Sexual and Relationship Violence Prevention and Response: What Drives the Commuter Campus Student Experience?

Sexual assault and harassment victimization and post-assault help-seeking among undergraduate students: Comparing residential and nonresidential campuses

In the United States, campus sexual violence research has mostly focused on 4-year residential campuses. The experiences of students on nonresidential campuses are less well understood. Using data from a Web-based campus climate survey, this study explores sexual assault and sexual harassment victimization rates, victimization characteristics, and post-assault help-seeking across nonresidential and residential students in a campus system that contains both residential and nonresidential campuses. Our analyses highlight that sexual victimization rates, characteristics, and post-assault help-seeking patterns vary by campus type. Interestingly, while nonresidential students on nonresidential campuses reported lower rates of victimization, they accessed formal support resources at higher rates than students on a residential campus. Findings underscore the importance of accounting for campus type in campus sexual violence research and programming and to center nonresidential campuses to learn more about the strategies they adopt to address their students' unique victimization needs and experiences.

Sexual and Relationship Violence Prevention Programming on Commuter Campuses: Wisdom From Students and Campus Personnel

Responding to the dearth of literature regarding sexual and relationship violence prevention programming on nonresidential university campuses, this study investigates how students and staff conceptualize prevention on commuter campuses. We use qualitative analysis of data from interviews with personnel, and focus groups with students on three commuter campuses and describe (a) the unique considerations associated with implementing prevention in commuter contexts and (b) core elements of comprehensive prevention approaches on these campuses. Results suggest that comprehensive prevention programming is desired by commuter campus stakeholders, but requires policy revision, creative delivery strategies, and student involvement, among other factors, to be realized.