Practical applications. The data obtained for this study addressed the first research
question by evidencing strategies employed by Clery facilitators at the site institution. Regarding practical application, participants discussed established techniques and innovative strategies. Strategy innovations reflected marked improvements in ease of policy facilitation and added value to participant efforts by increasing campus security measures and policy
compliance. One major innovation is the use of the new, research–based, online training
program, Everfi, that was put in place to deliver campus safety training. This platform is used by all the site institution’s campuses to provide various levels of training to members of the campus community.
By state law, every new student, at both the undergraduate and graduate level, must complete a module on sexual assault and prevention before arriving on campus. Six months later there is a follow–up assessment to determine if the training impacted behavior. Everfi provides a separate employee module that has a documented 99% completion rate. Before the availability of Everfi’s online staff modules, this training was conducted in person via sessions
collaboratively delivered by the site institutions’ Human Resource office, the Title IX coordinator, and the Women's Resource coordinator, and the campus Clery officer. Many participants commented on the effectiveness of this training system designed by Everfi. Karen explained:
Everfi was really attractive to us in that they employ a research–based approach in designing their training. They pay close attention to the literature and the most effective methods for training and what content needs to be part of the training. So, we require all new students, graduate, freshman, transfer, to complete a
114
module on sexual assault prevention and awareness before they step foot on campus.
Some participants noted that another innovative strategy was the institution’s centralization of Clery Act compliance. This major change occurred in 2015 with the hiring of Ben, a Clery official who provides policy oversight to all the system campuses. Ben’s position is housed with the institution’s legal defense office, and, as he noted, that is a break from the national norm. Historically, Clery Act compliance ran through the campus police department or security office. Ben explained further:
Clery really was seen as something that was solely the responsibility of the police department or security department on a college or university campus. And I would say certainly say that within the last five years . . . it may be a little bit longer than that, maybe five to ten years, we're starting to see institutions are taking a much more collaborative and holistic approach to the Clery Act, and really in recognition of the way it was always intended to be—as being kind of a campus overarching a federal mandate as opposed to something that's just focused within the police department so yes it's definitely a trend we are seeing, where Clery compliance definitely has its place within a university or college police or security department but as we see professionals working Clery outside of the police department and kind of show how the implementation of this policy has changed over time, and how it really has become to be accepted as just another federal legislative piece that guides and regulates higher education in the United States.
115
Participants expressed that centralization was a great asset for many reasons. Ben’s position provides guidance when individual campus officials have questions, and Tom noted that Ben offers oversight and compliance assistance. Tom also referred to the fact that he and Ben annually review the off–site property list, those properties that the university owned and
controlled away from the core campus where there may not be staff to report Clery information. These examples demonstrate that innovative practices in Clery Act implementation make a difference in approach to compliance and campus safety. These also reveal that institutional investment is necessary to achieve Clery Act compliance goals. Software programs such as Everfi are expensive, and the retention of a centralized Clery officer housed in an institution’s legal defense unit is also a budgetary commitment. Undertakings like these illustrate the importance of institutional leaderships’ engagement in Clery Act compliance.
Theoretical implications. Institutional investment, both monetary and human capital, in
established and new policy implementation strategies demonstrate that leaders at the site institution are committed to maintaining Clery compliance and increasing campus safety. Such investment also reflects that institutional leaders acknowledge the importance of the Clery Act and its staying power. As Ben noted, recognition of the Clery Act as a guiding legislative piece in higher education is becoming a national trend. Renewed interest in the Clery Act, in
conjunction with recent amendments such as VAWA, illustrate that the law is evolving in ways that can be defined through the lens of institutional change theory. This was an unexpected revelation. Based on the literature review, prior research indicated that attitudes and perceptions regarding the Clery Act reflected policy decay and eventual removal. Study participants
116
RQ1 limitations. One limitation involved the ability to collect observational data. The