Colleges and universities are now operating amid heightened accountability for preventing hazing. New legal requirements, increased public scrutiny, high-profile litigation, and sustained national media attention have pushed institutions to reexamine how they address group and organizational culture, student safety, and hazing prevention. The expansion of state laws, as well as the federal Stop Campus Hazing Act, signal a shifting landscape that requires more formalized hazing reporting, transparency, and prevention education.
These changes raise a central question for higher education leaders and practitioners: How can evolving legal and compliance requirements positively shape student experiences, institutional practice, and actual prevention outcomes? Beneath this question lies a core tension: How do we ensure that institutions move beyond a “check the box” approach – meeting minimum compliance and legal standards – and instead toward creating and reinforcing meaningful campus culture change that truly prevents hazing?
The Evolving Hazing Prevention Landscape
The national hazing prevention landscape has changed dramatically in recent years. What were once treated as isolated or exceptional incidents are now better understood as a broader campus safety and public health concern, largely because tragedies forced the nation to pay attention. Highly publicized student deaths and harm sparked outrage, advocacy, and deeper questions about how and why hazing persists. At the same time, national research, such as the landmark National Study of Student Hazing (Allan & Madden, 2012), helped leverage data that supported what many practitioners already suspected: hazing is widespread, normalized, and often misunderstood.
More institutions are moving beyond one-off awareness weeks or presentations and toward prevention strategies grounded in prevention science and public health approaches that focus on long-term culture change. There is now a greater emphasis on culture-shifting models, building healthy group norms and traditions, and examining power dynamics within groups. In other words, the conversation is expanding from, “how do we identify and stop the bad actors?” to “how do we reshape the systems, hierarchies, and cultural expectations that allow hazing to arise in the first place?”
However, too few institutions are approaching hazing prevention as a campus culture issue that requires sustained, multi-level strategies grounded in campus-specific data, informed by risk and protective factors, and tailored to the campus’s history, traditions, demographics, and the groups within it. This is where research-based frameworks and models are critical. The Hazing Prevention Framework (HPF), the only research-based framework for hazing prevention, offers structured guidance grounded in research and a roadmap for prevention (Allan et al., 2018), while the Social Ecological Model (SEM) reinforces the idea that prevention strategies, including policy and reporting, are most effective when embedded within a broader ecosystem of individual, relational, organizational, and broader community-based initiatives (Dahlberg & Krug, 2002).
Policy as Prevention
Advocacy led by families, prevention experts, and bipartisan lawmakers began over a decade ago. Initially, the REACH Act (Respond and Educate About Campus Hazing) and later, the END ALL Hazing Act were introduced as bipartisan bills. These bills were later combined into the Stop Campus Hazing Act (SCHA), which amended the Clery Act to strengthen hazing transparency, reporting, and education requirements. Bipartisan support led to its passage in 2024, representing the culmination of years of tireless effort, driven by tragedy and reinforced by a growing body of national research, including the subject-matter expertise of Dr. Elizabeth Allan, director of the Hazing Prevention Research Lab, principal of StopHazing, and professor of higher education, whose scholarship on student hazing and its prevention provided critical evidence to guide lawmakers.
Policy of this magnitude is rarely passed without a body of research to provide context and reinforce the personal stories from families sharing their life-altering harm and loss. One could argue that the enactment of federal law reflects the evolution of the hazing prevention field and the growing public recognition that hazing is a systemic campus safety issue warranting federal attention. Yet, laws alone do not shift deeply embedded unhealthy traditions, norms, or power dynamics. Laws and compliance requirements establish the minimum expectation of hazing prevention for institutions – this is the floor, not the ceiling. Effective prevention builds on that floor through commitment, capacity building, education, accountability, and sustained culture-change efforts to truly move the needle.
Increasing Transparency
The passage of the SCHA has also brought increased expectations for transparency, including access to reporting incidents, clearly articulated policies, and publicly posting hazing incident violations. Transparency can play a critical role in prevention. By bringing hazing incident information into the open, institutions help illuminate the history and culture of hazing on campus, disrupt the secrecy that enables it, and demonstrate a commitment to student safety. As the saying goes, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.” While greater transparency is now required by law, many institutions remain a long way from fully realizing the spirit of the law as consumer protection: allowing students and families to truly understand the culture of hazing and make informed decisions about which groups to join.
Since the launch of HazingInfo’s Campus Hazing Database and a manual review of institutional websites, there is a large variation in whether campuses meet federal requirements– in fact, most states’ institutions are not in compliance. Only six states, Ohio (73%), Nevada (67%), Washington (64%), New Jersey (62%), Delaware (50%), and Maine (50%), have more than half of their institutions meeting federal reporting requirements (Houtz, 2026). Tools like HazingInfo’s interactive map and state-by-state transparency dashboard help illuminate how institutions stack up, offering a clearer picture of which campuses are meeting the minimum federal requirements.
As Jolayne Houtz, co-founder of HazingInfo and mother of Sam Martinez, who was killed by hazing, notes, “Too many college campuses still treat hazing as a short-term problem to be managed, something that gets their attention only after a hazing incident hits the headlines. If we hope to end hazing, we must recognize hazing for what it is: a deeply complex, cultural, cross-generational issue that demands an urgent and comprehensive response.”
Building Beyond Compliance: What Prevention Requires
While laws like the Stop Campus Hazing Act establish important expectations for publishing Clery crime statistics in annual security reports, providing public access and regular updates to hazing incident transparency reports and campus policies, and delivering research-informed education campus stakeholders – these three compliance expectations alone likely won’t move the needle and must be paired with a broader hazing prevention strategy to translate into safer, healthier, and more supportive campus environments. Simply meeting legal requirements can lead to “check-the-box” prevention, actions that satisfy compliance but fail to shift underlying culture or group dynamics.
Building a meaningful hazing prevention strategy requires recognizing that meeting minimum compliance standards is only the starting point – and perhaps an opportunity to build momentum and catalyze campus-wide buy-in for hazing prevention. Hazing prevention requires a strategic, multi-level approach that addresses individual behavior and skill development, group dynamics, institutional culture, and broader societal influences. By engaging multiple layers of the campus environment, institutions can craft a coordinated approach that prevents hazing and actively shifts norms and culture to that of a healthy community free from hazing.
Effective hazing prevention is dependent on commitment from the institution. Strong leadership buy-in is key to making hazing prevention a priority. “Commitment” shows up in several ways. For example:
- Sustainable funding ensures that programs, training, and initiatives can continue over time rather than being short-term, one-off, or reactive.
- Campus-wide collaboration and a coalition dedicated to hazing prevention help build shared responsibility and strengthen the impact and reach of prevention initiatives and messaging.
- Adequate human resources, including trained staff and dedicated personnel, for planning, implementing, and refining hazing prevention strategies.
To share some institutional examples of commitment to hazing prevention, we can point to institutions participating in the Hazing Prevention Consortium (HPC) – StopHazing’s three-year research-to-practice initiative guided by the Hazing Prevention Framework, the only research-based framework for campus hazing prevention. As highlighted in this peer-reviewed publication and this blog, Driving Culture Change: How the Hazing Prevention Consortium is Transforming College Campuses, participating institutions engage in ongoing collaboration, regular campus coaching, monthly webinars, and data-informed assessment, planning, and evaluation. Liaisons at HPC institutions are leading the nation with developing, implementing, and testing strategies to help the field move beyond compliance, to effective hazing prevention and culture change.
Campus Case Studies
At William & Mary, hazing prevention is embraced as a shared responsibility across the institution, from students to senior leadership. Their hazing prevention coalition brings together faculty, undergraduate students, and campus life partners to advance and sustain this work. The university’s Home Without Hazing initiative continues to drive collective action, reinforcing the idea that belonging and accountability go hand in hand.
At Indiana University Bloomington (IU), hazing prevention has been scaled campus-wide through intentional integration across first-year programs, student organizations, and fraternity and sorority life. During year three of the HPC, IU has placed a strong emphasis on sustainability, highlighting the importance of multiple, targeted touchpoints to consistently engage students. Efforts such as launching a new social norms campaign, delivering the Hoosiers Not Hazers training to large portions of the campus community, updating the hazing definition within the campus hazing policy, and updating a centralized reporting system demonstrate a holistic and coordinated approach. Notably, IU’s hazing transparency report also reflects a commitment to moving beyond basic compliance toward best practice—while documenting all organizations found responsible for hazing, it also includes all other investigated incidents, regardless of outcome, and for both recognized and unrecognized student groups.
Similarly, Dartmouth College continues to expand its prevention infrastructure through strong leadership investment and strategic coordination. The creation of a dedicated Hazing Prevention and Policy Management (HPPM) Coordinator role reflects a commitment to sustained, focused effort. The institution has implemented the StandUp to Hazing online learning module for Greek-lettered organizations, integrated hazing scenarios into sexual violence prevention trainings, and developed new reporting pathways to increase transparency. A tri-chair coalition model further strengthens this work by engaging stakeholders across fraternity/sorority life, student societies, athletics, and club sports. At the same time, a strategic approach ensures sustained momentum and long-term impact.
Efforts like these demonstrate that meaningful culture change does not happen by chance. It is the result of intentional, well-designed prevention strategies grounded in research and tailored to each campus community and unique culture. Effective hazing prevention is not a one-size-fits-all approach. We encourage campuses to assess current initiatives to identify strengths and gaps, then use the body of literature on hazing prevention, resources, and insights from other campuses to guide practice, as well as the selection or adaptation of implementation strategies that align with campus culture and meet the needs of students, staff, and faculty.
To support this work, StopHazing offers the largest no-cost collection of research-based and research-informed resources. The Campus Commitment to Hazing Prevention: Action Guide ©™ provides actionable guidance for building and sustaining institutional commitment and implementing research-based strategies that promote lasting culture change. In addition, StopHazing’s blog, “Evidence-Based, Research-Based, Research-Informed, or Data-Driven?” is a useful read for learning more about the distinctions between resources and vetted prevention programs with greater confidence.
Where We Go From Here
True progress means building campus communities where students can join groups without fear of harm, where belonging is central to the student experience – rather than sacrificed in the name of tradition. Achieving this vision requires treating compliance as the floor, not the ceiling, and intentionally investing in culture change.
References
Allan, E. J. & Madden, M. (2012). The nature and extent of college student hazing. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 24(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh.2012.012
Allan, E. J., Kerschner, D., & Franklin, D. (2025). Exploring the Perceived Impact of a Multi-Year Campus Hazing Prevention Initiative at Eight Universities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241308291
Allan, E. J., Payne, J. & Kerschner, D. (2018). Transforming the culture of hazing: A research-based hazing prevention framework. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 55(4) 412–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2018.1474759
Dahlberg, L., & Krug, E. (2002). Violence: A global public health problem. In E. Krug, L. Dahlberg, J. Mercy, A. Zwi, & R. Lozano (Eds.), World report on violence and health (pp. 1-56). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Houtz, J. (2026). Nearly all states get a failing grade on new US hazing transparency standards. HazingInfo.org https://hub.hazinginfo.org/blog/nearly-all-states-failing-on-hazing-transparency
StopHazing. (2025). Driving culture change: How the Hazing Prevention Consortium is transforming college campuses. Stophazing.org. https://stophazing.org/2025/11/14/driving-culture-change-how-the-hazing-prevention-consortium-is-transforming-college-campuses/
About the Authors
Lauren Griffin, M.Ed., is the Program and Prevention Coordinator at StopHazing, where she supports core initiatives including trainings, workshops, and summits; annual campaigns like National Hazing Prevention Week; and capacity-building efforts such as the StandUp to Hazing Online Course and the upcoming Hazing Prevention Portal. She also helps build and sustain relationships with the Hazing Prevention Consortium (HPC), educational institutions, K–12 schools, professional associations, and partner organizations.
Meredith Stewart, M.Ed., serves as Operations Manager for StopHazing, overseeing operational aspects, including program management, training implementation, and resource development, in alignment with the organization’s mission to prevent hazing through research-based initiatives and strategic partnerships. Meredith also supports the work of the Hazing Prevention Consortium (HPC), StopHazing’s signature research-to-practice initiative, as well as policy advocacy, consulting services, and the development of StopHazing’s suite of online learning tools and courses. Through her work, she cultivates essential relationships with higher education institutions, professional organizations, scholars, practitioners, and policy advocates committed to violence prevention.
StopHazing is a research-to-practice organization that translates research and data-driven insights into practical tools, resources, and programs that support comprehensive, effective, and sustainable hazing prevention. StopHazing’s mission is to promote safe and inclusive school, campus, and organizational environments through research, resource sharing, and the development of data-driven strategies for hazing prevention and the promotion of positive and inclusive group climates. StopHazing leads the Hazing Prevention Consortium (HPC) and is a partner to the Hazing Prevention Research Lab at the University of Maine and HazingInfo.org.
HazingInfo’s mission is to provide public access to free, accurate information on hazing incidents at US colleges and universities. By making hazing data more transparent, we aim to end toxic hazing culture and help students and families make informed decisions about clubs, teams, and organizations they may wish to join.
