University of Minnesota President’s Emerging Leaders Program 2011–12 Development of an Enhanced Marketing Plan for The Aurora Center Final Report 2 Project Team David Anderson Information Technology Manager Office of Information Technology Matthew Aro Research Fellow University of Minnesota Duluth Natural Resources Research Institute Sara Foster External Relations Office Administrator College of Education and Human Development Anne Mason Assistant Director of Communications Humphrey School of Public Affairs Heather Nelson Administrative Division Director Department of Medicine Medical School Project Sponsor The Aurora Center Jerie Smith Volunteer Coordinator PEL Supervisor Dave Dorman Coordinator, Leadership Development Office of Human Resources Organizational Effectiveness 3 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 4  INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 5  Project Description ......................................................................................................................................... 5  The Aurora Center .......................................................................................................................................... 5  Project Goal and Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 6  METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 6  Formation of PEL Project Team and Selection of Project ............................................................................. 6  Stakeholder Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 7  Interview and Focus Group Question Development ...................................................................................... 7  Institutional Review Board Approval ............................................................................................................. 8  Interview and Focus Group Operation ........................................................................................................... 8  Individual Interviews ...................................................................................................................................... 9  RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................................... 10  BEST PRACTICES .......................................................................................................................................... 10  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 12  APPENDIX A: Project Charter ........................................................................................................................ 13  APPENDIX B: Best Practices Web Search Results ......................................................................................... 14  APPENDIX C: Leadership Project Poster ....................................................................................................... 15  4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the spring of 2012, the Purple Reign President’s Emerging Leaders (PEL) team partnered with The Aurora Center (TAC) for a team project as a requirement of the PEL program. The two primary outcomes for the project were a written report to be presented to TAC and a poster which was presented at the PEL graduation on June 20, 2012. The five members of Purple Reign worked with Jerie Smith, TAC Volunteer Coordinator, to identify the project scope, goals, objectives as well as the pertinent stakeholders, desired data and collection methods, and best practices at other Big Ten universities. The goal of the project was to identify how TAC and its services are perceived by selected members of the campus community, and to develop tools and an enhanced marketing plan that allows TAC to more effectively reach its stakeholders and market its services. After conducting a stakeholder analysis, it was decided that focus groups and individual interviews would be the methods used to collect data from the University faculty, staff and students. Interview and focus group questions were developed with the assistance of TAC and David Radosevich, University Biostatistician and Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Purple Reign conducted five individual interviews with administrators, staff, faculty and students as well as three focus group discussions with one staff person and two student groups.Data collected from the individual interviews and focus groups was compiled and common themes are identified and summarized below. ● Students are more aware of The Aurora Center and its services than faculty and staff. ● The name The Aurora Center doesn’t resonate with folks and make a connection with what the center can offer or provide. ● Bathroom door signs are effective for women, but less so for men. ● People are aware of circumstances why a resource center would be necessary—urban environment, close proximity to each other and alcohol. ● Not knowing what happens when one reports an incident is a deterrent from reporting an incident. To identify best practices at comparable universities, a comparison of Big Ten university websites was completed to determine how many schools in the Big Ten have resource centers focused on prevention, crisis intervention, advocacy, and education surrounding sexual assault, relationship violence, harassment, and stalking. A summary of best practices from this data was provided with recommendations for TAC. In summary, TAC is perceived by the University community as a valuable, necessary resource for a large university in an urban setting. The majority of those interviewed knew of the resource, yet couldn’t identify it by name, but could find the resource if it was needed on the University website. A majority of the services that are perceived as being important are provided by TAC, but marketing their availability to men and University staff and faculty would increase their effectiveness. There is still a stigma attached to reporting an incident of assault, but TAC is effective in reducing that harm on campus. 5 INTRODUCTION Project Description The University of Minnesota is a large, comprehensive public institution comprised of regional extension and outreach centers across Minnesota; four coordinate campuses in Duluth, Rochester, Crookston, and Morris; and a flagship campus located in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul (UMTC). The culture on the Twin Cities campus reflects an urban environment: expansive, fast-paced, and ever-changing. Even though UMTC affords its 52,557 students and 22,523 employees unique opportunities, it also presents challenges, especially to those students and employees who are new to an urban environment. One of these challenges is the potential for sexual assault, relationship violence, stalking, and harassment. Fortunately, UMTC offers a valuable resource - The Aurora Center (TAC) - for those who have been victims of, have witnessed, or wish to learn more about preventing these challenges. TAC provides free, confidential crisis intervention to victims of sexual assault, relationship violence, stalking, and harassment. It serves approximately 400 people per year through advocacy and education and training to University students, staff, and faculty, and the Twin Cities community, and reaches nearly 5,000 people per year with a prevention message of hope and respect. TAC also builds partnerships with other departments on campus, creates awareness about sexual violence, and oppression at the University of Minnesota, and provides meaningful volunteer and leadership opportunities. The Aurora Center The Aurora Center provides a safe and confidential space for students, faculty, staff, alumni, and family members or friends affiliated with the UMTC or Augsburg College. Their mission statement reads: To serve all victims/survivors/concerned people of sexual and relationship violence at the University of Minnesota. The mission encompasses these goals: ● Deliver free and confidential services to everyone at the University of Minnesota. ● Build partnerships between The Aurora Center and other departments on campus. ● Create awareness around sexual and relationship violence and oppression. ● Provide meaningful volunteer and leadership opportunities. We envision a campus where: ● Sexual and relationship violence is unacceptable; ● Victims/survivors/concerned people receive the advocacy, compassion, and support they deserve from friends, family, the campus community, as well as from the medical, legal, and criminal justice systems; ● Students, faculty, staff, and other stakeholders help us challenge the institutions, practices and policies, and systems that promote sexism, racism, heterosexism, classism, ageism, religious oppression, and the oppression of people with disabilities which are among the root causes of violence. Unfortunately, TAC is not widely recognized by many students or employees. Many are not aware that TAC exists. This President’s Emerging Leaders (PEL) project, therefore, seeks to better understand how TAC is perceived by current students and employees, and presents recommendations for how TAC can better market its services to its stakeholders and improve its visibility on the UMTC campus. 6 Project Goal and Objectives The goal of this project is to identify how TAC and its services are perceived by members of the campus community, and to make recommendations that allow TAC to more effectively reach its stakeholders and market its services. The project goal will be met with the following objectives: 1. Identify TAC’s key stakeholders. 2. Identify how TAC is perceived by selected key stakeholder groups. 3. Benchmark the performance and current marketing activities of TAC to other similar organizations both inside and outside of the University of Minnesota system. We will also identify marketing best practices. 4. Develop a detailed marketing plan and tools to allow TAC to more effectively promote their services to key stakeholder groups. 5. Disseminate project findings and recommendations in a final report and poster presentation. METHODOLOGY Formation of PEL Project Team and Selection of Project In early fall 2011, PEL Program Coordinator Dave Dorman, formed the project team. “Purple Reign” was tasked with addressing a specific, strategic issue at the UM-TC campus. Beginning September 15, 2011, Purple Reign consulted with Dave Dorman and many other University units and organizations to identify and research candidate projects and project sponsors. In addition to many other University units, Jerie Smith, Volunteer Coordinator for TAC, had previously consulted with Dave Dorman and stressed her desire to have a PEL project team assist TAC to address aspecific strategic issue. The initial charge from Smith is shown below: Might it be possible for The Aurora Center to be considered as a project in the future? We do have need of folks who could help us survery/ascertain our image/accessibility on campus and how that could be better not only in terms of access but in terms of understanding and trust about the use of our resources and how that helps victims/survivors and in the long run, the respect level of this community. When I came here, things had a good working pattern that had been established and viable tools but also a need to update/ upgrade/ remodel/ refurbish our tools and our marketing. As a result of things we continue to confront and learn ourselves, TAC is a client centered service. We are here for victims/survivors. However, we also realize that people who perpetrate are not all of one mind and that culture makes its mark on defining gender behavior. Purple Reign had several internal deliberations to discuss the candidate projects and decided to meet with Smith to learn more about her strategic issue. After discussing the candidate project with Smith, we agreed to take on her project charge. Several more meetings with Smith took place in October and November 2011. Purple Reign attempted to better understand TAC’s strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities. We also determined the scope and benefits of the project, and developed a milestone-based timeline. These items were finalized and entered into a draft Project Charter. After several consultations with Smith in regard to the contents of the Charter, a formal Charter was completed and approved on December 14, 2011 (Appendix A). The Charter was referenced often during the project, especially to clarify the scope and boundaries of the project. 7 Stakeholder Analysis After the Project Charter was completed, Purple Reign, TAC, and Dr. David Radosevich (Department of Surgery) discussed the best methods to capture the required data to help TAC evaluate student and employee group awareness of TAC, and presented recommendations for how TAC can better market its services and improve its visibility on the UMTC campus. It was determined that small focus groups (including 10-15 participants) and one-on-one interviews would be the most appropriate method for capturing the desired data. Several lively discussions led TAC and Purple Reign to identify several candidate individuals for the one-on-one interviews and several candidate student groups for the focus group sessions. The candidate individuals and student groups were chosen to provide a very wide array of experiences and viewpoints. To protect anonymity, the candidate individuals are not listed. The candidate focus groups were divided into two tiers as shown below: Interview and Focus Group Question Development To develop the questions, TAC conducted internal meetings to agree on what information they wanted to gather. ● What is TAC’s image on campus? ● What is known about known? Is it accessible? ● What is the general awareness of sexual assault, relationship violence, and stalking on the UMTC campus? ● What is TAC’s message missing? Armed with this information, Purple Reign developed several candidate questions for the one-on-one interviews and the focus group sessions. After more discussions with TAC and Radosevich, the final questions were agreed upon. 1. Are you aware of specific campus resources available to people who have been victims of, or wish to learn more about, sexual assault/relationship violence/stalking? If so, what are they? 2. Why might resources on sexual assault/relationship violence/stalking be needed on a campus like the U of M? 3. What do you think a sexual assault/relationship violence/stalking resources center should offer? 4. What barriers might someone face in accessing sexual assault/relationship violence/stalking resources on campus? 5. What do you think happens when someone reports sexual assault/relationship violence/stalking on campus? 6. How do you view the climate on campus and what examples might you give of environments conducive to sexual assault/relationship violence/stalking. What could be done about it? 7. Are you aware of The University of Minnesota’s Aurora Center? If so, do you know what services they provide? What are those services? 8. Have you been to The Aurora Center’s website? f so, do you have any critiques/comments or suggestions for improvement? 9a. As a student, have you perceived any differences in regard to availability of resources for victims of, or persons wanting more information on, sexual assault/relationship violence/stalking on this campus compared to your experiences in high school or another academic institution(s)? If so, what are those differences? 8 9b. If you are faculty or staff, have you noticed any differences in regard to availability of resources for victims of, or persons wanting more information on, sexual assault/relationship violence/stalking on this campus compared to your experiences at any other academic institutions where you have been employed? If so, what are those differences? Institutional Review Board Approval Because the project required conducting interviews, members of the group were required to present our interview methodology with the University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) to determine if our project required IRB approval or if it was eligible for a waiver. The IRB “reviews research projects which involve human subjects to ensure that two broad standards are upheld: first, that subjects are not placed at undue risk; second, that they give uncoerced, informed consent to their participation. With representation from a wide range of scientific disciplines and from outside the academic community, the IRB gives rapid but individualized attention to the numerous research projects at the University. “A project is first reviewed in its proposal stage - even before subjects are recruited. Each approved project is reevaluated at least annually. The IRB works with investigators to modify projects to ensure adequate protection for its subjects' welfare and right of self-determination. The University's process for protecting human research subjects reflects federal regulations developed in response to such cases as the Public Health Service syphilis study and the U.S. government radiation experiments. The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) oversees the operation of the IRB.” After consultation with Andrew Allen, 2011-12 PEL cohort member and Research Compliance Supervisor for the University’s Human Research Protection Program, we believed our interviews were eligible for an IRB waiver. To determine if this was the case, Matthew Aro, Principal Investigator (PI), submitted the following documents to the IRB on February 17, 2012: (1) Research Exempt from IRB Committee Review, Category 2: Surveys/Interviews, Standard Education Tests and Observations of Public Behavior Application; (2) IRB Additional Co-Investigator Form for David Anderson, Sara Foster, Anne Mason, and Heather Nelson; (3) a complete list of our one-on-one interview and focus group questions; (4) a draft of the email tentatively to be used to recruit interview subjects; and (5) an Information Sheet for Research Consent Form. On February 22, 2012, the IRB responded and determined our planned activities would be granted a waiver of IRB review because they do not meet the regulatory definition of research with human subjects. Interview and Focus Group Operation Data was gathered through focus groups and individual interviews, with attendees driven by the needs of The Aurora Center; who they felt they weren’t reaching in an effective manner. Individual interviews were conducted with: Three staff members, one faculty member, and one student. Focus groups were conducted with the student athletes, other members of the PEL cohort, the Multicultural Center for Academic Excellence (MCAE). Contacts were identified for each group and a location and time were arranged to be convenient for focus group participants and group contact. The focus groups were conducted in conference rooms familiar and convenient to the participants. The Athletics focus group was held in the Bierman Field Athletic Building, the 9 PEL focus group in the Donhowe Building, and the MCAE focus group in the Science Teaching & Student Services Building. At least two Purple Reign representatives were present at each focus group. Each session was led by one representative while the others took notes and recorded audio from the conversation. The format was as follows: Introduction ● Team representatives introduced themselves, the PEL program, and purpose of the focus group. Contact information for the PEL representative was provided for future questions or information requests. ● Representatives described ground rules for the session. It was explained that the session was optional and participants could leave whenever they chose, that personal information would not be collected or shared, and that answers provided would be kept anonymous. An example of a sample reference in our report was given (“one student said…”). Permission to use audio equipment was obtained, and that the sessions were being recorded in order to later transcribe the answers for the report. Once the information was transcribed and the report completed, the recordings would then be destroyed. ● Participants were thanked for their participation and an offer to leave extended if they chose not to participate. They were also offered an opportunity to ask any questions before the discussion began. Discussion Following the introduction, questions were posed to the participants. Representatives offered quiet time to allow participants to reflect before answering. During the question and answer session written notes and audio recordings were captured by the PEL representatives. Conclusion The focus groups were concluded by thanking the participants for their time and offering an opportunity for any further questions or comments. PEL representatives e-mail addresses were distributed along with information on the PEL program and TAC. Following focus group sessions, audio recordings were transcribed and compared to the written notes for a complete accounting of the information. The data from the focus group sessions are kept on a Google Document on secured University of Minnesota servers. Audio recordings and written notes from the sessions will be destroyed once the report is submitted to the sponsor. Individual Interviews In addition to focus groups, 5 individual interviews were conducted using the questions detailed in the Interview and Focus Group Question Development. The goals of the individual interviews were to reach faculty and staff in the University community who may not have participated in the focus groups and to increase the data received as focus group opportunities were limited. The interviews included a faculty advisor, 2 staff members, an administrator, and a student. Individual interviews were conducted by phone or in person. Interviews were audio recorded or written notes were taken. Prior to the commencement of the discussion questions, participants were provided the same introductory information as the focus group, with attention given to the anonymity and the voluntary nature of the interview. At the conclusion of the interview, participants were thanked for their time and offered an opportunity for further questions or comments. The typical interview was 30 to 45 minutes. 10 RESULTS When interviews and focus groups were completed, data from each was evaluated by individual members and as a group. The following are common themes and recommendations made for TAC. #1 : Students are more aware of The Aurora Center and its services than faculty and staff. ● Focused marketing, information and advertising allow for the student population to have greater awareness of The Aurora Center and its services than faculty and staff members, and faculty and staff proximity to students allow them more knowledge. ● We recommend trying to find better ways to connect with the faculty and staff who work with students. Targeted mailings or office items such as magnets and cups would be effective. #2: “The Aurora Center” doesn’t resonate or connect an audience with what TAC can offer. ● Students often remarked that they had heard the name, but didn’t really know what is offered. Staff often mentioned that they knew a resource existed on campus but didn’t know the name. ● We recommend consideration be given to re-branding The Aurora Center to something that better speaks to the goals and mission of the organization. If a drastic step like that is not in consideration, perhaps a tag line such as “For Sexual Assault Awareness and Protection.” #3: Bathroom door signs are effective for women, but less so for men. ● We recommend looking into alternate locations to advertise to men. A location above the urinal would be a prime spot and is underutilized in a vast majority of men’s restrooms on campus. Many bars on campus have digital signage above men’s room urinals. If The Aurora Center were to advertise on those, it would reach a good number of males at what would be considered a high risk area for sexual assault. #4: Most are aware of the circumstances on campus that make TAC necessary. ● Most are aware of circumstances why a resource center would be necessary—urban environment, close proximity to each other and alcohol. #5: Stigma and the unknown prevents some from reporting an incident. ● Not knowing what happens when one reports an incident is a deterrent from reporting an incident. But those who were aware of the process wished that it was more open and de-stigmatized. ● We recommend advertising that specifically targets the process of what happens when someone reports an issue. It should be brief and clear. BEST PRACTICES A comparison of Big Ten university websites was conducted to determine how many schools in the Big Ten have resource centers focused on prevention, crisis intervention, advocacy, and education surrounding sexual assault, relationship violence, harassment, and stalking. Of the twelve universities in the Big Ten, four have resource centers of this type. We will report here on some of the techniques used by those centers which may be considered best practices. We will also include some of our observations about TAC’s web presence at the University of Minnesota and offer our suggestions for making improvements. The University of Michigan has the Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness Center (SAPAC). Some of the feedback we received in one of the student focus groups included the powerful nature of sharing personal stories. One part of the SAPAC website that we liked is a “Share your story” link in the left-hand navigation. This is an easy way for advocates and volunteers to be engaged with the center, as well as for 11 interested parties to learn more about what SAPAC does and put a personal face on the center. We’d like to recommend adding this to TAC’s website as a best practice. Please visit: http://sapac.umich.edu/ for more information. Another place that demonstrates best practices is Michigan State University. Their Counseling Center Sexual Assault Program has the web address of: http://www.endrape.msu.edu. This is a simple and easy way to feel empowered every time you type the address in your browser. Additionally, on their home page, there is a large red icon with the text, “24-Hour Sexual Assault Crisis Line” including the phone number. This icon really stands out and is easy to see as soon as you get to the page. Although TAC includes a crisis center phone number on their home page, we’d like to suggest increasing its visibility. Northwestern University is home to the Center for Awareness, Response & Education (CARE). The acronym CARE is both descriptive and implies that they do care, as well as being easy to remember. Their website lists the slogan, “addressing sexual violence and promoting healthy sexuality.” The CARE website came in five of the top ten results when searching for “rape help” and four of the top ten when searching for “sexual assault.” This was a much greater frequency of center web pages in the results than the other universities had, pointing to a smarter use of internet marketing, including keyword relevance, and search engine optimization. We recommend that TAC follow their lead in this regard. Please visit: http://www.northwestern.edu/care for more information. While Purdue University does not appear to have a resource center dedicated specifically to sexual assault, relationship violence, and stalking, we did find a valuate peer to peer prevention program through their Women’s Resource Office called Boilers Educating Against Rape, (BEAR). Although the application is outdated, this could be a valuable program to consider implementing at the University of Minnesota. Please visit: http://www.purdue.edu/ethics/contribute_pdf_docs/BEARappliction.pdf for more information. When searching “rape help” and “sexual assault” from the University of Minnesota home page (www.umn.edu), some of the top ten results for each phrase included a link to the front page of TAC’s 21- page PDF packet entitled “Sexual Assault.” (Both http://www1.umn.edu/aurora/pdf/2011%20Sexual%20Assault%20Packet.pdf and http://www1.umn.edu/aurora/pdf/SexualAssaultInfoPacket.pdf.) This large packet may take a long time to load, and also doesn’t get the user to the specific information they are looking for. We recommend TAC investigate how to better use search engine optimization and keyword relevance to increase the likelihood their web page will turn up if students are searching online for their services. In our opinion, it would be more helpful for students if TAC’s specific web pages for what to do in case of sexual assault were turning up in the top results instead of a lengthy PDF file which would necessitate further searching. If they decide to keep the PDF packet, adding a table of contents would facilitate easier navigation. Comments made in individual interviews regarding TAC’s website include that in the past, it has seemed “crammed full of stuff.” Ideally, it should be clean, well-organized, branded, and navigable. The front page should clearly feature a “If assaulted, go here” icon or link. Other suggestions include information on education and links to related campus resources. A chart listing the websites visited and number of hits when searching both “rape help” and “sexual assault” can be found in Appendix B. 12 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We'd like to thank the PEL program staff, especially Dave Dorman, who put our team together and facilitated a great year in PEL; and Laura Cabral, who did all the behind-the-scenes work to reserve meeting rooms and order lunches to allow us to focus on growing our leadership skills; Jerie Smith, for being a great sponsor and helping us get to know the Aurora Center and the work that they do; all the students, faculty, and staff members who participated in our interviews and focus groups; our mentors; the other members of our PEL cohort; and last but not least, each of our supervisors and our colleagues for supporting us during this journey. We couldn't have done it without you! APPENDIX A: Project Charter                13 14 APPENDIX B: Best Practices Web Search Results University Name and Website Results for “rape help” Results for “sexual assault” Specialized resource center University of Minnesota http://www.umn.edu 3,820 5,570 yes University of Wisconsin-Madison http://www.wisc.edu/ 874 1,480 no Purdue University http://www.purdue.edu/ 102,000,000 71,000,000 no Pennsylvania State University http://www.psu.edu/ 5,990 5,380 no Ohio State University http://www.osu.edu/ 1,750 1,890 no Indiana University http://www.indiana.edu/ 1,301 3,719 no Michigan State University http://www.msu.edu/ 3,510 3,280 yes University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign http://illinois.edu/ 2,170 1,900 no University of Michigan http://www.umich.edu/ 109,000,000 75,100,000 yes University of Nebraska-Lincoln http://www.unl.edu/ 859 1,060 no University of Iowa http://www.uiowa.edu/ 1,840 2,160 no Northwestern University http://www.northwestern.edu/ 1,220 1,310 yes APPENDIX C: Leadership Project Poster 15