In a report released last month, Yale University’s Sexual Misconduct Committee outlined changes to its sexual crime reporting policy to advocate for a more streamlined reporting process for victims. The committee sought to consolidate its decentralized reporting structures, which had victims report through Yale’s professional schools, into one “University Wide Committee” that manages all cases of sexual misconduct.
At Penn, these changes prompted questions concerning how to effectively structure a sex crime reporting policy.
Although Yale is currently contemplating a movement from decentralized to centralized mechanisms of reporting, Security on Campus Director of Public Policy S. Daniel Carter said “there are advantages to both systems of reporting.” A more local reporting system, he said, creates “more points of contact” for victims. According to Carter, victims are more likely to feel at ease in disclosing information to a known person at their school rather than a stranger in a singular reporting structure.
According to Vice President for Public Safety Maureen Rush, Penn attempts to create a combination of centralized and decentralized reporting mechanisms to develop a “local feel” without compromising the uniform standards present in a system like the Special Services Department of the Division of Public Safety.
“We work with cross-functional groups [like] the Penn Women’s Center, Office of General Counsel and others to encourage cross-reporting,” Rush said.
DPS periodically e-mails all of Penn’s professional schools to remind all staff that if a sexual crime has been disclosed, Penn faculty or staff members are legally required to report all information to DPS. The mandate comes from the federal Jeanne Clery Act, which sets forth campus crime-reporting standards.
While there has been discussion of the advantages of different systems of reporting, the most effective approach would include both an official University system and various student liaisons, according to Carter.
Penn Women’s Center Associate Director Jessica Mertz explained the value of getting students more involved in the disclosure process.
“Victims are more likely to disclose their experience with sexual assault to their peers rather than an unfamiliar authority figure,” Mertz said. Although peers are not allowed to report sexual crimes on another’s behalf, the support network provided could increase the likelihood that a victim will later come forward, Mertz explained.
In an attempt to educate the student community to become more receptive to sexual crime disclosure, Violence Prevention Educator Nina Harris of the Penn Women’s Center facilitated Student Anti-Violence Advocate Training, a coed peer education group in which students can learn how to effectively manage peer cases of sexual crime disclosure.
A similar program, Penn Anti-Violence Advocates Training, is directed toward faculty members who want to become more perceptive to students affected by dating violence and all forms of sexual misconduct.
“Whatever approach you use, you cannot only rely on faculty or students to do the job,” Carter said. “There has to be a balance.”
