How to Collect Misconduct Reports
Why so many organizations fail to do so well.
In 2017, a collaborator and I set up a reporting system after we realized how many stories of assault we had collected. Anyone who wished to report could email the collaborator, and they’d be able to share their story safely and privately. Yet, almost no one emailed.
The “system” that developed over time was word of mouth from one survivor to the next. A survivor I’d spoken to previously would either make a warm introduction to a survivor I hadn’t spoken to yet, or that new survivor would instead reach out directly to me. I ended up having at least one lengthy conversation with each survivor who wanted to report. For over ninety percent of survivors, I’d be able to collect enough information to have a full report and picture of the events.
The data on survivors reporting sexual misconduct collaborates this, and paints a sad picture: underreporting is rampant. At a talk at the 2023 National Sexual Assault Conference, Deborah Dorazio of the California Department of Correction said about 96% of assaults are not reported to authorities in California. This tracks with the data I’ve collected; only 3% of the survivors I spoke to were willing to file a police report. The few that have filed a police report either wanted a report on file, or a civil suit - none pursued a criminal conviction. This seemingly holds true in the workplace: 99% of anonymous reporters raising issues over a hotline do not respond to follow up questions from their company - and that’s discounting the number of people who do not file a report at all.
Given these statistics, the odds were working against my very informal reporting system. Yet, I have hundreds of reports and investigations saved in my private documents, prior to my working on assault as a career. Despite the informality, there were many things that made the reporting system more successful than most. These can be extended to improve reporting systems overall.
One of the key factors is that there was a system of trust built among survivors. Most of the survivors that report to me say that the reaction and lack of communication from their workplace, school, or community felt worse than the incident(s) itself. My mentors - women of color who have been advocates for 25 and 33 years - have told me that survivors report the same to them. Over eighty percent of survivors report symptoms of PTSD/trauma the month after the incident, and we also know that the likelihood of lasting PTSD/trauma is higher for survivors that report than those that do not. In contrast, over 99% of survivors I’ve collected reports from later said they felt better after speaking to me.
To gain a survivor’s trust in reporting and in regards to following up, a survivor must feel supported, and better after reporting versus not reporting. It’s crucial to remember that in situations of misconduct, emotions are likely heightened, and expertise and great communication will mitigate further harm and escalation. Here, we can look at the law and the notion of “making whole”, that is, one of the goals of a good reporting system should be to support and make the survivor reporting feel whole.
In the case of anonymous hotlines or reporting systems, communication with the survivor must be strong. If the survivor doesn’t receive a follow up in a very timely manner, they are likely to disengage. If there is little communication, the survivor might also feel as if their experience is not seen as important by the organization. Should such a thing happen, the situation is likely to escalate, that is, the trauma and emotion the survivor feels will deepen, and the repercussions of that trauma and emotion could have detrimental effects for the survivor, the organization, and that could have a chilling effect on future reports. Just as survivors reported me as a positive resource, a survivor could report their workplace reporting system as a negative resource, thus leading to a situation in which misconduct goes unreported until it is a much larger problem (with more survivors affected) than it would have been if it had been reported early.
Once the report collector responds, they must be compassionate, empathetic - and must be educated and informed about how to speak with a survivor and the accused. The report collector should speak to the reporting survivor before speaking to the accused, so that they have information to share with the accused. Here (skip to the list for “Folks Joining a Support Pod”) is a short list of some of the ways a report collector can speak helpfully to a survivor, and a report collector should have greater training and experience than implied by this short list. Both the survivor and the accused should have the opportunity to present their side of the story, supporting details and evidence, and receive a compassionate response.
It is important that a survivor, the accused, and witnesses is informed of the process/procedures, and if possible, assigned unbiased help to navigate them. Using an external report collector (which has been my role informally and in organization) is one way to do so. Each party should have the chance to review evidence and ask questions of the other party - using third parties affiliated with the reporting system rather than asking directly would be the way to handle this. Any additional burdens should be carried by the organization rather than the survivor and accused throughout the process.
Lastly, after the report wraps up, it’s important to remember that the decision-maker should be unbiased, and the survivor and accused should feel that the process was unbiased.
Citations:
Dworkin, Emily R., Jaffe, Anne E., Fitzpatrick, Skye. “PTSD in the Year Following Sexual Assault: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies.” Trauma, Violence & Abuse Published July 19, 2021. Accessed November 6, 2024. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15248380211032213