Mandatory Reporting (MR) in Higher Education

Abstract

Mandatory reporting (MR) policies concerning sexual assault victimization now extend to institutions of higher education. The laws are new and thus controversial since relatively little investigation into their impact has occurred. Additionally, since the laws require disclosure to police, at times, even in instances where victims object, opponents have expressed concerns about potential unintended effects, such as diminished victim autonomy. Perhaps, though, the most glaring question involves how college students perceive the policies. Because students are the focus of the laws, this investigation evaluates student opinion about MR, including approval for the policy, the likelihood of personally reporting under MR, perceptions of faculty compliance, and expected outcomes of MR laws. Findings suggest overwhelming support for MR, substantial likelihood of personally reporting assault under the law, and strong belief in faculty compliance. Not least, although students recognize both the positive and negative possibilities of the law, higher percentages believed in the law’s potential benefits (e.g., increase university accountability). Implications for research and policy are discussed.

Keywords

campus sexual assault mandatory reporting university accountability criminal justice attitudes

Introduction

Nationally, recent crime policy debates have revolved around addressing campus sexual assault. The federal government, for instance, produced a report in 2014, Not Alone (The White House, 2014), that described the extent of sex crime on campus and the problem of underreporting. A clear policy implication emanating from the report centered on improving the institutional response to sexual assault victims. Indeed, growing concern about campus sex crimes has motivated the enactment of federal legislation designed to hold universities accountable for sex assault prevention. To illustrate, the recently implemented Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act expands crime reporting for colleges and universities and sets forth additional safeguards to protect student victims of rape and assault (Marshall, 2014).

States have also wrestled with enacting policies and procedures that ensure greater university accountability in responding to the problem of sexual assault. One proposed and controversial policy is mandatory reporting (hereafter, MR). Although underreporting for sexual offenses is high in the general population (Mancini, 2014), it is particularly pronounced for college students (Sinozich & Langton, 2014). Perhaps for this reason, several states—California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Virginia—are considering MR policies (Bidwell, 2015). For example, as this same account indicates, Virginia recently enacted a law that mandates “responsible employees”—virtually all university employees—who become aware of a sex crime to immediately disclose such information to a university official, typically, a Title IX coordinator. From there, a university committee decides if the allegation should be forwarded to law enforcement. Given the increased attention to campus sexual assault, it is expected that other states are likely to follow suit (O’Connell, 2015). Under this context, MR laws would require that university employees report suspicions of sexual assault to law enforcement, and depending on the extent of the legislation, even in cases where victims have requested that the disclosure be held in confidence or wish not to interact with police. Depending on the specific proposed bill, noncompliance could result in criminal and civil sanctions against employees and sanctions for the institution.

Advocates claim that MR laws protect vulnerable populations and result in a safer campus environment by holding perpetrators accountable for their crimes (Association of Title IX Administrators, 2015). Moreover, by requiring reporting to police, student victims have access to criminal justice resources and victim assistance. One central critique of MR, though, is that it removes victim discretion to report. For example, if victims are aware that a trusted professor cannot keep in confidence a disclosure of sexual assault, they might be reluctant to disclose at all. Accordingly, because MR has the potential to diminish victim autonomy, unintended effects, including overall reduced reporting, may occur (Flaherty, 2015). To be sure, there are other points of controversy surrounding these new procedures, but these observations highlight the challenges that may be associated with MR legislation.

Despite this debate, relatively little scholarship has studied MR policies as applied to higher education. Perhaps the most striking oversight involves identifying and understanding college students’ perceptions of the new and controversial policies. College students are the intended targets of the laws. For this reason, their views concerning the merits and consequences of the policies are critical toward determining whether and how the laws might reduce campus sexual assault. To this end, we provide the first examination of student views toward MR by surveying students at a large, public university. Specifically, we first describe the nature and extent of sexual assault across postsecondary institutions. Then, we review MR policies in the United States, with a special emphasis on the extension of the laws to the college population. Discussion concerning our methodological approach and study results then follows. We conclude with a summary of findings and suggestions for future research and policy.

Campus Sexual Assault

In addition to being promoted as a policy to improve the institutional response to sexual assault, MR is underpinned by the notion that sexual victimization and underreporting are particularly pronounced among the college population. To be sure, prevalence estimates of campus sexual assault vary due to methodological factors, such as the type of survey administered (e.g., self-administered vs. telephone), reference period (e.g., shorter vs. longer), and operationalization of sexual victimization (e.g., battery offenses vs. assault crimes). Still, collectively federally funded studies suggest that rape and other sex offenses affect a substantial proportion of students attending postsecondary institutions. These accounts indicate that 15–20% of college students will become a victim of a sex crime during the course of a typical college career (e.g., Carey, Durney, Shepardson, & Carey, 2015; Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2007).

Complicating efforts to combat campus sexual assault is the vast underreporting of rape and related offenses. Compared to crime victims of other serious and violent offenses, victims of sex crime in the general population (i.e., individuals not enrolled in postsecondary institutions) are less likely to disclose their victimization to law enforcement. Nationally, less than one in three victims of rape and sexual assault crimes report the offense to law enforcement (Mancini, 2014). The latest federal statistics indicate that the level of reporting is even lower among college students. During any given year, only one in five sexual assault victims attending a college or university will contact police to report the offense (Sinozich & Langton, 2014). The factors motivating underreporting are not entirely clear. Having said that, findings from victimization surveys, most notable the National Crime Victimization Survey, suggest that one of the most popular reasons student victims cited for declining to report was “fear of reprisal” from the perpetrator (Sinozich & Langton, 2014). This line of reasoning can be explained, given the intimate nature of sexual assault perpetration. Contrary to media-fueled images of sex crime, most offenders are known to their victims (Mancini, 2014). In the college context, approximately 80% of student victims know their attacker (Sinozich & Langton, 2014). Indeed, many perpetrators are also affiliated with the university where victims attend (Krebs et al., 2007). Consequently, these patterns may diminish the extent to which assault is reported and addressed among the college population, particularly if victims feel their reports will not be taken seriously by university staff.

Accordingly, the application of MR laws to individuals attending postsecondary institutions derives from the view that sex crime has not been adequately addressed by postsecondary institutions. MR has been proposed as one measure to address campus sexual assault at the university level by ensuring that all reported victimizations are actually reported to law enforcement; this mandate of course does not guarantee that the alleged crime will be thoroughly investigated by the justice system, but it does place a legal obligation on the institution to involve law enforcement. Below, we briefly summarize the history of these laws and their recent extension to postsecondary institutions.

An Overview of MR in the United States

Historical Use of MR

The use of MR to protect vulnerable populations is not a novel practice in the United States. The federal government, for instance, enacted the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act in 1974 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003). The Act does not mandate the creation of MR systems but rather requires states to implement MR provisions or lose funding for crime programs. All states have enacted some form of MR for the mistreatment of children (Ainsworth, 2002).

Most states designate professional groups who come into contact with minors—such as teachers, doctors, and social workers—as “mandated reporters” (Crenshaw, Crenshaw, & Lichtenberg, 1995). Fewer states, approximately 18 (or 36%) include adults in the general public as mandated reporters (National Conference of State Legislature, 2014). Although the general process may vary across jurisdictions, mandated reporters are typically required to immediately report any suspicion of abuse (physical, sexual, and neglect) of youth, usually within a 24-hr time frame to a child protective state agency or law enforcement (Kenny, 2001). Mandated reporters are protected against any criminal or civil sanctions arising from unfounded or unsupported claims of abuse (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2012). However, based on the specific statute, reporters who neglect to submit their suspicions may face criminal and civil penalties and lose their professional license (Singley, 1998).

Although widespread, the laws are not without their detractors. For example, according to experts, it is atypical for reporters to be prosecuted and held accountable for failure to report (Anderson & Mangels, 2006). Concomitantly, MR has been criticized as a less than effective remedy to identify and intervene in potential cases of abuse and victimization of vulnerable populations (Davis & Medina-Ariza, 2001).

Notwithstanding these limitations, over the last two decades, MR procedures have flourished and now extend to other perceived vulnerable groups, such as elders (Stiegel & Klem, 2007) and intimate partner violence victims (Durborow, Lizdas, O’Flaherty, & Marjavi, 2010). Most recently, in 2014, MR legislation targeting rape victims attending college or a university has been introduced across states (Bidwell, 2015; Portnoy & Anderson, 2015). The expansion of MR to these groups is underpinned by a similar logic as its application with children. That is, groups who are vulnerable because of some characteristic (e.g., advanced age and prior victimization history) may be unable to recognize abuse or unwilling to report victimization. For students, being relatively youthful, living for the first time independently, and among other students, may increase their vulnerability and reduce their willingness to report fellow students who may have sexually assaulted them. There has been some examination of the first two populations (i.e., elderly and domestic violence victims), particularly the extent of MR targeting these populations (Durborow et al., 2010; Stiegel & Klem, 2007), reporting prevalence (Clark-Daniels, Daniels, & Baumhover, 1990; Sachs, Peek, Baraff, & Hasselblad, 1998), and victim welfare (Goodrich, 1997; Hyman, Schillinger, & Lo, 1995). However, because extension of MR to college students is most recent, scholarship on the merits and shortcomings of the practice is noticeably absent.

MR in the College Context

The current call for MR in higher education appears to stem, in part, from concerns that colleges and universities have not sufficiently responded to sexual assault victimization. For instance, several highly publicized campus sex crimes across the nation have been covered by the media; this coverage has highlighted the perceived failures of college administrators in handling allegations of sex assault. For example, the media have widely reported on the sexual abuse scandal at Pennsylvania State University in 2011 (Klein & Tolson, 2015). In that case, administrators and athletic team personnel, including storied head football coach Joe Paterno, allegedly failed to report suspicions of sexual abuse committed by prominent assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky (Dowler, Cuomo, & Laliberte, 2014).

A separate report published in a 2014 Rolling Stone story detailed a startling account of gang rape at the University of Virginia (Erdely, 2014). The article emphasized the absence of university accountability in responding to the victim’s claim of sexual assault, particularly its absence of intervening in assisting the victim and reporting the offense to law enforcement. Although the story was eventually discredited (Somaiya, 2015), it led to greater scrutiny of accountability practices at the university. One Washington Post (Anderson, 2014) investigation revealed that violators of the college honor code were significantly more likely to be expelled if the charge was plagiarism as opposed to sexual assault or harassment. Recently, other institutions, such as Florida State University (Bogdanich, 2014) and Baylor University, have received negative media attention toward their handling of high-profile sexual assault allegations. Criticism concerning university accountability in addressing sexual victimization is not restricted to these universities, however. Currently, over 100 postsecondary schools are under federal investigation for Title IX violations regarding their response to sexual assault allegations and reporting concerns (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).

On the one hand, MR laws can thus be viewed as a mechanism to induce university accountability, better assist crime victims, and improve reporting rates of sexual assault. Proponents argue that MR ensures a plethora of benefits. Because all disclosures of sex crime would be required to be officially reported to police, institutions would be unable to “sweep crime under the rug” (e.g., Bidwell, 2015). Separately, MR, according to advocates, ensures greater campus safety (Bauerlein, 2015). Under MR policies, sexual assault cases would be more likely to be investigated by police resulting in the identification and apprehension of potential perpetrators. Applying this logic, apprehension of offenders and greater deterrence would ensue; it thus follows that sexual offense rates on campus would diminish. Another purported advantage is that because MR removes victims’ (and others’) discretion to disclose to police, a greater share of victims would be eligible to receive services and assistance from the justice system; typically, states require that victims report offenses to be eligible for state-sponsored aid (Dubber, 2002). This latter perceived benefit of course derives from two, so far, unexplored assumptions. One is that more victims disclose to university staff and faculty than to police. The second is that MR laws will indirectly increase reporting to police (via university staff and faculty) without having any negative effect on reporting to university staff and faculty (i.e., students who would be willing to potentially disclose to faculty and staff would not be deterred from doing so by the new MR law).

Opponents of MR, however, claim that the laws have unintended consequences (Deamicis, 2013). One is the possibility to diminish reporting likelihood among students (Flaherty, 2015). Once students become aware of the new MR policy, they may decline to disclose to a professor or university employee all together. It follows that reporting rates would be further reduced. By extension of this reluctance, students might miss the opportunity to learn about university-sponsored victim services and support available to them. Moreover, detractors of MR assert that the laws are paternalistic since victim autonomy is removed after a disclosure (Bidwell, 2015). Still, other criticism centers on concerns about retraumatizing victims (Deamicis, 2013). Under strict interpretation of MR, victims, even those unwilling to file a police report, would be contacted by law enforcement after disclosure to a university employee. This process may be upsetting—amounting to a “double victimization”—among students who preferred to avoid contact with the justice system.

Because different versions of MR exist, we briefly describe the context of proposed legislation recently introduced across states. As examination of Table 1 depicts, although four states have introduced MR bills within the last 2 years, two of the bills have not progressed since their initial introduction. Both New Jersey (S2317, 2014) and Rhode Island (H5034, 2015) introduced similar, broadly worded legislation, requiring universities to immediately report allegations of sexual assault from students and employees against other students and employees to the appropriate local law enforcement agency. Recognizing the opposition to MR, the sponsor of the Rhode Island bill, Rep. Mia Ackerman, has since introduced a new bill (H6195, 2015) to create a commission to study the issue of sexual assault on campus.

Table 1.

Recent Mandatory Reporting Bills Proposed Nationally.

State	Bill	Year Proposed	Description	Status
California	AB1433	2013	When a student or employee reports a violent crime (e.g., rape and sexual assault), institutions of higher education must immediately notify the appropriate law enforcement agency without identifying the victim unless the victim consents to being identified after being informed of his or her right to have his or her identifying information withheld	Passed into law (September 2014)
New Jersey	S2317	2014	Requires school districts, nonpublic schools, and institutes of higher education to immediately report to law enforcement authorities claims of sexual assault made by students and employees against other students and employees	Referred to Senate Higher Education Committee (July 2014)
Rhode Island	H5034	2015	In the event an institution receives a report of alleged sexual assault made by an enrolled student or an employee against another such student or employee, the institution must immediately notify law enforcement authorities	Referred to House Judiciary (January 2015)
Virginia	SB712/HB1930	2014	Requires any responsible employee of an institute of higher education who obtains information that an act of sexual violence has been committed against a student or on campus property to report the information to a Title IX coordinator for the institution. The Title IX coordinator is required to report such information to a committee. The committee must meet within 72 hr of receiving report. If the committee determines that disclosure of information pertaining to the alleged act is necessary, a representative of law enforcement included on the review committee shall disclose the information, including personally identifiable information, to the law-enforcement agency responsible for investigating the alleged act	Passed into law (July 2015)

California was the first state in the nation to introduce an MR bill (AB1433, 2013) that was signed into law. The California law requires postsecondary institutions to immediately report not only allegations of sexual assault to the appropriate law enforcement agency but any violent crime that a student or employee alleges was perpetrated by another student or employee. This law incorporates measures to protect the identity of accusers by requiring that the institution not report any personal information of the victim to law enforcement without receiving consent after the victim has been informed of his or her right to have their identifying information withheld by the reporting institution of higher education. Although serving to protect confidentiality, this requirement precludes the victim from obtaining state-sponsored services. By refraining from giving consent to have his or her identity revealed to law enforcement, the victim would only be eligible to receive services provided by the university. In contrast, Virginia’s MR bill (SB712, 2015) proposed in 2014 was enacted in July 2015. When first introduced, the bill required public university employees to report allegations of sexual assault to local law enforcement within 24 hr of receiving the information or face a misdemeanor charge for failing to report the crime. Before being passed by the General Assembly, however, this bill was amended to increase institutional discretion in reporting practices. Specifically, the implemented version requires disclosures to be forwarded to a Title IX coordinator for the university, who reports the allegation to a review committee. Subsequently, the review committee decides whether the information needs to be reported to local law enforcement and whether or not to include the identifying information of the victim.

In short, as the content of the legislation above conveys, new MR policies have been characterized as an approach to improve the response to sexual assault and crime victims.¹ Still, debates concerning the policies are ongoing. One open empirical question that our study aims to address involves college students’ perceptions of the new laws. In the following section, we further describe the need for and contribution of our analysis.

Current Study

Generally, the public and college students are supportive of initiatives to reduce sexual offenses, such as sex offender registration, community notification, and additional postincarceration punishments for rapists and child sex abusers (Kernsmith, Craun, & Foster, 2009; Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, & Baker, 2007; Pickett, Mancini, & Mears, 2013; Sahlstrom & Jeglic, 2008). Few studies, however, have investigated support for MR, especially in the college context. MR laws are notably distinct from typical sex crime reforms given their focus (college students, as opposed to the general population or children) and context (ensuring university accountability and greater reporting rather than increasing criminal sanctions).

There was only one investigation that we could identify that directly asked the public about their perceptions of MR, a 2015 poll conducted by Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU, 2015). The poll revealed overwhelming support (upward of 90%) among the public, a sample of Virginians, for such laws. However, the poll did not survey students and did not measure expectations about the outcomes of MR laws. To advance the literature on MR laws, we provide the first examination, albeit exploratory, of students’ views of the laws. We focus on a variety of unique items tapping support for the laws, self-reports about how the laws would affect one’s likelihood of reporting a sexual victimization, and perceptions of the laws’ likely outcomes, both positive and negative. Specifically, we investigate several research questions. First, to what extent do college students support or oppose MR policies? Second, to what extent would students report sexual victimization if an MR policy was in place at their university? Third, do students, based on their prior experience with faculty, believe their professors will comply with the law? Fourth and finally, to what extent do students expect MR laws to have various positive or negative outcomes (e.g., greater reporting, reduction in sex crime, and diminished victim autonomy)? In the subsequent section, we outline the data and methods used to investigate our research questions.

Data and Method

Sample

In testing our research questions, we draw on responses from a student survey. Although for some research questions, the use of a student sample can be perceived as a methodological weakness (e.g., Wiecko, 2010), for the current investigation, it is advantageous. As discussed previously, the college student population is the most recent target of contemporary MR policies. Given this emphasis, it is thus necessary to examine this group. Moreover, understanding student views may go a long way in modifying and improving MR laws, should unintended effects be identified. That is, it is unclear whether the laws have been developed with input from students (the presumptive victims the laws purport to protect as well as the offenders the laws aim to deter) and relatedly, student victim advocates.² The survey was administered to a sample of students in 2015, an important time period, given debates in the last year concerning campus safety measures, and specifically, the emergence of MR policies. We collected a convenience sample of undergraduate students attending a large, public Research I university in the Northeast and enrolled in a mix of entry- and upper level courses from multiple disciplines. The students in the classes were extremely diverse in terms of gender and racial and ethnic background. The researchers personally contacted the instructors of these courses to secure their cooperation in collecting data on the first day of class of the semester. There were 675 students enrolled across the six classes surveyed; 573 of those students were present in class and elected to at least partially complete the survey instrument. Thus, the overall response rate for the survey was 81.9%. After accounting for missing values, the final sample consisted of 397 undergraduates. Students were asked to indicate their approval toward MR, perceptions of how faculty might respond to their obligation to report, and possible outcomes of the laws. Concerning this last point, we aimed to incorporate both the assumed positive effects advanced by advocates (e.g., reduced sexual assault, greater victim assistance) and the potential unintended consequences of the policies (e.g., diminished victim autonomy, increased trauma for victims). The specific outcome measures, variables of interest, and analytic plan are described subsequently.

Measures

Approval for MR

Because few investigations have explored perceptions about MR laws, we first evaluate overall levels of support for MR among students. In the survey, MR laws were briefly described and students were then asked to indicate their support:

Some states are considering enacting ‘MANDATORY REPORTING’ laws that would require colleges and universities to report all suspicions of sexual assault involving students to the police (e.g., a student reports s/he was a victim of rape at a party to a professor), even if victims do not want the crime reported. How much do you support or oppose mandatory reporting laws?

Response options were “strongly support,” “support,” “neither support nor oppose,” “oppose,” or “strongly oppose.” These categories were coded such that higher levels indicate greater support.

Likelihood of reporting under MR

Given the claim that MR laws should enhance reporting among students (e.g., Association of Title IX Administrators, 2015), we assessed personal likelihood of disclosure under MR. In particular, the survey included this measure “If you experienced a sexual victimization, how much more or less likely would MR laws make you personally to report the victimization to the University or an employee of the University?” Students could choose from these options “much more likely,” “more likely,” “neither more nor less likely,” “less likely,” or “much less likely.” In the analysis, responses were coded, so that higher values indicate a greater likelihood of reporting.

Faculty compliance perceptions

As the content of proposed and enacted legislation suggests, faculty members are assumed to play an instrumental role in the MR process. For this reason, we captured student beliefs regarding the likelihood of faculty fulfilling their legal obligation under MR by developing this measure:

Mandatory reporting laws require university employees, including your professors, to report any allegation of sexual assault to the university, who in turn reports the crime to law enforcement. From your experience with faculty, how likely is it that your professors would comply with the law, even if a student who informed them about a sex crime asked them not to report the victimization?

Response categories (“very unlikely,” “unlikely,” “likely,” or “very likely”) were coded, so that higher values demonstrated a greater perceived likelihood of compliance.

Expected outcomes of MR laws

Proponents and detractors of MR have both advanced contrasting arguments regarding the putative effects of the new policy. Accordingly, we investigated beliefs about the likelihood of various potential outcomes of MR laws that have been identified by either proponents or detractors. The survey question asked students: Below is a list of several potential outcomes of MR laws. In your view, how likely or unlikely is it that MR laws will do each of the following: (1) “make students less likely to report sexual victimizations to university staff,” (2) “provide better assistance to victims,” (3) “increase the likelihood that sex offenders who victimize students will be arrested,” (4) “increase the number of innocent students who are wrongly investigated by police for sex crimes”; (5) “prevent universities from sweeping sex crimes under the rug”; (6) “increase university accountability”; (7) “reduce victim autonomy”; (8) “reduce the number of sex crimes committed against students”; (9) “reduce victims’ willingness to seek counseling or other social services from the university”; (10) “increase punishments for persons who commit sex crimes against students”; (11) “retraumatize victims”; and (12) “force university staff and police officers to spend too much time investigating weak sexual assault allegations.” The response options were 1 = very unlikely, 2 = unlikely, “3 = likely,” and “4 = very likely.”

Analytic Plan

Our analytic process proceeds as follows. To contextualize our analysis and the policy debate concerning MR, we present several figures that correspond to our research questions. Figure 1 depicts the extent of MR support among students in our sample. Figure 2 describes the personal likelihood of reporting under MR laws. In contrast, Figure 3 examines student judgments’ of faculty compliance. Finally, student expectations about the various potential outcomes of MR are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 1.

Students’ support for mandatory reporting laws (N = 397).

Figure 2.

Students’ self-reported personal likelihood of reporting sexual victimizations under mandatory reporting laws (N = 397).

Figure 3.

Students’ perceived likelihood of faculty compliance with mandatory reporting laws (N = 397).

Figure 4.

Students’ expectations about outcomes of mandatory reporting laws (N = 397).

Results

Given the debate concerning MR laws and the relatively little empirical attention directed to their impact, we examine four research questions. Our first question assessed approval for MR laws. Inspection of Figure 1 indicates that a majority of the students in our sample, roughly two thirds (66%), either support or strongly support MR policies. This level of majority support is in line with one prior investigation examining approval for MR among the general public. Having said this, in that Virginian study (VCU, 2015), a substantially greater share of the public (92%) supported MR. Put differently, although a majority of students approve of MR, their level of support for the laws is less than that for the general public.

Recall that a key argument motivating MR is that the policy will increase student disclosures of sexual assault victimizations. Our study is the first to test this central premise. The results shown in Figure 2 strongly support the assumption. A majority of the students in our sample (56%) say that MR laws would increase their personal likelihood of reporting sexual victimizations. Another 29% of students say that the policy would exert no effect on their likelihood of reporting an assault. Only a small minority (15%) of the sample would be deterred from disclosing under the new law. Thus, to the extent our results generalize to a larger population and accurately predict actual reporting behavior, support exists for the contention that MR laws would improve sexual assault reporting rates among the college student population.

Students are not the only individuals affected by MR. As prior legislation has emphasized, faculty are integral in reporting efforts. Do students, based on their prior experience with faculty, trust that their professors will fulfill their obligations under MR? As examination of Figure 3 indicates, the resounding answer is “yes.” Over 85% of students, based on their personal interactions with faculty, believe their professors would comply with the MR law, even if doing so was against the victim’s wishes.

A fourth area of MR scholarship that has received insufficient empirical attention concerns student perceptions of both the potential positive and negative outcomes of the laws. Figure 4 demonstrates that students hold optimistic impressions of the laws, but that they also identify the potential for unintended effects. Most notably, however, the students in our sample perceive that five outcomes of MR are especially likely, and all five of these outcomes are positive: (1) better victim assistance, (2) increased arrest risk, (3) prevent university cover-up, (4) increased university accountability, and (5) increased punishment for sexual offending. For each of these five outcomes, more than 80% of students believe they are likely or very likely. For example, nearly 90% of students feel MR will increase university accountability.

At the same time, the students perceive negative outcomes to be likely as well. For example, while inspection of Figure 2 indicates that a majority (56%) of students admit a greater personal likelihood of reporting under the new law, Figure 4 shows that over 62% believed MR would result in less reporting among peers. This discrepancy between self-reporting and peer reporting indicates a belief among the students that others are more likely to object to MR and thus refrain from reporting.

Students in our sample acknowledged other unintended effects of MR. Over three quarters endorse the view that MR laws reduce victim autonomy. Indeed, demonstrating balanced opinion, at least a majority of students perceived negative outcomes of the laws for the remaining categories: possibility for increased wrongful arrests (69%), reduction in help-seeking behavior among victims (57%), potential to retraumatize victims (65%), and wasting official resources³ (60%).

Conclusion and Implications

The current study is noteworthy because it is the first investigation of student perceptions of MR policies. Students are directly affected by MR, and so, the absence of examination of their views toward these controversial policies is striking and merits closer empirical attention. Illuminating student opinion of the new laws could serve to identify how sex crime initiatives might work in practice and their potential shortcomings or unintended effects. Under that perspective, we briefly outline major findings and provide implications for research and policies designed to prevent campus sexual assault below.

The students in our sample support MR policies, albeit not as strongly as the general public (VCU, 2015). Even so, a clear majority, nearly two thirds, feel the laws have merit and approve of their implementation in postsecondary institutions. Moreover, our results suggest MR laws could have a significant impact in improving reporting of campus sexual assault, assuming that students’ self-reports of their likelihood of reporting predict their actual reporting behavior. Over 56% of students would be more likely to report sexual assaults under the new policy, and only 15% would be less likely to report. On balance, then, MR laws would seem to hold great promise for realizing one of their primary goals—namely, to increase student reporting of sexual victimizations.

In a different direction, students held positive perceptions of faculty compliance regarding the law, with over 85% reporting that faculty would fulfill their legal obligation under MR. This last finding is important to emphasize, given that MR applies to faculty and university employees. A follow-up question revealed that students believe that if faculty did not comply with the law, it would primarily reflect their willingness to respect the wishes of victims. Additionally, student expectations about the positive and negative outcomes of MR indicate mixed opinion. That is, students recognize both the potential for the laws to improve campus conditions but to also negatively impact victims and the justice process. It also bears emphasizing that positive and negative expectations were not highly correlated (not shown), suggesting that students who believed MR laws would have favorable outcomes (e.g., increased university accountability) were no less likely to believe they would also have unfavorable outcomes (e.g., wasted official resources). It bears mentioning, however, that the outcomes that were believed by students to be the most likely to occur were all positive; the single most probable outcome, according to students, was that MR would increase university accountability. Perhaps this finding reflects among the public a general decline in confidence in social institutions and officials (e.g., police, government, etc.; see generally, Jones, 2015). Put differently, students might perceive increased accountability as the most likely outcome of MR policy because universities would subsequently be forced to address sexual assault or face legal and financial consequences.⁴

Given the many assumptions that have guided the development and implementation of MR, a critical next step for research is to evaluate the effects of the laws. These efforts might include conducting a time series analysis examining reporting prevalence prior to the use of MR and the number of reports after the implementation of the law. Separately, given the claim that MR results in greater deterrence, models could also test whether MR laws are associated with other positive outcomes, such as a decline in the total number of sexual assaults on campus or perceptions of greater safety among students.

It might also be useful from both a research and policy standpoint to examine the extent of victim satisfaction with the laws. Some have expressed concern that MR laws cause victims to experience additional trauma or harm, particularly if they did not wish to have contact with law enforcement (e.g., Deamicis, 2013). Having said that, though, virtually no research exists to speak to how victims have fared under MR policies. For example, an “exit survey” or interview could be designed and implemented to evaluate victim perceptions of MR laws. Did victims perceive the experience as helpful to their recovery or traumatic? How did the process unfold from the victim’s perspective? Do victims have recommendations for improving the MR process? Undoubtedly, gaining access to this population may be difficult given ethical concerns and the vulnerability of the population. Still, it is a worthwhile approach to consider since victim views about the MR process could serve to clarify our understanding of how MR laws might help, or hurt, their intended targets. Moreover, this approach has clear policy implications as universities could apply this knowledge toward improving current services and assistance offered to student victims.

Relatedly, victim advocates, typically available at most postsecondary institutions (Koss, Wilgus, & Williamsen, 2014), directly serve the victim community and are thus in a position to relay their needs and experiences. Under this logic, their insight regarding MR in practice might aid with improving extant knowledge of MR effects and the institutional response to sex crime victims. Because victim advocates assist the victim population, it is conceivable that such practitioners would be especially willing to participate in focus groups or in-depth interviews. Here again, from a policy perspective, insight could be used to inform victim initiatives.

Perceptions and views of the larger student body also deserve empirical attention. Climate surveys are becoming increasingly prevalent across college campuses nationally to assess the extent of criminal victimization, beliefs about crime, endorsement of rape myths, and other indicators (Mancini, 2014). With their increasing use, questions could be added that tap specific perceptions of MR among students—such as student awareness of the new measures, which would seem to have implications for evaluating the deterrent effects of the laws. The exploratory nature of the current study limited our analytic plan, as we focused only on a sample of students from a single university and because we lacked a full range of measures that could provide more nuanced insights into student perceptions about MR. In addition to exploring general awareness, a finding of our investigation deserving of further study involves the discrepancy between the likelihood of personally reporting sexual assault under MR laws and expectations about whether other students will report. Future studies should examine students’ views across different universities and should develop hypotheses that directly test predictors of perceptions toward MR and related policy issues. They might also include questions inquiring about the reasons that respondents anticipate increased or decreased reporting as well as their more general perceptions about why their peers may or may not report sex crimes. Moreover, some institutions may have already implemented a duty to report policy (beyond a state law), and so, this may confound student attitudes of the general practice to mandate reporting. Likewise, the potential for as of yet unanticipated consequences of MR laws suggests that future scholarship work toward identifying additional views and concerns about the policies. In turn, such insight could inform MR or future proposed policies to improve reporting efforts among students.

An additional avenue of inquiry that warrants investigation is whether student reporting intentions predict reporting behavior. A limited body of work has examined this connection (e.g., Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003). Generally, among potential victims of sexual assault, some factors, such as perceiving that loved ones (such as significant others or friends), would have wanted them to disclose the sex crime to law enforcement significantly increased their intention to report (Feldman-Summers & Ashworth, 1981). Still, in the absence of empirical attention, it is not known whether MR constitutes another one of these factors. It may be that while students overwhelmingly indicate they would be more likely to report under MR, in actuality, once the laws are in place, they may be no more likely or even less likely to disclose. Similarly, it seems particularly important to examine whether views of MR laws differ across students depending on either their prior victimization experience or their actual or perceived risk of future sexual victimization.

Because MR legislation now designates faculty and staff members as mandated reporters in the same class of other professionals, such as doctors and social workers, gaining knowledge into their views and awareness of reporting practices is warranted. Our findings show that students perceive faculty as highly willing to comply with the new law. However, their perceptions may be inaccurate. Accordingly, future work should determine faculty and employee awareness of their duty to report, willingness to do so, knowledge of the reporting process, specific experiences with students and MR, and approval for MR. In a similar direction, but concerning policy rather than research, institutions that practice MR should consider mandatory training for faculty and staff to ensure they are aware of their legal and ethical obligations as reporters and procedures for reporting.

MR policies are being considered by an increasing number of states and institutions of higher learning. Students express broad support for the new laws but also recognize their potential to exert adverse effects. Several groups—students, along with faculty and staff, the university community, and indeed the larger public—are affected by the controversial laws. At the same time, virtually no knowledge base exists to anticipate how these reforms may work once implemented across institutions. For these reasons, determining the merits and shortcomings of MR laws should be a top priority for researchers, policy makers, and college administrators.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Ainsworth

(2002). Mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect: Does it really make a difference? Child & Family Social Work, 7, 57–63.

Anderson

Mangels

N. J.

(2006). Helping victims: Social services, healthcare interventions in elder abuse. In Summer

R. W.

Hoffman

A. M.

(Eds.), Elder abuse: A public health perspective (pp. 139–166). Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.

Anderson

(2014, 12 15). Colleges often reluctant to expel for sexual violence—with U-Va. A prime example. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/colleges-often-reluctant-to-expel-for-sexual-violence--with-u-va-a-prime-example/2014/12/15/307c5648-7b4e-11e4-b821-503cc7efed9e_story.html

Association of Title IX Administrators. (2015). Mandatory reporters: A policy for faculty and professional staff. Malvern, PA: Author.

Bauerlein

(2015, 8 15). Prosecutors’ group backs changes to college campus sexual assault investigations: Safe Campus Act includes mandatory reporting requirement opposed by rape survivors’ groups. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/prosecutors-group-backs-changes-to-college-campus-sexual-assault-investigations-1439569461

Bidwell

(2015, 2 19). “Mandatory reporting” hinders fight against sexual assault, critics say. U.S. World News and World Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/02/19/mandatory-reporting-bills-hinder-fight-against-sexual-assault-critics-say

Bogdanich

(2014, 4 16). A star player accused, and a flawed rape investigation. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/16/sports/errors-in-inquiry-on-rape-allegations-against-fsu-jameis-winston.html?_r=0

Carey

K. B.

Durney

S. E.

Shepardson

R. L.

Carey

M. P.

(2015). Incapacitated and forcible rape of college women: Prevalence across the first year. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, 678–680.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2012). Immunity for reporters of child abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: Author.

10.

Clark-Daniels

C. L.

Daniels

R. S.

Baumhover

L. A.

(1990). Abuse and neglect of the elderly: Are emergency department personnel aware of mandatory reporting laws? Annals of Emergency Medicine, 19, 970–977.

11.

Crenshaw

W. B.

Crenshaw

L. M.

Lichtenberg

J. W.

(1995). When educators confront child abuse: An analysis of the decision to report. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 1095–1113.

12.

Davis

R. C.

Medina-Ariza

(2001). Results from an elder abuse prevention experiment in New York City. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

13.

Deamicis

(2013, 5 20). Which matters more: Reporting assault or respecting a victim’s wishes? The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/which-matters-more-reporting-assault-or-respecting-a-victims-wishes/276042/

14.

Dowler

Cuomo

Laliberte

(2014). Challenging “The Penn State Way”: A feminist response to institutional violence in higher education. Gender, Place & Culture, 21, 387–394.

15.

Dubber

M. D.

(2002). Victims in the war on crime: The use and abuse of victims’ rights. New York: New York University Press.

16.

Durborow

Lizdas

K. C.

O’Flaherty

Marjavi

(2010). Compendium of state statutes and policies on domestic violence and health care. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

17.

Erdely

S. R.

(2014, 12). A rape on campus: A brutal assault and struggle for justice at UVA. Rolling Stone, 1223, 68–77.

18.

Feldman-Summers

Ashworth

C. D.

(1981). Factors related to intentions to report a rape. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 53–70.

19.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

20.

Fisher

B. S.

Daigle

L. E.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2003). Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others: Results from a national-level study of college women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 6–38.

21.

Flaherty

(2015, 2 4). Endangering a trust. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/02/04/faculty-members-object-new-policies-making-all-professors-mandatory-reporters-sexual

22.

Goodrich

C. S.

(1997). Results of a national survey of state protective services programs: Assessing risk and defining victim outcomes. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 9, 69–86.

23.

Hyman

Schillinger

(1995). Laws mandating reporting of domestic violence: Do they promote patient well-being? Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 1781–1787.

24.

Jones

J. M.

(2015). Confidence in U.S. institutions still below historical norms. Washington, DC: Gallup.

25.

Kenny

M. C.

(2001). Child abuse reporting: Teachers’ perceived deterrents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 81–92.

26.

Kernsmith

P. D.

Craun

S. W.

Foster

(2009). Public attitudes toward sexual offenders and sex offender registration. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 18, 290–301.

27.

Klein

J. L.

Tolson

(2015). Wrangling rumors of corruption: Institutional neutralization of the Jerry Sandusky Scandal at Penn State University. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 25, 477–486.

28.

Koss

M. P.

Wilgus

J. K.

Williamsen

K. M.

(2014). Campus sexual misconduct restorative justice approaches to enhance compliance with Title IX guidance. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 242–257.

29.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

C. H.

Warner

T. D.

Fisher

B. S.

Martin

S. L.

(2007). The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

30.

Levenson

J. S.

Brannon

Y. N.

Fortney

Baker

(2007). Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7, 137–161.

31.

Mancini

(2014). Sex crime, offenders, and society: A critical look at sexual offending and policy. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

32.

Marshall

(2014). Will it really save you? Analyzing the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act. Legislation and Policy Brief, 6, 271–293.

33.

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2014). Mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect: 2013 introduced state legislation. Washington, DC: Author.

34.

O’Connell

(2015, 9 13). Bill proposes new guidelines for colleges’ handling of sex offenses. Telegram.com. Retrieved from http://www.telegram.com/article/20150913/NEWS/150919634

35.

Pickett

J. T.

Mancini

Mears

D. P.

(2013). Vulnerable victims, monstrous offenders, and unmanageable risk: Explaining public opinion on the social control of sex crime. Criminology, 51, 729–759.

36.

Portnoy

Anderson

(2015, 1 26). Va. Senate panel advances mandatory reporting bill for campus sexual assault. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/va-senate-panel-advances-mandatory-reporting-bill-for-campus-sexual-assault/2015/01/26/6154700c-a56a-11e4-a2b2-776095f393b2_story.html

37.

Sachs

C. J.

Peek

Baraff

L. J.

Hasselblad

(1998). Failure of the mandatory domestic violence reporting law to increase medical facility referral to police. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 31, 488–494.

38.

Sahlstrom

K. J.

Jeglic

E. L.

(2008). Factors affecting attitudes toward juvenile sex offenders. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 17, 180–196.

39.

Singley

S. J.

(1998). Failure to report suspected child abuse: Civil liability of mandated reporters. Journal of Juvenile Law, 19, 236–271.

40.

Sinozich

Langton

(2014). Rape and sexual assault victimization among college-age females, 1995-2013. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

41.

Somaiya

(2015, 4 6). Rolling Stone article on rape failed all basics, report says. New York Times, p. A1.

42.

Stiegel

Klem

(2007). Adult protective services, institutional abuse, and long term care ombudsman program laws: Citations, by state. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.

43.

The White House. (2014). Not alone: The first report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. Washington, DC: Author.

44.

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). List of sexual violence investigations open at the post-secondary level. Washington, DC: Author.

45.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). Child abuse prevention and treatment act. Washington, DC: Author.

46.

Virginia Commonwealth University. (2015). Virginia Commonwealth University Commonwealth Education Poll. Richmond, VA: Author.

47.

Wiecko

F. M.

(2010). Assessing the validity of college samples: Are students really that different? Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1186–1190.