Citation

Holland KJ, Cipriano AE, Howard Valdivia RL, Pinchevsky GM. Am. Psychol. 2023; 78(9): 1098-1109.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2023, American Psychological Association)

DOI

10.1037/amp0001251

PMID

38166275

Abstract

Following federal and state law, institutions of higher education (IHE) have implemented mandatory reporting (MR) policies, requiring some employees to report sexual violence they learn about to university officials regardless of victim/survivor consent (i.e., compelled disclosure). Proponents argue that MR policies are beneficial (e.g., provide survivors with support), while critics argue that MR policies that limit survivor autonomy can be harmful. Given the tension between purported goals of MR policies and potential risks to survivors, the current work provided a comprehensive analysis of IHE MR policies in the United States. First, we reviewed laws shaping MR policies. Second, we analyzed MR policies from a nationally representative sample of Title IV eligible IHEs in the United States. Third, we discussed the findings in connection to extant research on MR policies, identifying key patterns and remaining gaps. Our analysis suggested that federal and state policymaking has increasingly expanded reporting mandates for IHE employees. The majority of IHEs designated all or nearly all employees as mandatory reporters, but there was more variability in the breadth of MR policies compared to the previous research. The content of MR policies mostly offered minimal instructions for employees (e.g., to whom to report) and rarely mandated trauma-informed responses (e.g., how to respond to disclosures). In light of empirical evidence, which finds that those who are most knowledgeable about survivors' needs and the process of reporting to the university (including survivors) are less supportive of MR policies, our findings further indicate that current MR policies focus on compliance over victim/survivor support. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Language: en