Mandated Reporter Perceptions of Child Welfare Reform: Is Abolition a Dirty Word?

Background and Purpose: In recent years, concerns about individual and systemic bias contributing to over-representation of Black and Indigenous youth in child protective (CPS) and child welfare systems (CWS) has resulted in renewed calls to abolish CPS and CWS. One focus of this debate is the abolition of legislation that requires certain professionals (mandated reporters) to report suspected child maltreatment. Existing research regarding CWS/CPS abolition has focused on the experiences of caregivers, youth, and CWS/CPS professionals, however little research has explored the perceptions of mandated reporters. The current literature on the perceptions and experiences of mandated reporters has focused on decision-making regarding whether to report, but has not specifically asked how mandated reporters perceive the current CWS/CPS reform debate. Therefore, this study had the following aims:

1. a) How do mandated reporters perceive the current debate on child welfare abolition?
2. b) What conversations do mandated reporters have with colleagues about child welfare abolition?
3. c) How do mandated reporters perceive calls to abolish mandated reporting, specifically?

Methods: The current qualitative study includes 30 participants recruited via social media, purposeful sampling, and snowball sampling. Participants were eligible for the study if they had filed a mandated report and were over the age of 18. Participants were primarily white (71%) cis-women (87.5%) and represented a variety of professional roles, geographic areas, and ages. Researchers conducted semi-structured interviews over secure remote platforms. Interview questions asked participants to reflect on their understanding, perceptions, and beliefs about the need for child welfare reform, including calls to abolish mandated reporting. Participants were also asked about conversations they’ve had with colleagues regarding child welfare reform. Study authors used a constant-comparative thematic analysis method to identify preliminary themes.

Results: Preliminary themes included: a) Participants reported being unaware of the child welfare abolition debate, but described perceiving a strong need for CWS/CPS reform; b) Participants framed their concerns about the ramifications of eliminating or maintaining mandated reporting laws as being driven by the need to be seen as a safe space for youth; c) There were mixed reports from participants regarding whether they have conversations with colleagues about CWS/CPS reform.

Conclusions and Implications: Mandated reporters are often the primary gateway to CWS/CPS involvement for families. They offer valuable perspectives on ways to reform the current system. Individuals hoping to advance reform or abolition efforts may find valuable allies in mandated reporters across disciplines, many of whom reported the need for change. Despite the majority of participants identifying their desire for major CWS/CPS reforms, most reported being unaware of calls to abolish CWS/CPS and having few conversations with colleagues about reform. These findings may indicate a disconnect between academic language used to discuss the issue and the beliefs of professionals engaged in direct practice with children and families. Further, participants strongly identified their role as mandated reporters as creating a safe space for youth to report harm they may be experiencing. Those hoping to engage mandated reporters in reform or abolition efforts should be attentive to these concerns.