Question

According to the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, "Surveys of health care professionals, including mental health providers, indicate that professionals often fail to report identified child maltreatment, despite being trained to identify child abuse and neglect. Many professionals indicate that they do not believe others will follow through to provide the help needed by a family coping with violence." (APA, 1996, p. 63)

Please could some please help me with this question. Thanks

My answer. Do you think there is ever a good reason for a professional to fail to report child abuse? There is no mention of the child witness in domestic violence, however, witnessing it also had effects There is no mention about child witness in domestic violence, however witnessing it also had effects psychologically. Adults know they should report neglect or child abuse, but they do not and here are someone the reasons. They are puzzled or scared by what they see or hear, They overthink a lot and probably believe they are way over their head by doubting or overreacting not considering what could be right. Sometimes adults have this mindset where they would be like, it's not my child, so I'm not getting involved in their problems. Adults think "If I make a report I won't be able to remain anonymous" and they will fear retaliation. They would think I should not get involved and let the professional catch it, they always see neglect in a child. They could get penalties for failure to report or false reporting child abuse(Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2016). They would probably wait around to get enough evidence first before they come off saying the child is being neglected.

Question:reporting child abuse sets a string of professional responses into motion. Do you think the severity of response by these institutions discourages some professionals from reporting?

Answer 1

Let us answer your question with the help of the research which has been undertaken in this area.

Firstly, let us analyze the statistics on how the professionals respond to the issue:

Professionals often influence one another when forming a belief, or reporting, that a child is subject to abuse:

• Most professionals (88%) discuss issues to do with the identification and reporting of child abuse with their colleagues. Professionals often relied on collegial support in developing a 'well founded belief' of suspected child abuse.

• Fifty-two per cent indicated that they had been persuasive in encouraging a colleague to report suspected child abuse.

• Sixteen per cent reported that colleagues had advised them not to make a report of suspected child abuse.

• Only 7% indicated that they had ever discouraged a colleague from making a notification of suspected child abuse.

• Collegial support, individually and in a team based approach was well utilised by professionals when considering whether or not to make a notification. This included discussing their observations, other evidence and concerns with other colleagues as well as seeking other evidence/opinions/advice from colleagues who had contact with that particular child or family.

Insufficiency of training and lack of awareness of reporting responsibilities:

• Only 60% of the professionals surveyed had received training in child protection issues. The professions with the highest rates of training were teachers (92%) and social workers (70%). Doctors (26%) and nurses (30%) reported the lowest rates of participation in training.

• Of those surveyed, 18% were incorrect or unsure of whether or not they were mandated to report child abuse. Uncertainty or error was highest amongst non-mandated professionals (43%). Of those in mandated professions, 6% were unsure of or incorrect about their status.

• Only 9% of those surveyed were aware that 17 was the age at which the statutory responsibility of Child Protection Services ceases to apply to a child.

• When asked to suggest improvements to the child protection system, 82 (36%) respondents urged additional training opportunities.

Variations in reporting behaviours for the different professional groups:

• Psychiatrists and social workers displayed the highest rates of reporting behaviour (88% and 84% respectively); nurses displayed the lowest (27%). Non-mandated professionals had higher rates of experience in making a notification (71%) than mandated professionals (52%). One-tenth admitted to non-reporting:

• Overall, 10% of the sample stated that there had been at least one occasion when they had not reported suspected abuse. In each of the professional groups surveyed, some respondents stated that they had not reported every case of child abuse which had come to their attention. Psychiatrists displayed the highest rate of non-reporting (23%). Nurses indicated the lowest non-reporting incidence of the professions surveyed (4%).

• The majority (87%) of those who had not reported every instance of child abuse stated that they had some concerns about Child Protection services’ inadequate response to notifications.

• Some professionals stated that their understanding of the priorities used by Child Protection Services influenced their reporting behaviours. Professionals have reported that they are disinclined to report abuse of adolescents after previous experience of doing so or obtaining knowledge from other colleagues that Child Protection Services are reluctant to intervene or take up notifications involving suspected abuse of adolescents. Professionals across various disciplines reported this as a factor that influenced their decision whether to report suspected abuse of an adolescent.

• Respondents reported feeling pressured to have an ‘evidence-based’ belief on the grounds that Child Protection Services may be unwilling to take up a case that was notified on a well founded belief that lacked what was considered hard evidence. Past experience of refusal to accept such notifications has acted to deter professionals from making reports and has tended to place the onus of ‘proving’ abuse on the notifier.

• Fear of disrupting the client/therapist relationship discouraged some professionals from reporting. Professionals, particularly those from the ‘therapeutic’ professions – psychiatry, general medicine, psychiatric nursing and psychology, and to some extent social work – report that there is a disincentive to them to notify where previous experience of Child Protection Services has been negative – this was especially apparent in therapeutic professions where a report was considered counter-productive to the client/therapist relationship on the basis it may lead to an irreversible breakdown in the therapeutic relationship. Moreover, some professionals reported that Child Protection Services failed to investigate a notification or responded in a way the professional perceived to be inappropriate and was more damaging to the child. This led to many professionals feeling they faced a dilemma in whether or not to notify.

• For some professionals, the rights of the child to protection were weighed up against the rights of the parent. For them, concern to safeguard links with the family provided a disincentive to report the abuse. As such, professional attitudes and theoretical frameworks about children and families, and types of abuses and supposed severity of abuse were factors taken into account by some professionals when considering whether or not a notification should be made.

• The majority (70%) of those who had not reported every instance of child abuse stated that they had some fear that in the event of notification there would be recrimination by the child’s family members.

Low levels of confidence in the child protection system:

• The sample displayed a low level of confidence in the child protection system. Only 29% of the survey sample agreed that the child protection system was effective. Social workers, psychologists and nurses were least confident; teachers most confident.

• Prior negative outcomes with Child Protection Services or knowledge of other colleagues’ experience of a negative outcome with Child Protection Services influenced many professionals when deciding whether or not to make a notification. Sixty-four per cent reported that they were concerned that Child Protection Services would offer an inadequate response to a report of child abuse.

• Only 51% of those who had made a notification had received any follow-up information from Child Protection Services.

• Many of those surveyed (42%) were concerned that Child Protection Services would reveal the identify of the notifier with resultant damage to the professional-client relationship, effectively undermining the professional’s capacity to support the child.

• Many interviewees and several survey respondents offered comments critical of Child Protection Services approach to families.

REPORTING CHILD ABUSE/NEGLECT/MALTREATMENT : INHIBITING FACTORS :

Many children and young people identified by professionals as at risk of abuse are deprived of the protection they need. Many professionals doubt that effective action follows a notification to authorities. Also, 10% of those surveyed had not notified every instance of suspected abuse.

Reasons given for underreporting were:

• Professionals’ concern to delay reporting until they had proof of abuse;

• Professionals’ ignorance of Child Protection Services’ procedures

• Professionals’ ignorance of their legal obligations

• Ambiguity of legislation, which may result in different perceptions of professionals’ authority and responsibilities

• Conflicts and differences of interpretation between different legislative authorities

• Child Protection Services’ interpretation of reasonable grounds for well-founded belief differing from the professional’s interpretation

• Professionals’ ignorance of Child Protection Services’ requirements of notifiers

• Perceived inability of Child Protection Services to follow its procedures

• Perceived differences in professional ethos and approaches to clients and differences in interpretation of responsibilities by the individual services working in conjunction to support families and children post notification

The findings from research indicate that there is a high degree of concern to safeguard children amongst professionals who are involved with children and families.

These professionals use their authority to report only cases of child abuse which they believe are likely to be fully substantiated.

However, many of these workers have lost varying degrees of confidence in the Child Protection Service, owing to slow or inadequate response or lack of feedback.

Many workers noted that Child Protection Services were experiencing very high workloads and had too few experienced personnel to manage these loads. They also perceived difficulties in working in conjunction with Child Protection Services and other services designed to support families.

Of marked concern is the effective restriction of access to protective services interventions which has arisen as a result of criteria applied by Child Protection Services.
Professionals who have experience in making notifications to Child Protection Services report that the reluctance for Child Protection Services to act to protect children where evidence does not meet a specified standard, or where children are older or approaching the statutory age for protective interventions, has influenced them not to make notifications, except in crisis situations. This strays far from the intent of the legislation which introduced mandatory reporting in Victoria.