A Closer Look at Child Maltreatment Reports By Anonymous Reporters: Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes Using National Data

Background and Purpose: Amidst recent calls to abolish anonymous reporting over fears of enabling malicious or false child maltreatment reports (CMRs), empirical research on this topic is scarce. To fill this gap, this study investigates short-term and long-term CMR outcomes (such as substantiation, immediate foster care [FC] entry, rereporting, and future FC entry) across different reporter groups, with a specific emphasis on comparing outcomes between anonymous reporters and other reporter groups.

Methods: We used data from the Report And Placement Integrated Data System (RAPIDS), which combines national CMR and FC records from 2006-2021, supplemented with census data. Our study focused on all US children under 13 with a CMR (index CMR) in 2014. Tracking these children within RAPIDS, we assessed two short-term outcomes (substantiation and immediate FC entry following the index CMR) and two long-term outcomes (rereport and future FC entry within 5 years from the index CMR). We excluded five states lacking anonymous CMR data and 15 states with data discontinuity, leaving a final sample of 960,829 children from 31 states. To map the trajectories of anonymous reports, we utilized bivariate chi-2 analyses and multivariable logistic regressions that controlled for the most common variables associated with a CPS report.

Results: Compared to anonymous reports of child maltreatment (CMRs), those originating from four specific reporter groups—law enforcement, alleged perpetrators, medical personnel, and social services—exhibited considerably elevated odds of short-term outcomes such as substantiation and immediate entry into foster care (odds ratio [OR]=2.26-5.65). However, short-term outcomes for CMRs from reporter groups other than these four showed far less disparity compared to anonymous CMRs, with OR values mostly hovering around 1.00 (OR=0.52-1.84). Notably, long-term outcomes differed little between reporter groups. In comparison to anonymous CMRs, the odds of future outcomes (re-rereporting and future FC entry) for CMRs from all other reporter groups were practically no higher (OR=0.51-1.06), except for a slightly elevated odds of future foster care entry for CMRs reported by alleged perpetrators (OR=1.27).

Conclusions and Implications: This study provides insight to the debate of whether anonymous reporting should be abolished. While reports from anonymous sources do not have a high substantiation and foster care entry rate, their rate is not significantly different than other reporter groups, including that of some professional sources, like educational personnel. Additionally, our findings suggests that anonymous reporters may be composed of friends and neighbors or possibly other relatives, who may be identifying nascent concerns that exacerbate over time. Given that a significant portion of re-reports of children first reported by anonymous source involves other reporter groups, including professionals, it is unlikely that a majority of reports from these sources are done maliciously. Future research should explore the benefits and protections that reporting anonymously brings to reporters which warrants them to report anonymously as opposed to remaining confidential only and examine whether there are any negative repercussions for anonymous reports not captured by these data.