NCJ Number
205973
Journal
Violence Against Women Volume: 10 Issue: 5 Dated: May 2004 Pages: 534-560
Editor(s)
Claire M. Renzetti
Date Published
May 2004
Length
27 pages
Annotation
This article provides data from a two-part evaluation of the impact of Kentucky’s mandatory reporting law in an attempt to address some of the questions and concerns expressed about possible unintended effects of the mandatory reporting law on victims.
Abstract
Intimate partner violence is a pervasive and complex problem that affects the lives and health of a large percentage of women and children. To address this problem, efforts have been implemented on many fronts. The mandatory reporting law is one such response which is addressed in this article. This article addresses several questions: (1) who are the victims about whom reports are received under the mandatory reporting law; (2) who is making reports under this law; and (3) what services are provided as a result of the report? The data reported in this article are a result of these questions focusing on the State of Kentucky due to the unique properties of Kentucky’s law and its possible impact on the issues of protecting and assisting victims of intimate partner violence. A two-part study was designed using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. As a result of a report of suspected intimate partner violence being made under the Kentucky mandatory reporting law, all victims who could be located received, at a minimum, safety planning and information about community resources, in addition to social work counseling, linkage with legal services, referral to spouse abuse shelters, referral to individual or group counseling, and material support. Reports under the mandatory reporting law came from a diverse set of reporting sources with less than half initiated by law enforcement and the other reports coming from a wide range of professionals. The overall findings support that a mandatory reporting law can result in increased availability of appropriate services to victims of intimate partner violence while maintaining the victims’ autonomy and right to refuse services. Implications for policy and practice, as well as study limitations are discussed. Appendix and references