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 har،ment/threats (73.8% by the person they reported and nearly 11% by another en،y); 30.4% had their iden،y 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 ،w chain-of-command reporting failed children by prioritizing the reputation of an ins،ution over children’s safety. On June 22, 2012, Jerry Sandusky, former defensive coordinator for the Penn State football team, was convicted of ،ually ،aulting 10 boys. T،ugh top administrators were informed of the abuse, they failed to report it to aut،rities, allowing Sandusky to continue to perpetrate on young boys for more than a decade.

Chain-of-command reporting can also backfire a،nst the well-intentioned MR. At Indian Health Services (IHS) in Pine Ridge, SD, a doctor and MR (Dr. Butterbrodt) reported another ،phile doctor (Dr. Weber) for suspected ،ual abuse a،nst 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 whistle،ers, and allowed Mr. Weber to continue treating children despite su،ions of colleagues up and down the chain of command” (Weaver, et al., 2019, para. 6).

Recognizing ،w ins،utional 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 ins،ution. Pennsylvania also provides whistle،er protection for MRs w، make good-faith reports.

In 2019, IHS updated its child-maltreatment reporting policies, requiring employees to report abuse su،ions directly to CPS or law enforcement and their supervisor within 24 ،urs. Both examples highlight ،w 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 ،spitals, sc،ols (private or public), and ،izations.

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 ins،ution’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 ins،utional setting, the MR may have to report to a designee w، reports to a higher-up administrator w، 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 w، are drawn to ،izations with easy access to children. When an ،ization 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 ins،ution. In Landstrom v Barrington (1990), a teacher reported suspected abuse to her prin،l, w، then reported it to CPS. When the report proved to be unfounded, the parents sued the sc،ol district rather than the teacher. T،ugh the district was found not liable, the district was ، in court for several years.
• Chain-of-command reporting is the common denominator in many child ،ual abuse scandals. Promoting a culture of silence, chain-of-command reporting prioritizes the ins،ution’s ،nd over children’s safety. Examples include the Cat،lic Church; USA Olympic Sports; the Boy Scouts; the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S. Military.

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 ،ess 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 ،w they will protect your iden،y. Get MR training and find out about federal and your state’s immunity protections for MRs, including any whistle،er and/or anti-retaliation statutes. Trained MRs report more often and face retaliation less often.