Surprisingly, there is not much research on this issue.  But last week, a study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine which helps shed light on the issue.

The study first noted what programs don’t seem to work well, or for which there lacks study.  Targeted programs for men and for women that have been evaluated for sexual assault outcomes have yielded disappointing results, the study notes, except possibly for “the bystander approach”.  The “bystander approach” is a program designed to increase men’s and women’s willingness to intervene when they encounter rape-supportive attitudes or behaviors, thereby changing the campus climate (i.e., men are approached as allies and not as potential perpetrators).  Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be enough research done on whether the bystander approach actually works.

Other programs directed exclusively to women yield, at best, short-term benefits.  Even with a “booster session”, there are no clear benefits after 2, 4, or 6 months (depending on when the booster session is from the initial session).

The reported study focused on this program: A four-unit, small-group sexual assault resistance program (4 units, each consisting of three hours).  It was tried on first-year students at three major universities.  The results of those who took the program were compared to those who were simply given a brochure.  The protocol of the full program as well as the brochure can all be found here as a PDF, but basically it has:

• a unit on assessment of risk (“Assess” – developing problem-solving strategies to reduce perpetrator advantages);
• a unit on acknowledgement of risk (“Acknowledge” – exploring ways to overcome emotional barriers to resisting the unwanted sexual behaviors of men who were known to them, and practicing resisting verbal coercion);
• a unit on response to risk (“Act” – effective options for resistance, including 2 hours of self-defense training based on Wen-Do); and
• a final unit aimed to integrate content from the previous units into participants’ sexual lives, providing a context to explore their sexual attitudes, values, and desires and to develop strategies for sexual communication.

Not surprisingly, “the risk of completed rape was significantly lower over a period of 1 year among first-year university women who participated in a sexual assault resistance program than among those who were provided access to brochures on sexual assault.”  But this program also fared better than other women-only programs.  What was different about this program from previously studied ones?  A few things — this one “had more hours of programming, a greater number of interactive and practice exercises, less focus on ‘assertive communication’ and more on escalation of resistance in response to a perpetrator’s perseverance, and the addition of positive sexuality content (i.e., the fourth unit).”

Women who took the training also had lower incidences of attempted rape, attempted coercion, and nonconsensual sexual contact.  Where sexual coercion was involved, the study found lower incidences, although this was not statistically significant.  (“Sexual coercion” is defined as the verbal encouragement for the woman to submit to sexual activity, and is more common to already-existing relationships rather than stranger-stranger relationships).

Like all studies of this kind, there are some limitations.  For one thing, the incidences of rape, coercion, etc. are self-reported, which allows for the introduction of bias.  Also, the authors note, the program “is designed for women; effective interventions focusing on men’s behavior are also needed”.  Also, universities may not be able to finance programs of this scale and scope.

In any event, the study points to one of the few programs which has actually and quantifiably been proven to lower the incidences of many categories of sexual assault on campus.  For more about this, see the New York Times article.