Male-perpetrated violence such as the tragedies at the Boston Marathon, Sandy Hook School and Columbine are increasing in their number, nature and impacts. The motives, conditions and circumstances for such behaviors are poorly understood. The purpose of Violence and Gender is to provide comprehensive investigation of the gender basis, root causes and contributing factors of violent acts with the goals of identifying risk factors and early onset behaviors that are red flags for this type of violence. The goal of the Journal will be to better understand, predict and prevent acts of violence through the critical examination of biological, genetic, behavioral, psychological, racial, ethnic and cultural factors as they relate to the gender of perpetrators of violence.  Violence and Gender will be the “must-read” information source for all related disciplines impacted and interested in acts of violence.

Beginning with its premier issue, Violence and Gender will be available to library and institutional subscribers in 40 countries. Additionally,

October 1st – 3rd, 2013
The Rosen Plaza Hotel
Orlando, FL

Save the Date! Mark your calendars for the 3rd Annual SCOPE National Conference.

The 2013 Concurrent Session Call for Programs is now open!

• The Call for Programs closes on June 14, 2013.

Additional conference details coming soon, including Conference Registration Rates, a Detailed Conference Schedule, and Announcement of Keynote & Featured Speakers.

For more information, please contact Michelle Issadore, Executive Director, by email at execdir@wearescope.org or by phone at 610-644-1718.

The toolkit is intended to help high schools, school districts and their allies design and implement strategies to prevent suicide and promote mental health among their students. Intended outcomes include: assess ability to prevent and respond to suicide; understand strategies to help those at risk; understand how to respond to suicide; identify effective suicide prevention programs and activities that fit institutional needs and culture; integrate suicide prevention activities with others, such as alcohol and drug abuse prevention. Identifying partners, generating support and prioritizing and selecting programs that fit your school are all covered. Additionally, the steps and tools necessary implement a comprehensive school-based suicide prevention program are included.

High schools in particular should address suicide for a multitude of reasons: maintaining a safe school environment is integral to their mission; students’ mental health affects their academic performance; suicide can significantly impact the student body and community as a whole; schools have been sued for negligence. Components of a multifaceted approach include: protocols for helping students at risk of suicide; protocols for responding to suicide death; staff education and training; parent education; student education; screening.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/national-strategy-suicide-prevention/overview.pdf

The National Strategy for Suicide Prevention serves as a call to action meant to inform efforts over the next ten years. It is comprised of thirteen goals and sixty objectives intended to work synergistically. This version serves to revise and update the 2001 National Strategy, which allowed for the enactment of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and the Suicide prevention Resource Center.

Major developments that inform the 2012 National Strategy include an understanding of the link between suicide and other health issues, new knowledge on groups at increased risk, research on the effectiveness of suicide prevention interventions and the recognition of the importance of comprehensive and coordinated prevention efforts. The June 2011 National Prevention Strategy also informs this document, as it encourages everyone to take an active part in prevention. The four strategic directions include: create supportive environments that promote healthy and empowered individuals, families and communities; enhance clinical and community preventive services; promote the availability of timely treatment and support services; improve suicide prevention surveillance collection, research and evaluation.

Results from the 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration)

http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k11Results/NSDUHresults2011.pdf

The 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health serves as the primary source of data on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol and tobacco in the general population aged twelve and older. Highlights on illicit drug use include an increase in youth marijuana ue and a decrease in youth non-medical prescription drug abuse. Driving under the influence of illicit drugs was highest among 18-25 year old. Highlights on alcohol use were a static rate of youth binge drinking and a decline in underage current use, binge and heavy drinking. Driving under the influence of alcohol was highest among 21-25 year olds.

Youth reported seeing or hearing drug or alcohol prevention messages inside or outside of school less than they did in 2002. Fewer youth reported current use of marijuana if they perceived strong parental disapproval for trying marijuana. Current relevant data guides and informs prevention efforts, so this report is a tool for development and application of interventions.

By Lauren (LB) Bernstein, MSW – Coordinator of the Respect Program, Office of Health Promotion, Emory University

There has been a lot of media attention lately about universities sweeping rape/sexual assault under the proverbial rug.  I coordinate the Respect Program in Emory University’s Office of Health Promotion, and our mission is to engage the Emory community to prevent and respond to sexual assault and relationship violence. I want to address the nuances of not-sweeping-sexual-assault-under-the-rug from the three perspectives from which I work: advocate, health promotion professional, and administrator. Our approach must be comprehensive and attentive to the complexities of the issue.

As an advocate, I work with students who have experienced interpersonal violence and advise and mentor our student advocacy group, Sexual Assault Peer Advocates.  In order to create a campus in which sexual assault is truly addressed, we must all learn how to support survivors.  We need to ask them what they want without making assumptions.  I work to help survivors feel safer and to have access to the same experience at Emory as students who have not experienced sexual assault. This is not my work alone.  All members of the Emory community can advocate for survivors by believing them, supporting them, knowing the resources available on campus, not telling “rape jokes” or perpetuating a culture that endorses violence, and including these issues in the university discourse on multiple levels.

As a health promotion professional and prevention educator, I think about proactive engagement and culture change. Supporting survivors is critical, but our vision in the Respect Program does not stop at the point of all survivors having support.  Our vision is an Emory community where all students “learn, work, play, and love*” without experiencing or fearing sexual assault or relationship violence.  To do this we must prioritize prevention—stopping sexual assault or abuse in a relationship BEFORE it happens.  We must provide education on multiple levels and promote a community that cares for and watches out for each other.  As the most sexual assault occurs during the first six weeks of the semester, we must take a layered approach that stresses early intervention and conversation.  Colleges and universities must work for culture change on all social and institutional levels. We must engage students as our partners and not just the individuals we serve when they are in crisis.

As an administrator, I look to the system and how it works.  I believe strongly that the students who are speaking out now have very legitimate complaints against and reactions to systems and how they were treated as a part of them. However, I do not believe that a systems response alone will end violence or truly provide support for survivors.  We must listen to these students who are gaining media attention and to the students on our campuses.  Student accounts highlight that they wanted to be listened to and wanted real support. They wanted to feel that what they experienced was taken seriously. They wanted to be seen as humans and students and not problems.  Having a comprehensive approach that includes proactive prevention does this.  It provides a university stance that sexual assault is not acceptable.

Investigation for sexual misconduct is an important facet of a comprehensive system but it is neither the only area we must stress nor is it prevention.  Engaging students and having professional staff dedicated specifically to engaging with these issues on multiple levels also helps us continually revise and update our processes.  We can have a great system on paper, and perpetrators of sexual assault will still remain on college campuses.  While we can advocate that students seek legal recourse, the broader criminal and civil legal systems will still rarely bring true “justice” to these students. There is one common denominator I have seen among students who have been forced to go through any particular process on a university campus—they did not feel they received the response they needed, they felt revictimized, and did not feel “justice” was served.  We must advocate for reform in these systems and for changing the broader culture. We know that these systems, even at their best, do not provide healing or end violence, so this cannot be our only means of addressing sexual assault.

Sometimes members of communities can feel that all sexual assaults that occur should be publicized or acted upon, but I believe strongly that we should balance community knowledge with the critical fact that survivors deserve to continue to live their lives without revictimization, retraumatization, or compromising their safety (physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, financial). If we do not make those who have experienced sexual assault the center of our work, students will not tell us their experiences for fear of what we will do.  Survivors should have choices.  Forcing a particular option (such as a conduct process, a particular kind of counseling, withdrawing or being told to remain at an institution) takes that power away from them. After power and control is taken away from a survivor during an incident of violence, it is critical that any system on a college campus empowers survivors with options not a one-size-fits-all approach.  We must change campus culture to allow our processes to be effective for both support and accountability.

By working on multiple levels and having a comprehensive plan for our institutions, we can ensure that we are engaging both the science and the art of supporting students and working to create a culture shift toward a world free of sexual assault and interpersonal violence.  We can start on our campuses, and we can integrate protocol with proactivity and advocacy.  We must look beyond reacting to headlines to see for what our students are truly asking.  We can work to protect student confidentiality and rights without sweeping sexual assault and rape under the rug.

*Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. First International Conference on Health Promotion, Ottawa, 21 November 1986. Please contact LB at lauren.bernstein@emory.edu or 404.727.1514 for the full strategic plan for the Respect Program (2012-15)

http://www.cas.edu/getpdf.cfm?PDF=4BC0C492-DE80-F35D-5EFD35A5111CECFF

The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) developed standards and guidelines for Sexual Assault and Relationship Violence Prevention Programs, including a contextual statement. It is a step forward for institutionalizing sexual violence prevention programs to develop and uphold such guidelines. The following parts are detailed: mission; program; organization and leadership; human resources; ethics; law, policy and governance; diversity, equity and access; institutional and external relations; financial resources; technology; facilities and equipment; assessment and evaluation.

Highlights include: regular review of the mission; collaboration across the institution; intentional program design guided by theory; support regardless of survivor sex or gender; professional development support; evidence-based decision making; knowledge of legal compliance; sensitivity to multicultural and social justice concerns; assessment planning. SCOPE has advocated for many of these elements since its inception and fully supports their integration into prevention program standards

People Power: Mobilizing Communities for Policy Change (Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, National Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute)

http://www.cadca.org/files/resources/CommunityMobilization-FINAL-07-22-12.pdf

The effectiveness of environmental strategies is well-suited to community mobilizing. Short term in nature, with specific issues or concerns, driven by a subject expert and encouraging buy-in, community mobilizing can be thought of as an “outside-in” process. Foundations of community mobilizing include SAMSHA’s Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF) and CADCA’s Seven Strategies to Affect Community Change. Case studies and figures are also featured throughout this resource.

Benefits of community mobilizing include: building the volunteer base, enhancing member participation, building leadership, providing a community voice on issues, increasing civic engagement, providing ground-level information about the community and building coalition power. Policy campaign is an efficient tool for community change. Steps of community mobilizing are: listening and relationship building, the challenge, action, evaluation and reflection. Cultural competency and sustainability should always be considered, as should legal considerations.

http://nsvrc.org/publications/nsvrc-publications-information-packets/perfect-shade-change-resources-sexual-violence

Effective programming principles include: comprehensiveness; varied teaching methods; sufficient dosage; theory driven; emphasis on positive relationships; appropriate timing; sociocultural relevance; outcome evaluation; well-trained staff.

Qualities and abilities of effective prevention practitioners include: ability to demonstrate foundational understanding of sexual violence and sexual violence-related issues; ability to outline, list or describe how and why sexual violence is a public health problem; ability to make connections between anti-oppression work and sexual violence prevention accessible to their community; ability to identify and implement foundational elements of program development, evaluation and data analysis; commitment to collaboration and trust in community partners to organize and sustain sexual violence prevention efforts; personal attributes and characteristics of individuals that could support longevity and appropriate “fit” with the work of prevention.

Core competencies for sexual violence practitioners include: risk and protective factors; root causes; framing messages; foundations of primary prevention; learning styles; theories and fundamentals of behavior change; larger social context; core tenets of anti-oppression work; promotion; macro-level sense of issue.

Strategies for integrating prevention into organizational operations include: social change; anti-oppression work; feminist philosophy; information about the implementation of prevention and ending sexual violence; self-assessments; institutionalized self-care and burn-out prevention.

Evaluating Social Innovation (Center for Evaluation Innovation)

http://www.evaluationinnovation.org/sites/default/files/EvaluatingSocialInnovation.pdf

Strategic learning is “the use of data and insights from a variety of information-gathering approaches- including evaluation- to inform decision making about strategy. Strategic learning occurs when organizations or groups integrate data and evaluative thinking into their work and then adapt their strategies in response to what they learn. Strategic learning makes intelligence gathering and evaluation a part of a strategy’s development and implementation- embedding it so that it influences the process.”

Developmental evaluation is an evolving concept and is defined as follows: “informs and supports innovative and adaptive development in complex dynamic environments. DE brings to innovation and adaptation the processes of asking evaluative questions, applying evaluation logic, and gathering and reporting evaluative data to support project, program, product, and/or organizational development with timely feedback.” Five defining characteristics of DE are: the focus of the evaluation; the intentionality of learning throughout the evaluation; the emergent and responsive nature of the evaluation design; the role and position of the evaluator; emphasis on using a system lens for collecting and analyzing data, as well as for generating insights. Conditions are outlined for a successful developmental evaluation.

http://www.udetc.org/documents/College_onepager.pdf

Colleges and universities bear the brunt of the effects of heavy episodic drinking. In 2008, The OJJDP funded an Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws College Discretionary Initiative to “support and focus the efforts of colleges and their surrounding communities to reduce alcohol beverage availability and consumption by underage college students.” The initiative sought  “encouraging innovative partnerships between campus and community enforcement, student groups, college administrations and departments, community and neighborhood organizations, coalitions, businesses, faith-based organizations, and others,” as well as encouraged planning and engaging in “evidence-based activities to inform institutional policies and enforcement to reduce the consumption culture.”

Seven college/university communities were funded to use environmental strategies and received “intensive technical assistance and training in strategic planning and law enforcement from the Underage Drinking Enforcement Training Center (UDETC).” Results from the following schools can be found at the link above: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Charleston, Clemson University, Furman University, University of South Carolina, University of Nevada- Reno and Eastern Illinois University. Overall, “expanding partnerships, refining and advertising campus alcohol policies, and visibly enforcing the minimum legal drinking age laws had a positive effect on campus culture, student outcomes, and community environments.”

2010 Town Hall Meetings: Mobilizing Communities to Prevent and Reduce Underage Alcohol Use

http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content//SMA12-4448/SMA12-4448.pdf

In 2006, 2008 and 2010, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) coordinated national Town Hall Meetings to prevent underage drinking. Surveys were completed by participating community-based organizations. Town Hall Meetings “appear to be an effective and growing approach in raising public awareness of underage drinking as a public health problem and mobilizing communities to take preventive action.”

In 2010, SAMHSA found geographic diversity in the occurrence of town hall meetings, larger numbers of Town Hall Meetings and hosting organizations, diverse community stakeholders, strong involvement of youth in planning and conducting Town Hall Meetings, community support and positive perceptions of stakeholder engagement. Additionally, “Many communities pledged to continue and strengthen their efforts to prevent and reduce underage drinking.” Other outcomes were increased local capacity, increased community support for policies that prevent underage drinking and continuing action at the local and state levels.