Transcript Inspiring Fraternity Men: A Three Tiered Peer Education

Inspiring Fraternity
Men: A Three Tiered
Peer Education
Approach for Sexual
Assault Prevention
Dara Raboy-Picciano, LCSW
Matt Skojec, MSW, MSEd
Binghamton University
Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
Binghamton’s Program






20:1 Peer Education Program
Founded in 2004
Received Funding in 2005
Why Three Tiers
Forming the Tiers
New Member Ed

Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
The First Tier: The
Empathy Based Program
 Model Based on John Foubert’s “The Men’s Program”
 20:1 developed the first tier to fit BU campus culture
 First Tier builds empathy through understanding sexual
assault definition
 Police Training Video
 Discussion around victim blaming, victim experience,
as well as how to help a victim
 Empathy is Built
 Lack of Understanding around Consent

Raboy-Picciano/Causseaux/Rosario//20:1 2009
The Second Tier: The
Awareness Based Program
Consent Model: Bret Sokolow, Alan Berkowitz
Discussion of definition of sexual assault
Discussion of definition of consent
Play the Consent Game©
Discussion/Know the Facts hand out
Lisak’s “The Undetected Rapist” DVD and stats
used

Raboy-Picciano/Causseaux/Rosario//20:1 2009
The Consent Game©
 Purpose of the Consent Game:
 A tool to facilitate discussion with students, faculty,
professional and paraprofessional staff around issues
of consent and sexual assault.
 How It Works:
 Most People know the Definitions of Sexual Assault
and Consent.
 When it comes to the practical Application personal
biases and myths may emerge.
 Through the use of this game, with real life scenarios,
trained facilitators can begin to challenge those
biases and myths in a fun non-threatening way.
Dara Raboy-Picciano, Juan Rosario© 2005
The Consent Game©
 Types of Scenarios used:
 Scenario 1: Consent: Proceeding from
one form of sexual activity to another
 Scenario 2: Consent and coercion
 Scenario 3: Consent and incapacitation
due to alcohol or drugs

Dara Raboy-Picciano and Juan Rosario© 2005.
The Consent Game©
 Role of MCs






Facilitate Discussion
Bring out Talking Points
Challenge Perspectives
Challenge Victim Blaming
Challenge Rape Myths
Challenge Rigid Gender Biases , Beliefs and Gender
Roles
 Give the Facts: Hand out “Know the Facts”

Dara Raboy-Picciano and Juan Rosario© 2005.
The Third Tier:
The Bystander Program




Modeled from Banyard’s “Bringing in the Bystander”
Review Sexual Assault/Consent Definitions
Discuss what it means to be a Bystander
Give personal example of own struggle with being a
bystander
Empathy building exercise
Bystander Group Activity
Questions and Discussion
End with the Rape of Mr. Smith

Raboy-Picciano//Rosario/20:1 2009




The Bystander Group Activity
 Purpose of Exercise
 To allow the exploration of bystander intervention through the use
of realistic scenarios
 Explore and challenge different perspectives, biases, related
specifically to sexual assault as well as bystander intervention in
general
 Encourage behavior change/intervention through discussion/real
life scenarios




How Activity Works:
Form groups of four or five
Read scenario
Each group will discuss how they would respond if they were in
situation and come up with group answer
 Each group shares their response with reason for answer

Raboy-Picciano//Rosario/20:1 2009
The Bystander Group Activity
 Role of Facilitators:
 Facilitators have list of possible bystander
intervention for discussion
 Discuss talking points: what makes intervening
more likely, under what conditions, why, who,
what, where
 Facilitators observe group interaction and write
down other responses not given as group
answer; ask group why these interventions
were not offered

Raboy-Picciano//Rosario/20:1 2009
The Bystander Group Activity
 Scenarios:
 1) You are at a party. You see a guy pushing up on a girl, trying to
dance with her. She looks uncomfortable, trying to get away from
him, but he persist. What do you do?
 2) You are at a bar when it closes and while waiting for a cab your
roommate is talking to a woman who is clearly slurring her words
and swaying back and forth. He tells you that he wants the room
for the night for himself and his “new” friend. What do you do?
 3) At a concert “after party” an intoxicated female is in a room and
gives head to a guy who proceeds to tell his buddies. One by one
they go into the room and get head. What do you do?

Raboy-Picciano//Rosario/20:1 2009
The Bystander Group Activity
 Scenarios:
 4) You are working out at the gym and this guy is always there
hitting on women. On this one occasion you notice he is taking a
picture of a girl’s butt with his cell phone while she is working out
on the tread mill. What do you do?
 5) You are at a house party and you think a guy might have
slipped something into a girl’s drink he is sitting next to. You ask if
she is his friend and he replies that she will be in a couple of
minutes. What do you do?
 6) You are at a house party. You walk into a room looking for the
bathroom and you see two individuals kissing and fondling each
other. They look pretty drunk. What do you do?

Raboy-Picciano//Rosario/20:1 2009
Data Analysis





Over 200 Fraternity Men
Pre/Post Test Questions
Quantitative/Qualitative Analysis
Need for all Three Tiers
Self-Reported Perpetration Rates

Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
Data Groups
 Two groups of fraternity men
 Group One; n = 198
 Received first tier Empathy-based program
 Group Two; n = 36
 Received second tier Awareness-based program
 Slightly older on average than group one
participants

Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
Data Group One
Race/Ethnicity
Frequency Percent
African-American
Asian-American
Caucasian/Euro-American
Latino/Hispanic
8
48
119
9
4.0
24.2
60.1
4.5
Middle Eastern-American
Multi-racial American
International
1
1
4
0.6
0.56
2.0
Other
8
4.0
198
100
TOTAL
Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
Data Group Two
Race/Ethnicity
Frequency
Percent
Euro-American (Caucasian)
29
80.6
Latino-Hispanic American
1
2.8
Middle Eastern American
2
5.6
Multi Racial American
2
5.6
International
1
2.8
Other
1
2.8
TOTAL
36
100.0
Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
Drinking Behavior of Data
Groups
Data Group One
Drinks/
week
0
Data Group Two
Percent
Frequency
Percent
0
0
27
13.6
Drinks/
week
0
1-3
36
18.2
1-3
0
0
4-6
33
16.7
4-6
2
5.6
7+
102
51.5
7+
34
94.4
Frequency
Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
The Three Questions
 To what degree are men reporting perceived
perpetration of sexual assault?
 Does the program facilitate a change in attitude
regarding sexual assault?
 Is the program facilitating, or at least
encouraging, behavioral change?

Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
Self-Reported Perpetration
Rates-Before Training
 Both groups were asked the question, “Do you
believe you have engaged in behaviors that meet
the definition of sexual assault?”
 Data Group One had self-report rates in pre-testing
showing 6.6% of men (13) felt they had engaged in
behavior that could be defined as sexual assault.

Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
Group One
Have not
Have
Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
Self-Reported Perpetration
Rates-Before Training
 Data Group Two had self-report rates in pre-testing
showing 13.9% (5 men) believed they had engaged
in behaviors that met the definition of sexual
assault.
 Between the two groups 18 men (7.7%) responded
in the affirmative to the question.

Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
Group Two
Have not
Have
Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
Self-Reported Perpetration
Rates-After Training
 Data Group One:
Have you engaged in behaviors
that meet definition of sexual
assault?
Pre-Test
Total
Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
YES
NO
Post-Test
YES
NO
5.1
1.5
11.1
82.3
16.2
83.8
Total
6.6
93.4
100
Self-Reported Perpetration
Rates-After Training
 Data Group Two:
Have you engaged in
behaviors that meet definition
of sexual assault?
Pre-test
YES
NO
NS
Total
Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
Post-test
Total
YES
13.9
NO
0
NS
0
13.9
16.7
5.6
36.1
52.8
2.8
55.6
5.6
2.8
8.3
75.0
11.1
100
Discussion of the findings
 Men were reporting sexual assault in significant numbers, but
there was also a large increase in the understanding of what
constitutes sexual assault and consent
 There was a need to separate out the components of building
empathy and increasing awareness, but data indicate both
components are necessary to the program
 Provided some introductory normative data on men that sexual
assault is clearly minority behavior, with a majority of fraternity
men wanting to make changes
 Education by peers helped them approach the topic in a manner
that made fraternity men more comfortable with topic, its
discussion, and more receptive to education.

Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
Changing Behavior
Data Group One:
After having completed this training,
do you believe your behaviors will
change?
Will behavior
change?
YES
Pre-test SA
behavior
YES
NO
TOTAL
YES
3.5
0.5
4.0
NO
9.1
46.0
55.1
12.6
46.5
59.1
YES
1.5
1.0
2.5
NO
2.0
36.4
38.4
TOTAL
3.5
37.4
40.9
TOTAL
NO
Pre-test SA
behavior
Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
Post-test SA behavior
Changing Behavior
Data Group Two:
After having completed this training,
do you believe your behaviors will
change?
Will behavior
change?
YES
Pre-test SA
behavior
YES
NO
NS
TOTAL
YES
8.3
0
0
8.3
NO
2.8
16.6
2.8
22.2
NS
13.9
19.4
2.8
5.6
13.9
19.4
2.8
36.1
YES
5.6
0
0
5.6
NO
13.9
36.1
2.8
52.8
NS
2.8
0
2.8
5.6
TOTAL
22.2
36.1
5.6
68.9
TOTAL
NO
Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
Pre-test SA
behavior
Post-test SA behavior
Discussion of the Findings
 Between the two data groups, 130 men
(55.6%) felt they would alter their behavior
 At the same time, 41.5% of the men (97) did
not feel they had committed a sexual assault
either before or after training
 Qualitative data indicated these men wanted to
participate in creating cultural change but did
not know what to do
 This exemplified the need for the third tier
focusing on bystander behavior

Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
Discussion of the Findings
 In both Data Groups, there was a percentage of men who
answered yes to both the pre-test and post-test question asking
whether their behavior met the definition of sexual assault and
then answered “no” as to whether or not they would change their
behavior after participating in the program.
 In data group one, these men accounted for 1.5% (3 men), and in
the second group 5.6% (2 men).
 Additionally, there was a slightly larger pool of men who had
responded in the affirmative on the post-test regardless of their
previous opinion who were not willing to change
 In Group One, there were 7 of these men (3.5%), while in Group
Two, they accounted for 22.2% (8 men)

Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
Discussion on the Findings
 These men represent a portion of the population for who the
program was not effective, and the numbers are roughly in line with
what other studies have found
 They represent a significant concern and highlight the need to both
include a focus on change at the cultural/community level and
educate others about how they can successfully intervene
Combined Groups Willingness to Change
Will change-No SA
Will change-SA
No change-No SA
No change-SA
Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
Limitations of the Data
 Pilot program that went through several
alterations
 Assessment tools were changed to meet the
need of the program as it developed
 Not all of the data was able to be compared
between the various assessment tools
 Did not include assessment of peer behavior
on initial assessment tools

Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
Questions/Comments
Raboy-Picciano/Skojec 2009
For more information contact us at
[email protected]