Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska.
Department of the Air Force.
Am Psychol. 2023 Dec;78(9):1098-1109. doi: 10.1037/amp0001251.
Following federal and state law, institutions of higher education (IHE) have implemented mandatory reporting (MR) policies, requiring some employees to report sexual violence they learn about to university officials regardless of victim/survivor consent (i.e., compelled disclosure). Proponents argue that MR policies are beneficial (e.g., provide survivors with support), while critics argue that MR policies that limit survivor autonomy can be harmful. Given the tension between purported goals of MR policies and potential risks to survivors, the current work provided a comprehensive analysis of IHE MR policies in the United States. First, we reviewed laws shaping MR policies. Second, we analyzed MR policies from a nationally representative sample of Title IV eligible IHEs in the United States. Third, we discussed the findings in connection to extant research on MR policies, identifying key patterns and remaining gaps. Our analysis suggested that federal and state policymaking has increasingly expanded reporting mandates for IHE employees. The majority of IHEs designated all or nearly all employees as mandatory reporters, but there was more variability in the breadth of MR policies compared to the previous research. The content of MR policies mostly offered minimal instructions for employees (e.g., to whom to report) and rarely mandated trauma-informed responses (e.g., how to respond to disclosures). In light of empirical evidence, which finds that those who are most knowledgeable about survivors' needs and the process of reporting to the university (including survivors) are less supportive of MR policies, our findings further indicate that current MR policies focus on compliance over victim/survivor support. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
根据联邦和州法律,高等教育机构(IHE)已实施强制性报告(MR)政策,要求一些员工向大学官员报告他们所了解的性暴力事件,而不论受害者/幸存者是否同意(即强制披露)。支持者认为 MR 政策是有益的(例如,为幸存者提供支持),而批评者则认为限制幸存者自主权的 MR 政策可能是有害的。鉴于 MR 政策据称的目标与对幸存者的潜在风险之间存在紧张关系,目前的工作对美国 IHE 的 MR 政策进行了全面分析。首先,我们审查了塑造 MR 政策的法律。其次,我们从美国符合 Title IV 资格的 IHE 的全国代表性样本中分析了 MR 政策。第三,我们根据现有的 MR 政策研究讨论了这些发现,确定了关键模式和遗留差距。我们的分析表明,联邦和州的决策制定已经越来越扩大了 IHE 员工的报告任务。大多数 IHE 将所有或几乎所有员工指定为强制性报告人,但与之前的研究相比,MR 政策的广度存在更多的差异。MR 政策的内容大多为员工提供了最少的指导(例如,向谁报告),很少强制要求采取创伤知情的应对措施(例如,如何应对披露)。鉴于实证证据发现,那些最了解幸存者需求和向大学报告流程的人(包括幸存者)对 MR 政策的支持度较低,我们的发现进一步表明,目前的 MR 政策侧重于合规性,而不是受害者/幸存者的支持。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2024 APA,保留所有权利)。