Mandatory Reporting of Domestic Violence: What Do Abuse Survivors Think and What Variables Influence Those Opinions?

Abstract

For decades, states have passed legislation to mandate reporting of criminal conduct and the abuse of vulnerable persons. Four types of mandatory reporting laws have been enacted, including laws that require reports of injuries associated with crime or due to use of certain weapons, abuse of children, abuse of vulnerable adults, and reporting of domestic violence. While studies have been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of mandatory reporting laws in domestic violence cases, methodological weaknesses in this body of literature make it difficult to make broad statements about whether mandatory reporting laws advance women’s protection or actually place them at additional risk. This study’s sample is based on 388 surveys administered in-person to women who had sought services from one of Kentucky’s 15 regional domestic violence shelters. In addition to querying women regarding their own experience with mandatory reporting laws, the survey explored the factors that influenced women’s views. The study advances research into women’s decisions to access shelters, medical, or mental health services and how they are influenced by advance knowledge that their case would be reported if they disclosed abuse. A new and troubling finding was that almost two in five women reported they would have been less likely to contact a domestic violence shelter if they knew in advance that a mandatory report would be made. Future research on mandatory reporting is needed with an eye toward changing state policies and laws to ensure that women feel free to seek the type of assistance they need for themselves and their children.

Keywords

domestic violence disclosure of domestic violence battered women

Over the past decades, states across the nation have passed legislation to mandate the reporting of criminal conduct and the reporting of abuse of vulnerable persons. The purpose of these laws has been twofold: public or community safety, or the protection of specific individuals who are limited in their ability to care for themselves. To meet both goals, four types of mandatory reporting legislation have been enacted by states, including laws that require reporting of (a) injuries associated with the commission of a crime or resulting from use of a specific type of weapon; (b) abuse, neglect, or exploitation of children; (c) abuse, neglect, or exploitation of vulnerable adults; and (d) domestic violence or sexual assault.

In the early 1940s, states began to enact mandatory reporting legislation that required reporting to law enforcement, generally by health care providers, of injuries associated with a crime or injuries resulting from use of a weapon (e.g., gun or knife; hereinafter called crime-injury reporting laws). By 2016, 46 states had enacted crime-injury reporting laws with the goal of identifying patterns of crime and preventing or reducing crime exposure in communities.

In an effort to protect individuals perceived to be at risk of harm, states also enacted abuse-related reporting laws that focused on the protection of individuals rather than a broader community. Between 1963 and 1967, all 50 states adopted some form of child protection statutes (e.g., Meyers, 2008), and the 1970s saw creation of laws to improve state responses for vulnerable adults who by virtue of age or physical or mental disability were unable to care for themselves (e.g., Teaster, 2000). The concept of mandating reports of abuse against children or vulnerable adults was predicated on two notions: that certain persons are unable to protect themselves from abuse, neglect, or exploitation; and that states should play a role in investigating and subsequently providing protective services to those in need (Jordan, 2014).

Beginning in the 1970s, states without crime-injury reporting laws passed stand-alone mandatory reporting for cases of domestic violence (Kentucky in 1978; Oklahoma in 2005). The purposes behind enactment of mandatory reporting laws in application to domestic violence cases were different than other mandatory reporting laws. They included (1) to aid battered women in seeking protection from abusive partners without the burden of having to make the report themselves when fear of retribution or shame kept them from doing so; (b) to increase the involvement of law enforcement in cases of domestic violence when women themselves may be reluctant to make a report; (c) to send a signal to offenders that violent behavior against family members violated a community standard and would not be tolerated; and (d) to collect data on the size of the problem of domestic violence within a state’s borders (Chalk & King, 1998; Durborow, Lizdas, O’Flaherty, & Marjavi, 2013; Glass & Campbell, 1998; Gupta, 2007; Koziol-McLain & Campbell, 2001; Sachs, Peek, Baraff, & Hasselblad, 1998).

Evaluation of Mandatory Reporting Laws on Victims of Domestic Violence

Exploring the impact of mandatory reporting laws on victims of domestic violence has presented a challenge because studies are not comparing the exact same laws. If a woman discloses domestic violence in one of the two states with stand-alone domestic violence reporting laws, the disclosure shall be reported to one of two kinds of agencies: the state’s adult protective services agency or a law enforcement agency. In Oklahoma, reports to law enforcement are mandated except under two conditions: the victim is above age 18 and the victim is not an incapacitated adult. Reports to law enforcement are required under Oklahoma law if the victim requests in writing or orally that a report be made. Arguably, Kentucky has had the most robust mandatory reporting law in the country because it has required “any person” who knows or suspects domestic violence to make a report to the state protective services agency.¹ More indirectly, if battered women suffer injuries inflicted by their violent partners through the use of weapons (e.g., guns) or are treated in a health care setting for assaults, strangulation, or related criminal offenses, their injuries may fall under the crime-injury reporting law of a state (e.g., Glass & Campbell, 1998; Glass, Dearwater, & Campbell, 2001; Gupta, 2007; Houry, Feldhaus, Thorson, & Abbott, 1999; Rodriguez, Sheldon, & Rao, 2002). While this may relate more to the type of injury rather than to the cause (i.e., domestic violence), specific language about domestic violence can be found in the laws of two states with crime-injury reporting laws (California, Colorado). Given the differences in state laws, some studies have explored stand-alone domestic violence reporting laws (Kentucky and Oklahoma); others evaluate crime-injury reporting laws with specific inclusionary language for domestic violence (California and Colorado); and still others consider crime-injury reporting laws that apply to domestic violence because they have suffered certain types of wounds or are a victim of crime (e.g., gunshot wound). Conducting this study in Kentucky offered unique clarity in that domestic violence victims can expect to be subject to mandatory reporting under all circumstances because “any person” shall make a report if they know or suspect domestic violence, and there has been no exception based on a victim’s competency or express wishes.

There is also a gap in the current literature because, with a few notable exceptions, samples are drawn heavily from health care sites. As a result, these are women who are already in the service system having voluntarily reached out for help. These studies also do not generally differentiate between abused women who are seeking care for abuse-related injuries versus other health concerns; and most do not make clear whether a woman’s opinion about mandatory reporting comes from having had her case reported, or just from her perception of what that would be like. Another potentially conflicting variable is that several of the studies in hospital or other health care settings query women about universal screening in addition to mandatory reporting. Arguably, conflation of these two areas could influence the outcome of women’s opinions. For example, if a woman participating in a study appreciated having her physician ask a question about domestic violence (and hence felt positively about mandatory screening protocols), that might influence her point of view about mandatory reporting which is significantly different. Finally, of the studies that explore women’s views, most do not adequately identify the factors influencing those opinions.

The majority of research that has evaluated the impact of mandatory reporting laws has asked three primary questions: does the presence of mandatory reporting laws increase reports to law enforcement by health care professionals; what are the views of health care professionals regarding laws that require them to report a patient who is a victim of domestic violence; and what opinions do victims themselves hold of these laws. As to the first question, the limited research available on this specific topic found that the mandatory domestic violence reporting law did not increase medical personnel reporting of domestic violence sheriff’s department, leading the authors to opine, “We interpret this result to show that the mandatory law requiring medical professionals to report physical domestic violence to law enforcement officials has been ineffective in increasing medical personnel referral. . .” (Sachs et al., 1998, p. 491). One factor that could influence that outcome is that not all physicians report being aware that such a mandate exists. For example, Rodriguez, McLoughlin, Bauer, Paredes, and Grumbach (1999) reported that 61% to 86% of physicians in California were aware of their statutory obligation to report injuries associated with domestic violence to law enforcement, leaving 14% to 39% without awareness of the law.

As to the opinions of physicians, views vary. In one study, 53% to 85% of the practicing emergency, family, and internal medicine physicians believed that mandatory reporting laws could decrease the likelihood that women would seek medical care, provoke retaliation from an offender, or compromise confidentiality and autonomy (Rodriguez et al., 1999). Roughly the same percentage, however, also reported that these policies could increase recognition and responsiveness to domestic violence in the health care setting and increase documentation of injuries in medical records.

The majority of evaluation studies on mandatory reporting has explored the views of women generally and abuse survivors specifically. Typically, support for mandatory reporting was stronger among women who have not experienced abuse, but many studies find that a narrow majority of abused women impacted by mandatory reporting are also supportive of these laws. For example, in one emergency room study in California, 55.7% of women in the study supported mandatory reporting (Rodriguez, McLoughlin, Nah, & Campbell, 2001). However, Rodriguez et al. (2002) led a study with 358 women in California and found that while most women supported some form of reporting to police, the majority (68%) did not endorse a domestic violence reporting mandate if it was against the wishes of a patient.

Coulter and Chez (1997) conducted a study with 45 women receiving services in a community outreach program for victims of domestic violence. After being told about the mandatory reporting law, a number of women said that reporting would help them (e.g., 53% said it would teach the offender how serious abuse is; 44% thought it would make the offender get help). When asked whether there would be any negative effect, nearly half (49%) felt that it would make their partner angrier, and 31% said it would make their partner abuse them more. That same finding was reported in another study where almost half (45%) of the abused women reported that they would be at greater risk for violence from their partner if they were subject to a mandatory reporting law (Malecha et al., 2000).

Another important finding of the Coulter and Chez study was that victims were more likely to support a mandatory reporting law if it was applied to someone else, not to them. Sachs, Koziol-McLain, Glass, Webster, and Campbell (2002) found that abused women were significantly less supportive of mandatory reporting than are nonabused women. Finally, in a study involving 202 abused women and 240 randomly selected nonabused women, Gielen et al. (2000) found that while 92% of nonabused women agreed with mandatory reporting to police, fewer of the currently abused (76%) and recently abused (82%) women did so. Glass et al. (2001) conducted a study of women served in 11 community hospital emergency departments in Pennsylvania (a crime-injury reporting state with an exception for reporting domestic violence) and California and found that while the majority of women agreed with the concept of health care providers making reports to law enforcement, the abused women in the study were significantly less likely to support these laws.

The Gielen et al. (2000) study replicated some of the findings of earlier studies on women’s views of mandatory reporting. For example, over half (52%) of the women expressed concerns about an increased risk of abuse with reporting and almost half (48%) of the women preferred that it be the woman’s decision to report abuse to the police. Finally, women thought it would be easier for abused women to get help with mandatory reporting (73%).

A number of studies have queried women as to whether the presence of a mandatory reporting law would influence the likelihood of them reaching out to a physician for care. Of women who oppose mandatory reporting, 40% to 60% say they would not disclose violence to their health care provider if they knew that a mandatory reporting law existed (Gielen et al., 2000; Hayden, Barton, & Hayden, 1997; Smith, 2000), and in the first study to use a focus group format to assess the opinions of abuse survivors, researchers found that many of the 61 women in the study believed that even if their doctors had asked them about abuse, they would not have disclosed the abuse if they had known that this information would not be kept confidential (Sullivan & Hagan, 2005). Participants in the study also perceived a severe risk to their safety if they were to tell anyone about the violence. In addition, in the Coulter and Chez study referenced above, only about half of the women in the study said they would have gone to a physician if they knew that the physician would have to report the abuse. Not all studies report that same finding, however. Houry et al. (1999) conducted a study in Colorado (a crime-injury reporting state inclusive of domestic violence reporting mandate under certain circumstances) with a sample of men and women and found that only 12% of patients stated that they would be less likely to seek medical care for an injury associated with domestic violence because of this law (15% of men and 9% of women).

A qualitative study done in Kentucky (historically a stand-alone domestic violence reporting law state in which reports are made to the state’s adult protective services agency) by Antle, Barbee, Yankeelov, and Bledsoe (2010) found that women expressed both positive and negative views of the mandatory reporting law. Almost one third of the 24 women in the study indicated they wanted the right to prevent a report from being made. Also of concern, 21% said that their violent partners had intercepted the initial contact from the state protective services agency, and an additional 21% said that their husbands found out later.

In a policy review of the implications of mandatory reporting on nurses, Glass and Campbell (1998) opined that “abused women are at risk for revictimization by the system when a report is made without her consent to a criminal justice system that may be overburdened and underfunded” (p. 281). Similarly, another policy paper argued that mandatory reporting is paternalistic and disempowering to battered women. The authors argue that women themselves are in the best position to judge the risk implications of having the policy involved in their lives (Koziol-McLain & Campbell, 2001).

In summary, the extant literature reveals varying views on mandatory reporting among health care providers and abused women. While a larger number of studies report that physicians do not support mandatory reporting, at least one study found physicians expressing the view that reporting could increase the responsiveness to domestic violence in the health care setting. Similarly, among women, views of mandatory reporting are not consistent. In some studies, approximately half of women express concerns about increased risk from abusive partners, and almost half said they prefer that it be the woman’s decision to report abuse to the police. Positive comments on the law have come from some women who thought it would be easier to get help with mandatory reporting.

Current Study

The current study’s primary aims are to (a) seek the views of women related to a state’s mandatory reporting law, (b) identify factors that influence women’s opinions regarding mandatory reporting, and (c) offer recommendations to advance research and allow its findings to influence mandatory reporting policies found within state laws. In contrast to prior research that has investigated women’s view of mandatory reporting from either a health care setting (where women may be presenting with more serious injuries, or where surveys may conflate universal screening with mandatory reporting) or a general population of women (who may or may not have any direct experience with domestic violence or mandatory reporting), this study, because it was based in domestic violence programs (shelters), surveyed a population that was likely to be more inclusive of the types of women who would likely be impacted by mandatory reporting laws.

Method

This study was conducted in a state that historically required “any person” to make reports of domestic violence rather than limiting the requirement to health care practitioners. When passed by the legislature in 1978, the law used the term “spouse” meaning that it historically applied only to heterosexual couples (the 1998 General Assembly solidified that application when they passed a law defining marriage to include a husband and a wife. That legislation was overturned in 2015 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hoes, and subsequently by the H.R. 2976 Marriage Equality Act of 2015 passed by the 114th Congress). For the purposes of the statute, domestic violence is defined to mean “the infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment resulting in physical harm or pain, including mental injury” (KRS 209A.020(6)). The state reporting law includes a list of what information should be included in a report.

Reports in Kentucky are made to the state’s adult protective services agency (Cabinet for Health and Family Services, called the Department for Community-Based Services or Cabinet for the purpose of this article) which is statutorily required to contact the victim “immediately” and to offer services to that individual. The law provides no exception to reporting, even if a victim requests that a report not be made, but victims do not have to accept the state’s services after a report has been received by the Cabinet. In addition to making efforts to contact a woman, the Cabinet shares the reports they receive with local law enforcement.

The study is based on 388 surveys administered in-person to women who have sought services from one of Kentucky’s 15 regional domestic violence shelters. The diversity of the survey population was limited by the population of women served by the state’s domestic violence programs (this fact is included as a weakness of this study outlined in the “Limitations” section. All available demographic measures are presented in detail in Table 1). Of the 388 women surveyed, the majority were White (82.7%) or African American (9.0%), which is roughly consistent with the overall 2010 U.S. Census data for Kentucky (87.8% and 7.8%, respectively). The mean age of women in the survey was approximately 35 years old, and about half (49.0%) had at least one child currently living in their home with them. The majority were unemployed (59.5%) or on disability (12.4%), and over half had a high school diploma (56.2%) or less (14.2%).

Table 1.

Demographics.

Variable	M	SD
Age	35.2	10.4
Number of children	2.2	1.4
Number of children in home	1.0	1.3
Variable	n	%
Children in home
Yes	190	49.0
No	198	51.0
Race/ethnicity
White	321	82.7
Black/African American	35	9.0
American Indian/Pacific Islander	4	1.0
Hispanic	15	3.9
Mixed Race/Other/Don’t Know	13	3.4
Education
Postcollege	14	3.6
College	91	23.5
Some college	6	1.5
High school/General Equivalency Diploma	218	56.2
Less than high school	55	14.2
Don’t know/refused	4	1.0
Employment
Employed	109	28.1
Not employed	231	59.5
Disability	48	12.4
Relationship status
Single	166	42.8
Single, living with partner	26	6.7
Married	43	11.1
Married, but separated	90	23.2
Divorced	50	12.9
Widowed	11	2.8
Don’t know/refused	2	0.6

The study was institutional review board (IRB)–approved and administered through a partnership with the Kentucky Coalition Against Domestic Violence by staff in local domestic violence shelters. The data in this study draw upon a statewide sample of women seeking services from domestic violence programs (shelters). Women in the study generally arrived at a domestic violence program in one of three ways: by referral from other professionals (e.g., therapist, physician) who have already, as required by law, made a report to the Cabinet; by referral from the Cabinet, so their cases have already been reported to the Cabinet by the time the women have contact with the domestic violence program; and by contacting the domestic violence program on their own to seek shelter, advocacy, or counseling. If a survivor contacts the domestic violence program, the law is explained and women can choose either to disclose their identification or to receive services over the phone without providing identifying information.

Procedures

Authors provided all staff in domestic violence programs who administered the survey with three pages of in-depth written instructions. The instructions included provisions related to privacy, confidentiality, security of completed surveys, anonymity, voluntariness, and actions to be taken if a respondent were to become anxious or otherwise upset by answering the questions in the survey. The paper survey forms were filled out using pen and paper by the participants, with an advocate available to help only if a participant were distressed by the questionnaire. No information was provided to the authors regarding participation rates or time-to-completion for surveys. Once completed, program staff submitted the anonymous survey forms to the researchers in envelopes provided by the research team. The team then entered responses into a data file for analysis using IBM’s SPSS software (research materials related to study may be accessed by contacting the corresponding author).

Measures

While the survey used in the study did not use standardized measures, questions were organized around six constructs: injuries sustained, prior services used, prior experiences with reporting, what happened to women following a report, opinions about mandatory reporting, and the influence of mandatory reporting on help-seeking. Most items on the eight-page paper questionnaire were closed-ended, multiple choice (or multiple response) questions, typically with an open-ended option for “other” responses.

Injuries sustained and prior reporting

Along with demographic information presented in Table 1, the surveys asked participating women to provide information on their experiences with abuse and the services they had used after experiencing abuse. It also asked women to provide their opinions on providers’ requirement to report abuse to the Cabinet. Key variables used in the analysis included whether or not they had suffered any domestic violence injuries and whether or not their own case had been reported to the Cabinet. Measures for these items asked, “Please think back to the most severe violence you have suffered. Did you or someone else call the Department for Community-Based Services (i.e., Cabinet)?” with response options yes, no, or I don’t know, and “Please think back to the most severe violence you have suffered. Were you physically injured during the incident?” with response options yes or no. These two items, demographic measures, and the previously discussed provider-specific questions were used in creating the model discussed in the results below.

What happened to women following a report

Women were given several alternatives from which to select, including the social worker contacted me and asked if I wanted services; the social worker explained my legal rights; the social worker opened a case about my children; or I was never contacted by a social worker after the report was made. Following those multiple alternatives, women were provided an open-ended option for “other” responses.

Opinions about mandatory reporting

Survey items were presented in the format detailed in Table 2 for provider-specific (doctor or nurse, therapist or counselor, a domestic violence program) mandatory reporting opinion questions. For each set, follow-up questions to more/less likely responses were asked, offering different follow-up options for each response. Specifically, the question read “If you said more likely to tell, why?” with response options including “If I tell my doctor or nurse and a report is then made to the Cabinet/Department, I believed. . . (mark all that apply):

Table 2.

Impact That Knowledge of Mandatory Reporting Would Have on Decision to Seek Shelter Services, or Tell Health/Mental Health Providers About Abuse Experiences.

	n	%
If you knew in advance that a domestic violence program or shelter where you are staying or from which you are receiving services would report your case to the Department of Community-Based Services would you be
more likely to call or go to domestic violence program	115	.324
no impact on decision	100	.282
less likely to call or go to domestic violence program	140	.394
If you knew in advance that your doctor or nurse would report your case to the Cabinet for Health and Family Services/Department for Community-Based Services, would you be
more likely to tell medical provider about abuse	91	.288
no impact on decision	24	.076
less likely to tell medical provider about abuse	201	.636
If you knew in advance that your therapist or counselor would report your case to the Cabinet for Health and Family Services/Department for Community-Based Services, would you be
more likely to tell mental health provider about abuse	109	.343
no impact on decision	19	.06
less likely to tell mental health provider about abuse	190	.597

a. I would receive more services

b. I would receive more protection

c. It would take away the burden of deciding whether or not to report

d. It would make a public statement that what my abusive partner is doing is wrong

e. Other (please describe).”

For the “less likely to tell” option, possible responses included “I’m afraid my partner would find out and would be very angry,” “I’m afraid my partner would find out and I would be in danger,” “I’m afraid my kids would be taken away from me,” “I’m afraid there might be harmful consequences for me or my family such as my partner losing a job,” or “Other (please describe).”

Overall opinions about mandatory reporting

Participants were also asked a question to solicit an overall opinion about mandatory reporting. It read, “In general, how would you describe your opinion about laws that require reporting of domestic violence to the Department for Community-Based Services?” Response options included the following: I’m in favor of the mandatory reporting law and think it should be used with all women; I am in favor of the mandatory reporting law for other women, but I don’t want my situation reported to the Department for Community-Based Services; I think domestic violence should be reported to the Department for Community-Based Services only if an abused woman asks for that; I am against the law that mandates the reporting of domestic violence to the Department for Community-Based Services; I don’t know; and Other (please describe).

Results

Influence of Reporting Requirement on Help-Seeking

This first aim of this study was to elicit the views of women who have had direct experiences with service providers who are legally mandated to report domestic violence to the state protective services agency (the Cabinet for Health and Family Services/Department for Community-Based Services). To understand the views of women being served by a domestic violence program, they were first asked whether or not foreknowledge of a mandatory reporting requirement would have impacted their decision to seek the domestic violence program services they were currently receiving. Almost 36% of women reported that they would be “less likely” to call or go to a domestic violence program knowing that there would be a report made to the Cabinet (Table 2).

Women were also asked if knowing in advance about the mandatory reporting law would have impacted the likelihood of accessing services from a physician, nurse, or therapist. In the case of those professionals, written informed consent procedures generally mean the disclosure of domestic violence comes only after a client or patient has already be given the legal ground rules related to reporting, unless a client or patient has forgotten that implication. With that backdrop, knowing about mandatory reporting requirements still had an extremely chilling effect on whether or not these women would talk to either health or mental health providers about their abuse (see Table 2). For 63.6% of the women surveyed, mandatory reporting requirements would make them less likely to disclose abuse to a doctor or nurse while only 28.8% said knowledge of a mandatory reporting requirement would make them more likely to disclose. The trend is similar for disclosing abuse to therapist or counselors, with 59.7% endorsing that mandatory reporting would make them less likely to talk about their abuse, and 34.3% saying they would be more likely to discuss abuse.

In addition to these context-specific questions about mandatory reporting, women in the sample were also asked their general view of whether or not there should be a mandatory reporting law. At the end of the survey, participants were asked, “What is your opinion about laws that require reporting of domestic violence to the Department for Community-Based Services?” Of the 367 valid responses to this item, the most common response was that domestic violence should only be reported to the State with the consent of the victim (36.2%; n = 133). The second most common response was more supportive of mandatory reporting with 35.7% (n = 131) indicating support for mandatory reporting in all cases. Only 7.1% (n = 26) opposed mandatory reporting outright and 12.3% (n = 45) responded, “I don’t know.” A small proportion of women agreed with mandatory reporting requirements for other women, but did not believe it was right for their own case (8.7%; n = 32). When aggregated, only 35.7% (n = 131) of women indicated support for the current law, while 52.0% (n = 191) preferred at least some changes to mandatory reporting requirements like giving a woman the right to refuse to have a report made, and 12.3% (n = 45) were unsure.

What Happened to Women After a Mandatory Report Was Made

Women in the study reported that 54% of the time a mandated report was made by the domestic violence program, and 77.8% of reports were made by law enforcement (women could endorse more than one option). Women were given six options from which to choose, followed by an open-ended item so women could write anything that was relevant to them. Responses from the women included that a (Cabinet) social worker contacted them (11.3%), the social worker referred them to other services or agencies (11.3%), that the social worker explained their legal rights (6.4%), and a few women (4.6%) said they were never contacted by the Cabinet. Evidencing a connection between domestic violence and child protection, a number of women said the response to the report was that the social worker opened a child protection case about their children (12.4%). The most common response from women was that their case had never been reported (19.8%). This may reflect that the law in operation at the time did not require that mandated reporters tell a woman when a report was made.

Factors Associated With Women’s Views of Mandatory Reporting

To address this study’s second aim, namely to identify factors that influence women’s views of the mandatory reporting of domestic violence, further analysis was conducted in the way of a comparison between the 35.7% of women who supported the current mandatory reporting law (n = 131) and those who did not (n = 191), excluding those participants with no opinion. A nominal logistic regression model was created to estimate the odds of supporting the current mandatory reporting law among women in the survey. The model considered key study variables as possible predictors: whether or not the participant was personally aware of her own case having been reported to the Cabinet (n = 90, 23.2% were aware of a Cabinet report), whether or not the participant experienced injuries (n = 313, 80.7% reported injuries), and the woman’s opinion on whether or not foreknowledge of mandatory reporting would impact her likelihood of discussing abuse when going to a domestic violence program, doctor, nurse, or therapist. Control variables included participant’s age, the number of children living in her home, the participant’s race (White/non-White), the participant’s education level (high school or less/some college or more), and the participant’s relationship status (married/non-married), which are available in Table 1. Control variables were converted to binary to preserve model integrity relative to sample size and to reduce the overall number of variables considered in the model. The results of the model are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Nominal Logistic Regression Model for Support of Mandatory Reporting Law (Change or Oppose Law as Reference Group).

Independent Variable	B (SE)	Significant	Exp B (CI)
Study variables
Aware of a report to Cabinet in their own case
Aware of report	−0.154 (.476)	.747	0.858 [0.337, 2.180]
Not sure	0.415 (.550)	.450	1.515 [0.515, 4.453]
Experienced injury in most severe DV incident	0.978 (.538)	.066	2.684 [0.936, 7.700]
Opinion about talking to shelter if mandatory reporting
More likely to discuss	1.466 (.551)	.008	4.332 [1.472, 12.749]
No impact on decision	0.608 (.533)	.254	1.837 [0.646, 5.225]
Opinion about talking to doctor if mandatory reporting
More likely to discuss	0.654 (.578)	.258	1.923 [0.619, 5.976]
No impact on decision	−1.035 (.937)	.269	0.355 [0.057, 2.229]
Opinion about talking to therapist if mandatory reporting
More likely to discuss	2.104 (.532)	.000	8.201 [2.890, 23.273]
No impact on decision	2.127 (.945)	.024	8.338 [1.316, 53.483]
Control variables
Age	0.022 (.017)	.191	1.023 [0.989, 1.058]
Number of children in home	0.066 (.149)	.656	1.069 [0.798, 1.432]
Race (White)	0.680 (.536)	.205	1.973 [0.690, 5.639]
Education (HS or less)	−0.650 (.409)	.112	0.522 [0.234, 1.164]
Relationship status (married)	0.303 (.383)	.430	1.354 [0.639, 2.870]

Note. Reference groups for nominal study variables are “no” category (e.g., not aware, not injured) or “less likely” category (less likely to discuss); reference group for control variables are non-White (race), more than HS education (education), and not married (relationship). Chi-square (14) is 120.74 and is significant at .000. Nagelkerke pseudo R² for model is .527. CI = confidence interval; HS = high school.

The model found that the only significant and influential factors in predicting a woman’s support for the current mandatory reporting law were her personal opinions about whether or not to talk to certain service providers about her abuse experiences. Women who believe that foreknowledge of a mandatory reporting requirement would make them more likely to discuss their abuse with shelter staff were 4.3 times more likely to support the current mandatory reporting law than were women who indicated that mandatory reporting would make them less likely to discuss abuse with shelter personnel. Likewise, women who believed that foreknowledge of a mandatory reporting requirement by therapists or counselors would make them more likely to discuss abuse with their mental health provider were 8.2 times more likely to support the current mandatory reporting law compared with those for whom foreknowledge of mandatory reporting would make less likely to discuss abuse with a mental health provider. Similarly, those who expressed that foreknowledge of mandatory reporting by a therapist or counselor would have “no impact” on their decision were 8.3 times more likely to support the current law compared with the less likely to discuss group.

Interestingly, women’s opinions on the impact that foreknowledge of mandatory reporting requirements would have on their decisions to discuss abuse with a doctor or nurse were not significant predictors of a woman’s views on the mandatory reporting law in general. This result remained consistent and nonsignificant even when presence of injury was not controlled for in the model (the model was run for comparison purposes, but will not be reported here due to negligible differences). Women whose foreknowledge of mandatory reporting would have no impact on their decision to discuss abuse with shelter personnel were also not significantly more likely to support the current mandatory law. Taken together, these results suggest that support for a universal mandatory reporting law is perhaps limited to those who would be encouraged and more likely to report to a shelter or therapist knowing that additional resources from the State would result; however, women’s medical decision making appears to be independent of their views on mandatory reporting. This result might indicate that seeking medical treatment is something that these women consider independently of shelter or mental health services when seeking help for abuse.

Discussion

The study’s primary aim was to explore the views of mandatory reporting among women exposed to domestic violence. It is important to note that over half of the extant empirical literature relies on studies based in the 1990s, making this study a contribution simply in that it provides more current data. We also chose to extend beyond health care settings by selecting as study participants 388 women who had been served through the state’s domestic violence shelters. Because the state’s mandatory reporting law has historically placed the responsibility to report on shelter staff as well as all other providers, this helped to ensure that the views of all women in the study would more likely derive from a direct experience with a domestic violence reporting law.

The study’s second aim was to expand the current literature beyond women’s views of mandatory reporting to explore factors that influence those opinions. First, findings from this study are different than earlier studies that report that just over half of women support the law (e.g., Rodriguez et al., 2001, found 55.7%). This study found a lower 35.7%. This finding may result from the fact that participants in our study, because of the nature of this state’s mandatory reporting law, were more likely to have had direct experience with having their case reported; an experience that arguably influenced their views. This is particularly important when considering the study’s most important finding, that women were less likely to reach out for help if they anticipated that a mandatory report would be made. Each of those women had had contact with the state’s reporting system prior to expressing that view. Relatedly, it is also important to note that while all cases were reported as required by law, few survivors knew that a report was made or were contacted by a state social worker. Finally, it is noteworthy that in this study a majority of women did not approve of the mandatory reporting law, proportionately similar to the findings of Rodriguez et al. (2002) when a patient’s wishes were not considered in the mandate.

There are several factors that may have influenced women’s impressions, including that a report was made but they were unaware of it, because, as noted, nothing in Kentucky law requires a professional to tell a victim that he or she has made a report to the Cabinet. It is also possible that no report was made through an omission on the part of a professional even though there is a disincentive for not reporting in the statute, as failure to report is a Class B Misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail (KRS 532.090) and a US$250 fine (KRS 534.040). Finally, in some local communities, if a woman is referred to a domestic violence program, even if they have received a report, the Cabinet does not feel their follow-up is necessary because the woman is in a protected environment where she can access counseling, assistance with getting civil orders of protection, and other services.

Building on earlier studies, our study also explored whether or not foreknowledge of a mandatory reporting requirement impacts women’s decisions to seek services. The comparative model referenced above found that the only significant factor in predicting a woman’s views of mandatory reporting laws was her personal opinion about whether or not to talk to service providers about her abuse experiences. In short, women who believe that foreknowledge of a mandatory reporting requirement would make them more likely to discuss their abuse with shelter services or therapists were more likely to support a mandatory reporting law than women who reported that mandatory reporting would make them less likely to discuss abuse. Interestingly, women’s medical decision making appears to be independent of their views on mandatory reporting. This finding is especially relevant in contextualizing the results of previous studies which were largely based on emergency room samples, as this study found that the experiences of women in other service contexts (e.g., domestic violence shelter, mental health counseling) impact their view on mandatory reporting policies.

A new and troubling finding is that almost two in five women reported that they would have been less likely to call or go to a domestic violence program knowing that there would be a report made. These data show that even in a sample of women who had determined their circumstances to be serious enough to be seeking shelter services, concerns about mandatory reporting requirements had a severely negative impact on their views toward seeking basic shelter assistance. Future research should explore this finding further, including analyzing whether the presence of children in the home impacts a woman’s decision to reach out to a shelter or her views of the mandatory reporting laws. Future research should also use standardized measures to allow for better comparison across studies.

Limitations

While this study provides important contributions as described above, it also has several limitations that should be noted when interpreting these results. The findings of this research study are limited, in part, by reflecting the views of women in only one state. We consider the clarity of Kentucky’s domestic violence reporting law in existence at the time of the study to be a methodological strength, but at the same time, it necessarily limits its generalizability to other states and jurisdictions. While this study is representative of the racial and ethnic population proportions in Kentucky, the lack of diversity in this state is another limitation to the study’s generalizability. The fixed study population of women in shelter meant we were limited to which women were in shelter at the time of the administration of the study, and it precluded our ability to oversample certain populations. Additional exploration is needed in other states where statutes are slightly different, and with more diverse populations of women by race, ethnicity, poverty, physical and mental health status, and other factors. It is likely that mandatory reporting laws will be perceived very differently by women with different social backgrounds in places with histories of different kinds of institutionalized discrimination. Similarly, as the study only assessed women in shelter, we did not have the ability to ask this same question of abuse survivors who chose not to go to a shelter, maybe precisely because they did not want to lose control over their case being reported.

There was also not a standardized measure used in the study and there could have been other questions asked of survivors that better predicted their opinions regarding mandatory reporting. Finally, the survey did not directly clarify with the women whether they knew about the mandatory reporting law prior to arriving at the shelter and if they did know, whether and how it influenced their decision about help-seeking. Teasing out any differences between women who definitively did or did not know about the law prior to reaching out for help would have been a helpful addition to the study, and because that differentiation does not exist in other studies either, this would also be a useful addition for future research.

Conclusion

The primary aims of this study were to seek the views of women related to a state’s mandatory reporting law, identify factors that influence women’s opinions regarding mandatory reporting, and offer recommendations to improve state laws and policies. This study identified key ways in which mandatory reporting depressed help-seeking behaviors among the study sample. Among new and troubling findings was that almost two in five women reported they would have been less likely to contact a domestic violence shelter if they knew in advance that a mandatory report would be made.

However, because study results cannot ascertain whether foreknowledge about mandatory reporting was the singular reason for not wanting to disclose abuse or whether other factors were also an influence, future research should drill more deeply into all the factors that depress help-seeking and to identify which have the most powerful influence.

Future research should also play a part in evaluating the effectiveness of mandatory reporting laws with an eye toward changing state policies and laws to ensure that women do feel free to seek the type of assistance they need for themselves and their children. Findings from this and other studies reveal that one of the factors that can impact a woman’s opinion about mandatory reporting is whether they believe that a report would increase the risk to which they are exposed. States could consider following the path taken by Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, or Tennessee to exempt victims of domestic violence from their reporting laws, or Oklahoma where reports are made only when a competent adult asks orally or in writing that they be made.

While Kentucky was the first state to institute mandatory reporting in application to domestic violence cases, findings from this study, coupled with the anecdotal experiences of Kentucky’s domestic violence programs, led to the drafting of legislation that amended Kentucky’s mandatory reporting law. That legislation did not repeal the statute, instead it amended the duties that fall on professionals to include mandatory education (e.g., how to get a protective order) and referral (to a domestic violence program or rape crisis center). Other states should use the findings of this and similar studies to reconsider legislative policies on mandatory reporting.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

Author Biographies

Carol E. Jordan is executive director of the University of Kentucky Office for Policy Studies on Violence Against Women. She holds faculty appointments in the Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry. She has co-authored three books, eight book chapters, and over 40 academic manuscripts focusing on civil and criminal justice issues related to rape, domestic violence, and stalking; the victimization of college women; and the history of legislative reform on violence against women. She has over 35 years of experience in legislative advocacy, public policy, and research. She has been recognized by numerous national and state advocacy and criminal justice groups and academic institutions.

Adam J. Pritchard is the senior survey researcher at College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR). He earned his PhD in sociology in 2012 from the University of Kentucky where he also served as research coordinator for the Center for Research on Violence Against Women. Before coming to CUPA-HR, he was tenure-track faculty at the University of Central Florida. His research on violence against women is focused on campus safety and domestic violence. He has designed or collaborated on over a dozen research studies, written more than 30 peer-reviewed journal articles or technical reports, and presented at numerous conferences or invited talks on these subjects.

References

Antle

B. F.

Barbee

A. P.

Yankeelov

P. A.

Bledsoe

L. K.

(2010). Qualitative evaluation of the effects of mandatory reporting of domestic violence on victims and their children. Journal of Family Social Work, 13, 56-73.

Chalk

King

P. A.

(Eds.). (1998). Violence in families: Assessing prevention and treatment programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Coulter

M. L.

Chez

R. A.

(1997). Domestic violence victims support mandatory reporting: For others. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 349-356.

Durborow

M. A.

Lizdas

K. C.

O’Flaherty

Marjavi

(2013). Compendium of state and U.S. territory statutes and policies on domestic violence and health care. San Francisco, CA: Futures Without Violence.

Gielen

A. C.

O’Campo

P. J.

Campbell

J. C.

Schollenberger

Woods

A. B.

Jones

A. S.

. . . Wynne

E. C.

(2000). Women’s opinions about domestic violence screening and mandatory reporting. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19, 279-285.

Glass

Campbell

J. C.

(1998). Mandatory reporting of intimate partner violence by healthcare professionals: A policy review. Nursing Outlook, 46, 279-283.

Glass

Dearwater

Campbell

J. C.

(2001). Intimate partner violence screening and intervention: Data from eleven Pennsylvania and California community hospital emergency departments. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 27, 141-149.

Gupta

(2007). Mandatory reporting laws and the emergency physician. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 49, 369-376.

Hayden

S. R.

Barton

E. D.

Hayden

(1997). Domestic violence in the emergency department: How do women prefer to disclose and discuss the issues? The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 15, 447-451.

10.

Houry

Feldhaus

Thorson

A. C.

Abbott

(1999). Mandatory reporting laws do not deter patients from seeking medical care. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 34, 336-341.

11.

Jordan

C. E.

(2014). Violence against women in Kentucky: A history of U.S. and state legislative reforms. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

12.

Koziol-McLain

Campbell

J. C.

(2001). Universal screening and mandatory reporting: An update on two important issues for victims/survivors of intimate partner violence. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 27, 602-606.

13.

Malecha

A. T.

Lemmy

McFarlane

Willson

Fredland

Gist

Schultz

(2000). Mandatory reporting of intimate partner violence: Safety or retaliatory abuse for women? Journal of Women’s Health & Gender-Based Medicine, 9, 75-78.

14.

Meyers

J. E. B.

(2008). A short history of child protection in America. Family Law Quarterly, 42, 449-463.

15.

Rodriguez

M. A.

McLoughlin

Bauer

H. M.

Paredes

Grumbach

(1999). Mandatory reporting of intimate partner violence to police: Views of physicians in California. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 575-578.

16.

Rodriguez

M. A.

McLoughlin

Nah

Campbell

J. C.

(2001). Mandatory reporting of domestic violence injuries to the police: What do emergency department patients think? Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 580-583.

17.

Rodriguez

M. A.

Sheldon

W. R.

Rao

(2002). Abused patient’s attitudes about mandatory reporting of intimate partner abuse injuries to police. Women & Health, 35, 135-147.

18.

Sachs

C. J.

Koziol-McLain

Glass

Webster

Campbell

(2002). A population-based survey assessing support for mandatory domestic violence reporting by health care personnel. Women Health, 35, 121-133.

19.

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.

20.

Smith

(2000). It’s my decision, isn’t it? A research note on battered women’s perceptions of mandatory intervention laws. Violence Against Women, 6, 1384-1402.

21.

Sullivan

C. M.

Hagan

L. A.

(2005). Survivors’ opinions about mandatory reporting of domestic violence and sexual assault by medical professionals. Affilia, 20, 346-361.

22.

Teaster

P. B.

(2000). A response to the abuse of vulnerable adults: The 2000 survey of state adult protective services (No. 90-AP-2144). Washington, DC: The National Center on Elder Abuse.