Developing and implementing survivor-centred approaches for college student-athletes: perspectives from athletic department, Title IX, and campus advocacy personnel

ABSTRACT

Background: Sexual violence (SV) is a persistent issue on US college campuses, particularly among college student-athletes. Strategies to address SV are urgently needed. Yet, prior research shows that many university practices can be more harmful than helpful to SV survivors and necessitates a reimagination of how institutions support SV survivors. Survivor-centred approaches may be one way to effectively address SV for students, including student-athletes, across college campuses.

Objective: This qualitative study explored campus personnel experiences with and perceptions of survivor-centred SV prevention and intervention policies and practices on college campuses and examined how these approaches serve SV survivors, including college student-athletes.

Methods: As part of a larger study on campus SV and student-athletes across four institutions, semi-structured interviews with 22 representatives from athletic departments, campus advocacy, and Title IX were conducted. Guided by phenomenology, a thematic analysis approach was used to identify key patterns in survivor-centred SV prevention and intervention policies and practices. Participant demographic data were analysed descriptively.

Results: Most participants identified as white (72.2%), heterosexual (63.6%), women (68.2%), and were an average of 41.8 years old (SD = 10.2). The majority were in positions associated with athletic departments (63.6%), and they had been in their role for an average of 5.6 years (SD = 6.6). Through thematic analysis, three main themes were identified: (1) education & accessibility; (2) interpersonal relationships & individual well-being; and (3) campus and societal norms.

Conclusions: The findings from this study highlight clear policy and practice recommendations for survivor-centred SV prevention and intervention on college campuses, such as accessible, applicable SV training and the implementation of survivor-centred approaches. Further research is needed to understand existing survivor-centred practices and the facilitators and barriers to their implementation across institutions and within athletic departments.

HIGHLIGHTS

• Sexual violence is a persistent issue on US college campuses, particularly among college student-athletes. Strategies to address SV are urgently needed. Survivor-centred approaches may offer solutions to better serve survivors of sexual violence, including student-athletes.

• Through interviews with athletic department, Title IX, and campus advocacy personnel, three themes were identified related to developing and implementing survivor-centred approaches: (1) education & accessibility; (2) interpersonal relationships & individual well-being; and (3) campus and societal norms.

• Further research is needed to understand existing survivor-centred practices and the facilitators and barriers to their implementation across institutions, particularly for college student-athletes.

1. Introduction

Sexual violence (SV), or any sexual activity (e.g. rape, sexual assault, unwanted touching, sexual harassment, stalking) without consent, is a persistent issue on US college campuses (Basile et al., 2014). While prevalence estimates vary based on definitions, prior multi-campus research estimates that 13.0% of all students – and 25.9% of female undergraduate students – reported experiencing nonconsensual sexual contact by physical force or inability to consent since enrolling at their university (Cantor et al., 2020; Fedina et al., 2018). SV is associated with adverse short- and long-term consequences including poorer physical health, mental health, and educational outcomes (Basile et al., 2014; Dworkin et al., 2017; Molstad et al., 2023; Potter et al., 2018; Sabia et al., 2013; Smith & Breiding, 2011).

Certain student subpopulations, including college student-athletes, are at higher risk of SV compared to other students (Adhia, Ellyson, & Kroshus, 2023). A study of student-athletes found that 29% reported experiencing any type of SV at college, and student-athletes on women’s teams reported SV at higher rates than those on men’s teams (36% vs. 13%, respectively; Adhia, Ellyson, & Kroshus, 2023). Further, research on SV reporting among student-athletes found limited knowledge about SV reporting and low rates of formal reporting among those who had experienced SV (Adhia, Ellyson, & Kroshus, 2023). Student-athlete perceptions and beliefs around SV reporting highlight how campus policies and practices are associated with SV reporting decisions (Adhia, Ellyson, Mustafa et al., 2023; Ellyson et al., 2023). To further knowledge in this area, this study qualitatively explores the perspectives of campus personnel on the development and implementation of one such practice – survivor-centred practices for college student-athletes.

1.1. Current campus strategies to address SV

Given its high prevalence and negative consequences, solutions to address SV are urgently needed. In 2011, the Department of Education issued guidance to universities on how to apply Title IX to campus SV. Title IX emphasizes that institutions of higher education must provide safe, equitable learning environments for students and create SV policies and procedures. This has resulted in prevention and intervention strategies that address student conduct through campus-specific SV policies, investigation procedures, sanctions, and resources. Despite universities having legal obligations to adhere to Title IX to ensure students can fully participate in their education, prior research shows that some university practices may be more harmful than helpful to SV survivors (Holland, Cipriano et al., 2021; Lorenz et al., 2022). There are many barriers for students’ use of institutional SV services, including lack of knowledge, shame, and loss of confidentiality (Cantor et al., 2020; Carey et al., 2022). Survivors are often further harmed in university processes and procedures to address SV, resulting in additional psychological, academic, and financial burden (Holland, Hutchison et al., 2021; Lorenz et al., 2022).

Aside from broader campus policies, there have also been efforts by athletic departments and organizations, specifically to better prevent SV and support student-athlete survivors. In 2015, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which oversees and organizes college athletic programming across the United States, established a Sexual Violence Task Force to develop an educational tool to facilitate athletic department participation in SV prevention and compliance (NCAA Sports Science Institute, 2019). Following the release of the toolkit, approximately two-thirds of NCAA Division 1 athletic departments reported offering SV prevention and response education to coaches and athletic department personnel, suggesting the opportunity for continued efforts to build programming in athletic departments (NCAA Sports Science Institute, 2020).

1.2. Mandatory reporting & Title IX investigations

Mandatory reporting, also known as compelled disclosure, is one common policy on campuses requiring certain employees to report disclosures of student experiences of SV to university officials, regardless of whether a student wants to report (Holland et al., 2018; Newins & White, 2018). Research on the student and faculty/staff support of mandatory reporting policies, and their effects on SV prevention and intervention, is varied (Holland et al., 2018; Johnson et al., 2023). Mandatory reporting policies that limit the number of people required to report SV and offer autonomy and flexibility are most preferred by survivors (Holland, Cipriano et al., 2021), but are not necessarily aligned with how policies are practically implemented (Wiersma-Mosley & DiLoreto, 2018). Institutional processes, like Title IX reporting requirements, can also create challenges for faculty/staff supporting SV survivors (e.g. insufficient training; Wiersma-Mosley & DiLoreto, 2018). While processes vary across institutions due to personnel and procedures and ever-evolving Title IX policies (e.g. due to changes in presidency), a typical Title IX investigation is initiated following a report with signing complainant (e.g. the survivor; Wiersma-Mosley & DiLoreto, 2018). Yet, some investigations can be pursued without survivor consent or engagement, particularly in cases of high campus risk (Moylan, 2017).

These mandated reporting policies and Title IX investigations may have more complex implications for college student-athletes. Student-athletes report sport-specific barriers to SV reporting, including institutional concerns about protecting athletes who use violence, fears about negative perceptions by their coach and implications for team standing, and potential repercussions on team dynamics (Adhia, Ellyson, Mustafa et al., 2023). Student-athletes report being more likely to move forward with SV reporting when offered options for anonymous reporting and survivor-centred investigations (Ellyson et al., 2023). The evidence of the potential harm of these existing processes and policies necessitates reimagining what it means for institutions of higher education to support SV survivors, including student-athletes. Specifically, there have been calls for survivor-centred approaches (i.e. those that centre survivor voice and choice) to address SV (Holland, Hutchison et al., 2021; Wood et al., 2021).

1.3. Theory & survivor-centred practices

Judith Herman’s (1992) trauma theory posits that individuals experience a sense of ‘powerlessness’ during a traumatic event because such circumstances ‘overwhelm the systems of care that give people a sense of control, connection, and meaning’ (p. 33). Betrayal trauma theory, developed by Jennifer Freyd and colleagues, proposes that how traumatic events ‘represents a betrayal by a trusted needed other will influence the way in which events are processed and remembered’ (Sivers et al., 2002, p. 169). Betrayal trauma theory has been applied in variety of contexts, including informing understandings of institutional betrayal, or when institutions harm individuals who rely upon them (e.g. inadequately responding to campus SV; Smith & Freyd, 2013). College student-athletes, who may have a unique sense of pride for institution through their sport or allegiance to their institution due to financial support, may be more likely to dually experience the interpersonal trauma of SV and the trauma associated with betrayal by their institution (Stenberg, 2022).

Thus, drawing upon both trauma theory (Herman, 1992) and betrayal trauma theory (Smith & Freyd, 2013, 2014) – which underscore how trauma can leave survivors feeling that their agency has been taken – survivor-centred approaches deliberately give agency back to survivors. Often aligning with trauma theory recommendations for recovery (e.g. safety, remembrance & mourning, and reconnection; Herman, 1992), such approaches have the potential to increase survivor engagement in the SV reporting and investigation processes and improve survivor well-being by offering autonomy, healing, and resilience (Nichols, 2013). While campuses often have a variety of programmes, policies, and procedures to address SV (e.g. anonymous reporting), documentation of campus survivor-centred practices and their implementation is limited and even less is known about how these practices work, particularly for student-athletes (Brubaker, 2019; Wood et al., 2021). Additional research on practices that can minimize harm while providing appropriate SV prevention and response is needed to inform best practices to support survivors, including college student-athletes.

2. Current study

Given student-athletes’ reports that survivor-centred policies are relevant for their decision to move forward with SV reporting (Ellyson et al., 2023), this qualitative study explored the experiences and perceptions campus personnel across four large universities on survivor-centred SV practices and policies. Guided by phenomenology, we used thematic analysis to portray participants’ lived experiences with survivor-centred SV approaches at their institutions. Participants reflected on how they and their institutions currently enact survivor-centred practices and policies, articulated their perceptions on how these approaches serve survivors, including student-athletes, and described their hopes for future solutions to improve such approaches across college campuses. We propose preliminary recommendations for survivor-centred approaches and policies on college campuses, including athletic departments, and discuss areas for future practice, policy, and research.

3. Methods

3.1. Participants and procedures

Participants were recruited as part of a larger study focused on SV reporting on college campuses, particularly among student-athletes, across ten public Division I universities with key shared Title IX procedures (see Adhia, Ellyson, & Kroshus [2023] for further information on the sample selection process). We partnered with three of the 10 original campuses and the authors’ own institution, for a total of four campuses located in mid- to large-sized cities across different regions of the US for this qualitative study. Through convenience sampling, we invited a range of campus personnel with roles focused on SV prevention and intervention and/or serving SV survivors (e.g. confidential advocates, Title IX coordinators, university health centre personnel, relevant athletic personnel). We recruited 22 representatives from athletic departments (who were also Title IX liaisons), the Title IX office, and campus safety or advocacy. All participants completed an informed consent process prior to their interview. Participants were individually interviewed over Zoom, using a semi-structured interview guide. Participants were asked questions about survivor-initiated investigations (i.e. those where survivors control whether an investigation is started after they file a report; see Ellyson et al., 2023). Participants were specifically asked the following: (1) how do survivor-initiated investigations work at your university?; (2) how were survivor-initiated investigations implemented at your institution?; (3) what is your role in implementing survivor-initiated investigations?; and (4) what do you think are the biggest challenges with survivor-initiated investigations at your institution? Following interview completion, participants were compensated with a $20 gift card. Aside from one interview where the participant requested notetaking rather than audio recording, the interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim in Zoom. All interview transcripts were manually reviewed for accuracy prior to being uploaded into the qualitative data analysis software Dedoose (version 9.0.17) for analysis. This study was approved by the University of Washington Institutional Review Board (study 00011618).

3.2. Analysis

To explore the experiences and perceptions of key campus personnel in employing survivor-centred SV prevention and intervention approaches, this study utilized a phenomenological approach. Phenomenology seeks to describe the lived experiences of individuals regarding a given phenomenon with the purpose of developing a ‘composite description of the essence of the experience’ (Creswell & Poth, 2016, p. 75; Moustakas, 1994). Data were analysed with a codebook thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2022). To develop the inductive codebook, each coder (AB, RR, AM, AE) carefully reviewed transcripts to identify ‘patterns of shared meaning’ across the data (Braun & Clarke, 2022). Working collaboratively, the coders developed initial codes that reflected these patterns of both semantic and latent meaning. The preliminary codebook was trialled on two randomly selected transcripts that were independently coded by two coders, and then the coders reconvened to revise and clarify the codebook for subsequent coding. This process of coding and collaborative discussions to modify the codebook and talk through any complex fragments of data continued throughout the remainder of coding. The analysis team (AB, AA, RR, AM, AE) then took a consensus-based approach to construct a coding hierarchy that reflected the subthemes and high-level themes that emerged from the initial codes. To ensure trustworthiness, we adhered to principles of confirmability (i.e. consensus-based findings development) and credibility (i.e. prolonged engagement with data; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Nowell et al., 2017). Participant demographics were analysed descriptively.

3.3. Author reflexivity

The authorship team was composed of individuals with professional experiences relevant to SV. All authors have completed advanced degrees and identify as women with careers in research. Throughout data collection and analysis, all authors were associated with an academic institution as research staff, post-doctoral fellows, or faculty members. Research team members (AB, AA, AE) have experience as advocates for SV survivors. Throughout the analysis, the coders sought to bracket their own experiences, and group discussions were essential to furthering author reflexivity (Creswell & Poth, 2016).

4. Findings

4.1. Participant characteristics

Of the 22 participants, the majority identified as white (72.2%), heterosexual (63.6%), women (68.2%), and their average age was 41.8 years (SD = 10.2). Participants were evenly distributed across the four participating institutions (range = 4-7 participants) and had a mean tenure at their current institution and in their roles of 8.7 years (SD = 4.7) and 5.6 years (SD = 6.6), respectively. The majority were in positions associated with athletic departments (63.6%). See Table 1 for complete demographic characteristics.

Table 1.

Participant characteristics (N = 22).

Demographic characteristics	n	%
Age, years
Mean (SD)	41.8	10.2
Median (IQR)	43	(35-48)
Gender identity
Woman	15	68.2
Man	4	18.2
Race/ethnicity
White	13	72.2
Hispanic or Latino, Latina, Latinx	1	5.6
Black or African American	3	16.7
Asian	1	5.6
Sexual orientation
Not sure/questioning	1	4.6
Lesbian	2	9.1
Heterosexual/Straight	14	63.6
Bisexual, Queer	1	4.6
Employment information
University
University 1 (West)	6	27.3
University 2 (West)	4	18.2
University 3 (Southwest)	5	22.7
University 4 (Southeast)	7	31.8
Department
Athletics	14	63.6
Title IX	5	22.7
Campus advocacy	3	13.6
Length at current institution, years
Mean (SD)	8.7	4.7
Median (IQR)	8.5	(5-13)
Length in current role, years
Mean (SD)	5.6	6.6
Median (IQR)	3	(1.5-6)

Note. All demographic information is missing for four participants. Partial demographic data (race, age, sexual orientation) are missing for one participant.

4.2. Main findings

Three main qualitative themes and their associated subthemes were identified: (1) education & accessibility (subthemes: (a) education & training, (b) awareness & accessibility); (2) interpersonal relationships & individual well-being (subthemes: (a) survivor-centred & trauma-informed responses, (b) trust, (c) ethical dilemmas); and (3) campus & societal norms. Themes are presented below with sample, emblematic quotes; see Tables 2–4 for further quotes.

Table 2.

Education & Accessibility (Theme 1).

Subtheme	Codes	Illustrative quotes
Education & Training	Timing	‘Sports teams are so impacted with their time already they have so little time to do anything like this, and then to go through you know a multi-week program as opposed to you know one time training that's a couple of hours, it's much more of a time commitment. So that's where like we're trying to come up with creative solutions around that.’ [Campus Advocacy, University 2]
		‘I think doing things like you know, workshops and get togethers for the athletes could be helpful, the hard part is that athletes schedules are crazy.’ [Athletics, University 3]
		‘If there is a good time to do, it's maybe at the beginning. I know that they have a lot that's getting thrown at them at the beginning of a semester, right? But that first week to two weeks, you know they likely don't have a lot of homework and projects that are due yet. So, they might have more time to sit down and watch some of these educational components before the semester really gets started and really gets heavy with, you know, five assignments and quizzes and a midterm coming up and travel for your sport and all that.’ [Athletics, University 4]
		‘Now, granted, we tell them in orientation but that's like drinking from a water hose, you know you may retain, you know, 5% of everything we tell you in orientation as a university. And so how is it that we continue to educate and to re-emphasize that this is how we support individuals in different ways? Yeah, I would probably rephrase it as more of like a firehose as opposed to just a regular water hose.’ [Title IX, University 4]
	Accuracy and usefulness	‘The two programs that we've developed, the kind of biggest program we've developed in collaboration with our intercollegiate athletics wholly in partnership They make sure that we're meeting the needs of coaches and staff and student athletes as a part of the development of the program.’ [Campus Advocacy, University 2]
		‘So we work very strategically about making sure that our presentations are top notch, and that we are connecting individuals with real life experiences to be able to navigate through that in a way that they [will] not only remember us, but remember the information that we have available … Because like you say ‘hey, let me talk to you about reporting sexual harassment and discrimination harassment’, they’re like ‘I can give you like 15 min’ and I'm like ‘nah, I need at least an hour, cause that's the only way it's gonna work.’’ [Title IX, University 4]
	Frequency and diversity of messaging	‘The absolute bottom line is students, like every other human being, need to hear it six different ways from six different people … And then collectively you've put that in enough formats and enough ways that you have a shot that a teenager who's processing 80,000 terabytes of information a second on their phone and in their life might actually retain some of that.’ [Athletics, University 2]
		‘Let's say like six mental health workshops throughout the year and students having to go to at least three and it being a part of a requirement, so kind of moving towards that model.’ [Athletics, University 3]
		‘And I think part of that is, is not just programming in the halls. It's not just billboards, it's not just like how does the University get into it? … Like a sticker campaign on the mirrors throughout campus to be able to just say, you know, this is how we'd like to educate individuals, putting it on the back of bathroom doors for when individuals are going to the bathroom all across campus. Like, what does it look like just to educate? Because when you educate, reporting goes up. It's a known fact, and when we've seen it all happen.’ [Title IX, University 4]
	Universal education specific to SV and SV prevention	‘And I’m really excited actually that campus has gotten the online curriculum going … And I’m very supportive of the entire campus getting training that's going to be updated and changed along the way and all those things. But every September when kind of everybody is … I mean we're a 24/7 year-round business right but, like in September as the academic year is starting, I always do a session at our all-staff or first all-staff meeting that talks about reporting procedures and our responsibility to our student athletes and our staff and our community for when we receive a disclosure, making sure that it gets to [the correct campus office] so that the resources can be given to the to the victim.’ [Athletics, University 1]
		‘Academic departments a lot of times don't come to us unless there's an incident that's happened … But to get to the point where departments see themselves as needing to do that, and that that's something that they should be participating in that's not reactionary of ‘oh, an incident happened now we need your help,’ but really to be proactive and to do primary prevention before anything occurs in the department. So, I think that's always something that we can continuously be working on and I mean one of the big things that our prevention work focuses on is culture change on campus.’ [Campus Advocacy, University 2]
Awareness & Accessibility	Awareness of knowledge and policies	‘I think the biggest challenge is, everybody gets like the training on who you can talk to who you can't, and like what happens if you say this or the other, both staff and students … and you just don't listen until it's relevant … I think staff really, really don't want to get this wrong and don't know what they’re doing. That's not because they're not getting the training, it's just I think, you know, your mind goes to worst case scenario and you just panic, right? So, I think, I think that's probably the main one is people just like … as much as we do like quarterly reinforcements of what the policies are and what will happen and what can happen, you just don't listen until it's your time.’ [Athletics, University 1]
		‘So, I think like there are also nuances that I don't totally understand about when it has to be a Title IX process versus when it doesn't, all the new regulations and whether or not they apply and all of that.’ [Campus Advocacy, University 1]
		‘When the process becomes so confusing and you don't know where to go to because one aspect of the title nine umbrella, I like to refer to it, lives in different places throughout campus. It just, it's easier to not report because you don't even know where to start, and I think I think universities have to put the resources into it and I think universities have to make the process very easy. [Title IX, University 3]
		‘I don't really know, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that I know all the answers sometimes it's a little confusing on how the report, you know, how the reporting goes and how who's responsible. I mean, we know who responsible parties are but how does it go, how does it funnel through Title IX then they make a report to our [office of] institutional equity and diversity folks or if it goes to campus police?’ [Athletics, University 4]
		‘I just I feel like having some kind of consistent access to like the resources and the reporting system of what do I need to submit, how can I connect this student with additional … you know, whether it's like student health or like counseling Center or whatever, what should I be considering. And I feel like as a healthcare provider, I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on that, but you can still, having been in the situation, I was a little like ‘oof.’ And, so to imagine that for someone that doesn't have a background in health care, it feels like it would be even more overwhelming.’ [Athletics, University 4]
	Transparency and standardization	‘I think sometimes at [University] it kind of feels like it's a big mystery box, like what's going to happen? So just having more transparency about what happens, what that looks like, the pros and cons I think could help a lot of people actually come forward if they knew what to expect. I think sometimes sexual assault or sexual violence, it can take a while too. So, to like really understand what happened to you or, you know, like it just trauma takes a long time to really process.’ [Campus Advocacy, University 1]
		‘One of the other things we haven't talked about is publishing real data, real information on the numbers of complaints that come in, how they're resolved, the fact that people are held accountable, the fact that people are dismissed. People need to see that. Students need to see that it really happens so. And if you know if the person is another student athlete that's fine but they also need to see if they're not. If it's faculty they need to see that faculty are held accountable, that staff are held accountable … We do have a pretty comprehensive annual report that goes out, and I think just making sure that that is highlighted for people, so they see that … if they were to make that very difficult choice that it could lead to a positive outcome, it might push them over the edge.’ [Title IX, University 2]
		‘And so, allowing them to like guide that process, they will provide their information. We will update them every 2 weeks at a minimum. We send a written letter. We tell them that that's what we're gonna do. Every 2 weeks we send them a notification as to what we're doing in the process. The only time that that changes is if we change a step in the process. So, if we're done with the investigation and we're moving to drafting the report, we will send a specific notice on that one, and then do 2-week notifications once it's out of draft and goes into internal review. We'll send them a notification to it, we'll send them a notification when we're about to go to protocol, which is when they get to come in and review all the information, so they keep, they get continual notifications from our office. The one thing people can't say, I mean they could say, I don't know that that would be accurate, is that they don't get communicated by our office. So, we have it written into our procedures our system updates it in such a way that that's how our notifications go, and we do that for complainants, respondents, so they get what we're doing for one, we're doing for the other from an equity standpoint.’ [Title IX, University 4]
	Online reporting tool	‘Ethics point is really the whistleblower reporting portal but Ethics point allows you to communicate through the portal anonymously with the person who files the report. So, we can we also offer that, and we are trying to promote it more heavily for things like this, because it's a way for a reporter to stay anonymous, ask their questions, get a response from someone in our office and maybe decide to reveal themselves to move forward in future. We're always upfront but you know certainly we want information even if it's anonymous but very limited in many ways with what we can do with it.’ [Title IX, University 2]
		‘That you got to go and find and you got to learn how to navigate the website, in order to go to it now, but there's also a campus anonymous reporting link as well. But again, how can we make it more accessible? And sometimes I wonder if we don't really want to make it as accessible, because if it's accessible then … people are more apt to use it and then there's going to be more there's going to be increased numbers of reporting. But you know if it's there but it's not fully accessible it's there, we can always say it's there.’ [Athletics, University 4]

Table 3.

Interpersonal relationships and individual well-being (Theme 2).

Subtheme	Codes	Illustrative quotes
Survivor-centred & trauma-informed responses	Agency and autonomy	‘I mean one thing that I always think about in these types of investigations is it's really centered on the individual, so it doesn't take into account the community … which in a lot of ways it's, you know, survivor agency, is super, it's super crucial, super important. And at the same time, I also think like community safety and community … so like a lot of times it hinges on one person and it puts a lot of pressure on that survivor … it takes it out of the like patriarchal perspective, like it takes it out of the community and puts it on these individuals, instead of addressing like a larger situation that allowed this to happen. So, I guess I think of harm and violence is like, it's a community thing that created it, so we need to look at it as a community.’ [Campus Advocacy, University 1]
		‘I think it gives more power to the survivor which I think is the most important thing. It gives them more choices on their own healing and what they think is best for them. If they feel like they should report, in a sense of making sure that it's on file they get to do that in a safe way without having to then going into an investigation, but they get to say I did my part … You know, it's with sexual assault obviously like all of your control and powers taken away, and so the more that they can get back, I think the better … And so any opportunity to let them be like yes or no, or want to do this, I think it's just really important for trauma informed care. [Athletics, University 3]
		‘It's the only way to do it and then when we get close to it, individuals still have the ability to say they would like to stop the process at any point in time. We've had some individuals that go all the way up to the reviewing of the investigation report, and they alright, I've reviewed it, I don't want to move forward with it. It kind of hurts a little bit, because we just spent, you know, a lot of time and effort in on this. But, at the end of the day, if it gave them closure for whatever reason, and that's where they want to stop, and we support them.’ [Title IX, University 4]
		‘I think it puts the power in the hands of the person who was made powerless. And I think that's really important, you know, it's an extension of autonomy of whether or not you want to seek action on something that has been done to you just the same as if someone hits your car, you can decide whether or not you want to you know file an insurance claim. Or just like any other aspect of the law, the victim is able to say whether or not they want to move forward with charges. And, yeah, I think that it's important to extend it to this scenario too.’ [Athletics, University 4]
	Accountability and resolution	‘So, I think there's a lot of like, ‘I want to report because I want this person held accountable.’ … But the investigation process is really, really long and requires a lot of somebody who's choosing to request an investigation. They have to go through numerous interviews, they have to have all their friends be interviewed, and I think that sometimes students will think that that process can bring about some resolution for them. And it could, it also could not. So, I think that sometimes students hav[e] hope that it might help in their healing, or might help them move on, or might help with something else along those lines to kind of increase their psychological well-being after a traumatic incident.’ [Title IX, University 1]
		‘I mean sometimes the form of response that a survivor may want is more of through like a restorative justice type approach, that they just want an apology from the perpetrator, or they may just like not want to see them again. But they don't want to have any formal sanctions against them, or they don't want it to be on their formal academic record, or they don't want to have police records of that.’ [Campus Advocacy, University 2]
		‘Individuals, normally, will report because they don't want it to happen to somebody else. That would be one of the biggest reasons. It's also one of the biggest reasons individuals may have guilt if they found out that it's happened to somebody else before they've reported it. Allegedly, please take it all as an alleged happen. The other thing is, they're trying to have some type of resolution for themselves, whatever that resolution is.’ [Title IX, University 4]
	Survivor preference to be anonymous and confidential	‘I think one of the things that are best examined and investigated in survivors is like how much do you want your anonymity to stretch? Like what's most important about your anonymity – is it that the person that you're accusing doesn't find out? Those are discussions that could be had with survivors to really understand like what is your goal for, what you're aiming by making that request? You know, taking that, and [rather] trying to find kind of a one size fits all work around, but really trying to understand what is the person most concerned about … how can we try to address what it is that they want with anonymity.’ [Title IX, University 1]
		‘A lot of LGBTQ students who … may not want to be outed in terms of their sexuality and so they don't want that reported, because then people know things that they otherwise aren't ready to share with a larger group.’ [Title IX, University 1]
		‘Often, we get students that want to go to confidential advocates office because they don’t have to report and it’s confidential. The concept of a closed community comes into play here, they’re worried about getting a friend in trouble, or they have a friend on team … somehow they’re worried that this will become a longer traumatic experience for them, or they just don’t want to get their friend in trouble.’ [Athletics, University 2]
	Other survivor-centred and trauma-informed responses	‘If someone wants to remain anonymous, you know, we can work on safety planning. Or say it's like we get calls at like Friday at 4:30pm and we know they're not going to be able to get to an advocate until next week, we do a lot of like safety planning.’ [Campus Advocacy, University 1]
		‘The people that interact with our offices should never know that [campus offices are siloed], right? They should never have to see it. They never have to experience it. They shouldn't have to feel like I'm just being passed around, so that's one of the biggest pieces is how do we continue to create that seamlessness [sic] experience for an individual? And how do they feel supported behind the scenes, [across those] silos, right?. So, that would be my biggest challenge, especially on campuses that are – it may be a little easier, [but] same things still apply for smaller institutions – but you definitely see it in your larger institutions.’ [Title IX, University 4]
Trust	Building trust to encourage disclosure, reporting, and help-seeking	‘But in terms of just implementation, and a person who you know who they are, and somebody who you spend time with, and someone you've had the opportunity to develop trust with, like all that … I think that would be my number one thing is just having more bodies on the ground.’ [Athletics, University 1]
		‘And so, and some of that I think can be solved by encouraging athletics to participate in committee work so. You know, we have committees around campus and, as we have athletics employees on those committees, then you know people and you build relationships … And then you invite them to coffee and you keep up with the text dialogue with them, sometimes, and you kind of have to go out of your way but it pays dividends, when the time comes, and you understand the [university center] a little bit better or in a really stressful situation you're dealing with somebody you met before. [Athletics, University 2]
		‘So, I think we try to get our kids acclimated to trusting that that student athlete support network – that's really the way we sell our place like when you come here, this is who is going to help your coaches take care of you.’ [Athletics, University 3]
		‘I think that that's the biggest piece but when we do that, when we are able to be objective in how we provide options to individuals going through our office, we allow them to have their own power and their own voice through the process, something that had been taken away from them that, that had been minimized in their experiences. And that's one thing that we value, a person's voice. I can't put my voice on your voice, it's not appropriate. And so, we just really want to hear your voice through that process and let that be the one that's elevated.’ [Title IX, University 4]
		‘I think just the process of what they think they'll have to go through once they make the report. Maybe feeling ostracized or, in some way, if people were to find out if they made this report. Sometimes they blame themselves with things that happened to them. I’m just naming all the reasons I can think of, that people have talked about and sometimes they don't know how to report, like who to go to. Sometimes they feel like maybe who can I trust with this information? So, you know how to report, who to trust to do, who should I report it to, how to report it. And then what's the whole process going to look like at the end.’ [Athletics, University 4]
	Institutional trust	‘I think [University] does a really good job investigating very thoroughly. You know, and that is something that I think not all students would agree with because sometimes the legal standards aren't so great and how evidence is used is not so great. I think that [University] does very thorough, very careful investigations. I think that there's a lot of emphasis on like trauma supported response and that doesn't always equal like, there's a, there's a lot of folks in this line, who are like, you know, you have to believe survivors and like you have to listen to and understand and like be compassionate toward survivors. And so, when I say believe, I don't want to be like yeah, we believe everything that they share with us, but I think that everybody who's involved in the system is grounded in a like, we validate your experience, and we want to help you type of trauma informed response. So, I think we do that well.’ [Title IX, University 1]
		‘I think I mean general institutional trust over, you know, even over like generations or cycles of students. You know they do talk, and there's a narrative that plays out … at [University] we're still in that trust deficit with students in particular, and you know I think it goes back to about [year]. There was a really high-profile incident on campus [that] led to litigation, and it led to a lot of positive changes. But there's just this perception [that] has never stopped that, you know, the institution is, in the administration, out to harm survivors.’ [Title IX, University 2]
		‘I'm now realizing that the campuses [that], for whatever reason, decide that they have to investigate all of the garbage that comes in, which a lot of it. I'll use that word – it's just not policy violations that we get. And, if they're investigating everything, they're not making policy findings, and then their overall rate of finding is low, and then that like reinforces negative trust in the system doesn't work. So, it's maybe that's another piece that will get those campuses to reevaluate their process.’ [Title IX, University 2]
		‘And I think it's hard, because you know people pay attention to what they hear in the media and they've seen some pretty significant cases where universities have ignored, and they have not, you know followed through on their protocols and student athletes weren’t penalized or punished for their behaviors and or they try to sweep it under the rug and that's what I think there's this this perception of that happens everywhere.’ [Title IX, University 3]
Ethical dilemmas	No good solutions	‘What's the best trauma informed approach of calling somebody and being like ‘hey, we’re aware of this thing that happened to you, we want to revisit this trauma or we want to ask you to consider [whether] you want to revisit this trauma.’ But I think the phone call is probably traumatizing … But, then again, to put somebody through an investigation that they didn't choose to begin with, that's probably 5000 times worse [at] some later point in time. Being like, ‘the person you reported has allegedly reoffended, do you want to play any role in that?’’ [Title IX, University 1]
		‘It may be a problem for a survivor if they want an investigation and are like ‘why can't I have one if I want to remain anonymous?’ You know, particularly under the federal regulations, I think that that's really difficult. You know, to some extent we've – there have been cases where we’ve somewhat got around like needing to share names, but up to a point. Like there were cases where there was an investigation and like somebody's first name was provided, but not their last name. But enough of a description was provided that, like the person was on notice of who’s accusing them of something … you know, in implementing a mutual no contact directive, we can't say don't talk to so and so without giving so and so's name. So, that then, if the person is a stalker, like giving their name might actually create a much bigger problem because of the Internet and ways to find like where that person might live, and like more about that person, and like the chance encounters that then you follow them and try to learn more or whatever the case is. That can be a problem in implementing and definitely pose a challenge.’ [Title IX, University 1]
		‘But we also know, like just based on how evidentiary codes work, if the survivors not going to cooperate and doesn't want this, we're not gonna be able to prove anything. And so we're basically putting this person at greater, a greater risk of harm because we're now going to share their name or we're going to share, you know, an incident to put a respondent on notice and like why would we, you’re creating, your potential, you're increasing the likelihood of harm for that person, by taking that decision out of their hands.’ [Title IX, University 1]
	Role and systems related challenges	‘So, like how do we like talk about what the worst-case scenarios are and understand that like those are risks that we have to be willing to take because of like sort of the ethics right … Like I would actually say that probably everyone wants to be survivor-centered, but their own interpretation of what that really means is quite different, and so it becomes really easy to talk past each other. I think actually even [it’s] really easy to like hurt each other's feelings because – it like becomes like who's more survivor-centered. And so I think those are some of the challenges that can be tricky.’ [Campus Advocacy, University 1]
		‘I guess the challenge is probably – this is gonna be very candid – it's about remaining objective in their choice. Because we sit here and we see case after case like we know the history, not just a history of a respondent or a complainant but we know institutional history. We know, like, if you do this and this is true, like here are some things that may happen … Sometimes you're like please go forward with this like, we want you to, but we can't. That's not our role and that's one of the things I pride ourselves on is being very objective in that capacity. But I will tell you that, that's hard, like we have to process as a team. We meet with each other as a team to kind of like, how does, how do we work through this? And how do we work through our own feelings because of the weight and whatnot?’ [Title IX, University 4]
		‘As staff people, [we’ve] been taught how to report and what to do, but now we're just like … more of a reporting role. We have to listen, but you can't advise, you can give them advice as far as what to do. You know how to report it, but you can't be like the investigator, you know? And it's so hard – as a human, especially people who aren’t investigating. I mean, I don’t do it but I’m just like, okay, please. We want to help young folks, but we need to know that there's a process to be in compliance with the University and you know state government.’ [Athletics, University 4]

Table 4.

Campus and societal norms (Theme 3).

Subtheme	Codes	Illustrative quotes
Campus & societal norms	Harmful misconceptions of gender-based violence	‘This is like a one-on-one issue, but we if talked about someone just punching someone in the face they're like, ‘oh my gosh, we have to suspend this person like this is so dangerous.’ And we're like, ‘well how is it different than like someone who just raped four women right, like or is violently stalking them?’ And it's just, I think it comes back to like that kind of patriarchal viewpoint right that gender-based violence is often seen as like a two people situation, you know, we can't get in the middle of that, but a guy that's randomly punching people, like we should definitely do something. And we see that a lot in our work, and especially with sexual violence.’ [Campus Advocacy, University 1]
		‘I think the biggest challenge is that administrators on the university side are not on the same page norm wise right … The very basic assumptions around like we need to not engage in victim blaming or and we need to be thoughtful about the fact that like false reports are not really common and it's way more common that people just don't report their experience. … We also need to be mindful of the idea of there are worse things than a nice young man being accused of something. Like the effects that it's going to have on a survivor and that survivor’s community are more important than whether it feels uncomfortable to be accused of something. So, I don't think that those norms are internalized at the administrative level … I think there's a huge variation in norms around not blaming survivors.’ [Campus Advocacy, University 1]
		‘Just because not only are you getting slut shamed by the people you know, but now like everybody gets to have an opinion on you and the type of person you are and your sexual life.’ [Athletics, University 3]
		‘Fear of retaliation … I think all of that keeps people from reporting it. I think also for like male identifying folks there's a stigma around it. There's a stigma for everyone, but I think it's even additional for non-women.’ [Athletics, University 4]
	Beliefs about false reporting	‘You know most of the time what we know is that survivors are not fabricating allegations. The question is not a false allegation, the question is, is there this evidentiary support to support a finding and not to say that everybody's responsible, but most the time people just don't fabricate stuff out of thin air.’ [Title IX, University 1]
		We've had them all over the spectrum, where there was false reporting no that didn't happen when it was investigated or there wasn't quite enough evidence by the investigators to assume that that happened. And again that's part of the whole educational process we're in with these kids is don't falsely accuse someone … The person that is allegedly involved, but both of them have to survive something so … at some point, the reality is there's a there's two sides to every story and good investigators get to the heart of it. But what you count on, if there's no witness to the incident other than the two people involved, it's limited to is veracity and you've got to get to the truth and kids need to learn about truth and honesty and trust – because without trust you don't ever have anything and any process so. And I worry about, I worry about what kids definitions of truth are. Because it seems to me that they can fib about the littlest dumbest things … when it becomes bigger like this type of thing you sure don't want them fudging. You want them to tell you the truth, and you want to support them to get to the truth.’ [Athletics, University 3]
		‘Now we know the false reporting rate for this is the same as everything else, 2% or less, right, same reporting structure. However, we also know that during situations the lens in which a complainant views a situation and others view a situation, may have variations within the truth, right, the big truth.’ [Title IX, University 4]
		‘I think definitely – I feel like there's a group of people that are like worried about false accusations that say that that's why we have to have names on [reports]. But I think that that is quite an overblown thing that doesn't actually happen.’ [Athletics, University 4]
	Himpathy	‘It seems like a lot of times in meetings I've been in, we're always worried about the, like the man, like oh he's going to miss out on his educational opportunities. And I'm like … there's been scientific research, that she is going to miss out on educational opportunities because she was raped. She had this thing happen to her … We're an educational system that has to give people opportunities and it's like yeah but you're not seeing the flip side of that like what about her opportunities that have been taken away.’ [Campus Advocacy, University 1]
		‘We're dealing with adults and young adults here and they can make decisions for themselves … And like also let's just validate the fact that they're college students and that this is an exploratory time in their life and they're going to do, dumb shit sometimes. And thankfully they do it largely within the safety of the university where there's not like severe repercussions for it.’ [Athletics, University 4]
	Call to action	‘I wish there was more community understanding of or community response to these types of harm and really holding people accountable. I don't know what that accountability would look like necessarily but maybe different ways of like, you know, different options. I think that takes more resource[s] and I just think there's a real lack of [those resources].’ [Campus Advocacy, University 1]
		‘I honestly believe the #MeToo movement just put it way more out there that people want to speak out and feel empowered to do that.’ [Campus Advocacy, University 1]
		‘Who are we centering in these policies and who are centering in these discussions … I think, sexual violence, and racism, and all those different isms are like interconnected. And I think there's a real lack of understanding about that at the university sometimes or, maybe not even a lack of understanding, just a lack of like intentionality around thinking creatively about that. So, that's also one thing that I would say, because we know that people of color and BIPOC folks are more likely to experience sexual violence.’ [Campus Advocacy, University 1]
		‘That call to action is here's who, if something happens here's where to go and it's not just you being responsible for it. I can help you find who to go to … It’s really the humanistic approach of people that that create dynamic and positive change.’ [Athletics, University 3]
		‘The reality is you know you can want to be better, but until you're actually putting your actions to match your words, they're not going to believe you. They're not dumb, they see all the bullshit that you're pulling, excuse my language. They're not dumb and they know that this is all smoke and mirrors or this is legit. And so, if you want to be legit about it – you got to be. You can't just be legit about sexual assault and violence reporting, it has to extend to everything that you're doing and that's going to take some work for many departments.’ [Athletics, University 4]

Note: The differing number of quotations were included, as needed, to reflect each subtheme’s dimensions.

Theme 1: Education & accessibility. Education & accessibility – encompassing two subthemes (education & training, awareness & accessibility) – reflected the importance of relevant, consistent, and accessible SV prevention and intervention information for SV survivors themselves and the campus personnel who provide SV resources and support (Table 2).

Related to education & training (subtheme 1), participants discussed their perception of the importance of timing. Participants reported perceived benefits and limitations to delivering SV training at the beginning of the academic year. Participants also reflected on how, in their experience, developing creative training formats would be more accessible for college student-athletes with demanding schedules. Participants perceived the need to prioritize accuracy and usefulness in SV education and training such clear information on reporting processes and examples, including those relevant to athletic departments. Participants also reflected on the importance of adequate training time so trainees can engage with content and wrestle with complex training scenarios. Participants also described how they believed that frequency and diversity of messaging (e.g. consistent in-person training coupled with bathroom flyers) was important for effective SV education.

Lastly, universal education specific to SV prevention and intervention was discussed as a critical component of a successful campus SV education and training. Participants outlined the perceived need for primary prevention efforts through SV education and training that reach all campus members. Participants felt that it was critical for all members of university campuses to feel empowered to engage in SV prevention and intervention.

Awareness & accessibility (subtheme 2) reflected participant comments on the importance of campus-wide SV prevention and intervention awareness, and the perceived need for easily accessible resources for survivors. Participants underscored the perceived need for an awareness of knowledge and policies that campus members can draw upon when serving SV survivors. They reported on their experienced challenges to building this awareness due to the complexity of existing policies and practices, evolving policy guidelines, and resources for training.

Participants discussed the perceived importance of transparency and standardization in building awareness and accessibility for SV prevention and intervention and to ensure survivor-centred practices. One Title IX participant offered a detailed description of all the regular, scheduled communication their office has with survivors who have initiated an investigation to keep them informed. Other participants noted the perceived importance of data sharing to provide survivors with a sense of possible SV reporting and investigation outcomes.

Relatedly, participants discussed the perceived value of online reporting tools, or other models of anonymous reporting, as a survivor-centred policy. A Title IX participant described how this can be an important mechanism to offer referrals (e.g. counselling) for SV survivors who may not be interested in identifiably reporting or pursuing an investigation. However, an athletics participant noted how, in their experience, the effectiveness of online reporting tools depends on campus community members’ awareness of this anonymous reporting option.

Theme 2: Interpersonal relationships & individual well-being. This second theme distilled participants’ observations of the importance of survivor agency and autonomy following SV – especially in the reporting decision and investigation process – and the value of trustworthy personnel and institutions for survivor well-being (Table 3). This theme comprised three subthemes: survivor-centred & trauma-informed responses, trust, and ethical dilemmas.

Relating to survivor-centred & trauma-informed responses (subtheme 1), participants noted the perceived critical role of agency and autonomy in ensuring that any SV intervention is survivor-centred. As one athletics participant elaborated, ‘I think it puts the power in the hands of the person who was made powerless.’ A Title IX participant described the perceived importance of personnel upholding survivor agency and autonomy even in circumstances that may seem challenging from an institutional perspective (e.g. survivor started an investigation but chose not to move forward). A campus advocacy participant lent some nuance to the value of survivor agency and autonomy, noting their belief that campuses should centre survivor choice and require community accountability.

Accountability and resolution were also identified as a critical component of survivor-centred and trauma-informed responses. Participants described experiences with survivors’ expectations about accountability and resolution and suggested that it is essential that survivors are aware that an investigation may or may not yield their hoped-for outcome. In a Title IX participant’s experience, the most common reason students report is because ‘they don't want it to happen to somebody else.’ In their work, a campus advocacy participant had observed a range of survivor conceptualizations of accountability and resolution (e.g. restorative justice).

Survivor preference to be anonymous and confidential similarly emerged as a key component of this subtheme. A Title IX participant wondered if some SV survivors worry about what reporting may reveal (e.g. sexual orientation) about them, and whether parameters of confidentiality are personal and must be survivor-driven to be effective. One athletics participant felt that this may be particularly the case for student-athletes who exist within close-knit communities where they may be especially worried about confidentiality in reporting.

Participants shared their experiences with other survivor-centred and trauma-informed responses, including connecting survivors to resources even when they choose to remain anonymous and ensuring that SV survivors’ experiences with the reporting and investigation processes are efficient, uncomplicated, and cohesive. As a Title IX participant described, ‘the people that interact with our offices should never know that [campus offices are siloed], right? … They shouldn't have to feel like I'm just being passed around.’

Trust (subtheme 2), both interpersonal and institutional, was identified by participants as a perceived critical piece of developing survivor-centred & trauma-informed SV responses. At the interpersonal level, participants described the perceived value of building trust to encourage disclosure, reporting, and help-seeking. The consistent presence of safe and trustworthy campus personnel was perceived as essential to efficiently connecting SV survivors to campus resources. Participants, including athletic department personnel, described how gaining SV survivor trust requires centring their agency and autonomy while also being transparent about campus processes and procedures. Participants also felt that building institutional trust was necessary to ensure that survivors feel supported by institutional norms and standards.

Participants highlighted the perceived ethical dilemmas (subtheme 3) in developing and implementing survivor-centred & trauma-informed responses at universities. For example, some participants described feeling like there are no good solutions to survivor-centred or trauma-informed responses. Participants also noted their experiences with ethical dilemmas related to role and systems related challenges as faculty and staff balance their own reactions to SV, the constraints of their roles, and the desire to remain survivor-centred and trauma-informed within systems with differing priorities.

Theme 3: Campus & Societal Norms. This final theme contextualized the ways in which broad institutional and societal cultural norms and beliefs (e.g. rape myths) complicate implementing survivor-centred SV prevention and intervention practices (Table 4).

Participants clearly delineated experiences of how harmful misconceptions of gender-based violence complicated efforts to effectively serve survivors in campus SV prevention and intervention efforts. Two athletics participants described their perceptions that many survivors fear retaliation after reporting, particularly survivors who do not identify as women. A campus advocacy participant described their frustration with different norms and beliefs about SV across the institution. Another campus advocacy participant described how SV may still often be seen as a ‘one-on-one issue’ (e.g. an issue to resolve between the people involved in the SV incident) which can complicate efforts to meaningfully intervene and support survivors.

Relatedly, participants reflected specifically on the perceived pernicious beliefs about false reporting and himpathy. Himpathy reflects the ways in which SV is overwhelmingly a form of gender-based violence perpetrated by men against women and gender minorities, and the men who use violence are frequently treated sympathetically, often at the expense of the survivors (Bedera, 2024; Manne, 2020). One athletics participant perceived that efforts for anonymous online reporting can be challenged by unfounded concerns that false accusations will inundate the reporting system. Other participants described how these assumptions about false reporting can be difficult to unlearn, both individually and institutionally. Interestingly, participants were somewhat divided in their thinking around himpathy, with some highlighting it as problematic phenomenon and others wrestling with also wanting to support those who use violence.

Lastly, participants clearly described a call to action on the part of institutions to step up SV prevention and intervention efforts, particularly given broader culture shifts such as the #MeToo movement and growing awareness of intersectionality in SV. Some participants offered specific solutions, such as more options for accountability for those who use violence and increased services for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) SV survivors.

5. Discussion

Through interviews with athletic department, Title IX, and campus advocacy personnel, three main themes emerged about existing survivor-centred SV prevention and intervention policies and practices at universities and how these approaches effectively serve (or harm) SV survivors, including those who are college student-athletes. While no formal comparisons were conducted across respondent professional roles, findings were consistent across participants, suggesting their potential applicability for student-athletes and non-athletes. The first theme, education & accessibility, encapsulates participants’ feeling that meaningful survivor-centred SV prevention and intervention requires education. In their experience, participants noted that robust, universal training is necessary for both the students who may experience SV and the campus personnel who will provide support, guidance, and referrals to SV survivors (McMahon & Stepleton, 2018). Participants underlined perceived characteristics of effective educational programming (e.g. timing), and suggested that accessible SV training is a primary mechanism through which students and campus personnel have adequate awareness of the SV resources and policies.

The second theme, interpersonal relationships & individual well-being, portrayed participants experiences with and thoughts on how and why survivor-centred approaches have been developed and implemented. Aligning with prior research, participants expounded on the perceived need to honour survivors’ needs for agency and autonomy, accountability and resolution, and confidentiality (Nichols, 2013). They described experiences with other harm-reduction approaches (e.g. safety planning) and the importance of ensuring that the reporting and investigation process are smooth and efficient to reduce survivor burden. Participants reflected on the perceived importance of interpersonal and institutional trust in creating safety for survivors to access resources and move forward with reporting and an investigation if they so choose (Zinzow et al., 2022). Perceptions of institutional responses to SV, including instances of institutional betrayal where institutions failed to adequately aid or protect survivors, are deeply informed by survivor identity and prior experiences with SV (Bloom et al., 2023; Grocott et al., 2022). Participants also noted the ethical dilemmas they had felt in providing survivor-centred services (e.g. limitations of their role or the larger institutions), echoing other work in this area (Brubaker, 2019).

Campus & societal norms, the final theme identified through this study, provided a broader context for the challenges of implementing survivor-centred policies and practices. Participants reflected on how, in their experience, perceived societal cultural beliefs and norms related to SV (e.g. rape myths, himpathy) trickle down and influence campus practice and policy (Zinzow et al., 2022). Participants reporting wrestling with how to support the survivor and the person who used violence in the context of SV prevention and intervention, despite research suggesting that due process and victim-centred approaches can both contribute to improved SV response (Moylan et al., 2020). Participants’ observations demonstrated, too, how these societal norms were compounded by the institutional and administrative culture which may not prioritize survivor-centred care. Despite these cultural and societal norms, participants emphasized their belief that institutions must meaningfully and consistently engage in SV prevention and intervention and focus on survivor-centred approaches.

5.1. Implications for policy & practice

The findings from this study highlight clear policy and practice recommendations for SV prevention and intervention across university campuses. First, education and training on SV needs to be reviewed to ensure that the content is accessible and applicable for SV survivors generally and specific student subpopulations (e.g. student-athletes). Educational programming needs to also be delivered in a timely and varied way. For campus personnel, training that is specific to SV policies and procedures (e.g. reporting, investigation) – and addresses potential ethical dilemmas or false beliefs about SV, including those uniquely relevant to student-athletes and/or athletic departments – is essential to provide survivor-centred care. Implementing survivor-centred approaches from SV prevention through SV intervention (e.g. reporting, investigation, resolution) are also needed. This includes, for example, anonymous online reporting tools, standardized processes throughout an investigation to ensure survivor agency and autonomy, and alternate options for accountability and resolution. These approaches may be particularly relevant for college student-athletes who may wrestle with unique challenges around disclosing SV (e.g. SV perpetrated by someone else in athletics; Adhia, Ellyson, Mustafa et al., 2023). Institutions need to ensure that their SV prevention and intervention services are equitable and appropriate for all survivors, including student-athletes. Given highly publicized instances of institutions of higher education failing to respond to sexual misconduct and support student-athletes survivors following SV, it is even more imperative for athletic departments to fully participate in efforts to cultivate a campus climate dedicated to supporting SV survivors (Stenberg, 2022). Such actions could reduce instances of institutional betrayal that may exacerbate the impacts of SV on student-athlete survivors (Bedera, 2024; Smith & Freyd, 2013; Stenberg, 2022).

5.2. Implications for research

Additional research is needed to understand the prevalence and specifics of the survivor-centred policies and practices, specifically those focused on student-athletes and to elucidate what approaches are effective in supporting student-athlete SV survivor well-being. While this study did not formally compare responses across participant roles – and thus no clear patterns were delineated between participant experiences with student-athletes and non-athletes – additional research is needed to understand the unique needs of student-athlete SV survivors and campus personnel who serve them. Some research on institutional betrayal has found that likelihood of institutional betrayal varies by some student characteristics (e.g. age, sexual orientation; Pinciotti & Orcutt, 2021). Further work is needed to understand how institutional betrayal may impact college student-athletes to reinforce the importance of survivor-centred approaches to promote healing. Subsequent work is needed to examine ways to implement these survivor-centred approaches feasibly and effectively across institutions of higher education and compare implementation efforts across different types of college campuses and student subpopulations, including student-athletes. Lastly, further research is needed to understand existing barriers and potential solutions for implementing survivor-centred policies and practices, particularly for student-athletes, and how these barriers and solutions vary by institution, role on campus, and type of policy or practice.

5.3. Limitations

This study has several limitations worth noting. Given that participants were recruited from Division I universities, it is challenging to know how survivor-centred SV prevention and intervention approaches have been implemented at smaller institutions. Smaller institutions may have fewer resources than Division I institutions but may be more able to standardize their education, policies, and procedures more easily. Relatedly, we did not ask participants for specific information about their SV policies, limiting our ability to understand how SV policies compared across the represented institutions. Most participants in this study were athletic personnel, which offers an important perspective from a key university department, but this study would have been enriched by greater representation from other campus personnel and comparisons across campus professional roles. While these data were collected in a larger study on college student-athletes, we did not ask participants to specifically elaborate on the differences in survivor-centred approaches for student-athletes as compared to other students. Notably, we did not interview student-athletes or screen institution staff for participant eligibility based on personal history of SV victimization, which minimizes understandings of how student-athlete SV survivors experience survivor-centred approaches.

5.4. Conclusion

The findings of this study underscore the need for continued efforts to develop and implement SV policies and practices that centre survivor well-being, particularly for student-athletes. Across institutions and roles, all participants emphasized the perceived value of such policies and practices and shared experiences with how institutional and societal conditions can undermine implementation of these approaches. Future work, particularly work incorporating student-athlete survivor voices, is needed to identify best practices to inform the implementation of student-athlete survivor-centred SV prevention and intervention efforts across institutions.

Funding Statement

This study was awarded an Exploratory Research Project grant administered by the Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center and funded by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention Injury & Health Equity across the Lifespan (R49CE003087). The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funders or the research partners. The funder was not involved in the study conception, design, analysis, manuscript drafting, or submission decision.

Author Contributions

AE, AA, and EK conceived and designed the study. Material preparation, interviews, and data collection were performed by AE, AA, and AG. Qualitative analyses were conducted by AE, AB, AA, RR, AM. All authors contributed to all versions of the manuscript and read and approved the final manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available to protect the privacy of study participants. The corresponding author will consider reasonable requests from researchers but may not be able to provide data used in these analyses to protect the privacy of both study participants and participating institutions.