What best defines an unfounded report in a victim-centered investigation context?

• A. A report determined to be false or baseless after initial review.
• B. A report lacking any corroboration but requiring further investigation.
• C. A report with conflicting statements from the survivor.
• D. A report involving non-criminal conduct.

Answer: (A)

Unfounded means, after an initial review, there’s no factual basis to the report and no crime occurred as alleged. It’s a determination that the claim isn’t supported by evidence, rather than simply missing corroboration or needing more investigation. In a victim-centered approach, this outcome is about careful assessment and documentation, ensuring the survivor’s report is treated seriously while acknowledging that there isn’t evidence to substantiate the allegation.

Why this fits best: the hallmark of an unfounded determination is the finding of no evidence to support the claim, not just that corroborating details are absent or that statements are conflicting. It’s not about non-criminal conduct or about continuing investigation—the key is that the review concludes the report isn’t supported by facts or crime occurred. The other scenarios describe situations that can happen in investigations (lack of corroboration requiring further work, conflicting statements, or a non-criminal issue) but do not define unfounded the way the initial-review-based determination of “false or baseless” does.