with your family, friends or authority figures • Threatening to post damaging information about you online Yes [GO TO Attachment 1] No 73 G7. Since you have been a student at [University], has someone had contact with you involving kissing or other sexual touching by threatening serious non-physical harm or promising rewards such that you felt you must comply? Examples include: • Threatening to give you bad grades or cause trouble for you at work • Promise good grades or a promotion at work • Threatening to share damaging information about you with your family, friends or authority figures • Threatening to post damaging information about you online Yes [GO TO Attachment 1] No The next questions ask about incidents that occurred without your active, ongoing voluntary agreement. G8.39 Since you have been a student at [University], has someone had contact with you involving penetration or oral sex without your active, ongoing voluntary agreement? Examples include someone: • initiating sexual activity despite your refusal • ignoring your cues to stop or slow down • went ahead without checking in or while you were still deciding • otherwise failed to obtain your consent Yes [GO TO Attachment 1] No 39 Incorporate affirmative consent as a tactic from the AAU and COFHE schools affirmative consent policies. 74 G9.40 Since you have been a student at [University], has someone kissed or sexually touched you without your active, ongoing voluntary agreement? Examples include: • initiating sexual activity despite your refusal • ignoring your cues to stop or slow down • went ahead without checking in or while you were still deciding • otherwise failed to obtain your consent Yes [GO TO Attachment 1] No BOX G1 ONCE THE ENTIRE G SECTION (G1-G9) HAS BEEN ANSWERED THEN DO IF ANY OF G1-G9 = YES THEN GO TO ATTACHMENT 2 ELSE GO TO BOX H0 40 Ibid. 75 SECTION H – SEXUAL MISCONDUCT PREVENTION TRAINING41 BOX H0 ADMINISTER SECTION H ONLY IF A6=2014 or 2015 ELSE SKIP TO I1. H1. Think back to the orientation when you first came to [University]. Did that orientation include a training or information session about sexual assault or sexual misconduct? Yes No [GO TO I1] I didn’t attend orientation [GO TO I1] I don’t remember [GO TO I1] [IF BLANK THEN [IF BLANK THEN GO TO I1] H2. Overall, how useful was this session? Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely 41 Modified from White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault. (2014). Not Alone: The first report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from sexual assault. Retrieved from https://www.notalone.gov/assets/ovw-climate-survey.pdf. 76 SECTION I – PERCEPTIONS OF RESPONSES TO REPORTING4243 The following are statements about what might happen if someone were to report a sexual assault or sexual misconduct to an official at [University]. Please use the scale provided to indicate how likely you think each scenario is. I1. If someone were to report a sexual assault or sexual misconduct to an official at [University], how likely is it that students would support the person making the report? Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely I2. If someone were to report a sexual assault or sexual misconduct to an official at [University], how likely is it that the alleged offender(s) or their associates would retaliate against the person making the report? Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely 42 Modified from White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault. (2014). Not Alone: The first report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from sexual assault. Retrieved from https://www.notalone.gov/assets/ovw-climate-survey.pdf. 43 Modified from McMahon, S. (2014). #iSPEAK: Rutger Campus Climate Survey. New Brunswick, NJ: Center on Violence Against Women and Children, School of Social Work, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. Retrieved from http://socialwork.rutgers.edu/Libraries/VAWC/new_doc_to_upload_for_ispeak.sflb.ashx 77 I3. If someone were to report a sexual assault or sexual misconduct to an official at [University], how likely is it that campus officials would take the report seriously? Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely I4. If someone were to report a sexual assault or sexual misconduct to an official at [University], how likely is it that campus officials would protect the safety of the person making the report? Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely I5. If someone were to report a sexual assault or sexual misconduct to an official at [University], how likely is it that campus officials would conduct a fair investigation? Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely 78 I6. If someone were to report a sexual assault or sexual misconduct to an official at [University], how likely is it that campus officials would take action against the offender(s)? Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely I7. If someone were to report a sexual assault or sexual misconduct to an official at [University], how likely is it that campus officials would take action to address factors that may have led to the sexual assault or sexual misconduct? Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely 79 SECTION J – BYSTANDER BEHAVIOR4445 The next questions are about situations you may have seen or been in since you have been a student at [University] J1. Since you have been a student at [University] have you suspected that a friend had been sexually assaulted. Yes [CONTINUE] No [GO TO J3] [IF BLANK GO TO J3] J2. Thinking about the last time this happened, what did you do? Did nothing because I wasn’t sure what to do Did nothing for another reason Spoke to my friend or someone else to seek help Took action in another way J3. Since you have been a student at [University]have you seen a drunk person heading off for what looked like a sexual encounter? Yes [CONTINUE] No [GO TO J5] [IF BLANK THEN GO TO J5] 44 Modified from Banyard, V.L., Moynihan, M. M., Cares, A.C., & Warner, R. (2014). How do we know if it works?: Measuring outcomes in bystander-focused abuse prevention on campuses. Psychology of Violence, 4(1), 101-115. 45 McMahon, S. (2014). #iSPEAK: Rutger Campus Climate Survey. New Brunswick, NJ: Center on Violence Against Women and Children, School of Social Work, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. Retrieved from http://socialwork.rutgers.edu/Libraries/VAWC/new_doc_to_upload_for_ispeak.sflb.ashx 80 J4. Thinking about the last time this happened, what did you do? Did nothing because I wasn’t sure what to do Did nothing for another reason Directly intervened to stop it Spoke to someone else to seek help Took action in another way J5. Since you have been a student at [University] have you seen or heard someone was acting in a sexually violent or harassing way? Yes [CONTINUE] No [GO TO K1] [IF BLANK THEN GO TO K1] J6. Thinking about the last time this happened, what did you do? Did nothing because I wasn’t sure what to do Did nothing for another reason Directly intervened to stop it Spoke to someone else to seek help Took action in another way 81 SECTION K – DEBRIEFING ITEM The next question asks for your opinion about this survey. K1. How difficult were the questions to understand? Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely 82 ATTACHMENT 1 – SECTION G1: IMMEDIATE FOLLOWUPS BOX G1_1 IF G[X]=Yes THEN CONTINUE TO G[X]a ELSE SKIP TO NEXT ITEM IN SECTION G G[X]a. Since you have been a student at [University], how many times has this happened? 1. 1 time 2. 2 times 3. 3 times 4. 4 or more times BOX G1_2 ADMINISTER G1B AND G1C FOR EACH INCIDENT REPORTED IN G1A, UP TO 4 TIMES IF G1A IS BLANK THEN ADMINISTER G1B AND G1C ONCE You said that the following occurred (1/2/3/4 or more) time(s): [INCIDENT SUMMARY] 83 G[X]b. When did (this/the (second/third/fourth) most recent) incident (of this type) occur? 1. Since the beginning of the fall 2014 term [GO TO NEXT BOX] 2. Prior to the fall 2014 term [GO TO G1c] [IF BLANK GO TO BOX G1_2] G[X]c. [IF G1b = 2] In what school year did it occur? 1. Fall 2013 to Summer 2014 2. Fall 2012 to Summer 2013 3. Fall 2011 to Summer 2012 4. Prior to Fall of 2011 5. It occurred before I was a student at [University][GO TO BOX G1_2] [IF BLANK GO TO BOX G1_2] BOX G1_3 IF TIME PERIOD REPORTED IN G[X]B AND G[X]C IS THE SAME AS TIME PERIOD REPORTED IN PREVIOUS G ITEM FOLLOW-UP, THEN GO TO G[X]D ELSE RETURN TO G[X]B FOR NEXT INCIDENT REPORTED IN G[X]A IF NO MORE INCIDENTS THEN GO TO NEXT G ITEM G[X]d. Was this part of (the other incident/any of the other incidents) you reported as occurring (during the) (Time period) (school year)? 1. Yes [GO TO G2e] 2. No [GO TO NEXT BOX] [IF BLANK THEN GO TO NEXT BOX] 84 G[X]e. [IF G[X]d = Yes] Was it part of any of the following incidents you reported earlier? [LIST PRIOR ANSWERS THAT OCCURRED DURING SAME TIME PERIOD] 1. [IF G[X] TIME PERIOD = G1 TIME PERIOD] Penetration or oral sex involving physical force or threats of physical force 2. [IF G[X] TIME PERIOD = G2 TIME PERIOD] Attempted but not successful penetration or oral sex involving physical force or threats of physical force 3. [IF G[X] TIME PERIOD = G3 TIME PERIOD] Sexual touching involving physical force or threats of physical force 4. [IF G[X] TIME PERIOD = G4 TIME PERIOD] Penetration or oral sex when you were unable to consent or unable to stop what was happening 5. [IF G[X] TIME PERIOD = G5 TIME PERIOD] Sexual touching when you were unable to consent or unable to stop what was happening 6. [IF G[X] TIME PERIOD = G6 TIME PERIOD] Penetration or oral sex when you were coerced by threats of serious non-physical harm or promised rewards 7. [IF G[X] TIME PERIOD = G7 TIME PERIOD] Sexual touching when you were coerced by threats of serious non-physical harm or promised rewards 8. [IF G[X] TIME PERIOD = G8 TIME PERIOD] Penetration or oral sex without your active ongoing consent 9. None of the above 85 BOX G1_4 IF G[X]A = ‘4 or more times’ AND ALL G[X]C=‘since fall 2014’ THEN CONTINUE TO G[X]F ELSE RETURN TO G[X]B FOR NEXT INCIDENT REPORTED IN G[X]A IF NO MORE INCIDENTS THEN GO TO NEXT G ITEM G2f. You said that this happened other times as well. Did any of these other incidents also occur since the beginning for the fall 2014 term? Yes No 86 ATTACHMENT 2 – SECTIONS GA & GC: SUMMARY DETAILED INCIDENT FORMS4647 Section GA – Detailed Incident Form (DIF) for G1-G5 BOX GA0 IF ALL ITEMS G1 – G5 = ‘NO’ THEN SKIP TO BOX GC0 ELSE CONTINUE TO BOX GA1 BOX GA1 Section GA administered UP TO 2 TIMES based on incidents reported in items G1-G5 The FIRST DIF will reference the MOST SERIOUS TYPE of incident reported The SECOND DIF will reference the SECOND MOST SERIOUS TYPE of incident reported The following are the 4 INCIDENT TYPES reported in G1-G5, (listed from most serious to least serious): GA Type 1: G1 and/or G2 (Forcible rape and/or Attempted forcible rape) GA Type 2: G4 (Rape by incapacitation) GA Type 3: G3 (Forcible sexual touching) GA Type 4: G5 (Sexual touching by incapacitation) You said that the following happened to you since you have been a student at [University]: [SUMMARY OF REFERENCE INCIDENT(S)] 46 Modified from Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011).The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 47 Modified from the 2012-2013 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). 87 The next questions ask about what happened (when/during any of the times) this happened to you since you have been a student at [University]. GA1. (In total, across all of these incidents) (How/how) many people did this to you? 1 person [GO TO GA2a] 2 persons [SKIP TO GA2b] 3 or more persons [SKIP TO GA2b] [IF BLANK SKIP TO GA2b] GA2a. [IF 1 PERSON] Was the person that did this to you … Male Female Other gender identity Don’t know [FOR ANY RESPONSE OR IF BLANK SKIP TO GA3] GA2b. [IF >1 PERSON] Were any of the people that did this to you… Male Female Other gender identity Yes Yes Yes No No No 88 Don’t Know Don’t Know Don’t Know GA2c. What type of nonconsensual or unwanted behavior occurred during (this incident/any of these incidents)? (Mark all that apply) Penis, fingers or objects inside someone’s vagina or anus Mouth or tongue makes contact with another’s genitals Kissed Touched breast, chest, crotch, groin or buttocks Grabbed, groped or rubbed in a sexual way Other GA3. How (is the person/ are the persons) who did this to you associated with [University]? (Mark all that apply) Student Faculty or instructor Coach or trainer Other staff or administrator Other person affiliated with a university program (ex. internship, study abroad) The person was not affiliated with [University] Don’t know association with [University] 89 GA4. At the time of (this event/ these events), what (was the person’s/were these persons’) relationship to you? (Mark all that apply) At the time, it was someone I was involved or intimate with Someone I had been involved or was intimate with Teacher or advisor Co-worker, boss or supervisor Friend or acquaintance Stranger Other Don’t know GA5. Just prior to (the incident/any of these incidents), (was/were) (the person/any of the persons) who did this to you drinking alcohol? Yes No Don’t know GA6. Just prior to (the incident/any of these incidents), (was/were) (the person/any of the persons) who did this to you using drugs? Yes No Don’t know GA7. Just prior to (the incident/any of these incidents) were you drinking alcohol? Keep in mind that you are in no way responsible for what occurred, even if you had been drinking. Yes No 90 GA8. Just prior to (the incident/any of these incidents) did you voluntarily take any drugs? Keep in mind that you are in no way responsible for what occurred, even if you had been on drugs. Yes No GA9. Just prior to (the incident/any of these incidents), had you been given alcohol or another drug without your knowledge or consent? Yes, I am certain I suspect, but I am not certain No Don’t know BOX GA2 IF GA7=‘YES’ or GA8=‘YES’ or GA9 = ‘YES’ or ‘I SUSPECT’, THEN CONTINUE TO GA10. OTHERWISE SKIP TO BOX GA3 GA10. Were you passed out for all or parts of (this incident/any of these incidents)? Yes No Not sure BOX GA3 IF MORE THAN ONE INCIDENT IN G[X]A OR IF DK NUMBER OF TIMES THEN SKIP TO GA11b OTHERWISE CONTINUE TO GA11a 91 GA11a. [IF G[X]A=1 TIME] Did this incident occur during an academic break or recess? Yes No GA11b. [IF G[X]A>1 TIME] How many of these incidents occurred during an academic break or recess? None Some All GA12. Did (this incident/any of these incidents) occur on campus or on university affiliated off-campus property? Yes [CONTINUE TO GA13a] No [SKIP TO GA13b] [IF BLANK THEN SKIP TO GA13b] GA13a. [IF GA12=Yes] Where did (this incident/these incidents) occur? (Mark all that apply) University residence hall/dorm Fraternity or Sorority house Other space used by a single-sex student social organization Other residential housing Non-residential building Other property (ex. outdoors) [FOR ANY RESPONSE OR IF BLANK SKIP TO GA14] 92 GA13b. [IF GA12=No] Where did this (incident/these incidents) occur? (Mark all that apply) Private residence Fraternity or Sorority house Other space used by a single-sex student social organization Restaurant, bar or club Other social venue Outdoor or recreational space Some other place GA14. Did any of the following happen to you from (this experience/any of these experiences)? (Mark all that apply) Physically injured, [CONTINUE TO GA14a] Contracted a sexually transmitted disease [SKIP TO GA15] Became pregnant [SKIP TO GA15] None of the above [SKIP TO GA15] [IF BLANK THEN SKIP TO GA15] GA14a. What sort of injury or injuries did you sustain (Mark all that apply) Bruises, black-eye, cuts, scratches or swelling Chipped or knocked out teeth Broken bones Internal injury from the sexual contact (ex., vaginal or anal tearing) Other injuries 93 GA15. Did you experience any of the following as a result of (the incident/any of the incidents)? (Mark all that apply) Difficulty concentrating on studies, assignments or exams Fearfulness or being concerned about safety Loss of interest in daily activities, or feelings of helplessness and hopelessness Nightmares or trouble sleeping Feeling numb or detached Headaches or stomach aches Eating problems or disorders Increased drug or alcohol use None of the above GA16. Have you ever contacted any of the following about (this experience/these experiences)? (Mark all that apply) [UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC LIST] None of the above [GO TO GA17] [IF NO PROGRAMS MARKED GO TO GA17] BOX GA4 IF NO PROGRAM MARKED, GO TO GA17 ELSE ASK GA16a-GA16f FOR THE FIRST 4 PROGRAMS SELECTED IN GA16 94 GA16a. When did you most recently contact [Program] about this experience? Fall of 2014 – present [CONTINUE TO GA16b] Fall of 2013 – Summer of 2014 [SKIP TO BOX GA4B] Fall of 2012 – Summer of 2013 [SKIP TO BOX GA4B] Prior to Fall 2012 [SKIP TO BOX GA4B] [IF BLANK THEN CONTINUE TO GA16b] GA16b. How useful was [Program] in helping you? Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely GA16c. At any time did you feel pressure from [Program] on whether or not to proceed with further reporting or adjudication? Yes No [SKIP TO GA16e] [IF BLANK THEN SKIP TO GA16e] GA16d. [IF GA16C=Yes] What type of pressure? To proceed with further reporting or adjudication To not proceed with further reporting or adjudication 95 How would you rate [Program] on the following criteria? GA16e. Respecting you Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor GA16f. Helping you understand your options going forward Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor BOX GA5 IF GA16 = NO PROGRAMS MARKED, THEN CONTINUE IF MORE PROGRAMS MARKED THEN RETURN TO BOX GA4 ELSE SKIP TO GA18 96 GA17. [IF NO PROGRAMS CONTACTED] Were any of the following reasons why you did not contact anyone at [University]? (Mark all that apply) Did not know where to go or who to tell Felt embarrassed, ashamed or that it would be too emotionally difficult I did not think anyone would believe me I did not think it was serious enough to report I did not want the person to get into trouble I feared negative social consequences I did not think anything would be done I feared it would not be kept confidential Incident was not on campus or associated with the school Incident did not occur while attending school Other GA18. Which of the following persons, if any, did you (also) tell about this? (Mark all that apply) Friend Family member Faculty or instructor Someone else I didn’t tell anyone (else) BOX GA6 IF THIS IS THE FIRST DIF FOR SECTION GA AND THERE IS ANOTHER INCIDENT THEN RETURN TO BOX GA1 ELSE GO TO BOX GC0 97 Section GC – Detailed Incident Form (DIF) for G6-G9 BOX GC0 IF ALL ITEMS G6 – G9 = ‘NO’ THEN SKIP TO BOX H1 ELSE CONTINUE TO BOX GC1 BOX GC1 Section GC is administered UP TO 2 TIMES based on incidents reported in items G6-G9 The FIRST DIF will reference the MOST SERIOUS TYPE of incident reported The SECOND DIF will reference the SECOND MOST SERIOUS TYPE of incident reported The following are the 2 INCIDENT TYPES reported in G6-G9, (listed from most serious to least serious): GC Type 1: G6 and/or G7 (Sex and/or Sexual touching by Coercion) GC Type 2: G8 and/or G9 (Sex and/or Sexual touching without Affirmative Consent) You said that the following happened to you since you have been a student at [University] [SUMMARY OF REFERENCE INCIDENT(S)] The next questions ask about what happened (when/during any of the times) this happened to you since you have been a student at [University]. GC1. (In total, across all of these incidents) (H/h)ow many people did this to you? 1 person [GO TO GC2a] 2 persons [GO TO GC2b] 3 or more persons [GO TO GC2b] [IF BLANK THEN GO TO GC2b] 98 GC2a. [IF 1 PERSON] Was the person that did this to you … Male Female Other gender identity Don’t know [FOR ANY RESPONSE OR IF BLANK THEN SKIP TO GC2c] GC2b. [If >1 PERSON] Were any of the people that did this to you… Male Female Other gender identity Yes Yes Yes No No No Don’t Know Don’t Know Don’t Know GC2c. What type of nonconsensual or unwanted behavior occurred during (this incident/any of these incidents)? (Mark all that apply) Penis, fingers or objects inside someone’s vagina or anus Mouth or tongue makes contact with another’s genitals Kissed Touched breast/chest, crotch/groin or buttocks, Grabbed, groped or rubbed in a sexual way Other 99 GC3. How (is the person/ are the persons) who did this to you associated with [University]? (Mark all that apply) Student Faculty or instructor Coach or trainer Other staff or administrator Other person affiliated with a university program (ex., internship, study abroad) The person was not affiliated with [University] Don’t know association with [University] GC4. At the time of (this event/ these events), what (was the person’s/were these persons’) relationship to you? (Mark all that apply) At the time, it was someone I was involved or intimate with Someone I had been involved or was intimate with Teacher or advisor Co-worker, boss, or supervisor Friend or acquaintance Stranger Other Don’t know 100 BOX GC2 IF REFERENCE INCIDENT FOR THIS DIF IS G8 OR G9, THEN GO TO G5 IF THIS IS THE FIRST DIF FOR SECTION GC AND THERE IS ANOTHER INCIDENT THEN RETURN TO BOX GC1 ELSE GO TO BOX H0 GC5. Did the person(s) do any of the following during (this incident/any of these incidents)? (Mark all that apply) Initiated sexual activity without checking in with you first or while you were still deciding Initiated sexual activity despite your refusal During consensual activity, ignored your verbal cues to stop or slow down During consensual activity, ignored your nonverbal cues to stop or slow down Otherwise failed to obtain your active ongoing voluntary agreement None of the above 101 Appendix 2. Human Subjects Protections and Safeguards A2.1 IRB Review Options and Process Overview In January 2015, Westat submitted its Institutional Review Board (IRB) package (including the instrument and study protocols) to both the Westat IRB, for a full review, and the 27 participating IHEs, who used the materials to develop their own IRB packages. At this time, the study was given conditional approval by the Westat IRB. Full approval was obtained in February 2015. In March 2015, Westat tested and programmed the instrument for April 1, 2015, the first launch date48. Among participating IHEs, five universities elected to rely on Westat’s IRB as the IRB of record, 11 universities chose to use their own IRB, and four universities used both IRBs (their own and Westat’s). Seven universities determined their involvement in the study did not constitute human subjects research and, consequently, elected not to seek IRB approval or review. For these schools Westat was the only IRB involved in the study process and students were fully covered by Westat’s IRB protections. An Institutional Review Board Authorization Agreement (IAA) was executed between Harvard University and Westat on February 27, 2015, agreeing that Westat would rely on that university’s IRB for review and continuing oversight of its human subjects research. A2.2 Respondent Emotional Protections Given the sensitive nature of the survey topic, there was some risk of emotional distress for survey participants, as well as concerns about confidentiality and data security. Consequently, a number of human subject protections and security protocols were considered and put in place for survey participants. A2.3 NIH Certificate of Confidentiality The AAU survey is protected by a Federal Certificate of Confidentiality (CoC) CC-AA-1545. This certificate, issued by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health (NIH), allows “researchers to refuse to disclose identifiable research 48 To accommodate differences in IHEs’ academic calendars, IHEs chose the field period (generally three weeks) during which they wanted their survey to be open, with the earliest available launch date of April 1. 102 information in response to legal demands,”49 such as court orders and subpoenas, for identifying information or identifying characteristics of a research participant. This is an important legal tool and we are very pleased to have secured this protection for our study participants. Following a multi-month application and review process, the certificate was issued April 8, 2015 and is retroactive to the start of data collection. A2.4 Informed Consent The first safeguard against participant distress was the process of informed consent. Functioning as a gateway to the survey, the consent form provided details about the survey, set expectations for the types of questions to be asked, and allowed students to make an informed decision whether participation was right for them. Students who felt they would become distressed taking such a survey could choose not to participate (and could not enter the survey), and students who consented to participate were prepared for the sensitive topics. The consent form emphasized that respondents could skip any question they did not want to answer, and that they could stop the interview at any time they felt uncomfortable or simply wished to stop. In addition, all consent forms concluded with contact information for a responsible IRB and research representative. A2.5 Distress Protocols Prior studies on sexual misconduct show that most individuals do not find participation in such research to be harmful and, in many cases, consider their participation beneficial (Wager, 2012; Yeater, Miller, Rinehart, and Nason, 2012). However, data collection for the AAU survey included several safeguards to minimize risk related to emotional distress. A2.6 Campus-specific Resources Campus-specific resource lists with contact information on national, campus, and community-specific resources were offered to all students and accessible both in- and outside the survey. Examples of such resources include counseling and medical centers and 24-hour crisis phone lines. A link to these resources was available on each survey screen starting with the initial landing page. In addition, all respondents were offered the resource list again at the conclusion of the survey. 49 From What is a Certificate of Confidentiality? NIH Certificates of Confidentiality (CoC) Kiosk http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/coc/index.htm 103 Although we anticipated that most participants would access these resources through the web survey, we also developed a protocol for Help Desk staff to use if they received distress calls or questions about sexual assault resources. A2.7 Help Desk To further encourage participants to complete the survey and minimize distress, Help Desk staff were available by phone and email throughout data collection to answer technical questions about the survey and how to complete it, and to provide resource lists to respondents who call and need additional support or referrals for services. Help Desk contact information was provided in all email communication and was available on all screens of the online survey, as well as on the survey landing page. Help Desk staff were trained in both project and customer service procedures, including distress protocols. While Help Desk staff did not provide counseling or other crisis intervention services, staff were prepared to offer respondents the same resource information included in the online survey for their specific campus. In the event that a caller expressed elevated distress or a threat to themselves or others, the staff were trained to directly connect these students with counseling services from the resource list. Data collection closed without the need to initiate the distress protocol. In all cases, Help Desk staff were trained to be sensitive to callers and respond to them politely and thoughtfully, regardless of the circumstances of their call. As shown in this screenshot above, each page of the survey included links to general and school-specific frequently asked questions (FAQs) and resources. It also included the Help Desk number for easy access to those students who needed it for either technical assistance or additional resources. 104 A2.8 Data Security and Protecting Confidentiality All survey data was collected via a secure web site hosted at Westat. The respondent’s email address was encrypted and stored in the SqlServer database. Upon final submission of the survey, the respondent’s email address and PIN number (used to create the unique survey link) was automatically deleted from the database, removing any linkage between the survey responses and the respondent. For any respondents who completed some of the survey but did not formally submit it, these variables were deleted manually at the end of the data collection period. Roster file data was not included in the questionnaire data file so that if someone were to somehow obtain the survey data, they could not associate any data with a particular individual. All necessary steps to mask the identity of survey respondents have been taken for the data analysis and reporting. The analysis included only quantitative components. Results are tabular, as well as more formal statistical models. Results were reviewed to ensure an acceptable risk of disclosure, including suppression of demographic characteristics and other potentially identifying information in situations in which cell sizes are small. All data pertaining to this project has been stored in a secure manner in a physical and electronic form that can only be accessed by study personnel. All electronic data has been stored on network server directories. Access to the network project directory has been controlled through the use of directory and file access rights based upon user account ID and the associated user group definition. Paper data is stored in locked files cabinets. Datasets will be provided to AAU and to participating universities. These project partners will own their respective datasets and the reports summarizing findings that will also be delivered by Westat. The individual data-sets have been reviewed for potential disclosure risks. Where appropriate, variables were altered (e.g., categories collapsed) to identify potential risks before delivering the final files. Three years after completion of the study, all data and files related to this study will be permanently destroyed. 105 References Wager, N. M. (2012). Respondents’ experiences of completing a retrospective, web-based sexual trauma survey: Does a history of victimization equate with a risk for harm? Violence and Victims, 27(6), 991-1004. Yeater, E., Miller, G., Rinehart, J. & Nason, E. (2012). Trauma and sex surveys meet minimal risk standards: Implications for institutional review boards. Psychological Science, 23(7), 780-787. 106 Informed Consent Harvard University is asking all students to answer a climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct. This research survey is sponsored by Harvard University in collaboration with the Association of American Universities (AAU). The results will be used to guide policies to encourage a healthy, safe and nondiscriminatory environment at Harvard University. This survey includes sections that ask about your knowledge and beliefs about social situations, perceptions related to sexual misconduct at Harvard University and your knowledge of resources available at Harvard University. TRIGGER WARNING:50 This survey also asks about your personal experience with sexual misconduct, such as harassment, sexual assault and other forms of violence. Some of the language used in this survey is explicit and some people may find it uncomfortable, but it is important that we ask the questions in this way so that you are clear what we mean. If responding to the survey is distressful, information on how to get help, if you need it, appears on the top of each page and at the end of the survey. Personal benefit from participating in this survey is unlikely. This survey should take most students approximately 20 minutes to complete. It may take up to 30 minutes for some individuals. You do NOT have to participate in this survey, and if you do choose to participate, you may skip any question you are not comfortable answering and may exit the survey at any time. There will be no consequences to you personally or your student status if you choose not to complete the survey. To thank you for your participation, every student who completes the survey will be offered a $5 gift card to Amazon.com. We will protect the confidentiality of your participation in the survey. After you complete the survey, the link with your name, email and IP address will be broken so that no one will be able to connect these identifiers with your survey answers. The results will be presented in summary form so no individual student can be identified. However, if you contact Help Desk Services and you reveal child abuse or you threaten to harm yourself or others, we are obligated to report it to appropriate authorities. 50 The words TRIGGER WARNING were added after the start of data collection in order to call out existing language in the consent which advised about explicit language within the survey. Changes to the consent were made as soon as operationally possible 107 We have obtained a Certificate of Confidentiality (CoC) issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The CoC is issued to protect the investigators on this study from being forced to tell anyone about your participation in this study, even under a subpoena. Even when a CoC is in place, you and your family members must still continue to actively protect your own privacy. If you voluntarily give your written consent for an insurer, employer, or lawyer to receive information about your participation in the research, then we may not use the CoC to withhold this information.51 If you have any technical or logistical questions about this study, please send an e-mail to CampusClimateHelp@westat.com or call 1(855)497-4787. If you have Harvard-specific questions or comments, including about Harvard’s sponsorship of this study, you should refer to the FAQ and contact information for various resources provided on Harvard’s Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Assault web site at: sexualconductsurvey.harvard.edu or by email at sexualconductsurvey@harvard.edu. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you can call the Committee on the Use of Human Subjects in Research at Harvard University. They can be reached at 617-496-2847, 1414 Massachusetts Avenue, Second Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138, or cuhs@fas.harvard.edu. 51 NIH Certificate of Confidentiality CC-AA-15-45 was issued on April 8, 2015. Changes to the consent were made as soon as operationally possible. 108 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) What is the Sexual Conduct Survey? A survey for Harvard degree-seeking students designed to measure the campus climate regarding sexual harassment and sexual assault. The Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Assault established by President Faust last year recommended that a campus survey be designed to help the community better understand the incidence of sexual harassment and sexual assault on campus. Many other colleges and universities outlined similar goals. Harvard chose to join 27 other institutions in collaborating with the Association of American Universities (AAU) to conduct a common survey this spring. The data collected will provide information not only about the climate and experiences on Harvard’s campus, but also the environment at many other institutions. With faculty and staff from many of these other institutions, members of the Harvard community helped to design, develop, and test the survey instrument. To ensure confidentiality and protect response information, an independent research firm—Westat—was contracted to administer the survey. All institutions involved in this national effort may not use the same name for the instrument. At Harvard, we are calling it the Sexual Conduct Survey. If you have friends at other participating institutions, they may refer to it in other ways. However, the emails you will receive from Westat will refer to the survey as the Campus Climate Survey. Harvard’s Sexual Conduct Survey is nearly identical to those administered on other campuses, with just a few examples and questions unique to Harvard. Why should I take the survey? To help provide information that can inform policies designed to prevent sexual harassment and sexual assault. With a better understanding of students’ experiences, Harvard can institute policies that prevent sexual harassment and sexual assault and provide enhanced support to community members who experience it. To do this, a high response rate is critical. 109 I have not experienced sexual harassment or sexual assault while at Harvard. Should I still take this survey? Yes. This survey is for all students, regardless of your personal experiences. How do I take the survey? Every degree-seeking Harvard student over 18 will receive an email from “Campus Climate Survey,” which will be sent by Westat, the firm administering the survey. Open the email invitation and click on the individualized link—you must use this link to access the survey (this protects your confidentiality). Harvard’s survey period will run from April 12 through May 3. Westat will also send all students three reminder emails (on April 15, April 22, and April 29) that will again contain the individualized link needed to access the survey (these reminders will be sent even if you have already completed the survey). Note that you will also receive multiple emails from members of the Harvard community, but only the Westat-sent emails will have the individualized links. Will my answers be confidential? Yes. Survey responses will be completely confidential. When you complete the survey, the connection with your name, email, and IP address will be permanently severed, so responses will not be connected to identifying information from that point forward. If you start the survey but do not complete it, the connection with your name, email, and IP address will be permanently severed at the end of the survey period. We have obtained a Certificate of Confidentiality (CoC) issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The CoC is issued to protect the investigators on this study from being forced to tell anyone about your participation in this study, even under a subpoena. Even when a CoC is in place, you and your family members must still continue to actively protect your own privacy. If you voluntarily give your written consent for an insurer, employer, or lawyer to receive information about your participation in the research, then we may not use the CoC to withhold this information. Am I required to take this survey? No. You do not have to participate in this survey, and if you do participate, you may skip any question you are not comfortable answering and you may exit the survey at any time. 110 How long will the survey take to complete? This survey should take most people approximately 20 minutes to complete. It may take up to 30 minutes for some individuals. If you are not able to complete the survey in one sitting, you will be able to save your progress and return to it at another time. What will Harvard do with the results? Share them in a way that protects the privacy of student respondents and use them to understand and respond to sexual misconduct. Harvard University expects to share aggregated results with the Harvard community. We plan to report data that permits comparability with other AAU institutions. In addition, Westat will provide a report that aggregates data across all participating institutions. These results will be used to understand the current climate regarding sexual harassment and sexual assault and to shape related policies. Are there any incentives associated with this survey? All students at Harvard who complete the survey will receive a $5 Amazon gift card. Does the survey work on all browsers and handheld devices? Yes, the survey is compatible with all browsers and handheld devices. Additionally, you do not have to complete the survey from a Harvard computer or Harvard network. I am having technical difficulties (for example, I lost my link to the survey, or I’m having issues with the $5 Amazon gift card). What should I do? Please send an e-mail to CampusClimateHelp@westat.com or call 1-855-497-4787. I would like to talk to someone about sexual harassment and sexual assault. Who should I contact? Please refer to our resource list at sexualconductsurvey@harvard.edu. 111 I still have questions about Harvard’s Sexual Conduct Survey. Who should I contact? Send an email to sexualconductsurvey@harvard.edu . During the three weeks that the survey is open (April 12 through May 3) this Harvard specific email account will be regularly monitored and someone will respond to your questions within one business day. 112 Harvard University Student Resource Information On-Campus Resources at Harvard Office of Sexual Assault Prevention & Response (OSAPR ...................................................... 617-495-9100 24/7 confidential hotline Title IX Office ........................................................................................................................................... 617-496-2470 Jasmine Gibbs, Title IX Program Officer Monday-Friday, 9am – 5 pm Counseling and Mental Health Services (HUHS) ....................................................................... 617-495-5711 24-hour urgent care Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) urgent lines Cambridge 617-495-1212 Longwood ................................................................................................................................................. 617-432-1212 Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Education (SHARE) for the Harvard Community http://share.harvard.edu/find-resources Committee on the Use of Human Subjects ................................................................................... 617-496-2847 National Resources These services are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Callers can connect free of charge to the phone hotlines and will be directed to local agencies in their area. Individuals can also connect with trained hotline staff online through a secure chat messaging system. 113 Phone Hotlines Boston Area Rape Crisis Center (BARCC) ...................................................................................... 800-841-8371 24-hour hotline or visit www.barcc.org National Sexual Assault Phone Hotline (RAINN)....................................................... 1-800-656-HOPE(4673) National Suicide Prevention Lifeline .............................................................................. 1-800-273-TALK(8255) (Press 2 for Spanish) New York City Anti-Violence Project Hotline (LGBTQ community) ...................................... 212-714-1141 (hotline will assist LGBTQ community nationwide- not limited to New York City) Websites and Online Hotlines Crisis Text Line ................................................................................................................................................text 741741 National Sexual Assault Online Hotline (RAINN): http://www.rainn.org/get-help/national-sexual-assault-online-hotline Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) Website: http://www.rainn.org/ 114 Appendix 3. Results by Individual Status Code A3.1 Definition of Completed Survey We define a completed survey with two criteria for all but one university: (1) the respondent answered at least one of the question in each of the following victimization sections: sexual harassment (Section D), stalking (Section E), and sexual assault/other misconduct (Section G); and (2) the respondent took at least 5 minutes to fill out the questionnaire. When calculating response rates, we take the following response status into consideration, • Status 1: Respondents who did not click on the link to access the Web survey • Status 2: Respondents who clicked on the link to access the Web survey, but did not start the survey • Status 3: Respondents who started the survey, but did not complete the victimization sections, and did not submit the survey • Status 4: Respondents who completed and submitted the survey in less than five minutes • Status 5: Respondents who submitted the survey, completed the survey in five or more minutes or started/submitted the survey on different days, but did not complete the victimization sections • Status 6: Respondents who started the survey, completed the victimization sections, but did not submit the survey • Status 7: Respondents who started the survey, completed the victimization sections, and submitted the survey Based on the definition on completed survey, cases of Status 6 and 7 are considered as completed, whereas cases of Status 1 to 5 are considered as not completed. Therefore, the response rate is calculated as, ܴ݁‫= ݁ݐܴܽ ݁ݏ݊݋݌ݏ‬ ݊ଵ + ݊ଶ ܰ Where ܰ is the total number of students that received the survey invitation (For those schools that conducted a census, ܰ represents the total number of registered undergraduate and graduate students; For those few school that did not conduct a census, ܰ represents the total number of registered undergraduate and graduate students that were sampled); ݊ଵ represents 115 the number of students who started the survey, completed the victimization sections, but did not submitted the survey; ݊ଶ represents the number of students who started the survey, completed the victimization sections, and submitted the survey. Table A3.1. Frequency of survey response status for Harvard University Status Description 1 Did not click on link 2 n % 8,498 40.7% Clicked on link, but did not start 664 3.2% 3 Started, did not submit, did not have enough responses 557 2.7% 4 Submitted, completed in <5 minutes 45 .2% 5 Submitted, completed >= 5 minutes or could not measure duration, did not did not have enough responses 12 .1% 297 1.4% 6 Started, not submitted, completed minimum responses 7 Started, submitted, completed minimum responses 10,807 51.8% Total 20,880 100.0% A3.2 Drop-out Rates Students who consented to participate, then entered the survey but did not complete the victimization sections were not counted as a complete for the survey. Similarly, those that took less than 5 minutes to complete the survey were dropped. About 5.2% of the individuals that started the survey did not complete using the rules described above ((614/ 11,718) = 5.2%). Much of the dropout occurred after the background and harassment sections. Once starting section G (sexual assault), very few respondents were dropped from the analysis dataset. Of those that did not complete, 57% did not answer the first question in the Harassment section and 92% did not answer the first question in the first sexual violence question. 116 Table A3.2. Survey drop-out rate for Harvard University: Percent Non-Missing Responses for Initial Item in Each Section for Respondents That Started the Survey1,2 Section Section A – Background Section B – Perceptions of Risk Section C – Resources Section D – Harassment Section E - Stalking Section G – SV Screener Section I – Perceptions of Responses to Reporting Section J – Bystander Intervention Section K - Debriefing Submitted Total Started 1 Not Complete 99% 63% 52% 43% 21% 8% 7% 7% 7% 9% 614 Complete 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 97% 97% 97% 11,104 Total 100% 97% 97% 97% 96% 95% 93% 93% 93% 93% 11,718 Initial questions used by section are: A2, B1, C2a, D1, E1, G1, I1, J1, K1. Sections F and H are not included because not all respondents were routed to these sections. 2 See text for definition of a completed survey. 117 Appendix 4. Non-response Bias Analysis Nonresponse issues are common in surveys, and the bias caused by nonresponse (or nonresponse bias) needs to be addressed, especially when the nonresponse rate is high. As described in the weighting section, we adjusted base weights to reduce the effects of nonresponse on the estimates. However, such adjustments may not completely eliminate the nonresponse bias. Nonresponse bias will be nonexistent if all sampled units have the same probability of response (response propensity). If the response propensities are not equal, nonresponse bias may still be nonexistent if the survey variables are uncorrelated with response propensities. For example, if those that do not respond have the same rates of victimization as those that do respond, then the estimates of victimization will be unbiased. As shown by the response rates at the beginning of this report, the response propensity depends on student characteristics. Moreover, it appears that the survey variables are correlated with the victimization and other outcomes. For example, the response rate of females is higher than that of males, and there also is a strong correlation between gender and victimization. We can correct this source of bias by adjusting the survey weights for the gender of the respondent. This is one of the primary purposes of the raking procedure described at the beginning of this report. However, there is still the potential that the estimates are subject to nonresponse bias that is not removed by the weighting. For example, if female victims are more likely to participate than other females, then there is potential for nonresponse bias. To evaluate the possibility of remaining nonresponse bias, we conducted several different analyses. The first analysis evaluated the effectiveness of the weighting methodology. The more effective the weighting methods, the less likely there will be bias due to nonresponse. The second analysis directly assessed the nonresponse bias by examining variation of key outcomes by several measures of response propensity. A4.1 Evaluation of the Weighting Methodology We conducted two different analyses to evaluate the weighting methods: • Correlation analysis: This analysis examines the correlation between some selected key survey variables and auxiliary variables used in nonresponse weighting adjustments. A high correlation implies that the auxiliary variables used in weighting could remove nonresponse bias if the response propensity is also correlated with the auxiliary variables. The correlation is calculated using the SAS GLM (General Linear Model) procedure with a survey variable as the dependent variable and auxiliary variable(s) as 118 • independent variable(s). The measure used to evaluate the correlation is the positive square root of the R-square of the GLM model. Comparison of the weighting method with an alternative weighting method: Another weighting method was developed and compared with the actual method employed for the survey. We compared key variable estimates through t-tests. We used the following 11 key outcome variables for the analysis: Table A4-1. Variable Number 1 2 3 4 Eleven key variables used in the nonresponse bias analysis Variable Name Penetration by Physical Force or Incapacitation Sexual Touching by Physical Force or Incapacitation Penetration or Sexual Touching by Coercion Penetration or Sexual Touching by Absence of Affirmative Consent 5 Sexual Harassment 6 Stalking 7 Intimate Partner Violence 8 Resources 9 Reporting Perception 10 Bystander Intervention 11 Perception of Problem Variable Description Indicates whether respondent experienced any rape incident since entering college Indicates whether respondent experienced any sexual battery incident since entering college Indicates whether respondent experienced any incident of sex or sexual touching by coercion since entering college Indicates whether respondent experienced any incident of sex or sexual touching without affirmative consent since entering college Indicates whether respondent experienced any incident of sexual harassment since entering college Indicates whether respondent experienced any incident of stalking since entering college Indicates whether respondent experienced any incident of intimate partner violence since entering college Indicates whether respondent is ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ knowledgeable about campus resources for sexual assault and misconduct Indicates whether respondent feels it is ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ likely that university officials will do all of the following in response to a report of sexual misconduct or assault: take the report seriously, conduct a fair investigation, and take action to address causes of the issue Indicates whether respondent took some sort of action when they suspected a friend had been sexually assaulted Indicates whether sexual assault or misconduct is seen as very or extremely problematic at the university 119 Discussion of Analysis Results Correlation analysis Correlations are shown in Table A4-2. The row “(estimate)” provides the point estimates of the key variables. The row “All” presents the correlation of each key variable with all auxiliary variables used as independent variables in the GLM model. Table A4-2. Auxiliary 1 Variable 1 Correlations of the auxiliary variables and the key survey variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (Estimate) Gender 0.036 0.064 0.002 0.062 0.485 0.030 0.067 0.242 0.204 0.625 0.155 0.127 0.160 0.022 0.163 0.175 0.103 0.023 0.020 0.090 0.009 0.080 Age Group 0.112 0.154 0.006 0.111 0.193 0.029 0.051 0.190 0.108 0.016 0.170 Year in School 0.062 0.116 0.010 0.074 0.115 0.011 0.018 0.185 0.006 0.014 0.112 Race/ Ethnicity 0.053 0.177 0.037 0.219 0.021 0.032 0.059 0.200 0.107 0.270 0.041 0.124 0.035 0.071 0.084 0.212 0.159 0.238 0.072 0.075 0.107 0.203 All Refer to the weighting section for the definitions of the auxiliary variables. In general, Age Group has somewhat higher correlations with most key variables, while Race/Ethnicity has lower correlations. Year in School and Age Group have higher correlations with Resources., while Gender has considerably higher correlations for several key variables (Penetration by Physical Force or Incapacitation, Sexual Touching by Physical Force or Incapacitation, Penetration or Sexual Touching by Absence of Affirmative Consent, and Sexual Harassment). Most auxiliary variables collectively have non-negligible correlations with all key variables, except Penetration or Sexual Touching by Coercion, Intimate Partner Violence, and Bystander Intervention. Among the 11 key survey variables, Penetration or Sexual Touching by Coercion has lowest correlations with all auxiliary variables, followed by Intimate Partner Violence. We know that the auxiliary variables are correlated with the response propensity. The correlation analysis also shows that the auxiliary variables are correlated with the outcome variables. Therefore, it appears that those auxiliary variables were effective in reducing, or perhaps eliminating, nonresponse bias. Comparison of the weighting method with an alternative weighting method We developed alternative weights by using a two-step procedure, where the first step adjusted for nonresponse using the response propensity method and the second step calibrated the nonresponse adjusted weights to the population totals through raking. The major outcome measures were compared using this alternative weighting method and the method 120 used in the analysis discussed in this report. Two hundred and fifty three comparisons were made at the population and subgroup level (see below for details) but there were no statistically significant differences between the estimates using the two weighing methods. This implies that the one-step raking procedure is as effective in removing nonresponse bias as the more complex two-step weighting method that uses the same auxiliary information. A4.2 Testing for Nonresponse Bias We conducted an analysis to test whether bias due to nonresponse exists for the above 11 key measures (see Table A4-1). Specifically, we compared key estimates between early and late responders. Early and late responders are identified by respondents’ survey submission time. Early responders are those who responded before the first reminder email out of three reminders; and the other respondents are the late responders. Discussion of Analysis Results Comparison of early and late responders One standard method of assessing nonresponse bias is to assume that the respondents that required the most effort to convince to complete the survey are similar to the nonrespondents. For purposes of this analysis we defined ‘effort’ as the number of contacts made before the respondent completed the survey. Those who responded early (e.g., before the first email reminder) required less effort to gain cooperation than those who responded later after multiple e-mails. This analysis assumes that those who responded later have more in common with the nonrespondents than those who responded early. If this assumption is true, then a difference in the outcome measures between the early and late responders would be an indication of nonresponse bias. While this is a standard method to evaluate nonresponse bias, the assumption that those requiring more effort to gain cooperation resemble the nonrespondents does not always hold.52 In our analysis, early responders are defined as those who responded before the first reminder email, and late responders are those who responded after the first reminder email was sent. About 3 percent of respondents were missing the survey submission time and could 52 Lin, I-F., and Schaeffer, N.C. (1995). Using survey participants to estimate the impact of nonparticipation. Public Opinion Quarterly 59 (2), 236–58; Olson, K. (2006). Survey participation, nonresponse bias, measurement error bias and total bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70 (5), 737-758. 121 not be included in this analysis.53 The late responders account for 50 percent of the respondents with nonmissing survey submission time. We compared weighted estimates of the 11 key survey variables at the total population and subgroup levels. The subgroups are defined by the categories of the auxiliary variables used in weighting (see Table A4-2). There are altogether 18 categories of subgroups (2 genders, 4 Age-groups, 7 categories of Year in School, and 5 categories of Race/Ethnicity). Comparisons are also made at finer subgroups defined by crossing the gender and school enrollment (four subgroups: male undergraduate, male graduate/professional, female undergraduate, and female graduate/professional). There were 253 comparisons overall, which corresponds to the sum of 11 population-level comparisons, 198 (= 11 key variables × 18 categories) subgrouplevel comparisons, and 44 (= 11 key variables × 4 finer subgroups) finer subgroup-level comparisons. Subgroup-level comparisons for the same auxiliary variable were treated as multiple comparisons using Bonferroni corrected alpha values. For example, one t-test was performed to compare the estimate of Penetration by Force or Incapacitation for males for early vs. late responders. Another t-test was carried out for females in the same way. These two comparisons were made using the Bonferroni-corrected alpha-value of 0.025 (= 0.05/2). Population-level comparisons were made individually with a 0.05 alpha-value. Five (45%) out of 11 population-level comparisons are individually significant – they are Penetration by Physical Force or Incapacitation, Stalking, Intimate Partner Violence, Resources, and Reporting Perception. One issue with these comparisons is they do not fully control for differences that are adjusted in the survey weights (e.g., gender and enrollment status). While this analysis uses the weights, it does not control within early and late responder groups. For example, there may be more males who responded later, and comparing the early and late responder groups does not control for this difference. It is more instructive to examine the subgroup differences, which are specific to some of the characteristics that were used in the weighting. Thirty seven (19%) out of 198 subgroup comparisons are significant, and ten (23%) out of 44 finer subgroup comparisons are significant. It is useful to concentrate on the subgroup estimates, as they are used throughout the report and they disaggregate by important variables used in the weighting. Table A4-3 provides the differences for each of these outcomes for the early vs. late responders for the four primary subgroups defined by gender and enrollment status. For example, for female graduate/professional students the rate for Penetration by Physical Force or Incapacitation for late responders is 3.67 percent and for early responders is 2.54 percent. This difference is 53 A time was not obtained for those that stopped completing the survey before they completed. 122 statistically significant at the 5 percent significance level for multiple comparisons with a Pvalue of 1.13 percent, which is less than the Bonferroni alpha value of 1.25 percent (= 5%/4). Table A4-3. Comparison of early and later responders by gender and school enrollment for 11 key variables (estimates in percent) Outcome 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 1 Gender M M F F M M F F M M F F M M F F M M F F M M F F M M F F M M F F M M F F M M F F M Enrollment 2 Status UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Grad/Prof UnderGr Late 3 Responders StdErr 2.37 0.32 0.49 0.11 11.69 0.68 3.67 0.25 4.82 0.41 1.18 0.16 19.80 0.81 5.84 0.36 0.17 0.08 0.14 0.07 0.60 0.16 0.21 0.08 3.34 0.37 1.67 0.23 18.05 0.75 6.83 0.39 52.35 0.95 34.05 0.69 72.42 1.10 49.04 0.81 1.91 0.28 1.16 0.20 6.30 0.56 5.04 0.39 8.07 0.64 6.34 0.41 12.41 0.84 5.44 0.41 33.62 1.05 15.37 0.68 33.69 0.99 17.78 0.63 19.03 0.82 27.86 0.70 10.88 0.61 20.14 0.76 64.00 2.26 64.86 2.74 59.69 1.47 60.09 2.71 19.53 0.85 123 Early 3 4 Responders StdErr Difference P-value 2.93 0.38 -0.56 29.51 0.51 0.12 -0.02 91.86 10.25 0.72 1.44 14.91 2.54 0.21 1.13 0.12* 4.48 0.45 0.34 55.04 1.67 0.21 -0.49 5.45 18.99 0.91 0.81 49.25 4.59 0.31 1.25 1.26 0.10 0.07 0.07 47.98 0.10 0.05 0.04 61.14 0.14 0.10 0.46 1.91 0.37 0.09 -0.16 21.21 4.60 0.54 -1.26 5.90 1.30 0.19 0.37 19.35 16.86 0.82 1.19 27.46 6.25 0.44 0.58 35.00 50.41 1.12 1.94 22.78 34.30 0.97 -0.25 81.28 72.73 0.95 -0.31 83.29 50.16 0.80 -1.12 31.40 1.60 0.33 0.31 52.12 0.87 0.16 0.29 20.05 5.28 0.41 1.02 7.87 3.55 0.31 1.49 0.58* 8.44 0.71 -0.37 70.34 4.20 0.31 2.14 <0.01* 10.16 0.73 2.25 6.72 5.16 0.38 0.28 63.02 38.26 1.02 -4.64 0.53* 18.72 0.67 -3.35 0.07* 39.98 0.99 -6.29 <0.01* 20.40 0.73 -2.62 0.49* 19.07 0.87 -0.04 97.26 24.96 0.72 2.90 0.19* 13.02 0.73 -2.14 1.51 17.92 0.58 2.22 3.02 63.17 2.48 0.83 79.67 54.48 3.30 10.38 1.39 69.40 1.52 -9.71 <0.01* 61.04 2.32 -0.95 80.76 17.78 0.87 1.75 14.70 Outcome 11 11 11 1 Enrollment 2 Gender Status M Grad/Prof F UnderGr F Grad/Prof Late 3 Responders StdErr 9.64 0.47 32.35 1.09 10.44 0.47 Early 3 4 Responders StdErr Difference P-value 9.16 0.53 0.48 51.49 30.84 0.95 1.51 28.60 12.52 0.56 -2.08 0.91* 1 See Table A4-1 for definitions of outcomes UnderGr = Undergraduate; Grad/Prof = Graduate or Professional Student 3 StdErr = Standard Error for the proportion 4 A significant result (P-value < 1.25%) is asterisked (*). 2 As noted above, 23% of the differences in Table A4-3 are statistically significant. These results indicate there is evidence of non-response bias, since the number of significant differences is more than what was expected by chance (5 percent). Of the measures of sexual assault and sexual misconduct,54 3 out of the 28 possible comparisons are significant. The measures that are significant are summarized below. Penetration by physical force or incapacitation. There is one significant difference. The difference for female graduate/professional students is positive, indicating the survey estimate is too low. Stalking. There is one significant difference. The difference for female graduate/professional students is positive, indicating the survey estimate is too low. Intimate partner violence. There is one significant difference. The difference for male graduate/professional students is positive, indicating the survey estimate is too low. Of the measures of campus climate, 55 7 out of the 16 are significant. The measures that are significant are summarized below. Student knowledge about campus resources. There are four significant differences. The differences for male undergraduates, male graduate/professional students, female undergraduates, and female graduate/professional student are negative, indicating the survey estimates are too high. 54 Penetration by physical force or incapacitation; sexual touching or kissing by physical force or incapacitation; coercion, absence of affirmative consent, harassment, stalking and IPV. 55 Resources = Student knowledge about campus resources Reporting = Opinions on what university officials would do when an incident is reported Perception of Problem = How problematic students feel sexual assault and misconduct is for the IHE Bystander Intervention = Respondent took some action when they suspected a friend had been sexually assaulted 124 Opinions on what university officials would do when an incident is reported. There is one significant difference. The difference for male graduate/professional students is positive, indicating the survey estimate is too low. Respondent took some action when they suspected a friend had been sexually assaulted. There is one significant difference. The difference for undergraduate females is negative, indicating the survey estimate is too high. How problematic students feel sexual assault and misconduct is for the IHE. There is one significant difference. The difference for female graduate/professional students is negative, indicating the survey estimate is too high. Overall, this analysis indicates there is evidence that there is bias in selected estimates. The estimates that are possibly affected are for - Penetration by physical force or incapacitation Stalking Intimate partner violence Student knowledge about campus resources Opinions on what university officials would do when an incident is reported Respondent took some action when they suspected a friend had been sexually assaulted How problematic students feel sexual assault and misconduct is for the IHE This was found for several gender and enrollment groups. The direction of the possible bias is different, depending on the measure that is being discussed. 125 Appendix 5. Email Invitations and Reminders Survey Invitation and Reminder Messages From: Campus Climate Survey Subject: Invitation to take part in a Campus Climate Survey From: President Faust To: Harvard Student I write to request your participation in a climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct at Harvard. It is important to hear from you, even if you believe these issues do not directly affect you. As you’ll see from this email’s address, this survey is being administered by an independent social science research firm, Westat, to ensure confidentiality and protect all response information. Results will be used to guide policies to encourage a healthy, safe, and nondiscriminatory environment at Harvard. I know your time is valuable, but I hope you can find a few minutes to respond before the survey closes on Sunday, May 3, 2015. As a small token of appreciation, you will receive a $5 Amazon gift card once you complete the survey. Share your perspective by clicking on the link below: https://group1.campusclimatesurvey2015.org/Home.aspx?uPin=99E9LogWjuC8PA9 Your individual responses will be treated as confidential. Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary and will not affect any aspect of your experience at Harvard. However, your response is important to getting an accurate picture of the experiences and opinions of all students. Westat, a social science research firm, is administering the survey for us. If you have any questions about the survey or have difficulty accessing it, please send an e-mail to CampusClimateHelp@westat.com or call 1 (855) 497-4787. Thank you, Drew Faust President 126 Survey Invitation and Reminder Messages From: Campus Climate Survey Subject: Reminder to complete the Campus Climate Survey From: President Faust To: Harvard Student I recently sent you an individualized link to participate in a climate survey. If you have filled out the survey, thank you! This message has gone to all students on campus because no identifying information is linked with the survey and we are unable to identify whether you have completed the survey. If you have not had a chance to take the survey yet, please do so as soon as possible by clicking on the link below. Your participation in this confidential survey is voluntary, but the more people who participate, the better the information we will have to promote a healthier campus. The closing date for the survey is Sunday, May 3, 2015, so it is important to hear from you as soon as possible. As a small token of appreciation, you will receive a $5 Amazon gift card when you complete the survey. https://group1.campusclimatesurvey2015.org/Home.aspx?uPin=99E9LogWjuC8PA9 Westat, a social science research firm, is administering the survey for us. If you have any questions about the survey or have difficulty accessing it, please send an e-mail to CampusClimateHelp@westat.com or call 1 (855) 497-4787. Thank you, Drew Faust President 127 Table A. Characteristics of Respondents that completed the survey Characteristic Category Weighted Un-weighted Number % Number % 18 years old 724 3.5 419 3.8 19 years old 1,491 7.1 879 7.9 20 years old 1,562 7.5 912 8.2 21 years old 1,509 7.2 939 8.5 22 years old 1,449 6.9 801 7.2 23 years old 937 4.5 567 5.1 24 years old 1,345 6.4 699 6.3 25 years or older 11,862 56.8 5,888 53.0 Undergraduate 7,100 34.0 4,075 36.7 Graduate or Professional 13,780 66.0 7,029 63.3 Freshman 1,631 7.8 958 8.6 Sophomore 1,636 7.8 980 8.8 Junior 1,553 7.4 1,036 9.3 Senior 2,280 10.9 1,101 9.9 Graduate or Prof 1st year 5,296 25.4 2,552 23.0 Graduate or Prof 2nd year 4,055 19.4 1,886 17.0 Graduate or Prof 3rd year 1,849 8.9 1,090 9.8 Graduate or Prof 4th year or higher 2,580 12.4 1,501 13.5 2010 or earlier 2,684 12.9 1,470 13.2 2011 2,958 14.2 1,550 14.0 2012 3,145 15.1 1,933 17.4 2013 5,260 25.2 2,688 24.2 2014 or 2015 6,833 32.7 3,463 31.2 Yes 2,023 9.7 943 8.5 No 18,857 90.3 10,161 91.5 Age Student Affiliation Year in school/program Year first enrolled in the college or university Hispanic or Latino? Table A. Characteristics of Respondents that completed the survey (continued) Characteristic Category Weighted Un-weighted Number % Number % White only 12,499 59.9 7,181 64.7 Black only 1,296 6.2 578 5.2 Asian only 5,565 26.7 2,626 23.6 Other/Multi race 1,520 7.3 719 6.5 Female 9,956 47.7 5,801 52.2 Male 10,799 51.7 5,235 47.1 Other 126 0.6 68 0.6 Heterosexual 18,125 88.2 9,634 88.2 Non-Heterosexual 2,425 11.8 1,295 11.8 Race Gender Identity Sexual Orientation Since enrolled in college or university, have you been in a partnered relationship? Yes 17,207 82.4 9,157 82.5 No 3,653 17.5 1,936 17.4 19 0.1 11 0.1 Yes 345 1.7 187 1.7 No 20,519 98.3 10,908 98.2 16 0.1 9 0.1 Did not answer the question Have a disability registered with the university? Did not answer the question Table 1.1. Perceptions of Responses to Reporting Sexual Assault or Sexual Misconduct to an Official by Gender and Enrollment Status1,2 Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total % StdErr % StdErr Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) % StdErr Undergraduate (n=1,951) % StdErr Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr If someone were to report sexual assault or sexual misconduct to an official, how likely is it that... Students would support the person making the report. Not at all 1.4 0.1 1.3 0.2 1.6 0.1 1.2 0.2 1.2 0.1 A little 7.9 0.2 9.2 0.4 10.7 0.4 5.4 0.4 5.8 0.3 Somewhat 32.4 0.3 35.8 0.7 36.4 0.6 28.2 0.6 29.1 0.5 Very 46.3 0.3 45.3 0.8 42.5 0.6 50.1 0.9 48.6 0.6 Extremely 12.1 0.2 8.5 0.4 8.8 0.3 15.2 0.7 15.4 0.4 The alleged offender(s) or their associates would retaliate against the person making the report. Not at all 7.8 0.2 3.4 0.3 4.8 0.3 11.1 0.4 10.8 0.4 A little 29.0 0.3 21.2 0.7 25.6 0.5 33.5 0.6 34.0 0.6 Somewhat 40.8 0.3 40.2 0.8 44.2 0.6 37.1 0.7 39.7 0.5 Very 18.3 0.2 27.0 0.6 20.9 0.5 15.7 0.6 12.9 0.4 Extremely 4.2 0.1 8.1 0.4 4.5 0.2 2.7 0.2 2.7 0.2 Campus officials would take the report seriously. Not at all 2.7 0.1 3.9 0.4 2.9 0.2 2.3 0.2 2.2 0.2 A little 9.7 0.2 16.1 0.7 10.6 0.3 8.6 0.4 6.2 0.3 Somewhat 27.4 0.3 37.6 0.9 30.7 0.5 28.1 0.7 19.0 0.5 Very 37.6 0.4 31.5 0.8 39.2 0.6 35.5 0.8 40.5 0.8 Extremely 22.5 0.3 10.8 0.4 16.6 0.4 25.5 0.7 32.1 0.7 Table 1.1. Perceptions of Responses to Reporting Sexual Assault or Sexual Misconduct by Gender and Enrollment Status1,2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total % StdErr % StdErr Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) % StdErr Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr Campus officials would protect the safety of the person making the report. Not at all 4.2 0.2 5.6 0.3 5.0 0.3 3.5 0.3 3.0 0.2 A little 12.0 0.2 18.3 0.6 14.2 0.4 10.1 0.5 7.8 0.3 Somewhat 31.4 0.3 36.8 0.7 35.7 0.4 28.9 0.7 26.1 0.5 Very 34.4 0.3 29.5 0.7 32.5 0.5 34.9 0.7 38.3 0.6 Extremely 18.0 0.3 9.9 0.5 12.6 0.4 22.6 0.7 24.7 0.6 Campus officials would conduct a fair investigation. Not at all 5.9 0.1 6.0 0.4 5.0 0.2 7.8 0.5 5.6 0.3 A little 14.7 0.2 20.6 0.6 14.7 0.4 14.9 0.5 11.8 0.4 Somewhat 40.8 0.4 44.7 0.7 43.1 0.6 38.9 0.8 37.6 0.6 Very 29.2 0.3 24.4 0.6 29.4 0.5 28.8 0.6 31.7 0.6 Extremely 9.4 0.2 4.2 0.3 7.8 0.3 9.6 0.4 13.3 0.4 Campus officials would take action against the offender(s). Not at all 6.8 0.2 13.3 0.5 7.4 0.3 6.2 0.4 3.4 0.2 A little 21.6 0.2 33.3 0.8 23.4 0.4 20.6 0.6 14.6 0.4 Somewhat 39.3 0.3 37.7 0.7 42.7 0.6 38.2 0.9 37.5 0.6 Very 23.1 0.3 13.0 0.6 20.8 0.5 23.8 0.6 29.8 0.6 Extremely 9.2 0.2 2.6 0.2 5.7 0.3 11.1 0.5 14.7 0.5 Campus officials would take action to address factors that may have led to the sexual assault or sexual misconduct. Not at all 12.2 0.2 18.5 0.8 13.3 0.4 12.4 0.5 7.9 0.3 A little 23.5 0.2 28.3 0.7 25.1 0.5 23.6 0.6 19.7 0.5 Somewhat 36.2 0.3 34.5 0.8 35.6 0.5 35.5 0.7 37.8 0.6 Very 21.2 0.3 15.1 0.5 19.9 0.5 21.7 0.6 25.3 0.5 Extremely 6.8 0.2 3.5 0.3 6.1 0.3 6.8 0.4 9.2 0.4 Table 1.1. Perceptions of Responses to Reporting Sexual Assault or Sexual Misconduct by Gender and Enrollment Status1,2 (continued) TGQN (n=68) Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=28) % Graduate or Professional (n=40) StdErr % StdErr If someone were to report sexual assault or sexual misconduct to an official, how likely is it that... Students would support the person making the report. Not at all s s 6.8 2.7 A little 7.8 3.1 27.8 5.5 Somewhat 50.7 7.1 42.2 5.6 Very 33.4 7.1 21.0 4.7 s s s s Extremely The alleged offender(s) or their associates would retaliate against the person making the report. Not at all - - s s A little s s 10.9 3.6 Somewhat 45.3 7.9 45.2 5.7 Very 32.0 6.5 29.9 5.5 Extremely 18.9 6.1 7.3 2.8 - - 13.1 4.1 A little 39.2 6.5 18.7 4.3 Somewhat 38.2 7.8 39.1 6.0 Very 16.0 6.1 17.2 4.2 s s 11.9 4.3 Campus officials would take the report seriously. Not at all Extremely Table 1.1. Perceptions of Responses to Reporting Sexual Assault or Sexual Misconduct by Gender and Enrollment Status1,2 (continued) TGQN (n=68) Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=28) % Graduate or Professional (n=40) StdErr % StdErr Campus official would protect the safety of the person making the report. Not at all s s 15.9 4.2 A little 43.9 6.9 20.0 4.5 Somewhat 25.7 6.0 38.3 6.7 Very 22.6 5.7 20.7 4.5 - - s s Extremely Campus officials would conduct a fair investigation. Not at all 15.0 6.4 16.0 4.1 A little 20.3 4.9 11.8 3.4 Somewhat 49.5 7.4 45.2 7.1 Very 15.2 5.1 24.2 4.6 - - s s Extremely Campus officials would take action against the offender(s). Not at all 14.6 6.1 16.4 4.5 A little 47.7 6.5 32.8 5.5 Somewhat 31.7 6.3 41.0 5.5 Very s s 9.8 3.3 Extremely - - - - Campus officials would take action to address factors that may have led to the sexual assault or sexual misconduct. 1Per Not at all 36.4 6.3 26.4 5.3 A little 34.1 7.0 21.0 4.0 Somewhat 29.4 6.4 37.1 5.7 Very - - 15.4 4.7 Extremely - - - - 100 students. = Transgender woman, Transgender man, Genderqueer, gender non-conforming, questioning, not listed. 2TGQN Table 1.2. Bystander Intervention Upon Witnessing Sexual Assault or Sexual Misconduct by Gender and Enrollment Status 1,2 Female (n=5,801) Total Survey Item Response Have you been in any of the following situations? Undergraduate (n=2,096) % StdErr Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr If so, what did you do? Suspected a friend was sexually assaulted Yes 16.3 0.2 39.0 0.7 10.5 0.3 22.5 0.7 7.3 0.3 Did nothing because I wasn’t sure what to do 15.4 0.6 16.4 0.8 13.6 1.1 14.7 1.2 16.7 1.8 Did nothing for another reason 22.0 0.8 19.5 0.9 25.5 1.7 22.0 1.5 24.0 2.1 Spoke to my friend or someone else to seek help 56.5 0.7 60.7 1.0 54.1 1.6 55.3 1.8 51.0 2.3 Took action in another way 6.0 0.4 3.3 0.4 6.8 0.9 8.0 1.0 8.3 1.3 83.7 0.2 61.0 0.7 89.5 0.3 77.5 0.7 92.7 0.3 46.6 0.3 66.5 0.7 35.7 0.5 64.8 0.7 37.7 0.5 Did nothing because I wasn’t sure what to do 21.4 0.4 27.8 0.8 24.7 0.8 18.1 0.7 16.1 0.7 Did nothing for another reason 58.4 0.5 39.8 0.9 60.3 0.9 58.0 1.1 72.5 1.0 Directly intervened to stop it 6.9 0.2 13.0 0.6 4.9 0.4 7.0 0.5 3.8 0.4 Spoke to someone else to seek help 5.2 0.2 9.6 0.5 3.4 0.3 6.9 0.5 1.6 0.2 Took action in another way 8.1 0.3 9.9 0.6 6.8 0.4 10.0 0.7 6.0 0.5 53.4 0.3 33.5 0.7 64.3 0.5 35.2 0.7 62.3 0.5 No Witnessed drunk person heading for sexual encounter Yes No Table 1.2. Bystander Intervention Upon Witnessing Sexual Assault or Sexual Misconduct by Gender and Enrollment Status1,2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total % Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 17.8 0.3 34.3 0.8 14.1 0.4 24.8 0.7 9.3 0.3 Did nothing because I wasn’t sure what to do 24.4 0.7 28.3 1.2 25.5 1.3 20.8 1.2 22.5 1.7 Did nothing for another reason 29.5 0.7 24.2 1.1 31.5 1.4 30.7 1.6 33.0 1.8 Directly intervened to stop it 16.4 0.6 14.7 1.0 13.8 1.1 23.5 1.4 12.4 1.3 Spoke to someone else to seek help 16.0 0.6 21.7 1.2 14.6 1.0 12.0 0.9 14.5 1.4 Took action in another way 13.7 0.5 11.1 0.7 14.7 0.9 13.0 1.0 17.7 1.7 82.2 0.3 65.7 0.8 85.9 0.4 75.2 0.7 90.7 0.3 Witnessed someone acting in sexually violent or harassing manner Yes No Table 1.2. Bystander Intervention Upon Witnessing Sexual Assault or Sexual Misconduct by Gender and Enrollment Status1,2 (continued) TGQN (n=68) Undergraduate (n=28) Survey Item Response Graduate or Professional (n=40) % StdErr % StdErr 59.9 6.9 27.1 5.3 Did nothing because I wasn’t sure what to do s s s s Did nothing for another reason - - 48.2 13.9 83.2 8.1 26.5 13.6 - - s s 40.1 6.9 72.9 5.3 69.3 6.7 36.9 5.8 Did nothing because I wasn’t sure what to do 22.6 10.4 s s Did nothing for another reason 46.5 9.5 70.8 8.7 - - s s 23.2 8.2 - - s s s s 30.7 6.7 63.1 5.8 Have you been in any of the following situations? If so, what did you do? Suspected a friend was sexually assaulted Yes Spoke to my friend or someone else to seek help Took action in another way No Witnessed drunk person heading for sexual encounter Yes Directly intervened to stop it Spoke to someone else to seek help Took action in another way No Table 1.2. Bystander Intervention Upon Witnessing Sexual Assault or Sexual Misconduct by Gender and Enrollment Status1,2 (continued) TGQN (n=68) Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=28) Graduate or Professional (n=40) % StdErr % StdErr 53.4 6.5 39.1 5.7 s s s s Did nothing for another reason 38.7 12.4 48.2 10.3 Directly intervened to stop it 43.0 10.6 s s Spoke to someone else to seek help - - s s Took action in another way s s s s 46.6 6.5 60.9 5.7 Witnessed someone acting in sexually violent or harassing manner Yes Did nothing because I wasn’t sure what to do No 1Per 100 students. = Transgender woman, Transgender man, Genderqueer, gender non-conforming, questioning, not listed. 2TGQN Table 1.3. Perceptions Related to Sexual Assault or Sexual Misconduct by Gender and Enrollment Status1,2 Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total % StdErr % StdErr Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Sexual assault or sexual misconduct a problem at university Not at all 19.2 0.3 4.1 0.3 21.8 0.5 11.4 0.5 28.3 0.6 A little 30.5 0.3 19.1 0.6 33.1 0.5 30.2 0.6 34.2 0.6 Somewhat 34.8 0.3 45.0 0.8 33.7 0.5 39.9 0.8 28.2 0.5 Very 12.3 0.2 23.7 0.8 9.2 0.3 15.1 0.6 7.7 0.3 Extremely 3.2 0.1 8.2 0.4 2.1 0.2 3.4 0.2 1.7 0.2 Likelihood of experiencing sexual assault or sexual misconduct on campus Not at all 55.9 0.3 19.4 0.6 40.9 0.7 68.2 0.7 81.1 0.4 A little 29.8 0.3 38.9 0.8 43.2 0.7 24.3 0.7 15.8 0.4 Somewhat 10.1 0.2 27.2 0.7 11.9 0.3 5.5 0.3 2.4 0.2 Very 3.2 0.1 10.8 0.4 3.0 0.2 1.4 0.2 0.5 0.1 Extremely 1.1 0.1 3.7 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 Likelihood of experiencing sexual assault or sexual misconduct off campus at university-sponsored events Not at all 50.3 0.3 18.8 0.6 32.6 0.5 65.0 0.8 74.5 0.5 A little 33.0 0.3 40.8 0.8 45.4 0.6 26.3 0.8 21.2 0.5 Somewhat 13.4 0.2 31.5 0.6 18.0 0.4 7.1 0.4 3.7 0.2 Very 2.7 0.1 7.4 0.4 3.4 0.2 1.2 0.2 0.5 0.1 Extremely 0.6 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 Table 1.3. Perceptions Related to Sexual Assault or Sexual Misconduct by Gender and Enrollment Status1,2 TGQN (n=68) Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=28) % Graduate or Professional (n=40) StdErr % StdErr Sexual assault or sexual misconduct a problem at university Not at all - - s s A little s s 16.5 4.2 Somewhat 41.7 7.2 36.0 5.9 Very 38.9 7.0 32.7 5.5 Extremely 14.1 4.2 12.6 4.0 Likelihood of experiencing sexual assault or sexual misconduct on campus Not at all 20.6 6.2 30.9 5.0 A little 26.9 5.7 36.0 5.4 Somewhat 30.0 6.4 19.0 4.6 Very 13.4 4.1 11.6 3.9 s s s s Extremely Likelihood of experiencing sexual assault or sexual misconduct off campus at university-sponsored events 1Per Not at all 17.1 5.7 27.8 5.0 A little 43.2 7.7 36.3 5.4 Somewhat 27.9 6.1 21.5 4.5 Very s s 14.4 4.0 Extremely s s - - 100 students. = Transgender woman, Transgender man, Genderqueer, gender non-conforming, questioning, not listed. 2TGQN Table 2.1. Knowledge and Perceptions About Resources Related to Sexual Assault or Sexual Misconduct by Gender and Enrollment Status1 Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 91.6 0.2 95.7 0.3 90.9 0.3 95.3 0.3 88.5 0.4 Aware of services provided by Harvard University Police Department 82.9 (HUPD) 0.2 91.7 0.4 78.3 0.5 91.8 0.4 78.5 0.5 Aware of services provided by Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) 8.5 0.2 7.8 0.4 6.1 0.3 12.6 0.4 8.7 0.3 Aware of services provided by Office of Sexual Assault Prevention & Response (OSAPR) 45.5 0.3 80.2 0.7 32.5 0.5 74.6 0.7 25.7 0.5 Aware of services provided by Title IX Coordinators 32.4 0.3 34.4 0.7 33.0 0.5 37.1 0.7 28.1 0.5 Aware of services provided by University Chaplains 21.1 0.3 20.8 0.6 17.6 0.4 26.7 0.7 21.4 0.4 Aware of services provided by Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment (SASH) Tutors (primarily undergraduate organization) 20.3 0.3 47.6 0.8 8.1 0.3 42.7 0.8 7.0 0.2 Aware of services provided by Consent, Assault Awareness & Relationship Educators (CAARE) (undergraduate organization) 15.7 0.2 48.3 0.8 2.6 0.2 34.1 0.8 2.7 0.1 Aware of services provided by Contact (undergraduate organization) 14.2 0.2 41.9 0.7 2.4 0.2 31.4 0.8 2.7 0.2 Aware of services provided by Room 13 (undergraduate organization) 30.2 0.2 82.0 0.7 5.3 0.2 74.6 0.7 5.4 0.3 Aware of services provided by Response (undergraduate organization) 12.9 0.2 43.2 0.7 2.3 0.2 25.3 0.8 1.7 0.2 Awareness of services Aware of services provided by Harvard University Health Services (HUHS) Table 2.1. Knowledge and Perceptions About Resources Related to Sexual Assault or Sexual Misconduct by Gender and Enrollment Status1 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response % Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total StdErr % StdErr Male (n=5,235) % Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Knowledgeable about how sexual assault and sexual misconduct defined at university Not at all 20.7 0.3 18.3 0.5 26.4 0.5 12.2 0.5 21.3 0.5 A little bit 32.3 0.3 33.9 0.8 32.4 0.6 30.1 0.8 32.6 0.6 Somewhat 32.4 0.3 33.7 0.8 29.3 0.6 36.8 0.7 32.2 0.5 Very 11.9 0.2 10.8 0.4 9.7 0.4 17.0 0.7 11.7 0.4 Extremely 2.6 0.1 3.3 0.3 2.1 0.2 3.9 0.3 2.2 0.2 Knowledgeable about where to get help at university if student or friend experience sexual assault or sexual misconduct Not at all 10.6 0.2 4.5 0.3 13.5 0.5 4.4 0.3 14.1 0.4 A little bit 28.2 0.3 22.6 0.6 31.6 0.6 17.9 0.7 32.9 0.6 Somewhat 37.1 0.4 36.3 0.7 35.9 0.6 42.1 0.7 36.1 0.7 Very 19.2 0.2 28.6 0.6 15.4 0.5 28.4 0.7 13.5 0.4 Extremely 4.9 0.1 8.0 0.4 3.6 0.2 7.3 0.4 3.4 0.2 Knowledgeable about where to make a report if student or friend experience sexual assault or sexual misconduct at university Not at all 19.5 0.3 20.5 0.6 24.2 0.5 12.2 0.4 18.6 0.5 A little bit 28.7 0.3 26.9 0.6 29.9 0.5 23.9 0.7 30.9 0.6 Somewhat 32.6 0.3 32.1 0.6 30.0 0.6 38.1 0.8 32.6 0.7 Very 14.5 0.2 15.1 0.5 12.7 0.5 18.8 0.5 13.7 0.4 Extremely 4.6 0.1 5.4 0.3 3.2 0.2 7.0 0.4 4.2 0.3 Table 2.1. Knowledge and Perceptions About Resources Related to Sexual Assault or Sexual Misconduct by Gender and Enrollment Status1 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total % StdErr % StdErr Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) % StdErr Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr Knowledgeable about what happens when a student reports sexual assault or sexual misconduct at university Not at all 43.0 0.3 40.0 0.7 50.1 0.7 32.3 0.7 43.6 0.6 A little bit 28.3 0.3 29.0 0.7 25.6 0.6 31.4 0.8 28.7 0.5 Somewhat 20.9 0.3 22.2 0.7 18.0 0.4 26.1 0.6 20.5 0.5 Very 5.8 0.2 6.3 0.4 4.8 0.3 7.3 0.4 5.6 0.3 Extremely 1.9 0.1 2.4 0.2 1.5 0.1 2.9 0.2 1.6 0.2 Initial university orientation included information about sexual assault or sexual misconduct Yes 1 66.6 0.6 88.4 1.1 61.1 1.0 87.7 1.0 58.3 1.0 Not at all 8.0 0.5 1.8 0.4 8.7 0.7 6.9 0.8 10.3 0.7 A little 26.0 0.6 18.8 1.4 29.1 1.1 19.4 1.3 29.2 1.2 Somewhat 43.8 0.8 43.8 1.9 44.5 1.5 46.7 1.7 41.6 1.4 Very 20.4 0.6 33.6 1.8 15.8 1.0 25.1 1.4 17.0 1.1 Extremely 1.9 0.2 2.0 0.5 1.9 0.3 1.9 0.5 1.9 0.4 No 8.2 0.3 1.3 0.4 11.7 0.6 2.3 0.5 8.8 0.6 I didn't attend orientation 6.7 0.3 2.9 0.6 6.6 0.5 2.0 0.4 9.6 0.7 I don't remember 18.5 0.5 7.4 1.0 20.7 0.9 8.1 0.9 23.3 1.0 Per 100 students. Table 3.1a. Percent of Undergraduate Female Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Tactic, Current Year vs. Since Entering College and Enrollment Status1 Survey Item Response Since Entering College Number % StdErr Number % StdErr Total Involving physical force or incapacitation 420 12.5 0.5 859 25.5 0.7 Penetration 144 4.3 0.3 389 11.6 0.5 62 1.8 0.2 207 6.1 0.4 Completed 39 1.2 0.2 128 3.8 0.3 Attempted 33 1.0 0.2 132 3.9 0.3 Incapacitation only 72 2.1 0.2 199 5.9 0.3 Both physical force and incapacitation 15 0.5 0.1 46 1.4 0.2 331 9.8 0.4 670 19.9 0.6 Physical force only 238 7.1 0.4 465 13.8 0.6 Incapacitation only 102 3.0 0.2 256 7.6 0.4 Both physical force and incapacitation 28 0.8 0.2 47 1.4 0.2 Physical force only Sexual Touching 1Per Current School Year 100 students. Table 3.1b. Percent of Graduate Female Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Tactic, Current Year vs. Since Entering College and Enrollment Status1 Survey Item Response Since Entering College Number % StdErr Number % StdErr Total Involving physical force or incapacitation 233 3.5 0.2 503 7.6 0.3 Penetration 76 1.2 0.1 202 3.1 0.2 38 0.6 0.1 106 1.6 0.1 Completed 22 0.3 0.1 60 0.9 0.1 Attempted 18 0.3 0.1 69 1.1 0.1 37 0.6 0.1 94 1.4 0.1 s s s 18 0.3 0.1 183 2.8 0.2 361 5.5 0.2 Physical force only 135 2.1 0.2 269 4.1 0.2 Incapacitation only 52 0.8 0.1 111 1.7 0.1 Both physical force and incapacitation 9 0.1 0.0 12 0.2 0.0 Physical force only Incapacitation only Both physical force and incapacitation Sexual Touching 1Per Current School Year 100 students. Table 3.1c. Percent of Undergraduate Male Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Tactic, Current Year vs. Since Entering College and Enrollment Status1 Survey Item Response Since Entering College Number % StdErr Number % StdErr Total Involving physical force or incapacitation 139 3.8 0.3 241 6.5 0.4 Penetration 41 1.1 0.1 101 2.7 0.2 18 0.5 0.1 45 1.2 0.2 Completed 14 0.4 0.1 25 0.7 0.1 Attempted 8 0.2 0.1 27 0.7 0.1 23 0.6 0.1 54 1.5 0.2 s s s 8 0.2 0.1 110 3.0 0.3 176 4.8 0.3 Physical force only 50 1.3 0.2 77 2.1 0.2 Incapacitation only 60 1.6 0.2 110 3.0 0.2 Both physical force and incapacitation 9 0.2 0.1 9 0.2 0.1 Physical force only Incapacitation only Both physical force and incapacitation Sexual Touching 1Per Current School Year 100 students. Table 3.1d. Percent of Graduate Male Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Tactic, Current Year vs. Since Entering College and Enrollment Status1 Survey Item Response Since Entering College Number % StdErr Number % StdErr Total Involving physical force or incapacitation 77 1.1 0.1 123 1.7 0.2 Penetration 16 0.2 0.1 36 0.5 0.1 s s s 17 0.2 0.1 Completed s s s 13 0.2 0.0 Attempted - - - 7 0.1 0.0 11 0.2 0.0 19 0.3 0.1 s s s 6 0.1 0.0 63 0.9 0.1 104 1.5 0.1 Physical force only 47 0.7 0.1 78 1.1 0.1 Incapacitation only 17 0.2 0.1 35 0.5 0.1 Both physical force and incapacitation 7 0.1 0.0 7 0.1 0.0 Physical force only Incapacitation only Both physical force and incapacitation Sexual Touching 1Per Current School Year 100 students. Table 3.1e. Percent of Undergraduate Students of Other Gender Experiencing Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Tactic, Current Year vs. Since Entering College and Enrollment Status1 Survey Item Response Since Entering College Number % StdErr Number % StdErr Total Involving physical force or incapacitation 7 14.4 5.1 13 25.5 5.7 Penetration s s s 6 12.6 4.3 s s s 4 8.3 3.4 Completed - - - s s s Attempted s s s s s s Incapacitation only - - - - - - Both physical force and incapacitation - - - s s s 7 14.4 5.1 10 19.1 5.3 Physical force only 7 14.4 5.1 8 16.5 5.3 Incapacitation only - - - s s s Both physical force and incapacitation - - - - - - Physical force only Sexual Touching 1Per Current School Year 100 students. Table 3.1f. Percent of Graduate Students of Other Gender Experiencing Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Tactic, Current Year vs. Since Entering College and Enrollment Status1 Survey Item Response Since Entering College Number % StdErr Number % StdErr Total Involving physical force or incapacitation 6 7.3 2.9 12 16.4 4.3 Penetration 6 7.3 2.9 12 16.4 4.3 s s s 9 12.1 3.8 Completed s s s 6 7.4 2.9 Attempted s s s 8 10.0 3.5 Incapacitation only s s s s s s Both physical force and incapacitation - - - - - - s s s 6 8.2 3.3 Physical force only s s s 6 8.2 3.3 Incapacitation only - - - - - - Both physical force and incapacitation - - - - - - Physical force only Sexual Touching 1Per Current School Year 100 students. Table 3.2. Percent of Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Victim Characteristics, Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2, 3 Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Heterosexual 7.7 0.2 24.7 0.7 7.4 0.3 4.9 0.3 1.3 0.1 Non-Heterosexual 13.8 0.7 34.0 2.3 10.9 1.2 17.9 1.7 4.9 0.7 Hispanic 10.1 0.6 29.2 2.2 7.7 1.2 7.8 1.3 2.7 0.6 Not Hispanic 8.2 0.2 25.1 0.8 7.6 0.3 6.4 0.4 1.6 0.2 American Indian or Alaska Native 12.9 1.8 26.8 5.1 9.6 3.1 s s 9.8 3.3 Asian 7.7 0.4 21.7 1.1 8.5 0.6 4.2 0.6 1.0 0.3 Black or African American 9.6 0.8 20.0 2.2 7.8 1.1 5.3 1.2 3.4 1.0 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 15.2 3.1 32.9 9.1 12.7 5.2 - - s s White 8.8 0.2 28.7 0.9 7.4 0.4 7.6 0.4 2.0 0.2 Yes 14.2 1.7 28.2 4.4 12.6 2.5 s s s s No 8.3 0.2 25.5 0.7 7.5 0.3 6.6 0.4 1.7 0.2 Never married 5.9 0.2 - - 9.0 0.4 - - 2.4 0.2 Not married but living with a partner 3.7 0.4 - - 5.5 0.7 - - 1.3 0.4 Married 1.6 0.2 - - 3.4 0.5 - - 0.6 0.2 Divorced or separated 6.5 1.4 - - 11.3 2.5 - - - - Other 6.8 1.5 - - 11.5 2.8 - - s s Sexual orientation Ethnicity Race Disability Marital status Table 3.2. Percent of Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Victim Characteristics, Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2, 3 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total % StdErr Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Year in School and Timing of Incidents Undergraduate Current year Freshman 9.7 0.6 17.3 1.1 - - 3.9 0.7 - - Sophomore 8.3 0.6 12.0 1.0 - - 4.5 0.7 - - Junior 7.7 0.6 12.0 1.2 - - 3.8 0.6 - - Senior 6.6 0.5 10.1 0.8 - - 3.1 0.4 - - Since entering college Freshman 9.9 0.6 17.7 1.0 - - 3.9 0.7 - - Sophomore 14.3 0.7 22.9 1.2 - - 5.5 0.7 - - Junior 18.7 0.9 30.5 1.7 - - 7.8 0.8 - - Senior 18.8 0.8 29.2 1.4 - - 8.4 0.7 - - Table 3.2. Percent of Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Victim Characteristics, Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2, 3 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 1st year 2.4 0.2 - - 4.0 0.4 - - 0.8 0.2 2nd year 2.8 0.2 - - 3.7 0.4 - - 1.9 0.3 3rd year 2.2 0.3 - - 3.8 0.6 - - 0.6 0.2 4th year 1.7 0.3 - - 1.9 0.5 - - 1.6 0.5 5th year 0.9 0.3 - - 2.2 0.7 - - - - 6th year or higher 1.1 0.3 - - 1.8 0.6 - - s s 1st year 3.2 0.3 - - 5.1 0.5 - - 1.2 0.2 2nd year 4.8 0.3 - - 7.9 0.5 - - 2.0 0.3 3rd year 6.6 0.5 - - 10.7 0.8 - - 2.1 0.4 4th year 4.4 0.5 - - 6.9 1.0 - - 2.4 0.5 5th year 4.4 0.6 - - 9.7 1.3 - - s s 6th year or higher 9.0 0.8 - - 15.7 1.5 - - 2.7 0.7 Graduate/Professional Current year Since entering college 1 Since enrolled in the college. Per 100 students. contact involving: 1) penetration by physical force or threat of physical force, 2) attempted, but not completed, penetration by physical force or threat of physical force; 3) penetration by incapacitation, 4) sexual touching by physical force or threat of physical force, 5) sexual touching by incapacitation. 3 Unless otherwise specified, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. 2Includes Table 3.3. Percent of Female Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Sexual Contact Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Type of Behavior, Victim Characteristics and Enrollment Status1, 2, 3 Penetration Survey Item Response Total Undergraduate Sexual Touching Graduate or Professional Undergraduate Graduate or Professional % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Heterosexual 13.2 0.3 11.0 0.5 3.0 0.2 19.2 0.7 5.3 0.2 Non-Heterosexual 19.7 1.1 17.1 2.0 3.5 0.6 26.6 2.0 8.2 1.0 Hispanic 16.4 1.3 14.5 1.7 4.5 0.9 23.4 2.2 4.4 0.9 Not Hispanic 13.4 0.3 11.1 0.5 2.9 0.2 19.5 0.7 5.6 0.2 American Indian or Alaska Native 17.4 2.8 13.1 3.8 s s 26.8 5.1 7.0 2.7 Asian 13.1 0.6 8.3 0.8 2.9 0.3 17.7 1.0 6.7 0.6 Black or African American 13.5 1.2 8.6 1.4 3.7 0.8 15.5 1.8 5.7 1.0 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 21.6 4.8 s s s s 26.6 8.9 s s White 14.4 0.4 13.7 0.6 3.2 0.2 22.3 0.8 5.1 0.3 Yes 17.9 2.3 19.4 4.1 6.8 2.0 18.5 4.1 8.0 2.1 No 13.6 0.3 11.4 0.5 3.0 0.2 19.9 0.6 5.4 0.2 Never married 9.0 0.4 - - 3.7 0.2 - - 6.5 0.3 Not married but living with a partner 5.5 0.7 - - 2.5 0.4 - - 3.7 0.7 Married 3.4 0.5 - - 0.9 0.2 - - 2.6 0.4 Divorced or separated 11.3 2.5 - - 4.1 1.7 - - 7.2 2.0 Other 11.5 2.8 - - 5.2 2.0 - - 7.9 2.3 Sexual orientation Ethnicity Race Disability Marital status Table 3.3. Percent of Female Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Sexual Contact Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Type of Behavior, Victim Characteristics and Enrollment Status1, 2, 3 (continued) Penetration Survey Item Response Total % StdErr Undergraduate Sexual Touching Graduate or Professional Undergraduate Graduate or Professional % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Year in School and Timing of Incidents Undergraduate Current year Freshman 17.3 1.1 4.7 0.6 - - 14.5 1.0 - - Sophomore 12.0 1.0 4.7 0.6 - - 8.9 1.0 - - Junior 12.0 1.2 4.8 0.6 - - 9.4 1.0 - - Senior 10.1 0.8 3.2 0.5 - - 7.7 0.8 - - Since entering college Freshman 17.7 1.0 5.1 0.7 - - 15.2 0.9 - - Sophomore 22.9 1.2 8.9 0.8 - - 18.6 1.2 - - Junior 30.5 1.7 15.6 1.3 - - 22.3 1.5 - - Senior 29.2 1.4 14.9 1.0 - - 22.2 1.3 - - Graduate/Professional Current year 1st year 4.0 0.4 - - 1.1 0.2 - - 3.3 0.4 2nd year 3.7 0.4 - - 1.1 0.2 - - 3.3 0.3 3rd year 3.8 0.6 - - 1.8 0.4 - - 2.3 0.5 4th year 1.9 0.5 - - 1.0 0.4 - - 0.8 0.3 5th year 2.2 0.7 - - s s - - s s 6th year 1.8 0.6 - - s s - - 1.4 0.5 Table 3.3. Percent of Female Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Sexual Contact Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Type of Behavior, Victim Characteristics and Enrollment Status1, 2, 3 (continued) Penetration Survey Item Response Total % Undergraduate Sexual Touching Graduate or Professional Undergraduate Graduate or Professional StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Since entering college 1Since 1st year 5.1 0.5 - - 1.5 0.2 - - 4.1 0.4 2nd year 7.9 0.5 - - 3.0 0.4 - - 6.3 0.5 3rd year 10.7 0.8 - - 5.2 0.5 - - 6.2 0.6 4th year 6.9 1.0 - - 3.1 0.6 - - 5.5 0.8 5th year 9.7 1.3 - - 4.2 0.9 - - 7.2 1.3 6th year 15.7 1.5 - - 7.6 1.3 - - 8.6 1.2 enrolled in the college. Per 100 students. contact involving: 1) penetration by physical force or threat of physical force, 2) attempted, but not completed, penetration by physical force or threat of physical force; 3) penetration by incapacitation, 4) Sexual touching by physical force or threat of physical force; 5) Sexual touching by incapacitation. 3Unless otherwise specified, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. 2Includes Table 3.4a. Number of Times Females Experienced Nonconsensual Penetration Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Enrollment Status for the Current year and Since Entering College1, 2 Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 0 times 97.8 0.1 95.7 0.3 98.8 0.1 1 time 1.5 0.1 3.0 0.3 0.7 0.1 2 times 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.1 3 times 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 s s 4 or more times 0.1 0.0 s s s s 0 times 94.1 0.2 88.4 0.5 96.9 0.2 1 time 3.6 0.2 6.7 0.4 2.1 0.1 2 times 1.3 0.1 2.9 0.2 0.5 0.1 3 times 0.4 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.0 4 or more times 0.6 0.1 1.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 Current school year Number of times Since entering college Number of times 1Per 100 students. contact that was: a) completed by physical force or threat of physical force; b) attempted but not completed by physical force or threat of physical force or c) by incapacitation. 2Includes Table 3.4b. Number of Times Students Reported Nonconsensual Sexual Touching by Physical Force or Incapacitation by Current School Year or Since Entering Current College by Gender and Enrollment Status1,2 Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 0 times 96.7 0.1 90.2 0.4 97.2 0.2 97.0 0.3 99.1 0.1 1 time 2.0 0.1 5.5 0.4 1.7 0.1 2.0 0.2 0.5 0.1 2 times 0.8 0.1 2.8 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 3 times 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 s s 4 or more times 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 times 93.7 0.1 80.2 0.6 94.5 0.2 95.3 0.3 98.5 0.1 1 time 3.0 0.1 8.8 0.4 2.8 0.2 2.3 0.2 0.7 0.1 2 times 1.6 0.1 5.0 0.3 1.3 0.1 1.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 3 times 0.9 0.1 3.3 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 4 or more times 0.8 0.1 2.7 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 Current school year Number of times Since entering college Number of times 1Per 100 students. contact that was: a) completed by physical force or threat of physical force or b) by incapacitation. 2Includes Table 3.5a. Percent of Female Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Time Occurred During Year, Location of Incident and by Tactic 1, 2, 3 Survey Item Response By Force By Incapacitation % StdErr % StdErr No incidents occurred during academic break 78.6 2.1 74.9 2.5 Some incidents occurred during academic break 9.9 1.7 10.2 1.7 All incidents occurred during academic break 11.5 1.5 14.9 2.0 Yes 71.0 2.2 64.5 2.5 No 29.0 2.2 35.5 2.5 University residence hall/dorm 87.0 1.9 87.6 2.3 Fraternity or Sorority house 2.6 0.9 2.8 1.1 Other space used by single-sex org 15.9 2.0 10.7 2.0 Other residential housing 5.9 1.3 7.0 1.9 Non-residential building 4.1 1.1 2.8 1.1 Other property (e.g., outdoors) 4.8 1.3 4.1 1.4 77.7 4.3 78.2 3.5 Fraternity or Sorority house - - - - Other space used by single-sex org s s s s 11.1 2.9 6.8 2.4 s s 7.8 2.6 Outdoor or recreational space 6.5 2.2 5.5 2.1 Some other place 9.9 3.1 9.3 2.7 Time - occurred during academic break Location Did it occur on campus or affiliated property? On university property Not on university property Private residence Restaurant, bar, or club Other social venue 1Per 100 victims. 2Nonconsensual penetration by force includes contact that was: a) completed by physical force or threat of physical force; or b) attempted but not completed by physical force or threat of physical force. 3Unless otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. Table 3.5b. Percent of Female Victims of Nonconsensual Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Time Occurred During Year, Location of Incident and by Tactic 1, 2, 3 Survey Item Response By Force By Incapacitation % StdErr % StdErr No incidents occurred during academic break 85.6 1.4 83.8 1.8 Some incidents occurred during academic break 8.1 1.1 5.6 1.3 All incidents occurred during academic break 6.3 0.9 10.6 1.7 Yes 67.4 1.9 66.5 2.2 No 32.6 1.9 33.5 2.2 University residence hall/dorm 64.0 2.0 78.6 2.7 Fraternity or Sorority house 9.8 1.3 10.1 2.0 Other space used by single-sex org 19.2 1.7 16.0 2.2 Other residential housing 8.3 1.2 s s Non-residential building 13.1 1.3 8.4 1.7 Other property (e.g., outdoors) 14.0 1.4 9.2 1.7 Private residence 36.3 3.4 46.7 4.5 Fraternity or Sorority house 3.7 1.1 s s Other space used by single-sex org 12.9 1.8 5.6 2.2 Restaurant, bar, or club 29.8 2.8 29.4 4.3 Other social venue 15.6 2.6 8.2 2.4 Outdoor or recreational space 8.2 1.7 4.9 1.9 Some other place 12.2 2.2 20.4 3.9 Time - occurred during academic break Location Did it occur on campus or affiliated property? On university property Not on university property 1Per 100 victims. touching by force includes contact that was completed by physical force or threat of physical force. 3Unless otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. 2Sexual Table 3.5c. Percent of Male Victims of Nonconsensual Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Time Occurred During Year, Location of Incident and by Tactic 1, 2, 3 Survey Item Response By Force By Incapacitation % StdErr % StdErr No incidents occurred during academic break 85.0 2.9 86.8 2.6 Some incidents occurred during academic break 7.3 1.9 3.6 1.4 All incidents occurred during academic break 7.7 2.4 9.6 2.4 Yes 61.6 3.7 77.6 4.0 No 38.4 3.7 22.4 4.0 63.3 5.2 82.4 3.5 Fraternity or Sorority house s s s s Other space used by single-sex org - - 6.7 2.9 Other residential housing 9.3 2.9 s s Non-residential building 21.6 4.7 7.0 2.4 Other property (e.g., outdoors) 13.3 4.9 9.4 2.9 39.8 5.9 53.6 10.3 Fraternity or Sorority house s s s s Other space used by single-sex org s s s s 32.2 6.1 35.9 7.2 Other social venue s s s s Outdoor or recreational space s s s s 15.0 4.7 s s Time - occurred during academic break Location Did it occur on campus or affiliated property? On university property University residence hall/dorm Not on university property Private residence Restaurant, bar, or club Some other place 1Per 100 victims. touching by force includes contact that was completed by physical force or threat of physical force. 3Unless otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. 2Sexual Table 3.6a. Percent of Female Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Offender Characteristics and Tactic1, 2, 3 Survey Item Response By Force By Incapacitation % StdErr % StdErr Female 1.6 0.6 1.8 0.7 Male 98.0 0.8 99.2 0.6 s s s s 1 offender 77.8 2.0 75.2 2.0 2 offenders 13.8 1.7 18.5 1.9 3 or more offenders 8.3 1.3 6.3 1.3 Student 76.6 2.0 79.6 2.2 Faculty or instructor 3.5 0.9 2.4 0.8 - - - - Other staff or administrator 1.3 0.5 s s Other person affiliated with a university program (ex. internship, study abroad) 2.2 0.6 1.7 0.7 The person was not affiliated with university 3.3 0.9 s s Don’t know association with university 21.0 2.1 21.7 2.3 At the time, it was someone I was dating or intimate with 26.1 2.3 30.7 2.7 Someone I had dated or was intimate with 13.1 1.7 14.8 1.9 Teacher or advisor 2.4 0.8 s s Co-worker, boss or supervisor 1.9 0.7 2.6 0.8 Friend or acquaintance 55.2 2.1 60.4 2.8 Stranger 21.2 2.1 20.0 2.1 Other 2.5 0.8 s s - - - - Offender characteristics Gender Other gender identity Number of offenders University affiliation Coach or trainer Relationship to victim Don’t Know 1Per 100 victims. 2Nonconsensual penetration by force includes contact that was: a) completed by physical force or threat of physical force; or b) attempted but not completed by physical force or threat of physical force. 3Unless otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. Table 3.6b. Percent of Female Victims of Nonconsensual Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Offender Characteristics and Tactic1, 2, 3 Survey Item Response By Force By Incapacitation % StdErr % StdErr Female 1.6 0.5 2.4 1.0 Male 99.7 0.2 98.9 0.8 - - - - 1 offender 74.8 1.9 70.3 2.6 2 offenders 15.8 1.2 20.0 2.3 3 or more offenders 9.4 1.3 9.8 1.7 Student 77.9 1.4 80.7 1.9 Faculty or instructor 2.0 0.5 1.6 0.6 - - - - Other staff or administrator 1.2 0.4 - - Other person affiliated with a university program (ex. internship, study abroad) 1.6 0.5 2.2 0.8 The person was not affiliated with university 6.2 0.8 2.5 0.9 Don’t know association with university 17.7 1.5 17.8 2.1 At the time, it was someone I was dating or intimate with 12.1 1.2 13.3 1.9 Someone I had dated or was intimate with 7.7 0.9 7.9 1.4 Teacher or advisor 1.1 0.4 s s Co-worker, boss or supervisor 1.1 0.4 3.1 0.9 Friend or acquaintance 52.5 1.6 63.6 2.6 Stranger 41.2 1.8 28.7 2.5 Other 2.6 0.5 1.5 0.6 s s - - Offender characteristics Gender Other gender identity Number of offenders University affiliation Coach or trainer Relationship to victim Don’t Know 1Per 100 victims. touching by force includes contact that was completed by physical force or threat of physical force. 3Unless otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. 2Sexual Table 3.6c. Percent of Male Victims of Nonconsensual Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Offender Characteristics and Tactic1, 2, 3 Survey Item Response By Force By Incapacitation % StdErr % StdErr Female 44.5 5.2 74.4 3.7 Male 61.1 4.5 28.1 3.8 - - s s 1 offender 84.8 2.9 69.8 3.5 2 offenders 12.0 2.4 19.7 3.7 3 or more offenders 3.2 1.3 10.6 2.3 Student 76.4 3.9 87.5 2.7 Faculty or instructor 4.1 1.6 - - Coach or trainer - - - - Other staff or administrator s s - - Other person affiliated with a university program (ex. internship, study abroad) s s - - The person was not affiliated with university 7.8 2.0 8.3 2.3 Don’t know association with university 12.1 2.7 11.2 2.5 9.6 2.3 10.8 2.5 Someone I had dated or was intimate with s s 9.2 2.5 Teacher or advisor s s - - Co-worker, boss or supervisor 3.2 1.3 s s Friend or acquaintance 64.4 3.8 62.9 4.4 Stranger 28.6 3.4 23.1 3.5 Other s s s s Don’t Know s s s s Offender characteristics Gender Other gender identity Number of offenders University affiliation Relationship to victim At the time, it was someone I was dating or intimate with 1Per 100 victims. touching by force includes contact that was completed by physical force or threat of physical force. 3Unless otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. 2Sexual Table 3.7a. Percent of Female Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Involvement of Substances and Tactic1, 2, 3 By Force Survey Item Response By Incapacitation % StdErr % StdErr Yes 69.2 2.4 79.9 2.4 No 20.3 2.1 10.5 1.8 Don't know 10.4 1.5 9.6 1.6 Yes 5.3 1.1 5.8 1.2 No 57.8 2.4 57.1 2.8 Don't know 36.9 2.3 37.1 2.8 Yes 64.1 2.1 88.5 2.0 No 35.9 2.1 11.5 2.0 Yes 3.7 1.0 4.2 0.9 No 96.3 1.0 95.8 0.9 Involvement of Substances Offender drinking alcohol Offender using drugs Victim voluntarily drinking alcohol Victim voluntarily using drugs Victim given alcohol or drugs without knowledge or consent Yes, I am certain 2.3 0.8 s s I suspect, but I am not certain 7.7 1.2 11.3 1.7 No 82.5 1.8 78.0 2.4 Don't know 7.4 1.2 10.1 1.5 Yes 22.1 2.8 22.6 2.5 No 63.3 3.0 42.4 3.2 Not sure 14.6 2.4 35.0 2.6 Victim passed out for all or part of incident 1 Per 100 victims. Nonconsensual penetration by force includes contact that was: a) completed by physical force or threat of physical force; or b) attempted but not completed by physical force or threat of physical force. 3 Unless otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. 2 Table 3.7b. Percent of Female Victims of Nonconsensual Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Involvement of Substances and Tactic 1, 2, 3 By Force Survey Item Response By Incapacitation % StdErr % StdErr Yes 60.8 1.8 82.4 2.1 No 18.9 1.5 6.2 1.2 Don't know 20.3 1.6 11.4 1.6 Yes 2.9 0.5 6.4 1.2 No 45.7 1.7 50.9 2.2 Don't know 51.3 1.7 42.7 2.4 Yes 52.2 1.8 89.7 1.6 No 47.8 1.8 10.3 1.6 Yes 1.5 0.4 2.7 0.8 No 98.5 0.4 97.3 0.8 Involvement of Substances Offender drinking alcohol Offender using drugs Victim voluntarily drinking alcohol Victim voluntarily using drugs Victim given alcohol or drugs without knowledge or consent Yes, I am certain 1.4 0.4 1.8 0.7 I suspect, but I am not certain 2.5 0.5 5.3 1.2 No 92.6 0.8 83.7 1.9 Don't know 3.5 0.7 9.3 1.5 Yes 5.4 1.0 13.2 2.1 No 88.9 1.6 68.9 2.6 Not sure 5.7 1.2 17.9 2.0 Victim passed out for all or part of incident 1 Per 100 victims. Sexual touching by force includes contact that was completed by physical force or threat of physical force. 3 Unless otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. 2 Table 3.7c. Percent of Male Victims of Nonconsensual Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Involvement of Substances and Tactic 1, 2, 3 By Force Survey Item Response By Incapacitation % StdErr % StdErr Yes 64.5 4.5 77.0 3.3 No 16.2 3.4 5.0 1.7 Don't know 19.4 3.6 18.0 3.2 Yes 4.7 1.6 4.1 1.6 No 47.9 3.8 56.8 4.4 Don't know 47.4 3.9 39.1 4.2 Yes 67.5 4.4 93.3 2.0 No 32.5 4.4 6.7 2.0 Yes 4.9 1.7 3.5 1.4 No 95.1 1.7 96.5 1.4 s s - - I suspect, but I am not certain 4.6 1.8 s s No 89.8 2.3 94.1 1.9 Don't know 4.1 1.5 s s Yes s s 14.6 3.2 No 82.3 3.5 68.0 4.3 Not sure 15.4 3.0 17.5 2.9 Involvement of Substances Offender drinking alcohol Offender using drugs Victim voluntarily drinking alcohol Victim voluntarily using drugs Victim given alcohol or drugs without knowledge or consent Yes, I am certain Victim passed out for all or part of incident 1 Per 100 victims. Sexual touching by force includes contact that was completed by physical force or threat of physical force. 3 Unless otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. 2 Table 3.8a. Percent of Female Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Physical and Emotional Consequences and Tactic 1, 2, 3 By Force Survey Item Response By Incapacitation % StdErr % StdErr 9.9 1.4 4.6 1.0 80.5 5.9 49.7 13.1 Chipped or knocked out teeth - - - - Broken bones - - - - Internal injury from the sexual contact (e.g., vaginal or anal tearing) 37.3 6.5 38.9 12.3 Other injuries 16.3 7.8 s s Contract a sexually transmitted disease 2.0 0.7 2.2 1.0 Become pregnant from the experience s s - - 87.0 1.5 92.6 1.3 Difficulty concentrating on studies, assignments or exams 54.5 2.8 41.7 2.7 Fearfulness or being concerned about safety 32.6 2.2 17.9 1.9 Loss of interest in daily activities, or feelings of helplessness and hopelessness 40.3 2.3 24.8 2.3 Nightmares or trouble sleeping 34.0 2.2 18.0 2.2 Feeling numb or detached 48.6 2.6 36.8 2.5 Headaches or stomach aches 16.3 1.7 9.8 1.5 Eating problems or disorders 16.2 1.7 11.0 1.9 Increased drug or alcohol use 17.1 1.9 16.3 1.8 None of the above 30.2 2.3 35.3 2.6 Consequences Physical Physical injuries Bruises, black-eye, cuts, scratches, or swelling None of the above Emotional 1 Per 100 victims. Penetration by force includes contact that was: a) completed by physical force or threat of physical force; or b) attempted but not completed by physical force or threat of physical force. 3 Unless otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. 2 Table 3.8b. Percent of Female Victims of Nonconsensual Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Physical and Emotional Consequences and Tactic 1, 2, 3 By Force Survey Item Response By Incapacitation % StdErr % StdErr 0.7 0.3 s s Bruises, black-eye, cuts, scratches, or swelling s s s s Chipped or knocked out teeth - - - - Broken bones - - - - Internal injury from the sexual contact (e.g., vaginal or anal tearing) s s s s Other injuries - - - - Contract a sexually transmitted disease s s s s Become pregnant from the experience - - - - 98.5 0.4 97.6 0.7 Difficulty concentrating on studies, assignments or exams 23.0 1.5 24.8 2.7 Fearfulness or being concerned about safety 19.4 1.3 13.1 1.9 Loss of interest in daily activities, or feelings of helplessness and hopelessness 10.8 0.9 12.5 1.7 Nightmares or trouble sleeping 9.5 0.9 8.0 1.4 Feeling numb or detached 13.6 1.3 18.2 2.1 Headaches or stomach aches 4.0 0.7 5.6 1.1 Eating problems or disorders 3.9 0.7 5.1 1.1 Increased drug or alcohol use 3.3 0.6 4.0 0.9 None of the above 59.0 1.7 60.9 2.7 Consequences Physical Physical injuries None of the above Emotional 1 Per 100 victims. Sexual touching by force includes contact that was completed by physical force or threat of physical force. 3 Unless otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. 2 Table 3.8c. Percent of Male Victims of Nonconsensual Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation by Physical and Emotional Consequences and Tactic 1, 2, 3 By Force Survey Item Response By Incapacitation % StdErr % StdErr - - - - Bruises, black-eye, cuts, scratches, or swelling - - - - Chipped or knocked out teeth - - - - Broken bones - - - - Internal injury from the sexual contact (e.g., vaginal or anal tearing) - - - - Other injuries - - - - Contract a sexually transmitted disease - - - - Become pregnant from the experience - - - - 98.0 0.9 100.0 0.0 Difficulty concentrating on studies, assignments or exams 17.8 3.4 5.5 1.8 Fearfulness or being concerned about safety 9.0 2.5 s s s s 3.8 1.5 Nightmares or trouble sleeping 5.1 1.7 s s Feeling numb or detached 9.6 2.3 6.4 1.9 Headaches or stomach aches s s s s Eating problems or disorders s s s s Increased drug or alcohol use s s 6.5 1.8 73.3 3.6 87.9 2.9 Consequences Physical Physical injuries None of the above Emotional Loss of interest in daily activities, or feelings of helplessness and hopelessness None of the above 1 Per 100 victims. Sexual touching by force includes contact that was completed by physical force or threat of physical force. 3 Unless otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. 2 Table 3.9a. Percent of Female Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation reporting to a Program, Reporting to Others and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Behavior and Tactic 1, 2, 3 Penetration By Force Survey Item Response Sexual Touching By Incapacitation By Force By Incapacitation % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Yes 30.6 2.1 21.6 2.2 7.7 0.9 6.9 1.3 No 69.4 2.1 78.4 2.2 92.3 0.9 93.1 1.3 Did not know where to go or who to tell 19.5 2.5 10.2 2.3 10.9 1.1 8.4 1.5 Felt embarrassed, ashamed, or that it would be too emotionally difficult 37.9 2.6 32.7 2.8 14.9 1.3 11.1 1.8 I did not think anyone would believe me 10.7 1.9 6.9 1.5 3.2 0.7 2.4 0.8 I did not think it was serious enough to report 64.6 3.0 75.5 2.4 81.5 1.4 80.4 2.2 I did not want the person to get into trouble 27.9 2.8 35.0 3.1 17.3 1.4 16.1 2.1 I feared negative social consequences 22.2 2.3 26.3 2.6 16.8 1.5 11.5 2.0 I did not think anything would be done 32.1 2.7 23.7 2.5 20.4 1.4 13.5 2.0 I feared it would not be kept confidential 19.1 2.0 12.2 2.0 10.5 1.1 7.5 1.5 Incident was not on campus or associated with the school 2.9 1.0 6.0 1.4 1.4 0.4 4.7 1.1 Incident did not occur while attending school 19.1 2.6 15.9 2.3 11.4 1.4 10.8 1.7 Other Reason 2.5 1.0 13.8 2.0 6.1 0.9 12.5 1.9 Report of incident to a Program Reported to a Program Did not contact a Program Table 3.9a. Percent of Female Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation reporting to a Program, Reporting to Others and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Behavior and Tactic 1, 2, 3 (continued) Penetration By Force Survey Item Response Sexual Touching By Incapacitation By Force By Incapacitation % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Friend 79.6 1.7 76.2 2.4 79.2 1.5 77.2 1.8 Family member 23.7 1.9 16.8 2.2 14.4 1.1 10.6 1.6 Faculty 5.9 1.1 3.8 1.0 3.4 0.6 2.5 0.7 Someone else 7.5 1.3 5.4 1.1 5.2 0.6 3.3 0.9 I didn’t tell anyone else 19.8 1.7 22.7 2.5 19.3 1.4 23.3 1.8 Report to others 1 Per 100 victims. contact involving: 1) penetration by physical force or threat of physical force, 2) attempted, but not completed, penetration by physical force or threat of physical force; 3) penetration by incapacitation, 4) sexual touching by physical force or threat of physical force, 5) sexual touching by incapacitation. 3 Unless otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. 2Includes Table 3.9b. Percent of Male Victims of Nonconsensual Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation Reporting to a Program, Reporting to Others and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Tactic1, 2, 3 Survey Item Response By Force By Incapacitation % StdErr % StdErr - - - - No 91.4 2.9 97.4 1.3 Yes 8.6 2.9 s s Did not know where to go or who to tell 10.2 2.4 4.2 1.7 Felt embarrassed, ashamed, or that it would be too emotionally difficult 11.4 2.8 8.2 2.2 I did not think anyone would believe me 5.9 1.9 8.0 2.4 I did not think anything would be done 11.0 2.7 14.9 3.0 I did not think it was serious enough to report 74.3 3.8 76.6 4.4 I did not want the person to get into trouble 15.5 2.8 21.9 3.5 I feared it would not be kept confidential 5.3 1.9 s s I feared negative social consequences 11.0 2.7 11.6 2.6 Incident did not occur while attending school 4.0 1.7 7.1 2.1 s s - - 19.3 3.1 26.5 4.2 Friend 66.4 4.1 59.8 4.4 Family member 4.3 1.5 s s Faculty 4.4 1.7 s s s s - - 31.2 4.1 38.1 4.3 Report of incident to a Program Reported to a program Inapplicable Did not contact a program Incident was not on campus or associated with the school Other Reason Report to others Someone else I didn’t tell anyone else 1Per 100 victims. touching by force includes contact that was completed by physical force or threat of physical force. 3Unless otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. 2Sexual Table 3.9c. Percent of Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation reporting to a Program, Reporting to Others and Reasons Why Did Not Report to an Organization 1, 2 Harvard University Health Services (HUHS) Survey Item Response Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 72.8 2.6 6.8 1.3 3.9 1.1 Fall of 2014 - present 53.3 2.8 40.5 10.4 100.0 0.0 Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 23.9 2.4 38.7 10.7 - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 12.8 2.4 s s - - Prior to Fall 2012 10.1 2.1 - - - - Not at all 16.7 3.4 - - s s A little 22.0 3.7 s s 79.0 15.5 Somewhat 35.4 4.9 - - - - Very 19.1 3.3 66.1 17.4 - - Extremely 12.1 2.4 - - - - 7.5 2.4 s s s s 100.0 0.0 - - - - - - s s s s 92.5 2.4 66.1 17.4 80.1 14.8 Report of incident to a Program When contacted Evaluation of Contact made since fall of 2014 How useful Pressure from university on whether to proceed Yes To proceed Not to proceed No Table 3.9c. Percent of Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation reporting to a Program, Reporting to Others and Reasons Why Did Not Report to an Organization 1, 2 Harvard University Health Services (HUHS) Survey Item Response Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 72.8 2.6 6.8 1.3 3.9 1.1 Excellent 28.9 4.3 s s - - Very good 29.8 4.5 s s s s Good 27.6 3.8 - - s s Fair 11.6 3.2 s s s s Poor s s s s s s Excellent 15.1 2.9 s s - - Very good 26.9 4.4 s s s s Good 27.0 4.1 - - s s Fair 15.5 3.3 s s s s Poor 15.4 3.1 s s s s Report of incident to a Program Program showed respect towards victim Helped to understand options Table 3.9c. Percent of Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation reporting to a Program, Reporting to Others and Reasons Why Did Not Report to an Organization1, 2 (continued) Office of Sexual Assault Prevention & Response (OSAPR) Survey Item Response Title IX Coordinators University Chaplains % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 29.2 2.6 12.3 1.6 3.1 1.1 Fall of 2014 - present 63.1 4.4 83.4 6.3 100.0 0.0 Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 27.4 5.0 16.6 6.3 - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 s s - - - - Prior to Fall 2012 s s - - - - s s - - - - A little 12.0 4.5 s s - - Somewhat 18.4 4.7 24.5 9.0 60.7 15.2 Very 33.7 7.0 s s s s Extremely 34.3 7.0 55.8 10.0 s s 15.8 5.2 s s - - 100.0 0.0 s s - - - - s s - - 84.2 5.2 82.8 8.1 100.0 0.0 Report of incident to a Program When contacted Evaluation of Contact made since fall of 2014 How useful Not at all Pressure from university on whether to proceed Yes To proceed Not to proceed No Table 3.9c. Percent of Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation reporting to a Program, Reporting to Others and Reasons Why Did Not Report to an Organization1, 2 (continued) Office of Sexual Assault Prevention & Response (OSAPR) Survey Item Response Title IX Coordinators University Chaplains % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 29.2 2.6 12.3 1.6 3.1 1.1 Excellent 64.7 6.7 49.5 10.1 80.8 14.3 Very good 19.4 5.1 18.8 7.3 s s Good 14.3 4.6 s s - - Fair - - s s - - Poor s s s s - - Excellent 59.1 6.4 44.1 10.1 s s Very good 18.8 4.6 24.2 8.0 s s Good 10.9 4.2 s s s s Fair s s s s s s Poor s s s s - - Report of incident to a Program Program showed respect towards victim Helped to understand options Table 3.9c. Percent of Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation reporting to a Program, Reporting to Others and Reasons Why Did Not Report to an Organization 1, 2 (continued) Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment (SASH) Tutors (primarily undergraduate organization) Undergraduate peer support organization (for example, CAARE, Contact, Room 13, and Response) Other Police Departments (for example, Cambridge Police, Boston Police, or Police at other colleges or university Survey Item Response % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Report of incident to a Program 6.7 1.4 19.5 2.2 3.0 0.9 73.6 12.6 51.8 6.8 s s Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 s s 24.5 5.1 s s Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 - - 23.7 5.6 - - Prior to Fall 2012 s s - - - - Not at all - - - - - - A little - - s s - - Somewhat s s s s s s Very s s 34.2 9.3 - - 49.2 17.1 39.8 8.2 - - - - s s s s To proceed - - s s - - Not to proceed - - - - s s 100.0 0.0 94.3 4.0 - - When contacted Fall of 2014 - present Evaluation of Contact made since fall of 2014 How useful Extremely Pressure from university on whether to proceed Yes No Table 3.9c. Percent of Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation reporting to a Program, Reporting to Others and Reasons Why Did Not Report to an Organization1, 2 (continued) Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment (SASH) Tutors (primarily undergraduate organization) Undergraduate peer support organization (for example, CAARE, Contact, Room 13, and Response) Other Police Departments (for example, Cambridge Police, Boston Police, or Police at other colleges or university) Survey Item Response % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Report of incident to a Program 6.7 1.4 19.5 2.2 3.0 0.9 Excellent 100.0 0.0 72.8 7.9 - - Very good - - 19.5 7.5 - - Good - - s s - - Fair - - - - - - Poor - - - - s s Excellent 72.3 14.0 54.8 8.6 - - Very good s s s s - - Good s s 18.2 7.1 - - Fair - - s s - - Poor - - - - s s Program showed respect towards victim Helped to understand options Table 3.9c. Percent of Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation reporting to a Program, Reporting to Others and Reasons Why Did Not Report to an Organization 1, 2 (continued) Other sexual assault support program (for example, Boston Area Rape Crisis Center, BARCC) Survey Item Response % StdErr 4.3 1.1 69.4 14.6 Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 s s Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 - - Prior to Fall 2012 - - Not at all s s A little s s Somewhat - - Very s s Extremely s s s s To proceed s s Not to proceed - - 82.7 13.3 Report of incident to a Program When contacted Fall of 2014 - present Evaluation of Contact made since fall of 2014 How useful Pressure from university on whether to proceed Yes No Table 3.9c. Percent of Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Physical Force or Incapacitation reporting to a Program, Reporting to Others and Reasons Why Did Not Report to an Organization1, 2 (continued) Other sexual assault support program (for example, Boston Area Rape Crisis Center, BARCC) Survey Item Response % StdErr 4.3 1.1 Excellent 79.1 15.9 Very good - - Good - - Fair s s Poor - - Excellent s s Very good s s Good - - Fair - - Poor s s Report of incident to a Program Program showed respect towards victim Helped to understand options 1 Per 100 victims. contact involving: 1) penetration by physical force or threat of physical force, 2) attempted, but not completed, penetration by physical force or threat of physical force; 3) penetration by incapacitation, 4) sexual touching by physical force or threat of physical force, 5) sexual touching by incapacitation. 2Includes Table 4.1 Percent of Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Coercion or Absence of Affirmative Consent by Behavior, Tactic, Current Year vs. Since Entering College, Gender and Enrollment Status1,2 Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Male (n=5,235) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 - - s s Penetration 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 - - s s Sexual touching 0.0 0.0 s s s s - - s s 3.3 0.1 9.0 0.4 3.6 0.2 2.2 0.2 0.8 0.1 Penetration 1.2 0.1 3.3 0.2 1.4 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 Sexual touching 2.5 0.1 6.7 0.3 2.7 0.2 1.8 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Penetration 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 s s 0.1 0.0 Sexual touching 0.1 0.0 s s 0.1 0.0 s s s s 6.1 0.1 17.2 0.6 6.6 0.3 4.0 0.3 1.5 0.2 Penetration 2.4 0.1 7.3 0.3 2.6 0.2 1.2 0.2 0.5 0.1 Sexual touching 4.5 0.1 12.6 0.5 4.8 0.3 3.1 0.3 1.2 0.1 Current school year Coercion Absence of affirmative consent Since entering college Coercion Absence of affirmative consent Table 4.1 Percent of Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Coercion or Absence of Affirmative Consent by Behavior, Tactic, Current Year vs. Since Entering College, Gender and Enrollment Status 1,2 (continued) TGQN (n=68) Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=28) Graduate or Professional (n=40) % StdErr % StdErr s s - - Penetration - - - - Sexual touching s s - - 9.9 3.6 7.7 3.0 Penetration s s s Sexual touching s s s s s s - - Penetration - - - - Sexual touching s s - - 20.8 6.0 9.4 3.2 Penetration 9.3 3.3 6.5 2.6 Sexual touching 17.3 6.0 s s Current school year Coercion Absence of affirmative consent Since entering college Coercion Absence of affirmative consent 1Per 100 students = Transgender woman, Transgender man, Genderqueer, gender non-conforming, questioning, not listed. 2TGQN Table 4.2. Number of Times Students Experienced Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Coercion or Absence of Affirmative Consent by Behavior, Tactic, Victim Characteristics, Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2 Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 0 times 99.9 0.0 99.8 0.1 99.9 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 1 time 0.1 0.0 s s s s - - s s 2 times 0.0 0.0 - - s s - - - - 3 times 0.0 0.0 s s - - - - - - 4 or more times 0.0 0.0 s s - - - - - - 0 times 100 0.0 99.9 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 1 time - - - - - - - - - - 2 times 0.0 0.0 - - s s - - - - 3 times 0.0 0.0 - - - - - - s s 4 or more times 0.0 0.0 s s - - - - - - Current school year Coercion Penetration Sexual Touching Without affirmative consent Penetration 0 times 98.8 0.1 96.7 0.2 98.6 0.1 99.5 0.1 99.7 0.1 1 time 0.8 0.1 2.2 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 2 times 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.0 s s s s 3 times 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 s s s s s s 4 or more times 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 s s s s - - Table 4.2. Number of Times Students Experienced Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Coercion or Absence of Affirmative Consent by Behavior, Tactic, Victim Characteristics, Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total % Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Without affirmative consent Sexual Touching 0 times 97.5 0.1 93.3 0.3 97.3 0.2 98.2 0.2 99.4 0.1 1 time 1.6 0.1 4.0 0.3 1.9 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 2 times 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 3 times 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.1 s s s s 4 or more times 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 s s s s 0 times 99.8 0.0 99.7 0.1 99.8 0.1 99.9 0.0 99.9 0.0 1 time 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 - - 0.1 0.0 2 times 0.1 0.0 - - 0.1 0.0 s s s s 3 times 0.0 0.0 s s - - - - - - 4 or more times 0.0 0.0 s s - - - - - - 0 times 99.9 0.0 99.9 0.1 99.9 0.0 100 0.0 100 0.0 1 time 0.0 0.0 - - 0.1 0.0 - - - - 2 times 0.0 0.0 s s s s - - - - 3 times 0.0 0.0 - - - - s s s s 4 or more times 0.0 0.0 s s - - - - - - Since entering college Coercion Penetration Sexual Touching Table 4.2. Number of Times Students Experienced Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Coercion or Absence of Affirmative Consent by Behavior, Tactic, Victim Characteristics, Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total % Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Without affirmative consent Penetration 0 times 97.6 0.1 92.7 0.3 97.4 0.2 98.8 0.2 99.5 0.1 1 time 1.4 0.1 4.4 0.3 1.6 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 2 times 0.5 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 3 times 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 s s s s 4 or more times 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 times 95.5 0.1 87.4 0.5 95.2 0.3 96.9 0.3 98.8 0.1 1 time 2.5 0.1 6.6 0.4 2.8 0.2 1.6 0.2 0.7 0.1 2 times 1.2 0.1 3.3 0.3 1.3 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.1 3 times 0.4 0.0 1.7 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 s s 4 or more times 0.4 0.0 1.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 s s Sexual Touching 1Per 100 students. otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. 2Unless Table 4.3. Percent of Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Absence of Affirmative Consent by Victim Characteristics, Gender and Enrollment Status 1,2 Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Heterosexual 5.4 0.1 16.6 0.6 5.8 0.3 2.7 0.3 1.0 0.1 Non-Heterosexual 12.0 0.6 23.2 1.8 14.4 1.3 13.0 1.6 4.8 0.8 Hispanic 6.7 0.5 17.6 2.1 7.1 1.1 3.4 0.8 2.3 0.6 Not Hispanic 6.1 0.1 17.2 0.6 6.5 0.3 4.1 0.3 1.4 0.2 American Indian or Alaska Native 8.2 1.7 23.6 5.9 12.3 3.4 - - - - Asian 5.3 0.3 14.2 0.7 6.1 0.5 2.2 0.4 1.0 0.3 Black or African American 8.8 0.6 18.3 1.8 8.5 1.2 5.8 1.3 1.7 0.7 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 8.2 2.1 15.6 5.5 7.7 3.9 5.5 3.9 - - White 6.6 0.2 18.8 0.7 7.1 0.3 5.3 0.5 1.6 0.2 Yes 10.0 1.3 23.0 5.0 7.5 2.0 s s - - No 6.1 0.1 17.1 0.5 6.5 0.3 4.0 0.3 1.5 0.2 Sexual orientation Ethnicity Race Disability Table 4.3. Percent of Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Absence of Affirmative Consent by Victim Characteristics, Gender and Enrollment Status 1,2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Never married 5.0 0.2 - - 7.8 0.4 - - 2.0 0.3 Not married but living with a partner 3.7 0.4 - - 6.0 0.7 - - 1.3 0.4 Married 1.2 0.2 - - 2.2 0.3 - - 0.6 0.2 Divorced or separated 6.4 1.6 - - 9.0 2.5 - - s s Other 3.9 1.1 - - 7.7 2.2 - - - - Freshman 6.4 0.5 11.6 0.8 - - 2.3 0.5 - - Sophomore 5.3 0.5 9.3 0.9 - - 1.4 0.4 - - Junior 6.0 0.5 10.3 1.0 - - 2.2 0.4 - - Senior 4.6 0.4 6.3 0.8 - - 2.9 0.5 - - Freshman 6.7 0.5 11.8 0.8 - - 2.6 0.5 - - Sophomore 9.0 0.7 15.0 1.1 - - 3.2 0.5 - - Junior 12.4 0.7 21.3 1.3 - - 4.5 0.6 - - Senior 12.7 0.7 19.5 1.2 - - 5.5 0.7 - - Year in School and Timing of Incidents Undergraduate Current year Since entering college Table 4.3. Percent of Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Absence of Affirmative Consent by Victim Characteristics, Gender and Enrollment Status 1,2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 1st 2.5 0.2 - - 3.9 0.4 - - 1.0 0.2 2nd 2.2 0.2 - - 3.7 0.3 - - 0.8 0.2 3rd 2.7 0.3 - - 5.1 0.6 - - s s 4th 0.7 0.2 - - 1.2 0.4 - - s s 5th 0.4 0.2 - - s s - - - - 6th year or more 1.8 0.4 - - 2.4 0.6 - - 1.3 0.5 1st 3.0 0.3 - - 4.7 0.4 - - 1.2 0.3 2nd 4.2 0.3 - - 7.0 0.5 - - 1.6 0.3 3rd 5.4 0.5 - - 10.1 0.9 - - 0.7 0.3 4th 3.8 0.6 - - 5.5 0.9 - - 2.5 0.7 5th 3.7 0.6 - - 8.5 1.4 - - s s 6th year or more 6.7 0.7 - - 9.3 1.2 - - 4.4 0.9 Graduate/Professional Current year Since entering college 1Per 100 students. otherwise specified, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. 2Unless Table 4.4. Percent of Female Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Absence of Affirmative Consent by Victim Characteristics, Behavior and Enrollment Status1,2 Penetration Survey Item Response Total Undergraduate Sexual Touching Graduate or Professional Undergraduate Graduate or Professional % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Heterosexual 9.4 0.3 7.2 0.4 2.3 0.2 11.9 0.6 4.2 0.3 Non-Heterosexual 17.8 1.1 9.0 1.4 5.8 0.9 19.1 1.7 10.7 1.2 Hispanic 11.3 1.1 6.2 1.0 2.2 0.7 13.9 1.9 5.2 1.0 Not Hispanic 10.1 0.2 7.5 0.4 2.7 0.2 12.5 0.5 4.8 0.2 American Indian or Alaska Native 17.5 3.3 15.5 5.1 7.3 2.8 13.7 3.7 7.4 2.8 Asian 8.9 0.5 5.9 0.6 2.1 0.3 10.6 0.6 5.3 0.5 Black or African American 13.1 1.0 9.4 1.2 4.4 0.9 13.2 1.5 4.8 0.9 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 11.2 3.2 - - s s 15.6 5.5 - - White 10.9 0.3 8.1 0.5 2.9 0.3 13.8 0.7 4.8 0.3 Yes 12.8 2.0 9.6 2.8 s s 15.3 3.9 6.4 1.9 No 10.1 0.3 7.3 0.3 2.6 0.2 12.6 0.5 4.8 0.3 Never married 7.8 0.4 - - 3.2 0.3 - - 5.6 0.3 Not married but living with a partner 6.0 0.7 - - 2.2 0.5 - - 5.1 0.7 Married 2.2 0.3 - - 0.9 0.2 - - 1.4 0.3 Divorced or separated 9.0 2.5 - - s s - - 9.0 2.5 Other 7.7 2.2 - - s s - - 4.6 1.8 Sexual orientation Ethnicity Race Disability Marital status Table 4.4. Percent of Female Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Absence of Affirmative Consent by Victim Characteristics, Behavior and Enrollment Status1,2 (continued) Penetration Survey Item Response Total % Undergraduate StdErr Sexual Touching Graduate or Professional Undergraduate Graduate or Professional % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Year in School and Timing of Incidents Undergraduate Current year Freshman 11.6 0.8 3.6 0.6 - - 9.1 0.7 - - Sophomore 9.3 0.9 3.3 0.7 - - 7.0 0.7 - - Junior 10.3 1.0 3.9 0.6 - - 7.3 0.8 - - Senior 6.3 0.8 2.6 0.4 - - 4.5 0.6 - - Since entering college Freshman 11.8 0.8 3.6 0.6 - - 9.2 0.7 - - Sophomore 15.0 1.1 5.5 0.8 - - 11.9 0.9 - - Junior 21.3 1.3 9.6 0.9 - - 15.7 1.1 - - Senior 19.5 1.2 9.3 0.8 - - 13.2 1.1 - - Graduate/Professional Current year 1st year 3.9 0.4 - - 1.4 0.2 - - 3.3 0.3 2nd year 3.7 0.3 - - 1.6 0.3 - - 2.5 0.3 3rd year 5.1 0.6 - - 2.1 0.5 - - 3.5 0.5 4th year 1.2 0.4 - - s s - - s s 5th year s s - - - - - - s s 6th year 2.4 0.6 - - s s - - 2.0 0.6 Table 4.4. Percent of Female Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Absence of Affirmative Consent by Victim Characteristics, Behavior and Enrollment Status1,2 (continued) Penetration Survey Item Response Total % Undergraduate Sexual Touching Graduate or Professional Undergraduate Graduate or Professional StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Since entering college 1Per 2 1st year 4.7 0.4 - - 1.8 0.3 - - 3.8 0.4 2nd year 7.0 0.5 - - 2.9 0.3 - - 4.9 0.5 3rd year 10.1 0.9 - - 3.8 0.7 - - 7.3 0.8 4th year 5.5 0.9 - - 2.8 0.7 - - 3.3 0.8 5th year 8.5 1.4 - - 3.3 0.9 - - 5.6 1.2 6th year 9.3 1.2 - - 4.0 0.8 - - 7.3 1.1 100 students. Unless otherwise specified, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. Table 4.5a. Percent of Female Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Coercion or Absence of Affirmative Consent by Offender Characteristics by Behavior and Tactic1, 2 Absence of Affirmative Consent Coercion Survey Item Response Penetration Sexual Touching Penetration Sexual Touching % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 92.5 5.4 100.0 0.0 98.3 0.6 98.0 0.5 Female s s - - 1.6 0.6 5.3 1.1 Other gender identity - - - - s s - - 1 offender 93.0 5.0 100.0 0.0 70.7 2.2 65.2 1.7 2 offenders s s - - 18.0 1.8 24.0 1.6 3 or more offenders - - - - 11.3 1.3 10.8 1.1 Student 47.0 11.6 - - 72.6 2.2 81.5 1.4 Faculty or instructor 30.1 10.9 s s s s 2.4 0.6 Other staff or administrator s s s s s s 0.8 0.3 Other person affiliated with a university program (ex. internship, study abroad) - - s s 3.6 0.9 0.8 0.3 The person was not affiliated with university - - - - 1.8 0.6 5.4 0.8 Don’t know association with university s s - - 28.0 2.2 16.6 1.4 Offender characteristics Gender Male Number of offenders University affiliation Table 4.5a. Percent of Female Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Coercion or Absence of Affirmative Consent by Offender Characteristics by Behavior and Tactic1, 2 (continued) Absence of Affirmative Consent Coercion Survey Item Response Penetration Sexual Touching Penetration Sexual Touching % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 34.6 10.9 s s 48.0 2.5 19.7 1.4 Someone I had dated or was intimate with s s s s 18.7 1.6 7.6 1.1 Teacher or advisor s s s s - - 1.9 0.5 Co-worker, boss or supervisor s s s s 1.7 0.6 1.4 0.4 32.6 10.6 - - 42.3 2.2 54.9 2.0 Stranger s s - - 12.2 1.4 30.4 1.4 Other - - - - 1.7 0.6 1.3 0.4 Don’t Know - - - - s s 0.8 0.3 Relationship to victim At the time, it was someone I was dating or intimate with Friend or acquaintance 1Per 100 victims. otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. 2Unless Table 4.5b. Percent of Male Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Coercion or Absence of Affirmative Consent by Offender Characteristics by Behavior and Tactic1, 2 Absence of Affirmative Consent Coercion Survey Item Response Penetration Sexual Touching Penetration Sexual Touching % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Male 56.2 16.8 - - 43.8 6.0 49.1 3.8 Female 57.4 19.3 s s 65.0 6.4 59.5 3.7 1 offender 76.2 17.4 s s 67.1 4.9 70.6 3.2 2 offenders s s - - 18.5 4.0 19.8 2.9 3 or more offenders - - - - 14.3 4.0 9.6 2.4 46.3 17.2 s s 78.6 4.2 83.2 3.1 s s - - - - s s 23.8 17.4 - - - - - - Other person affiliated with a university program (ex. internship, study abroad) - - - - - - 3.5 1.4 The person was not affiliated with university - - - - s s 3.9 1.5 Don’t know association with university s s - - 39.7 5.3 19.2 2.9 Offender characteristics Gender Number of offenders University affiliation Student Faculty or instructor Other staff or administrator Table 4.5b. Percent of Male Victims of Nonconsensual Penetration or Sexual Touching Involving Coercion or Absence of Affirmative Consent by Offender Characteristics by Behavior and Tactic1, 2 (continued) Absence of Affirmative Consent Coercion Survey Item Response Penetration Sexual Touching Penetration Sexual Touching % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr At the time, it was someone I was dating or intimate with s s s s 47.3 5.5 9.8 2.1 Someone I had dated or was intimate with s s - - 20.8 4.6 14.8 3.0 Teacher or advisor s s - - - - s s Friend or acquaintance s s - - 40.6 6.0 56.4 3.6 Stranger s s - - 20.2 4.6 26.3 3.3 Other - - - - s s 3.6 1.4 Don’t Know - - - - s s s s Relationship to victim 1Per 100 victims. otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. 2Unless Table 4.6. Percent of Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Sexual Contact Involving Physical Force, Incapacitation, Coercion and Absence of Affirmative Consent Since Enrolling at University by Tactic and Gender 1 Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) TGQN (n=68) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 8.0 0.2 13.0 0.3 3.2 0.2 19.0 3.3 Penetration 3.0 0.1 4.9 0.2 1.1 0.1 9.6 2.5 Sexual Touching 6.4 0.1 10.4 0.3 2.6 0.1 12.5 2.9 8.4 0.2 13.7 0.3 3.4 0.2 20.0 3.4 Penetration 3.6 0.1 5.9 0.2 1.3 0.1 14.9 3.1 Sexual Touching 6.4 0.1 10.4 0.3 2.6 0.1 12.5 2.9 8.5 0.2 13.8 0.3 3.5 0.2 21.1 3.4 Penetration 3.7 0.1 6.0 0.2 1.4 0.1 14.9 3.1 Sexual Touching 6.4 0.1 10.4 0.3 2.6 0.1 13.6 2.9 12.3 0.2 19.9 0.3 5.2 0.2 27.5 4.3 Penetration 5.5 0.1 9.1 0.2 2.0 0.1 19.8 3.6 Sexual Touching 9.5 0.2 15.3 0.3 4.0 0.2 16.3 3.7 Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation; Attempted Penetration using Physical Force Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation or Coercion; Attempted Penetration using physical force Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation or Coercion or Absence of Affirmative Consent; Attempted Penetration using physical force 1TGQN Female (n=5,801) Total = Transgender woman, Transgender man, Genderqueer, gender non-conforming, questioning, not listed. Table 4.7a. Percent of Undergraduates Experiencing Nonconsensual Sexual Contact Involving Physical Force, Incapacitation, Coercion and Absence of Affirmative Consent Since Enrolling at University by Tactic and Gender 1 Survey Item Response Male (n=1,951) TGQN (n=28) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 14.9 0.4 24.4 0.7 6.1 0.4 25.5 5.7 Penetration 5.8 0.2 9.7 0.4 2.2 0.2 s s Sexual Touching 12.0 0.4 19.9 0.6 4.8 0.3 19.1 5.3 15.7 0.4 25.5 0.7 6.5 0.4 25.5 5.7 Penetration 7.0 0.3 11.6 0.5 2.7 0.2 12.6 4.3 Sexual Touching 12.0 0.4 19.9 0.6 4.8 0.3 19.1 5.3 15.8 0.4 25.7 0.7 6.7 0.4 28.1 5.9 Penetration 7.1 0.3 11.7 0.5 2.8 0.2 12.6 4.3 Sexual Touching 12.1 0.4 20.0 0.6 4.8 0.3 21.7 5.5 21.8 0.5 35.0 0.8 9.4 0.5 38.5 8.4 Penetration 10.0 0.3 16.9 0.5 3.7 0.3 19.2 6.0 Sexual Touching 16.9 0.4 27.4 0.8 7.1 0.4 28.6 7.7 Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation; Attempted Penetration using Physical Force Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation or Coercion; Attempted Penetration using physical force Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation or Coercion or Absence of Affirmative Consent; Attempted Penetration using physical force 1TGQN Female (n=2,096) Total = Transgender woman, Transgender man, Genderqueer, gender non-conforming, questioning, not listed. Table 4.7b. Percent of Graduate and Professional Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Sexual Contact Involving Physical Force, Incapacitation, Coercion and Absence of Affirmative Consent Since Enrolling at University by Tactic and Gender1 Survey Item Response Male (n=3,284) TGQN (n=40) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 4.4 0.2 7.2 0.3 1.7 0.2 14.6 4.1 Penetration 1.5 0.1 2.5 0.2 0.5 0.1 11.7 3.6 Sexual Touching 3.4 0.1 5.5 0.2 1.5 0.1 8.2 3.3 4.6 0.2 7.6 0.3 1.7 0.2 16.4 4.3 Penetration 1.8 0.1 3.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 16.4 4.3 Sexual Touching 3.4 0.1 5.5 0.2 1.5 0.1 8.2 3.3 4.7 0.2 7.7 0.3 1.8 0.2 16.4 4.3 Penetration 1.9 0.1 3.2 0.2 0.6 0.1 16.4 4.3 Sexual Touching 3.5 0.1 5.6 0.2 1.5 0.1 8.2 3.3 7.5 0.2 12.1 0.3 3.0 0.2 20.2 4.5 Penetration 3.2 0.1 5.2 0.2 1.1 0.1 20.2 4.5 Sexual Touching 5.7 0.2 9.1 0.3 2.4 0.2 8.2 3.3 Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation; Attempted Penetration using Physical Force Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation or Coercion; Attempted Penetration using physical force Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation or Coercion or Absence of Affirmative Consent; Attempted Penetration using physical force 1TGQN Female (n=3,705) Total = Transgender woman, Transgender man, Genderqueer, gender non-conforming, questioning, not listed. Table 4.8. Percent of Seniors Experiencing Nonconsensual Sexual Contact Involving Physical Force, Incapacitation, Coercion and Absence of Affirmative Consent Since Enrolling at University by Tactic and Gender 1 Survey Item Response Male (n=495) TGQN (n=8) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 17.5 0.7 27.3 1.4 7.7 0.6 s s Penetration 7.6 0.4 12.1 0.9 3.3 0.5 - - Sexual Touching 13.8 0.8 22.2 1.3 5.4 0.6 s s 18.8 0.8 29.2 1.4 8.4 0.7 s s Penetration 9.4 0.5 14.9 1.0 4.0 0.5 - - Sexual Touching 13.8 0.8 22.2 1.3 5.4 0.6 s s 19.0 0.8 29.7 1.4 8.4 0.7 s s Penetration 9.6 0.6 15.4 1.0 4.0 0.5 - - Sexual Touching 13.9 0.8 22.4 1.3 5.4 0.6 s s 26.1 1.0 39.8 1.6 12.2 0.9 31.3 14.6 Penetration 13.3 0.7 21.6 1.2 5.1 0.6 s s Sexual Touching 19.5 0.9 29.6 1.4 9.1 0.9 31.3 14.6 Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation; Attempted Penetration using Physical Force Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation or Coercion; Attempted Penetration using physical force Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation or Coercion or Absence of Affirmative Consent; Attempted Penetration using physical force 1TGQN Female (n=596) Total = Transgender woman, Transgender man, Genderqueer, gender non-conforming, questioning, not listed. Table 4.9. Percent of Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Sexual Contact Involving Physical Force, Incapacitation, Coercion and Absence of Affirmative Consent for Current Year by Tactic and Gender 1 Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) TGQN (n=68) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 4.1 0.1 6.4 0.2 2.0 0.1 10.1 2.6 Penetration 1.2 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.5 0.1 4.4 1.8 Sexual Touching 3.3 0.1 5.2 0.2 1.6 0.1 8.9 2.5 4.2 0.1 6.6 0.2 2.0 0.1 10.1 2.6 Penetration 1.4 0.1 2.2 0.1 0.5 0.1 6.8 2.1 Sexual Touching 3.3 0.1 5.2 0.2 1.6 0.1 8.9 2.5 4.3 0.1 6.7 0.2 2.0 0.1 11.1 2.7 Penetration 1.4 0.1 2.3 0.1 0.5 0.1 6.8 2.1 Sexual Touching 3.4 0.1 5.2 0.2 1.6 0.1 9.9 2.5 6.7 0.1 10.6 0.3 3.1 0.1 17.1 3.1 Penetration 2.4 0.1 4.0 0.2 0.9 0.1 9.5 2.4 Sexual Touching 5.4 0.1 8.4 0.2 2.5 0.1 13.2 2.9 Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation; Attempted Penetration using Physical Force Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation or Coercion; Attempted Penetration using Physical Force Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation or Coercion or Absence of Affirmative Consent; Attempted Penetration using Physical Force 1TGQN Female (n=5,801) Total = Transgender woman, Transgender man, Genderqueer, gender non-conforming, questioning, not listed. Table 4.10a. Percent of Undergraduates Experiencing Nonconsensual Sexual Contact Involving Physical Force, Incapacitation, Coercion and Absence of Affirmative Consent for Current Year by Tactic and Gender 1 Survey Item Response Male (n=1,951) TGQN (n=28) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 7.7 0.3 12.0 0.5 3.7 0.3 14.4 5.1 Penetration 2.2 0.2 3.7 0.3 1.0 0.1 - - Sexual Touching 6.3 0.2 9.8 0.4 3.0 0.3 14.4 5.1 8.0 0.3 12.5 0.5 3.8 0.3 14.4 5.1 Penetration 2.6 0.2 4.3 0.3 1.1 0.1 s s Sexual Touching 6.3 0.2 9.8 0.4 3.0 0.3 14.4 5.1 8.0 0.3 12.6 0.5 3.8 0.3 17.0 5.4 Penetration 2.7 0.2 4.4 0.3 1.1 0.1 s s Sexual Touching 6.4 0.2 9.9 0.4 3.0 0.3 17.0 5.4 11.9 0.3 18.6 0.6 5.6 0.4 24.3 5.5 Penetration 4.2 0.2 7.1 0.4 1.6 0.2 9.7 3.7 Sexual Touching 9.5 0.3 14.7 0.6 4.5 0.3 20.8 5.5 Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation; Attempted Penetration using Physical Force Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation or Coercion; Attempted Penetration using Physical Force Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation or Coercion or Absence of Affirmative Consent; Attempted Penetration using Physical Force 1TGQN Female (n=2,096) Total = Transgender woman, Transgender man, Genderqueer, gender non-conforming, questioning, not listed. Table 4.10b. Percent of Graduate and Professional Students Experiencing Nonconsensual Sexual Contact Involving Physical Force, Incapacitation, Coercion and Absence of Affirmative Consent for Current Year by Tactic and Gender 1 Survey Item Response Male (n=3,284) TGQN (n=40) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 2.3 0.1 3.5 0.2 1.1 0.1 7.3 2.9 Penetration 0.6 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.1 7.3 2.9 Sexual Touching 1.8 0.1 2.8 0.2 0.9 0.1 s s 2.3 0.1 3.5 0.2 1.1 0.1 7.3 2.9 Penetration 0.7 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 7.3 2.9 Sexual Touching 1.8 0.1 2.8 0.2 0.9 0.1 s s 2.4 0.1 3.6 0.2 1.1 0.1 7.3 2.9 Penetration 0.8 0.1 1.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 7.3 2.9 Sexual Touching 1.9 0.1 2.8 0.2 0.9 0.1 s s 4.1 0.2 6.5 0.3 1.7 0.2 12.3 3.7 Penetration 1.5 0.1 2.5 0.2 0.5 0.1 9.4 3.2 Sexual Touching 3.3 0.1 5.2 0.2 1.4 0.1 8.2 3.3 Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation; Attempted Penetration using Physical Force Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation or Coercion; Attempted Penetration using Physical Force Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation or Coercion or Absence of Affirmative Consent; Attempted Penetration using Physical Force 1TGQN Female (n=3,705) Total = Transgender woman, Transgender man, Genderqueer, gender non-conforming, questioning, not listed. Table 4.11. Percent of Seniors Experiencing Nonconsensual Sexual Contact Involving Physical Force, Incapacitation, Coercion and Absence of Affirmative Consent for Current Year by Tactic and Gender 1 Survey Item Response Male (n=495) TGQN (n=8) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 6.2 0.5 9.4 0.8 2.8 0.4 s s Penetration 1.7 0.2 2.4 0.4 1.0 0.3 - - Sexual Touching 5.0 0.5 7.7 0.8 2.1 0.4 s s 6.6 0.5 10.1 0.8 3.1 0.4 s s Penetration 2.2 0.3 3.2 0.5 1.2 0.3 - - Sexual Touching 5.0 0.5 7.7 0.8 2.1 0.4 s s 6.8 0.5 10.4 0.9 3.1 0.4 s s Penetration 2.4 0.3 3.5 0.5 1.2 0.3 - - Sexual Touching 5.0 0.5 7.7 0.8 2.1 0.4 s s 10.6 0.6 15.3 1.0 5.6 0.7 s s Penetration 3.7 0.3 5.8 0.6 1.8 0.4 - - Sexual Touching 8.0 0.6 11.3 0.9 4.4 0.7 s s Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation; Attempted Penetration using Physical Force Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation or Coercion; Attempted Penetration using Physical Force Completed using Physical Force or Incapacitation or Coercion or Absence of Affirmative Consent; Attempted Penetration using Physical Force 1TGQN Female (n=596) Total = Transgender woman, Transgender man, Genderqueer, gender non-conforming, questioning, not listed. Table 5.1a. Percent of Students Experiencing Harassment by Type, Gender, Enrollment Status and Characteristics of Harassment1 Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 48.5 0.3 72.7 0.7 49.6 0.6 51.3 0.7 34.0 0.6 made sexual remarks, or insulting/offensive jokes or stories 32.2 0.3 53.7 0.9 36.1 0.5 28.7 0.7 19.6 0.5 made inappropriate comments regarding body, appearance, or sexual activity 37.7 0.3 60.8 0.8 35.7 0.6 41.9 0.7 25.9 0.6 said crude or gross sexual things or tried to engage in sexual conversation 15.3 0.2 26.8 0.7 13.7 0.3 18.0 0.6 9.7 0.4 transmitted offensive sexual remarks, stories, jokes, pictures, videos 7.1 0.1 12.9 0.5 6.4 0.3 8.2 0.5 4.4 0.3 asked to go out, get dinner, drinks, or have sex, despite refusal 9.0 0.2 23.4 0.7 10.1 0.3 5.2 0.3 2.8 0.2 1 person 29.1 0.4 23.8 0.7 34.1 0.8 24.5 0.9 31.7 1.0 2 persons 27.8 0.4 27.8 0.9 30.1 0.8 22.5 1.0 28.7 1.1 3 or more persons 43.1 0.4 48.4 0.9 35.8 0.8 53.0 1.0 39.6 1.0 Percent of Students Reporting Harassment University-associated individual: Percent of Victims of Harassment Number of offenders Table 5.1a. Percent of Students Experiencing Harassment by Type, Gender, Enrollment Status and Characteristics of Harassment1,2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 0 times 19.2 0.4 16.5 0.8 21.7 0.6 15.7 0.7 21.1 0.9 1 time 21.1 0.4 21.1 0.9 22.7 0.8 16.6 0.8 22.5 0.9 2 times 23.4 0.4 24.1 0.8 24.3 0.7 22.6 0.8 22.5 1.0 3-5 times 26.1 0.4 28.4 0.8 24.2 0.8 28.5 0.8 24.4 0.9 6-9 times 5.4 0.2 6.3 0.6 4.6 0.3 7.2 0.6 4.1 0.4 10 or more times 4.7 0.2 3.5 0.3 2.6 0.2 9.4 0.6 5.2 0.5 Student 91.2 0.3 96.4 0.3 85.8 0.5 97.5 0.4 88.3 0.7 Faculty 13.1 0.3 6.5 0.4 21.8 0.6 3.2 0.4 15.3 0.6 Coach, religious leader, or other non-academic advisor 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.1 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 Other staff or administrator 4.9 0.2 3.5 0.3 7.0 0.4 2.3 0.3 5.6 0.5 Other person affiliated with a university program (ex. internship, study abroad) 2.8 0.1 3.3 0.4 3.5 0.3 1.4 0.3 2.1 0.3 The person was not affiliated with [University] 4.3 0.2 4.0 0.3 4.2 0.3 2.7 0.3 5.7 0.4 Don’t know association with [University] 4.5 0.2 5.8 0.3 4.1 0.4 5.2 0.4 3.1 0.4 Number of incidents since beginning of 2014 term Association with university Table 5.1a. Percent of Students Experiencing Harassment by Type, Gender, Enrollment Status and Characteristics of Harassment1,2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr At the time, it was someone I was dating or intimate with 5.1 0.2 10.7 0.6 4.2 0.3 3.4 0.4 1.9 0.3 Someone I had dated or was intimate with 5.6 0.2 11.0 0.6 4.6 0.4 4.4 0.5 2.6 0.3 Teacher or advisor 10.1 0.3 5.1 0.4 16.6 0.5 2.9 0.4 11.2 0.5 Co-worker, boss or supervisor 7.1 0.2 2.9 0.3 10.5 0.5 1.6 0.3 10.9 0.6 Friend or acquaintance 79.0 0.4 81.2 0.6 75.2 0.7 86.0 0.8 76.6 0.8 Stranger 25.9 0.5 42.8 1.2 18.0 0.6 29.7 1.1 16.5 0.8 Other 5.6 0.2 4.4 0.4 7.0 0.5 4.7 0.4 5.7 0.4 Don’t Know 2.5 0.2 2.1 0.2 2.2 0.2 2.7 0.4 3.1 0.4 Relationship to victim Table 5.1a. Percent of Students Experiencing Harassment by Type, Gender, Enrollment Status and Characteristics of Harassment1,2 (continued) TGQN (n=68) Undergraduate (n=28) Graduate or Professional (n=40) % StdErr % StdErr 86.6 4.7 86.0 4.2 made sexual remarks, or insulting/offensive jokes or stories 77.4 5.9 69.2 6.0 made inappropriate comments regarding body, appearance, or sexual activity 78.5 5.2 71.7 5.6 said crude or gross sexual things or tried to engage in sexual conversation 50.8 7.4 24.6 5.2 transmitted offensive sexual remarks, stories, jokes, pictures, videos 16.3 4.5 s s asked to go out, get dinner, drinks, or have sex, despite refusal 37.8 8.3 24.3 4.8 1 person s s 25.6 5.4 2 persons 30.5 6.0 30.7 5.8 3 or more persons 65.2 7.7 43.7 5.7 Survey Item Response Percent of Students Reporting Harassment University-associated individual: Percent of Victims of Harassment Number of offenders Table 5.1a. Percent of Students Experiencing Harassment by Type, Gender, Enrollment Status and Characteristics of Harassment1,2 (continued) TGQN (n=68) Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=28) Graduate or Professional (n=40) % StdErr % StdErr 0 times 16.2 7.4 24.2 4.7 1 time 19.3 6.1 22.8 4.6 2 times 10.0 4.1 20.1 4.8 3-5 times 33.6 6.8 27.0 5.8 6-9 times 12.6 5.2 s s s s s s Student 88.6 5.6 91.5 3.1 Faculty 23.1 7.0 29.9 5.6 - - - - 11.9 4.9 s s Other person affiliated with a university program (ex. internship, study abroad) s s s s The person was not affiliated with [University] - - 8.3 3.0 Don’t know association with [University] s s - - Number of incidents since beginning of 2014 term 10 or more times Association with university Coach, religious leader, or other non-academic advisor Other staff or administrator Table 5.1a. Percent of Students Experiencing Harassment by Type, Gender, Enrollment Status and Characteristics of Harassment1,2 (continued) TGQN (n=68) Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=28) Graduate or Professional (n=40) % StdErr % StdErr 15.4 4.8 s s s s s s 23.1 7.0 27.8 5.5 s s 8.2 3.3 Friend or acquaintance 78.8 7.0 78.8 4.3 Stranger 39.3 8.3 23.5 4.9 Other s s 8.3 3.3 Don’t Know - - 8.3 3.0 Relationship to victim At the time, it was someone I was dating or intimate with Someone I had dated or was intimate with Teacher or advisor Co-worker, boss or supervisor 1Unless 2TGQN otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. = Transgender woman, Transgender man, Genderqueer, gender non-conforming, questioning, not listed. Table 5.1b. Percent of Victims of Harassment Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Male (n=5,235) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Friend 55.1 0.5 69.4 0.8 64.5 0.9 38.5 1.1 40.0 0.9 Family member 12.0 0.3 13.7 0.6 17.0 0.6 3.9 0.4 9.0 0.6 Faculty 2.9 0.2 2.2 0.3 5.1 0.4 1.0 0.2 1.6 0.3 Someone else 5.9 0.2 5.9 0.4 7.7 0.4 3.5 0.4 5.0 0.4 I didn’t tell anyone else 40.9 0.5 29.7 0.8 30.1 0.7 59.1 1.1 53.5 0.9 Reporting to Others Table 5.1b. Percent of Victims of Harassment Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Total Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Contacted at least one program in university list 5.6 0.2 8.4 0.6 5.5 0.4 3.8 0.5 3.9 0.4 Contacted Harvard University Health Services (HUHS) 56.6 2.1 47.1 2.8 60.4 2.9 52.1 5.7 71.6 4.1 Fall of 2014 - present 60.4 2.6 54.1 4.7 63.0 4.4 64.6 8.5 61.5 6.5 Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 19.0 2.0 26.9 3.6 16.9 3.3 13.0 5.3 13.6 4.6 Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 8.9 1.5 10.8 2.9 6.5 2.2 s s 9.6 3.6 Prior to Fall of 2012 11.7 2.0 8.3 2.7 13.6 2.8 s s 15.3 4.3 Reporting to a Program Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Not at all 16.9 2.2 17.5 3.7 21.8 3.9 16.0 6.4 10.8 4.2 A little 23.1 2.1 27.5 4.3 22.5 3.8 21.3 6.6 17.7 4.6 Somewhat 35.1 2.9 31.0 4.7 34.3 4.8 42.2 9.2 40.4 6.6 Very 20.3 2.1 21.8 3.8 17.6 3.3 s s 24.3 5.7 Extremely 4.6 1.2 s s s s s s s s Table 5.1b. Percent of Victims of Harassment Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Total Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 20.2 1.7 22.5 2.8 17.0 2.6 28.2 5.5 13.8 4.6 Fall of 2014 - present 38.1 4.1 40.2 6.1 29.9 7.2 28.5 10.8 64.3 14.2 Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 26.0 4.6 26.6 6.1 23.8 7.6 26.8 10.4 s s Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 24.4 3.3 28.7 6.0 25.2 7.5 33.0 11.9 - - Prior to Fall of 2012 11.5 3.0 s s 21.1 8.2 s s s s Contacted Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Not at all 19.1 3.6 25.8 6.6 17.6 6.4 s s s s A little 18.8 3.9 20.2 6.3 20.2 7.9 s s - - Somewhat 36.7 4.5 30.0 5.9 36.5 9.2 31.7 11.5 78.7 15.8 Very 16.2 3.6 14.0 6.0 s s 28.2 10.8 - - Extremely 9.2 2.2 10.1 3.9 s s s s - - Table 5.1b. Percent of Victims of Harassment Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 4.9 0.9 3.5 1.3 6.3 1.8 9.5 3.3 - - Fall of 2014 - present 78.9 8.4 100 0.0 84.9 11.7 73.7 20.9 - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 8.5 6.1 - - - - - - - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 7.2 5.1 - - - - s s - - Prior to Fall of 2012 5.4 3.8 - - s s - - - - s s - - s s - - - - 58.0 10.0 85.5 14.1 s s s s - - Somewhat s s s s - - s s - - Very s s - - s s s s - - Extremely - - - - - - - - - - Contacted Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Not at all A little Table 5.1b. Percent of Victims of Harassment Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Total Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 24.9 1.8 32.9 2.9 21.6 3.0 21.2 4.4 15.7 4.4 Fall of 2014 - present 67.8 3.2 59.3 5.0 88.6 5.3 66.1 12.2 66.5 13.7 Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 19.6 3.0 31.3 5.2 - - s s - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 6.6 2.0 9.4 3.1 - - - - s s Prior to Fall of 2012 6.0 2.0 - - s s s s s s Contacted Office of Sexual Assault Prevention & Response (OSAPR) Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Not at all 12.0 2.5 18.4 4.0 s s - - - - A little 11.6 2.2 14.6 3.4 s s - - s s Somewhat 20.5 3.2 7.5 2.5 37.2 7.0 55.9 13.0 - - Very 24.8 3.8 24.9 5.0 15.6 6.2 33.7 12.3 s s Extremely 31.0 3.8 34.6 5.4 26.7 6.5 s s 53.9 21.1 Table 5.1b. Percent of Victims of Harassment Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 20.5 1.6 22.7 2.9 27.1 2.8 s s 14.1 3.8 Fall of 2014 - present 82.1 2.8 80.3 5.3 88.8 3.5 s s 70.9 14.6 Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 15.2 2.7 19.7 5.3 8.5 3.2 - - s s Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 s s - - - - - - s s Prior to Fall of 2012 s s - - s s - - - - Not at all 13.9 3.0 10.1 5.1 13.7 4.5 - - s s A little 11.5 2.7 12.3 4.8 11.1 4.4 s s - - Somewhat 17.9 3.0 15.9 5.3 18.9 4.8 s s s s Very 31.5 3.7 35.8 5.6 31.1 6.1 - - s s Extremely 25.1 3.5 25.9 4.6 25.3 5.7 - - s s Contacted Title IX Coordinators Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Table 5.1b. Percent of Victims of Harassment Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 2.6 0.6 2.7 1.0 2.6 1.0 6.2 2.4 - - 81.0 8.9 s s s s 100 0.0 - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 s s s s s s - - - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - Prior to Fall of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - Not at all - - - - - - - - - - A little s s s s - - - - - - Somewhat s s - - s s - - - - 65.7 11.7 s s s s 100 0.0 - - s s - - s s - - - - Contacted University Chaplains Most recent contact Fall of 2014 - present Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Very Extremely Table 5.1b. Percent of Victims of Harassment Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 4.6 0.8 10.0 1.9 - - s s s s Fall of 2014 - present 65.5 9.1 66.4 10.2 - - s s s s Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 28.1 8.6 25.2 9.2 - - - - s s Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 s s s s - - - - - - Prior to Fall of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - Not at all s s s s - - - - - - A little - - - - - - - - - - Somewhat 16.2 6.6 20.6 8.5 - - - - - - Very 59.0 8.9 47.7 10.7 - - s s s s Extremely 18.9 7.1 24.1 8.8 - - - - - - Contacted Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment (SASH) Tutors (primarily undergraduate organization) Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Table 5.1b. Percent of Victims of Harassment Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 17.3 1.4 30.1 3.2 s s 34.5 6.6 - - Fall of 2014 - present 63.1 5.1 60.1 6.5 - - 79.5 9.1 - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 22.8 3.9 24.1 5.0 - - 20.5 9.1 - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 12.2 3.5 15.8 5.1 s s - - - - s s - - s s - - - - Not at all 8.1 2.5 s s - - s s - - A little 10.6 2.8 9.0 3.2 - - 19.2 8.6 - - Somewhat 21.0 3.8 22.4 4.2 s s 19.2 8.6 - - Very 32.0 4.5 35.2 6.0 s s s s - - Extremely 28.2 3.8 26.8 4.7 - - 31.3 9.7 - - Contacted Undergraduate peer support organization (for example, CAARE, Contact, Room 13, and Response) Most recent contact Prior to Fall of 2012 Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Table 5.1b. Percent of Victims of Harassment Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 2.5 0.6 s s 1.9 0.9 s s - - Fall of 2014 - present 35.6 12.3 s s s s - - - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 64.4 12.3 76.9 18.5 - - s s - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - Prior to Fall of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - Not at all - - - - - - - - - - A little s s s s s s - - - - Somewhat 41.4 15.0 s s s s s s - - Very 15.5 11.3 - - - - - - - - s s s s - - - - - - Contacted Other Police Departments (for example, Cambridge Police, Boston Police, or Police at other colleges or university) Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Extremely Table 5.1b. Percent of Victims of Harassment Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 4.4 0.9 4.7 1.3 5.4 1.6 s s s s Fall of 2014 - present 66.3 8.5 48.7 17.4 81.5 14.6 s s - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 27.5 7.8 s s s s - - s s Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 s s s s - - - - - - Prior to Fall of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - 28.4 9.5 s s s s - - - - A little - - - - - - - - - - Somewhat s s s s - - - - - - Very 35.5 8.9 s s 47.1 14.0 - - s s Extremely 29.8 11.8 s s s s s s - - Contacted Other sexual assault support program (for example, Boston Area Rape Crisis Center, BARCC) Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Not at all Table 5.1b. Percent of Victims of Harassment Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Did not know where to go or who to tell 5.6 0.2 8.2 0.5 6.7 0.4 3.3 0.4 2.8 0.3 Felt embarrassed, ashamed, or that it would be too emotionally difficult 4.2 0.2 6.9 0.4 4.8 0.4 2.4 0.3 1.9 0.3 I did not think anyone would believe me 1.5 0.1 1.7 0.2 2.0 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.8 0.2 I did not think it was serious enough to report 82.9 0.4 85.5 0.7 83.1 0.6 82.4 0.9 80.8 0.9 I did not want the person to get into trouble 14.6 0.3 12.2 0.6 18.1 0.6 8.8 0.6 16.4 0.8 I feared negative social consequences 11.4 0.3 11.8 0.5 15.5 0.6 5.9 0.5 9.3 0.6 I did not think anything would be done 15.2 0.3 19.3 0.6 18.5 0.6 9.9 0.7 10.0 0.6 I feared it would not be kept confidential 7.5 0.3 7.9 0.5 10.6 0.5 3.1 0.5 5.8 0.5 Incident was not on campus or associated with the school 4.8 0.2 3.3 0.3 7.1 0.4 2.1 0.3 5.0 0.5 Incident did not occur while attending school 1.7 0.1 1.4 0.2 1.8 0.2 1.0 0.2 2.4 0.3 Other 13.4 0.3 10.5 0.7 13.0 0.5 15.5 0.8 15.0 0.7 Did not contact any programs Reason 1 2 Per 100 victims. Unless otherwise specified, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. Table 5.2a. Percent of Students in Partnered Relationships Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence by Type, Gender, Enrollment Status and Characteristics of Harassment1,2,3 Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 6.7 0.2 11.4 0.5 5.4 0.3 8.1 0.5 5.3 0.3 Partner controlled or tried to control 4.1 0.1 6.9 0.4 3.5 0.2 4.9 0.4 3.1 0.2 Partner threatened to harm student, family, or themselves 2.4 0.1 4.3 0.4 1.9 0.2 2.8 0.3 1.7 0.1 Partner used physical force 2.5 0.1 4.5 0.4 1.9 0.2 2.7 0.3 2.1 0.2 1 person 92.0 0.8 91.6 1.8 92.2 1.5 93.3 1.6 92.2 1.7 2 persons 6.4 0.7 6.7 1.7 6.4 1.4 5.6 1.4 5.8 1.3 3 or more persons 1.6 0.3 1.7 0.7 s s s s 2.0 0.8 0 times 37.7 1.3 39.5 2.7 42.9 2.8 42.7 3.2 27.4 2.6 1 time 23.9 1.2 30.8 2.3 22.6 2.1 18.2 2.3 23.2 2.4 2 times 15.7 0.9 12.5 1.8 13.8 2.1 14.1 2.1 21.1 2.5 3-5 times 16.3 0.9 10.0 1.6 16.1 1.8 16.8 2.3 22.0 2.3 6-9 times 1.5 0.4 2.8 1.0 1.8 0.7 s s s s 10 or more times 5.0 0.6 4.4 1.0 2.8 0.8 7.5 1.8 5.8 1.4 Percent of Students in Partnered Relationships Reporting Intimate Partner Violence Percent of Victims of Intimate Partner Violence Number of offenders Number of incidents since beginning of 2014 term Table 5.2a. Percent of Students in Partnered Relationships Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence by Type, Gender, Enrollment Status and Characteristics of Harassment1,2,3 (continued) TGQN (n=68) Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=28) Graduate or Professional (n=40) % StdErr % StdErr 25.1 7.4 s s Partner controlled or tried to control 17.3 7.2 s s Partner threatened to harm student, family, or themselves 16.1 7.0 s s Partner used physical force 21.8 7.2 - - 1 person 62.6 27.3 s s 2 persons s s - - 3 or more persons - - - - 0 times s s s s 1 time s s - - 2 times s s - - 3-5 times s s - - 6-9 times - - - - 10 or more times - - - - Percent of Students in Partnered Relationships Reporting Intimate Partner Violence Percent of Victims of Intimate Partner Violence Number of offenders Number of incidents since beginning of 2014 term 1Unless otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. of students who reported being in a partnered relationship since entering college (question A13 on questionnaire). 3TGQN = Transgender woman, Transgender man, Genderqueer, gender non-conforming, questioning, not listed. 2Percent Table 5.2b. Percent of Victims of Intimate Partner Violence Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2 Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Male (n=5,235) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Friend 61.6 1.4 72.1 2.9 62.9 2.9 57.9 3.3 53.2 3.0 Family member 21.7 1.0 23.8 2.3 28.3 2.5 16.2 2.4 17.0 2.0 Faculty 3.8 0.4 4.9 1.1 3.4 0.9 2.6 1.0 4.1 1.0 Someone else 7.5 0.6 7.5 1.2 8.2 1.4 5.8 1.7 8.3 1.4 I didn’t tell anyone else 33.6 1.4 25.0 2.6 31.7 2.5 37.0 3.1 41.2 2.9 Reporting to Others Table 5.2b. Percent of Victims of Intimate Partner Violence Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Total Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Contacted at least one program in university list 18.0 1.0 22.5 2.4 22.6 2.2 10.3 1.7 15.6 1.9 Contacted Harvard University Health Services (HUHS) 74.1 3.4 57.9 5.7 85.1 4.5 69.0 9.6 81.4 5.6 Fall of 2014 - present 47.7 3.7 50.0 7.1 37.5 7.2 53.3 13.2 56.4 8.7 Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 23.5 2.7 35.3 7.1 20.7 4.3 31.2 11.8 14.6 5.6 Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 14.1 2.9 14.7 5.7 15.8 4.5 s s s s Prior to Fall of 2012 14.7 2.6 - - 26.0 5.1 - - 18.1 6.4 Reporting to a Program Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Not at all 5.5 1.7 - - s s s s s s A little 22.8 2.8 24.6 6.4 28.3 5.9 s s 19.5 6.8 Somewhat 28.3 2.9 35.8 6.5 33.3 5.6 s s 16.3 5.9 Very 31.6 3.2 30.8 7.5 23.0 5.7 49.8 13.4 38.4 9.2 Extremely 11.7 2.6 s s 9.9 3.3 s s 15.8 6.0 Table 5.2b. Percent of Victims of Intimate Partner Violence Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 12.3 2.3 12.9 3.8 14.7 4.4 s s 11.1 4.4 Fall of 2014 - present 30.3 11.0 58.0 19.4 s s - - - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 39.3 10.6 s s s s s s s s Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 s s - - s s - - s s Prior to Fall of 2012 s s - - s s - - s s s s - - s s - - s s A little 26.8 8.5 s s 50.8 22.2 - - - - Somewhat 18.2 7.0 s s s s - - s s Very 37.0 10.7 s s s s s s s s s s s s - - - - - - Contacted Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Not at all Extremely Table 5.2b. Percent of Victims of Intimate Partner Violence Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 2.7 1.0 s s s s - - - - 100 _ s s s s - - - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - Prior to Fall of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - Not at all s s - - s s - - - - A little s s s s - - - - - - Somewhat - - - - - - - - - - Very - - - - - - - - - - Extremely - - - - - - - - - - Contacted Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) Most recent contact Fall of 2014 - present Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Table 5.2b. Percent of Victims of Intimate Partner Violence Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 15.2 2.2 20.1 4.0 18.2 4.3 - - 12.4 4.9 90.9 4.5 100 0.0 89.9 7.5 - - s s Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 s s - - - - - - s s Prior to Fall of 2012 s s - - s s - - - - s s s s - - - - s s 17.6 7.0 - - 44.7 15.6 - - - - s s s s - - - - - - 50.3 7.8 53.8 13.8 38.4 14.7 - - s s s s s s s s - - - - Contacted Office of Sexual Assault Prevention & Response (OSAPR) Most recent contact Fall of 2014 - present Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Not at all A little Somewhat Very Extremely Table 5.2b. Percent of Victims of Intimate Partner Violence Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 9.9 1.9 21.2 4.4 10.2 3.3 - - - - 89.8 7.3 84.7 11.1 100 0.0 - - - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 s s s s - - - - - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - Prior to Fall of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - Not at all - - - - - - - - - - A little s s - - s s - - - - Somewhat 24.6 8.7 s s s s - - - - Very 39.0 9.7 59.0 14.1 - - - - - - Extremely 26.2 10.0 s s s s - - - - Contacted Title IX Coordinators Most recent contact Fall of 2014 - present Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Table 5.2b. Percent of Victims of Intimate Partner Violence Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 2.1 0.8 s s - - s s - - Fall of 2014 - present s s s s - - - - - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 s s s s - - s s - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - Prior to Fall of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - Not at all - - - - - - - - - - A little - - - - - - - - - - Somewhat - - - - - - - - - - Very s s s s - - s s - - Extremely s s s s - - - - - - Contacted University Chaplains Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Table 5.2b. Percent of Victims of Intimate Partner Violence Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 4.6 1.2 14.9 3.8 - - - - - - Fall of 2014 - present 69.4 15.0 69.4 15.0 - - - - - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 30.6 15.0 s s - - - - - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - Prior to Fall of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - Not at all - - - - - - - - - - A little - - - - - - - - - - Somewhat 14.4 10.9 s s - - - - - - Very 18.1 13.5 s s - - - - - - Extremely 67.5 15.8 67.5 15.8 - - - - - - Contacted Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment (SASH) Tutors (primarily undergraduate organization) Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Table 5.2b. Percent of Victims of Intimate Partner Violence Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 11.2 1.8 19.6 4.6 s s 39.0 10.2 - - Fall of 2014 - present 50.3 10.5 65.3 14.1 - - s s - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 43.5 10.4 34.7 14.1 - - 62.4 18.3 - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - Prior to Fall of 2012 s s - - s s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A little 18.1 6.7 s s - - s s - - Somewhat 37.4 10.1 38.3 14.8 - - s s - - s s s s s s - - - - 31.7 9.6 s s - - s s - - Contacted Undergraduate peer support organization (for example, CAARE, Contact, Room 13, and Response) Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Not at all Very Extremely Table 5.2b. Percent of Victims of Intimate Partner Violence Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 3.3 1.1 8.0 3.1 - - - - s s Fall of 2014 - present s s s s - - - - - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 s s s s - - - - - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 s s - - - - - - s s Prior to Fall of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - Not at all s s s s - - - - - - A little - - - - - - - - - - Somewhat - - - - - - - - - - 74.1 20.5 s s - - - - s s - - - - - - - - - - Contacted Other Police Departments (for example, Cambridge Police, Boston Police, or Police at other colleges or university) Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Very Extremely Table 5.2b. Percent of Victims of Intimate Partner Violence Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 4.4 1.1 s s 8.9 2.9 - - - - 67.0 16.0 s s 79.3 16.7 - - - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 s s s s - - - - - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - Prior to Fall of 2012 s s - - s s - - - - Not at all - - - - - - - - - - A little s s - - s s - - - - Somewhat s s s s - - - - - - Very s s - - s s - - - - Extremely s s s s - - - - - - Contacted Other sexual assault support program (for example, Boston Area Rape Crisis Center, BARCC) Most recent contact Fall of 2014 - present Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Table 5.2b. Percent of Victims of Intimate Partner Violence Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Did not know where to go or who to tell 8.3 0.8 9.7 1.7 8.5 1.5 6.8 1.6 7.3 1.6 Felt embarrassed, ashamed, or that it would be too emotionally difficult 14.4 1.1 15.8 2.2 19.0 2.3 9.9 1.9 11.8 2.2 I did not think anyone would believe me 5.1 0.7 2.8 1.0 7.0 1.6 4.4 1.4 6.1 1.5 I did not think it was serious enough to report 64.8 1.5 59.9 2.9 58.9 2.9 73.5 3.1 68.4 3.3 I did not want the person to get into trouble 24.2 1.4 24.2 2.6 25.1 2.2 20.0 2.7 24.9 2.7 I feared negative social consequences 12.2 0.8 11.1 1.8 18.5 2.1 9.2 2.0 8.7 1.6 I did not think anything would be done 12.3 1.0 18.5 2.6 13.3 2.0 9.9 2.1 7.3 1.5 I feared it would not be kept confidential 9.1 0.9 7.5 1.6 14.0 2.2 7.3 1.7 6.9 1.3 Incident was not on campus or associated with the school 28.6 1.4 19.8 2.3 37.4 3.2 15.8 2.6 35.8 2.9 Incident did not occur while attending school 5.0 0.7 2.4 0.9 6.2 1.4 - - 9.3 1.7 Other 14.6 1.1 16.5 2.3 10.0 1.7 13.3 2.4 18.0 2.6 Did not contact any programs Reason 1 2 Per 100 victims. Unless otherwise specified, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. Table 5.3a. Percent of Students Experiencing Stalking by Type, Gender, Enrollment Status and Characteristics of Stalking1,2 Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Percent of Students Reporting Stalking 3.0 0.1 5.9 0.4 4.3 0.2 1.8 0.2 1.0 0.1 Unwanted calls, emails, messages, pictures, video on social networking that caused fear for personal safety 1.8 0.1 3.6 0.3 2.6 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.1 Showed up somewhere or waited for student in manner that caused fear for personal safety 1.2 0.1 2.4 0.2 1.9 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.1 Spied on, watched, or followed in manner that caused fear for personal safety 0.8 0.1 1.2 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.1 Percent of Victims of Stalking Number of incidents since beginning of 2014 term 0 times 29.8 1.5 22.7 2.5 33.9 2.7 30.5 5.7 35.9 5.7 1 time 11.9 1.3 17.5 2.8 8.9 1.4 7.5 2.9 9.8 3.7 2 times 23.1 1.6 24.0 3.3 20.6 1.9 32.3 6.0 18.4 5.1 3-5 times 23.3 1.5 23.0 2.7 23.0 2.3 20.3 5.7 30.5 5.2 6-9 times 5.9 0.9 4.3 1.1 7.9 1.5 s s s s 10 or more times 5.9 0.8 8.6 2.0 5.7 1.1 s s s s Student 47.7 1.7 47.1 3.1 49.2 2.7 58.6 7.2 33.2 4.4 Faculty 4.2 0.8 2.7 1.3 5.4 1.1 - - s s Other staff or administrator 6.8 1.1 4.1 1.1 7.6 1.4 s s 14.3 5.9 Other person affiliated with a university program (ex. internship, study abroad) 4.2 0.8 3.8 1.2 5.5 1.3 - - s s The person was not affiliated with university 11.0 1.5 8.0 1.8 11.9 2.2 s s 17.3 5.7 Don’t know association with university 37.7 2.0 42.9 3.3 35.3 3.1 32.0 7.2 36.7 6.4 Association with university Table 5.3a. Percent of Students Experiencing Stalking by Type, Gender, Enrollment Status and Characteristics of Stalking1,2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr At the time, it was someone I was dating or intimate with 7.6 0.9 9.7 1.8 6.4 1.3 s s 9.0 3.4 Someone I had dated or was intimate with 20.4 1.8 20.0 2.8 19.3 2.2 23.6 5.7 24.8 5.6 Teacher or advisor 2.4 0.7 s s 2.2 0.7 - - s s Co-worker, boss or supervisor 7.3 1.1 4.8 1.7 9.5 1.6 - - 12.3 5.0 Friend or acquaintance 39.0 1.6 39.1 2.8 45.6 2.9 36.2 6.4 13.2 4.2 Stranger 32.2 1.9 37.4 3.4 25.8 2.2 36.7 6.7 31.2 6.4 Other 10.9 1.2 6.1 1.7 14.8 1.8 s s 11.4 3.8 Don’t Know 1.3 0.4 - - - - s s s s Relationship to victim Table 5.3a. Percent of Students Experiencing Stalking by Type, Gender, Enrollment Status and Characteristics of Stalking1,2 (continued) TGQN (n=68) Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=28) Graduate or Professional (n=40) % StdErr % StdErr Percent of Students Reporting Stalking 12.1 4.8 s s Unwanted calls, emails, messages, pictures, video on social networking that caused fear for personal safety 11.8 4.7 s s Showed up somewhere or waited for student in manner that caused fear for personal safety s s - - Spied on, watched, or followed in manner that caused fear for personal safety s s - - 0 times - - - - 1 time s s - - 2 times s s s s 3-5 times - - - - 6-9 times - - - - 10 or more times - - - - Student s s s s Faculty - - - - Other staff or administrator - - - - Other person affiliated with a university program (ex. internship, study abroad) s s - - The person was not affiliated with university s s - - Don’t know association with university s s s s Percent of Victims of Stalking Number of incidents since beginning of 2014 term Association with university Table 5.3a. Percent of Students Experiencing Stalking by Type, Gender, Enrollment Status and Characteristics of Stalking1,2 (continued) TGQN (n=68) Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=28) Graduate or Professional (n=40) % StdErr % StdErr At the time, it was someone I was dating or intimate with - - - - Someone I had dated or was intimate with - - - - Teacher or advisor - - - - Co-worker, boss or supervisor - - - - Friend or acquaintance s s s s 100.0 0.0 s s Other s s - - Don’t Know - - - - Relationship to victim Stranger 1Unless 2TGQN otherwise indicated, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. = Transgender woman, Transgender man, Genderqueer, gender non-conforming, questioning, not listed. Table 5.3b. Percent of Victims of Stalking Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Male (n=5,235) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Friend 85.6 1.1 85.8 2.2 87.1 2.0 83.9 4.9 82.0 5.6 Family member 41.8 2.1 39.5 3.5 47.0 3.1 36.8 6.5 30.8 7.4 Faculty 20.9 1.5 20.2 2.7 20.1 2.2 25.1 6.5 20.5 6.5 Someone else 19.6 1.5 18.7 2.3 22.6 2.3 s s 22.0 4.8 I didn’t tell anyone else 7.6 0.9 7.4 1.6 4.7 1.3 16.1 4.9 8.9 3.4 Reporting to Others Table 5.3b. Percent of Victims of Stalking Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Contacted at least one program in university list 33.8 1.8 41.5 3.4 30.4 2.6 30.7 7.2 31.8 7.4 Contacted Harvard University Health Services (HUHS) 39.0 2.7 33.0 4.8 49.6 5.1 s s 45.6 9.6 Fall of 2014 - present 48.8 4.8 53.9 6.3 50.2 8.4 - - s s Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 31.1 5.3 24.0 7.4 24.7 8.6 s s 59.0 15.8 Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 9.0 2.9 s s s s - - - - Prior to Fall of 2012 11.1 3.2 s s 16.2 5.4 - - - - s s - - - - - - s s A little 16.7 4.0 s s 18.7 5.5 s s s s Somewhat 37.9 5.5 46.4 8.7 38.1 6.4 - - s s Very 26.6 5.0 33.8 10.5 25.9 6.7 - - s s Extremely 13.3 3.9 s s 17.3 6.2 - - - - Reporting to a Program Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Not at all Table 5.3b. Percent of Victims of Stalking Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Total Survey Item Response Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 50.2 3.5 54.9 5.9 46.1 5.5 65.6 13.3 33.2 9.1 Fall of 2014 - present 59.7 4.1 78.2 6.0 35.0 7.6 68.6 20.4 s s Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 23.5 3.9 13.1 4.5 35.1 7.4 s s s s Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 10.9 2.7 s s 14.5 5.2 s s - - Prior to Fall of 2012 5.8 2.3 - - 15.4 6.1 - - - - Contacted Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Not at all 12.0 3.2 s s s s s s s s A little 18.8 3.3 25.5 6.2 18.3 6.3 - - - - Somewhat 27.8 4.4 32.1 6.5 18.9 7.6 s s s s Very 26.9 4.1 28.2 6.1 36.2 7.7 - - s s Extremely 14.5 3.4 10.7 4.4 16.6 6.5 s s - - Table 5.3b. Percent of Victims of Stalking Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 5.8 1.5 s s 6.9 2.7 - - s s 68.3 15.9 s s s s - - - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 s s - - - - - - s s Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - Prior to Fall of 2012 s s - - s s - - - - 55.9 16.7 s s s s - - s s A little s s s s s s - - - - Somewhat - - - - - - - - - - Very s s - - s s - - - - Extremely - - - - - - - - - - Contacted Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) Most recent contact Fall of 2014 - present Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Not at all Table 5.3b. Percent of Victims of Stalking Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 17.8 3.0 18.4 4.1 20.6 4.5 - - s s Fall of 2014 - present 79.8 7.2 75.0 10.8 78.1 9.7 - - s s Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 15.0 7.0 s s s s - - - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - Prior to Fall of 2012 s s - - s s - - - - s s s s - - - - s s A little 33.3 7.8 44.1 11.3 33.6 13.3 - - - - Somewhat 14.1 4.9 s s s s - - - - Very 30.3 6.8 s s 30.1 10.3 - - s s s s s s s s - - - - Contacted Office of Sexual Assault Prevention & Response (OSAPR) Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Not at all Extremely Table 5.3b. Percent of Victims of Stalking Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 13.9 2.4 14.2 4.1 16.8 3.5 s s - - 100 _ 100 _ 100 _ s s - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - Prior to Fall of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - s s - - s s - - - - A little 22.1 8.7 s s s s - - - - Somewhat 19.8 6.7 s s s s - - - - Very 32.0 8.3 36.9 18.2 35.6 13.3 - - - - Extremely 20.9 7.5 s s s s s s - - Contacted Title IX Coordinators Most recent contact Fall of 2014 - present Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Not at all Table 5.3b. Percent of Victims of Stalking Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr s s - - s s - - - - 100 _ - - s s - - - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - Prior to Fall of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - Not at all - - - - - - - - - - A little - - - - - - - - - - 100 _ - - s s - - - - Very - - - - - - - - - - Extremely - - - - - - - - - - Contacted University Chaplains Most recent contact Fall of 2014 - present Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Somewhat Table 5.3b. Percent of Victims of Stalking Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 5.9 1.6 13.2 4.1 s s - - - - Fall of 2014 - present 40.4 12.8 47.3 14.2 - - - - - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 44.9 13.3 52.7 14.2 - - - - - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - Prior to Fall of 2012 s s - - s s - - - - Not at all s s - - s s - - - - A little s s s s - - - - - - Somewhat s s s s - - - - - - Very s s s s - - - - - - Extremely s s s s - - - - - - Contacted Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment (SASH) Tutors (primarily undergraduate organization) Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Table 5.3b. Percent of Victims of Stalking Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 6.4 1.5 13.8 3.6 - - s s - - Fall of 2014 - present 60.8 14.8 51.1 16.9 - - s s - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 39.2 14.8 48.9 16.9 - - - - - - Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - Prior to Fall of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - Not at all s s s s - - - - - - A little s s - - - - s s - - Somewhat s s s s - - - - - - 45.3 14.0 55.1 15.2 - - - - - - s s s s - - - - - - Contacted Undergraduate peer support organization (for example, CAARE, Contact, Room 13, and Response) Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Very Extremely Table 5.3b. Percent of Victims of Stalking Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 5.8 1.4 7.2 2.6 5.3 2.1 - - s s Fall of 2014 - present 55.7 15.2 s s 100 0.0 - - - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 44.3 15.2 s s - - - - s s Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - Prior to Fall of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - Not at all s s s s - - - - - - A little s s s s s s - - - - Somewhat s s - - s s - - - - Very s s s s - - - - s s Extremely s s - - s s - - - - Contacted Other Police Departments (for example, Cambridge Police, Boston Police, or Police at other colleges or university) Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Table 5.3b. Percent of Victims of Stalking Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Undergraduate (n=2,096) Total Survey Item Response Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr 3.4 1.2 s s s s - - s s Fall of 2014 - present s s s s s s - - - - Fall of 2013 - Summer of 2014 s s - - s s - - s s Fall of 2012 - Summer of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - Prior to Fall of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - Not at all - - - - - - - - - - A little s s - - s s - - - - Somewhat - - - - - - - - - - Very s s - - - - - - s s Extremely s s s s - - - - - - Contacted Other sexual assault support program (for example, Boston Area Rape Crisis Center, BARCC) Most recent contact Usefulness of Report in 2014-2015 School Year Table 5.3b. Percent of Victims of Stalking Reporting to Others, Reporting to a Program, Timing of Report to Program, Usefulness of Report in last school year and Reasons Why Did Not Report to a Program by Gender and Enrollment Status 1, 2 (continued) Female (n=5,801) Survey Item Response Total Undergraduate (n=2,096) Male (n=5,235) Graduate or Professional (n=3,705) Undergraduate (n=1,951) Graduate or Professional (n=3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Did not know where to go or who to tell 17.9 1.8 17.5 3.8 17.9 2.3 22.0 6.6 17.6 5.8 Felt embarrassed, ashamed, or that it would be too emotionally difficult 16.9 1.7 16.9 3.4 12.9 2.5 20.3 6.0 18.2 6.1 I did not think anyone would believe me 12.9 1.5 18.3 3.0 9.7 1.6 16.1 6.2 12.8 5.3 I did not think it was serious enough to report 54.7 2.3 53.4 4.2 58.1 3.2 59.5 8.0 37.7 6.2 I did not want the person to get into trouble 21.4 1.9 14.2 3.9 27.1 3.2 20.5 6.7 19.1 6.0 I feared negative social consequences 21.1 1.9 19.0 3.8 23.5 2.4 16.0 6.0 18.9 7.2 I did not think anything would be done 30.9 2.0 28.0 4.0 28.8 2.7 40.1 8.1 27.6 7.2 I feared it would not be kept confidential 19.1 1.6 15.9 3.5 22.2 2.5 s s 20.7 6.8 Incident was not on campus or associated with the school 18.3 1.6 15.3 3.5 20.8 2.7 s s 22.5 6.8 Incident did not occur while attending school 1.8 0.6 - - 2.8 1.1 - - s s Other 18.2 1.7 15.5 3.5 20.1 2.4 24.9 6.6 13.7 5.5 Did not contact any programs Reason 1 2 Per 100 victims. Unless otherwise specified, estimates are for victimizations reported since entering college. Table 5.4. Percent of Students Experiencing Harassment, Intimate Partner Violence or Stalking by Type of Incident, Gender and Enrollment Status of Victim 1, 2 Female (5,801) Total Survey Item Response Undergraduate (2,096) Male (5,235) Graduate or Professional (3,705) Undergraduate (1,951) Graduate or Professional (3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Heterosexual 46.5 0.3 71.7 0.8 48.6 0.6 48.5 0.7 31.2 0.7 Non-Heterosexual 64.6 0.8 83.9 1.8 60.6 1.8 72.0 2.1 53.1 1.7 Hispanic 52.3 1.4 74.3 2.6 54.9 2.2 50.7 2.5 38.3 2.1 Not Hispanic 48.2 0.4 72.5 0.7 49.1 0.6 51.5 0.8 33.6 0.7 American Indian or Alaska Native 55.2 2.8 75.0 5.6 58.9 5.4 44.8 5.1 40.8 5.7 Asian 47.8 0.7 69.7 1.1 48.4 1.0 52.8 1.4 31.9 1.1 Black or African American 56.1 1.2 69.4 2.3 54.3 1.9 58.6 2.7 40.5 2.9 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 60.6 4.9 82.1 8.4 53.9 9.6 39.9 9.6 72.4 14.8 White 48.4 0.3 74.7 1.0 49.9 0.6 49.9 0.9 34.5 0.8 Heterosexual 6.4 0.2 10.7 0.5 5.1 0.3 7.5 0.5 5.2 0.2 Non-Heterosexual 9.3 0.6 17.8 2.0 7.7 1.2 11.6 1.5 6.3 0.8 Hispanic 8.2 0.6 14.3 1.9 7.7 1.1 9.3 1.7 5.5 1.0 Not Hispanic 6.6 0.2 10.9 0.5 5.2 0.3 8.0 0.5 5.3 0.3 American Indian or Alaska Native 8.3 1.8 12.4 4.9 11.4 3.6 s s s s Asian 7.0 0.4 11.2 1.0 7.0 0.6 5.6 0.9 5.2 0.5 Black or African American 8.1 0.8 13.7 2.1 6.7 1.4 7.6 2.2 5.1 1.2 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 14.0 3.6 s s 16.4 5.6 25.3 12.7 - - White 6.5 0.2 11.1 0.5 4.8 0.3 8.8 0.6 5.2 0.3 Harassment Sexual orientation Ethnicity Race Intimate partner violence Sexual orientation Ethnicity Race Table 5.4. Percent of Students Experiencing Harassment, Intimate Partner Violence or Stalking by Type of Incident, Gender and Enrollment Status of Victim 1, 2 (continued) Female (5,801) Total Survey Item Response Undergraduate (2,096) Male (5,235) Graduate or Professional (3,705) Undergraduate (1,951) Graduate or Professional (3,284) % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr % StdErr Heterosexual 2.8 0.1 5.6 0.4 4.2 0.2 1.3 0.2 0.8 0.1 Non-Heterosexual 4.9 0.4 8.9 1.3 5.5 1.0 5.2 1.0 2.5 0.6 Hispanic 3.7 0.4 7.3 1.2 5.2 0.9 1.7 0.7 1.1 0.4 Not Hispanic 2.9 0.1 5.7 0.4 4.2 0.2 1.8 0.2 1.0 0.1 American Indian or Alaska Native 5.0 1.1 8.8 3.4 s s s s - - Asian 3.6 0.2 6.7 0.7 4.9 0.4 1.5 0.4 1.6 0.3 Black or African American 3.8 0.5 5.4 1.2 4.4 0.8 5.1 1.2 s s Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 6.2 2.0 s s s s - - - - White 2.7 0.1 5.5 0.5 3.9 0.3 1.8 0.2 0.9 0.1 Stalking Sexual orientation Ethnicity Race 1Per 100 students. are for victimizations reported since entering college. 2Estimates