Mandated reporting is still a policy with reason: empirical evidence and philosophical grounds

Mathews, Benjamin P. & Bross, Donald C. (2008) Mandated reporting is still a policy with reason: empirical evidence and philosophical grounds. Child Abuse and Neglect, 32(5), pp. 511-516.

View at publisher


A major criticism of mandated reporting laws is that they produce many unsubstantiated reports, increasing workload for child protective services, wasting resources, and reducing the quality of service given to known deserving children and families (Ainsworth, 2002). Some critics go further: Melton (2005) claimed mandated reporting is now "a policy without reason". Melton stated "the primary problem is no longer case-finding" (2005, p. 10), and argued that "common sense and empirical research" show mandated reporting is "a bankrupt policy" (2005, p. 15). Further, Melton proposed that jurisdictions with these laws should revise their systems “to facilitate voluntary assistance to children and families—to create or sustain the norms of caring that prevent harm to children” (2005, p. 15), and urged countries without a US-type system to adopt another model. However, we argue that without a system of mandated reporting, a society will be far less able to protect children and assist parents and families, because many cases of abuse and neglect will not come to the attention of authorities and helping agencies. We accept that mandated reporting schemes are imperfect. But, using child safety as the primary concern, and drawing on evidence from several nations, we argue that a child protection system needs a form of case identification beyond voluntary help-seeking; that mandated reporting produces a large number of substantiated reports and to sacrifice this compromises child protection; that the most serious problems in systems having mandated reporting appear to lie not with the reports, but with responses; and that the economic and social justice advantages of mandated reporting far outweigh any disadvantages.

Impact and interest:

27 citations in Scopus
Search Google Scholar™
20 citations in Web of Science®

Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.

Full-text downloads:

1,560 since deposited on 14 Jan 2008
89 in the past twelve months

Full-text downloads displays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.

ID Code: 11852
Item Type: Journal Article
Refereed: Yes
DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.06.010
ISSN: 0145-2134
Subjects: Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES (180000) > LAW (180100) > Law not elsewhere classified (180199)
Divisions: Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Law
Current > Research Centres > Australian Centre for Health Law Research
Current > Research Centres > Law and Justice Research Centre
Current > Schools > School of Law
Copyright Owner: Copyright 2008 Elsevier
Copyright Statement: Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher.
Deposited On: 14 Jan 2008 00:00
Last Modified: 12 Feb 2015 02:01

Export: EndNote | Dublin Core | BibTeX

Repository Staff Only: item control page