October 20, 2025, Durham, NC – Providing sexual and relationship health programming is a key way that colleges can help prevent sexual assault, sexually transmitted infections, and unplanned pregnancy amongst their students. Many young people do not receive high-quality, or any, sex education during high school, so receiving sexual and relationship health programming in college could be instrumental in helping them make informed decisions about their sexual health. Even though community college students make up nearly half of the undergraduate college student population, very little research has focused on sexual and relationship health programming for this group. Despite the value of providing sexual health programming to students, many community colleges face significant barriers to implementing it.

A team of researchers at iRT conducted a qualitative study to better understand the challenges that community colleges face and strategies they use in attempting to implement sexual and relationship health programming for students. Findings from the study were recently published in Translational Behavioral Medicine.

About the study

iRT researchers conducted individual interviews with 32 college personnel (i.e., administrators, faculty, and staff) from 23 community college campuses across the United States. The goal of these interviews was to gain insight into the factors that hinder or facilitate colleges’ ability to adopt, implement, and sustain sexual health programming for students. iRT researchers conducted a thematic analysis to reveal patterns in what college personnel said during the interviews.

Findings

Six major themes emerged that summarize key ideas shared across the interviews:

  1. Lack of funding impacts implementation.

Personnel from community colleges in rural and urban areas alike noted a lack of funding needed to implement sexual health programming for students. Many personnel reported that their college does not have dedicated budgets for sexual health promotion, so they must find ways to use funding from other budgets to afford implementation of sexual health programming. In addition, personnel reported that colleges need staff members who are dedicated to implementing programming; however, many have little to no funding to hire new staff members for these positions.

  1. Upper-level administrators guide college priorities.

Many community college personnel reported that they needed approval and support of upper-level administrators at their college to implement sexual health programming. This can be a barrier to adopting or implementing programming if upper-level administrators do not prioritize sexual health programming or approve of programming but do not have the time or resources to support it. Some personnel reported that upper-level administrators tend to prioritize issues such as student enrollment, retention, academics, and mental health, which may take precedence over student sexual health.

  1. College’s need “sexual health champions” to implement programming.

Community colleges often rely on someone (e.g., a faculty member or administrator) who champions sexual health programming efforts and is driven to implement programming at their college. Some personnel reported that there would likely be no one at their college who would make the effort to adopt sexual health programming if they did not take initiative for their college in this way. Taking on the role of sexual health champion on their own, personnel often felt overwhelmed by their responsibilities to advocate for and research sexual health programming for their college. Many personnel also complete these duties in addition to their full-time job responsibilities, which could be another factor that impacts the stress of filling the role.

  1. Decision-making about programming is often student-centered.

Personnel reported that their college may be more likely to adopt and implement sexual health programming if students expressed interest in programming. Because many colleges are student-centered in their decision-making, they may be likely to adopt programming if students speak up. In addition, colleges often hesitate to host events or implement programming if they believe their students will not attend or participate. Student needs, as well as their wants, are a motivating factor for upper-level administrators to support adoption and implementation of sexual and relationship health programming. Therefore, decision-makers may be more likely to support programming if they are faced with data that show their students’ needs for it.

  1. Students do not do optional.

Many personnel reported that their students are unlikely to complete sexual health programming if it is not required of them. To compound this problem, many upper-level administrators are hesitant to mandate sexual health programming for students because they believe it may be a barrier to graduating or enrolling in the college. Some personnel noted that providing incentives to students who complete programming or incorporating programming into existing requirements of students (e.g., coursework, orientation) may increase student completion of programming.

  1. Campus housing may impact adoption of programming.

Colleges that provide on-campus housing to students may be more likely to implement and sustain sexual health programming for students than colleges without housing. Administrators at colleges often feel more responsibility for student wellbeing when students live on campus and may be more open to adopting programming if their students are regularly having sex on campus. In addition, colleges with on-campus housing often have budgets specifically for housing and related programming, making it easier to implement sexual health programming.

Read the article

These findings and more are outlined in Translational Behavioral Medicine in an article entitled, “Barriers and facilitators to providing sexual health programming at community colleges across the United States: A qualitative study with administrators, faculty, and staff.” The article was authored by iRT Research Scientists Drs. Reina Evans-Paulson, Christina Dodson, Tracy Scull, and Janis Kupersmidt as well as Dr. Allison Schmidt and Jada Green.

To read the full article, email our team for a copy at CCHStudy@irtinc.us.