Mandatory Reporting
Mandated reporters are individuals required by law to report suspected child abuse or neglect. These individuals are not investigators and therefore responsibility for proving whether abuse or neglect is actually taking place resides in special governmental organizations established for that specific reason. According to a report by the Office of the Auditor General (2015), Arizona has exceeded the national average of child abuse or neglect reports in federal fiscal years 2011 through 2013, a steady increase that is attributed to changes in legislature that expands the definitions of abuse and neglect. The expansive definition of abuse or neglect increases awareness levels to the susceptibility of abuse and how it may manifest itself in behavioral
…show more content…
changes to a child both over time and immediately. With an increased awareness, mental health professionals are obligated by law to report suspicious behaviors in order to protect the child from potential harm. Review of both federal and state laws helps to understand similarities between the two government factions, identify disparities amongst legislation, and provide a personal perspective on overall effectiveness.
The more obvious similarities between federal and state laws as they apply to mandated reporting, is found in the core of abuse or neglects definition. As abuse is designated by an act or failure to act on the behalf of a child in order to prevent harm. This is a foundational similarity in which both federal and state governing bodies can relate to common issues across the United States. Both federal and state entities govern in a comparative fashion, as federal jurisdiction covers any institution or facility funded federally, the state oversees the professional practice that operates outside of federally funded programs. In the federal setting, there is a cross-jurisdictional application to mandatory reporting that serves a greater purpose and therefore provides a healthy comparison. Mandatory reporting laws have been created in many jurisdictions in different forms as a way of identifying existing cases of severe maltreatment which are likely to otherwise remain hidden (Mathews, 2014). Both federal regulations and Arizona state law mandate a legal responsibility to report suspected abuse, a mental health professional is protected by good faith in cases that are not substantiated.
Jurisdiction does however play a part in disparity amongst federal regulations and state law. As federal law governs over facilities that are federally funded, mental health professionals are obligated to adhere to federal regulations in regards to reporting. As a result of confidentiality restrictions, coordination among jurisdictions and state agencies is limited (National Academies Press, 2014). This creates a very sensitive area for a mental health professional as they are obligated to report according to state law, while adhering to regulations of a federally funded employer. In the same foundational similarity found in both federal and state abuse definitions, there is also disparity compounded by the lack of expansion when compared to state legislation. The state of Arizona expanded this definition to encompass a broader range of symptoms and as mentioned earlier, has increased the amount of reports over three years. Reporting suspected abuse or neglect relies heavily on the understanding of their definitions and equally the level of education a mental health professional is provided in order to define such events.
As an approaching mental health professional, there seems to be a slight disparity between federal and state law in regards to how abuse and neglect are defined.
Seemingly it would appear that federal law is the foundation on which state law is created and then expanded upon. Though both entities do complement each other in shared responsibility to protect children and prevent abuse, there is still a strong indication that there are separate entities at work. Hirschy & Wilkinson (2009) point out that due to variations in reporting requirements of each state, data is not available every year. As each state expands legislation like Arizona has, there is an obvious change in data that could be used for research in order to evaluate the overall effectiveness of mandatory reporting. Even more surprising is the fact that not all states mandate the same criteria for specified reporters or offer varying exceptions to definitions of abuse or neglect. According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway (2016) 12 states exempt inability to financially provide for a child as neglect and 17 states exempt physical discipline as long as it is reasonable and does not cause bodily harm as abuse. Though it is not a question personally, of right or wrong, but rather an insight to how varying definitions provides a variance in reporting. Relying on a foundational definition of abuse or neglect, can still provide the necessary data to analyze national averages, but as states report differently on suspected events there becomes a grey area in effectiveness as seen state to
state.
Similarities between federal and state laws can be weighed against the differences found in definition in order to derive an overall perspective of mandatory reporting’s effectiveness. Abuse and neglect have a steady increase across the United States over the years and much of this may be due to the defining issues of how these events are reported. Though it is not to say that one state has a better view than another when it comes to defining the aspects of abuse or neglect, there is however a necessity for a more nationally known ranking of severity in order to derive data towards effective treatment and prevention. Federal law is a foundation for which each state sets a criterion, and in turn each state can provide a better view of how its operations are affecting prevention of horrendous acts toward children. The process of increased collaboration can also alleviate issues between private practice and federally funded organizations in regards to confidentiality and reporting data that is collected. Obviously the goal is to protect the child from harm in all regards, but increased efforts are necessary in preventing harm based on empirical evidence.
changes to a child both over time and immediately. With an increased awareness, mental health professionals are obligated by law to report suspicious behaviors in order to protect the child from potential harm. Review of both federal and state laws helps to understand similarities between the two government factions, identify disparities amongst legislation, and provide a personal perspective on overall effectiveness.
The more obvious similarities between federal and state laws as they apply to mandated reporting, is found in the core of abuse or neglects definition. As abuse is designated by an act or failure to act on the behalf of a child in order to prevent harm. This is a foundational similarity in which both federal and state governing bodies can relate to common issues across the United States. Both federal and state entities govern in a comparative fashion, as federal jurisdiction covers any institution or facility funded federally, the state oversees the professional practice that operates outside of federally funded programs. In the federal setting, there is a cross-jurisdictional application to mandatory reporting that serves a greater purpose and therefore provides a healthy comparison. Mandatory reporting laws have been created in many jurisdictions in different forms as a way of identifying existing cases of severe maltreatment which are likely to otherwise remain hidden (Mathews, 2014). Both federal regulations and Arizona state law mandate a legal responsibility to report suspected abuse, a mental health professional is protected by good faith in cases that are not substantiated.
Jurisdiction does however play a part in disparity amongst federal regulations and state law. As federal law governs over facilities that are federally funded, mental health professionals are obligated to adhere to federal regulations in regards to reporting. As a result of confidentiality restrictions, coordination among jurisdictions and state agencies is limited (National Academies Press, 2014). This creates a very sensitive area for a mental health professional as they are obligated to report according to state law, while adhering to regulations of a federally funded employer. In the same foundational similarity found in both federal and state abuse definitions, there is also disparity compounded by the lack of expansion when compared to state legislation. The state of Arizona expanded this definition to encompass a broader range of symptoms and as mentioned earlier, has increased the amount of reports over three years. Reporting suspected abuse or neglect relies heavily on the understanding of their definitions and equally the level of education a mental health professional is provided in order to define such events.
As an approaching mental health professional, there seems to be a slight disparity between federal and state law in regards to how abuse and neglect are defined.
Seemingly it would appear that federal law is the foundation on which state law is created and then expanded upon. Though both entities do complement each other in shared responsibility to protect children and prevent abuse, there is still a strong indication that there are separate entities at work. Hirschy & Wilkinson (2009) point out that due to variations in reporting requirements of each state, data is not available every year. As each state expands legislation like Arizona has, there is an obvious change in data that could be used for research in order to evaluate the overall effectiveness of mandatory reporting. Even more surprising is the fact that not all states mandate the same criteria for specified reporters or offer varying exceptions to definitions of abuse or neglect. According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway (2016) 12 states exempt inability to financially provide for a child as neglect and 17 states exempt physical discipline as long as it is reasonable and does not cause bodily harm as abuse. Though it is not a question personally, of right or wrong, but rather an insight to how varying definitions provides a variance in reporting. Relying on a foundational definition of abuse or neglect, can still provide the necessary data to analyze national averages, but as states report differently on suspected events there becomes a grey area in effectiveness as seen state to
state.
Similarities between federal and state laws can be weighed against the differences found in definition in order to derive an overall perspective of mandatory reporting’s effectiveness. Abuse and neglect have a steady increase across the United States over the years and much of this may be due to the defining issues of how these events are reported. Though it is not to say that one state has a better view than another when it comes to defining the aspects of abuse or neglect, there is however a necessity for a more nationally known ranking of severity in order to derive data towards effective treatment and prevention. Federal law is a foundation for which each state sets a criterion, and in turn each state can provide a better view of how its operations are affecting prevention of horrendous acts toward children. The process of increased collaboration can also alleviate issues between private practice and federally funded organizations in regards to confidentiality and reporting data that is collected. Obviously the goal is to protect the child from harm in all regards, but increased efforts are necessary in preventing harm based on empirical evidence.