The Importance of Direct Child Abuse Reporting

Mandatory reporters (MRs) of child abuse may face risks they are unaware of after reporting suspected abuse. Our 2023 research found that after performing their legal mandate, 27.1% of MRs experienced retaliation including harassment/threats (73.8% by the person they reported and nearly 11% by another entity); 30.4% had their identity released to the alleged perpetrator; 7% were civilly sued; 3% were reported to their ethics board; 3% were reported to their licensure board; 3% were fired or demoted; and one had their license revoked.

Some MRs work in states or settings that require them to report suspected child maltreatment to their supervisor or a designee rather than directly to CPS or law enforcement. Unfortunately, chain-of-command reporting is ineffective and can place reporting MRs at higher risk for retaliation.

Penn State is a well-known example of how chain-of-command reporting failed children by prioritizing the reputation of an institution over children's safety. On June 22, 2012, Jerry Sandusky, former defensive coordinator for the Penn State football team, was convicted of sexually assaulting 10 boys. Though top administrators were informed of the abuse, they failed to report it to authorities, allowing Sandusky to continue to perpetrate on young boys for more than a decade.

Chain-of-command reporting can also backfire against the well-intentioned MR. At Indian Health Services (IHS) in Pine Ridge, SD, a doctor and MR (Dr. Butterbrodt) reported another pedophile doctor (Dr. Weber) for suspected sexual abuse against Native American boys. After reporting the abuse, Dr. Butterbrodt was transferred to a job in North Dakota that reduced his annual salary by a third.

A fellow professional, Mr. Pourier, failed to report outside of IHS because he was afraid he'd be fired. An investigation by the Wall Street Journal and FRONTLINE found that IHS "missed or ignored warning signs, tried to silence whistleblowers, and allowed Mr. Weber to continue treating children despite suspicions of colleagues up and down the chain of command" (Weaver, et al., 2019, para. 6).

Source: StockSnap/Pixabay

Recognizing how institutional reporting harms children, in 2014 Pennsylvania eliminated chain-of-command reporting and requires MRs to report suspected abuse directly to Childline and the person in charge of the institution. Pennsylvania also provides whistleblower protection for MRs who make good-faith reports.

In 2019, IHS updated its child-maltreatment reporting policies, requiring employees to report abuse suspicions directly to CPS or law enforcement and their supervisor within 24 hours. Both examples highlight how direct reporting may have prevented decades of further harm to children.

Chain-of-command reporting is still legal in a minority of states. However, because state reporting laws are so varied and confusing, some states still allow chain-of-command reporting within hospitals, schools (private or public), and organizations.

Why is direct reporting a far better option?

• Chain-of-command reporting places MR employees at greater risk of employer retaliation. MRs have been fired and blacklisted after reporting suspected child abuse. The MR may be viewed as "disloyal" or a "troublemaker." State laws protecting MRs from adverse employment actions are not present in every state and/or may be unenforced.
• Chain-of-command reporting may decrease child abuse reporting. Top administrators may prioritize their institution's reputation and liability costs over child safety. If they delay or fail to report, preventable abuse may continue for years.
• Chain-of-command reporting compromises the report's validity. A report is already secondhand when the MR directly relays the information to the police. But in an institutional setting, the MR may have to report to a designee who reports to a higher-up administrator who then must contact law enforcement or CPS. This process is inefficient, wastes precious time, and all first-hand, non-verbal information observed by the MR is lost.
• Chain-of-command reporting may attract predators who are drawn to organizations with easy access to children. When an organization fails to report and simply moves the alleged predator to another location, this may send an unintended invitation to other predators and allow predators to perpetrate on large numbers of children for decades.
• Chain-of-command reporting may lead to broader liability for an institution. In Landstrom v Barrington (1990), a teacher reported suspected abuse to her principal, who then reported it to CPS. When the report proved to be unfounded, the parents sued the school district rather than the teacher. Though the district was found not liable, the district was tied up in court for several years.
• Chain-of-command reporting is the common denominator in many child sexual abuse scandals. Promoting a culture of silence, chain-of-command reporting prioritizes the institution's brand over children's safety. Examples include the Catholic Church; USA Olympic Sports; the Boy Scouts; the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S. Military.

Source: shlomaster/Pixabay

Direct child abuse reporting just makes common sense. Direct reporting makes it less likely that abused children will be interviewed multiple times, makes it less likely that reporting MRs will face retaliation, and makes it more likely that law enforcement and/or CPS will be able to accurately assess vulnerable children's safety concerns. Direct reporting is more valid, saves time, and can prevent ongoing child abuse.

If you are a mandatory reporter (MR), be sure you know and understand the reporting protocol where you are employed. Ask your employer how they will protect your identity. Get MR training and find out about federal and your state's immunity protections for MRs, including any whistleblower and/or anti-retaliation statutes. Trained MRs report more often and face retaliation less often.