Professional Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-Qualitative-Evaluation-Of-The-Effects 👈

1. Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wfsw20
Journal of Family Social Work
ISSN: 1052-2158 (Print) 1540-4072 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wfsw20
A Qualitative Evaluation of the Effects of
Mandatory Reporting of Domestic Violence on
Victims and Their Children
Becky Antle , Anita Barbee , Pam Yankeelov & Linda Bledsoe
To cite this article: Becky Antle , Anita Barbee , Pam Yankeelov & Linda Bledsoe (2010) A
Qualitative Evaluation of the Effects of Mandatory Reporting of Domestic Violence on Victims and
Their Children, Journal of Family Social Work, 13:1, 56-73, DOI: 10.1080/10522150903468065
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10522150903468065
Published online: 26 Jan 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3592
View related articles
Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

2. A Qualitative Evaluation of the Effects of
Mandatory Reporting of Domestic Violence
on Victims and Their Children
BECKY ANTLE, ANITA BARBEE, PAM YANKEELOV, and
LINDA BLEDSOE
Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
This purpose of this research was to evaluate the mandatory report-
ing law for domestic violence victims in the state of Kentucky
through the qualitative interview of 24 female victims of domestic
violence. Victims were generally supportive of the law and felt that
professionals should be required to report domestic abuse. They did
not feel that the report placed them at higher risk of revictimization
or loss of their children to child protective services. The women were
offered and utilized a range of supportive services. Criticisms of the
process included the ‘‘secrecy’’ of contact, a simplistic conceptuali-
zation of family violence, and failure by police to act on the report.
This research offers preliminary support for mandatory reporting
as an effective intervention for domestic violence from the
perspective of victims.
KEYWORDS adult protective services, child witnesses, domestic
violence, mandatory reporting
Each year there are approximately 4.8 million incidents of intimate partner
violence (IPV) against women and 2.9 million incidents against men (Tjaden
& Thoennes, 2000). There are significant costs associated with this violence.
For example, in 2004, there were 1,544 deaths due to IPV (Department of
Justice, 2006). The Centers for Disease Control (2006) projected that the costs
of IPV exceeded $5.8 billion in 1995, and when these figures are estimated
for current economic conditions, the costs are estimated to be $8.3 billion
per year (Max, Rice, Finkelstein, Bardwell, & Leadbetter, 2004). There are
Address correspondence to Becky Antle, MSSW, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Kent School
of Social Work, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292. E-mail: blfree01@louisville.edu
Journal of Family Social Work, 13:56–73, 2010
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1052-2158 print=1540-4072 online
DOI: 10.1080/10522150903468065
56

3. numerous physiological and psychological outcomes of such abuse for
adults and children, including neurological damage, sexually transmitted
diseases (including HIV), low-birth-weight babies and miscarriage,
depression, anxiety and chemical dependency disorders, and delays in
cognitive and emotional development (Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997;
Mullender, Debbonaire, Hague, Kelly, & Malos, 1998).
In addition to the consequences of domestic violence for victims, there
are also numerous psychological effects for children who witness such
abuse. They often experience some form of psychological problem such
as delays in cognitive and emotional development, extreme withdrawal
or aggressiveness (Mullender et al., 1998), and anxiety disorders such as
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as well as internalizing=externalizing
behavior problems (Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997). Beyond the psycho-
logical effects, studies have found that children who witness domestic viol-
ence are at higher risk than other children for experiencing physical abuse
themselves. Peled (1997) found that 50% of fathers and 24% of mothers
involved in domestic violence abuse their children (rates 5 times higher
than the general population). In addition, battered mothers can also
become so overwhelmed by psychological stressors that they fail to nurture
their children effectively and can no longer protect them from the abuse
(Kantor & Little, 2003). In a recent study of the intra- and intergenerational
associations between domestic violence and child maltreatment, Renner
and Slack (2006) found that childhood physical abuse, sexual abuse, and
witnessing domestic violence were significant predictors of adult violence
victimization.
A study completed in Washington State found that domestic violence
was present in one of five cases referred to child protective services (CPS)
(English, Edleson, & Herrick, 2005). Furthermore, due to the lack of a unified
definition of maltreatment or ‘‘failure to protect,’’ a case worker’s response to
domestic violence in the home will vary by state (Kantor & Little, 2003).
Studies have recently shown that battered women with children are not likely
to report abuse due to fear of losing custody of their children. For example,
in focus groups conducted by Devoe and Smith (2003), 43% of the sample
stated that they were not likely to seek support from social services due to
the fear of losing their children.
Policy Interventions for Domestic Violence
A policy approach to the problem of domestic violence may be particularly
helpful to intervene and prevent the problem in the lives of more women
and children. Due to overwhelming concerns for safety, women are not
likely to ask for assistance regarding domestic violence. Therefore, many
states have adopted laws to better detect and address the crime of domestic
abuse. An example of such a law is the mandatory arrest law, which specifies
Evaluation of Kentucky’s Domestic Violence Mandatory Reporting Law 57

4. that arrest for perpetrators of domestic violence be immediate and automatic
(Coulter & Chez, 1997; Sherman & Cohn, 1990).
Kentucky, along with five other states including California, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, and Rhode Island, have mandatory reporting laws
that specifically address the issue of reporting when domestic violence is sus-
pected (Hyman & Chez, 1998; Iavicoli, 2005). Kentucky’s law (KRS 209.030)
states that ‘‘any person having reasonable cause to suspect that an adult
has suffered abuse, neglect or exploitation from a spouse shall report to
the department for social services’’ (now known as Community Based
Services in the Cabinet for Families and Children). The department must
notify police, initiate an investigation, and make a written report of findings
and recommendations. The department is allowed access to health records of
the adult and can enter the adult’s private premises to investigate the need for
protective services. The other states direct report to police only, and some
states just specify that medical professionals must report suspected domestic
violence. Rhode Island requires confidential reports for data collection
purposes only.
The intent of the Kentucky law is to engage the entire society, by hold-
ing all citizens, but particularly professionals, accountable to help victims of
domestic violence and to prevent future incidence of such abuse. The law
helps locate victims of domestic violence so they can be provided with
services and protection before the violence reoccurs. The supporters of the
law enthusiastically embrace the requirement of reporting to well-trained
adult protective service (APS) workers who can offer voluntary protective
services to the victims of domestic violence for themselves and their children.
They argue that the advantages of mandatory reporting include (1) giving
victims the opportunity to gain information, safety planning, and other ser-
vices from a specialist; (2) offering an alternative to shelters that do not
accommodate victims with older male children, disabled victims, male vic-
tims, and victims with substance abuse or other mental health problems;
(3) promoting early identification of vulnerable adults and children; (4)
decreasing isolation of such victims; (5) preventing child abuse; and (6)
establishing third party documentation that may be critical to any criminal
or civil legal action (Fritsch & Frederich, 1998).
However, there are critics of mandatory reporting laws. Physicians have
asserted that a law requiring the report of domestic abuse hinders their ability
to provide medical care for victim injuries, thereby increasing the physiologi-
cal risks of domestic violence (Hyman, Schillinger, & Lo, 1995). Thus,
physicians in California lobbied intensely to eliminate the reporting require-
ment for medical professionals (Hyman & Chez, 1998). They argued that
mandatory reporting could undermine the doctor–patient relationship and
cause victims to stop sharing their battering experiences with health profes-
sionals. This would interfere with safety planning and referrals for counsel-
ing, shelter, and legal services. They further argued that mandatory
58 B. Antle et al.

5. reporting puts women at greater risk of reprisal by the abuser who has
threatened to retaliate if she tells anyone of the abuse. However, in another
study examining the opinions of patients visiting 12 different emergency
rooms in California and Pennsylvania, during 1996, 55.7% of the abused
women surveyed supported mandatory reporting and 44.3% opposed the
mandatory reporting law (Rodrı́guez, McLoughlin, Nah, & Campbell, 2001).
The Kentucky Domestic Violence Association, a coalition of 17 shelters
around the state, argues that (1) contact by adult protection service workers
places victims at risk for further abuse, (2) reporting requirements discourage
women from seeking help, and (3) reporting impedes victim’s rights
(Currens, 1998).
Need for Current Study
Given the controversy surrounding the mandatory law, there is a clear need
to evaluate the way the law is implemented and the various consequences of
this type of law for domestic violence victims. Only two previous studies
regarding domestic violence victims’ opinions of mandatory reporting were
conducted in Florida and California with women involved in focus groups
about domestic violence (Coulter & Chez, 1997; Sullivan & Hagen, 2005).
The state of Florida does not have a clear mandatory reporting law for
domestic violence, although such a law exists for child abuse. The state of
California does have a reporting law for health professionals. The Coulter
and Chez (1997) study found that victims were in strong support of a manda-
tory domestic violence reporting law for others, but not for themselves.
The Sullivan and Hagen (2005) study found that victims were not in sup-
port of reporting laws due to perceived revictimization by multiple systems.
However, there were several limitations to these studies. First, the sample
consisted of women who volunteered for the focus groups. These women
may not be representative of all women who have experience with manda-
tory reporting of domestic violence. Second, the use of focus groups may
have affected the response of participants. The unanimous agreement of
opinions among group members may have been a function of group pro-
cesses. Individuals with divergent opinions may have felt pressured to agree
with the group and not express alternative views. Due to these limitations,
there is a need for additional research on victim’s perceptions and experi-
ences of mandatory reporting.
The state of Kentucky was also interested in the evaluation of its unique
APS system. This system differs from other states not only in the mandatory
reporting link, but also in its provision of integrated services to domestic viol-
ence victims. As interventions by social services represent one of the three
primary responses to domestic violence, the evaluation of this law has
implications on a national level for the potential development of state-based
services and for the adoption of similar reporting policies.
Evaluation of Kentucky’s Domestic Violence Mandatory Reporting Law 59

6. The primary research questions for this study included the following: (1)
What are the actions taken by APS workers following a report of domestic
violence? (2) What are domestic violence victims’ opinions of the appropri-
ateness and utility of mandatory reporting and APS interventions? (3) What
are the effects of domestic violence reporting on children? In order to answer
these research questions a telephone interview study with domestic violence
victims was conducted.
METHOD
Sample
The study employed a sample of 24 victims of domestic violence who had
previous contact with APS following a report of domestic violence to the
Department for Social Services. This group was drawn from a larger sample
of 617 randomly chosen case files from up to two years previous to the study.
These case files came from eight counties in Kentucky representing the three
urban counties of the state and each of the four rural quadrants of the state.
The APS caseworkers that had previously provided services to victims
contacted a randomly selected sample of 60 of these individuals to obtain
their consent to be a part of an anonymous interview with researchers from
a state university. All of the victims that were reached by caseworkers agreed
to be a part of the study. However, out of the 60 victims who consented to
participate, the researchers were only able to locate 24. The other victims
either never answered the phone or had disconnected phone numbers. This
small sample size is indicative of the difficulty in reaching domestic violence
victims due to barriers such as inaccurate contact information, relocation and
lack of means for contact (i.e., no phone), and possible resistance by victims
in being contacted. However, given the qualitative nature of the study, the
appropriateness of the sample size determined by saturation of the data
instead of size. The sample size of 24 victims enabled the researchers to reach
saturation of the data, as evidenced by recurrent statements and themes
during the telephone interviews.
Procedure
This study occurred in two stages. The first stage involved a sample of
15 victims, and the second stage occurred three months later and involved
nine victims. The second sample differed from the first in that more specific
questions regarding the effects of domestic violence reporting on children
were added to that interview protocol. The addition of these questions to
the second stage was based upon emerging themes regarding the importance
of children for decision making in domestic violence situations in the first
60 B. Antle et al.

7. stage of interviews. This revision of the interview based upon emerging data
is consonant with qualitative research procedures (Creswell, 2007).
As noted above, the former worker contacted a victim to explain the
nature of the study and to determine the victim’s willingness to participate
and the best time that the researchers could contact the victim. Anonymity
of victims and calling during the safest times were included in the procedure
to maximize safety for the victims. After receiving the permission from the
victims, the workers then provided researchers with the first name, phone
number, and best contact time for each willing victim. Two separate research-
ers conducted the first and second stage of the interviews. These researchers
contacted victims during the requested time frame and immediately checked
for safety at the beginning of the phone call. Victims were instructed that they
could end the phone interview at any time for reasons of safety or discomfort.
Additional information regarding the purpose of the study was also provided
at the onset. After receiving consent to proceed, the researcher then began the
interview using a structured interview guide. These interviews lasted from 30
minutes to 1 hour. Researchers took written notes on the victims’ responses to
questions during the interview and then recorded additional information and
personal impressions from the interviews after the phone call was terminated.
The interview procedures (telephone call and written notes versus
audiotapes) were designed to maximize the safety of victims and support their
comfort with the interview process. All procedures were reviewed and
approved by the Institutional Review Board for the authors’ university.
Instrument
The instrument used for these interviews was a structured interview guide
developed specifically for the current study. This instrument was developed
to address key questions regarding the effects and appropriateness of the
mandatory reporting law. The first set of questions regarded the process of
the intervention: (1) ‘‘Tell about the events that prompted the visit by social
services in regards to domestic violence.’’ This question was designed to
establish the most recent mandatory reporting event and to make the specific
event salient for the entirety of the interview. (2) ‘‘How did the social service
worker first contact you?’’ If the victim had difficulty answering, the inter-
viewer asked if the first contact was via letter, phone call, home visit, shelter,
court, or another place.
The second set of questions focused on the consequences of reporting
for the victim’s safety such as (1) Did your partner intercept the letter, call or
visit? (2) If so, what happened when he intercepted? (3) If not, did he find out
about the contact with the social service worker later? (4) If so, how did he
find out? (5) If so, how did he respond?
The third set of questions involved the nature of the relationship with
the social service worker and the services provided. The questions
Evaluation of Kentucky’s Domestic Violence Mandatory Reporting Law 61

8. included (1) How did the actual contact with the social service worker make
you feel? (2) If the contact made you feel good, please elaborate. If the con-
tact made you feel bad, please elaborate. (3) Did the social service worker
talk with you or send you information about your relationship with your
abusive partner, the cycle of violence, patterns in these types of relationships,
legal process involved in getting an emergency protection order (EPO),
safety planning, shelter services? (4) How did you react to that information?
(5) What steps if any did you take toward leaving your partner at that time?
(6) What else did the social service worker talk to you about in his or her
contact with you? (7) Did the worker direct you to any of the following ser-
vices: social service counseling, individual or group therapy, family counsel-
ing, marriage counseling, self-help or support group, substance abuse
services, psychological testing=evaluation, health, medical services, employ-
ment=educational services, legal or court services, housing assistance, spouse
abuse shelter, emergency food, transportation, financial assistance? (8) Did
you use any of those suggested services? (9) If yes, which ones? Describe
them and how that has gone and if they were helpful to you or not. (10) If
not, please tell me the reasons that you weren’t able to utilize certain services
or why some were not as helpful as you expected them to be? (11) Overall,
how did the time with the social service worker make you feel?
The fourth set of questions focused on the effects of reporting on chil-
dren: (1) At any time in the past, did you worry about losing your kids
because of your partner’s abuse? (2) After the social service worker contacted
you, did you ever worry about losing your kids? The last nine participants
were also asked about the consequences of the report for her children (if
she had children). These potential consequences for children included
changes in various domains of functioning, feelings about interventions or
changes in relational status and general risk=benefit.
The fifth set of questions was prefaced by the statement ‘‘In Kentucky,
the law says that professionals and all citizens are required to report to the
Cabinet for Families and Children when they suspect domestic violence.’’
The questions focused on the victim’s views about mandatory reporting.
These questions included (1) Do you think any of the following professionals
should have to report domestic violence when they suspect it or do you think
any of the following professionals should definitely not have to report? This
list included doctors, other health care providers, mental health providers,
therapists, other counselors, law enforcement, lawyers, and shelter workers.
(2) In what way is that a good requirement? (3) In what way is that a bad
requirement? (4) Should you or other people who have experienced dom-
estic violence have the right to prevent a report from being made? (5) Would
you have prevented the report that we have been discussing today? Why or
why not?
The sixth set of questions assessed the outcomes of the intervention:
(1) In general, how did the referral to social services make you feel? (2)
62 B. Antle et al.

9. Did the referral to social services prompt you to take steps to protect your-
self? Is so, what steps did you take? (3) As a result of the report of abuse
to the state, are you now better off, about the same, or worse off than before
the report was made?
The final section of the interview asked about relationship with the part-
ner: (1) Do you have any current contact with the partner we have been talk-
ing about in this interview? (2) What is the status of the relationship with him?
Married and living together, married but separated, not married but living
together, not married and separated, getting divorced, divorced.
In addition to these primary variables, a qualitative approach was main-
tained by allowing victims an opportunity to suggest changes in the manda-
tory reporting law or APS services and any other information not covered by
the interview.
RESULTS
Sample Description
The sample size was 24 females. Of the entire sample, 50% were married and
still living with the abusive partner, another 8% were married but separated
from their partner. Twenty-one percent were in the process of getting a div-
orce, whereas 17% were already divorced. Seventy percent still had contact
of some kind with the partner either because they lived with the partner or
had to see him due to the children. Thirteen, or 54%, of the women had
children.
Process of Reporting
Of the 24 participants, 41% of the women either called the police (n ¼ 8) or
another professional such as a physician (n ¼ 1) or a therapist (n ¼ 1).
Twenty percent had taken out an EPO on the partner before they were con-
tacted by social services. Another 20% knew that either neighbors or relatives
had called the police to intervene in the situation, whereas only 19% (n ¼ 4)
did not know where the report had originated.
The majority (45%) of women stated that the APS worker contacted
them by phone. The second most frequent category of contact type (34%)
was ‘‘other’’ such as at court or at the police station. Only three women, or
13%, indicated that they received a letter, and two (8%) were initially con-
tacted through a home visit.
Consequences of Reporting on Victim Safety
Of the 24 women interviewed, 21% (n ¼ 5) indicated that their partner inter-
cepted the initial contact attempt by the social worker. In these cases, two
Evaluation of Kentucky’s Domestic Violence Mandatory Reporting Law 63

10. husbands were present during the home visit by the social workers, two hus-
bands were present when their wives were approached in court, and another
knew of the contact through the emergency protection order. An additional
21% (n ¼ 5) of the women indicated that their partner found out later about
the contact with the social worker. In these cases, the original contacts were
home visit (n ¼ 1) and phone calls (n ¼ 4). None of the discovered contacts
was via letter. The husbands found out about the contact later through
follow-up visits (n ¼ 3) and through the wives’ self-disclosure. The parti-
cipants’ qualitative responses indicated that when the partner knew about
APS involvement from the beginning, he responded positively. Examples
include, ‘‘He did not retaliate,’’ ‘‘He was not upset,’’ ‘‘He supported the visit
because he thought they needed help.’’ However, when the perpetrator later
discovered that the victim had been contacted by APS, the response
was sometimes negative. Two women stated ‘‘He was angry . . . and verbally
abusive,’’ ‘‘He was angry, yelled at [me], and made threats.’’
Participants’ Response
When women were asked how the initial contact made them feel, the
majority had positive things to say about the encounter. There were several
categories of responses; the first category included feelings of being cared for
and supported (see Table 1). Respondents had positive reactions to the initial
correspondence with the social worker, including comments such as ‘‘Good,
like someone out there cares,’’ ‘‘That people are concerned,’’ ‘‘Felt a lot of
support,’’ ‘‘Felt more secure. If I needed the social worker or had more pro-
blems, I could call the social worker.’’ Many indicated that the information
provided by the social worker was very helpful and felt supported: ‘‘She
helped me with financial assistance. She has been right there the whole
way!’’ ‘‘Felt safer!’’ ‘‘I was very pleased with the contact with my social
worker. If I needed to, I could call my social worker for help. It made me feel
safer. The social worker gave me her phone number.’’
Another category involved feeling relieved that someone was checking on
their safety needs. ‘‘Good, it was a good thing that they were checking on me to
see how I was doing,’’ ‘‘Social workers were fine. They called everyday at first.
They were friendly. (When asked how it made her feel for the social worker to
call repeatedly, she replied) ‘It was OK with me.’ They were checking to see if I
was OK and told me about different programs available,’’ ‘‘Good, it was a good
thing that they were checking on me to see how I was doing.’’
A third category of reaction had to do with the ability of the social
service worker to help the victim cope with the situation: ‘‘Good, felt better
talking about what happened,’’ ‘‘Social worker helped me deal with anxiety
over separating from my husband of 20 years,’’ ‘‘Felt better to have a chance
to talk about it,’’ ‘‘It felt good to talk to someone who would keep to them-
selves what you told them.’’
64 B. Antle et al.

11. TABLE 1 Categories of Response to Mandatory Reporting
Categories Text examples
Categories of responses to initial
contact
1. Feelings of being cared for and
supported
. Good, like someone out there cares
. Felt safer
. That people are concerned
. Felt more secure. If I needed the social
worker or had more problems, I could call
the social worker.
2. Safety needs . Good, it was a good thing that they were
checking on me.
. Social workers were fine.
. They were checking to see if I was okay and
told me about different programs available.
3. Helping the victim cope with the
situation
. Felt better talking about what happened
. Social worker helped me deal with anxiety.
. It felt good to talk to someone who would
keep to themselves what you told them.
. Felt better to have a chance to talk about it.
4. Nervous about contact with the
social worker
. I don’t like talking with social workers ever.
. It makes me nervous to have to answer their
questions.
. I was afraid of losing custody of my four
children.
Opinion about mandatory reporting
1. Mandatory reporting is a good
requirement
. By reporting, lets women know that help is
out there.
. Keeps him from doing it again.
. Helps women know that someone else cares
about what is going on and helps women not
feel so alone.
2. Making the situation more
dangerous
. The person may not be ready for help.
. Worries that her husband will be angrier and
hurt her.
. Only (bad) if false repots are made.
3. Prevented a report . I needed help in dealing with the situation.
. I was glad to have the incident on record in
case I ever needed that.
. I was afraid to leave or do anything about the
abuse.
4. Suggestions for improvement . The man should be required to go to
counseling and leave the home.
. Restraining order should be honored.
. Don’t discharge physical or mental abuse.
5. More services for the victim . Provide a handout, hard to remember
everything.
. Reassure the client earlier in the process that
it is not Cabinet policy to remove kids when
mother is being beat on.
. There should be mandatory classes for
victims.
. Heal the victim first.
Evaluation of Kentucky’s Domestic Violence Mandatory Reporting Law 65

12. The final category indicated that 34% of the women felt nervous about
contact with a social worker. They indicated disliking talking with any social
worker, fearing loss of children, embarrassment, and lack of a positive
response from the Cabinet staff: ‘‘It makes me nervous. I don’t like talking
with social workers ever.’’ (When probed about the social worker’s behavior,
she said) ‘‘They weren’t rude or mean, you just have to watch everything you
do and say in front of them all the time.’’ By the end of the interview she
commented that overall she ‘‘thinks social workers are nosy because they
ask so many questions. It makes me nervous to have to answer their ques-
tions,’’ ‘‘I was afraid of losing custody of my four children,’’ The social worker
said she would have to speak with all four children separately to see if they
were being hurt or needed more services. This made me feel nervous. The
whole process took about three weeks,’’ ‘‘Not good. When I got the letter,
I called Social Services to find out what it was about. I felt the person was
abrupt and rude.’’ By the end of the interview, she commented that overall
‘‘It wasn’t a good experience. I felt they didn’t want to be bothered. I felt
embarrassed that someone would have to come in response to the domestic
violence.’’ The same person noted: ‘‘Why should I be the one to go all the
way to Louisville and stay with strangers when he has done this?’’
Evaluators were also interested in whether APS workers were providing
women with essential information of domestic violence (see Table 2).
TABLE 2 Frequency With Which Information was Provided by Adult
Protective Services (APS) (N ¼ 24)
Information on APS provided to victims %
Discussed relationship with the abusive partner
Yes 42
No 52
Discussed the cycle of violence
Yes 38
No 62
Discussed patterns in abusive relationships
Yes 46
No 54
Discussed the legal process
Yes 38
No 62
Participated in safety planning
Yes 42
No 52
Received information about shelters
Yes 70
No 30
Was the information received helpful
Yes 72
No 28
66 B. Antle et al.

13. Child Questions
Women in both parts of the study (Phase 1 and 3) were asked about their
concerns of losing their children. Of those who had children, the majority sta-
ted that they worried about losing their children prior to APS involvement.
This did not change after the APS report was made.
Of the nine women included in the second phase of the study, most had
children. The mean age of children was 10 years. Seventy-five percent of the
women indicated that their children knew about the domestic violence and
the subsequent report. Seventy-five percent also stated that they talked to
their children about the domestic violence. The majority indicated that their
children agreed with how the domestic violence was handled. All of the
women who had children indicated that the domestic violence report helped
their children experience a safer home situation.
Opinion About Mandatory Reporting Laws
When asked in what way mandatory reporting is a good requirement, they
said: ‘‘By reporting lets women know that help is out there and other people
don’t think the abuse is right’’; ‘‘Maybe I wouldn’t have gone through this so
long and not be permanently injured it somebody had reported earlier’’;
‘‘Protects victim’s lives and safety. Might save a life’’; ‘‘Keeps him from doing
it again’’; ‘‘If a woman is too scared to report the abuse, it is good to have
someone else to report it. I wanted help, but I wanted someone else to report
it. Get it out in the open so that somebody else will know what is going on’’;
‘‘This law helps women know that someone else cares about what is going
on and helps women not feel so alone with it’’; ‘‘Helps to let others know
what is going on or else it just gets worse and worse’’; ‘‘It helps people get
the help they need.’’
‘‘I feel that a great deal of domestic violence is going on in general and
should be reported. I feel that is helps the children and that is the main
thing’’; ‘‘If a spouse beats on his wife, that is not right’’; ‘‘I feel that it is good
because I feel confused a lot and have a hard time thinking. I feel sorry for
him and responsible for him. I am afraid if I leave him, something bad might
happen to him. So, it is good for others to report because it might help
protect me’’; ‘‘It should be reported if a husband hurts a wife. He should
be protecting his wife’’; ‘‘I feel that anyone including neighbors should
report. Better safe than sorry. I think it is good for a social worker to come
out to the house and check on safety.’’
When asked in what way mandatory reporting is a bad requirement,
most of the women could not think of a negative aspect of the law. The other
participants saw the downside to reporting in terms of making the situation
more dangerous: ‘‘If somebody is afraid for their life and fears getting hurt
worse due to the report’’; ‘‘The person may not yet be ready for help.
Evaluation of Kentucky’s Domestic Violence Mandatory Reporting Law 67

14. Then, if the doctor reports and the husband hears about it, the woman could
get hurt even worse. Needs to have assistance with safety plans’’; ‘‘Worries
that her husband will be angrier and hurt her’’; ‘‘Not a bad law, but if abuser
found out he might be angrier and take it out more on the woman.’’ Others
worried about false reports or misunderstandings by others about the situ-
ation: ‘‘Only (bad) if false reports are made. Should be careful. Reporter
should have a good reason to report and some proof,’’ ‘‘If a couple is wres-
tling around and kidding, people might misinterpret it; could be falsely
accused.’’ One person recognized that ‘‘some women want to save their
marriages.’’
Women were also asked if they would have prevented a report from
being made if they could have, and the majority stated that they would not
have prevented the report. Similarly, it was also indicated that, in general,
women should not be allowed to prevent a domestic violence report. They
said: ‘‘I was with him for 10 years and I was afraid to leave or do anything
about the abuse’’; ‘‘I needed help in dealing with the situation’’; ‘‘I felt I
was in danger and needed protection’’; ‘‘I called the police myself’’; ‘‘I felt
I was in danger and really needed the help’’; ‘‘I had concerns for safety
and wanted help with that’’; ‘‘My life was in danger’’; ‘‘I felt other people
should know what was going on. I was glad to have the incident on record
in case I ever needed that.’’
The 29% who did want the right to prevent a report said, ‘‘Not a bad
law, but if abuser found out, he might be angrier and take it out more on
the woman’’; ‘‘I felt like if I needed to call the police or I was in danger, I
would have called. Others can’t always call because they don’t have a phone
or whatever’’; ‘‘Because of fear, I felt ashamed and had very low self esteem
then. I couldn’t think straight at the time’’; ‘‘I tried to stop the state trooper
from arresting my husband. I realized that it was for my protection, but I
was afraid of his reaction.’’
Outcomes of the Mandatory Reporting Law
When the interviewer asked about steps they took to leave the partner,
approximately one half of the women indicated that they were already in
the process of leaving their partners prior to APS involvement. The other half
stated that they are still in a relationship with their partner. When asked a
closed-ended question regarding whether the report prompted them to make
changes in their lives, 50% of women said yes. Furthermore, 54% indicated
that the report led them to take steps to protect themselves.
Thirteen women offered suggestions for improvement. One woman
suggested that ‘‘something should be done with the man. He should have
to go to counseling, right? Social workers need to tell women that they under-
stand how hard the situation really is. (She) said her social workers did this,
but she had a hard time believing them’’; ‘‘Need to do something with him.
68 B. Antle et al.

15. He needs to be taken out of the home for a few days or a week at least so you
can clear your mind. You don’t really have the time or privacy to get any
counseling. He should be ordered into counseling’’; ‘‘Restraining order
should be honored. Don’t discharge physical or mental abuse’’; ‘‘If the police
don’t catch him within a certain number of hours, there’s nothing they can
do. They should pick him up no matter what. There should be no time limit.’’
Other women suggested more services and help for the victims. ‘‘Offer a
little more service, provide a handout, hard to remember everything, reassure
the client earlier in the process that it is not Cabinet policy to remove kids
when mother is being beat on.’’ She did receive this reassurance about three
weeks into the process. Another woman suggested ‘‘More information about
the process, why she was sent the letter, etc. More information of services
available in the community’’; ‘‘There should be mandatory classes for victims.
Heal the victim first’’; ‘‘More time needed with the social worker.’’
When asked if they were better off, worse off, or about the same as the
result of the APS report, 75% of women stated that they were better off. On
the contrary, 4% said they were worse off whereas 13% said they were about
the same.
DISCUSSION
The finding of the current study was that domestic violence victims generally
support a mandatory reporting law for themselves and others. Most agreed
that professionals should report suspected abuse. This result differs from
the previous study by Coulter and Chez (1997) that found that domestic viol-
ence victims only support mandatory reporting for others, and Sullivan and
Hagen (2005) who found a lack of support for reporting laws. The women in
the current study endorsed reporting at equal rates for themselves and
others. These divergent findings may be due to several factors. First, the
Coulter and Chez (1997) study was conducted in Florida, which has no
mandatory reporting law for domestic violence. The indication by domestic
violence victims in Kentucky, where such a law does exist, that mandatory
reporting is positive may reveal that the implementation of this law and asso-
ciated services increases victims’ endorsement. Also, though California does
mandate reporting, it does not offer services in conjunction with the report.
As previously mentioned, the state of Kentucky is also unique in its available
domestic violence services, which may provide a more supportive structure
for women and that may have led to a higher approval rating.
This evidence of victims’ endorsement, as well as other data gathered in
these interviews, gives preliminary support to the mandatory reporting law
that is tied to APS and answers the criticisms levied against mandatory report-
ing in other forms. The first group that has raised concerns about reporting is
physicians. Physicians have argued that mandatory reporting would limit
Evaluation of Kentucky’s Domestic Violence Mandatory Reporting Law 69

16. their ability to provide needed medical care (Hyman et al., 1995). However,
92% of women stated that physicians should reporting domestic violence.
This figure represents the highest endorsement rate for any of the pro-
fessional groups. In fact, one woman called a physician for help. The women
in the current study were clear in their statement that physicians should
report violence to the authorities.
Another concern raised by physicians and advocates was the potential
for increased risk of further abuse after a report is made. The women in
the current study did not report physical violence as a direct result of the
report, even after the partners uncovered the visit by social services. The cur-
rent study found that partners were more accepting of the intervention when
they were made aware of it from the beginning. This may be a better strategy.
Perhaps the woman and the partner should be informed that authorities are
aware of the problems in the home and will be monitoring the situation. This
way the women feel supported and the violent partners know that they are
being held accountable for their actions. However, more research is needed
to understand the impact of these interventions on the abuse dynamic.
The current study also found that abuse victims received information
about abusive relationships and were offered an array of services, many of
which were accepted and were found to be helpful. Although shelters were
among the services offered, this option was seldom utilized. The services that
were less disruptive served an important role in the women’s ability to cope
with the situation. About one half of the women ultimately left the abusive
partner. Furthermore, the women felt supported and less isolated after the
intervention, which probably also helped them either leave the partner or
increase feelings of safety for themselves and their children.
Many advocates and feminists have argued that mandatory reporting is a
form of social control and may make women feel threatened (Peled, 1997).
However, this research found that the majority of women felt that they were
‘‘better off’’ and ‘‘safer’’ as a result of APS intervention. Another criticism by
women’s advocates has been that domestic violence victims are blamed for
failing to protect their children and fear CPS involvement. Yet the current
study found that there was no increase in women’s concerns about losing
their children following the APS report.
Hence, the current study shows that there is victim support for a dom-
estic violence mandatory reporting law embedded in the context of APS. The
current study also examined the interactions between family members about
interventions for domestic violence. The women reported that their children
were aware of domestic violence reports and were supportive of such inter-
ventions. Qualitative responses indicated that children were either present
when the report was made or later became aware of social work services
(e.g., counseling). All women with children indicated that reporting helped
their children in some way. Policy makers who are considering the
implementation of such a law should also consider the perceived benefits
70 B. Antle et al.

17. for at-risk children. The impacts of domestic violence on children confirmed
in the current study again highlight the need for training of protective service
workers on multiple forms of violence in the family (Hendry, 1998).
Despite the generally positive response of women to this law, there
were several important criticisms levied by the respondents that should be
addressed. First, one third of the women were anxious about interacting with
a social worker or had a bad experience with the system. These same women
wanted the ability to stop the report. Second, not all of the women remem-
bered receiving information and services. At the very least the offers of infor-
mation and services should be made concretely and with handouts to make
the information more salient to the victims. Third, many felt the men were
not dealt with severely enough. Either police did not try to find him after a
report was made or did not follow through with the EPO. Several women
thought the perpetrator should be the one to leave the house instead of
the victim. Fourth, several women indicated that domestic violence services
were geared toward a ‘‘certain type of violence’’ that was ongoing and severe
in nature. They argued that their violence was either an isolated incident or
occurred in the context of a marital argument. Furthermore, women indi-
cated a desire for APS workers to have a more flexible and client-defined
view of violence.
Another concern that emerged from this research was the negative
response of perpetrators to APS interventions when they ‘‘found out later.’’
This group included those who received services or were contacted initially
without the perpetrator’s knowledge. Women indicated that when men dis-
covered the interactions with the social worker, they became angry and
potentially violent. This finding may reveal a need for more open domestic
violence services that involve the entire family system instead of ‘‘secretive’’
procedures.
Limitations
Although the findings of the current study make an important contribution to
the family violence literature, there were several limitations. The most signifi-
cant of these limitations was the small sample size for the study. Although
this is rather large for a qualitative study, it is difficult to determine the gen-
eralizability of the results to all victims of domestic violence. This sample size
was small primarily because of the difficulty in locating domestic violence
victims. This limitation may be due to a selection bias. The women who were
located and consented to participate may not be representative of the entire
population of domestic violence victims. They could represent either those
with extremely positive or negative experiences (providing motivation to
participate).
Another limitation was the time lapse between the APS intervention and
participation in the study. This time lapse varied for participants and ranged
Evaluation of Kentucky’s Domestic Violence Mandatory Reporting Law 71

18. from less than one month to more than one year. This difference may have
produced effects on variables such as actions taken, services utilized, or
relationship status. Also, women with greater time lapse since APS involve-
ment may be able to perceive more benefits of mandatory reporting than
those whose experience is more recent.
Future research should address these limitations by replicating the
current study with a larger sample size. Control over the time elapsed since
treatment should also be exercised. The finding that women believe there are
distinct forms of domestic violence (control vs. conflict) also points to the
importance of research utilizing such a differentiated model. Finally, research
should be conducted in other states that have different forms of mandatory
reporting and those that have mandatory arrest laws. Some states have
mandatory arrest laws but no mandatory reporting, and other states have
both. There is a need for research on victim responses, services offered
and utilized and outcomes given these different combinations.
Practice Implications
There are several major implications of the current research. The current study
has provided preliminary support for mandatory reporting laws to address
domestic violence. If future research with a larger sample of victims finds simi-
lar results, then the law may need to be considered for other states. The current
study found that mandatory reporting led women to make changes in their
lives and helped their children. Women were provided important information
on domestic violence dynamics and offered numerous services.
Given the significant physical and psychological effects of domestic viol-
ence on women and children, professionals must make such efforts to provide
support and ensure safety. Because professional groups have questioned the
benefits of the law, it is important for professionals to gain a greater under-
standing of the law and its implications. The effectiveness and positive victim
response to mandatory reporting in Kentucky suggest that such legislation
should be considered in the range of interventions for domestic violence.
REFERENCES
Adult Protection Act, Ken. Rev. Stat. x209–030 (2009).
Campbell, J. C., & Lewandowski, L. A. (1997). Mental and physical health effects of
intimate partner violence. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 20, 353–374.
Centers for Disease Control. (2006). Costs of intimate partner violence against
women in the United States. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control.
Coulter, M., & Chez, R. (1997). Domestic violence victims support mandatory report-
ing: For others. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 349–356.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
72 B. Antle et al.

19. Currens, S. (1998). Kentucky’s coalition’s concerns about mandatory reporting. Dom-
estic Violence Report, 3, 49–50.
Department of Justice. 2006. Intimate partner violence in the United States. Retrieved
March 1, 2009, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/intimate/ipv.htm
Devoe, E. R., & Smith, E. L. (2003). Don’t take my kids: Barriers to service delivery
for battered mothers and their young children. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 3,
277–294.
English, D., Edleson, J., & Herrick, M. (2005). Domestic violence in one state’s child
protective caseload: A study of differential case dispositions and outcomes.
Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 1183–1201.
Fritsch, T., & Frederich, K. W. (1998). Mandatory reporting of domestic violence and
coordination with child protective services. Domestic Violence Report, 3, 51–52.
Hendry, E. B. (1998). Children and domestic violence: A training imperative. Child
Abuse Review, 7, 129–134.
Hyman, A., & Chez, R. A. (1998). Mandatory reporting of domestic violence. San
Francisco: Family Violence Prevention Fund.
Hyman, A., Schillinger, D., & Lo, B. (1995). Laws mandating reporting of domestic
violence. Do they promote patients well-being? Journal of the American Medi-
cal Association, 273, 1781–1787.
Iavicoli, L. G. (2005). Mandatory reporting of domestic violence: The law, friend or
foe? Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, 72(4), 228–231.
Kantor, G., & Little, L. (2003). Defining the boundaries of child neglect when does
domestic violence equate with parental failure to protect? Journal of Interperso-
nal Violence, 18(4), 338–355.
Max, W., Rice, D., Finkelstein, E., Bardwell, R., & Leadbetter, S. (2004). The econ-
omic toll of intimate partner violence against women in the United States. Viol-
ence and Victims, 19, 259–272.
Mullender, A., Debbonaire, T., Hague, G., Kelly, L., & Malos, E. (1998). Working with
children in women’s refuges. Child and Family Social Work, 3, 87–98.
Peled, E. (1997). The battered women’s movement response to children of battered
women: A critical analysis. Violence against Women, 3(4), 424–446.
Renner, L. M., & Slack, K. S. (2006). Intimate partner violence and child maltreat-
ment: Understanding intra- and intergenerational connections. Child Abuse
and Neglect, 30, 599–617.
Rodrı́guez, M. A., McLoughlin, E., Nah, G., & Campbell, J. (2001). Mandatory report-
ing of domestic violence injuries to the police: What do emergency department
patients think? Journal of the American Medical Association, 286(5), 580–583.
Sherman, L. W., & Cohn, E. G. (1990). The effects of research on legal policy in the
Minneapolis domestic violence experiment. In D. J. Besharov (Ed.), Family viol-
ence: Research and public policy issues (pp. 205–227). Washington, DC: AEI
Press.
Sullivan, C. M., & Hagen, L. A. (2005). Survivors’ opinions about mandatory reporting
of domestic violence and sexual assault by medical professionals. Affilia, 20,
346–361.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate
partner violence: Findings from the national violence against women survey.
Available at www.ojp.usdog.gov/njj/pubs-sum/181867.htm
Evaluation of Kentucky’s Domestic Violence Mandatory Reporting Law 73