Original Research Article

Violence Against Women

2023, Vol. 29(2) 347–369
Faculty and Staff Perceptions of © The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
Title IX Mandatory Reporting sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/10778012211070315
Policies at Two Institutions journals.sagepub.com/home/vaw

Sarah Koon-Magnin1
and Christina Mancini2

Abstract
Most faculty and staff at postsecondary institutions are mandatory reporters who
must disclose sexual assault to a Title IX Coordinator. However, scholarship examin-
ing their role is sparse. We address this gap by investigating perceptions and experi-
ences of employees (n = 166) at two institutions. Findings indicate that most
employees are aware of their reporting duties, likely to comply, have received training,
and support mandated reporting. Additionally, we find significant sociodemographic
differences in perceptions of mandatory reporting. Those who have had a direct expe-
rience reporting have mixed reactions to the process. We discuss research and policy
implications.

Keywords
Title IX, mandatory reporting, sexual assault, faculty and staff, higher education

Major shifts in Title IX over the last decade have resulted in sweeping changes at post-
secondary institutions nationally (Renzetti & Follingstad, 2020). Colleges and univer-
sities have introduced policies, created professional positions, and increased
programming, all with the goals of reducing campus sex crime and ensuring equal
access to education without threat of sexual assault/harassment (Wiersma-Mosley &
DiLoreto, 2018). A significant development is the designation of faculty and staff as

1
University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, USA
2
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Sarah Koon-Magnin, University of South Alabama, 226 Humanities Bldg., USA Drive North, Mobile, AL
36608, USA.
Email: Koon-Magnin@southalabama.edu
348 Violence Against Women 29(2)

mandatory reporters (MRs) who must disclose instances of sexual misconduct to

appropriate personnel (e.g., Title IX Office/police; Brubaker, 2019).
However, there is little empirical work investigating how faculty and staff under-
stand and undertake this designation. Given the important role that these groups
play as MRs, it is important to investigate their experiences. The present research
employs a survey of faculty and staff at two institutions of higher education in different
states to gauge their perceptions of the Title IX policies and mandatory reporting (MR)
requirements at their respective institutions. Before presenting this study, we provide
background on Title IX, the obligations of MRs, and perceptions of MR policies.

Literature Review
Background on Title IX
As per Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the U.S. Department of Education
(DOE) stated that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any edu-
cation program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Historically, this provision
was viewed narrowly, as ensuring equity in athletic opportunities to students. However, legal
decisions and DOE guidance have extended Title IX to include an educational environment
safe from sexual assault and harassment. Research demonstrates that sex crime is a serious
problem on college campuses (Krebs et al., 2009; Muehlenhard et al., 2017) and that college
students are less likely than their same-aged peers who are not enrolled in postsecondary
institutions to report their assaults to the police (Sinozich & Langton, 2014). In response
to these circumstances, and to create an environment supportive of help-seeking following
an assault, the Obama administration published multiple documents outlining the responsi-
bilities of schools to enforce Title IX (e.g., 2011 Dear Colleague Letter, 2014 Question and
Answer document, and 2014 “Not Alone” Task Force Report). The recommendations
emphasized increased institutional accountability in responding to sexual assault allegations
(e.g., greater transparency concerning investigations, mandating a “preponderance of evi-
dence” standard in adjudicating perpetrators of sexual violence). The Trump administration
implemented significant changes to Obama-era guidance, eliminating some of these provi-
sions; however, one aspect of Title IX policy that does not seem to be in question is the
role of MRs (DOE, 2020).

The Obligations of Mandatory Reporters under Title IX

Title IX directs educational institutions that receive federal funding to identify MRs
who must fulfill certain obligations. Guidance from the DOE released in 2001
defined a group of “responsible employees” (REs) who would be required to report
all known instances of sexual assault or sexual misconduct. These reports are typically
made to either a Title IX Coordinator or police agency and generally must include iden-
tifying information on victims, perpetrators, or witnesses to the incident (Richards,
2019). Earlier guidance required that MRs’ obligations included all cases in which
Koon-Magnin and Mancini 349

the employee knew or “reasonably should have known” that sexual misconduct was
occurring. The new Final Rule (2020) limits MR requirements to only cases in
which the employee has actual knowledge of sexual misconduct. The latest regulations
also grant schools significant latitude in determining who are and who are not MRs,
whereas prior guidance suggested that anyone whom a student may reasonably
believe to be MRs should be classified as such. An increasing number of institutions
now designate all or nearly all employees as REs, and thus, MRs (Weiss & Lasky,
2017). Although the Final Rule released in May 2020 avoids the label “responsible
employee” (RE) it does maintain MR requirements. We use both terms throughout
the literature review, in line with the focus of the studies being reviewed.
A stratified random sample of 150 small, medium, and large 4-year institutions—both
public and private—revealed variation in the REs (i.e., MRs) designation. Most institu-
tions (69%) classified “all” employees as REs and another 19% classified “most”
employees as REs (Holland et al., 2018). When universities excluded individual employ-
ees from being labeled as “responsible,” it was usually those working in student health,
counseling services, law enforcement, or clergy positions. Only a handful of institutions
(n = 6) classified just a few employees as REs and the rest had ambiguous policies. The
authors found no significant differences in classification of REs based on the size of the
school or between public and private institutions (Holland et al., 2018). In short, institu-
tions of higher education, regardless of size or whether they are public or private, gen-
erally take a broad view of which employees are MRs.
In addition to federal guidance concerning Title IX, some states have passed legis-
lation requiring more robust responses to sexual assault. For example, in Virginia, as of
July 1, 2015, state law designated nearly all campus employees as REs. Additionally,
public institutions must have a review committee determine if cases brought to Title IX
need to be forwarded to law enforcement, and relatedly, all institutions must enter into
a memorandum of understanding with a rape crisis center within the community.
A case study of representatives from 18 institutions across Virginia suggested that
the relevant personnel were aware of and generally supportive of this new law
(Brubaker & Mancini, 2017). However, these stakeholders also noted three areas of
concern: lack of training for REs, the reduction of victim autonomy, and a potential
decline in reporting. Such concerns have been evaluated by scholars who aim to empir-
ically assess the impact of MR policies, as will be discussed shortly.

Rationale for Mandatory Reporting Policies

There are several goals of MR. First, proponents of these policies argue that they may
increase institutional accountability by ensuring that cases of sexual assault are handled
in a single office with expertise on the subject and not (a) hidden, or (b) left to the dis-
cretion of individual faculty and staff members (Wiersma-Mosley & DiLoreto, 2018).
Second, supporters suggest that it may create safer campuses by increasing the number
of cases brought to the attention of law enforcement (Weiss & Lasky, 2017). Third, if
more victims are put in touch with Title IX Offices, it can increase access to services
such as counseling and schedule accommodations (Weiss & Lasky, 2017).
350 Violence Against Women 29(2)

However, there are also significant concerns about MR policies (Weiner, 2017; Weiss
& Lasky, 2017). First, critics of the policy argue that students who are aware of MR pol-
icies may be less likely to disclose their assaults to campus personnel because they do not
want to go through the Title IX adjudication process. This may also decrease access to
victim services if the victim does not want to contact university offices for fear of trig-
gering an official investigation. Second, scholars and activists argue that MR policies
decrease victim autonomy by taking the choice of whether to file a complaint out of
victims’ hands (Weiss & Lasky, 2017). Sexual assault is an offense in which victims
experience an extreme loss of control over their own bodies (Holland et al., 2018).
Thus, an important aspect of the recovery process for victims is to present opportunities
in which they can reassert their own voice and share their story on their terms. Third,
because MR increases the number of individuals and offices that are aware of the
victim’s case, the potential for secondary victimization is amplified (Campbell et al.,
2001). To summarize, there are significant concerns about the impact of MR on those
whom it aims to protect.

Perceptions of Mandatory Reporting Policies

Regardless of arguments both for and against the MR requirement of current Title IX guid-
ance, it is the current practice. Although there is little empirical work yet evaluating these
arguments, there is a small body of research addressing Title IX policies, implementation,
and perceptions by those impacted. Research has also explored how students perceive MR
policies and whether they would be more or less likely to disclose to faculty or staff
knowing that such policies are in place. Overall, students think policies aimed at reducing
sexual assault on campus are important (Streng & Kamimura, 2017) and support MR
(Mancini et al., 2016; Newins & White, 2018). A survey of undergraduates (n = 397) sug-
gested that students believe they would be more likely to report their assaults to REs (56%)
and that they expect that faculty would comply (85%) with the MR requirements (Mancini,
et al., 2016). In another study of undergraduates (n = 845) 40.2% of students indicated that
they would tell a faculty member if they were sexually assaulted, and 47.1% of students
report that they would tell a faculty member if someone they knew was sexually assaulted
(Newins & White, 2018). Notably, across three studies, a nontrivial minority of students,
∼20%, indicated they would be less likely to report knowing that the MR policy was in
place (Mancini et al., 2016; Newins & White, 2018; Newins et al., 2018). Because indi-
viduals who have been sexually assaulted are at greater risk of being assaulted again
(Conley et al., 2017), some individuals who have had contact with Title IX as survivors
of an assault may experience another assault during their college years. A negative expe-
rience with Title IX policies following the first sexual assault experience would likely
decrease the likelihood of engaging with the process if the survivor is assaulted again.
Although they did not assess experiences reporting to Title IX, two studies demonstrated
that survivors of sexual assault were nearly twice as likely as students without a sexual
assault history to say that MR policies made it less likely that they would report
(Newins et al., 2018; Newins & White, 2018). Put differently, students to whom the pol-
icies would actually apply (sexual assault survivors) are twice as likely to say they would
Koon-Magnin and Mancini 351

be less likely to report given the MR policy. This finding indicates a potential unintended
consequence of MR, that of reducing the likelihood that victims and survivors will disclose
an incident of sexual assault to a trusted faculty or staff member.
Because these policies are intended to protect students, the body of scholarship
reviewed above underscores the need to utilize such surveys in an effort to evaluate
how the policies might work in practice. However, the MRs, the other individuals
impacted by these policies, are also relevant to the discussion. Recent studies
suggest such policies are understood, and overall are supported by university person-
nel. For example, in two separate evaluations, REs (e.g., graduate teaching assistants,
instructors, professors, administrators, and staff members) were familiar with MR
(Newins & White, 2018; Newins et al., 2018), and most (84.5%) indicated that
they would comply with the policies (Newins et al., 2018). Only 5.2% said that
they would not follow the required MR procedure and 10.3% were unsure of
whether they would comply (Newins et al., 2018). REs reported that they would
be most likely to comply when the perpetrator was a faculty member, rather than a
student, or when the incident involved “rape,” rather than “harassment” (Newins
et al., 2018).
Another group of REs includes resident advisors (RAs), who are in a unique posi-
tion in that they are both students and, in some cases, REs (Holland & Cortina, 2017).
Given this dual role, RAs express role conflict (Holland & Cortina, 2017). A primary
aspect of the RA position is to build trust and create a sense of community within res-
idence halls. Yet, when classified as REs, MR policies create a situation in which RAs
are no longer a confidential resource to their residents. Prior scholarship indicates that
RAs who hold positive perceptions of their MR duties were significantly more likely to
report sexual assault disclosures to their institutions and refer survivors to resources
(Holland & Cortina, 2017). Thus, perceptions do not just indicate how people feel,
they may also indicate how people are likely to act.

Current Study
Title IX policies have implications for the students who disclose as well as for the REs
to whom the disclosure is made. However, research related to the perceptions and expe-
riences of MRs is underdeveloped. This omission is striking as such inquiry could lead
to a greater understanding of the extent of institutional compliance. If faculty and staff
do not know that they are REs, they are unlikely to follow the established protocols
and, therefore, will not comply with the requirement. If they know, but disagree
with the requirement, it is possible that they will be less likely to comply (e.g.,
Holland & Cortina, 2017). From this framework, our study assesses employee knowl-
edge and employee attitudes about MR policies.
Existing research on this topic is limited in that it focuses on how REs might
respond in a given situation following a sexual assault disclosure and how they
think the policies might work (Brubaker & Mancini, 2017; Holland & Cortina,
2017; Newins & White, 2018; Newins et al., 2018). The present research goes a
step further by also including questions about how faculty and staff have actually
352 Violence Against Women 29(2)

responded when they received a disclosure of sexual assault. That is, among individ-
uals who indicate having an experience with a disclosure, the current study includes
follow-up measures to gauge their perceptions of that experience. Moreover, there is
likely variation across those in MR roles. Individual-level characteristics, such as
years in service to the university, tenure status, age, gender identity, and other traits
may shape perceptions and views. As but one example, perhaps tenured faculty are
more critical of MR given that many of these policies have been adopted rapidly
across the U.S. (Brubaker, 2019) with little input from faculty and staff. Thus,
tenured faculty may feel more comfortable expressing disagreement with the policy
because they have the protection of tenure. Our review of prior literature (e.g.,
Holland & Cortina, 2017; Mancini et al., 2016; Newins & White, 2018; Newins
et al., 2018) indicates that little is known regarding the influence of individual-level
factors in shaping perceptions and views about Title IX and MR. The current study
contributes to this understudied body of work by including respondent-level character-
istics (e.g., tenure status, knowing a victim of a sex crime). Specifically, we investigate
the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Consistent with prior research (Newins & White, 2018), we expect
most faculty and staff to disclose that they have received training on Title IX com-
pliance and understand their obligations with regard to MR.
Hypothesis 2: Additionally, following the logic in Hypothesis 1 and prior research
(Newins & White, 2018), we anticipate that faculty and staff will report high levels
of anticipated compliance with MR policies.
Hypothesis 3: In line with prior studies of individuals involved in Title IX pro-
cesses (Brubaker & Mancini, 2017; Newins & White, 2018), we expect that a
majority of faculty and staff will indicate support for MR policies.
Hypothesis 4: Similar to students (Mancini et al., 2016), we anticipate that faculty
and staff will recognize both potential benefits and potential harms of MR policies.
Hypothesis 5: Perceptions of MR policies will likely differ based on demographic
characteristics and experiences with sexual assault victims and accused offenders.
Little research has examined this facet of inquiry (e.g., Newins & White, 2018,
p. 3). However, given prior research examining RAs (Holland & Cortina, 2017)
and the student population (Mancini et al., 2016), it is likely that individual-level
characteristics shape MRs’ perceptions and experiences among faculty and staff.
For example, some work indicates that faculty of color are more willing to acknowl-
edge that students from minority backgrounds view Title IX policies skeptically
(Brubaker, 2019). Moreover, as touched upon earlier, tenured faculty may view
mandated reporting as a threat to shared governance given its rapid proliferation
(Holland et al., 2018), and thus judge MR harshly.
Hypothesis 6: We expect faculty and staff who have reported violations to the Title
IX Office to feel the disclosure was necessary, and thus, express positive views
about the process (Newins et al., 2018). However, given the experience of role con-
flict (e.g., Holland & Cortina, 2017) and concern for the victim’s well-being
Koon-Magnin and Mancini 353

(Brubaker & Mancini, 2017), it is equally plausible that faculty and staff who have
reported violations will express concerns about the process.

Methods
Data were collected at two public institutions of higher education, one in the South
(Institution A) and one in the mid-Atlantic region (Institution B). Institutions A and
B are similar in some important aspects. They are both public institutions, but
neither is the largest institution in their respective states. Both institutions grant under-
graduate and graduate degrees, including multiple doctoral programs. The student–
faculty ratio is comparable and both serve primarily undergraduate populations.
Both campuses have active Greek organizations and on-campus residence halls.
Moreover, both institutions have a variety of resources for students to report sexual
assault and receive support services including victim advocates, counseling, and law
enforcement. Importantly, both institutions require Title IX training of all faculty
and staff, and both institutions have MR policies. However, there are also notable dif-
ferences between the two institutions which necessitate that we test for differences
between responses based on institutional affiliation. Institution B has approximately
twice the total number of enrolled students as Institution A. Whereas Institution A
operates under a university policy for MR, Institution B is subject to a state law that
requires REs to immediately report instances of sexual assault to the institution’s
Title IX Office. Second, Institution B had recently been subjected to a relatively high-
profile Title IX investigation. Taken together, it is possible that employees at Institution
B were more acutely aware of MR requirements than employees at Institution A. As a
result, all tables report findings for the full sample, as well as responses by the
institution.
Drawing on previous research concerning Title IX (e.g., Amin, 2019; Holland &
Cortina, 2017; Mancini et al., 2016), the research team developed and modified ques-
tions to tap faculty and staff experiences with and perceptions of MR as well as demo-
graphic information (full survey available upon request). In the summer of 2019, it was
distributed to colleagues with Title IX expertise for feedback and revision. The survey
was then approved by the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) at each institution and
distributed to all faculty and staff via an email listserv. Two additional reminders
were sent as well. The initial call for participation indicated that although Title IX pol-
icies impact faculty, staff, and students at the institution, there is very little existing
research on how faculty and staff members understand or feel about these policies.
Respondents were asked to take a brief survey to help improve researchers’ under-
standing of these policies. If interested, faculty and staff members clicked on a link
to take the survey online (in Qualtrics) where they were provided with an informed
consent form. Upon agreeing to participate, participants were asked a variety of ques-
tions about their own perceptions of and experiences with Title IX policies. Finally,
participants were asked a series of questions about their role at the university and
their demographic characteristics. Because of differences in the processing of IRB
354 Violence Against Women 29(2)

applications across the two institutions, data were collected at Institution A during fall
semester of 2019 and at Institution B during spring semester of 2020 (Note. The survey
closed on May 6, 2020; new guidelines were published by the DOE on May 19, 2020,
so all respondents completed their surveys under the same set of rules). More partici-
pants were recruited from Institution A (n = 99) than Institution B (n = 67), which may
be due to the disruption caused by COVID-19 in spring 2020.
In total, 187 faculty and staff members across the two institutions accessed the
survey link. Four participants did not consent to participate in the research and 17
did consent to participate, but then did not answer any of the survey questions.
After deleting these 21 cases, the final analytic sample consisted of 166 faculty and
staff members across two institutions. There was linear attrition throughout the
survey such that 27 participants did not complete the entire instrument. The last
page of the survey was where we collected demographic information, so the 27 partic-
ipants who stopped participating are not represented in the sample description or
Table 1. However, we decided to keep these 27 participants in the overall sample
because they did provide some information.
In the full sample, respondents were evenly distributed between faculty (n = 66) and
staff (n = 66). However, respondents from Institution A were significantly more likely
to be faculty members compared to respondents from Institution B, the only significant
demographic difference between the samples recruited at the two institutions. Of the 66
faculty members included in this sample, 23 were tenured (34.8%) and 39 nontenured
(59.1%). Faculty members were asked to identify a home discipline and the most
common responses were nursing or health-related fields (n = 19); fine arts and human-
ities (n = 14); science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields (n = 12); and
social and behavioral sciences (n = 11). Additional respondents represented education
(n = 4), business (n = 3), “other” disciplines (n = 3), and medicine (n = 2). Most
respondents knew someone who identified as a victim of sexual misconduct and <1
in 5 survey respondents knew someone whom they believed had been falsely
accused of sexual misconduct.

Results
To address Hypothesis 1, respondents were first asked questions to assess their knowl-
edge of Title IX policy at their institution (responses to these questions are reported in
Table 2). The majority of respondents at both institutions reported (correctly) that their
institutions had MR policies and that they were familiar with them. However, >1 in 10
respondents were not sure whether such a policy existed, and at Institution A, more
than a quarter of respondents were unfamiliar with that policy. Most respondents
reported that they had attended sexual misconduct training online, and some respon-
dents also reported attending in-person trainings. However, a nontrivial number of
respondents reported either that they had not attended training or were not sure
whether they had attended training.
Slightly >60% of respondents indicated that they were MRs. Employees exempt
from this status at these institutions include those who work in the psychological
Koon-Magnin and Mancini 355

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Survey Respondents at Each Institution and in Full Sample.
Institution A (n = 99; 79 Institution B (n = 67; 56 Full sample (n = 166;
completed demographic completed demographic 135 completed
questions) questions) demographic questions)
Gender identity
Female 60 (75.9%) 43 (76.8%) 103 (76.2%)
Male 16 (20.2%) 10 (17.9%) 26 (19.2%)
Other 0 (0.0%) 3 (5.4%) 3 (2.2%)
Race
White 70 (88.6%) 44 (78.6%) 114 (84.4%)
Black 4 (5.1%) 6 (10.1%) 10 (7.4%)
Other 1 (1.3%) 2 (3.6%) 3 (2.2%)
Ethnicity
Hispanic 4 (5.1%) 2 (3.6%) 6 (4.4%)
Non-Hispanic 70 (88.6%) 48 (85.7%) 118 (87.4%)
University
position*
Faculty 48 (60.1%) 18 (32.1%) 66 (48.9%)
Staff 30 (40.0%) 36 (64.3%) 66 (48.9%)
Time at
institution
1–5 years 31 (39.2%) 21 (37.5%) 52 (38.5%)
6–10 years 15 (19.0%) 12 (21.4%) 27 (20.0%)
10–19 years 20 (25.3%) 10 (17.9%) 30 (22.2%)
20 years or 10 (12.7%) 11 (19.6%) 21 (15.6%)
longer
Know a victim of sexual misconduct
Yes 48 (60.1%) 40 (71.4%) 88 (65.2%)
No 30 (40.0%) 13 (23.2%) 43 (31.9)
Know someone they believe to be falsely accused of sexual misconduct
Yes 13 (16.5%) 11 (19.6%) 24 (17.6%)
No 64 (81.0%) 43 (76.8%) 107 (78.7%)

Note. Percentages calculated out of the number of participants who responded to the demographic questions.
Percentages do not add to 100 because “prefer not to answer” was a choice for each question included in the
survey.
*Survey respondents from Institution A were significantly more likely to be faculty members respondents
from Institution B. No other values differed significantly across institutions.

counseling center or student health center. Faculty members who answered, “no” (n =
6) or “not sure” (n = 8), are likely MRs. The staff members who answered “no” (n =
15) or “not sure” (n = 15) may not be MRs if they work in one of the exempt capacities
(e.g., counseling and health). However, the fact >1 in 5 at each institution shared that
they were not sure whether they were MRs indicates a need for additional training on
this role. Regarding specifics related to the reporting process, there was some disagree-
ment among participants regarding to whom the report must be submitted. The most
common answer, provided by 58% of respondents, was the Title IX Coordinator.
356 Violence Against Women 29(2)

Table 2. Respondent Knowledge and Training on Mandatory Reporting Policy for Responsible
Employees.

Institution A (n = 99) Institution B (n = 67) Full Sample (n = 166)

Institution has mandatory reporting policy
Yes 81 (81.8%) 59 (88.1%) 140 (84.3%)
No 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
I’m not sure 17 (17.2%) 8 (11.9%) 25 (15.1%)
Familiar with policy
Yes 70 (70.1%) 56 (83.6%) 126 (75.9%)
No 26 (26.3%) 11 (16.4%) 37 (22.3%)
I’m not sure 2 (2.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.2%)
Training attended
Online 69 (69.7%) 54 (80.6%) 123 (74.1%)
In-person 10 (10.1%) 8 (11.9%) 28 (16.9%)
None 14 (14.1%) 6 (9.0%) 20 (12.0%)
I’m not sure 11 (11.1%) 4 (4.0%) 15 (6.3%)
Mandatory reporter
Yes 62 (62.6%) 43 (64.2%) 105 (63.3%)
No 14 (14.1%) 9 (13.4%) 23 (13.9%)
I’m not sure 20 (20.2%) 15 (22.4%) 35 (21.1%)
If mandatory reporter, to whom must you report?
Police 30 (30.3%) 13 (19.4%) 43 (25.9%)
Title IX Coordinator 58 (58.9%) 39 (58.2%) 97 (58.4%)
Victim advocate 3 (3.0%) 2 (3.0%) 5 (3.0%)
I’m not sure 15 (15.1%) 12 (17.9%) 27 (16.3%)

Note. Percentages do not add to 100 because “prefer not to answer” was a choice for each question included
in the survey. None of the values in this table differed significantly across institutions.

A substantial minority of employees also reported that they must report the assault to
law enforcement (25.9%) or that they did not know to whom the report should be sub-
mitted (16.3%). For institution A, a report to either the Title IX Coordinator or law
enforcement would meet the REs’ reporting requirement. In contrast, to be in compli-
ance with institutional policy, Institution B stipulated that REs must file a report with
the University’s Title IX Office.
More than 80% of participants correctly reported that their institution had a Title IX
Coordinator, just over 50% knew who that person was, and a majority knew how to
contact that person (see Table 3). However, >40% did not know who the Title IX
Coordinator was and a substantial minority did not know how to contact that
person. Just under 10% of respondents reported an experience of disclosing an inci-
dent of sexual misconduct to the Title IX Coordinator (we will revisit this subset
shortly).
The survey inquired about the potential responses individuals would provide if they
received a disclosure of sexual assault from a student, and approximately half of
respondents said they knew whom to contact for medical assistance or for advocacy
services (see Table 3). In line with Hypothesis 2, the majority of respondents
Koon-Magnin and Mancini 357

Table 3. Respondent Knowledge Relating to Title IX Coordinator and Service Providers.

Institution A Institution B Full Sample
(n = 99) (n = 67) (n = 166)
Institution has Title IX Coordinator
Yes 82 (82.8%) 58 (86.6%) 140 (87.0%)
No 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
I’m not sure 13 (13.1%) 8 (11.9%) 21 (13.0%)
Know who the Title IX Coordinator is
Yes 53 (53.5%) 37 (55.2%) 90 (54.2%)
No 41 (41.4%) 30 (44.8%) 71 (42.8%)
Know how to contact Title IX Coordinator
Yes 65 (65.7%) 51 (76.1%) 116 (69.9%)
No 30 (30.3%) 16 (23.9%) 46 (27.7%)
Ever disclosed incident of sexual misconduct to Title IX Coordinator
Yes 8 (8.1%) 9 (13.4%) 17 (10.2%)
No 88 (88.9%) 57 (85.1) 145 (87.3%)
If a student told me that they had been sexually assaulted, I would…
Report the incident to the Title IX Coordinator 76 (76.8%) 56 (83.6%) 132 (79.5%)
Know who to contact for medical assistance 56 (56.6%) 33 (49.3%) 89 (53.6%)
Know where to refer victim for advocacy services 44 (44.4%) 44 (65.7%) 88 (53.0%)
Ask how I can help 75 (75.8%) 55 (82.1%) 130 (78.3%)

Note. Percentages do not add to 100 because “prefer not to answer” was a choice for each question included
in the survey. None of the values in this table differed significantly across institutions.

(∼80%) stated that they would report the incident to the Title IX Coordinator and
would ask the student how they could help.
Next, we compared the differences across the sample concerning the level of agree-
ment with three related statements, measured using a scale ranging from 1 (“strongly
disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). For these analyses, we report the statistical signifi-
cance of each comparison parenthetically rather than in a table. The mean responses
were extremely high, which indicated strong agreement with the statement that the
respondent would “be inclined to believe” the sexual assault disclosure made to
them (M = 4.74, SD = 0.59) and that they “would encourage (the student) to report
the incident to law enforcement” (M = 4.64, SD = 0.87). Respondents were less
likely to agree that they “would report the incident to law enforcement on (the stu-
dent’s) behalf” (M = 3.29, SD = 1.64).
However, mean ratings provided for these items differed significantly based on
several characteristics and experiences of the individual respondents, indicating
support for Hypothesis 5. First, significant differences emerged across the respondents’
home institution, position (tenured faculty, nontenured faculty, or staff), and race.
Respondents from Institution A (M = 4.63, SD = 0.70) were significantly less likely
to believe a disclosure of sexual assault than respondents from Institution B (M =
4.88, SD = 0.37), t(df, 140) = −2.53; p = .013. However, respondents from
Institution A (M = 4.80, SD = 0.51) were significantly more likely to encourage the
358 Violence Against Women 29(2)

student to report the sexual assault to law enforcement than respondents from
Institution B (M = 4.41, SD = 1.19), t(df, 138) = 2.67; p = .009. Faculty members
were significantly less likely than staff members to agree that they would encourage
the student to report the assault to law enforcement (faculty M = 4.45, SD = 1.08;
staff M = 4.80, SD = 0.64), t(df, 128) = −2.25; p = .026, or that they would do so on
the student’s behalf (faculty M = 2.90, SD = 1.69; staff M = 3.52, SD = 1.55), t(df,
121) = −2.14; p = .035. Tenured faculty members (M = 4.43, SD = 0.84) were signifi-
cantly less likely to believe a disclosure of sexual assault than nontenured faculty (M =
4.89, SD = 0.06), t(df, 68) = −3.16; p = .002. White respondents (M = 3.09, SD = 1.64)
were significantly less likely than Black respondents (M = 4.44, SD = 1.01) to report
that they would make a report to law enforcement on the student’s behalf, t(df, 113)
= −2.42; p = .017.
The respondents’ past experiences with sexual assault victims, accused offenders,
and reporting also shaped responses to these questions. Respondents who indicated
personally knowing a victim of sexual assault were significantly less likely than partic-
ipants who indicated not knowing a victim to agree that they would encourage the
student to report the assault to law enforcement (knew a victim M = 4.51, SD = 1.04;
did not know a victim M = 4.86, SD = 0.47), t(df, 126) = −2.05; p = .042, or that
they would do so on the student’s behalf (knew a victim M = 3.04, SD = 1.65; did
not know a victim M = 3.75, SD = 1.53), t(df, 119) = −2.29; p = .024. Concerning
how inclined an individual was to believe disclosure of sexual assault, there was a sig-
nificant difference between respondents who personally knew someone whom they
believed had been wrongly accused of sexual misconduct and participants who did
not personally know someone they believed was wrongly accused of sexual miscon-
duct. Specifically, respondents who reported knowing someone they believed were
wrongly accused reported that they were less likely to believe a disclosure of sexual
assault (knew a person they believe was wrongly accused M = 4.50, SD = 0.83; did
not know a person they believe was wrongly accused M = 4.79, SD = 0.53), t(df,
128) = −2.17; p = .032. Respondents who had previously made a report to the Title
IX Coordinator (M = 2.29, SD = 1.54) were significantly less likely than those who
had not (M = 3.41, SD = 1.61) to report that they would make a report to law enforce-
ment on the student’s behalf, t(df, 128) = −2.49; p = .014.
Another theme in the survey involved respondents’ support for MR. Specifically,
respondents were presented with this question: “Many colleges and universities
require employees to report suspicions of sexual assault involving students (e.g., a
student discloses s/he was a victim of rape at a party to a professor) to the Title IX
Coordinator, even if victims do not want the crime reported. What comes closest to
your opinion of these policies?” In support of Hypothesis 3, the majority of respon-
dents (n = 110, 66.2%) either “somewhat” or “strongly” agreed with these policies,
while a minority of respondents (n = 29, 17.4%) “somewhat” or “strongly” disagreed.
When asked to whom the MR policy should apply, a majority of respondents agreed
that it should apply to faculty (n = 118, 71.1%), staff (n = 111, 66.9%), and adminis-
trators (n = 117, 70.5%). Exactly half of respondents (n = 83, 50.0%) supported apply-
ing the MR requirement to undergraduate employees.
Koon-Magnin and Mancini 359

According to Hypothesis 4, we anticipated that faculty and staff would recognize

both potential benefits and potential risks of MR policies. Overall, that hypothesis
was supported, with caveats (see Table 4). Those who reported personally knowing
a victim of sexual assault or someone they believed was wrongly accused were
more critical of these policies than respondents who did not know a victim or
wrongly accused individual. They were significantly less likely to think MR improved
institutional response, demonstrated institutional concern for student safety, assisted
victims, or increased accountability for either the institution or the perpetrator.
Relatedly, respondents who knew someone they believed was falsely accused of
sexual assault were less likely than those who did not to report that MR policies
have the potential to increase the rate of reporting (though we cannot specifically con-
clude whether this implied a greater likelihood of coming forward generally or an
increase in false reporting). Those who reported knowing a victim of sexual assault
were more likely to say that these policies had the potential to retraumatize victims
and may deter them from reporting their assaults. These respondents were also less
likely to agree that MR policies were “in the best interest of victims, even if it goes
against their wishes,” reduced stigma, or increased institutional liability.
Respondents who knew a victim of sexual assault were also more likely to lean
toward agreeing that MR “makes it more challenging to gain student trust,” whereas
respondents who did not personally know a victim of sexual assault leaned toward
such policies making it “easier to gain student trust.”
Respondents who knew someone they believed to be falsely accused of sexual
assault were significantly more likely than respondents who did not know someone
whom they believed to be falsely accused to agree that these policies decreased the
individual’s due process, was a burden to faculty and staff, and had the potential to
waste university resources. They were also less likely to agree that MR responsibilities
were a necessary part of their job. Interestingly, when comparing the two samples it is
clear that respondents from Institution B see the potential risks to victims and concerns
about efficacy of MR more than respondents from Institution A.
In further support of Hypothesis 5, there were significant differences based on indi-
vidual characteristics (see Table 4). For instance, employees at Institution A (M = 4.25;
SD = 1.25) were more likely to agree that the Title IX policy requiring MR was in the
best interest of the victim, even if against their wishes, than respondents at Institution B
(M = 4.00; SD = 1.16), t(df, 136) = 2.57; p = .011. Moreover, concerning efficacy,
Institution A employees (M = 3.12; SD = 1.22) were less likely to agree that the
Title IX policy requiring MR may deter victims from reporting sexual victimization,
than respondents at Institution B (M = 3.67; SD = 1.07), t(df, 130) = −2.71; p = .008.
There was also substantial heterogeneity in views across race, employee type (i.e.,
faculty vs. staff), tenure status, and among those who had previously filed a report.
White respondents (M = 4.31; SD = 1.01) were significantly and substantially more
likely to view Title IX reporting as a necessary part of their job than Black respondents
(M = 3.30; SD = 1.57), t(df, 120) = 2.90; p = .004. Black respondents (M = 4.00; SD =
1.00) were more likely to agree that the Title IX policy requiring MR has the potential
to prevent victims from seeking services from the University than White respondents
360 Violence Against Women 29(2)

Table 4. Perceptions of Mandatory Reporting Policies for Responsible Employees.

Personally know
Personally know a someone they
Full victim of sexual believed to be
sample assault wrongly accused
Yes No Yes No

The Title IX policy requiring Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean

mandatory reporting… (SD) (SD) (SD) Sig. (SD) (SD) Sig.
Improves the institutional response to 4.15 3.91 4.60 ** 3.42 4.31 **
sexual violence (1.17) (1.28) (0.82) (1.44) (1.06)
Demonstrates the institution’s 4.14 3.98 4.56 * 3.38 4.34 ***
concern about student safety (1.21) (1.36) (0.70) (1.56) (1.06)
Have the potential to better assist 4.02 3.86 4.36 * 3.25 4.21 ***
sexual assault victims (1.16) (1.23) (0.79) (1.39) (0.99)
Hold universities accountable, 4.00 3.83 4.33 * 3.46 4.13 *
preventing them from sweeping (1.26) (1.37) (0.95) (1.53) (1.17)
crime under the rug
Hold perpetrators of sexual assault 3.96 3.75 4.52 *** 3.46 4.11 *
accountable (1.19) (1.26) (0.77) (1.59) (1.04)
Have the potential to increase 3.70 3.60 3.88 3.23 3.79 *
reporting of sex crimes (1.12) (1.18) (1.03) (1.27) (1.08)
Have the potential to retraumatize 3.69 3.86 3.27 ** 3.63 3.69
victims (1.11) (1.10) (1.00) (1.14) (1.10)
Is in the best interest of victims, even if 3.62 3.37 4.12 ** 2.88 3.79 **
it goes against their wishes (1.32) (1.43) (1.01) (1.57) (1.22)
Decrease institutional liability 3.43 3.41 3.45 3.22 3.47
following a sexual assault (1.35) (1.38) (1.38) (1.41) (1.34)
Reduce victim autonomy 3.39 3.44 3.26 3.71 3.27
(1.18) (1.17) (1.14) (1.20) (1.16)
May deter rape victims from reporting 3.35 3.48 3.02 * 3.50 3.28
sexual victimization (1.19) (1.16) (1.21) (1.29) (1.15)
Have the potential to prevent victims 3.32 3.43 3.05 3.42 3.25
from seeking services from the (1.13) (1.12) (1.08) (1.18) (1.10)
university
Reduce stigma associated with 3.28 3.10 3.65 * 2.88 3.38
survivors of sexual assault (1.17) (1.19) (1.12) (1.30) (1.14)
Increases institutional liability 2.88 2.54 3.52 *** 2.78 2.84
following a sexual assault (1.47) (1.43) (1.37) (1.57) (1.45)
Increase the number of false 2.32 2.26 2.48 2.96 2.17 **
allegations (1.08) (1.11) (1.04) (1.33) (0.98)
Decrease the accused individual’s due 2.31 2.37 2.23 3.00 2.16 **
process (1.14) (1.20) (1.05) (1.31) (1.06)
Is a burden to faculty and staff 2.09 2.05 2.14 2.63 1.90 *
(1.36) (1.40) (1.372) (1.58) (1.28)
Have the potential to waste university 2.09 2.19 1.95 2.83 1.93 **
resources (1.20) (1.29) (1.02) (1.44) (1.10)

(continued)
Koon-Magnin and Mancini 361

Table 4. (continued)
Full Personally know a Personally know
sample victim of sexual someone they
assault believed to be
wrongly accused
Yes No Yes No

The Title IX policy requiring Mean Mean Mean Sig. Mean Mean Sig.
mandatory reporting… (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)
Makes it to gain student trust 3.03 2.89 3.40 ** 2.78 3.11
(1 = more challenging, 5 = easier) (1.07) (1.13) (0.86) (1.38) (.98)
Is a part of my job 4.15 4.05 4.33 3.36 4.32 ***
(1 = unnecessary, 5 = necessary) (1.18) (1.31) (0.89) (1.62) (1.01)

Note. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05. All response choices ranged from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5
(“strongly agree”) except the last two items. Response choices relating to student trust ranged from 1
(“easier to gain student trust”) to 5 (“more challenging to gain student trust”). Response choices relating
to Title IX reporting being a part of the respondent’s job ranged from 1 (“unnecessary”) to 5 (“necessary”).

(M = 3.23; SD = 1.09), t(df, 116) = −2.04; p = .043. Faculty (M = 2.29; SD = 1.32)

were significantly more likely to agree that the Title IX policy requiring MR had the
potential to waste University resources than staff (M = 1.88; SD = 1.05), t(df, 129) =
1.99; p = .049. Tenured faculty (M = 3.74; SD = 0.96) were significantly more likely
to agree that the Title IX policy requiring MR reduces victim autonomy than nonten-
ured faculty (M = 2.91; SD = 1.24), t(df, 66) = 2.80; p = .007. Tenured faculty (M =
2.74; SD = 1.32) were significantly more likely to agree that the Title IX policy requir-
ing MR may increase the number of false allegations than nontenured faculty (M =
2.15; SD = 1.00), t(df, 68) = 2.08; p = .041. Tenured faculty (M = 2.83; SD = 1.50)
were significantly and substantially more likely to agree that the Title IX policy requir-
ing MR decreased the accused individual’s due process than nontenured faculty (M =
1.84; SD = 1.84), t(df, 66) = 3.33; p = .001. Employees who indicated previously filing
a report to the Title IX Coordinator (M = 3.07; SD = 1.21) were significantly and sub-
stantially less likely to agree that the Title IX policy requiring MR held the perpetrator
accountable, compared to employees without that experience (M = 4.06; SD = 1.15),
t(df, 132) = −3.01; p = .003.
We further explored the subset of respondents who reported that they had actually
received a disclosure of sexual assault from a student which they forwarded to the Title
IX Coordinator (n = 17). These 17 respondents were asked a series of follow-up ques-
tions regarding that experience, with response categories measured on a 1–5 scale.
Overall, consistent with the logic underpinning Hypothesis 6, their responses were
bimodal in that the two poles were the modal categories with few respondents selecting
numbers 2–4 on each scale (results not shown but available upon request). Equal
numbers of respondents reported feeling “very satisfied” (n = 6) and “very unsatisfied”
(n = 6), and equal numbers of respondents reported feeling “optimistic” (n = 5) and
362 Violence Against Women 29(2)

“pessimistic” (n = 5) following their reporting experience with the Title IX

Coordinator. Six respondents felt “supported” in their reporting experience, whereas
four felt “unsupported.” Four respondents felt “very frustrated,” whereas eight felt
“not at all frustrated.” Overall, it appears that most respondents understood their
duty to report, as seven felt “not at all conflicted” (compared to two who reported
feeling “very conflicted”) and six felt “clear about the process” (compared to two
who felt “confused about the process”). Though the majority of respondents (n = 9)
reported feeling “not at all scared,” two respondents reported feeling “very scared”
reporting to the Title IX Coordinator.
The variety of experiences was also evident in the open-ended responses provided
following the prompt, “Other reactions experienced after reporting to the Title IX
Coordinator.” One participant left a positive response: “I felt very comfortable
working with … the Title IX Coordinator for students … [who was] helpful and
willing to provide the information I needed to feel good about the process.” Another
reported feeling, “Relief that I reported … and was no longer responsible.” One partic-
ipant reported feeling, “Unsure of further action I could take. … ” Four participants left
negative responses including one mentioning that “Reporting is a waste of time … no
action was taken.” Another described a variety of negative reactions that they experi-
enced following disclosure to Title IX: “Depression, acute stress, suicidal ideation,
PTSD, loss of appetite and energy, disappointment, loss of faith in institution and its
values.”

Discussion
This study surveyed faculty and staff at two mid-sized public institutions to measure
their knowledge of, perceptions of, and experiences with, Title IX MR policies.
Research on faculty and staff views of these policies is limited, an omission that is
problematic given that MR policies assume REs are aware of and will comply with spe-
cific procedures. Extant literature suggests that among RAs, the likelihood of compli-
ance with MR practices varied based on the level of agreement these REs reported
(Holland & Cortina, 2017). Thus, it is crucial that researchers and practitioners
involved with Title IX policy understand how faculty and staff members understand
and perceive these policies. The data presented here provide support for each of the
study’s six hypotheses, as will be discussed below.
In line with Hypothesis 1, most faculty and staff reported that they have received
training on Title IX policy and understand their obligations with regard to MR.
However, a nontrivial group of faculty members reported that they either had not or
were not sure whether they had received such training, indicating that its impact has
been lost across this core of REs. There were also a substantial minority of participants
who reported either that they were not sure whether an MR policy existed at their insti-
tution or that they were unfamiliar with it. It is unlikely that a faculty or staff member
who is unaware of a policy will comply with it. Thus, in order for REs to fulfill their
MR obligations, it seems necessary that institutions enhance the efficacy of such train-
ing. Furthermore, there were participants who reported that they were not MRs or were
Koon-Magnin and Mancini 363

not sure whether they were MRs. It is possible that most or all of these respondents
worked in exempt positions (e.g., typically roles in health, counseling, or law enforce-
ment) and were thus accurate in their responses that they are not MRs. However,
because the exemptions from MR are very limited, we suspect that some of these
responses came from participants who are in fact REs with MR obligations of which
they are unaware.
Consistent with prior research (Newins & White, 2018), and in support of
Hypothesis 2, faculty and staff in this sample reported high levels of anticipated com-
pliance with MR policies. Approximately 80% of respondents reported that they would
report an incident of sexual assault or misconduct to the Title IX Coordinator if it was
brought to their attention. There is reason to question this high level of anticipated com-
pliance, however. That is, substantial percentages of employees indicated being unfa-
miliar with the logistics of the process (e.g., >40% of respondents reported that they did
not know who the Title IX Coordinator was and approximately a quarter reported that
they did not know how to contact the Title IX Coordinator). Perhaps the high level of
compliance in light of the concession that many respondents are unaware of the partic-
ulars of Title IX can be understood as indicating that if they had to act, they would then
do the work to find this information.
Hypothesis 3, that a majority of faculty and staff would approve of MR policies, was
also supported. Generally, approval for laws that are intended to control sexual offend-
ing, particularly those designed to protect college students, garner extremely high rates
of public support (Mancini & Budd, 2020) and research on employee and advocate per-
ceptions of Title IX MR processes indicate a similar tendency (Brubaker & Mancini,
2017; Newins & White, 2018). Two-thirds of participants either “somewhat” or
“strongly” agreed with MR policies and that these policies should be applied to
faculty, staff, and administrators.
Prior scholarship has discussed potential benefits and harms of MR policies
(Holland et al., 2018; Weiner, 2017; Weiss & Lasky, 2017). The respondents who par-
ticipated in this study, as stated in Hypothesis 4, had both positive and negative
impressions of MR. The six statements with the highest level of agreement (shown
in Table 4) were all potential benefits of MR policies (e.g., “demonstrate the institu-
tion’s concern” and “hold perpetrators of sexual assault accountable”), indicating
that these respondents viewed these policies as potentially helpful responses to
sexual offending on college campuses. However, four statements that demonstrated
concern for victim well-being also received high levels of support (M above 3.3 on
a scale of 1–5): “Have the potential to retraumatize victims,” “Reduce victim auton-
omy,” “May deter rape victims from reporting sexual victimization,” and “Have the
potential to prevent victims from seeking services from the university.” Taken
together, these findings indicate that, on average, faculty and staff members view
these policies as both potentially helpful and potentially harmful in responding to
sexual assault. However, concerns about MR were particularly pronounced among
respondents who had a personal connection to sexual assault through knowing a
victim or knowing someone they believed to have been falsely accused of sexual
misconduct.
364 Violence Against Women 29(2)

Hypothesis 5 stated that perceptions of MR policies would differ based on demo-

graphic characteristics and experiences with sexual assault victims and accused offend-
ers, which these findings support. All six of the statements with the highest level of
agreement (all of which suggest potential benefits of MR policies) were significantly
lower among participants with a personal connection to sexual assault. In line with
student perceptions of anticipated versus actual compliance, these data suggest that
the people who are actually impacted by these policies feel differently than the
larger sample and appear to be less supportive of the policies.
Beyond knowing a victim of sexual assault or an accused offender, there were sig-
nificant differences in responses based on race, professional role (faculty or staff),
tenure status, and prior experience reporting to Title IX. Two measures differed signif-
icantly by race, with Black respondents showing less support for MR (i.e., less likely to
view it as a necessary part of their job, higher concern that victims may not seek ser-
vices) than White respondents. These findings are in line with prior research, which
suggests that faculty of color are more sensitized to the fact that minority students
view official administrative channels to address sexual misconduct, such as Title IX,
skeptically (Brubaker, 2019). Furthermore, tenured faculty were generally more critical
of MR requirements than were nontenured faculty in these data across multiple mea-
sures (i.e., reduce victim autonomy, increase false reports, decrease due process).
Moreover, MR policies have been implemented with little faculty guidance (e.g.,
Brubaker & Mancini, 2017). Thus, tenured faculty may be more likely to view it as
an administrative policy threatening shared governance. Alternatively, tenured status
may be a proxy for older age, indicating that older faculty are less enthusiastic about
MR. We did not inquire about age in the survey, but our finding here indicates the
need for future research to consider a broad range of employee-level factors.
Finally, those who have had prior experience reporting to Title IX were significantly
less likely to feel MR is achieving its goal of holding individuals accountable.
Because we are among the first to inquire about past Title IX reporting experiences,
it is difficult to place this finding in context. However, it does indicate that for many
MRs the experience was not positive. Perhaps because Title IX proceedings are con-
fidential, the reporter never learned of the outcome and so assumed “nothing was
done.” Additionally, this finding could be capturing the “role conflict” effect identified
in earlier studies (Holland & Cortina, 2017), as those who fulfilled their reporting
duties may feel they betrayed the confidence of the individual who disclosed to
them. Future research should continue to explore individual-level factors that shape
perceptions of MR.
Finally, in line with Hypothesis 6, exploration of the subset of respondents who had
reported to Title IX suggests the occurrence of positive and negative experiences.
Equal numbers of participants reported that following their experiences reporting to
Title IX they were “very satisfied” and “very unsatisfied”; “optimistic” and “pessimis-
tic.” One respondent reported significant discomfort after the reporting process, and
described experiencing “suicidal ideation” and “loss of faith in institution and its
values.” Vicarious trauma is a concern for individuals who receive disclosures of
sexual assaults, as they may begin to suffer symptoms of trauma themselves
Koon-Magnin and Mancini 365

(Jenkins & Baird, 2002). Furthermore, if the employee who receives the disclosure
does not feel that the institution is responding appropriately to the sexual assault,
they may experience institutional betrayal (Smith & Freyd, 2013). Institutional betrayal
theory posits that an institution, such as a college or university, can exacerbate the harm
of a traumatic event if they fail to protect or respond to the victim who trusted them to
do so (Smith & Freyd, 2013, 2014). Though the one respondent’s experience reported
here was not reflective of the overall sample, it underscores the need for institutions to
ensure that REs’ health and well-being are not compromised as part of MR. There was
no significant difference in likelihood of reporting to Title IX in the future based on
having reported in the past. We attribute this to the fact that most faculty and staff
members follow the policies and fulfill their obligations. However, reporting to law
enforcement is not a requirement (it is an option at either institution studied here,
but is not required like a report to Title IX). We suspect that at least in some cases
the individuals who are most likely to receive disclosures are also the individuals
who are best educated on the impact of trauma and secondary victimization. These
MRs would not want to enhance the risk of trauma and secondary victimization to
the student by making an additional disclosure without the student’s consent. Future
survey research with this population should attempt to test this assertion.
Like all survey research, there are limitations to the current study. The two institu-
tions sampled here are both public and mid-sized, which may limit the relevance of
these results to private institutions as well as to smaller or larger institutions.
Furthermore, while typical of survey research (Pew Research Center, 2017), our
respondents did not reflect the demographics of the larger institutions, particularly con-
cerning gender. Females, as opposed to male faculty and staff, may have been more
willing to participate in our study for several reasons. One is that Title IX policy
may be perceived as more relevant to female faculty and staff. Additionally, female
REs may receive a disproportionately larger share of disclosures compared to their
male counterparts. Even so, this oversight highlights the need to include larger and
more diverse samples of faculty and staff across a range of institutions. Specifically,
future research should focus on administering a similar survey across other populations
to assess the applicability of these findings. Another study limitation is the timing of
data collection. Because IRB processing took significantly longer at Institution B
than at Institution A, survey administration was completed at Institution A in fall of
2019 and at Institution B in spring of 2020. This meant that survey administration at
Institution B was interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the sample size
from Institution B was somewhat smaller than anticipated. Finally, the impact of
Title IX on these two universities may not be similar. Institution B has recently been
involved in a high-profile case, which may have brought these policies to the attention
of faculty and staff in a way that did not occur at Institution A. This may have led to a
more complete and critical understanding of Title IX policies among this group of
employees.
Furthermore, we encourage a greater empirical focus on further exploring intersec-
tionality across employee views, as our study indicates that not all faculty and staff
members react similarly to their MR responsibilities. To illustrate, we find significant
366 Violence Against Women 29(2)

variation in perceptions and experiences along sociodemographic lines (e.g., race) and
employee characteristics (e.g., employee type and tenure status). Because this work is
exploratory, we lack the mechanisms to fully explain the intervening mechanisms
behind these divides. Future studies, though, should extend this line of inquiry.
Relatedly, as we noted in the limitations section, our samples are limited given the
focus on two large and public institutions. There is a need then to test hypotheses
on other diverse populations and institutions (e.g., Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, community colleges). Finally, further research is needed to better under-
stand the experiences of actual reporters. Our findings show extreme opposites across
the 10% of individuals who indicated disclosing to their institution. While quantitative
analysis helps identify this population, we recommend a qualitative or focus group
approach in which reporters can more fully share their experiences.
Policy implications also flow from study results. For example, ∼40% of employees
indicated not knowing who the Title IX Coordinator was at their institution and 30%
did not know how to contact that person. This is concerning because mandated disclo-
sure requires that faculty and staff report an allegation typically via a website, through
email, or by phoning Title IX personnel. To better advertise the office and encourage
relationships of trust among employees, Title IX Offices might consider a variety of
outreach campaigns such as scheduling semester “meet and greets,” creating an
annual awards ceremony recognizing faculty and staff dedicated to Title IX issues
and compliance, and offering to attend faculty/staff meetings within the institution.
Moreover, among the subsample who had disclosed, half expressed negative reac-
tions to their duty. For this reason, institutions might consider administering a survey to
reporters that would assess their experience with the process. Additionally, particularly
relevant among reporters who indicated having a negative experience, perhaps debrief-
ing sessions in which reporters are recognized and offered assistance/counseling to
manage any uncomfortable emotions related to the process, might be considered.
In summary, consistent with prior scholarship and our hypotheses, we find that
across two diverse samples, most personnel are aware of their reporting duties, have
received some training, state that they are likely to comply with MR, and are generally
supportive of it. At the same time, the current study uncovers new findings. As we
hypothesized earlier, like students, university employees appreciate the potential ben-
efits and harms of MR. There are significant differences in perceptions among the
sample, particularly across contact with a victim or accused offender, institutional affil-
iation, employee role, tenure status, race, and experience previously submitting a
report. Among these latter individuals, reactions were mixed.

Conclusion
Study findings suggest that MR may be problematic. First, some faculty and staff in
this sample appeared unaware of their obligations or lacked the knowledge to fulfill
them. Second, some employees did not support these policies, which decreases the
likelihood that MR will work as intended. Third, among respondents who had
lodged a report to Title IX, reactions were mixed, as about half of reporters recounted
Koon-Magnin and Mancini 367

negative experiences associated with the report. Given a negative experience, this
group may be unlikely to comply with MR in the future. Future research should con-
tinue to explore the contexts of MR policies with the aim of crafting nuanced reporting
roles in these complex situations. For example, perhaps MR duties should apply only in
select situations (e.g., ongoing threats). Alternatively, anonymous reporting options
could be expanded in cases in which the victim wishes to remain anonymous or
does not want to participate in Title IX proceedings. It may be appropriate in some
cases that, rather than reporting to the Title IX office, MRs are given other options
to fulfill their obligations (e.g., linking the victim with resources). While faculty and
staff views should not dictate MR procedures, their views and experiences, noticeably
absent in the current literature, are valuable sources of information concerning how
MR policies and procedures function in practice.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Editor and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. They also
extend their gratitude to Sarah Jane Brubaker, Corina Schulze, and Tammi Slovinsky for their
review of the survey instrument.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

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

ORCID iDs
Sarah Koon-Magnin https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5190-8084
Christina Mancini https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9409-6458

References
Amin, D. (2019). Students’ awareness, knowledge, and perceptions of mandatory reporting of
sexual victimization on college campuses. [Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth
University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Brubaker, S. J. (2019). Campus-based sexual assault victim advocacy and Title IX: Revisiting
tensions between grassroots activism and the criminal justice system. Feminist
Criminology, 14(3), 307-329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085118772087
Brubaker, S. J., & Mancini, C. (2017). The impact of increased state regulation of campus sexual
assault practices: Perspectives of campus personnel. Journal of School Violence, 16(3), 286-
301. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2017.1318577
Campbell, R., Wasco, S. M., Ahrens, C. E., Sefl, T., & Barnes, H. E. (2001). Preventing the
“Second rape”: Rape survivors’ experiences with community service providers. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 16(12), 1239-1259. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626001016
012002
368 Violence Against Women 29(2)

Conley, A. H., Overstreet, C. M., Hawn, S. E., Kendler, K. S., Dick, D. M., & Amstadter, A. B.
(2017). Prevalence and predictors of sexual assault among a college sample. Journal of
American College Health, 65(1), 41-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2016.1235578
Department of Education. (2020). Nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education programs
or activities receiving federal financial assistance. 85 Fed. Reg. 30,026. https://www.govin-
fo.gov/app/details/FR-2020-05-19/2020-10512.
Holland, K. J., & Cortina, L. M. (2017). The evolving landscape of Title IX: Predicting manda-
tory reporters’ responses to sexual assault disclosures. Law and Human Behavior, 41(5),
429-439. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000253
Holland, K. J., Cortina, L. M., & Freyd, J. J. (2018). Compelled disclosure of college sexual
assault. American Psychologist, 73(3), 256-268. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000186
Jenkins, S. R., & Baird, S. (2002). Secondary traumatic stress and vicarious trauma: A valida-
tional study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15(5), 423-432. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1020193526843
Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Warner, T. D., Fisher, B. S., & Martin, S. L. (2009). College
women’s experiences with physically forced, alcohol- or other drug-enabled, and drug-
facilitated sexual assault before and since entering college. Journal of American College
Health, 57(6), 639-649. https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.57.6.639-649
Mancini, C., & Budd, K. M. (2020). Americans’ views of efficacy toward campus sexual assault
reform. Journal of School Violence, 19(3), 265-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.
2019.1660884
Mancini, C., Pickett, J. T., Call, C., & Roche, S. P. (2016). Mandatory reporting (MR) in higher
education: College students’ perceptions of laws designed to reduce campus sexual assault.
Criminal Justice Review, 41, 219-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016816634787
Muehlenhard, C. L., Peterson, Z. D., Humphreys, T. P., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2017). Evaluating
the one-in-five statistic: Women’s risk of sexual assault while in college. Journal of Sex
Research, 54(4-5), 549-576. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1295014
Newins, A. R., Bernstein, E., Peterson, R., Waldron, J. C., & White, S. W. (2018). Title IX man-
dated reporting: The views of university employees and students. Behavioral Sciences,
8(11), 106. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8110106
Newins, A. R., & White, S. W. (2018). Title IX sexual violence reporting requirements:
Knowledge and opinions of responsible employees and students. Journal of Aggression,
Conflict, and Peace Research, 10(2), 74-82.
Pew Research Center. (2017). What low response rates mean for telephone surveys. https://www.
pewresearch.org/methods/2017/05/15/what-low-response-rates-mean-for-telephone-surveys/
Renzetti, C. M., & Follingstad, D. R. (Eds.) (2020). Adjudicating campus sexual misconduct and
assault: Controversies and challenges. Cognella Press. https://titles.cognella.com/adjudicat-
ing-campus-sexual-misconduct-andassault- 9781516541904
Richards, T. N. (2019). No evidence of “weaponized Title IX” here: An empirical assessment of
sexual misconduct reporting, case processing, and outcomes. Law and Human Behavior,
43(2), 180-192. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000316
Sinozich, S., & Langton, L. (2014). Rape and sexual assault victimization among college-age
females, 1995–2013. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-
library/abstracts/rape-and-sexual-assault-among-college-age-females-1995-2013.
Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2013). Dangerous safe havens: Institutional betrayal exacerbates
sexual trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26(1), 119-124. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.
21778
Koon-Magnin and Mancini 369

Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). Institutional betrayal. American Psychologist, 69(6), 575-587.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037564
Streng, T. K., & Kamimura, A. (2017). Perceptions of university policies to prevent sexual
assault on campus among college students in the USA. Sexuality Research and Social
Policy, 14(2), 133-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-016-0245-x
Weiner, M. H. (2017). A principled and legal approach to Title IX reporting. Tennessee Law
Review, 85, 71-188.
Weiss, K. G., & Lasky, N. V. (2017). Mandatory reporting of sexual misconduct at college: A
critical perspective. Journal of School Violence, 16(3), 259-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15388220.2017.1318575
Wiersma-Mosley, J. D., & DiLoreto, J. (2018). The role of Title IX coordinators on college and
university campuses. Behavioral Sciences, 8, 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8040038

Author Biographies
Sarah Koon-Magnin is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science &
Criminal Justice at the University of South Alabama. Her research interests revolve around
social and legal responses to sexual violence. Dr. Koon-Magnin has published in such outlets
as the Journal of Criminal Justice, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Violence & Victims,
and Sex Roles. Her first book, which she coauthored with Drs. Corina Schulze and Valerie
Bryan, was titled Gender identity, sexual orientation, and sexual assault: Challenging the
myths. Her second book, Sexual assault in the United States: Examining the facts, is forthcoming
in 2022.

Christina Mancini is an Associate Professor in the Wilder School of Government and Public
Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University. Dr. Mancini’s research seeks to improve
public safety by examining the efficacy of societal responses to offending. She is the author
of two books and over 35 peer-reviewed articles that have appeared in a variety of law and
policy journals. Dr. Mancini holds several editorial advisory appointments and is a cofounder
of the nonprofit Sexual Offense Policy Research (SOPR) workgroup, which seeks to inform
the public and policymakers about best practices to prevent sexual violence.