RESULTS 
  OF 
  2015 
  UNIVERSITY 
  OF 
  MICHIGAN 
  
CAMPUS 
  CLIMATE 
  SURVEY 
  ON 
   
  
SEXUAL 
  MISCONDUCT 
  
 
  
 
  

 
  
 
  
 
  

 TABLE 
  OF 
  CONTENTS 
  
Introduction 
  
I.
II.

III.
IV.
V.

VI.

Executive 
  Summary 
  .......................................................................................................................... 
  4 
  
Survey 
  Design 
  and 
  Methodology 
  ..................................................................................................... 
  7 
  
A 
   
   
   
   
  Sample 
  Design 
  ...................................................................................................................... 
  7 
  
B. 
   
   
   
  Questionnaire 
  Design 
  ........................................................................................................... 
  7 
  
C. 
   
   
   
  Field 
  Work 
  Design 
  and 
  Implementation 
  ............................................................................... 
  7 
  
Survey 
  Response 
  Rates 
  ..................................................................................................................... 
  8 
  
Survey 
  Respondents 
  ......................................................................................................................... 
  9 
  
Survey 
  Responses 
  ........................................................................................................................... 
  10 
  
A. Campus 
  Climate 
  Regarding 
  Sexual 
  Misconduct, 
  Student 
  Sexual 
  Misconduct 
  Policy 
   
  
and 
  Process 
  to 
  Address 
  Complaints 
  of 
  Sexual 
  Misconduct 
  ............................................... 
  10 
  
B. Education, 
  Prevention, 
  and 
  Likely 
  Reporting 
  to 
  Campus 
  Resources 
  ................................. 
  10 
  
C. Personal 
  Experiences 
  Regarding 
  Sexual 
  Activity 
  ................................................................ 
  11 
  
D. Sexual 
  Misconduct 
  Victimization 
  ....................................................................................... 
  12 
  
E. Specific 
  Incidents: 
  Reporting 
  ............................................................................................. 
  17 
  
F. Specific 
  Incident: 
   
  Locations, 
  Perpetrators 
  and 
  Impacts 
  .................................................... 
  18 
  
G. Perpetrating 
  Nonconsensual 
  Sexual 
  Experiences 
  .............................................................. 
  19 
  
Analysis 
  o f 
  R isk 
  F actors 
  ...................................................................................................... 
  2 0 
  

Appendix 
  A  
  ..................................................................................................................................... 
  2 2 
  
A. 
   
   
   
  S ample 
  D esign 
  ........................................................................................................ 
  2 2 
  
B. 
   
   
   
  Q uestionnaire 
  D esign 
  ............................................................................................. 
  2 3 
  
C. 
   
   
   
  F ield 
  W ork 
  D esign 
  a nd 
  Implementation 
  . ................................................................. 
  2 3 
  
D. 
   
   
   
  P ost-­‐Survey 
  A djustment 
  a nd 
  W eighting 
  . ................................................................ 
  2 4 
  
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  E . 
   
   
   
  C onfidentiality 
  ....................................................................................................... 
  2 5 
  
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  F . 
   
   
   
  Q uestionnaire 
  S pecific 
  R eports 
  o f 
  “ Don’t 
  K now” 
  R esponses 
  . ................................. 
   
  2 5 
  

2 
  
 
  

 INTRODUCTION 
  
The 
   2015 
   University 
   of 
   Michigan 
   Campus 
   Climate 
   Survey 
   on 
   Sexual 
   Misconduct 
   reflects 
   the 
   University’s 
  
commitment 
   to 
   a 
   thorough, 
   transparent, 
   and 
   honest 
   self-­‐examination 
   of 
   the 
   problem 
   of 
   sexual 
   misconduct 
   that 
  
affects 
  our 
  students. 
   
  In 
  January 
  2015, 
  U-­‐M 
  sent 
  the 
  survey 
  to 
  a 
  representative 
  sample 
  of 
  3,000 
  students 
  on 
  the 
  
Ann 
   Arbor 
   campus 
   to 
   ask 
   questions 
   about 
   their 
   experiences 
   with 
   sexual 
   misconduct 
   and 
   their 
   views 
   regarding 
  
campus 
  climate 
  and 
  related 
  resources. 
  The 
  survey 
  instrument 
  and 
  methodology 
  were 
  designed 
  by 
  a 
  team 
  led 
  by 
  U-­‐
M’s 
   Survey 
   Research 
   Center, 
   and 
   included 
   representatives 
   from 
   Student 
   Life, 
   the 
   Office 
   of 
   the 
   General 
   Counsel, 
  
and 
  SoundRocket 
  (formerly 
  known 
  as 
  Survey 
  Sciences 
  Group), 
  an 
  independent 
  survey 
  research 
  firm 
  headquartered 
  
in 
   Ann 
   Arbor, 
   Michigan. 
   The 
   purpose 
   of 
   the 
   survey 
   was 
   to 
   gain 
   a 
   deep 
   understanding 
   of 
   the 
   prevalence 
   and 
  
incidence 
   of 
   sexual 
   assault 
   on 
   campus, 
   as 
   well 
   as 
   students’ 
   views 
   regarding 
   campus 
   climate 
   and 
   resources, 
   so 
   that 
  
U-­‐M 
  can 
  improve 
  its 
  education 
  and 
  prevention 
  efforts, 
  strengthen 
  existing 
  services 
  for 
  survivors, 
  and 
  ultimately, 
  
create 
  a 
  safer 
  and 
  more 
  caring 
  community. 
   
   
  
This 
   document 
   summarizes 
   the 
   results 
   of 
   the 
   survey, 
   as 
   well 
   as 
   the 
   survey 
   design 
   and 
   methodology 
   used 
   to 
  
produce 
  these 
  results. 
   
  Throughout 
  the 
  upcoming 
  academic 
  year, 
  U-­‐M 
  staff 
  will 
  work 
  with 
  the 
  U-­‐M 
  community 
  to 
  
use 
   the 
   survey 
   data 
   to 
   answer 
   additional 
   important 
   questions, 
   including 
   how 
   to 
   more 
   effectively 
   address 
   and 
  
prevent 
  sexual 
  misconduct. 
  
WARNING: 
    
    
  This 
  report 
  uses 
  explicit 
  language, 
  including 
  anatomical 
  names 
  of 
  body 
  parts 
  and 
  specific 
  behaviors, 
  to 
  
discuss 
   data 
   about 
   sexual 
   situations. 
   These 
   situations 
   include 
   sexual 
   misconduct, 
   broadly 
   defined 
   to 
   include 
  
nonconsensual 
   (also 
   known 
   as 
   unwanted) 
   kissing 
   and 
   touching; 
   oral 
   vaginal, 
   or 
   anal 
   penetration, 
   and 
   sexual 
  
harassment. 
  Reading 
  this 
  report 
  might 
  remind 
  you 
  of 
  experiences 
  that 
  you, 
  friend, 
  or 
  family 
  member 
  have 
  gone 
  
through. 
   If 
   you 
   would 
   like 
   to 
   talk 
   to 
   someone 
   confidentially 
   about 
   questions 
   or 
   concerns 
   relating 
   to 
   sexual 
  
misconduct, 
  including 
  sexual 
  assault, 
  please 
  contact 
  one 
  of 
  the 
  following 
  resources: 
   
  
Students 
  
Sexual 
  Assault 
  Prevention 
  and 
  Awareness 
  Center 
  (SAPAC) 
  – 
  http://sapac.umich.edu 
  
Counseling 
  and 
  Psychological 
  Services 
  (CAPS) 
  – 
  http://caps.umich.edu/counseling 
  
Faculty 
  and 
  Staff 
  
Faculty 
  and 
  Staff 
  Assistance 
  Program 
  (FASAP) 
  – 
   
  
http://hr.umich.edu/mhealthy/programs/mental_emotional/counseling-­‐consultation/fasap/contact.html 
  
 
  
UMHS 
  Employee 
  Assistance 
  Program 
  (UMHS 
  EAP) 
  – 
  
http://hr.umich.edu/mhealthy/programs/mental_emotional/counseling-­‐consultation/eap/index.html 
  
 
  

3 
  
 
  

 I.

EXECUTIVE 
  SUMMARY 
  

Sexual 
  misconduct 
  is 
  a 
  long-­‐standing 
  societal 
  problem. 
  Data 
  from 
  the 
  2002 
  United 
  States 
  National 
  Survey 
  of 
  Family 
  
Growth, 
   which 
   studies 
   families, 
   relationships, 
   sexual 
   experience 
   and 
   reproductive 
   health, 
   indicate 
   that 
   22.6% 
   of 
  
1
women 
   in 
   the 
   United 
   States 
   aged 
   18-­‐44 
   were 
   “ever 
   forced 
   to 
   have 
   sexual 
   intercourse” 
   in 
   their 
   lifetimes.  
   
   The 
  
2
same 
  study 
  indicates 
  that 
  7.6% 
  of 
  men 
  aged 
  18-­‐44 
  were 
  ever 
  forced 
  to 
  have 
  sexual 
  intercourse.  
  Data 
  from 
  The 
  
Department 
   of 
   Justice’s 
   National 
   Crime 
   Victimization 
   Survey 
   show 
   that 
   females 
   ages 
   18 
   to 
   24 
   consistently 
  
3
experienced 
  higher 
  rates 
  of 
  rape 
  and 
  sexual 
  assault 
  than 
  females 
  in 
  other 
  age 
  brackets.  
   
  However, 
  the 
  same 
  study 
  
also 
   shows 
   that 
   females 
   ages 
   18-­‐24 
   not 
   enrolled 
   in 
   a 
   college 
   were 
   1.2 
   times 
   more 
   likely 
   to 
   experience 
   rape 
   and 
  
4
sexual 
  assault 
  victimization, 
  compared 
  to 
  college 
  students 
  in 
  the 
  same 
  range.  
   
   Although 
  such 
  data 
  provide 
  some 
  
evidence 
  that 
  young 
  people 
  enrolled 
  in 
  college 
  are 
  at 
  less 
  risk 
  of 
  sexual 
  assault 
  than 
  those 
  in 
  the 
  same 
  ages 
  who 
  
are 
  not 
  enrolled 
  in 
  college, 
  recent 
  studies 
  show 
  that 
  the 
  risk 
  on 
  campuses 
  is 
  substantial. 
   
  
It 
  is 
  currently 
  estimated 
  that 
  one 
  in 
  five 
  women 
  is 
  sexually 
  assaulted 
  while 
  in 
  college. 
   
  The 
  “1 
  in 
  5” 
  statistic 
  is 
  not 
  
from 
  a 
  national 
  survey 
  regarding 
  the 
  prevalence 
  of 
  sexual 
  assault, 
  but 
  is 
  derived 
  from 
  a 
  2007 
  study, 
  The 
  Campus 
  
Sexual 
  Assault 
  Study, 
  of 
  a 
  sample 
  of 
  undergraduate 
  women 
  at 
  two 
  large 
  public 
  universities, 
  one 
  in 
  the 
  South 
  and 
  
5
one 
  in 
  the 
  Midwest.  
  The 
  survey 
  found 
  that 
  as 
  many 
  as 
  20% 
  of 
  undergraduate 
  female 
  students 
  experienced 
  sexual 
  
assault, 
  broadly 
  defined 
  in 
  that 
  study 
  to 
  include 
  any 
  form 
  of 
  nonconsensual 
  sexual 
  experience, 
  including 
  unwanted 
  
6
kissing, 
  groping, 
  digital 
  penetration, 
  or 
  oral, 
  vaginal, 
  or 
  anal 
  sex.  
   
   The 
  rate 
  of 
  nonconsensual 
  oral, 
  vaginal, 
  or 
  anal 
  
7
penetration 
   was 
   significantly 
   lower 
   than 
   the 
   overall 
   statistic 
   for 
   unwanted 
   sexual 
   experiences.  
   
   And 
   the 
   same 
  
8
study 
  indicated 
  that 
  approximately 
  6.1% 
  of 
  men 
  are 
  assaulted 
  while 
  in 
  college.  
   
  
Differences 
  in 
  survey 
  design 
  or 
  methodology 
  make 
  precise 
  comparisons 
  across 
  sexual 
  misconduct 
  surveys 
  difficult, 
  
if 
  not 
  impossible, 
  but 
  more 
  recent 
  surveys 
  continue 
  to 
  show 
  that 
  the 
  levels 
  of 
  nonconsensual 
  sexual 
  experiences 
  
involving 
   college 
   students 
   are 
   high 
   and 
   highest 
   among 
   undergraduate 
   females. 
   For 
   example, 
   the 
   2014 
   Community 
  
Attitudes 
   on 
   Sexual 
   Assault 
   survey 
   conducted 
   by 
   the 
   Massachusetts 
   Institute 
   of 
   Technology 
   shows 
   that 
   17% 
   of 
  
undergraduate 
   females 
   reported 
   attempted 
   or 
   completed 
   nonconsensual 
   touching 
   or 
   kissing, 
   oral 
   sex 
   or 
   sexual 
  
9
penetration 
   by 
   force, 
   physical 
   threat, 
   or 
   incapacitation 
   (compared 
   to 
   5% 
   of 
   undergraduate 
   males).  
   
   Similarly, 
   a 
  
Washington 
   Post/Kaiser 
   Family 
   Foundation 
   survey 
   found 
   that 
   20% 
   of 
   current 
   or 
   recent 
   female 
   college 
   students 
  
10
reported 
  being 
  sexually 
  assaulted 
  while 
  attending 
  school.  
   
   In 
  that 
  survey, 
  sexual 
  assault 
  was 
  broadly 
  defined 
  to 
  
include 
   nonconsensual 
   kissing 
   or 
   touching; 
   oral, 
   vaginal, 
   or 
   anal 
   sex; 
   and 
   digital 
   penetration 
   by 
   force 
   or 
   while 
  
incapacitated. 
   
   
  
Our 
  collective 
  success 
  in 
  developing 
  strategies 
  to 
  reduce 
  sexual 
  misconduct 
  across 
  the 
  country 
  will 
  only 
  improve 
  
based 
   upon 
   reliable 
   available 
   data 
   regarding 
   the 
   prevalence 
   of 
   specific 
   types 
   and 
   circumstances 
   of 
   sexual 
  
misconduct. 
    
   It 
   is 
   against 
   this 
   backdrop 
   that 
   U-­‐M 
   is 
   committed 
   to 
   sharing 
   its 
   data 
   to 
   inform 
   the 
   difficult 
   and 
  
necessary 
   discussions 
   we 
   must 
   have 
   to 
   develop 
   and 
   implement 
   the 
   most 
   effective 
   solutions 
   to 
   combat 
   this 
  
problem. 
   
  The 
  U-­‐M 
  climate 
  survey 
  shows: 
  
While 
   approximately 
   89% 
   of 
   U-­‐M 
   students 
   said 
   that 
   they 
   feel 
   safe 
   from 
   sexual 
   misconduct 
   on 
   the 
   Ann 
   Arbor 
  
campus, 
  11.4% 
  of 
  all 
  students 
  experienced 
  some 
  form 
  of 
  nonconsensual 
  touching 
   and 
  kissing 
  or 
  oral, 
  vaginal, 
  or 
  
anal 
  penetration 
  – 
  including 
  22.5% 
  of 
  undergraduate 
  females 
  and 
  6.8% 
  of 
  undergraduate 
  males. 
  The 
  survey 
  also 
  
found 
  that 
  9.7% 
  of 
  all 
  female 
  students 
  (graduate 
  and 
  undergraduate) 
  experienced 
  unwanted 
  oral, 
  vaginal, 
  or 
  anal 
  
penetration 
   (compared 
   to 
   1.4% 
   of 
   male 
   students). 
   In 
   most 
   cases, 
   the 
   unwanted 
   sexual 
   penetration 
   occurred 
  
primarily 
  after 
  verbal 
  pressure 
  and 
  under 
  the 
  influence 
  of 
  drugs 
  or 
  alcohol. 
  “Verbal 
  pressure” 
  was 
  described 
  in 
  the 
  
survey 
   as 
   “continually 
   verbally 
   pressuring 
   you 
   after 
   you 
   said 
   they 
   didn’t 
   want 
   to. 
   This 
   includes 
   telling 
   lies, 
  
threatening 
   to 
   end 
   the 
   relationship, 
   threatening 
   to 
   spread 
   rumors 
   about 
   them, 
   showing 
   displeasure, 
   criticizing 
  
your 
  sexuality 
  or 
  attractiveness 
  or 
  getting 
  angry 
  but 
  not 
  using 
  physical 
  force.” 
   
  Fewer 
  than 
  1% 
  of 
  students 
  reported 
  
4 
  
 
  

 nonconsensual 
  penetration 
  due 
  to 
  the 
  use 
  of 
  physical 
  force. 
  “Physical 
  force” 
  was 
  described 
  as 
  “holding 
  you 
  down 
  
with 
  their 
  body 
  weight, 
  pinning 
  your 
  arms 
  or 
  having 
  a 
  weapon.” 
   
  
Most 
   incidents 
   of 
   nonconsensual 
   sexual 
   experiences 
   occurred 
   off 
   or 
   near 
   campus 
   (only 
   14.5% 
   of 
   undergraduate 
  
students 
  and 
  6.3% 
  of 
  graduate 
  students 
  had 
  nonconsensual 
  sexual 
  experiences 
  on 
  campus). 
  In 
  most 
  cases 
  (56%), 
  
students 
   who 
   had 
   an 
   unwanted 
   sexual 
   experience 
   said 
   another 
   U-­‐M 
   student 
   was 
   responsible. 
   Only 
   5.5% 
   of 
  
students 
  reported 
  no 
  prior 
  relationship 
  or 
  did 
  not 
  know 
  the 
  perpetrator. 
   
  
Among 
  students 
  who 
  said 
  they 
  had 
  a 
  least 
  one 
  unwanted 
  sexual 
  experience 
  at 
  U-­‐M, 
  only 
  46% 
  told 
  someone 
  else, 
  
most 
  often, 
  a 
  friend 
  or 
  a 
  roommate. 
   
  Just 
  3.6% 
  of 
  students 
  reported 
  the 
  incident 
  to 
  an 
  official 
  University 
  resource 
  
or 
  law 
  enforcement, 
  including 
  the 
  Sexual 
  Assault 
  Prevention 
  and 
  Awareness 
  Center, 
  Counseling 
  and 
  Psychological 
  
Services, 
  Office 
  of 
  Institutional 
  Equity, 
  Office 
  of 
  the 
  Dean 
  of 
  Students, 
   
  Office 
  of 
  Student 
  Conflict 
  Resolution, 
  the 
  
Ann 
  Arbor 
  or 
  U-­‐M 
  police 
  department. 
  When 
  asked 
  why 
  they 
  did 
  not 
  report 
  their 
  experience, 
  most 
  students 
  who 
  
responded 
   said 
   they 
   did 
   not 
   want 
   to 
   get 
   the 
   person 
   responsible 
   in 
   trouble, 
   or 
   they 
   blamed 
   themselves. 
    
   A 
  
significant 
   number 
   also 
   felt 
   embarrassed 
   or 
   ashamed, 
   did 
   not 
   think 
   U-­‐M 
   would 
   do 
   anything, 
   or 
   did 
   not 
   believe 
   the 
  
incident 
  was 
  serious 
  enough 
  to 
  merit 
  a 
  report. 
   
  
U-­‐M’s 
   data 
   analysis 
   also 
   identified 
   some 
   specific 
   factors 
   that 
   correlate 
   to 
   the 
   risk 
   of 
   experiencing 
   unwanted 
   sexual 
  
penetration: 
   
  
Females 
  were 
  nearly 
  8 
  times 
  more 
  at 
  risk 
  than 
  males. 
  
Undergraduates 
  were 
  3 
  times 
  more 
  at 
  risk 
  than 
  graduate 
  students. 
  
Lesbian, 
  gay 
  or 
  bisexual 
  students 
  were 
  2.5 
  times 
  more 
  at 
  risk 
  than 
  heterosexual 
  students. 
  
Underrepresented 
  minority 
  students 
  were 
  2 
  times 
  more 
  at 
  risk 
  than 
  white 
  students. 
  
Sorority 
  or 
  fraternity 
  members 
  were 
  2.5 
  times 
  more 
  at 
  risk 
  than 
  non-­‐Greek 
  students. 
  
Club 
  (not 
  varsity) 
  sports 
  members 
  were 
  2 
  times 
  more 
  at 
  risk 
  than 
  non-­‐club 
  sports 
  students. 
  
 
  
There 
   is 
   no 
   statistically 
   significant 
   difference 
   in 
   risk 
   for 
   undergraduate 
   females 
   or 
   males 
   by 
   class 
   rank, 
   i.e., 
  
freshman, 
  sophomore, 
  junior, 
  or 
  senior. 
   
  In 
  other 
  words, 
  undergraduate 
  freshman 
  women 
  and 
  men 
  were 
  not 
  more 
  
likely 
  to 
  be 
  assaulted 
  than 
  undergraduates 
  of 
  any 
  other 
  class 
  rank. 
  
•
•
•
•
•
•

The 
  survey 
  also 
  asked 
  about 
  sexual 
  harassment 
  and 
  nearly 
  23% 
  of 
  all 
  students 
  reported 
  experiencing 
  some 
  form 
  of 
  
sexual 
  harassment; 
  most 
  said 
  they 
  had 
  been 
  stared 
  at 
  in 
  a 
  sexual 
  way, 
  had 
  been 
  the 
  subject 
  of 
  teasing 
  comments 
  
of 
  a 
  sexual 
  nature 
  or 
  someone 
  had 
  made 
  a 
  sexual 
  motion 
  towards 
  the 
  student, 
  all 
  in 
  spite 
  of 
  requests 
  to 
  stop. 
   
  
The 
  survey 
  also 
  asked 
  more 
  generally 
  about 
  sexual 
  activity 
  among 
  students. 
  Nearly 
  80% 
  of 
  all 
  students 
  surveyed 
  
reported 
  they 
  had 
  engaged 
  in 
  some 
  form 
  of 
  sexual 
  activity, 
  including 
  kissing 
  and 
  fondling, 
  in 
  the 
  past 
  12 
  months. 
   
  
Among 
  those 
  students, 
  most 
  sought 
  – 
  and 
  gave 
  – 
  non-­‐verbal 
  consent. 
  More 
  than 
  15% 
  of 
  students 
  were 
  drinking 
  
more 
   than 
   50% 
   of 
   the 
   time 
   when 
   they 
   engaged 
   in 
   sexual 
   activity 
   in 
   the 
   past 
   12 
   months, 
   while 
   nearly 
   7% 
   of 
  
students 
  were 
  drunk 
  more 
  than 
  50% 
  of 
  the 
  time. 
   
  
Set 
  forth 
  below 
  is 
  a 
  more 
  detailed 
  discussion 
  of 
  the 
  survey 
  design 
  and 
  methodology, 
  survey 
  response 
  rates, 
  and 
  
survey 
   responses, 
   including 
   the 
   results 
   to 
   questions 
   about 
   (1) 
   views 
   of 
   the 
   campus 
   climate 
   relating 
   to 
   sexual 
  
misconduct 
   and 
   knowledge 
   of 
   U-­‐M’s 
   Student 
   Sexual 
   Misconduct 
   Policy, 
   (2) 
   participation 
   in 
   campus 
   sexual 
  
misconduct 
   prevention 
   and 
   education 
   programming 
   and 
   views 
   of 
   reporting 
   options, 
   (3) 
   personal 
   experiences 
  
regarding 
  consensual 
  sexual 
  activity, 
  (4) 
  experiences 
  of 
  sexual 
  misconduct, 
  (5) 
  reporting 
  of 
  sexual 
  misconduct, 
  (6) 
  
specific 
   incidents 
   of 
   sexual 
   misconduct: 
   locations, 
   perpetrators, 
   and 
   impacts, 
   and 
   (7) 
   perpetration 
   of 
   sexual 
  
misconduct. 
   This 
   report 
   provides 
   data 
   for 
   almost 
   every 
   substantive 
   question 
   in 
   the 
   survey 
   instrument 
   and 
   the 
  
order 
  of 
  the 
  survey 
  response 
  data 
  set 
  forth 
  below 
  is 
  consistent 
  with 
  the 
  order 
  in 
  which 
  the 
  questions 
  were 
  asked 
  in 
  
5 
  
 
  

 the 
  survey 
  instrument. 
  For 
  more 
  information 
  about 
  U-­‐M’s 
  Campus 
  Climate 
  Survey 
  on 
  Sexual 
  Misconduct, 
  including 
  
a 
   copy 
   of 
   the 
   survey 
   instrument, 
   please 
   go 
   to 
   https://publicaffairs.vpcomm.umich.edu/key-­‐issues/faq-­‐on-­‐2015-­‐
campus-­‐climate-­‐surveys-­‐regarding-­‐sexual-­‐misconduct/. 
  
 
  

 
  

6 
  
 
  

 II.

SURVEY 
  DESIGN 
  AND 
  METHODOLOGY 
  
 
  

A. SAMPLE 
  DESIGN 
  
Given 
   the 
   large 
   U-­‐M 
   student 
   population, 
   this 
   study 
   used 
   a 
   sample 
   survey 
   approach 
   rather 
   than 
   a 
   census 
   of 
   all 
  
students. 
   
  The 
  survey 
  was 
  sent 
  to 
  a 
  random 
  sample 
  of 
  3,000 
  undergraduate 
  and 
  graduate 
  students. 
  U-­‐M 
  chose 
  a 
  
randomly 
  selected 
  sample, 
  because 
  it 
  allows 
  researchers 
  to 
  make 
  scientifically 
  based 
  inferences 
  to 
  the 
  population 
  
as 
  a 
  whole, 
  and 
  to 
  focus 
  finite 
  research 
  resources 
  on 
  successfully 
  contacting 
  and 
  encouraging 
  the 
  participation 
  of 
  
the 
  broadest, 
  most 
  inclusive, 
  most 
  representative 
  group 
  of 
  students. 
   
  

B. QUESTIONNAIRE 
  DESIGN 
  
The 
  survey 
  instrument 
  and 
  methodology 
  was 
  designed 
  by 
  a 
  team, 
  led 
  by 
  the 
  U-­‐M’s 
  Survey 
  Research 
  Center, 
  and 
  
included 
   representatives 
   from 
   Student 
   Life; 
   the 
   Office 
   of 
   the 
   General 
   Counsel; 
   and 
   Sound 
   Rocket 
   (formerly 
   known 
  
as 
  Survey 
  Sciences 
  Group), 
  an 
  independent 
  survey 
  research 
  organization 
  headquartered 
  in 
  Ann 
  Arbor, 
  Michigan. 
  
The 
   team 
   identified 
   the 
   purpose 
   of 
   the 
   survey 
   measurements 
   to 
   include 
   both 
   the 
   prevalence 
   and 
   incidence 
   of 
  
sexual 
  assault 
  on 
  campus, 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  perceptions 
  of 
  campus 
  climate. 
  The 
  methodological 
  team 
  drew 
  heavily 
  upon 
  
behavioral-­‐specific 
   questions 
   from 
   the 
   Sexual 
   Experiences 
   Survey 
   to 
   measure 
   the 
   prevalence 
   and 
   incidence 
   of 
  
11
sexual 
  assault, 
  because 
  such 
  questions 
  have 
  been 
  researched 
  and 
  validated.  
   
  

C. FIELD 
  WORK 
  DESIGN 
  AND 
  IMPLEMENTATION 
  
The 
   field 
   work 
   for 
   this 
   survey 
   followed 
   a 
   classic 
   two-­‐phase 
   responsive 
   design 
   approach, 
   with 
   web-­‐based 
   data 
  
collection 
   in 
   the 
   first 
   phase 
   and 
   interviewer 
   assisted 
   web-­‐based 
   interviewing 
   in 
   the 
   second 
   phase. 
   Several 
   tools 
  
were 
  used 
  to 
  maximize 
  participation 
  in 
  Phase 
  1 
  of 
  the 
  study. 
  These 
  included: 
  
A 
  message 
  from 
  the 
  U-­‐M 
  President 
  to 
  the 
  entire 
  campus 
  explaining 
  the 
  importance 
  of 
  the 
  issue 
  and 
  the 
  
survey. 
  
• Pre-­‐notification 
  letters 
  sent 
  by 
  mail 
  and 
  email 
  before 
  the 
  survey 
  was 
  launched. 
  
• A 
  combination 
  of 
  both 
  a 
  lottery-­‐style 
  incentive 
  and 
  an 
  individual 
  incentive. 
  
• Reminder 
  emails 
  to 
  encourage 
  participation. 
  
 
  
A 
  schedule 
  and 
  contact 
  protocol 
  was 
  designed 
  to 
  maximize 
  response. 
  Attention 
  was 
  paid 
  to 
  the 
  contact 
  contents 
  
as 
   well 
   as 
   timing. 
   Only 
   nonrespondents 
   to 
   previous 
   contacts 
   were 
   included 
   in 
   follow-­‐up 
   efforts, 
   so 
   that 
   those 
   who 
  
12 13 14 15
had 
  responded 
  were 
  not 
  bothered.  
    
    
    
  
•

16 17 18

Due 
   to 
   the 
   expected 
   high 
   costs 
   of 
   telephone 
   and 
   face-­‐to-­‐face 
   contacts 
   employed,  
    
    
  Phase 
   2 
   of 
   the 
   survey 
  
chose 
   a 
   random 
   sample 
   of 
   the 
   non-­‐respondents 
   who 
   remained 
   at 
   the 
   close 
   of 
   Phase 
   1. 
   Professional 
   survey 
  
interviewers 
   attempted 
   to 
   contact 
   non-­‐respondents 
   and 
   encourage 
   them 
   to 
   participate 
   in 
   the 
   survey. 
   Because 
  
Phase 
  2 
  involved 
  telephone 
  and 
  face-­‐to-­‐face 
  contact, 
  Phase 
  2 
  sampling 
  was 
  stratified 
  by 
  on 
  campus 
  vs. 
  off 
  campus, 
  
and 
   whether 
   a 
   telephone 
   number 
   was 
   available. 
   Very 
   few 
   on 
   campus 
   cases 
   did 
   not 
   have 
   a 
   telephone 
   number, 
  
producing 
  three 
  strata: 
  1) 
  off 
  campus, 
  no 
  telephone 
  number 
  available, 
  2) 
  off 
  campus, 
  telephone 
  number 
  available, 
  
and 
  3) 
  on 
  campus. 
  The 
  sample 
  rates 
  were 
  0.333, 
  0.6, 
  and 
  0.6 
  respectively. 
  The 
  inverse 
  of 
  these 
  selection 
  rates 
  was 
  
used 
  as 
  a 
  selection 
  weight. 
  
 
  

 
  

7 
  
 
  

  
  

III.

SURVEY 
  RESPONSE 
  RATES 
  

Although 
  the 
  overall 
  response 
  rate 
  to 
  this 
  survey 
  was 
  67% 
  of 
  those 
  invited, 
  this 
  response 
  rate 
  varied 
  across 
  sub-­‐
groups 
   within 
   the 
   population 
   invited 
   to 
   participate. 
   Of 
   those 
   living 
   on 
   campus, 
   75% 
   responded, 
   and 
   of 
   those 
   living 
  
off 
   campus, 
   64% 
   responded. 
   Of 
   the 
   women 
   invited 
   to 
   participate, 
   71% 
   responded, 
   and 
   of 
   the 
   men 
   invited 
   to 
  
participate, 
   62% 
   responded. 
   Of 
   the 
   undergraduate 
   students 
   invited 
   to 
   participate, 
   62% 
   responded 
   and 
   of 
   the 
  
graduate 
  and 
  professional 
  students 
  invited 
  to 
  participate, 
  77% 
  responded. 
  
 
  

 
  

8 
  
 
  

 IV.

SURVEY 
  RESPONDENTS 
  

The 
   population 
   estimates 
   of 
   U-­‐M 
   students 
   are 
   provided 
   throughout 
   the 
   report 
   based 
   upon 
   responses 
   to 
   the 
  
survey. 
   This 
   includes 
   the 
   presentation 
   of 
   characteristics 
   of 
   the 
   students 
   participating 
   in 
   the 
   survey. 
   Each 
   section 
   of 
  
the 
  report 
  displays 
  percentages 
  of 
  the 
  student 
  population 
  for 
  each 
  item 
  in 
  the 
  survey 
  and 
  95% 
  Confidence 
  Limits 
  
(CL). 
   
  
Table 
   A.1 
   shows 
   characteristics 
   of 
   the 
   students 
   who 
   participated 
   in 
   the 
   survey. 
   As 
   explained 
   in 
   the 
   Appendix, 
  
because 
   the 
   estimates 
   for 
   the 
   entire 
   population 
   of 
   U-­‐M 
   students 
   are 
   based 
   on 
   a 
   sample 
   of 
   the 
   students, 
   each 
  
statistic 
   reported 
   has 
   some 
   associated 
   sampling 
   variability 
   and 
   the 
   CL 
   describes 
   the 
   size 
   of 
   that 
   sampling 
  
variability. 
  In 
  each 
  case 
  the 
  CL 
  describes 
  the 
  range 
  of 
  the 
  statistic 
  such 
  that 
  if 
  100 
  samples 
  were 
  drawn 
  from 
  the 
  U-­‐
M 
  student 
  population, 
  95 
  of 
  those 
  estimates 
  would 
  fall 
  within 
  that 
  range 
  (the 
  CL). 
   
  
Table 
  A.1: 
   
  Estimated 
  Percentage 
  of 
  Types 
  of 
  U-­‐M 
  Students 
  in 
  the 
  2015 
  Campus 
  Climate 
  Survey 
  
(95% 
  Confidence 
  Limits) 
  
 
  
Percentage 
  of 
  U-­‐M 
  Students 
  (Confidence 
  Limits) 
  
Female 
  

48.5 
  (45.9, 
  51.2) 
  

Male 
  

51.5 
  (48.8, 
  54.1) 
  

Undergraduate 
  

66.6 
  (64.2, 
  69.0) 
  

Graduate/Professional 
  

33.4 
  (31.01, 
  35.8) 
  

GSI/GSRA 
  
Heterosexual 
  
Gay, 
  Lesbian, 
  Bisexual, 
  
And 
  Other 
  

8.8 
  (7.6, 
  10.1) 
  
92.0 
  (90.6, 
  93.4) 
  
8.04 
  (6.6, 
  9.4) 
  

Race 
  

 
  

White 
  

64.5 
  (61.9, 
  67.0) 
  

Asian 
  

19.0 
  (16.9, 
  21.0) 
  

Underrepresented 
  

16.6 
  (14.5, 
  18.6) 
  

Residence 
  
On 
  campus 
  

 
  
24.1 
  (22.0, 
  26.3) 
  

Fraternity/Sorority 
  

2.8 
  (1.9, 
  3.7) 
  

Family 
  

3.9 
  (2.8, 
  5.1) 
  

Off 
  campus 
  in 
  Ann 
  Arbor 
  

62.2 
  (59.7, 
  64.8) 
  

Off 
  campus 
  out 
  of 
  Ann 
  Arbor 
  

6.3 
  (4.9, 
  7.6) 
  

Memberships 
  

 
  

Fraternity/Sorority 
  

16.9 
  (14.9, 
  18.8) 
  

Varsity 
  Sports 
  Team 
  

2.8 
  (1.9, 
  3.8) 
  

Club 
  Sports 
  Team 
  

5.1 
  (4.0, 
  6.3) 
  

Marching 
  Band 
  

1.6 
  (1.0, 
  2.3) 
  

ROTC 
  

0.7 (0.3, 
  1.2) 
  

9 
  
 
  

 V.

SURVEY 
  RESPONSES 
  

Set 
  forth 
  below 
  are 
  data 
  for 
  almost 
  every 
  substantive 
  question 
  in 
  the 
  survey 
  instrument. 
   
  The 
  order 
  of 
  the 
  sections 
  
that 
  follow 
  are 
  consistent 
  with 
  the 
  order 
  in 
  which 
  the 
  questions 
  were 
  asked 
  in 
  the 
  survey 
  instrument. 
   
  Responses 
  
19
are 
  generally 
  provided 
  by 
  gender 
  (female, 
  male)  
  and 
  student 
  type 
  (undergraduate, 
  graduate). 
  

A.  
  CAMPUS 
   CLIMATE 
   REGARDING 
   SEXUAL 
   MISCONDUCT, 
   STUDENT 
   SEXUAL 
   MISCONDUCT 
   POLICY 
   AND 
  
PROCESS 
  TO 
  ADDRESS 
  COMPLAINTS 
  OF 
  SEXUAL 
  MISCONDUCT 
  

The 
  survey 
  asked 
  students 
  to 
  report 
  their 
  knowledge 
  of 
  U-­‐M 
  policies 
  and 
  their 
  overall 
  feelings 
  of 
  safety 
  at 
  U-­‐M. 
  
20
85.9% 
  (CL: 
  84.1, 
  87.8)  
  of 
  U-­‐M 
  students 
  know 
  U-­‐M 
  has 
  a 
  Student 
  Sexual 
  Misconduct 
  Policy 
  and 
  88.8% 
  (CL: 
  87.3, 
  
90.4) 
   of 
   U-­‐M 
  students 
  feel 
  relatively 
  safe 
  from 
  sexual 
  misconduct 
  at 
  U-­‐M. 
  More 
  detailed 
   estimates 
   are 
   provided 
   in 
  
Table 
  4A.1. 
  
Table 
   4A.1: 
   Estimated 
   Percentage 
   and 
   95% 
   Confidence 
   Limits 
   of 
   U-­‐M 
   Students 
   Answering 
   That 
   They 
   Strongly 
  
Agree 
  or 
  Agree 
  With 
  Each 
  of 
  the 
  Following 
  Statements 
   
  
 
  

Know 
  that 
  U-­‐M 
  has 
  a 
  Student 
  Sexual 
   
  
Misconduct 
  Policy 
  
Know 
  where 
  to 
  find/read 
  U-­‐M’s 
  Student 
  
Sexual 
  Misconduct 
  Policy 
  
Am 
   generally 
   aware 
   of 
   U-­‐M’s 
   process 
   to 
  
address 
   complaints 
   of 
   sexual 
   misconduct, 
  
including 
  sexual 
  harassment, 
  sexual 
  assault, 
  
stalking, 
  and 
  intimate 
  partner 
  violence 
  
Think 
   that 
   U-­‐M 
   takes 
   complaints 
   of 
   sexual 
  
misconduct 
  seriously 
  
Feel 
  relatively 
  safe 
  from 
  sexual 
  misconduct 
  
at 
  U-­‐M 
  
 
  

Female 
  
Female 
  
Male 
  
Male 
   
  
Undergraduates 
   Graduates 
   
   Undergraduates 
   Graduates 
  
 
  % 
  
% 
  
 
  % 
  
% 
  
84.7 
   
  
83.4 
   
  
91.2 
   
  
80.7 
   
  
(81.4, 
  88.0) 
  
(79.1, 
  87.7) 
  
(88.1, 
  94.4) 
  
(76.3, 
  85.1) 
  
31.8 
   
  
36.1 
   
  
48.3 
   
  
45.2 
   
  
(27.4, 
  36.2) 
  
(29.9, 
  42.3) 
  
(42.8, 
  53.8) 
  
(38.9, 
  51.5) 
  
48.0 
  
(43.6, 
  52.4) 
  

50.7 
  
(44.8, 
  56.5) 
  

61.7 
  
(56.6, 
  66.8) 
  

58.5 
  
(52.9, 
  64.1) 
  

74.0 
   
  
(70.1, 
  78.0) 
  
75.6 
   
  
(71.9, 
  79.4) 
  

80.8 
   
  
(76.2, 
  85.3) 
  
89.2 
   
  
(85.7, 
  92.7) 
  

86.7 
   
  
(83.0, 
  90.3) 
  
96.7 
   
  
(95.2, 
  98.3) 
  

90.3 
   
  
(87.0, 
  93.7) 
  
98.9 
   
  
(97.8, 
  100) 
  

 
  
B.  
  TRAINING, 
  EDUCATION, 
  PREVENTION, 
  AND 
  LIKELY 
  REPORTING 
  TO 
  CAMPUS 
  RESOURCES21 
  
•

 
  

55.2% 
   (CL: 
   52.5, 
   57.9) 
   of 
   Michigan 
   students 
   – 
   63.4% 
   (CL: 
   58.9, 
   67.9) 
   of 
   female 
   undergraduate 
   students, 
  
35.6% 
  (CL: 
  30.1, 
  41.2) 
  of 
  female 
  graduate 
  students, 
  66.0% 
  (CL: 
  60.8, 
  71.3) 
  of 
  male 
  undergraduate 
  students 
  
and 
  36.3% 
  (CL: 
  30.9, 
  41.7) 
  of 
  male 
  graduate 
  students 
  – 
  said 
  that, 
  since 
  they 
  started 
  attending 
  U-­‐M, 
  they 
  
have 
  received 
  trainings 
  or 
  attended 
  programs 
  that 
  provided 
  them 
  education 
  on 
  sexual 
  misconduct, 
  such 
  
as 
   prevention 
   of 
   sexual 
   assault, 
   availability 
   of 
   confidential 
   resources 
   or 
   information 
   regarding 
   how 
   to 
  
report 
  an 
  incident. 
   
  
 
  

10 
  
 
  

 Table 
  4B.1: 
  Estimated 
  Percentage 
  and 
  95% 
  Confidence 
  Limits 
  of 
  U-­‐M 
  Students 
  Reporting 
  That 
  They 
  Have 
  Attended 
  
or 
   Participated 
   in 
   the 
   Following 
   Programs. 
   Note: 
   Respondents 
   could 
   report 
   more 
   than 
   one 
   response; 
   these 
  
percentages 
  cannot 
  be 
  summed 
  across 
  row 
  categories. 
  
Program 
  
Female 
  
Female 
   
  
Male 
  Undergraduates 
  
Male 
   
  
Undergraduates 
  % 
  
Graduates 
  % 
  
% 
  
Graduates 
  % 
  
New 
  Student 
  Orientation 
  
85.6 
  (82.5, 
  88.8) 
  
51.5 
  (45.7, 
  
83.9 
  (79.9, 
  87.8) 
  
58.7 
  (53.1, 
  64.4) 
  
57.4) 
  
Community 
  Matters 
  
31.7 
  (27.9, 
  35.5) 
  
8.1 
  (4.7, 
  11.6) 
  
30.7 
  (26.1, 
  35.2) 
  
4.7 
  (2.3, 
  7.2) 
  
Course 
   
  
Relationship 
  Remix 
  
51.4 
  (47.0, 
  55.9) 
  
0.9 
  (0.0, 
  1.9) 
  
39.2 
  (34.3, 
  44.0) 
  
0.9 
  (0.0, 
  1.9) 
  
Change 
  It 
  Up 
  
None 
  of 
  the 
  Above 
  

•

•

17.4 
  (14.5, 
  20.3) 
  

2.1 
  (0.2, 
  3.9) 
  

14.9 
  (12.0, 
  17.7) 
  

0.6 
  (0.0, 
  1.6) 
  

7.6 
  (4.9, 
  10.2) 
  

44.3 
  (38.4, 
  
50.1) 
  

10.5 
  (7.0, 
  14.0) 
  

40.0 
  (34.3, 
  45.6) 
  

 
  
26.3% 
  (CL: 
  23.9, 
  28.6) 
  of 
  students 
  – 
  29.5% 
  (CL: 
  25.5, 
  33.5) 
  of 
  female 
  undergraduate 
  students, 
  20.7% 
  (CL: 
  
16.1, 
   25.3) 
   of 
   female 
   graduate 
   students, 
   28.6% 
   (CL: 
   23.8, 
   33.4) 
   of 
   male 
   undergraduate 
   students, 
   and 
  
20.6% 
   (CL: 
   16.2, 
   25.1) 
   of 
   male 
   graduate 
   students 
   – 
   said 
   they 
   have 
   participated 
   in 
   other 
   activities 
   on 
  
campus, 
   other 
   than 
   the 
   programs 
   mentioned 
   above, 
   that 
   provided 
   them 
   with 
   education 
   on 
   sexual 
  
misconduct, 
  including 
  informal 
  discussions, 
  lectures, 
  awareness-­‐raising 
  activities 
  or 
  workshops. 
   
  
54.2% 
  (CL: 
  51.6, 
  56.9) 
  of 
  students 
  – 
  57.9% 
  (CL: 
  53.4, 
  62.3) 
  of 
  female 
  undergraduate 
  students, 
  42.9% 
  (CL: 
  
37.2, 
   48.7) 
   of 
   female 
   graduate 
   students, 
   61.1% 
   (CL: 
   55.9, 
   66.4) 
   of 
   male 
   undergraduate 
   students, 
   and 
  
45.1% 
  (CL: 
  39.4, 
  50.7) 
  of 
  male 
  graduate 
  students 
  –reported 
  that 
  they 
  know 
   where 
  to 
  get 
  help 
  on 
  campus 
  
if 
  they 
  or 
  someone 
  they 
  know 
  were 
  sexually 
  assaulted. 
  

 
  
Table 
  4B.2: 
  Estimated 
  Percentage 
  and 
  95% 
  Confidence 
  Limits 
  of 
  U-­‐M 
  Student 
  Answering, 
  “If 
  you 
  or 
  someone 
  you 
  
know 
   were 
   sexually 
   assaulted, 
   how 
   likely 
   would 
   you 
   be 
   to 
   report 
   the 
   incident 
   to 
   the 
   following?” 
   Note: 
  
Respondents 
  could 
  report 
  more 
  than 
  one 
  response; 
  these 
  percentages 
  cannot 
  be 
  summed 
  across 
  row 
  categories. 
  
 
  
Very 
  Likely 
   
   Somewhat 
  Likely 
  
Somewhat 
  
Very 
  Unlikely 
   
  
% 
  
% 
  
Unlikely 
  % 
  
% 
  
Sexual 
  Assault 
  Prevention 
  
42.9 
  (40.2, 
  45.5) 
  
35.8 
  (33.2, 
  38.3) 
  
13.3 
  (11.5, 
  15.0) 
  
8.1 
  (6.6, 
  9.6) 
  
and 
  Awareness 
  Center 
  
Police 
  Department 
  
65.1 
  (62.5, 
  67.6) 
  
24.5 
  (22.2, 
  26.9) 
  
7.3 
  (6.1, 
  8.6) 
  
3.1 
  (2.3, 
  3.9) 
  
U-­‐M 
  Residence 
  Hall 
  or 
  
13.1 
  (11.3, 
  14.8) 
  
20.8 
  (18.6, 
  22.9) 
  
28.3 
  (25.8, 
  30.7) 
  
37.9 
  (35.3, 
  40.5) 
  
Housing 
  Staff 
  
Office 
  of 
  the 
  Dean 
  of 
  
10.7 
  (9.0, 
  12.5) 
  
19.5 
  (17.4, 
  21.7) 
  
34.7 
  (32.1, 
  37.2) 
  
35.1 
  (32.5, 
  37.6) 
  
Students 
  
Office 
  for 
  Institutional 
   
  
6.3 
  (4.9, 
  7.7) 
  
12.8 
  (11.1, 
  14.6) 
  
34.2 
  (31.7, 
  36.8) 
  
46.6 
  (44.0, 
  49.3) 
  
Equity 
  or 
  Title 
  IX 
  
Coordinator 
  
Counseling 
  and 
  
35.1 
  (32.6, 
  37.7) 
  
40.5 
  (37.9, 
  43.1) 
  
14.0 
  (12.2, 
  15.8) 
  
10.4 
  (8.8, 
  12.1) 
  
Psychological 
  Services 
  

 
  
C. PERSONAL 
  EXPERIENCES 
  REGARDING 
  SEXUAL 
  ACTIVITY 
  
•

79.6% 
  (CL: 
  77.4, 
  81.7) 
  of 
  students 
  – 
  81.7% 
  (CL: 
  78.9, 
  84.4) 
  of 
  female 
  students 
  and 
  77.7% 
  (CL: 
  74.4, 
  81.0) 
  of 
  
male 
  students 
  – 
  have 
  engaged 
  in 
  any 
  form 
  of 
  sexual 
  activity, 
  including 
  kissing 
  and 
  fondling 
  in 
  the 
  past 
  12 
  
months. 
   
  

11 
  
 
  

 Table 
  4C.1: 
  Estimated 
  Percentage 
  and 
  95% 
  Confidence 
  Limits 
  of 
  U-­‐M 
  Students 
  Answering, 
  “When 
  you 
  have 
  engaged 
  
in 
  any 
  form 
  of 
  sexual 
  activity, 
  including 
  kissing 
  and 
  fondling 
  in 
  the 
  past 
  12 
  months…” 
  you 
  did 
  the 
  following. 
   
   
  
Note: 
  Respondents 
  could 
  report 
  more 
  than 
  one 
  response; 
  percentages 
  cannot 
  be 
  summed 
  across 
  row 
  categories. 
  
 
  
All 
  of 
  the 
  
Most 
  of 
  
Some 
  of 
  
Rarely 
  
Never 
   
  
time 
  % 
   the 
  time 
  % 
   the 
  time 
  % 
  
 
  % 
  
% 
  
You 
  sought 
  verbal 
  
45.1 
   
  
22.0 
   
  
15.8 
   
  
12.0 
   
  
5.1 
  
agreement 
  for 
  the 
  activity 
  
(42.1, 
  
(19.5, 
  
(13.7, 
  
(10.1, 
  
(3.8, 
  6.3) 
  
 
  
48.1) 
  
24.4) 
  
17.9) 
  
14.0) 
  
You 
   gave 
   verbal 
   agreement 
  
44.4 
   
  
21.8 
   
  
15.6 
   
  
11.5 
   
  
6.6 
  
for 
  the 
  activity 
  
(41.4, 
  
(19.4, 
  
(13.6, 
  
(9.6, 
  13.4) 
  
(5.1, 
  8.2) 
  
47.4) 
  
24.3) 
  
17.7) 
  
You 
  sought 
  non-­‐verbal 
  
68.7 
   
  
12.4 
   
  
7.8 
   
  
3.7 
   
  
7.4 
  
agreement 
  for 
  the 
   
  
(65.9, 
  
(10.4, 
  
(6.2, 
  9.3) 
  
(2.6, 
  4.8) 
  
(5.8, 
  9.0) 
  
activity 
  
71.5) 
  
14.4) 
  
You 
  gave 
  non-­‐verbal 
  
67.8 
   
  
15.3 
   
  
7.6 
   
  
3.1 
   
  
6.3 
  
agreement 
  for 
  the 
  activity 
  
(65.0, 
  
(13.2, 
  
(6.1, 
  9.1) 
  
(2.1, 
  4.0) 
  
(4.8, 
  7.8) 
  
70.5) 
  
17.5) 
  

 
  
 
  
One 
  topic 
  of 
  great 
  concern 
  for 
  university-­‐based 
  programs 
  designed 
  to 
  reduce 
  the 
  prevalence 
  of 
  sexual 
  assault 
  is 
  
the 
   use 
   of 
   alcohol, 
   alcohol-­‐related 
   intoxication 
   and 
   the 
   potential 
   for 
   poor 
   communication 
   regarding 
   consent 
   in 
  
situations 
   with 
   alcohol 
   consumption. 
   To 
   learn 
   more 
   about 
   the 
   associations 
   between 
   alcohol 
   use 
   and 
   sexual 
  
behavior 
  in 
  general, 
  U-­‐M 
  asked 
  a 
  series 
  of 
  questions 
  linking 
  the 
  two. 
  The 
  results 
  are 
  provided 
  in 
  the 
  tables 
  below. 
  
 
  

Table 
   4C.2: 
   Estimated 
   Percentage 
   and 
   95% 
   Confidence 
   Limits 
   of 
   U-­‐M 
   Students 
   Answering, 
   “What 
   percentage 
   of 
  
your 
  sexual 
  activities, 
  including 
  kissing 
  and 
  fondling, 
  in 
  the 
  past 
  12 
  months 
  occurred 
  when 
  you 
  were 
  drinking, 
  but 
  
not 
  drunk 
  or 
  intoxicated?” 
   
  
 
  
0% 
  
1-­‐33% 
  
34-­‐66% 
  
67-­‐100% 
  
Undergraduate 
  
Graduate 
  
Total 
  

24.0 
  (20.6, 
  27.3) 
  
26.2 
  (22.1, 
  30.2) 
  
24.7 
  (22.1, 
  27.3) 
  

44.1 
  (40.3, 
  47.9) 
  
51.1 
  (46.4, 
  55.7) 
  
46.5 
  (43.5, 
  49.4) 
  

16.6 
  (13.6, 
  19.5) 
  
12.6 
  (9.5, 
  15.8) 
  
15.2 
  (13.0, 
  17.5) 
  

15.4 
  (12.5, 
  18.2) 
  
10.1 
  (7.3, 
  13.0) 
  
13.6 
  (11.5, 
  15.7) 
  

 
  
 
  
Tables 
  4C.3: 
  Estimated 
  Percentage 
  and 
  95% 
  Confidence 
  Limits 
  of 
  U-­‐M 
  Students 
  Answering, 
  “What 
  percentage 
  of 
  
your 
   sexual 
   activities, 
   including 
   kissing 
   and 
   fondling, 
   in 
   the 
   past 
   12 
   months 
   occurred 
   when 
   you 
   were 
   drunk 
   or 
  
intoxicated?” 
  
 
  
0% 
  
1-­‐33% 
  
34-­‐66% 
  
67-­‐100% 
  
Undergraduate 
  
Graduate 
  
Total 
  

34.9 
  (31.2, 
  38.6) 
  
52.8 
  (48.2, 
  57.5) 
  
40.9 
  (38.0, 
  43.9) 
  

47.1 
  (43.2, 
  50.9) 
  
42.8 
  (38.2, 
  47.5) 
  
45.6 
  (42.6, 
  48.6) 
  

10.1 
  (7.8, 
  12.4) 
  
3.6 
  (1.7, 
  5.6) 
  
7.9 
  (6.3, 
  9.6) 
  

8.0 
  (6.0, 
  9.9) 
  
0.7 
  (0.1, 
  1.4) 
  
5.5 
  (4.2, 
  6.8) 
  

 
  

D. SEXUAL 
  MISCONDUCT 
  VICTIMIZATION 
  
The 
  Michigan 
  survey 
  asked 
  respondents 
  two 
  sets 
  of 
  questions 
  regarding 
  nonconsensual 
  sexual 
  experiences 
  in 
  the 
  
past 
  12 
  months. 
  The 
  survey 
  questions 
  used 
  the 
  same 
  time 
  metric 
  – 
  within 
  the 
  past 
  12 
  months 
  – 
  in 
  order 
  to 
  provide 
  
consistent 
   responses 
   for 
   comparison 
   purposes. 
   In 
   doing 
   so, 
   the 
   survey 
   responses 
   captured 
   the 
   current 
   climate 
  
regarding 
   sexual 
   misconduct 
   within 
   our 
   campus 
   community 
   and 
   created 
   an 
   appropriate 
   benchmark 
   from 
   which 
   to 
  
measure 
   change 
   against 
   future 
   surveys. 
   This 
   standardized 
   reference 
   period 
   is 
   crucial 
   to 
   evaluate 
   the 
   success 
   of 
  
programs 
  and 
  policies 
  aimed 
  at 
  reducing 
  sexual 
  assault. 
  
12 
  
 
  

 The 
  tables 
  set 
  forth 
  below 
  show 
  the 
  U-­‐M 
  student 
  experiences 
  of 
  nonconsensual 
  sexual 
  behaviors 
  within 
  the 
  past 
  
12 
  months 
  by 
  various 
  types 
  of 
  experience. 
  Note 
  that 
  ‘*’ 
  Indicates 
  no 
  respondents 
  reported 
  “yes” 
  and 
  therefore 
  a 
  
population 
  estimate 
  could 
  not 
  be 
  calculated. 
  Please 
  also 
  note 
  that 
  some 
  respondents 
  answered 
  “don’t 
  know” 
  to 
  
specific 
   questions 
   regarding 
   specific 
   nonconsensual 
   sexual 
   experiences 
   – 
   the 
   estimates 
   we 
   present 
   here 
   are 
   based 
  
on 
  the 
  percentage 
  of 
  the 
  total 
  who 
  answered 
  “yes”. 
  The 
  percentages 
  of 
  respondents 
  who 
  reported 
  “don’t 
  know” 
  
are 
  provided 
  in 
  Appendix 
  A 
  for 
  all 
  of 
  the 
  items 
  presented 
  below. 
  
A 
  particularly 
  interesting 
  dimension 
  of 
  the 
  finding 
  is 
  the 
  level 
  of 
  reporting 
  of 
  verbal 
  pressure. 
   This 
  question 
  read 
  in 
  
relevant 
   part: 
   “In 
   the 
   past 
   12 
   months 
   [did 
   you 
   have 
   any 
   nonconsensual 
   sexual 
   experiences 
   in 
   which 
   someone 
  
22
was]  
  … 
  continually 
  verbally 
  pressuring 
  you 
  after 
  you 
  said 
  you 
  didn’t 
  want 
  to? 
  This 
  includes 
  telling 
  lies, 
  threatening 
  
to 
  end 
  the 
  relationship, 
  threatening 
  to 
  spread 
  rumors 
  about 
  you, 
  showing 
  displeasure, 
  criticizing 
  your 
  sexuality 
  or 
  
attractiveness, 
  or 
  getting 
  angry 
  but 
  not 
  using 
  physical 
  force.” 
  
The 
   first 
   set 
   of 
   questions 
   asked 
   respondents 
   about 
   nonconsensual 
   experiences 
   involving 
   being 
   “fondled, 
   kissed, 
   or 
  
rubbed 
  up 
  against 
  the 
  private 
  areas 
  of 
  your 
  body 
  (lips, 
  breast/chest, 
  crotch 
  or 
  butt)”, 
  having 
  “some 
  of 
  your 
  clothes 
  
[removed] 
  without 
  your 
  consent 
  (but 
  [with 
  no] 
  attempt 
  [at]sexual 
  penetration)”. 
  Overall 
  16.4% 
  (CL:13.9, 
  18.9) 
  of 
  
female 
   students 
   and 
   4.7% 
   (CL: 
   2.9, 
   6.4) 
   of 
   male 
   students 
   reported 
   this 
   experience. 
   More 
   detailed 
   results 
   are 
  
reported 
  in 
  Table 
  4D.1 
  below. 
   
  
 
  
Table 
   4D.1: 
   Estimated 
   Percentage 
   and 
   95% 
   Confidence 
   Limits 
   of 
   U-­‐M 
   Students 
   Answering: 
    
   “In 
   the 
   past 
   12 
  
months, 
  has 
  anyone 
  fondled, 
  kissed, 
  or 
  rubbed 
  up 
  against 
  the 
  private 
  areas 
  of 
  your 
  body 
  (lips, 
  breast/chest, 
  crotch 
  
or 
   butt) 
   or 
   removed 
   some 
   of 
   your 
   clothes 
   without 
   your 
   consent 
   (but 
   did 
   not 
   attempt 
   sexual 
   penetration 
   by…”. 
  
Note: 
   Respondents 
   could 
   report 
   more 
   than 
   one 
   response; 
   these 
   percentages 
   cannot 
   be 
   summed 
   across 
   row 
  
categories. 
   
  For 
  brevity, 
  the 
  precise 
  survey 
  language 
  appears 
  in 
  this 
  table 
  only; 
  it 
  is 
  abbreviated 
  in 
  the 
  tables 
  that 
  
follow. 
  
 
  
Female 
  
Female 
   
  
Male 
  
Male 
   
  
Undergraduates 
  
Graduates 
   Undergraduate
Graduates 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
s 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Verbally 
  pressuring 
  you 
  after 
  you 
  said 
  
10.2 
  (7.8, 
  12.7) 
  
5.5 
  (2.7, 
  8.3) 
  
3.2 
  (1.4, 
  5.1) 
  
0.7 
  (0.0, 
  1.8) 
  
you 
  didn’t 
  want 
  to, 
  including 
  telling 
  lies, 
  
threatening 
  to 
  end 
  the 
  relationship, 
  
thereatening 
  to 
  spread 
  rumors 
  about 
  
you, 
  showing 
  displeasure, 
  criticizing 
  your 
  
sexuality 
  or 
  sexuality 
  or 
  attractiveness, 
  or 
  
getting 
  angry 
  but 
  not 
  using 
  physical 
  force 
  
Taking 
  advantage 
  of 
  you 
  while 
  under 
  the 
  
11.1 
  (8.6, 
  13.6) 
  
2.9 
  (0.9, 
  4.9) 
  
3.2 
  (1.5, 
  4.8) 
  
0.4 
  (0.0, 
  1.1) 
  
influence 
  of 
  drugs 
  or 
  too 
  drunk 
  to 
  stop 
  
what 
  was 
  happening 
  
Taking 
  advantage 
  of 
  you 
  while 
  
2.6 
  (1.4, 
  3.9) 
  
1.5 
  (0.1, 
  2.8) 
  
1.2 
  (0.0, 
  2.3) 
  
* 
  
unconscious 
  or 
  asleep 
  or 
  physically 
  
incapacitated 
  and 
  could 
  not 
  stop 
  what 
  
was 
  happening 
  
Threatening 
  to 
  physically 
  harm 
  you 
  or 
  
0.4 
  (0.0, 
  0.9) 
  
0.4 
  (0.0, 
  1.1) 
  
0. 
  7 
  (0.0, 
  1.7) 
  
* 
  
someone 
  close 
  to 
  you 
  
Using 
  force, 
  for 
  example 
  holding 
  you 
  
3.6 
  (2.1, 
  5.0) 
  
1.5 
  (0.1, 
  2.8) 
  
0.5 
  (0.0, 
  1.1) 
  
* 
  
down 
  with 
  their 
  body 
  weight, 
  pinning 
  
your 
  arms, 
  or 
  having 
  a 
  weapon 
  
Yes 
  responses 
  to 
  any 
  of 
  the 
  above 
  
19.5 
  (16.2, 
  22.8) 
   9.0 
  (5.6, 
  12.5) 
  
6.7 
  (4.1, 
  9.4) 
  
1.1 
  (0.0, 
  2.4) 
  
 
  

13 
  
 
  

 The 
   second 
   set 
   of 
   questions 
   asked 
   if 
   students 
   had 
   experienced 
  nonconsensual 
   sexual 
   penetration 
   orally, 
   vaginally, 
  
or 
  anally. 
  In 
  total, 
  9.7 
  % 
  (CL: 
  7.5, 
  11.8) 
  of 
  female 
  students 
  and 
  1.4% 
  (CL: 
  0.5, 
  2.4) 
  of 
  male 
  students 
  reported 
  this 
  
experience. 
   More 
   detailed 
   results 
   are 
   presented 
   below 
   in 
   Table 
   4D.2 
   (oral 
   penetration), 
   Table 
   4D.3 
   (vaginal 
  
penetration) 
  and 
  Table 
  4D.4 
  (anal 
  penetration), 
  and 
  are 
  then 
  summarized 
  in 
  Table 
  4D.2-­‐4. 
  
 
  
Table 
   4D.2: 
   Estimated 
   Percentage 
   and 
   95% 
   Confidence 
   Limits 
   of 
   U-­‐M 
   Students 
   Answering: 
    
   “In 
   the 
   past 
   12 
  
months, 
  has 
  anyone 
  had 
  oral 
  sex 
  with 
  you 
  or 
  made 
  you 
  have 
  oral 
  sex 
  with 
  them 
  without 
  your 
  consent 
  by…” 
  
 
  
Female 
  
Female 
   
  
Male 
  
Male 
   
  
Undergraduates 
  
Graduates 
  
Undergraduates 
  
Graduates 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Verbally 
  pressuring 
  
5.5 
  (3.6, 
  7.4) 
  
0.4 
  (0.0, 
  1.1) 
  
0.9 
  (0.0, 
  2.0) 
  
0.4 
  (0.0, 
  1.3) 
  
Taking 
  advantage 
  of 
  you 
  
while 
  drunk 
  or 
  on 
  drugs 
  
Taking 
  advantage 
  of 
  you 
  
while 
  unconscious 
  or 
  
asleep 
  
Threatening 
  physical 
  
harm 
  
Using 
  physical 
  force 
  
Yes 
   responses 
   to 
   any 
   of 
  
the 
  above 
  

3.6 
  (2.2, 
  5.0) 
  

0.8 
  (0.0, 
  1.9) 
  

0.9 
  (0.1, 
  1.7) 
  

* 
  

0.4 
  (0.0, 
  0. 
  9) 
  

0.4 
  (0.0, 
  1.1) 
  

0.9 
  (0.0, 
  2.1) 
  

* 
  

0.3 
  (0.0, 
  0.8) 
  

* 
  

0.3 
  (0.0, 
  0.7) 
  

* 
  

1.1 
  (0.3, 
  1.8) 
  

0.4 
  (0.0, 
  1.1) 
  

0.8 
  (0.0, 
  1.9) 
  

* 
  

7.7 
  (5.5, 
  9.8) 
  

0.8 
  (0.0, 
  1.9) 
  

1.7 
  (0.4, 
  3.1) 
  

0.4 
  (0.0, 
  1.3) 
  

 
  
 
  
 
  
Table 
   4D.3: 
   Estimated 
   Percentage 
   and 
   95% 
   Confidence 
   Limits 
   of 
   U-­‐M 
   Female 
  
Students 
   Answering: 
   “In 
   the 
   past 
   12 
   months, 
   has 
   a 
   man 
   put 
   his 
   penis 
   into 
   your 
  
vagina, 
   or 
   has 
   anyone 
   inserted 
   fingers 
   or 
   objects 
   into 
   your 
   vagina 
   without 
   your 
  
consent 
   by…” 
   Note: 
   Respondents 
   could 
   report 
   more 
   than 
   one 
   response; 
   these 
  
percentages 
  cannot 
  be 
  summed 
  across 
  row 
  categories. 
  
 
  
Female 
  
Female 
   
  
 
  Undergraduates 
   
  
Graduates 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Verbally 
  pressuring 
  
4.0 
  (2.5, 
  5.5) 
  
1.7 
  (0.0, 
  3.7) 
  

 
  
 
  

Taking 
  advantage 
  of 
  you 
  while 
  drunk 
  
or 
  on 
  drugs 
  
Taking 
  advantage 
  of 
  you 
  while 
  
unconscious 
  or 
  asleep 
  
Threatening 
  physical 
  harm 
  

4.5 
  (2.8, 
  6.2) 
  

1.2 
  (0.0, 
  2.4) 
  

1.1 
  (0.3, 
  1.9) 
  

0.4 
  (0.0, 
  1.0) 
  

0.3 
  (0.0, 
  0.8) 
  

* 
  

Using 
  physical 
  force 
  

1.6 
  (0.6, 
  2.5) 
  

0.4 
  (0.0, 
  1.1) 
  

Yes 
  responses 
  to 
  any 
  of 
  the 
  above 
  

7.2 
  (5.1, 
  9.3) 
  

3.3 
  (0.8, 
  5.7) 
  

 
  

14 
  
 
  

 Table 
   4D.4: 
   Estimated 
   Percentage 
   and 
   95% 
   Confidence 
   Limits 
   of 
   U-­‐M 
   Students 
   Answering: 
    
   “In 
   the 
   past 
   12 
  
months, 
  has 
  a 
  man 
  put 
  his 
  penis 
  into 
  your 
  anus, 
  or 
  has 
  anyone 
  inserted 
  fingers 
  or 
  objects 
  into 
  your 
  anus 
  without 
  
your 
   consent 
   by…” 
    
   Note: 
   Respondents 
   could 
   report 
   more 
   than 
   one 
   response; 
   these 
   percentages 
   cannot 
   be 
  
summed 
  across 
  row 
  categories. 
  
 
  
Female 
  
Female 
   
  
Male 
  
Male 
   
  
Undergraduates 
  
Graduates 
  
Undergraduates 
  
Graduates 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Verbally 
  pressuring 
  
1.9 
  (0.4, 
  3.4) 
  
0.2 
  (0.0, 
  0.5) 
  
0.8 
  (0.0, 
  1.9) 
  
* 
  
Taking 
  advantage 
  of 
  you 
  
while 
  drunk 
  or 
  on 
  drugs 
  
Taking 
  advantage 
  of 
  you 
  
while 
  unconscious 
  or 
  
asleep 
  
Threatening 
  physical 
  
harm 
  
Using 
  physical 
  force 
  

1.0 
  (0.2, 
  1.7) 
  

* 
  

0.4 
  (0.0, 
  0.8) 
  

* 
  

0.1 
  (0.0, 
  0.2) 
  

0.5 
  (0.0, 
  1.5) 
  

0.6 
  (0.0, 
  1.6) 
  

* 
  

0.2 
  (0.0, 
  0.6) 
  

* 
  

0.8 
  (0.0, 
  1.9) 
  

* 
  

0.3 
  (0.0, 
  0.8) 
  

* 
  

0.4 
  (0.0, 
  0.9) 
  

* 
  

Yes 
   responses 
   to 
   any 
   of 
  
the 
  above 
  

2.7 
  (1.0, 
  4.3) 
  

0.7 
  (0.0, 
  1.7) 
  

1.4 
  (0.1, 
  2.6) 
  

* 
  

 
  
 
  
Table 
  4D.2-­‐4: 
  Summary 
  of 
  Experience 
  of 
  Nonconsensual 
  Oral, 
  Vaginal 
  or 
  Anal 
  Sex. 
  Note: 
  Respondents 
  could 
   
  
report 
  more 
  than 
  one 
  response; 
  percentages 
  cannot 
  be 
  summed 
  across 
  row 
  categories. 
  
 
  
Female 
  
Female 
   
  
Male 
  
Male 
   
  
Undergraduates 
  
Graduates 
  
Undergraduates 
  
Graduates 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Verbally 
  pressuring 
  
8.0 
  (5.6, 
  10.3) 
  
2.3 
  (0.2, 
  4.4) 
  
0.9 
  (0.0, 
  2.0) 
  
0.4 
  (0.0, 
  1.3) 
  
Taking 
  advantage 
  of 
  you 
  
while 
  drunk 
  or 
  on 
  drugs 
  
Taking 
  advantage 
  of 
  you 
  
while 
  unconscious 
  or 
  
asleep 
  
Threatening 
  physical 
  
harm 
  
Using 
  physical 
  force 
  
Yes 
   responses 
   to 
   any 
   of 
  
the 
  above 
  

6.7 
  (4.7, 
  8.8) 
  

1.5 
  (0.1, 
  3.0) 
  

0.9 
  (0.1, 
  1.7) 
  

* 
  

1.1 
  (0.3, 
  1.9) 
  

1.2 
  (0.0, 
  2.7) 
  

0.9 
  (0.0, 
  2.1) 
  

* 
  

0.3 
  (0.0, 
  0.8) 
  

* 
  

0.8 
  (0.0, 
  1.9) 
  

* 
  

1.8 
  (0.8, 
  2.8) 
  

0.8 
  (0.0, 
  1.8) 
  

1.1 
  (0.0, 
  2.3) 
  

* 
  

11.9 
  (9.1, 
  14.7) 
  

4.3 
  (1.6, 
  7.1) 
  

2.0 
  (0.6, 
  3.5) 
  

0.4 
  (0.0, 
  1.3) 
  

 
  
Please 
   note 
   that 
   combining 
   the 
   percentage 
   of 
   students 
   who 
   had 
   reported 
   any 
   of 
   these 
   forms 
   of 
   nonconsensual 
  
sexual 
   experiences, 
   that 
   is, 
   fondling, 
   kissing, 
   or 
   touching 
   behaviors 
   (Table 
   4D.1) 
   along 
   with 
   oral, 
   vaginal 
   or 
   anal 
  
penetration 
  (Table 
  4D.2-­‐4), 
  yields 
  results 
  somewhat 
  less 
  than 
  the 
  sum 
  of 
  the 
  percentages 
  reported 
  in 
  each 
  of 
  the 
  
prior 
   tables 
   because 
   some 
   students 
   experience 
   both. 
   In 
   total, 
   11.4% 
   (CL: 
   9.7, 
   13.0) 
   of 
   students 
   indicated 
   having 
  
experienced 
   any 
   form 
   of 
   nonconsensual 
   sexual 
   behavior, 
   whether 
   fondling, 
   kissing, 
   touching, 
   or 
   oral, 
   vaginal 
   or 
  
anal 
   penetration. 
   As 
   shown 
   below, 
   this 
   11.4% 
   can 
   be 
   further 
   divided 
   as 
   follows: 
   22.5% 
   (CL: 
   19.0, 
   26.1) 
   of 
  
undergraduate 
   female 
   students, 
   6.8% 
   (CL: 
   4.2, 
   9.4) 
   of 
   undergraduate 
   male 
   students, 
   9.2% 
   (CL: 
   5.7, 
   12.7) 
   of 
  
graduate 
  female 
  students 
  and 
  1.1% 
  (CL: 
  0.0, 
  2.4) 
  of 
  graduate 
  male 
  students. 
  
 
  
15 
  
 
  

 Table 
   4D.1-­‐4: 
   Summary 
   of 
   Experience 
   of 
   Nonconsensual 
   Fondling, 
   Kissing 
   or 
   Touching, 
   and/or 
   Oral, 
   Vaginal 
   or 
  
Anal 
  Sex. 
  Note: 
  Respondents 
  could 
  report 
  more 
  than 
  one 
  response; 
  these 
  percentages 
  cannot 
  be 
  summed 
  across 
  
row 
  categories. 
  
 
  
Female 
  
Female 
   
  
Male 
  
Male 
   
  
Undergraduates 
  
Graduates 
  
Undergraduates 
  
Graduates 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Yes 
  (%) 
  
Verbally 
  pressuring 
  
13.1 
  (10.2, 
  16.0) 
  
5.7 
  (2.8, 
  8.5) 
  
3.9 
  (1.8, 
  6.1) 
  
0.7 
  (0.0, 
  1.8) 
  
Taking 
  advantage 
  of 
  you 
  
while 
  drunk 
  or 
  on 
  drugs 
  
Taking 
  advantage 
  of 
  you 
  
while 
  unconscious 
  or 
  
asleep 
  
Threatening 
  physical 
  
harm 
  
Using 
  physical 
  force 
  

12.8 
  (10.0, 
  15.5) 
  

3.2 
  (1.1, 
  5.4) 
  

3.2 
  (1.5, 
  4.8) 
  

0.4 
  (0.0, 
  1.1) 
  

2.9 
  (1.6, 
  4.1) 
  

2.0 
  (0.3, 
  3.7) 
  

1.7 
  (0.1, 
  3.2) 
  

* 
  

0.4 
  (0.0, 
  0.9) 
  

0.4 
  (0.0, 
  1.1) 
  

0.9 
  (0.0, 
  2.0) 
  

* 
  

3.9 
  (2.4, 
  5.4) 
  

1.5 
  (0.1, 
  2.8) 
  

1.3 
  (0.0, 
  2.6) 
  

* 
  

Yes 
   responses 
   to 
   any 
   of 
  
the 
  above 
  

22.5 
  (19.0, 
  26.1) 
  

9.2 
  (5.7, 
  12.7) 
  

6.8 
  (4.2, 
  9.4) 
  

1.1 
  (0.0, 
  2.4) 
  

 
  
Finally, 
  because 
  of 
  the 
  high 
  rates 
  of 
  any 
  nonconsensual 
  sexual 
  experience 
  among 
  undergraduate 
  females, 
  we 
  also 
  
estimated 
  those 
  rates 
  separately 
  for 
  freshmen, 
  sophomores, 
  juniors 
  and 
  seniors. 
  Although 
  there 
  is 
  some 
  variability 
  
in 
   the 
   rates 
   across 
   year, 
   with 
   seniors 
   experiencing 
   the 
   lowest 
   estimated 
   rates, 
   the 
   confidence 
   limits 
   for 
   these 
  
estimates 
  all 
  overlap 
  each 
  other, 
  so 
  there 
  are 
  no 
  statistically 
  significant 
  differences 
  in 
  the 
  observed 
  rates 
  by 
  year 
  of 
  
undergraduate 
   enrollment. 
   Nor 
   are 
   there 
   statistically 
   significant 
   differences 
   in 
   the 
   rates 
   of 
   any 
   nonconsensual 
  
sexual 
   experience 
   by 
   year 
   of 
   enrollment 
   for 
   undergraduate 
   males. 
   In 
   other 
   words, 
   undergraduate 
   freshmen 
   did 
  
not 
  report 
  a 
  higher 
  percentage 
  of 
  such 
  assaults 
  than 
  any 
  other 
  class 
  rank. 
  
The 
   final 
   set 
   of 
   questions 
   in 
   this 
   portion 
   of 
   the 
   survey 
   asked 
   respondents 
   about 
   their 
   experiences 
   with 
   various 
  
forms 
  of 
  sexual 
  harassment. 
  
• 
   22.4% 
   (CL: 
   20.1, 
   24.6) 
   of 
   Michigan 
   students 
   – 
   35.1% 
   (CL: 
   30.9, 
   39.3) 
   of 
   female 
   undergraduate 
   students, 
   23.6% 
  
(CL: 
   18.5, 
   28.6) 
   of 
   female 
   graduate 
   students, 
   18.1% 
   (CL: 
   13.9, 
   22.4) 
   of 
   male 
   undergraduate 
   students 
   and 
   5.4% 
   (CL: 
  
2.9, 
  7.9) 
  of 
  male 
  graduate 
  students 
  – 
  said 
  they 
  have 
  experienced 
  any 
  sexual 
  harassment 
  in 
  the 
  past 
  12 
  months. 
  
More 
  detailed 
  results 
  are 
  summarized 
  in 
  Table 
  4D.8. 
  
 
  

 
  

16 
  
 
  

 Table 
  4D.8: 
  Estimated 
  Percentage 
  and 
  95% 
  Confidence 
  Limits 
  of 
  U-­‐M 
  Student 
  Answering 
  Yes 
  To, 
  ”In 
  the 
  past 
  
12 
   months, 
   has 
   anyone 
   …” 
   Note: 
   Respondents 
   could 
   report 
   more 
   than 
   one 
   response; 
   these 
   percentages 
  
cannot 
  be 
  summed 
  across 
  row 
  categories. 
  
Students 
  indicating 
  that 
  they 
  
Female 
  
Female 
  
Male 
  
Male 
  
experienced 
  each 
  of 
  the 
  following 
  
Undergraduate 
  
Graduate 
  
Undergraduate 
  
Graduate 
  
while 
  at 
  U-­‐M 
  within 
  the 
  past 
  12 
  
% 
  
% 
  
% 
   
  
% 
  
months: 
  
Stared 
  at 
  you 
  in 
  a 
  sexual 
  way 
  or 
  
21.3 
   
  
13.7 
   
  
5.1 
   
  
0.6 
  
looked 
  at 
  the 
  sexual 
  parts 
  of 
  your 
  
(17.6, 
  24.9) 
  
(9.5, 
  17.9) 
  
(2.6, 
  7.6) 
  
(0.0, 
  1.6) 
  
body 
  after 
  you 
  asked 
  them 
  to 
  stop 
  
Made 
  teasing 
  comments 
  of 
   
  a 
  sexual 
  
19.4 
   
  
15.5 
   
  
3.7 
   
  
0.7 
   
  
nature 
  about 
  your 
  body 
  or 
  
(15.9, 
  22.9) 
  
(11.1, 
  20.0) 
  
(1.7, 
  5.8) 
  
(0.0, 
  1.6) 
  
appearance 
  after 
  you 
  asked 
  them 
  to 
  
stop 
  
Sent 
  you 
  sexual 
  or 
  obscene 
  materials 
  
5.3 
   
  
3.9 
   
  
2.6 
   
  
1.6 
   
  
such 
  as 
  pictures, 
  jokes, 
  or 
  stories 
  in 
  
(3.4, 
  7.3) 
  
(1.6, 
  6.2) 
  
(1.1, 
  4.1) 
  
(0.2, 
  3.0) 
  
the 
  mail, 
  by 
  text, 
  or 
  over 
  the 
  Internet, 
  
 
  
after 
  you 
  asked 
  them 
  to 
  stop 
  
Showed 
  you 
  pornographic 
  pictures 
  
6.7 
   
  
4.3 
   
  
7.8 
   
  
2.6 
   
  
when 
  you 
  had 
  not 
  agreed 
  to 
  look 
  at 
  
(4.5, 
  9.0) 
  
(1.9, 
  6.6) 
  
(4.9, 
  10.8) 
  
(0.8, 
  4.5) 
  
them 
  
Made 
  sexual 
  or 
  obscene 
  phone 
  calls 
  
1.9 
   
  
0.7 
   
  
1.3 
   
  
* 
  
to 
  you 
  when 
  you 
  had 
  not 
  agreed 
  to 
  
(0.8, 
  3.0) 
  
(0.0, 
  1.6) 
  
(0.2, 
  2.4) 
  
talk 
  to 
  them 
  
Watched 
  you 
  while 
  you 
  were 
  
2.2 
   
  
0.5 
   
  
2.7 
  
0.2 
   
  
undressing, 
  nude, 
  or 
  having 
  sex, 
  
(1.0, 
  3.5) 
  
(0.0, 
  1.3) 
  
 
  (0.9, 
  4.6) 
  
(0.0, 
  0.7) 
  
without 
  your 
  consent 
  
Taken 
  photos 
  or 
  videotapes 
  of 
  you 
  
1.0 
   
  
0.8 
   
  
2.4 
   
  
0.2 
   
  
when 
  you 
  were 
  undressing, 
  nude, 
  or 
  
(0.2, 
  1.7) 
  
(0.0, 
  1.9) 
  
(0.7, 
  4.2) 
  
(0.0, 
  0.7) 
  
having 
  sex, 
  without 
  your 
  consent 
  
Showed 
  you 
  the 
  private 
  areas 
  of 
  their 
  
5.5 
   
  
3.9 
   
  
5.9 
   
  
1.1 
   
  
body 
  (ex. 
  buttocks, 
  penis, 
  or 
  breasts) 
  
(3.4, 
  7.6) 
  
(1.6, 
  6.2) 
  
(3.2, 
  8.6) 
  
(0.1, 
  2.1) 
  
without 
  your 
  consent 
  
Made 
  sexual 
  motions 
  to 
  you, 
  such 
  as 
  
13.3 
   
  
9.4 
   
  
6.6 
   
  
0.7 
   
  
grabbing 
  their 
  crotch, 
  pretending 
  to 
  
(10.3, 
  16.4) 
  
(5.9, 
  13.0) 
  
(3.6, 
  9.6) 
  
(0.0, 
  1.4) 
  
masturbate, 
  or 
  imitating 
  oral 
  sex 
   
  
without 
  your 
  consent 
  
Masturbated 
  in 
  front 
  of 
  you 
  without 
  
1.2 
   
  
0.3 
   
  
1.0 
   
  
* 
  
your 
  consent 
  
(0.1, 
  2.4) 
  
(0.0, 
  0.8) 
  
(0.0, 
  2.2) 
  

 
  
E. SPECIFIC 
  INCIDENTS: 
  REPORTING 
  

46.4% 
   
  (CL: 
  38.9, 
  53.9) 
  of 
  students 
  who 
  indicated 
  they 
  had 
  at 
  least 
  one 
  nonconsensual 
  sexual 
  experience 
  at 
  U-­‐M 
  
within 
  the 
  past 
  12 
  months 
  told 
  someone 
  else 
  about 
  the 
  most 
  recent 
  incident. 
  Only 
  3.6% 
  (CL: 
  1.2-­‐6.0) 
  of 
  students 
  
who 
  had 
  at 
  least 
  one 
  nonconsensual 
  sexual 
  experience 
  (or 
  7.9% 
  (CL: 
  2.7, 
  13.0) 
  of 
  those 
  who 
  told 
  anyone 
  else 
  about 
  
the 
   experience) 
   reported 
   the 
   experience 
   to 
   someone 
   in 
   the 
   Sexual 
   Assault 
   Prevention 
   and 
   Awareness 
   Center 
  
(SAPAC), 
  Ann 
  Arbor 
  Police 
  Department, 
  U-­‐M 
  Police 
  Department 
  (UMPD), 
  Office 
  for 
  Institutional 
  Equity, 
  Office 
  of 
  
the 
  Dean 
  of 
  Students, 
  Office 
  of 
  Student 
  Conflict 
  Resolution 
  or 
  Counseling 
  and 
  Psychological 
  Services. 
  
•

Students 
   who 
   told 
   someone 
   about 
   their 
   experience 
   were 
   most 
   likely 
   to 
   tell 
   a 
   friend 
   (93.9% 
   (CL: 
   88.6, 
  
99.2)), 
  a 
  roommate 
  (42.5% 
  (CL: 
  32.8, 
  52.2)), 
  or 
  a 
  spouse 
  (16.3% 
  (CL: 
  8.7, 
  24.0)). 
  Other 
  responses 
  included: 
   
  
•

Counselor, 
  therapist 
  or 
  social 
  worker: 
  11.7% 
  (5.3, 
  18.1) 
  
17 
  

 
  

 •
•
•
•
•
•
•

Other 
  family 
  member(s): 
  7.8% 
  (3.1, 
  12.5) 
  
Other 
  U-­‐M 
  Representative: 
  3.1% 
  (0.0, 
  6.3) 
  
Police 
  Department 
  or 
  Department 
  of 
  Public 
  Safety: 
  2.6% 
  (0.0, 
  5.5) 
  
Pastor, 
  Priest, 
  Rabbi 
  or 
  other 
  spiritual 
  advisor: 
  1.4% 
  (0.0, 
  2.9) 
  
Student 
  peer 
  advisor 
  or 
  mentor: 
  1.2% 
  (0.0, 
  2.9) 
  
Medical 
  doctor 
  or 
  medical 
  professional: 
  1.0% 
  (0.0, 
  1.4) 
  
Residence 
  Hall 
  Staff: 
  0.5% 
  (0.0, 
  3.5) 
  

•

For 
  the 
  3.6% 
  (CL: 
  1.2, 
  6.0) 
  of 
  students 
  who 
  reported 
  the 
  experience 
  to 
  an 
  official 
    
   U-­‐M 
   resource 
   or 
  law 
  
enforcement, 
  the 
  U-­‐M 
  resource 
  most 
  often 
  contacted 
  was 
  either 
  Counseling 
  and 
  Psychological 
  Services 
  or 
  
SAPAC. 
  Other 
  services 
  were 
  used 
  rarely. 
  

•

59.7% 
   (CL: 
   20.6, 
   98.9) 
   of 
   students 
   who 
   reported 
   the 
   experience 
   to 
   someone 
   in 
   an 
   official 
   U-­‐M 
   capacity 
   or 
  
law 
  enforcement 
  received 
  at 
  least 
  one 
  response 
  that 
  made 
  them 
  feel 
  supported. 
   
  

•

Students 
   who 
   indicated 
   they 
   had 
   experienced 
   at 
   least 
   one 
   nonconsensual 
   sexual 
   behavior 
   were 
   asked 
  
about 
  reasons 
  for 
  their 
  decision 
  not 
  to 
  report 
  their 
  experience. 
  Of 
  those 
  responding, 
  the 
  list 
  below 
  notes 
  
their 
  rationales, 
  from 
  most-­‐ 
  to 
  least-­‐ 
  commonly 
  cited: 
  
•
•
•
•
•

Other: 
  39.2% 
  (CL: 
  29.4, 
  49.0) 
  
Did 
  not 
  want 
  to 
  get 
  the 
  person 
  who 
  did 
  it 
  in 
  trouble: 
  34.0% 
  (CL: 
  24.0, 
  44.0) 
   
  
Blamed 
  myself: 
  29.0% 
  (CL: 
  19.4, 
  38.6) 
   
  
Felt 
  embarrassed 
  or 
  ashamed: 
  27.1% 
  (CL: 
  18.0, 
  36.3) 
  Felt 
  embarrassed 
  or 
  ashamed 
  
Did 
  not 
  think 
  U-­‐M 
  would 
  do 
  anything: 
  15.1% 
  (CL: 
  8.0, 
  22.2) 
  Did 
  not 
  think 
  U-­‐M 
  would 
  do 
  anything 
  

The 
  “other” 
  category 
  response 
  allowed 
  students 
  to 
  enter 
  the 
  reason 
  for 
  not 
  reporting 
  in 
  their 
  own 
  words. 
  By 
  far 
  
the 
  most 
  common 
  of 
  these 
  self-­‐described 
  reasons 
  – 
  accounting 
  for 
  55% 
  of 
  these 
  answers 
  – 
  was 
  some 
  version 
  of 
  
the 
   respondent 
   believing 
   the 
   incident 
   was 
   not 
   severe 
   enough 
   or 
   serious 
   enough 
   to 
   merit 
   a 
   report 
   (not 
   a 
   “big 
  
deal”). 
  

F. SPECIFIC 
  INCIDENT: 
   
  LOCATIONS, 
  PERPETRATORS 
  AND 
  IMPACTS 
  
Students 
   whose 
   survey 
   responses 
   reported 
   sexual 
   misconduct 
   within 
   the 
   past 
   12 
   months 
   were 
   asked 
   follow-­‐up 
  
questions 
  about 
  a 
  specific 
  incident 
  of 
  such 
  behavior 
  at 
  U-­‐M. 
  Because 
  students 
  may 
  have 
  experienced 
  more 
  than 
  
one 
   incident 
   of 
   nonconsensual 
   sexual 
   behavior 
   during 
   that 
   timeframe, 
   they 
   were 
   instructed 
   to 
   respond 
   to 
   this 
  
section 
  thinking 
  about 
  “the 
  most 
  recent 
  time.” 
   
  
56.1% 
   (CL: 
   48.5, 
   63.8) 
   of 
   students 
   indicated 
   that 
   another 
   U-­‐M 
   student 
   was 
   responsible 
   for 
   the 
   nonconsensual 
  
sexual 
   experience. 
   Almost 
   all 
   female 
   students 
   (98.3% 
   (CL: 
   96.3, 
   100)) 
   who 
   reported 
   a 
   nonconsensual 
   sexual 
  
experience 
   indicated 
   the 
   perpetrators 
   were 
   males. 
   The 
   male 
   students 
   who 
   reported 
   a 
   nonconsensual 
   sexual 
  
behavior 
  indicated 
  the 
  perpetrators 
  were 
  either 
  males 
  26.3% 
  (CL: 
  9.4, 
  43.1) 
  or 
  females 
  66.8% 
  (CL: 
  48.0, 
  85.5). 
  Of 
  
those 
   who 
   indicated 
   experiencing 
   a 
  nonconsensual 
   sexual 
   experience, 
   5.5% 
   (CL: 
   1.8, 
   9.3) 
   had 
   no 
   prior 
   relationship 
  
with 
  the 
  perpetrator 
  and 
  did 
  not 
  know 
  or 
  were 
  unsure 
  if 
  the 
  person 
  was 
  affiliated 
  with 
  U-­‐M. 
  17.4% 
  (CL: 
  11.4, 
  23.4) 
  
of 
   all 
   undergraduate 
   students 
   indicated 
   the 
   perpetrator 
   was 
   a 
   friend. 
   10.2% 
   (CL: 
   5.4, 
   14.9) 
   of 
   all 
   undergraduate 
  
students 
  indicated 
  the 
  perpetrator 
  was 
  an 
  acquaintance. 
  22.5% 
  (CL: 
  6.2, 
  38.8) 
  of 
   all 
  graduate 
  students 
  indicated 
  
the 
   perpetrator 
   was 
   a 
   friend. 
   10.7% 
   (CL: 
   0.0, 
   22.9) 
   of 
   all 
   graduate 
   students 
   indicated 
   the 
   perpetrator 
   was 
   an 
  
23
acquaintance.  
  
Finally, 
  those 
  who 
  had 
  a 
  nonconsensual 
  sexual 
  experience 
  in 
  the 
  past 
  12 
  months 
  were 
  asked, 
  “Thinking 
  about 
  the 
  
most 
   recent 
   time 
   this 
   happened 
   to 
   you, 
   where 
   did 
   this 
   event 
   take 
   place?” 
    
   The 
   response 
   options 
   differentiated 
  

18 
  
 
  

 between 
   residential 
   buildings 
   and 
   other 
   buildings 
   across 
   the 
   categories 
   “On 
   campus” 
   (defined 
   as 
   “all 
   University 
  
owned 
   or 
   managed 
   property 
   in 
   Ann 
   Arbor”), 
   “Near-­‐campus” 
   (defined 
   as 
   “areas 
   within 
   ½ 
   mile 
   of 
   Campus 
   in 
   Ann 
  
Arbor”) 
   and 
   “Off 
   campus” 
   (defined 
   as 
   “areas 
   further 
   than 
   ½ 
   mile 
   of 
   Campus”). 
   The 
   results 
   are 
   provided 
   below, 
  
separated 
  for 
  undergraduate 
  students 
  and 
  graduate 
  students. 
  
 
  
 
  

Undergraduate 
   
  
Students 
  
14.5% 
  

On-­‐campus 
  
Near-­‐Campus 
  

38.4% 
  

Off-­‐campus 
  

41.2% 
  

Graduate 
   
  
Students 
  
6.3% 
  
 
  
22.6% 
  
 
  
72% 
  
 
  

 
  

G.  
  
PERPETRATING 
  NONCONSENSUAL 
  SEXUAL 
  EXPERIENCES 
  
A 
   series 
   of 
   questions 
   in 
   the 
   survey 
   asked 
   students 
   about 
   their 
   behavior 
   towards 
   others 
   (F1-­‐F4). 
   In 
   their 
   responses, 
  
1.1% 
   (CL: 
   0.5, 
   1.6) 
   of 
   students 
   said 
   they 
   had 
   acted 
   without 
   consent, 
   and 
   another 
   3.3% 
   (CL: 
   2.2, 
   4.4) 
   of 
   students 
  
indicated 
  that 
  they 
  were 
  unsure 
  if 
  they 
  had 
  behaved 
  in 
  this 
  way. 
  In 
  these 
  responses, 
  the 
  choice 
  of 
  the 
  response 
  
“don’t 
  know” 
  is 
  complex. 
  A 
  key 
  reason 
  is 
  that 
  the 
  student 
  respondents 
  were 
  asked 
  to 
  report 
  what 
  they 
  had 
  done 
  
and 
  how 
  the 
  person 
  that 
  they 
  did 
  it 
  to 
  may 
  have 
  interpreted 
  their 
  actions 
  – 
  that 
  is, 
  the 
  respondent 
  may 
  very 
  well 
  
not 
  know 
  how 
  the 
  other 
  person 
  interpreted 
  the 
  action. 
  Thus, 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  necessarily 
  the 
  case 
  that 
  a 
  response 
  of 
  “don’t 
  
know” 
   should 
   be 
   interpreted 
   to 
   mean 
   that 
   the 
   act 
   was 
   nonconsensual. 
    
   Consequently, 
   these 
   “don’t 
   know” 
  
responses 
   are 
   considered 
   as 
   something 
   different 
   than 
   “yes”. 
    
   Only 
   the 
   proportion 
   of 
   students 
   that 
   said 
   “yes” 
   to 
  
questions 
   of 
   perpetrating 
   unwanted 
   sexual 
   behavior 
   were 
   considered 
   affirmative 
   responses. 
   However, 
   this 
  
additional 
  3.3% 
  who 
  indicated 
  they 
  did 
  not 
  know 
  if 
  they 
  had 
  ever 
  acted 
  without 
  consent 
  may 
  reflect 
  actions 
  that 
  
others 
  would 
  have 
  considered 
  nonconsensual. 
  The 
  survey 
  also 
  asked 
  respondents 
  to 
  report 
  on 
  their 
  own 
  attempts 
  
at 
  perpetrating 
  nonconsensual 
  sexual 
  behaviors. 
  Reports 
  of 
  attempted 
  perpetration 
  were 
  exceptionally 
  rare. 
  
 
  

 
  

19 
  
 
  

  
  

VI.

ANALYSIS 
  OF 
  RISK 
  FACTORS 
  

Specific 
   demographic 
   factors 
   and 
   memberships 
   were 
   shown 
   in 
   the 
   survey 
   results 
   to 
   correlate 
   to 
   the 
   risk 
   of 
  
nonconsensual 
  sexual 
  penetration 
  (oral, 
  vaginal, 
  anal): 
  
 
  

• 
   Females 
  were 
  nearly 
  8 
  times 
  more 
  at 
  risk 
  than 
  males. 
  
• 
   Undergraduates 
  were 
  3 
  times 
  more 
  at 
  risk 
  than 
  graduate 
  students. 
  
• 
   Lesbian, 
  gay 
  or 
  bisexual 
  students 
  were 
  2.5 
  times 
  more 
  at 
  risk 
  than 
  heterosexual 
  students. 
  
• 
   Underrepresented 
  minority 
  students 
  were 
  2 
  times 
  more 
  at 
  risk 
  than 
  white 
  students. 
  
• 
   Sorority 
  or 
  fraternity 
  members 
  were 
  2.5 
  times 
  more 
  at 
  risk 
  than 
  non-­‐Greek 
  students. 
  
• 
   Club 
  (not 
  varsity) 
  sports 
  members 
  were 
  2 
  times 
  more 
  at 
  risk 
  than 
  non-­‐club 
  sports 
  students. 
  
 
  
There 
   was 
   no 
   statistically 
   significant 
   difference 
   in 
   risk 
   for 
   undergraduate 
   females 
   or 
   males 
   by 
   class 
   rank, 
   i.e., 
  
freshman, 
  sophomore, 
  junior, 
  or 
  senior. 
   
  In 
  other 
  words, 
  undergraduate 
  freshman 
  women 
  and 
  men 
  were 
  not 
  more 
  
likely 
  to 
  be 
  assaulted 
  than 
  undergraduates 
  of 
  any 
  other 
  class 
  rank. 
  
 
  
Table 
  8.1 
  below 
  summarizes 
  the 
  statistical 
  analyses 
  of 
  the 
  survey 
  data 
  producing 
  these 
  results. 
  Multivariate 
  logistic 
  
regression 
  was 
  used 
  to 
  estimate 
  the 
  independent 
  effect 
  of 
  each 
  demographic 
  category 
  on 
  the 
  odds 
  of 
  having 
  an 
  
unwanted 
  sexual 
  experience 
  within 
  the 
  prior 
  12 
  months. 
  This 
  approach 
  is 
  important 
  because 
  membership 
  in 
  these 
  
categories 
  can 
  overlap, 
  but 
  each 
  is 
  an 
  independent 
  risk 
  factor 
  for 
  nonconsensual 
  sexual 
  experiences. 
  
24

The 
  first 
  model 
  in 
  Table 
  8.1 
  estimates 
  the 
  risk 
  of 
  experiencing 
  nonconsensual 
  fondling, 
  kissing 
  or 
  touching.  
  The 
  
second 
  model 
  in 
  Table 
  8.1 
  estimates 
  the 
  risk 
  of 
  experiencing 
  nonconsensual 
  oral, 
  vaginal 
  or 
  anal 
  sex. 
  The 
  effects 
  
displayed 
   in 
   the 
   table 
   are 
   odds 
   ratios. 
   Odds 
   ratios 
   are 
   multiplicative, 
   so 
   an 
   odds 
   ratio 
   of 
   1.0 
   means 
   no 
   association, 
  
an 
  odds 
  ratio 
  of 
  greater 
  than 
  1.0 
  means 
  the 
  odds 
  of 
  a 
  nonconsensual 
  experience 
  are 
  increased, 
  and 
  an 
  odds 
  ratio 
  
of 
   less 
   than 
   1.0 
   means 
   the 
   odds 
   of 
   a 
   nonconsensual 
   experience 
   are 
   reduced. 
   We 
   estimate 
   the 
   statistical 
  
significance 
  of 
  each 
  odds 
  ratio 
  with 
  a 
  Wald 
  chi-­‐square 
  statistic, 
  presented 
  in 
  parentheses 
  directly 
  below 
  the 
  odds 
  
ratio. 
  Statistically 
  significant 
  effects 
  on 
  the 
  odds 
  of 
  nonconsensual 
  sexual 
  experience 
  are 
  displayed 
  in 
  bold, 
  with 
  the 
  
levels 
  of 
  significance 
  identified. 
  
 
  

 
  

20 
  
 
  

 Table 
   8.1: 
   Estimated 
   Odds 
   Ratios 
   for 
   Nonconsensual 
   Sexual 
   Experiences 
   Within 
   the 
   Past 
   12 
   Months 
   at 
   the 
   University 
   of 
  
Michigan, 
  2014-­‐15. 
   
  
From 
  Multivariate 
  Logistic 
  Regressions: 
  Odds 
  Ratios 
  (Wald 
  Chi-­‐Square) 
  
 
  
Fondling, 
  Kissing 
  or 
  
Oral, 
  Vaginal 
  or 
  Anal 
  Sex 
  
25
Touching  
  
Female 
  (compared 
  to 
  male) 
  
4.1*** 
  
7.7*** 
  
(40.3) 
  
(39.9) 
  
Undergraduate 
   (compared 
   to 
   graduate/ 
  
2.6*** 
  
3.2** 
  
professional) 
  
(12.0) 
  
(7.5) 
  
GSI/GSRA 
  (compared 
  to 
  not) 
  
1.2 
  
1.7 
  
(0.1) 
  
(0.5) 
  
Gay, 
  Lesbian, 
  Bisexual 
   
  
2.2** 
  
2.6** 
  
And 
  Other 
  (compared 
  to 
  heterosexual) 
  
(7.6) 
  
(7.3) 
  
 
  
26
Race  
  (compared 
  to 
  white) 
  
 
  
 
  
Asian 
  
0.6 
  
0.8 
  
(2.7) 
  
(0.2) 
  
Underrepresented 
  
1.7* 
  
2.1* 
   
  
(5.1) 
  
(5.9) 
  
Residence 
  (compared 
  to 
  on 
  campus-­‐housing) 
  
 
  
 
  
Fraternity/Sorority 
  
1.2 
  
1.04 
  
(0.1) 
  
(0.01) 
  
Family 
  
1.5 
  
1.8 
  
(0.5) 
  
(1.1) 
  
Off 
  campus 
  in 
  Ann 
  Arbor 
  
0.9 
  
0.7 
  
(0.6) 
  
(2.7) 
  
Off 
  campus 
  out 
  of 
  Ann 
  Arbor 
  
0.7 
  
1.7 
  
(0.6) 
  
(0.8) 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
Memberships 
   (compared 
   to 
   students 
   who 
   are 
  
not 
  members 
  of 
  any 
  of 
  these) 
  
Fraternity/Sorority 
  
1.8* 
  
2.5** 
  
(6.0) 
  
(10.0) 
  
Varsity 
  Sports 
  Team 
  
2.0 
  
2. 
  7 
  
(2.1) 
  
(1.9) 
  
Club 
  Sports 
  Team 
  
1.4 
  
1.9+ 
  
(1.4) 
  
(3.0) 
  
Marching 
  Band 
  
2.3 
  
1.0 
  
(2.0) 
  
(0.0) 
  
ROTC 
  
1.5 
  
2.3 
  
(0.4) 
  
(1.1) 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
Model 
  Fit 
  Statistics 
  
 
  
 
  
 
   
   
  N 
  
1878 
  
1881 
  
 
   
   
  -­‐2LL 
  
1101.7 
  
662.8 
  
2
 
   
   
  Likelihood 
  Ratio 
  X  
  
148.7*** 
  
129.8*** 
  
 
   
   
  d.f. 
  
15 
  
15 
  

+ 
  p 
  < 
  .10 
   
   
   
  * 
  p 
  < 
  .05 
   
   
   
  ** 
  p 
  < 
  .01 
   
   
   
  *** 
  p 
  < 
  .001 
   
  Two-­‐tailed 
  tests 
  
 
  

 
  

21 
  
 
  

 APPENDIX—MORE 
  DETAILED 
  EXPLANATION 
  OF 
  SURVEY 
  DESIGN 
  AND 
  METHODOLOGY 
  
U-­‐M 
   leadership 
   engaged 
   leading 
   methodologists 
   from 
   U-­‐M’s 
   Survey 
   Research 
   Center 
   (SRC) 
   and 
   SoundRocket 
  
(formerly 
   known 
   as 
   the 
   Survey 
   Sciences 
   Group) 
   to 
   design 
   this 
   survey. 
   The 
   key 
   objective 
   of 
   the 
   study 
   was 
   to 
  
measure 
   the 
   level 
   of 
   sexual 
   misconduct 
   on 
   campus 
   as 
   accurately 
   as 
   possible. 
   Because 
   sexual 
   misconduct 
   is 
  
believed 
   to 
   be 
   chronically 
   under-­‐reported, 
   and 
   non-­‐participation 
   (survey 
   non-­‐response) 
   could 
   bias 
   U-­‐M’s 
  
understanding 
  of 
  the 
  true 
  extent 
  of 
  sexual 
  misconduct, 
  the 
  design 
  of 
  this 
  survey 
  prioritizing 
  maximum 
  participation 
  
in 
   the 
   study. 
   This 
   was 
   achieved 
   by 
   taking 
   steps 
   to 
   create 
   the 
   highest 
   possible 
   response 
   rate 
   – 
   measured 
   by 
   the 
  
percentage 
  of 
  those 
  who 
  were 
  invited 
  to 
  participate 
  who 
  actually 
  did 
  provide 
  answers 
  to 
  the 
  survey 
  questions 
  – 
  
using 
  the 
  American 
  Association 
  for 
  Public 
  Opinion 
  Research 
  (AAPOR) 
  official 
  response 
  rate 
  calculation 
  formulas. 
  
Low 
  response 
  rates 
  do 
  not 
  necessarily 
  imply 
  biased 
  results. 
  Non-­‐response 
  bias 
  results 
  when 
  those 
  who 
  have 
  not 
  
participated 
   in 
   the 
   study 
   have 
   opinions 
   or 
   experiences 
   that 
   are 
   systematically 
   different 
   from 
   those 
   who 
   do 
  
participate. 
  Even 
  if 
  only 
  a 
  small 
  portion 
  of 
  those 
  invited 
  actually 
  participate, 
  if 
  the 
  participants 
  represent 
  the 
  total 
  
population, 
  then 
  bias 
  will 
  not 
  result. 
  However, 
  if 
  a 
  large 
  majority 
  of 
  the 
  target 
  population 
  does 
  not 
  respond, 
  this 
  
creates 
   significant 
   risk 
   of 
   non-­‐response 
   bias. 
   Non-­‐response 
   bias 
   could 
   lead 
   to 
   reporting 
   of 
   sexual 
   assault 
   incidence 
  
rates 
  that 
  are 
  significantly 
  lower 
  or 
  higher 
  than 
  actually 
  occurs, 
  or 
  skewed 
  levels 
  of 
  awareness 
  of 
  reporting 
  policies 
  
or 
   resources 
   available 
   to 
   students 
   on 
   campus. 
   If 
   the 
   study 
   has 
   a 
   response 
   rate 
   of 
   100% 
   there 
   can 
   be 
   no 
   non-­‐
response 
   bias 
   – 
   therefore, 
   increasing 
   the 
   response 
   rate 
   to 
   closer 
   to 
   100% 
   may 
   reduce 
   the 
   risk 
   of 
   non-­‐response 
  
bias. 
   This 
   is 
   a 
   key 
   reason 
   most 
   national 
   surveys 
   for 
   the 
   federal 
   government, 
   for 
   example, 
   prioritize 
   effort 
   to 
  
maximize 
  the 
  response 
  rate. 
  
The 
   design 
   selected 
   a 
   scientifically 
   representative 
   sample 
   of 
   the 
   Ann 
   Arbor 
   U-­‐M 
   student 
   population 
   and 
   put 
  
substantial 
   effort 
   toward 
   maximizing 
   participation. 
   First, 
   the 
   survey 
   used 
   multiple 
   modes 
   to 
   contact 
   students 
  
instead 
   of 
   relying 
   exclusively 
   on 
   email. 
   This 
   included 
   mailing 
   a 
   hard-­‐copy 
   letter 
   for 
   invitation, 
   following 
   up 
   on 
   non-­‐
respondents 
   with 
   telephone 
   contact 
   and 
   attempting 
   face-­‐to-­‐face 
   contact 
   with 
   the 
   remaining 
   non-­‐respondents. 
  
Second, 
   the 
   survey 
   provided 
   a 
   substantial 
   individual 
   incentive 
   to 
   all 
   students 
   who 
   were 
   invited 
   to 
   participate 
  
($15/$30 
   per 
   person). 
   Third, 
   the 
   team 
   intentionally 
   designed 
   the 
   survey 
   instrument 
   to 
   average 
   less 
   than 
   15 
  
minutes 
   in 
   length 
   for 
   respondents. 
   Fourth, 
   because 
   participation 
   of 
   Michigan 
   students 
   in 
   surveys 
   is 
   known 
   to 
  
decline 
   significantly 
   after 
   spring 
   break 
   and 
   decline 
   even 
   further 
   as 
   the 
   end 
   of 
   the 
   semester 
   approaches, 
   U-­‐M 
  
launched 
  the 
  survey 
  in 
  January 
  and 
  completed 
  the 
  data 
  collection 
  before 
  spring 
  break. 
  By 
  systematically 
  applying 
  
these 
   tools 
   to 
   a 
   scientifically 
   representative 
   sample 
   of 
   U-­‐M 
   students, 
   this 
   survey 
   produced 
   a 
   high 
   response 
   rate 
  
27
(67% ) 
  and 
  ensured 
  that 
  the 
  majority 
  of 
  those 
  invited 
  actually 
  answered 
  the 
  questions 
  asked. 
  

A. SAMPLE 
  DESIGN 
  
Given 
  the 
  large 
  student 
  population, 
  at 
  U-­‐M, 
  this 
  study 
  used 
  a 
  sample 
  survey 
  approach 
  rather 
  than 
  a 
  census 
  of 
  all 
  
students. 
   A 
   randomly 
   selected 
   sample 
   allows 
   researchers 
   to 
   make 
   scientifically 
   based 
   inferences 
   to 
   the 
   population 
  
as 
  a 
  whole 
  and 
  helped 
  focus 
  finite 
  research 
  resources 
  on 
  successfully 
  contacting 
  and 
  encouraging 
  the 
  participation 
  
of 
   the 
   broadest, 
   most 
   inclusive, 
   most 
   representative 
   group 
   of 
   students. 
   This 
   broad 
   sampling 
   and 
   participation 
  
increases 
  confidence 
  that 
  estimates 
  from 
  the 
  survey 
  represent 
  the 
  diverse 
  experiences 
  of 
  the 
  student 
  population. 
  
This 
   sampling 
   strategy 
   does, 
   however, 
   introduce 
   sampling 
   error 
   to 
   estimates, 
   which 
   is 
   expressed 
   as 
   “95% 
  
confidence 
  limits” 
  around 
  point 
  estimates. 
  
 
  
U-­‐M’s 
  Registrar’s 
  Office 
  selected 
  the 
  sample 
  for 
  this 
  study 
  in 
  consultation 
  with 
  sampling 
  experts 
  on 
  the 
  research 
  
team. 
  Because 
  of 
  daily 
  fluctuations 
  in 
  enrollment, 
  the 
  U-­‐M 
  student 
  population 
  was 
  defined 
  as 
  the 
  population 
  on 
  
January 
  6, 
  2015, 
  which 
  was 
  the 
  day 
  before 
  the 
  first 
  day 
  of 
  classes. 
  Further, 
  at 
   that 
  time, 
  key 
  characteristics 
  of 
  the 
  
student 
   population 
   were 
   recorded. 
   These 
   population 
   totals 
   were 
   later 
   used 
   to 
   create 
   nonresponse 
   adjustment 
  
weights 
  (see 
  section 
  D 
  below) 
  for 
  the 
  respondents 
  after 
  data 
  collection 
  was 
  complete. 
  
22 
  
 
  

 To 
  ensure 
  proper 
  representation, 
  the 
  sample 
  was 
  selected 
  from 
  two 
  strata: 
  undergraduate 
  and 
  graduate 
  students. 
  
The 
   same 
   sampling 
   rate 
   was 
   used 
   in 
   each 
   stratum, 
   producing 
   a 
   sample 
   of 
   3,000 
   students. 
   This 
   sample 
   included 
  
1,005 
   (33.5%) 
   graduate 
   students. 
   This 
   proportion 
   matches 
   exactly 
   the 
   proportion 
   of 
   graduate 
   students 
   in 
   the 
   U-­‐M 
  
population 
  on 
  the 
  date 
  of 
  collection. 
   
  

B. QUESTIONNAIRE 
  DESIGN 
  
The 
  survey 
  instrument 
  and 
  methodology 
  was 
  designed 
  by 
  a 
  team 
  led 
  by 
  the 
  University’s 
  Survey 
  Research 
  Center, 
  
and 
   included 
   representatives 
   from 
   Student 
   Life; 
   the 
   Office 
   of 
   the 
   General 
   Counsel; 
   and 
   Sound 
   Rocket 
   (fka 
   the 
  
Survey 
  Sciences 
  Group), 
  an 
  independent 
  survey 
  research 
  organization 
  headquartered 
  in 
  Ann 
  Arbor, 
  Michigan. 
   
  The 
  
substantive 
  team 
  identified 
  the 
  most 
  relevant 
  items 
  being 
  used 
  to 
  measure 
  both 
  the 
  prevalence 
  and 
  incidence 
  of 
  
sexual 
  assault 
  on 
  campus, 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  perceptions 
  of 
  campus 
  climate. 
  The 
  methodological 
  team 
  drew 
  heavily 
  upon 
  
behavioral-­‐specific 
   questions 
   from 
   the 
   Sexual 
   Experiences 
   Survey 
   to 
   measure 
   the 
   prevalence 
   and 
   incidence 
   of 
  
28
sexual 
  assault, 
  because 
  such 
  questions 
  have 
  been 
  researched 
  and 
  validated.  
   
  
The 
   substantive 
   and 
   methodological 
   teams 
   worked 
   together 
   to 
   refine 
   survey 
   measures 
   using 
   empirically 
   formed 
  
principles 
   for 
   best 
   practices 
   in 
   the 
   design 
   of 
   self-­‐administered 
   surveys, 
   specifically 
   addressing 
   issues 
   of 
   question 
  
complexity 
   and 
   the 
   potential 
   sensitivity 
   of 
   question 
   content. 
  The 
   methodological 
   team 
   then 
  applied 
   best 
   practices 
  
29 30
for 
   the 
   design 
   and 
   layout 
   of 
   questions 
   in 
   web 
   surveys.  
    
  These 
   design 
   features 
   have 
   demonstrated 
   effectiveness 
  
31
in 
  minimizing 
  response 
  errors 
  in 
  web 
  surveys, 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  minimizing 
  overall 
  respondent 
  burden.  
  
32

The 
  Survey 
  Sciences 
  Group 
  assumed 
  responsibility 
  for 
  a 
  comprehensive 
  testing 
  strategy.  
  More 
  than 
  100 
  tests 
  of 
  
the 
  logic 
  and 
  usability 
  were 
  conducted 
  before 
  the 
  instrument 
  was 
  finalized. 
  The 
  tests 
  included 
  testing 
  on 
  various 
  
browsers/devices, 
   pretesting 
   among 
   students, 
   and 
   review 
   of 
   pretest 
   data 
   for 
   accuracy. 
   The 
   questionnaire 
   was 
  
purposely 
   kept 
   extremely 
   brief 
   – 
   estimated 
   at 
   less 
   than 
   15 
   minutes 
   to 
   complete 
   – 
   to 
   maximize 
   participation. 
  
Testing 
  of 
  the 
  survey 
  length 
  guided 
  several 
  decisions 
  made 
  about 
  the 
  questionnaire 
  during 
  the 
  process. 
   
  

C. FIELD 
  WORK 
  DESIGN 
  AND 
  IMPLEMENTATION 
  
The 
   field 
   work 
   for 
   this 
   survey 
   followed 
   a 
   classic 
   two-­‐phase 
   responsive 
   design 
   approach, 
   with 
   web-­‐based 
   data 
  
collection 
   in 
   the 
   first 
   phase 
   and 
   interviewer 
   assisted 
   web-­‐based 
   interviewing 
   in 
   the 
   second 
   phase. 
   Several 
   tools 
  
were 
  used 
  to 
  maximize 
  participation 
  in 
  Phase 
  1 
  of 
  the 
  study. 
  These 
  included: 
  
• A 
  message 
  from 
  the 
  U-­‐M 
  President 
  to 
  the 
  entire 
  campus 
  explaining 
  the 
  importance 
  of 
  the 
  issue 
  and 
  the 
  
survey. 
  
• Pre-­‐notification 
  letters 
  sent 
  by 
  mail 
  and 
  email 
  before 
  the 
  survey 
  was 
  launched. 
  
• A 
  combination 
  of 
  both 
  a 
  lottery-­‐style 
  incentive 
  and 
  an 
  individual 
  incentive. 
  
• Reminder 
  emails, 
   
  to 
  encourage 
  participation. 
  
A 
  schedule 
  and 
  contact 
  protocol 
  was 
  designed 
  to 
  maximize 
  response. 
  Attention 
  was 
  paid 
  to 
  the 
  contact 
  contents 
  
as 
   well 
   as 
   timing. 
   Only 
   nonrespondents 
   to 
   previous 
   contacts 
   were 
   included 
   in 
   follow-­‐up 
   efforts, 
   so 
   that 
   those 
   who 
  
33 34 35 36
had 
  responded 
  were 
  not 
  bothered.  
    
    
    
  
Data 
  Collection 
  Timeline 
  
1/12/2015: 
  Pre-­‐notification 
  letter 
  mailed 
  
1/13/2015: 
  Pre-­‐notification 
  email 
  sent 
   
  
1/15/2015: 
  Email 
  invitation 
  sent 
  
1/19/2015: 
  Email 
  reminder 
  1 
  sent 
  
1/24/2015: 
  Email 
  reminder 
  2 
  sent 
  
23 
  
 
  

 1/30/2015: 
  Email 
  reminder 
  3 
  sent 
  
1/22/2015: 
  Email 
  reminder 
  4 
  sent 
  
2/3/2015: 
  Phase 
  2 
  sample 
  selected 
  at 
  6 
  p.m. 
  
2/6/2015: 
  Phase 
  2 
  data 
  collection 
  began 
  
2/6/2015 
  to 
  2/26/2015: 
  Interviewer-­‐prompted 
  reminder 
  emails 
  sent 
  to 
  active 
  sample 
  cases 
   
  
2/27/2015: 
  Data 
  collection 
  ended 
   
  
37 38 39

Due 
   to 
   the 
   expected 
   high 
   costs 
   of 
   telephone 
   and 
   face-­‐to-­‐face 
   contacts 
   employed,  
    
    
  Phase 
   2 
   of 
   the 
   survey 
  
chose 
   a 
   random 
   sample 
   of 
   the 
   non-­‐respondents 
   who 
   remained 
   at 
   the 
   close 
   of 
   Phase 
   1. 
   Professional 
   survey 
  
interviewers 
   attempted 
   to 
   contact 
   non-­‐respondents 
   to 
   encourage 
   them 
   to 
   participate 
   in 
   the 
   survey. 
   Because 
  
Phase 
  2 
  involved 
  telephone 
  and 
  face-­‐to-­‐face 
  contact, 
  Phase 
  2 
  sampling 
  was 
  stratified 
  by 
  on-­‐campus 
  vs. 
  off 
  campus, 
  
and 
   whether 
   or 
   not 
   a 
   telephone 
   number 
   was 
   available. 
   Very 
   few 
   on 
   campus 
   cases 
   did 
   not 
   have 
   a 
   telephone 
  
number, 
  producing 
  three 
  strata: 
  1) 
  off 
  campus, 
  no 
  telephone 
  number 
  available, 
  2) 
  off 
  campus, 
  telephone 
  number 
  
available, 
  and 
  3) 
  on 
  campus. 
  The 
  sample 
  rates 
  were 
  0.333, 
  0.6, 
  and 
  0.6 
  respectively. 
  The 
  inverse 
  of 
  these 
  selection 
  
rates 
  was 
  used 
  as 
  a 
  selection 
  weight. 
  
Professional 
  interviewers 
  contacted 
  non-­‐respondents 
  by 
  phone 
  to 
  encourage 
  their 
  participation 
  and 
  sent 
  follow-­‐
up 
  email 
  when 
  requested 
  by 
  potential 
  respondents. 
  Professional 
  interviewers 
  also 
  visited 
  non-­‐respondents’ 
  places 
  
of 
  residence 
  with 
  handheld 
  tablet 
  computers 
  preset 
  to 
  access 
  the 
  web 
  survey 
  to 
  offer 
  that 
  option 
  for 
  completing 
  
the 
  survey. 
  For 
  students 
  living 
  in 
  University 
  housing, 
  professional 
  interviewers 
  delivered 
  written 
  reminder 
  letters 
  
to 
   housing 
   staff 
   who 
   delivered 
   these 
   reminder 
   to 
   non-­‐respondents 
   – 
   the 
   letters 
   provided 
   interviewer 
   contact 
  
information 
   for 
   any 
   potential 
   respondents 
   who 
   preferred 
   interviewer 
   assistance. 
   In 
   all 
   interviewer 
   efforts, 
   an 
  
emphasis 
   was 
   placed 
   on 
   confidentiality 
   and 
   on 
   the 
   independent 
   contractor 
   status 
   of 
   the 
   interviewers 
   assuring 
  
students 
  that 
  the 
  university 
  would 
  not 
  have 
  access 
  to 
  individual 
  identities. 
  

D. POST-­‐SURVEY 
  ADJUSTMENT 
  AND 
  WEIGHTING 
  
Statistical 
  weighting 
  was 
  performed 
  to 
  ensure 
  that 
  the 
  data 
  based 
  on 
  this 
  sample 
  of 
  students 
  correctly 
  represent 
  
the 
   entire 
   population 
   of 
   students. 
   The 
   original 
   sample 
   design 
   was 
   an 
   equal 
   probability 
   sample 
   of 
   students. 
   The 
  
two-­‐phase 
  sampling 
  introduced 
  differential 
  weights 
  for 
  some 
  students. 
  Students 
  sampled 
  for 
  the 
  second 
  phase 
  of 
  
recruitment 
   receive 
   an 
   adjustment 
   weight, 
   equal 
   to 
   the 
   inverse 
   of 
   the 
   rate 
   at 
   which 
   they 
   were 
   selected. 
   These 
  
weights 
   allowed 
   this 
   second-­‐phase 
   sample 
   to 
   represent 
   the 
   sample 
   members 
   who 
   were 
   not 
   selected 
   for 
   the 
  
second 
  phase. 
  
 
  
After 
  data 
  collection 
  was 
  complete, 
  information 
  on 
  the 
  sampling 
  frame 
  and 
  from 
  population 
  counts 
  provided 
  by 
  
the 
  Registrar’s 
  Office 
  was 
  used 
  to 
  develop 
  additional 
  weighting 
  adjustment 
  factors. 
  These 
  weighting 
  factors, 
  called 
  
non-­‐response 
  and 
  post-­‐stratification 
  adjustments, 
  were 
  used 
  to 
  match 
  the 
  respondent 
  characteristics 
  to 
  those 
  of 
  
the 
  full 
  sample 
  and 
  student 
  population 
  respectively. 
  For 
  example, 
  because 
  on 
  campus 
  vs. 
  off 
  campus 
  status 
  was 
  
available 
   for 
   the 
   full 
   sample, 
   and 
   students 
   in 
   these 
   two 
   groups 
   responded 
   at 
   different 
   rates, 
   the 
   inverse 
   of 
   the 
  
response 
  rate 
  for 
  each 
  group 
  (i.e. 
  those 
  living 
  on 
  campus 
  and 
  those 
  living 
  off 
  campus) 
  was 
  used 
  as 
  an 
  adjustment 
  
factor. 
   
  
After 
   this 
   adjustment 
   was 
   applied 
   to 
   the 
   selection 
   weights 
   of 
   the 
   respondents, 
   the 
   characteristics 
   of 
   the 
  
respondents 
   were 
   weighted 
   to 
   match 
   those 
   of 
   the 
   population. 
   This 
   technique, 
   known 
   as 
   post 
   stratification, 
  
reduces 
  sampling 
  error 
  and 
  may 
  reduce 
  any 
  bias 
  related 
  to 
  the 
  factors 
  used 
  in 
  the 
  post 
  stratification. 
  In 
  this 
  case 
  
we 
  used 
  graduate/undergraduate 
  status, 
  gender, 
  academic 
  level, 
  term 
  of 
  entry 
  and 
  race/ethnicity. 
  The 
  weighted 
  
24 
  
 
  

 distributions 
   from 
   the 
   respondents 
   were 
   matched 
   to 
   the 
   population 
   distribution 
   of 
   these 
   characteristics. 
   For 
  
example, 
  if 
  estimates 
  for 
  graduates 
  and 
  undergraduates 
  differed, 
  and 
  these 
  groups 
  also 
  differed 
  in 
  their 
  response 
  
rates, 
  then 
  post 
  stratification 
  would 
  correct 
  this 
  bias. 
  
Under 
   the 
   assumptions 
   described 
   earlier 
   about 
   the 
   non-­‐response 
   and 
   post-­‐stratification 
   factors, 
   the 
   weighting 
  
adjustments 
  allowed 
  analysts 
  to 
  make 
  inferences 
  regarding 
  the 
  entire 
  student 
  population. 
  These 
  estimates 
  have 
  
an 
  associated 
  sampling 
  error. 
  This 
  error 
  is 
  expressed 
  as 
  “95% 
  confidence 
  limits,” 
  which 
  indicate 
  that 
  over 
  repeated 
  
sampling, 
  an 
  estimate 
  within 
  this 
  interval 
  would 
  occur 
  95 
  out 
  of 
  100 
  times. 
  

E. CONFIDENTIALITY 
  
To 
   ensure 
   success 
   of 
   this 
   survey, 
   given 
   the 
   potentially 
   sensitive 
   nature 
   of 
   the 
   questions, 
   part 
   of 
   the 
   design 
   for 
   this 
  
study 
   was 
   to 
   limit 
   direct 
   access 
   between 
   University 
   of 
   Michigan 
   employees 
   and 
   students 
   who 
   were 
   being 
  
surveyed. 
   
  Key 
  to 
  this 
  effort 
  was 
  the 
  use 
  of 
  the 
  independent 
  contractor 
  (SoundRocket) 
  for 
  data 
  collection 
  efforts, 
  
which 
   provided 
   a 
   firewall 
   between 
   respondents’ 
   identity 
   and 
   their 
   survey 
   responses. 
    
   Consistent 
   with 
   standard 
  
practices 
   for 
   cross-­‐sectional 
   data 
   collections 
   like 
   this, 
   SoundRocket 
   was 
   required 
   to 
   use 
   encryption 
   technologies 
  
(including 
   SSL 
   for 
   all 
   web-­‐based 
   interfaces) 
   and 
   to 
   adhere 
   to 
   strict 
   guidelines 
   to 
   maintain 
   data 
   security 
   and 
  
confidentiality. 
   
  SoundRocket 
  has 
  been 
  collecting 
  sensitive 
  data 
  from 
  college 
  student 
  populations 
  for 
  over 
  10 
  years. 
   
  
Communications, 
  staff 
  training, 
  processes, 
  and 
  quality 
  inspections 
  all 
  included 
  an 
  eye 
  towards 
  minimizing 
  risk 
  of 
  
disclosure. 
    
   SoundRocket 
   agreed 
   to 
   be 
   held 
   to 
   the 
   same 
   standards 
   prescribed 
   by 
   the 
   U-­‐M 
   IRB 
   to 
   protect 
  
respondents 
  before, 
  during, 
  and 
  after 
  this 
  study. 
   
   
  
During 
   the 
   course 
   of 
   this 
   study, 
   once 
   the 
   registrar 
   list 
   was 
   provided 
   to 
   SoundRocket, 
   no 
   University 
   of 
   Michigan 
  
employee 
  ever 
  came 
  into 
  contact 
  with 
  any 
  identifying 
  information 
  on 
  any 
  survey 
  respondent 
  in 
  a 
  way 
  that 
  would 
  
allow 
   them 
   to 
   link 
   survey 
   response 
   to 
   individual 
   identity. 
    
   All 
   staff, 
   including 
   interviewers, 
   were 
   SoundRocket 
  
employees 
  and/or 
  contractors. 
   
  This 
  fact 
  was 
  openly 
  discussed 
  during 
  contacts 
  with 
  respondents 
  so 
  that 
  they 
  were 
  
assured 
  that 
  their 
  responses 
  would 
  not 
  be 
  linked 
  back 
  to 
  them. 
  
After 
   the 
   study 
   was 
   completed, 
   SoundRocket 
   destroyed 
   all 
   identifiable 
   data 
   (electronic 
   and 
   paper) 
   that 
   was 
  
received 
  during 
  the 
  course 
  of 
  the 
  effort. 
  

F. QUESTIONNAIRE 
  SPECIFIC 
  REPORTS 
  OF 
  “DON’T 
  KNOW ” 
  RESPONSES 
  
Because 
   some 
   answers 
   to 
   questions 
   regarding 
   sexual 
   assault 
   may 
   be 
   difficult 
   for 
   respondents 
   to 
   provide, 
   the 
  
meaning 
   of 
   “Don’t 
   Know” 
   responses 
   is 
   potentially 
   complex. 
    
   This 
   important 
   issue 
   is 
   understudied 
   in 
  
methodological 
   research 
   on 
   sexual 
   assault. 
    
   Set 
   forth 
   below 
   are 
   the 
   percentages 
   of 
    
   “Don’t 
   Know” 
   responses 
  
corresponding 
   to 
   each 
   question 
   in 
   the 
   survey 
   instrument. 
   Please 
   use 
   the 
   survey 
   instrument 
   available 
   at 
  
https://publicaffairs.vpcomm.umich.edu/key-­‐issues/faq-­‐on-­‐2015-­‐campus-­‐climate-­‐surveys-­‐regarding-­‐sexual-­‐
misconduct/ 
  to 
  see 
  the 
  survey 
  questions. 
  

25 
  
 
  

 “Don’t 
  Know” 
  Responses 
  Regarding 
  Sexual 
  Assault 
  
“Don't 
  
Know” 
  
(%) 
  

95% 
  Lower 
  
Confidence 
  
Limit 
  (%) 
  

95% 
  Upper 
  
Confidence 
  
Limit 
  (%) 
  

1 
   D1A 
  

1.30 
  

0.70 
  

1.90 
  

2 
   D1B 
  

2.03 
  

1.18 
  

2.88 
  

3 
   D1C 
  

1.09 
  

0.50 
  

1.69 
  

4 
   D1D 
  

0.48 
  

0.10 
  

0.86 
  

5 
   D1E 
  

0.78 
  

0.26 
  

1.30 
  

6 
   D2A 
  

0.42 
  

0.06 
  

0.78 
  

7 
   D2B 
  

0.75 
  

0.23 
  

1.27 
  

8 
   D2C 
  

0.35 
  

0.00 
  

0.69 
  

9 
   D2D 
  

0.42 
  

0.00 
  

0.88 
  

10 
   D2E 
  

0.29 
  

0.00 
  

0.61 
  

11 
   D3A 
  

0.14 
  

0.00 
  

0.33 
  

12 
   D3B 
  

0.69 
  

0.17 
  

1.22 
  

13 
   D3C 
  

0.37 
  

0.00 
  

0.76 
  

14 
   D3D 
  

* 
  

* 
  

* 
  

15 
   D3E 
  

0.07 
  

0.00 
  

0.21 
  

16 
   D3_1A 
  

* 
  

* 
  

* 
  

17 
   D3_1B 
  

* 
  

* 
  

* 
  

18 
   D3_1C 
  

* 
  

* 
  

* 
  

19 
   D3_1D 
  

* 
  

* 
  

* 
  

20 
   D3_1E 
  

* 
  

* 
  

* 
  

21 
   D4A 
  

0.15 
  

0.00 
  

0.39 
  

22 
   D4B 
  

0.28 
  

0.00 
  

0.57 
  

23 
   D4C 
  

0.14 
  

0.00 
  

0.38 
  

24 
   D4D 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

25 
   D4E 
  

0.21 
  

0.00 
  

0.48 
  

26 
   D5A 
  

0.46 
  

0.05 
  

0.86 
  

27 
   D5B 
  

0.66 
  

0.16 
  

1.16 
  

28 
   D5C 
  

0.28 
  

0.00 
  

0.57 
  

Obs 
   Question 
  

26 
  
 
  

 “Don't 
  
Know” 
  
(%) 
  

95% 
  Lower 
  
Confidence 
  
Limit 
  (%) 
  

95% 
  Upper 
  
Confidence 
  
Limit 
  (%) 
  

29 
   D5D 
  

0.18 
  

0.00 
  

0.45 
  

30 
   D5E 
  

0.22 
  

0.00 
  

0.49 
  

31 
   D6A 
  

0.24 
  

0.00 
  

0.52 
  

32 
   D6B 
  

0.05 
  

0.00 
  

0.15 
  

33 
   D6C 
  

0.14 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

34 
   D6D 
  

* 
  

* 
  

* 
  

35 
   D6E 
  

0.20 
  

0.00 
  

0.43 
  

36 
   D6_1A 
  

* 
  

* 
  

* 
  

37 
   D6_1B 
  

* 
  

* 
  

* 
  

38 
   D6_1C 
  

* 
  

* 
  

* 
  

39 
   D6_1D 
  

* 
  

* 
  

* 
  

40 
   D6_1E 
  

* 
  

* 
  

* 
  

41 
   D7A 
  

0.20 
  

0.00 
  

0.46 
  

42 
   D7B 
  

0.21 
  

0.00 
  

0.48 
  

43 
   D7C 
  

0.14 
  

0.00 
  

0.38 
  

44 
   D7D 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

45 
   D7E 
  

0.35 
  

0.00 
  

0.77 
  

46 
   D8A 
  

4.75 
  

3.63 
  

5.88 
  

47 
   D8B 
  

2.11 
  

1.26 
  

2.96 
  

48 
   D8C 
  

0.31 
  

0.00 
  

0.63 
  

49 
   D8D 
  

0.37 
  

0.03 
  

0.71 
  

50 
   D8E 
  

0.38 
  

0.00 
  

0.80 
  

51 
   D8F 
  

1.57 
  

0.88 
  

2.27 
  

52 
   D8G 
  

1.86 
  

1.12 
  

2.60 
  

53 
   D8H 
  

0.61 
  

0.13 
  

1.10 
  

54 
   D8I 
  

0.52 
  

0.16 
  

0.88 
  

55 
   D8J 
  

0.57 
  

0.06 
  

1.07 
  

56 
   F1A 
  

0.36 
  

0.03 
  

0.69 
  

57 
   F1B 
  

0.41 
  

0.08 
  

0.73 
  

Obs 
   Question 
  

27 
  
 
  

 “Don't 
  
Know” 
  
(%) 
  

95% 
  Lower 
  
Confidence 
  
Limit 
  (%) 
  

95% 
  Upper 
  
Confidence 
  
Limit 
  (%) 
  

58 
   F1C 
  

0.18 
  

0.00 
  

0.45 
  

59 
   F1D 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

60 
   F1E 
  

0.14 
  

0.00 
  

0.38 
  

61 
   F2A 
  

0.16 
  

0.00 
  

0.40 
  

62 
   F2B 
  

0.27 
  

0.00 
  

0.57 
  

63 
   F2C 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

64 
   F2D 
  

0.18 
  

0.00 
  

0.45 
  

65 
   F2E 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

66 
   F3A 
  

0.29 
  

0.00 
  

0.69 
  

67 
   F3B 
  

0.19 
  

0.00 
  

0.45 
  

68 
   F3C 
  

0.14 
  

0.00 
  

0.38 
  

69 
   F3D 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

70 
   F3E 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

71 
   F4A 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

72 
   F4B 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

73 
   F4C 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

74 
   F4D 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

75 
   F4E 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

76 
   F5A 
  

0.26 
  

0.00 
  

0.60 
  

77 
   F5B 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

78 
   F5C 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

79 
   F5D 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

80 
   F5E 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

81 
   F6A 
  

0.17 
  

0.00 
  

0.42 
  

82 
   F6B 
  

0.19 
  

0.00 
  

0.45 
  

83 
   F6C 
  

0.24 
  

0.00 
  

0.52 
  

84 
   F6D 
  

0.17 
  

0.00 
  

0.42 
  

85 
   F6E 
  

0.17 
  

0.00 
  

0.42 
  

86 
   F7A 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

Obs 
   Question 
  

28 
  
 
  

 “Don't 
  
Know” 
  
(%) 
  

95% 
  Lower 
  
Confidence 
  
Limit 
  (%) 
  

95% 
  Upper 
  
Confidence 
  
Limit 
  (%) 
  

87 
   F7B 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

88 
   F7C 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

89 
   F7D 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

90 
   F7E 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

91 
   F8A 
  

0.69 
  

0.18 
  

1.19 
  

92 
   F8B 
  

0.29 
  

0.00 
  

0.59 
  

93 
   F8C 
  

0.22 
  

0.00 
  

0.50 
  

94 
   F8D 
  

0.39 
  

0.00 
  

0.82 
  

95 
   F8E 
  

0.12 
  

0.00 
  

0.35 
  

96 
   F8F 
  

0.14 
  

0.00 
  

0.38 
  

97 
   F8G 
  

0.17 
  

0.00 
  

0.42 
  

98 
   F8H 
  

0.17 
  

0.00 
  

0.42 
  

99 
   F8I 
  

0.14 
  

0.00 
  

0.38 
  

100 
   F8J 
  

0.14 
  

0.00 
  

0.38 
  

Obs 
   Question 
  

 
  
 
  
 
  

 
  

 
  

29 
  
 
  

 ENDNOTES 
  
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
1
 
  See 
  Table 
  37: 
   
  Chandra 
  A., 
  Martinez, 
  G.M., 
  Mosher, 
  W.D., 
  Abma, 
  J.C., 
  & 
  Jones, 
  J. 
  (2005). 
  Fertility, 
  Family 
  Planning, 
  
and 
  Reproductive 
  Health 
  of 
  U.S. 
  Women: 
  Data 
  from 
  the 
  2002 
  National 
  Survey 
  of 
  Family 
  Growth. 
  National 
  Center 
  
for 
  Health 
  Statistics. 
  Vital 
  Health 
  Stat 
  23(25). 
  
2
 
  See 
  Table 
  17: 
   
  Martinez, 
  G.M., 
  Chandra, 
  A., 
  Abma, 
  J.C., 
  Jones, 
  J., 
  & 
  Mosher, 
  W.D. 
   
  (2006). 
  Fertility, 
  Contraception, 
  
and 
  Fatherhood: 
   
  Data 
  on 
  Men 
  and 
  Women 
  from 
  Cycle 
  6 
  (2002 
  of 
  the 
  National 
  Survey 
  of 
  Family 
  Growth. 
  National 
  
Center 
  for 
  Health 
  Statistics. 
  Vital 
  Health 
  Stat 
  23(26). 
   
  
3
 
  Bureau 
   of 
   Justice 
   Statistics. 
   (2014). 
   Rape 
   and 
   Sexual 
   Assault 
   Among 
   College-­‐Age 
   Females, 
   1995-­‐2013. 
   (NCJ 
  
248471). 
  
4
 
  Id. 
   
  
5
 
  Krebs, 
   C.P., 
   Lindquist, 
   C.H., 
   Warner, 
   T.D., 
   Fisher, 
   B.S., 
   & 
   Martin, 
   S.L. 
   (2007). 
   The 
   Campus 
   Sexual 
   Assault 
   (CSA) 
  
Study. 
   Washington, 
   DC: 
   National 
   Institute 
   of 
   Justice, 
   U.S. 
   Department 
   of 
   Justice.; 
   Krebs, 
   C.P., 
   Lindquist, 
   C.H., 
  
Warner, 
  T.D., 
  Fisher, 
  B.S., 
  & 
  Martin, 
  S.L. 
  (2009). 
  
6
 
   
  Id. 
  
7
 
  Id. 
   
  
8
 
  Krebs, 
   C.P., 
   Lindquist, 
   C.H., 
   Warner, 
   T.D., 
   Fisher, 
   B.S., 
   & 
   Martin, 
   S.L. 
   (2007). 
   The 
   Campus 
   Sexual 
   Assault 
   (CSA) 
  
Study. 
   
  
9
 
  MIT 
   Health 
   & 
   Wellness 
   Surveys: 
   2014 
   Community 
   Attitudes 
   on 
   Sexual 
   Assault, 
  
http://web.mit.edu/surveys/health/MIT-­‐CASA-­‐Survey-­‐Summary, 
   
  Table 
  2.2. 
  
10
 
  Anderson, 
   N. 
   & 
   Clement, 
   S. 
   (2015, 
   June 
   12). 
   College 
   Sexual 
   Assault: 
   1 
   in 
   5 
   college 
   women 
   say 
   they 
   were 
  
violated. 
  The 
  Washington 
  Post. 
   
   
  
11
 
  Koss, 
  M.P., 
  Abbey, 
  A., 
  Campbell, 
  R., 
  Cook, 
  S., 
  Norris, 
  J., 
  Testa, 
  M., 
  Ullman, 
  S., 
  West, 
  C., 
  & 
  White, 
  J. 
  (2006). 
  The 
  
Sexual 
   Experience 
   Short 
   Form 
   Victimization 
   (SES-­‐SFV). 
   Tucson, 
   AZ: 
   University 
   of 
   Arizona; 
   Koss, 
   M.P., 
   Abbey, 
   A., 
  
Campbell, 
  R., 
  Cook, 
  S., 
  Norris, 
  J., 
  Testa, 
  C., 
  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, 
  357-­‐
370. 
  The 
  survey 
  instrument 
  design 
  team 
  consulted 
  a 
  host 
  of 
  other 
  materials 
  including: 
   
   Estimating 
  the 
  incidence 
  of 
  
rape 
   and 
   sexual 
   assault. 
   Panel 
   on 
   Measuring 
   Rape 
   and 
   Sexual 
   Assault 
   in 
   Bureau 
   of 
   Justice 
   Statistics 
   Household 
  
Surveys, 
   C. 
   Kruttschnitt, 
   W.D. 
   Kalsbeek, 
   and 
   C.C. 
   House, 
   Editors. 
   Committee 
   on 
   National 
   Statistics, 
   Division 
   of 
  
Behavioral 
  and 
  Social 
  Sciences 
  and 
  Education, 
  National 
  Research 
  Council; 
  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; 
   MIT’s 
   “Community 
   Attitudes 
   on 
   Sexual 
   Assault”; 
   The 
  
University 
   of 
   New 
   Hampshire’s 
   “Unwanted 
   Sexual 
   Experiences 
   Survey,” 
   Banyard, 
   V., 
   Cohn, 
   E., 
   Edwards, 
   K., 
  
Moynihan, 
  M.M., 
  Walsh, 
  W. 
  & 
  Ward, 
  S. 
  (2012). 
  
12
 
  Kaplowitz, 
   M. 
   D., 
   Lupi, 
   F., 
   Couper, 
   M. 
   P., 
   & 
   Thorp, 
   L. 
   (2011). 
   The 
   effect 
   of 
   invitation 
   design 
   on 
   web 
   survey 
  
response 
  rates. 
  Social 
  Science 
  Computer 
  Review, 
  doi: 
  10.1177/0894439311419084. 
  
13
 
  Heerwegh, 
   D. 
   (2005). 
   Effects 
   of 
   personal 
   salutations 
   in 
   e-­‐mail 
   invitations 
   to 
   participate 
   in 
   a 
   web 
   survey. 
  Public 
  
Opinion 
  Quarterly, 
  69(4), 
  588-­‐598. 
  
14
 
  Crawford, 
   S., 
   McCabe, 
   S., 
   Couper, 
   M., 
   & 
   Boyd, 
   C. 
   (2002, 
   August). 
   From 
   mail 
   to 
   web: 
   improving 
   response 
   rates 
  
and 
  data 
  collection 
  efficiencies. 
  In 
  International 
  Conference 
  on 
  Improving 
  Surveys 
  (pp. 
  25-­‐28). 
  
15
 
  Fan, 
   W., 
   & 
   Yan, 
   Z. 
   (2010). 
   Factors 
   affecting 
   response 
   rates 
   of 
   the 
   web 
   survey: 
   A 
   systematic 
   review. 
  Computers 
   in 
  
Human 
  Behavior, 
  26(2), 
  132-­‐139. 
  
16
 
  Braunsberger, 
   K., 
   Wybenga, 
   H., 
   & 
   Gates, 
   R. 
   (2007). 
   A 
   comparison 
   of 
   reliability 
   between 
   telephone 
   and 
   web-­‐
based 
  surveys. 
  Journal 
  of 
  Business 
  Research, 
  60(7), 
  758-­‐764. 
  
17
 
  Fricker, 
   S., 
   Galesic, 
   M., 
   Tourangeau, 
   R., 
   & 
   Yan, 
   T. 
   (2005). 
   An 
   experimental 
   comparison 
   of 
   web 
   and 
   telephone 
  
surveys. 
  Public 
  Opinion 
  Quarterly, 
  69(3), 
  370-­‐392. 
  
18
 
  Millar, 
   M.M., 
   & 
   Dillman, 
   D.A. 
   (2011). 
   Improving 
   response 
   to 
   web 
   and 
   mixed-­‐mode 
   surveys. 
  Public 
   Opinion 
  
Quarterly, 
  doi: 
  10.1093/poq/nfr003. 
  
19
 
  So 
  few 
  respondents 
  identified 
  themselves 
  as 
  transgender 
  that 
  they 
  are 
  not 
  differentiated 
  in 
  the 
  analysis. 
   
  No 
  one 
  
reporting 
  themselves 
  as 
  transgender 
  reported 
  any 
  experience 
  of 
  sexual 
  assault. 
  

30 
  
 
  

  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
20
 
  These 
  are 
  the 
  confidence 
  limits 
  described 
  above 
  – 
  95% 
  of 
  samples 
  of 
  the 
  U-­‐M 
  student 
  population 
  will 
  estimate 
  
the 
   percent 
   that 
   know 
   U-­‐M 
   has 
   a 
   Student 
   Sexual 
   Misconduct 
   Policy 
   between 
   these 
   two 
   limits. 
   Our 
   sample 
  
estimates 
  the 
  percentage 
  as 
  85.9%. 
  
21
 
  Data 
   presented 
   in 
   this 
   report 
   are 
   based 
   on 
   student 
   responses 
   to 
   survey 
   questions, 
   not 
   to 
   any 
   other 
   form 
   of 
  
University 
   record 
   of 
   their 
   experiences. 
    
    
   This 
   is 
   particularly 
   true 
   with 
   respect 
   to 
   U-­‐M’s 
   training, 
   education, 
   and 
  
prevention 
  programs 
  relating 
  to 
  sexual 
  misconduct. 
  
22
 
  For 
  precise 
  wording 
  of 
  specific 
  questions 
  please 
  see 
  the 
  questionnaire. 
  
23
 
  Respondents 
  could 
  report 
  more 
  than 
  one 
  response, 
  therefore, 
  percentages 
  cannot 
  be 
  summed. 
  
24
 
  Unwanted 
  experiences 
  were 
  defined 
  to 
  include 
  being 
   “fondled, 
  kissed, 
  or 
  rubbed 
  up 
  against 
  the 
  private 
  areas 
  of 
  
your 
   body 
   (lips, 
   breast/chest, 
   crotch 
   or 
   butt) 
   or 
   [having] 
   some 
   of 
   your 
   clothes 
   [removed] 
    
   without 
   your 
   consent 
  
(but 
  [with 
  no] 
  attempt[ed] 
  sexual 
  penetration).” 
  
25
 
  Anyone 
   fondling, 
   kissing 
   or 
   rubbing 
   up 
   against 
   the 
   private 
   areas 
   of 
   the 
   respondent’s 
   body 
   (lips, 
   breast/chest, 
  
crotch 
   or 
   butt) 
   or 
   anyone 
   removing 
   some 
   of 
   the 
   respondent’s 
   clothes 
   without 
   their 
   consent 
   (but 
   without 
  
attempting 
  sexual 
  penetration). 
  
26
 
  Whites 
   are 
   the 
   reference 
   category. 
   Underrepresented 
   groups 
   include 
   African 
   Americans, 
   Hispanic 
   Americans, 
  
American 
  Indians 
  and 
  Mixed 
  Race. 
  
27
 
  This 
   response 
   rate 
   conforms 
   to 
   the 
   AAPOR 
   Response 
   Rate 
   4. 
   This 
   rate 
   includes 
   partial 
   interviews 
   and 
   interviews 
  
in 
  the 
  denominator. 
  See 
  the 
  “AAPOR 
  Standard 
  Definitions” 
  for 
  a 
  complete 
  definition 
  of 
  how 
  this 
  response 
  rate 
  is 
  
calculated. 
  
28
 
  Koss, 
  M.P., 
  Abbey, 
  A., 
  Campbell, 
  R., 
  Cook, 
  S., 
  Norris, 
  J., 
  Testa, 
  M., 
  Ullman, 
  S., 
  West, 
  C., 
  & 
  White, 
  J. 
  (2006). 
  The 
  
Sexual 
   Experience 
   Short 
   Form 
   Victimization 
   (SES-­‐SFV). 
   Tucson, 
   AZ: 
   University 
   of 
   Arizona; 
   Koss, 
   M.P., 
   Abbey, 
   A., 
  
Campbell, 
  R., 
  Cook, 
  S., 
  Norris, 
  J., 
  Testa, 
  C., 
  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, 
  357-­‐
370. 
  The 
  survey 
  instrument 
  design 
  team 
  consulted 
  a 
  host 
  of 
  other 
  materials 
  including: 
   
   Estimating 
  the 
  incidence 
  of 
  
rape 
   and 
   sexual 
   assault. 
   Panel 
   on 
   Measuring 
   Rape 
   and 
   Sexual 
   Assault 
   in 
   Bureau 
   of 
   Justice 
   Statistics 
   Household 
  
Surveys, 
   C. 
   Kruttschnitt, 
   W.D. 
   Kalsbeek, 
   and 
   C.C. 
   House, 
   Editors. 
   Committee 
   on 
   National 
   Statistics, 
   Division 
   of 
  
Behavioral 
  and 
  Social 
  Sciences 
  and 
  Education, 
  National 
  Research 
  Council; 
  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; 
   MIT’s 
   “Community 
   Attitudes 
   on 
   Sexual 
   Assault”; 
   The 
  
University 
   of 
   New 
   Hampshire’s 
   “Unwanted 
   Sexual 
   Experiences 
   Survey,” 
   Banyard, 
   V., 
   Cohn, 
   E., 
   Edwards, 
   K., 
  
Moynihan, 
  M.M., 
  Walsh, 
  W. 
  & 
  Ward, 
  S. 
  (2012). 
   
  
29
 
  Crawford, 
   S., 
   McCabe, 
   S. 
   E., 
   & 
   Pope, 
   D. 
   (2005). 
   Applying 
   web-­‐based 
   survey 
   design 
   standards. 
  Journal 
   of 
  
Prevention 
  & 
  Intervention 
  in 
  the 
  Community, 
  29(1-­‐2), 
  43-­‐66. 
  
30
 
  Couper, 
  M. 
  P. 
  (2008). 
  Designing 
  effective 
  web 
  surveys 
  (Vol. 
  75). 
  New 
  York: 
  Cambridge 
  University 
  Press. 
  
31
 
  Crawford, 
   S. 
   D., 
   Couper, 
   M. 
   P., 
   & 
   Lamias, 
   M. 
   J. 
   (2001). 
   Web 
   surveys 
   perceptions 
   of 
   burden. 
  Social 
   Science 
  
Computer 
  Review, 
  19(2), 
  146-­‐162. 
  
32
 
  Baker, 
  R. 
  P., 
  Crawford, 
  S., 
  & 
  Swinehart, 
  J. 
  (2004). 
  Development 
  and 
  testing 
  of 
  web 
  questionnaires. 
  Methods 
  for 
  
Testing 
  and 
  Evaluating 
  Survey 
  Questionnaires, 
  361-­‐384. 
  
33
 
  Kaplowitz, 
   M. 
   D., 
   Lupi, 
   F., 
   Couper, 
   M. 
   P., 
   & 
   Thorp, 
   L. 
   (2011). 
   The 
   effect 
   of 
   invitation 
   design 
   on 
   web 
   survey 
  
response 
  rates. 
  Social 
  Science 
  Computer 
  Review, 
  doi: 
  10.1177/0894439311419084. 
  
34
 
  Heerwegh, 
   D. 
   (2005). 
   Effects 
   of 
   personal 
   salutations 
   in 
   e-­‐mail 
   invitations 
   to 
   participate 
   in 
   a 
   web 
   survey. 
  Public 
  
Opinion 
  Quarterly, 
  69(4), 
  588-­‐598. 
  
35
 
  Crawford, 
   S., 
   McCabe, 
   S., 
   Couper, 
   M., 
   & 
   Boyd, 
   C. 
   (2002, 
   August). 
   From 
   mail 
   to 
   web: 
   improving 
   response 
   rates 
  
and 
  data 
  collection 
  efficiencies. 
  In 
  International 
  Conference 
  on 
  Improving 
  Surveys 
  (pp. 
  25-­‐28). 
  
36
 
  Fan, 
   W., 
   & 
   Yan, 
   Z. 
   (2010). 
   Factors 
   affecting 
   response 
   rates 
   of 
   the 
   web 
   survey: 
   A 
   systematic 
   review. 
  Computers 
   in 
  
Human 
  Behavior, 
  26(2), 
  132-­‐139. 
  
37
 
  Braunsberger, 
   K., 
   Wybenga, 
   H., 
   & 
   Gates, 
   R. 
   (2007). 
   A 
   comparison 
   of 
   reliability 
   between 
   telephone 
   and 
   web-­‐
based 
  surveys. 
  Journal 
  of 
  Business 
  Research, 
  60(7), 
  758-­‐764. 
  
38
 
  Fricker, 
   S., 
   Galesic, 
   M., 
   Tourangeau, 
   R., 
   & 
   Yan, 
   T. 
   (2005). 
   An 
   experimental 
   comparison 
   of 
   web 
   and 
   telephone 
  
surveys. 
  Public 
  Opinion 
  Quarterly, 
  69(3), 
  370-­‐392. 
  

31 
  
 
  

  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
39
 
  Millar, 
   M.M., 
   & 
   Dillman, 
   D.A. 
   (2011). 
   Improving 
   response 
   to 
   web 
   and 
   mixed-­‐mode 
   surveys. 
  Public 
   Opinion 
  
Quarterly, 
  doi: 
  10.1093/poq/nfr003. 
  

32