Strategies for Developing, Implementing, and Sustaining Sexual Harassment Bystander Intervention Programs for Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students (2023)

National Academies Press: OpenBook

Chapter: Bystander Intervention Programs

Visit NAP.edu/10766 to get more information about this book, to buy it in print, or to download it as a free PDF.

Suggested Citation:"Bystander Intervention Programs." Kuhn, J-U., N. Arain, N., J. Bell, B. Davis, H. Kaiser, D. Madden, G. Prepetit, and K. Williamsen. 2023. Strategies for Developing, Implementing, and Sustaining Sexual Harassment Bystander Intervention Programs for Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27266.

Bystander Intervention Programs

What Are They, How Do They Work, and What Is Their Value?

Bystander intervention training programs typically build on the work of Latané and Darley (1970), which provides a framework for understanding bystander behavior. Furthermore, training programs take participants through each of the five stages that bystanders encounter when intervening (as described above), explore options for intervention (such as the 3 D’s: direct intervention, distraction, delegation or Four Ds: direct, distract, delegate, and delay), and provide opportunities for participants to role-play these skills (Banyard et al., 2005; Berkowitz, 2002; Coker et al., 2015). These trainings have most frequently been deployed with undergraduate students as prevention programing related to sexual assault. Bystander intervention training programs typically teach participants to (a) recognize problematic situations, (b) effectively intervene to reduce the likelihood of harm, and (c) speak out against attitudes that support or condone problematic behavior (Bush et al., 2019).

These skills-based programs generally work from the premise that all members of a community have a role to play in preventing and disrupting harm, approaching participants as people who are potential allies, as opposed to those who are potential targets or committing the harm (Banyard et al., 2004). This prevention strategy shows promise both for its utility in developing tangible skills to interrupt individual harms and for its role in helping shift culture through establishing and reinforcing healthy social norms (Leone et al., 2018).

The National Academies’ 2018 Sexual Harassment of Women report notes that prevention tools, such as bystander intervention training, can help individuals and institutions identify and respond to biases that turn into problematic behaviors. Bystander intervention programs have the potential to create change in an institutional climate by adequately preparing individuals who may witness sexual harassment to recognize and disrupt problematic behavior, demonstrating intolerance for harassment at the community level (Banyard, 2015; Elias-Lambert et al., 2022; Holland et al., 2016). These training programs typically equip participants with the skills to intervene in situations by creating awareness of harassment and uncivil environments, motivating participants as potential bystanders to step in and take action, giving participants options for how to intervene, and providing resources to support these actions (Feldblum and Lipnic, 2016). In the workplace setting, bystander intervention training programs have been identified as showing “significant promise for preventing harassment in the workplace” (Feldblum and Lipnic, 2016). Among college students, education on bystander intervention has shown to increase knowledge and understanding of sexual harassment, minimize beliefs of rape myths, and increase the chances for bystander intervention behavior to occur (Banyard et al., 2004, 2007; NASEM, 2018).

The Ecological Framework of Bystander Intervention

A bystander’s ecosystem greatly influences whether or how an individual intervenes. Building on previous ecological system theories (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Heise, 1998), research has suggested that a bystander intervention framework should consider not only an individual’s most direct environment, or the peers associated in the bystander’s microsystem (i.e., those involved in a proximal situation), but also an individual’s entire ecosystem and all the interconnected relationships that play a role in that ecosystem

(Banyard, 2011, 2015; McMahon, 2015). Beyond the peer circle, individuals play a role and are influenced by those in their exosystems and macrosystems, that is, their “communities and the wider society” (Banyard, 2011). For instance, faculty members influence (and are influenced by) peer faculty members, in addition to their department chair (exosystem) and the overarching values and culture of their institution (macrosystem). 2

The relationship between the individual and those involved with the various layers of their ecosystem can hinder or promote bystander intervention (Banyard, 2011; McMahon, 2015; McMahon et al., 2017). For example, individuals can be more willing to intervene if peer expectations are to discourage inappropriate behaviors. On a larger scale, if trust between an individual and those in the community exists, including trust that leaders in the community will support intervention and resist retaliation, bystanders are more likely to intervene (Banyard, 2011; McMahon, 2015). Hence, a holistic understanding that accounts for “aspects of different cultures, communities, or peer groups that may promote or hinder” (Banyard, 2011, p. 226) bystander behavior can help with developing effective and robust bystander intervention training programs. Specifically, program staff developing training programs can account for five major factors that have been shown to promote bystander behavior across the various environmental levels of the ecosystem (McMahon, 2015):

Social norms (bystanders are more likely to intervene if the harassing behavior contradicts established norms)
Sense of community (such as increased levels of trust and social cohesion within the community that encourages intervention)
Prosocial modeling (modeling of bystander behaviors by others, including leaders and/or those with more power)
Policies and accountability cues (policies and practices that hold individuals accountable also discourage sexual harassment and can set a tone that encourages intervention)
Physical environment (the architectural design and social organization of the community can promote bystander intervention behavior)

Complexities of Institutional Ecosystems

Examining the academic workspace using an ecological framework can reveal the complexities of the environments that faculty, staff, and graduate students exist in and how this can affect their ability or willingness to intervene (i.e., graduate or medical students and power imbalances that may serve as a barrier to their intervening). Perception of the power differences in the various relationships encountered in the academic workplace can change based on different identities (gender, race, class) or vulnerabilities

2 Climate surveys can be used to explore the culture and values of an institution. See, for example, a guidance document authored by Evaluation Working Group of the Action Collaborative on Preventing Sexual Harassment in Higher Education. Available here: https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2021/09/guidance-for-measuring-sexual-harassment-prevalence-using-campus-climate-surveys.

(Cole, 2009; Fitzgerald and Cortina, 2018; Kleinman and Thomas, 2023; Sutton et al., 2021). For instance, a department chair who is a Black woman may have more career-based power in a department meeting, but then hold less power in a hallway conversation with a faculty member who is a white man. Changes in relative power across different scenarios can discourage an individual to intervene because of lack of trust in leadership supporting bystander interventions, changes in social norms, and the isolated environments that prevent bystanders from feeling supported by their community (Haynes-Baratz et al., 2021; Linder, 2018). These effects parallel the five factors, listed above, that influence bystander behavior.

The fluidity in power dynamics in the academic workplace, resulting from changes in positions (e.g., department chair appointments), can also affect bystander behavior because leadership changes can change culture (and subsequently social norms), trust in the community, policies and practices, and more (Elias-Lambert et al., 2022; Haynes-Baratz et al., 2021). For instance, if a department chair demonstrates microaggression 3 but is going to return to a faculty role in the coming months, a bystander may opt not to intervene knowing that the power dynamic will soon change.

Finally, the social isolation resulting from the academic environments where individuals are separated from the rest of the institution and siloed in their workplace environment (e.g., the lab, a department or unit) can also hinder bystander intervention. The culture, and even physical design, of faculty, staff, and graduate students’ academic environments typically prioritizes individual scholarship and minimal collaboration, thereby contributing to still-siloed, isolated workplace environments (Haynes-Baratz et al., 2021; Kolowich, 2010). Not only does the siloed nature of workplaces discourage interdisciplinary collaboration and research (Kolowich, 2010), but it also minimizes opportunities for institutional accountability and support when faculty, staff, and graduate students face uncivil environments and harmful situations that may require intervention (Haynes-Baratz et al., 2021). Furthermore, the isolation and lack of community support experienced by these individuals can make them feel less inclined to intervene. For instance, when addressing microaggressions, which are hard to identify because they are subtle and nuanced, faculty have shown it helpful to have peers or others in the community verify that a microaggression has occurred (Haynes-Baratz et al., 2021) to intervene; however, the siloed nature of faculty, staff, and graduate students’ environments can make it challenging for them to properly identify such aggressions and feel compelled to intervene. Research shows that historically minoritized college students were more likely to intervene as bystanders if training programs were backed by institutional policies and response services that strove to provide support, increase trust, and protect against retaliation (McMahon, et al., 2020). Similar to how college students benefit from services demonstrating the support of the institution, those who are particularly isolated in the academic environment (such as faculty, staff, and graduate students) could also benefit from having resources and support services that address the nature of their environment and are specifically catered to them.

3 In this context, microaggressions is defined as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults towards members of oppressed groups” (Sue, 2010, p. 271).

Institutional Examples for Addressing the Challenges of Bystanders by Accounting for the Ecosystem

This paper aimed to identify and explore existing bystander intervention programs that took the complexities and power dynamics of the higher education ecosystem into account. The authors’ approach was to review the annual reporting of actions taken and descriptions of work by the members of the Action Collaborative on Preventing Sexual Harassment in Higher Education and the Partner Network comprising about 75 different institutions. After identifying the set of relevant programs, program staff were asked to answer a set of questions developed by the authors (Box 1-1). Seven institutions were identified as having bystander intervention programs that were specifically developed for faculty, staff, and graduate students, and who provided answers to the questions. This set of seven are listed below:

Harvard University (Box 1-2)
University of California, Irvine (Box 1-3)
Rutgers University (Box 1-4)
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (Box 1-5)
Boston University (Box 1-6)
University of California, San Diego (Box 1-7)
Wellesley College (Box 1-8)

The questionnaire was developed by the authors of this paper as a mechanism to consistently interview the program staff on what was required to initiate a program, how their program was developed, and how it was evaluated. The goal was to provide useful information from those who have developed programs to other institutions interested in building and launching their own programs, recognizing that tailored approaches are needed for each specific context. This paper ends with a list of research areas that could fill gaps in identifying best practices for developing and implementing the training programs, determining the characteristics of an effective training program, and assessing the effectiveness of bystander intervention training programs (both for those who have taken the training and its effect on reducing sexual harassment within an institution).

BOX 1-1
Questions about Bystander Intervention Programs at Seven Higher Education Institutions

Leadership and Institutional Support

Where did you generate “buy-in,” who was involved in generating “buy-in,” and what did “buy-in” look like for your program?

Who, from an institutional leadership standpoint, needs to be involved in championing bystander intervention programs and how should they be involved in the program (e.g., should leadership be involved in the program? If so, how?)?

If institutional leadership supported and/or promoted the bystander intervention program, how did the program(s) at your campus(es) benefit?

How does your program specifically help faculty, staff, and/or graduate students to intervene? How did you apply general bystander intervention strategies to faculty, staff, and/or graduate student intervention training?
How can other institutions apply your program for faculty, staff, and/or graduate students?

Players involved:

Who owns the initiative(s)?
Who conducts the training(s)?
Who needs to be consulted on content?

How do you keep content relevant for different audiences within the institution?

What are your program’s goals and how do you measure them?

Are there things you have already measured and found, and what are the findings there?

Responses to the questions are summarized in the following sections and organized into four categories, or topic areas:

“Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students” – This category details various characteristics of the program that are specific to faculty, staff, and graduate students (e.g., having a focus on microaggressions and/or power differentials). It also highlights training methods, support services before or after the program, and specific ways the program engages those groups in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the program.
“Institutional Support: Who and What Is Needed” – This category highlights who is involved in the program, what offices and leaders are needed, how leaders show support, and other resources that the institution can provide to facilitate the program (e.g., coordination across offices, sources of funding).
“Program Evaluations” – This category gives an overview of the surveys and/or evaluation methods used for the program.
“Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications” – This category highlights next steps institutions may have planned to expand their program and/or methods that program staff have flagged that could be helpful for other institutions.

BOX 1-2
Harvard University, “Bystander Video Project—How We Speak Up: Creating a Culture of Inclusivity” a

Harvard University created a suite of video vignettes (organized by the university’s Title IX Office) to address issues of gender inequity, actions that contribute to organizational climates at risk for sexual harassment, racial microaggressions, ableism, and power dynamics. Each vignette offers bystander intervention strategies for disrupting, deescalating, and discouraging such conduct, which viewers can use in the places where they learn, live, and work. Ultimately the goal of the program is for viewers to be able to identify their roles in creating a “culture of inclusivity” while recognizing common barriers/successful strategies. The trainings promote “speaking up” among stakeholders and highlight strategies to address offensive comments and behaviors. At the core of Harvard’s program is faculty investment and high-level administrative support. The program began in mid-2019 and is administered through the Harvard Office for Gender Equity (OGE), with collaborative support from the university’s equity, diversity, and inclusion leaders.

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students

The content of Harvard’s program is designed with input from faculty, staff, and graduate students. Harvard staff serve as actors in the videos, which requires approval and support from supervisors. Additionally, faculty involvement was particularly essential in developing content for small group exercises, activities, and feedback on how to improve the sessions. Not only does their engagement ensure that content remained relevant, but it also helps with gaining faculty buy-in. A Harvard research faculty member also serves as a primary investigator of the program’s evaluation portion, which lends additional credibility and allows for further development and revision of the program. Additionally, resource guides and brochures, including information on accessing confidential counseling resources, are made available to participants after the trainings for future referencing.

Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved

Other institutional leaders also take a part in developing and maintaining Harvard’s program, collaborating with and supporting the efforts of the faculty, staff, and the OGE and Office of the Provost staff already involved in the program. Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion leaders are consulted on the video content and overall training components. Additionally, the Office of the President and Provost uses university-wide messages to increase awareness of and interest in participation by academic departments.

Program Evaluations

Harvard’s program utilizes formal and informal evaluation before, during, and after the program to ensure the content of the training is relevant to the participants. Presession surveys are sent out to participants, to identify potentially relevant scenarios for an upcoming training. Additionally, a survey is sent out (and is due to be analyzed in 2023) to all benefits-eligible staff and faculty to determine the potential effect of the bystander intervention training components.

Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications

Harvard’s team plans to expand the program to include measuring the application of these strategies in the workplace, as well as the application/differentiation of them to the specific lived experiences and backgrounds of faculty, staff, and graduate students. The team encourages other institutions to identify interested, invested, and high-profile faculty whose attachment to the program will signify its credibility to others at the institution. They believe that this high-profile faculty involvement, coupled with high-level administrative support, increases awareness of and interest in participation by academic departments that otherwise might not feel that making time for such a program is warranted.

Harvard University, “Bystander Video Project—How We Speak Up: Creating a Culture of Inclusivity,” initiated mid-2019

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students	Promote “speaking up” strategies to address offensive comments and behaviors among faculty, staff, and graduate students; direct faculty involvement, and feedback from them
Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved	Faculty investment, especially in training development, and high-level administrative support and promotion (especially Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion leaders)
Program Evaluations	Presession surveys, and a specific survey to all benefits-eligible staff and faculty, to assess creation of a “culture of inclusivity,” while recognizing common barriers/successful strategies
Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications	Formal and informal evaluation to ensure participant relevance/differentiation to lived experience/application; high-level administrative faculty and leadership support to lend credibility

BOX 1-3
University of California, Irvine, “Field Safety 201: Preventing and Managing Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, and Sexual Violence in the Field” a

The University of California, Irvine (UCI) created and implemented a 6-hour sexual harassment workshop specifically for science graduate students doing field work. UCI developed their training program around specific outcomes that were a priority to the institution: (1) to educate supervisors and trip leaders on their responsibility in responding to and preventing discrimination and microaggressions and (2) to inform students on how to identify inappropriate environments in field settings and how to intervene. The program is modeled off another initiative, the UC Santa Cruz Better Fieldwork Future workshop, and uses the Green Dot Bystander Intervention Training to help participants learn how to become effective bystanders. By engaging participants in real-world scenarios, this workshop covers general field safety, discrimination and microaggressions, sexual harassment prevention and response, bystander intervention, and more. UCI’s program creates space for faculty, staff, graduate students, and other stakeholders to have a voice in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the training program to ensure that the content and design is relevant and useful for participants. This program, initiated in early 2021, is jointly led by the University Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity (OEOD) and the Title IX Office.

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students

UCI focuses on a particular audience—graduate student scientists doing field work—when it develops relevant and useful content for participants. The program engages and collaborates with stakeholders (faculty, graduate students, field research staff, land management specialists, OEOD/Title IX Office) to ensure that the content is accurately developed. A diverse and collaborative working group consisting of faculty, staff, and graduate students helps with developing program content based on real-world experiences. The working group takes part in providing feedback on the development, implementation, evaluation, and continued application of the program to other areas of the institution (e.g., a bystander intervention training for faculty trip leaders that will be launched in 2023). Building on the Green Dot Bystander Intervention Training and the Better Fieldwork Future model, UCI’s program provides real-world scenarios developed by the working group to help participants learn how to apply intervention skills to experiences they might be familiar with in their environments. Portions of the workshop, including the scenarios presented during the workshop, are led by all the members of the working group, including faculty, staff, graduate students, and OEOD/Title IX representatives.

Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved

Recognizing that graduate students in field research are in need of resources to address discrimination and sexual harassment in their environments, the Director of the UCI Center for Environmental Biology worked with the OEOD/Title IX Office to develop this program. With this in mind, UCI’s program had leadership support from its genesis. In addition to the collaboration of all the parties represented in the working group and the support of various offices in the institution, the program engages campus offices and representatives of the Campus Assault Resources and Education (CARE) office, who serve as trainers and advocates for survivors of sexual violence.

Program Evaluations

Program evaluation is delivered by a faculty leader and is focused on assessing participant learning, learning retention at 3 months and 9 months, program strengths/weaknesses, organizational capacity, and recommendations for program development. The evaluations are in survey form and consist of the Likert scale, multiple-choice options, and open-ended questions.

Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications

UCI’s program staff found that engaging and collaborating with multiple stakeholders, including graduate students, faculty, and staff, to develop, implement, and evaluate the program promotes “buy-in” from the institution, which also helps with sustaining the program. The program team is exploring requests to expand the training to faculty populations and other departments conducting field work.

Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications

UCI’s program staff found that engaging and collaborating with multiple stakeholders, including graduate students, faculty, and staff, to develop, implement, and evaluate the program promoted “buy-in” from the institution, which also helped with sustaining the program. The training program team is exploring requests to expand the training to faculty populations and other departments conducting field work.

University of California, Irvine, “Field Safety 201: Preventing and Managing Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, and Sexual Violence in the Field,” initiated early-2021

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students	A focus on a specific population (science graduate students doing field work), utilizing and applying existing trainings
Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved	Developing collaboration by, and support from, the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity (OEOD); the Title IX Office; and a working group of faculty, staff, and graduate students
Program Evaluations	Faculty leader-led surveys, focused on retention, application, and feedback
Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications	Engaging and collaborating with multiple stakeholders across the institution to develop, implement, and evaluate; considering how to apply trainings for faculty populations and other departments conducting field work

BOX 1-4
Rutgers University, “Trauma-Informed Bystander Intervention Workshops for Faculty and Staff” a

In 2022, Rutgers University held bystander intervention workshops, which required engaging with faculty and staff before and after the workshop to understand their needs. The program, initiated in late-2019, was designed and developed to resolve a specific problem that was surfaced by Rutgers University departments and schools: although various campuses of the university knew that sexual harassment was a problem, there was a lack of awareness or understanding for how faculty, staff, and graduate students could intervene (and the concrete skills required) when it occurs. The program leverages an existing bystander intervention strategy used by the university, called the Hollaback! 5D strategy, b to offer a variety of intervention strategies for faculty, staff, and graduate students. Additionally, Rutgers’ program takes into account power differentials and anti-oppression frameworks, which deeply affect the rigid hierarchies and environments of faculty, staff, and graduate students. Conversations around power and oppression are built into the skills-practice opportunities. The program also emphasizes preventative practices and procedures (e.g., microaggression intervention practices and prevention toolkits) to take steps to reduce the risk of sexual harassment. Program staff find that an essential component for sustaining the program is having an extensive collaboration across multiple university offices and stakeholders. Staff also see the value of collaboration, which helped minimize the negative consequences across academic silos, creating support for isolated faculty, staff, and graduate students and increasing their willingness to intervene. This program is administered by the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Grant (administered through the Center for Research on Ending Violence) and the University Office of the Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs.

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students

Based on the specific needs of faculty and staff across various schools, departments, and units, the VOCA Grant Staff and Training Coordinator develops and conducts individualized bystander intervention workshops and trainings that cater to each audience. In partnership with the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Training Coordinator of Rutgers’ program also meets with deans, chairs, and directors to detail the institutional policies that support both the program and the faculty, staff, and graduate students by creating a safe environment that promotes bystander intervention. Finally, once the workshop is finished, the Training Coordinator provides support and resources to faculty and staff who hope to intervene in “real-time issues” (Rutgers University, 2022).

Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved

By offering a desired solution to an identified gap in training, Rutgers’ program is able to generate buy-in and commitment across the institution. The Rutgers’ program uses resources like campus climate surveys and the National Academies’ 2018 report to show the value of supporting and enabling a bystander intervention program specifically for their faculty and staff. Additionally, with the support of the Vice President of Academic Affairs, program staff were able to create partnerships with campus stakeholders who would promote the program and speak to its importance. These partnerships include the Title IX Office, the University Equity and Inclusion Office,

b The nonprofit “Hollaback!” has changed its name to “Right to Be,” which still offers the 5Ds of Bystander Intervention Training. For more information on Hollaback!, see https://righttobe.org/ .

the Center on Research to End Violence (in the Rutgers School of Social Work), and those in leadership positions on the campus. Many offices of the university are consulted when developing content and resources for the training program: the VOCA Grant Advisory Board, SVP for Academic Affairs, Title IX Office, Rutgers Office of Employment Equity, University Equity and Inclusion Office, and Office for Violence Prevention and Victim Assistance.

Program Evaluations

Rutgers’ program is currently evaluated based on post-training participant satisfaction. Eventually, the Rutgers’ team hopes to evaluate workshop participants on their perceived ability to intervene. The team is developing a measure for assessing individuals’ likelihood to practice bystander behavior in the future.

Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications

To maintain Rutgers’ program, the staff found it essential to sustain collaboration across the multiple stakeholders involved in the program.

Rutgers University, “Trauma-Informed Bystander Intervention Workshops for Faculty and Staff,” initiated in late 2019

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students	Demonstrate the need for prevention in departments and respond to their needs in development; leverage an existing strategy and consider power differentials and anti-oppression frameworks in skills-practice opportunities
Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved	Share resources that demonstrate the importance of similar programs and identify partners across campus who can promote the program and speak to its importance
Program Evaluations	Post-training evaluations for participant satisfaction; hope to include measures on perceived ability to act
Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications	Collaboration is key to sustainability

BOX 1-5
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, “Microaggressions 101: Taking Action” a

In early-2021, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (ISMMS) leveraged and adapted the ACTION framework b to develop a training that was initially offered to faculty and staff from across the school community, with no specific focus on a particular department or unit. Based on the success and positive reception to the early stages of this work, requests by departments and units led to the program staff tailoring the curriculum to meet the needs of the departments and units—and the faculty and staff in those environments—requesting the training. The trainings help faculty, staff, and graduate students practice skills related to addressing microaggressions across a diversity of identities while creating space to acknowledge common challenges people confront when considering intervening. The program gives participants an opportunity to work with one another through small groups to address fictional situations that may require intervention, and to process through barriers that may prevent intervention. By acknowledging challenging situations, such as those that contain perceived power differentials, the program strives to equip attendees with practical skills that aim to foster a more equitable environment. The program is housed in the Office of Gender Equity in Science and Medicine and the Office for Diversity and Inclusion, two offices under the purview of the Dean of the School of Medicine.

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students

Because ISMMS is a medical school, all the trainings are for faculty, staff, and graduate students working specifically in academic science and medical environments. The training is skills based and focuses on helping individuals find language that feels most comfortable to them when addressing microaggressions. The program staff consult with department or unit leadership to tailor the training curriculum to the needs of the participants. Program staff also share supportive resources and make information available to participants after the training, including material for continued learning on the topic.

Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved

Leaders of ISMMS have been vocal in the need to prioritize discussions and action around concepts of diversity and inclusion. The Office of Gender Equity and the Office for Diversity and Inclusion co-sponsor the trainings and are responsible for developing as well as administering the content. Chairs and leaders of departments have articulated their appreciation of the program and frequently request trainings to improve their local environments.

Program Evaluations

ISMMS utilizes a post-training evaluation that asks participants to self-assess their knowledge or attitude changes, and whether they have been confident to apply the intervention strategies. Thus far, evaluations have been positive with the majority of the participants indicating that they have increased confidence in responding to microaggressions and that the training program achieved its learning objects. Eventually, the training program team hopes to do a more robust evaluation that includes following up with past participants.

b The ACTION framework stands for Ask clarifying questions, Come from curiosity not judgment, Tell what was observed, Impact exploration, Own thoughts and feelings, Next steps (Souza, 2018).

Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications c

ISMMS program staff see the importance of understanding the needs of participants before the training to tailor the content for the audience, which helps ensure that it is relevant. Staff find that this strategy helps the program grow and is a method that other institutions can consider when offering similar workshops in their communities.

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, “Microaggressions 101 and 102: Taking Action,” initiated in early-2021

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students	Consult with department or unit leadership to tailor the training curriculum to the needs of the faculty, staff, and graduate students undergoing the training, keeping in mind the challenges of microaggressions and power differentials
Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved	Buy-in from senior leadership; co-sponsorship by the Office of Gender Equity in Science and Medicine and the Office for Diversity and Inclusion; leaders often are the individuals requesting the training for their teams
Program Evaluations	Post-training evaluation that asks participants to self-assess and about their confidence in applying lessons/skills learned
Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications	Making supportive resources available after the training, and assessing/tailoring participant needs prior to training delivery

c ISSM’s Microaggressions 101: Taking Action program staff has kindly offered to share portions of its training curriculum with institutions who are interested in applying this program.

BOX 1-6
Boston University, “Beyond Bystanders” a

Beyond Bystanders is a Boston University longitudinal bystander intervention training series designed to provide male graduate students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs with the skills to identify and interrupt sexual misconduct, with a focus on gender harassment. With cross-institutional support, this program makes use of peer facilitation to help teach skills for identifying sexual harassment, accepting responsibility to intervene as a bystander, and building confidence in knowing how to intervene. The first part of the workshop contains basic information about frequency, effect, definitions, and basic bystander intervention framework. Workshop sessions focus on different scenarios with varying power differentials that graduate students might experience (with advisors, advisees, or peers). The program staff believe the design of the program contributes to its success because it (1) has multiple sessions across extended periods, creating space for attendees to reflect and process the content; (2) starts with a basic introduction followed by sessions with scenarios of increasing complexity, allowing attendees to gradually increase their understanding; (3) engages peer facilitators, in this case male STEM graduate students facilitating workshops for male STEM graduate students; and (4) uses discussion and scenario-based learning tactics. The Beyond Bystanders initiative, initiated in mid-2018, was developed and administered by the Advance, Recruit, Retain, and Organize Women in STEM (ARROWS) program, which is funded by the Office of the Provost. Boston’s program builds on the Interrupt: A Training for Graduate Students program that is led by the Sexual Assault Response and Prevention (SARP) Office.

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students

Since the target audience for Boston’s program is male graduate students, it was important for the program staff to have individuals from that group develop content and facilitate the workshop. The peer-facilitated design of the program helps with building allyship and encouraging attendees to more readily accept the content and goals of the workshop.

Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved

Program staff find that the success and credibility of the preexisting ARROWS program helps with generating institutional support and buy-in for the Beyond Bystanders program. Furthermore, the support of Boston University’s Provost’s Office results in additional collaboration with graduate student organizations, STEM department chairs, and offices related to prevention education and supporting graduate students. Additionally, STEM department chairs, deans, and associate provosts also encourage the continuation of the program. Content development and revision comes from cross-collaboration by the SARP Office, the ARROWS program, the Graduate Women in Science and Engineering (GWISE) graduate student group, and the WISEGuys graduate student group—all of whom also revised the Interrupt bystander intervention program to specifically cater to male graduate students. Program staff believe that collaboration across these various groups ensures more inclusive, relevant, and relatable content for attendees.

Program Evaluations

Boston’s program utilizes pre- and post-test measures to assess the efficacy of the program; results show consistent positive outcomes where attendees felt more confident in determining whether a situation involves harassment, believed they had a responsibility to intervene, and felt more confident in knowing how to intervene.

Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications

Boston’s program staff believe that the cross-collaboration of the program contributes to its ongoing success. They have seen that buy-in from campus partners (academic leadership, prevention professionals, graduate student groups) helps to ensure that the program can be trusted and well supported. Additionally, the financial support and staffing (a full-time administrator) helps to ensure consistency in the continued implementation of the program and provides support and training for the peer facilitators. According to the program staff, having an environment that collaborates across various groups and offices in the institutions and that supports the creation of a program is necessary for implementing the Beyond Bystanders program in other institutions.

Boston University, “Beyond Bystanders,” initiated in mid-2018

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students	Peer-led, peer-facilitated training sessions, with discussions and practice scenarios and an emphasis on male graduate students
Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved	Helping program credibility and success by building off the foundation of the existing Boston University ARROWS program, along with institutional support and content advice from a broad campus coalition
Program Evaluations	Pre- and post-test measures to assess the efficacy of the program
Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications	Broad campus buy-in to ensure the program is trusted and well-supported, and a campus environment that encourages sustainability (in consistency, peer facilitation, and financial support/staffing)

BOX 1-7
University of California, San Diego, “Bystander Intervention Program for Faculty and Staff” a

Starting in 2021, the University of California, San Diego (USCD) began offering Empowering Employees to Intervene: Sexual Harassment, a bystander intervention program developed for faculty and staff. This program was initiated in mid-2020 and is based on a bystander training for students that was developed by Campus Assault Resources and Education (CARE) at the Sexual Assault Resource Center (SARC) using the IDEAS model (Interrupt, Distract, Engage Peers, Alert Authorities, and Safety First). Although the training was based on student sexual misconduct situations, the examples for each intervention method are drastically different in the employee version. This modification is the culmination of years of planning and implementation, and the training empowers faculty and staff to intervene in sexual harassment. The training utilizes an intersectional approach, as sexual harassment is usually combined with other forms of harassment, and it incorporates a discussion of power dynamics in the workplace using a variety of scenarios and roles (professors, graduate students, principal investigators in a lab, janitorial staff, doctors/nurses) and how they affect a person’s willingness to intervene. The training is offered in campuswide formats that any employee can register for, as well as in a customized format for specific departments that requested the workshop in light of departmental needs. The program is led and co-facilitated by the University Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD) and CARE at SARC.

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students

UCSD’s program staff reported having to invest a substantial amount of time and effort to create scenarios reflective of the employee experience that took into consideration power dynamics found in the workplace. These scenarios are often revised to meet the needs of the audience and reflect situations in which they are more likely to encounter. The program also engages with faculty, staff, and other employees of the institution to provide feedback on the program to ensure that the training is relevant, useful, and effective for attendees.

Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved

Institutional support for the UCSD Empowering Employees to Intervene program started with consultation between the university’s primary representatives for the Action Collaborative, OPHD staff, and CARE at SARC staff. b The OPHD and CARE at SARC staff often work with human resources to increase awareness about the workshop offerings.

Program Evaluations

UCSD’s program participants have opportunities to provide feedback through pre- and post-surveys, and much of the feedback has been positive, especially the role-playing aspect. Individuals who attended the workshop felt that the program raised their awareness of bystander intervention in general and increased their willingness to intervene in their personal and professional spheres of influence.

b UCSD’s Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination also serves as the institution’s Title IX office. Additionally, CARE at SARC developed a bystander training for students using the IDEAS model, which is a strategy they then implemented in UCSD’s Bystander Intervention Program for Faculty and Staff.

Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications

Program staff are simultaneously considering (1) broadening the program so that it includes other forms of discrimination and harassment (e.g., racism, ableism) and (2) developing a specialized version of the program for supervisors and administrators. UCSD’s program team noted that other institutions, especially those that have medical centers, could apply the UCSD Bystander Intervention Program for Faculty and Staff by assessing the power dynamics in environments that affect training attendees and developing scenarios that reflect the situations they may face.

University of California, San Diego, “Bystander Intervention Program for Faculty and Staff,” initiated in mid-2020

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students	Create scenarios reflective of the employee experience that take into consideration intersectionality and power dynamics found in the workplace
Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved	Program consultation with university leadership, human resources representatives, and the Sexual Assault Resource Center (SARC)—followed by feedback from faculty, staff, and other employees of the institution
Program Evaluations	Pre- and post-surveys to assess awareness of strategies and the willingness to intervene
Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications	Campuswide training format, as well as customization for departments and opportunities for expansion to other groups and specialized training for supervisors

BOX 1-8
Wellesley College, “Sexual Harassment Prevention Training with Bystander Intervention” a

Wellesley College expanded an anti-sexual harassment training to include bystander intervention training for specific student, faculty, and staff groups. The purpose of adding bystander intervention to its program was to educate and train all members of the campus community to prevent or help in harmful situations, such as potential sexual assault; binge drinking; and harassment or unwanted comments of, for example, a sexual, racist, or transphobic nature. One of its main approaches to making the training relevant for participants is to include departmental leadership in the training and inquire about potentially relevant scenarios that can be incorporated into the program. During the 2020-2021 academic year, the training program was led and managed by the College Office of Nondiscrimination Initiatives, the Associate Provost for Equity and Inclusion, and Dean of Students Office.

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students

Since Wellesley College does not have graduate students, the program is specifically geared toward undergraduate students and staff. The content of the program also caters to the audience because department leaders or other staff members contribute information on topics and scenarios relevant to their department. Program staff also make themselves available for post-training questions and provide relevant resources that supplement the program.

Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved

The Office of Nondiscrimination Initiatives is responsible for carrying out the training, but broad buy-in is generated from leadership across the institution, including the Offices of the President, Provost, Student Affairs, Human Resources, Athletics, and Residential Life. Furthermore, Wellesley College established the Bias Response Protocol Committee, which provides feedback on the content in an effort to improve the program’s bystander intervention trainings for staff, faculty, and students. The committee consists of the Director of Nondiscrimination Initiatives, the Associate Provost for Equity and Inclusion, the Associate Dean of Students, and the Director of Talent Management and Development. The Director of Student Wellness or Dean of Student Inclusion and Engagement are also typically involved by co-facilitating the trainings.

Program Evaluations

Wellesley’s program staff saw the active engagement and participation from departmental leaders as an indicator of the success of the program. Follow-up discussions and training also created a space for feedback and assessment on the success of the program, for example, if participants learned skills and are more willing to intervene.

Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications

Wellesley’s program staff hope to eventually apply the training to faculty. Based on the experiences of the Sexual Harassment Prevention Training with Bystander Intervention program, staff have found that prioritizing post-training resources, feedback, and support could be helpful for other institutions interested in developing, implementing, and sustaining a similar program.

Wellesley College, “Sexual Harassment Prevention Training with Bystander Intervention,” initiated during the 2020-2021 academic year

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students	The Wellesley program was geared to undergraduate students and staff, as Wellesley College does not have graduate students. There are potential plans to expand the program to serving faculty
Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved	Broad buy-in is generated from leadership across the institution (president, provost, student affairs, human resources, athletics, residential life)
Program Evaluations	Having departmental leaders actively involved in designing, and participating in, trainings
Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications	Prioritizing post-training resources, feedback, and support

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth Street, NW | Washington, DC 20001

Strategies for Developing, Implementing, and Sustaining Sexual Harassment Bystander Intervention Programs for Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students Get This Book

MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!

To address the persistent problem of sexual harassment within higher education, research suggests that environments need to convey that sexual harassment is not a norm and actively discourage it when it does occur. One approach that researchers have identified as helping to create such environments is bystander intervention programs, which prepare and equip individuals to interrupt and intervene when harassing behavior occurs. This paper explores bystander intervention training approaches that are designed for the complex work environments within higher education, and considers how to apply the principles of bystander intervention to the experiences and environments of faculty, staff, and graduate students., Institutions within the Action Collaborative were asked a standard set of questions to learn about their experiences with commitment and buy-in from leadership, details on how the trainings were developed and what audience it was targeted to, and how the training programs were evaluated. The paper summarizes responses from seven of these institutions and ends with a call for additional research and action.

This individually-authored issue paper was created by members of the Prevention Working Group of the Action Collaborative on Preventing Sexual Harassment in Higher Education to understand how institutions are addressing the gap in bystander intervention training for faculty, staff, and graduate students. The Action Collaborative on Preventing Sexual Harassment in Higher Education of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine brings together academic and research institutions and key stakeholders to work toward targeted, collective action on addressing and preventing sexual harassment across all disciplines and among all people in higher education. The Action Collaborative includes four working groups (Prevention, Response, Remediation, and Evaluation) that identify topics in need of research, gather information, and publish resources for the higher education community.

Strategies for Developing, Implementing, and Sustaining Sexual Harassment Bystander Intervention Programs for Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students (2023)

Chapter: Bystander Intervention Programs

Bystander Intervention Programs

What Are They, How Do They Work, and What Is Their Value?

The Ecological Framework of Bystander Intervention

Complexities of Institutional Ecosystems

Institutional Examples for Addressing the Challenges of Bystanders by Accounting for the Ecosystem

BOX 1-1 Questions about Bystander Intervention Programs at Seven Higher Education Institutions

BOX 1-2 Harvard University, “Bystander Video Project—How We Speak Up: Creating a Culture of Inclusivity” a

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students

Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved

Program Evaluations

Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications

BOX 1-3 University of California, Irvine, “Field Safety 201: Preventing and Managing Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, and Sexual Violence in the Field” a

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students

Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved

Program Evaluations

Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications

Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications

BOX 1-4 Rutgers University, “Trauma-Informed Bystander Intervention Workshops for Faculty and Staff” a

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students

Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved

Program Evaluations

Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications

BOX 1-5 Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, “Microaggressions 101: Taking Action” a

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students

Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved

Program Evaluations

Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications c

BOX 1-6 Boston University, “Beyond Bystanders” a

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students

Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved

Program Evaluations

Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications

BOX 1-7 University of California, San Diego, “Bystander Intervention Program for Faculty and Staff” a

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students

Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved

Program Evaluations

Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications

BOX 1-8 Wellesley College, “Sexual Harassment Prevention Training with Bystander Intervention” a

Strategies for a Training Program Focused on Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students

Institutional Support: Who and What Is Involved

Program Evaluations

Internal Program Sustainability and External Program Applications

BOX 1-1
Questions about Bystander Intervention Programs at Seven Higher Education Institutions

BOX 1-2
Harvard University, “Bystander Video Project—How We Speak Up: Creating a Culture of Inclusivity” a

BOX 1-3
University of California, Irvine, “Field Safety 201: Preventing and Managing Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, and Sexual Violence in the Field” a

BOX 1-4
Rutgers University, “Trauma-Informed Bystander Intervention Workshops for Faculty and Staff” a

BOX 1-5
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, “Microaggressions 101: Taking Action” a

BOX 1-6
Boston University, “Beyond Bystanders” a

BOX 1-7
University of California, San Diego, “Bystander Intervention Program for Faculty and Staff” a

BOX 1-8
Wellesley College, “Sexual Harassment Prevention Training with Bystander Intervention” a