by Christopher J. Ferguson
Time Magazine - Ideas
 |
| Jerry Sandusky |
With the verdict in the Jerry Sandusky trial behind us, it’s worth reconsidering one of the most troubling aspects of this case: Why do many people, including professionals such as psychologists and pediatricians, fail to report child sexual abuse? It is well-known that authorities at Penn State, including head football coach Joe Paterno, did not report what they had learned to legal authorities. The incident witnessed by Mike McQueary was passed up the chain at Penn State, but no one took that crucial step of informing law enforcement officials. This failure allowed Sandusky to remain free to continue to abuse children.
It is easy to convince ourselves that we would act more decisively if we were in the same situation, and many people indeed do. But even medical and mental health professionals with a legal duty to report abuse fail to do so.
The entire story is here.
Thanks to Gary Schoener for this story.
------------------------------------
On a national ethics educators listserv, the following exchange took place about this article.
Sam Knapp:
This article reflects popular attitudes about mandated reporting.
However, reporting rates are highly influenced by rates of substantiation after reports of abuse are made. Pennsylvania has the lowest rate of substantiated child abuse in the country (one-seventh the national average) and a rate of substantiating child abuse, which is 14% (compared to 23% nationwide). And if you look across the country you find that the states that have low rates of child abuse reports tend to have low rates of substantiating those reports and states that have high rates of child abuse reports tend to have high rates of substantiating those reports. What happens is an informal process of education where mandated reporters learn, over time, that certain reports are not going to be founded (or even investigated), so they discontinue making those reports.
Some states have proposed legislation that would make the failure to file a mandated a report a felony (in most states it is a misdemeanor). My concern is that the fear of a felony will cause mandated reporters to adopt a very low threshold for making reports resulting in an investigation of a large number of cases where the likelihood of child abuse being founded is extremely low.
I know that we as a profession can do better at educating our own on child abuse and child abuse reporting laws. My point is that reporting rates are very much influenced by the response of the child protective system to those reports.
Gary Schoener responded:
I agree Sam that reporting is not the issue in terms of mandated reporters -- at least not the lone issue.
What was troubling about the Sandusky case was not the non-reporting as much as the inaction by the adults -- especially officials. I have seen cases where at least there is internal disciplinary action, referral for therapy, etc. In fact, some of the high visibility Catholic cases actually did involve taking action -- it's just that the action was ineffective.
One common problem was the failure of professionals who were sent pedophiles for treatment to know what they were doing, or to propose a return to work without any surveillance. You may not remember, but in Boston there was a big pissing match between the Archdiocese and the Institute for Living. The Archdiocese did not ask if the guy should be put back, and the Inst. for Living allegedly made no such warning or recommendation about safety.
Likewise, that Minnesota statute I mentioned was directed at people like us, asking that we be accountable in cases where someone has been caught and is being fired or resigning. We have not eliminated silence agreements completely, I am sure, but they are very rare indeed here.
I certainly agree that reporting to child protection can be very ineffective, and the same can be true for reporting to the police.
