College Campus Community Readiness to Address Intimate Partner Violence Among LGBTQ+ Young Adults: A Conceptual and Empirical Examination

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of a conceptual model that integrates theories of social ecology, minority stress, and community readiness to better understand risk for and outcomes of intimate partner violence (IPV) among LGBTQ+ college students. Additionally, online survey data was collected from a sample of 202 LGBTQ+ students enrolled in 119 colleges across the United States to provide preliminary data on some aspects of the proposed model. Results suggested that students generally thought their campuses were low in readiness to address IPV; that is, students felt that their campuses could do more to address IPV and provide IPV services specific to LGBTQ+ college students. Perceptions of greater campus readiness to address IPV among LGBTQ+ college students was significantly and positively related to a more favorable LGBTQ+ campus climate and a greater sense of campus community. Additionally, IPV victims were more likely to perceive higher levels of campus community readiness than non-IPV victims. There was no association between IPV perpetration and perceptions of campus community readiness. Greater sense of community was marginally and inversely related to IPV victimization and perpetration. Sense of community and LGBTQ+ campus climate also varied to some extent as a function of region of the country and type of institution. Implications for further development and refinement of the conceptual model, as well as future research applying this model to better understand IPV among sexual minority students are discussed.

How does student activism drive cultural campus change in the UK and US regarding sexual violence on campus?

“…It also responded to a collation of quantifiable evidence and occurred at a time of societal change fuelled by movements such as #metoo which led to a particular policy slant perspective (Kingdon, 1995, 2010) in contrast to the Donnellan case in the 1990s. It also represents some movement through key stages of the CCREM initiation stages of readiness (Edwards et al, 2015, 2016). For example, information about the issue became public, media exposure increased; bringing on board key leaders and influencers.…”

“…However, Kingdon (1995, 2010) notes that budgetary changes can both push and close down a policy window, so universities need to understand how to engage with student activists to capitalise upon and extend this policy window. Many of these projects offer training, various programs of prevention and other activity, and evaluation in some format and this represents movement toward the initiation stages of community readiness, but this is more sporadic and less formalised than would be suggestive of sustainability stages of CCREM (Edwards et al, 2015, 2016). Stages of CCREM are not without criticism and it is unlikely that institutions would move through them in such a staged way, with more likelihood that they will demonstrate some aspects of stages and not others, and that this is dynamic.…”

“…Over recent years, there have been a number of successes for student activists. Some students have engaged as policy entrepreneurs, helping to advance critical policy changes (Kingdon, 1995, 2010) facilitating the progression of campuses to greater stages of readiness to address sexual violence (Edwards et al, 2015, 2016). An increase of awareness about sexual violence can normalise the conversation and provide more support for survivors to speak with authority, commanding respect.…”

“…Universities in both countries have not progressed equally in their readiness to change, with some institutions still failing to adequately protect their students, remaining in the ‘denial’ phase in the stages of change (Edwards et al, 2015, 2016). Though institutions may view collaboration as risky, we conversely recommend that universities instead see this as a way to be dynamically at the forefront of change beyond ‘token’ involvement of students.…”

“…The OIA recommended the University amend or clarify their policy. They complied; amending it in consultation with students, representing institutional movement toward the CCREM stage of 'initiation' (Edwards et al, 2015(Edwards et al, , 2016. In 2015 Ramey brought a legal case against University of Oxford to try to force further change to policy.…”