<p> Sexual assault has been an issue facing institutions of higher education for many years (Office of Civil Rights, 2011). Alcohol plays a role in both who have been victims of sexual assault and who have perpetrated the crime of sexual assault (Crawford, Wright, &amp; Birchmeier, 2008). The purpose of this study was to look at sexual misconduct at institutions of higher education and to determine if substance use, such as alcohol or drugs, is a factor in the incidence of sexual misconduct happening to students on college campuses. The quantitative data section of the study reviewed three years of data from the Survey of College Health and Behavior. Baseline data were reviewed to show the rate of individuals experiencing nonconsensual sexual contact. Almost 6% of students reported they were taken advantage of sexually due to alcohol use. Over 16% reported they had engaged in risky sexual behavior due to alcohol use, and over 3% had been taken advantage of sexually due to alcohol use by others. Over 1% of students reported they had taken advantage of someone due to their alcohol use. More than 18% of students reported using alcohol or drugs to feel more comfortable with a sexual partner. Half of the 12 survey questions asked had an average of over 70% of respondents who had utilized protective factors. For the qualitative portion of the study, seven interviews were conducted with Title IX Coordinators at higher education institutions in the Midwest with experience ranging from one year to 15 years of working with sexual misconduct in the collegiate setting. Four themes emerged from the interviews: consent, communication, programming, and promotion. Based on the findings from this study, students need to be aware of the connection between substance use and sexual misconduct.</p><p>

<p> Research on bystanders&rsquo; willingness to intervene in intimate-partner violence (IPV), particularly among young adults, is lacking. Thus, a survey regarding bystander intervention willingness was administered to 318 college students at a large, public university. Various individual and contextual factors were analyzed to understand what makes college students more or less willing to intervene. Participants generally reported high intervention willingness when the IPV incident included the following: a female victim, a friend or acquaintance as the victim, disclosed or suspected IPV behavior, and a private setting. In general, participants were more willing to directly intervene; however, female participants were more willing to offer the victim emotional support. Therefore, bystander intervention willingness depends on gender (victim and bystander); setting (public vs. private); closeness to the victim (friend, acquaintance, or stranger); bystander&rsquo;s level of awareness (IPV disclosure, suspicion, or observation); level of involvement (direct vs. indirect); and intervention response (direct vs. emotional support). Colleges should implement comprehensive programs that improve guardianship, bystander competency, and collective efficacy by focusing on how and when college students can help (e.g., identifying IPV signs, clarifying common misconceptions, and offering resources, and modifying social norms).</p><p>

This study focuses on the topic of campus rape within the organization of a comprehensive public university. Media attention, student movements and federal legislation have focused on the issue of rape on college and university campuses. The public has become increasingly concerned about this issue and campuses have been forced to mount a response by implementing policies and procedures which respond to rape within their communities. This study looks at how one institution defines and combats rape. This investigation interviews a variety of participants (administrators, student service providers, faculty and students) within the university to see if those who share this community similarly identify and perceive efforts to eradicate rape. Conclusions from this study reveal that there is much disparity among members on how they perceive rape and the university's anti-rape policies and programs. Much of the disparity is attributable to gender and some to position within the institution. Also examined was the impact of federal legislation on members' perceptions of campus rape and institutional liability. Environmental, victim support, education and administrative considerations are examined in how members' view anti-rape policies. The academic environment and its distinctiveness is also explored in how it may obscure efforts to come to a consensus on defining and ameliorating rape. Several specific recommendations are offered, but this research does not put forth sweeping or simple solutions. Understanding that rape is a contentious, and at time, ambiguous, event may be the first step in responding effectively to the issue of rape on campus.

<p> Since the early 20^th century, higher education has been promoted as an effective strategy for enhancing law enforcement practice (Mayo, 2006a). While many have identified challenges that contemporary criminal justice practitioners face (Christopher, 2016; McFall, 2006; Stone &amp; Travis, 2011), experts have promoted specific instructional strategies to combat these challenges (Robinson, 2000). Current research reveals a concerted effort to align programmatic objectives with the needs of today&rsquo;s criminal justice students (Moriarty, 2006); yet, minimal research relates these objectives with faculty perceptions of instructional processes. </p><p> The purpose of this interpretive qualitative study was to explore the perceptions of undergraduate criminal justice faculty regarding in-class pedagogical processes, guided by the following research questions: 1. In what ways do criminal justice faculty integrate curricular learning objectives with the pedagogical strategies they employ? a. How do criminal justice faculty describe their curriculum design and in-class delivery processes for instruction? b. How do criminal justice faculty perceive the value of active and experiential learning in-class instructional strategies? </p><p> Undergraduate criminal justice faculty (<i>N</i> = 12) from 4-year higher education institutions in the southeastern New England region participated in face-to-face depth interviews. Data were analyzed using Rubin and Rubin&rsquo;s (2012) seven steps for qualitative data analysis. Additionally, data originating from documents provided by faculty, along with an elite interview of a recognized pedagogical expert, triangulated the primary data source. </p><p> Five themes emerged from an analysis of the data, revealing that many criminal justice faculty lack formal teaching training; however, their instructional evolution develops over time, reflecting their academic credentialing, past practical field exposure, visceral student feedback, and their own personality characteristics. Additionally, most faculty indicate that they employ active and experiential learning strategies in their classrooms even though they do not consciously acknowledge these approaches as intentional strategies. Finally, faculty shared a strong sense of commitment to teaching and to improving practice for criminal justice professionals. </p><p> These findings may provide criminal justice programmatic leaders with a richer understanding as to how and why their faculty deliver curriculum in the manner they do, along with internal perspectives for areas of instructional improvement.</p><p>