Bystander intervention programming at metropolitan universities.

Abstract

The current study reviews the responsibilities and benefits of institutions in receipt of federal funding to provide bystander education as a primary prevention program to students per current federal regulations and guidance. Existing bystander intervention programs have the potential to 1) train key staff by experts; 2) continue training of other staff via train-the-trainer efforts; 3) implement a variety of student-specific programming (such as gender neutral, gender-specific, student athletes, Greek students, and other student organizations and leadership groups); and, 4) obtain/maintain compliance with federal guidance and recent legislative mandates. Per Potter and Stapleton (2011), practitioners need to decide if purchasing an existing program, developed and evaluated at another institution, will in fact be successful at the investing institution. Metropolitan universities typically have student populations of that are older (non-traditional), have lower socioeconomic statuses, have minority backgrounds (Barnett & Phares, 1995); commute, are more likely to be employed (Muhollan, 1995); and, are first-generation college students (Barnett & Phares, 1995). Vast diversity can present challenges to engaging a student body with a one-handed type of approach. Metropolitan universities would be benefited most by 1) purchasing an existing train-the-trainer bystander intervention program; 2) identifying the needs of unique metropolitan university student groups; 3) modifying the program to meet these needs; 4) developing a strategic implementation plan; 5) pre/post assessment plans; and, 6) identifying accompanying social marketing campaign strategies. Considerations for developing a modified bystander intervention program at a metropolitan university and meeting these needs are discussed.