This assignment is designed to help you explore and articulate the various types of abuse that can occur in families (course learning goal #1). For success with this assignment, you should include what you learned through the week’s reading assignments and instructional video
Please create a 12-slide Power Point presentation about child abuse. There should be 10 slides of text, plus a title slide and a reference slide. Each slide should contain 3-4 bullet points of content (complete sentences are not necessary, but the bullet points should each contain enough text to sufficiently communicate your thoughts). Each slide should contain examples and also visual graphics to enhance the presentation. Please follow the guidelines below to structure your presentation:
Slides 1-2: introduction. These slides should provide an overview of the presentation. The audience for the presentation should be clearly identified; for example, this presentation could be used in a church setting, school setting, parenting class, etc. The purpose and/or goals of the presentation should be clearly identified.
Slides 3-4: physical abuse. These slides should discuss child physical abuse, including what constitutes physical abuse and what does not constitute physical abuse. Responsibilities of mandated reporters should be discussed. Examples should be provided.
Slides 5-6: child sexual abuse. These slides should discuss child sexual abuse, including what constitutes sexual abuse. Responsibilities of mandated reporters should be discussed. Examples should be provided.
Slides 7-8: child neglect. These slides should discuss child neglect, including what constitutes neglect and what does not constitute neglect. Responsibilities of mandated reporters should be discussed. Examples should be provided.
Slides 9-10: faith integration and conclusion. These slides should discuss the connection between the Christian message and serving as an ethical human service professional. What does Scripture have to say about helping others, especially those who have been hurt? Provide examples and discuss your concluding thoughts about child abuse.
Your presentation should be in proper APA format (if you are unsure of APA formatting, please reference the materials provided in the Week 0 learning activity). Your presentation should include at least 3 peer-reviewed references, which should be cited throughout the slides. You are welcome to use the Hines et al text and any published journal articles. Websites are not considered valid references in academic work. A great place to find peer-reviewed journal articles is the Social Sciences Full Text database provided through the CBU library website:
1. Read Ch 2: Child physical maltreatment (Hines, et al, 2013)
2. Read Ch 3: Child sexual maltreatment (Hines, et al, 2013)
3. Read Ch 4: Child neglect and psychological maltreatment (Hines, et al, 2013)
4. Read the California Department of Education website regarding mandated reporting guidelines:
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Changing the Domestic Violence Narrative: Aligning
Definitions and Standards
Briana Barocas1 & Danielle Emery1 & Linda G. Mills1
Published online: 25 October 2016
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract Many states use a broad legal definition of domes-
tic violence that includes intimate partner violence along with
family violence, and it is from this broader conceptualization
that the criminal justice system intervenes and often treats all
types of offenders in the same way. This judicial response can
include a mandate to attend a Batterer Intervention Program-
type group, which does little to address violence that occurs
outside of the Btraditional^ partner violence paradigm. In or-
der to advance interventions for physical partner violence that
adequately address both male and female perpetration, as well
as the broader conceptualization of domestic violence, we
must align definitions and standards among researchers, ser-
vice providers, advocates, policymakers, and the public health
and criminal justice systems. Examples of how this misalign-
ment has stalled progress in offender treatment are discussed
and a plan for enabling continued innovation in the field is
presented.
Keywords Batterer Intervention Programs . Domestic
violence . Family violence . Intimate partner violence . Legal
definitions . Offender treatment . State standards
Formula stories are constructed in order to understand a social
problem and to help those affected by that problem in defining
and assigning a narrative to a lived experience. Unfortunately,
domestic violence1 – a very complex social problem – has
been reduced to a simple formula story that excludes many
of those who perpetrate and experience it. This story includes
severe physical violence, intimidation and controlling behav-
iors among intimate partners, and almost universally portrays
women as victims and men as perpetrators — Bpure victims
and evil villains^ (Loseke 2001). While this formula story
raises awareness and highlights the seriousness of the issue –
and may be applicable and useful to some women (Guthrie
and Kunkel 2015) – it does not reflect the broader legal defi-
nition of domestic violence used by states across the country
and those who are arrested and whose cases are adjudicated by
the criminal justice system. Researchers, service providers,
advocates, policymakers, and the public health and criminal
justice systems need to re-examine and modify the language
and definitions used in both the spheres of criminal justice and
social service provision in order to advance the field and im-
prove our responses to domestic violence. This article demon-
strates the disparity between definitions, state standards, and
domestic violence offender treatment approaches, and how
these disparities stall and prevent innovation in domestic vio-
lence offender treatment. More specifically, the article focuses
on changes needed in state standards to enable the provision of
treatment options that align with the broad legal definitions of
domestic violence and to promote innovation in offender treat-
ment, such as the possibility of involving victims in the of-
fenders’ treatment should victims want to be included.
1 In this article, domestic violence is being defined broadly as abusive
behavior (physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological) per-
petrated by an intimate partner or family member against another. Thus,
domestic violence is the board term being used to include both intimate
partner violence and family violence (e.g., adult child and parent or adult
siblings). The terms are not being used interchangeably.
* Briana Barocas
briana.barocas@nyu.edu
1 Center on Violence and Recovery, New York University, 194 Mercer
Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10012, USA
J Fam Viol (2016) 31:941–947
DOI 10.1007/s10896-016-9885-0
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10896-016-9885-0&domain=pdf
Court-Mandated Treatment in the US
In the United States (US), many jurisdictions use a broad
definition of domestic violence that includes intimate partner
violence along with family violence (e.g., adult child and par-
ent) – and both male and female offenders. Table 1 shows a
sample of state definitions of the relationship that must exist
between offenders and victims for a crime to be considered
domestic violence. It should be noted that while there are
differences between states, none define domestic violence as
only between intimate partners, or only males as
perpetrators
and females as victims. These legal definitions are starkly
dissimilar to the formula story above and the conceptualiza-
tion of domestic violence by the feminist movement and
grassroots activists who helped move the issue from the pri-
vate to the public sphere.
Treatment approaches for domestic violence offenders
were developed using the same narrow conceptualization of
domestic violence that emphasizes gender and power inequal-
ity in opposite-sex intimate partner relationships (Pence et al.
1993) and this perspective continues to influence how treat-
ment is provided today. This creates a significant disconnect
between the statutory definitions of domestic violence – and
therefore, who is prosecuted for domestic violence crimes –
and the legislative standards for treatment programs that of-
fenders are court-mandated to attend. This disconnect has
been heightened by pro-arrest and mandatory arrest laws for
domestic violence enacted across the US which have
Table 1 Definition of relationship between domestic violence victim and offender
State Definition of relationship between domestic violence offender and victim
Arizonaa … Relationship between the victim and defendant is one of current or former marriage, residing in the same household, when the
relationship is or was formerly a romantic one, when they have a child in common, when one party is pregnant with the other’s child,
or when they are related by blood, marriage, or court order.
Californiab … Abuse perpetrated against a current or former spouse, a current or former cohabitant, a person with whom the offender has or had a
dating relationship with, a person with whom the offender has a child in common, a child of such a party, or any other person related
by consanguinity within the second degree.
Floridac … Against another household or family member, including current or former spouse, people related by blood or marriage, people
currently or formerly residing together as a family, or people who have a child in common.
Georgiad … Between past or present spouses, people who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and step children, foster
parents and foster children, or other persons living or formerly living together in the same household
Kansase …Against someone who is a family or householdmember including current or former spouses, parents, stepparents, people presently or
formerly having lived together, people who have a child in common, or a man and a pregnant woman who alleged to be expectant
parents.
New Yorkf … People related by consanguinity or affinity, people who are legally married or were formerly married, people who have a child in
common, people who currently or formerly lived in the same household, people who have been in an intimate relationship regardless
of whether they have cohabited or not, and any other category of persons defined by the office of children and family services.
North
Carolinag
…Against a current or former spouse, someone currently or formerly living with the offender, a child, a parent, someone having a child
in common with the offender, someone currently or formerly sharing a household, or someone with whom the offender has or had a
dating relationship.
Texash … By one family member against another … Family violence also includes abuse against a family or household member, and dating
violence.
Utahi …By one cohabitant against another. With cohabitant defined as a person 16 years or older who: is or was a spouse of the other party; is
or was living as if a spouse of the other party; is related by blood or marriage to the other party; has one or more children in common
with the other party; is the biological parent of the other party’s unborn child; or resides or has resided in the same residence as the
other party.
Wisconsinj … Against a current or former spouse, against an adult the person lives or lived with, or against a person sharing a child in common.
a Arizona Revised Statues § 13–3601
b California Family Code § 6211
c Florida Statute § 741.28
dGeorgia Code § 19-13-1
e Kansas Statute § 21–5414
f New York Social Services Law § 459
gNorth Carolina Statue § 50B-1
h Texas Family Code §§ 71.004; 261.001(1); 71.0021(a)
i Utah Code § 77-36-1
jWisconsin Statute § 968.075
942 J Fam Viol (2016) 31:941–947
significantly increased the number of female offenders across
the country.
Domestic violence offender treatment has long been dom-
inated in the US by Batterer Intervention Programs (BIPs)
with a singular focus of changing men’s sexist attitudes and
related behaviors while holding offenders Baccountable^ for
their crimes. Though research suggests that attention to of-
fender heterogeneity improves the ability to predict treatment
outcomes (Stoops et al. 2010), homogenous domestic vio-
lence treatment continues to be the most common approach
in the US. The prevailing treatment models for BIPs were
developed based on the work of feminist scholars to
address
the formula story scenario noted above. The Domestic
Violence Intervention Project (DAIP), created in Duluth,
Minnesota in 1983, became the predominant treatment model
to mandate domestic violence offenders to attend and it re-
mains the leading model of group treatment today (Aaron and
Beaulaurier 2016), with some states specifying the BDuluth
Model^ curriculum as the standard BIP response (Barner and
Carney 2011; Gondolf 2010). Additionally, some programs
now also incorporate elements of cognitive behavioral
therapy
(Aaron and Beaulaurier 2016; Smedslund et al. 2011).
It is estimated that there are over 2,500 BIPs active in the US
today (Boal and Mankowski 2014) despite research that raises
serious questions about their effectiveness due to high attrition
rates (Babcock et al. 2004; Jewell and Wormith 2010; Price
and Rosenbaum 2009), little evidence of attitudinal and be-
havioral change (Gondolf 2000; Jackson et al. 2003), and
inconsistent contact with victims (Mills et al. 2006; Price
and Rosenbaum 2009). Additionally, this treatment approach
was not developed in response to empirical findings about
domestic violence, such as the prevalence of female offenders,
the frequency of cases where family members or intimate
partners Bcontinue to cohabitate or must remain in close con-
tact due to children in common or religious beliefs and cultural
norms^ (Aaron and Beaulaurier 2016, p.5), or that many cou-
ples reunite after state intervention (Mendez et al. 2014; Stith
et al. 2004). Furthermore, while some states require gender-
specific groups for treatment, not all do, and depending on the
size of the community female offenders may be placed in a
group along with male offenders (if allowed by state stan-
dards). Additionally, intimate partner violence offenders
might be placed in a group along with family violence of-
fenders (e.g., adult child and parent). Both of these situations
pose a challenge to service providers who are required to
deliver the Bstandard^ curriculum.
There is a growing body of research suggesting the need for
more customized domestic violence treatment approaches
(Cantos and O’Leary 2014; Dutton and Corvo 2006; Mills
et al. 2013; Murphy and Eckhardt 2005; Price and
Rosenbaum 2009; Rizza 2009; Stuart 2005), in no short part
to address the variety of defendants who appear at social ser-
vice agencies for court-mandated treatment. Table 2 illustrates
the variance in state guidelines for domestic violence offender
treatment programs and the resultant complexity of develop-
ing and adopting new interventions within this context.
What Change is Needed?
The disparity between legal definitions and the common con-
ceptualization of domestic violence as between intimate part-
ners with a male perpetrator and female victim is a problem
that must be resolved in order to improve our responses to
domestic violence. It has become a marked impediment to
innovation in the field, and in particular to innovation in treat-
ment for offenders. To overcome this barrier two things must
happen:
& State standards for offender treatment programs need to be
modified to accommodate the broader legal definition of
domestic violence (i.e., both intimate partner violence and
family violence, both male and female offenders) and,
& State domestic violence coalitions, and the trainings and
certifications for providers serving both victims and of-
fenders, need to depart from the domestic violence formu-
la story in order to better match legal definitions and the
variety of offenders and experiences.
These changes will allow for offender treatment programs
to address the complexity of domestic violence and the unique
needs and circumstances of those involved. The broad re-
conceptualization would also help in addressing some of the
current controversies over gender differences in perpetration
of physical partner violence (see Winstok and Straus 2016)
as it would allow for and encourage responses to domestic
violence that are not only based on gender and issues of
cultural sexism, but rather on type of violence and subgroups
of offenders. More specifically, within intimate partner vio-
lence, research has demonstrated the complexity of the issue
and has highlighted the fact that the standard treatment ignores
intimate partner violence typology and may be ineffective for
particular types of violence (Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart
1994; Johnson 2006). This shift would also enable advocates
and service providers to offer assistance to victims and
families whose experiences do not match that of the formula
story victim.
The Possibility for Innovation in Offender Treatment
Within the domestic violence field, court-mandated offender
treatment is an area primed for innovation. Work is being done
in communities across the country to develop treatment ap-
proaches that reflect the broad conceptualization of domestic
violence, but due to restrictive state standards these
J Fam Viol (2016) 31:941–947 943
Table 2 State guidelines for domestic violence offender treatment programs
State Minimum length Curriculum Gender Conjoint
treatment
Limitations
Arizonaa • 1st offense: 26 sessions •Group or individual counseling, or both • N/A • N/A
• N/A
• 2nd offense: 36 sessions •Established timeline and criterion for successful completion
• 3rd offense: 52 sessions • Professionally recognized, with supporting research within
the last five years
Californiab • Specified number of
sessions by court
• Lectures, classes, group discussions, and counseling • Single gender •No couples
or
family
counseling
• Perpetrators
not allowed
to enroll
voluntarily
• Program staff must have some specific knowledge of abuse
• Approval from probation department, renew annually
Floridac • 24 sessions within
29 weeks
• Based on psycho-educational model
addressing tactics of power and control
• N/A • N/A • Perpetrators
not convicted
not allowed
to participate
Georgiad • 24 sessions within
27 weeks
• Educational model • Same gender • No couples,
marriage, or
family
therapy
• N/A
• Hold the offender solely accountable,
challenge and identify control tactics,
identify myths and effects of abuse.
• Facilitators must have either a bachelor’s
degree or two years work with batterers,
victims or victim advocates
NewYorke • N/A • N/A • N/A • N/A • N/A
Kansasf • At least 24 weeks • Separate IPVand child abusers •May combine
genders
under
caution
• BIPs shall
not
use couples
or family
therapy
• N/A
• Group processing approach
• Develop relationship with judicial
system to increase offender
accountability
NorthCarolinag • 26–30 weeks • Group sessions • Single gender • No couple
therapy or
counseling
• N/A
• 39 h total • Programs establish procedures for
required staff qualifications
• Must not treat violence as due to
mutual process, psychopathology, or anger
Texash • 18 weekly sessions • Gender-specific services for adult males • Single gender • No couples or
marriage
counseling
• Solely
provided to
adult males
• At least 36 h total • Consider perpetrators solely responsible
• Batterers agree to be drug and alcohol free
Utahi • 16 weeks • Psychological and educational service • N/A • Available
after 12
sessions
• N/A
• 1 h/week • In-depth interviews and assessments of new clients
• Accompanied by counseling/
individualized treatment
944 J Fam Viol (2016) 31:941–947
approaches are limited in their reach. A change in the state
standards for offender treatment programs would allow for the
testing and replication of alternative approaches, enabling ser-
vice providers to implement programs that show promise else-
where in their own communities. As the field operates now,
even programs that are shown through rigorous research to be
safe and promising are either forbidden or cautioned against
by statute, or are rejected by the field for not fitting into the
narrow formula story. To illustrate the challenges of innova-
tion in domestic violence offender treatment, an example
based on the authors’ work in developing, implementing,
and studying an alternative treatment approach is provided
below.
New York University’s Center on Violence and Recovery
has collaborated with local criminal justice systems, treatment
providers, victim advocates, and community members to both
develop and study one such alternative treatment approach to
domestic violence. The approach, Circles of Peace, is a restor-
ative justice-based program that accommodates the participa-
tion of victims who choose to do so, and was developed as a
response to an emerging interest in alternative treatments that
included victim participation (Mills 2008; Mills et al. 2013).
Restorative justice is an approach to addressing conflict that
focuses on repairing harm and creating meaningful change in
the lives of those involved in or impacted by an incident. It is a
theory that understands violence and crime to be violations of
relationships rather than violations of the state, and holds
responsible parties accountable by addressing the needs of
those harmed instead of focusing on punishment or retribu-
tion. Restorative justice is practiced in different forms (e.g.,
peacemaking circles, victim-offender dialogues, and confer-
encing) and has been used across the world to address a vari-
ety of crimes.
The Circles of Peace model, created in 2004, is the first of
its kind in the US to use restorative justice principles to treat
offenders arrested for domestic violence crimes. It is flexible,
culturally sensitive, and works with the criminal justice sys-
tem to interrupt patterns of abuse. Furthermore, the model can
be used to address the broad variety of domestic violence
cases that come into contact with the criminal justice system
including family violence cases (e.g., adult parent and child),
female offenders, and same-sex intimate partners. The model
has been implemented in the criminal justice systems in
Nogales, Arizona and Salt Lake City, Utah.
A randomized controlled trial in Arizona comparing a tra-
ditional batterer intervention program to the Circles of Peace
model, supported by the National Science Foundation, as well
as years of anecdotal evidence, indicates the restorative justice
model has concrete benefits for individuals, families, and
communities and could provide a viable treatment alternative
that moves beyond the standard BIP offered in most US juris-
dictions (Mills et al. 2013). The Arizona study suggests that
Circles may be more effective in reducing overall arrests and
falsifies the claim that it is dangerous to use restorative justice
Table 2 (continued)
State Minimum length Curriculum Gender Conjoint
treatment
Limitations
Wisconsinj • N/A • Groups run by 2 facilitators
• Facilitators must have at least 40 h of training on DV
• Focus on male power and control issues,
issues of sexism and gender stereotyping
• Single gender • No couples
or family
counseling
• Allows a
Bcouples
orientation^
session
• Standards do
not
address
female
perpetrators
a Arizona Administrative Code R9-20-208 & R9-20-302
b California Penal Code § 1203.097
c Florida Statute § 741.325
dGeorgia Administrative Rules and Regulations 125-4-9.06, 125-4-9.07, & 125-4-9.08
e http://www.opdv.ny.gov/whatisdv/about_dv/nyresponse/nysdv
f Kansas Attorney General, Essential Elements and Standards for Batterer Intervention Programs, 6–7 (2012), http://ag.ks.gov/docs/documents/bip-
standards ?sfvrsn=12
gNorth Carolina Administrative Code 17.0706, 17.0708, & 17.0711
h Texas Department of Criminal Justice Community Justice Assistance Division, Battering Intervention and Prevention Program (BIPP) Accreditation
Guidelines, 11 (2014), https://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/documents/BIPP_Accreditation_Guidelines
i Utah Administrative Code r. 5001-21-6
j Wisconsin Batterers Treatment Provider Association, Certified Domestic Abuse Batterers Treatment, 6 (2007), http://www.wcadv.
org/sites/default/files/resources/WBTPA%20_Standards_2007
J Fam Viol (2016) 31:941–947 945
http://www.opdv.ny.gov/whatisdv/about_dv/nyresponse/nysdv
http://ag.ks.gov/docs/documents/bip-standards ?sfvrsn=12
http://ag.ks.gov/docs/documents/bip-standards ?sfvrsn=12
https://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/documents/BIPP_Accreditation_Guidelines
http://www.wcadv.org/sites/default/files/resources/WBTPA%20_Standards_2007
http://www.wcadv.org/sites/default/files/resources/WBTPA%20_Standards_2007
for domestic violence (Mills et al. 2013). To build upon and
potentially affirm these findings, National Science Foundation
and National Institute of Justice-funded studies are currently
underway in Utah examining the effectiveness of a traditional
BIP compared to an approach that incorporates Circles of
Peace.
While this research has shown that an alternative treatment
approach for domestic violence offenders that includes victim
participation can be implemented safely, Circles of Peace can
only be offered as a treatment option in states that allow for
conjoint treatment in their state standards. Both Arizona and
Utah are two states that allow for conjoint treatment. In Utah,
offenders must complete a minimum of 16 weeks of treatment
and conjoint treatment is allowed after an offender has com-
pleted 12 weeks of offender only group treatment. In Arizona,
first time offenders must complete a minimum of 26 weeks of
treatment and victim participation is allowed from the onset.
The Arizona study included all domestic violence (both inti-
mate partner and family violence) cases mandated to treatment
during a year and a half long period. Sixty-two percent of the
cases that started the Circles of Peace program had a victim
voluntarily participate in at least one treatment session with
the offender (Mills et al. 2013). This finding highlights the
desire for victims to be involved in their offenders’ treatment.
However, many states do not allow for conjoint treatment and
this illustrates just one impediment to innovation. This is not
to say that Circles of Peace is an appropriate treatment option
for all domestic violence offenders, but rather one of many
possible alternative treatment approaches that can address the
variety of domestic violence cases that are broader than the
formula story (e.g., family violence cases, cases with female
offenders, and cases between same-sex intimate partners).
Researchers and service providers are beginning to ac-
knowledge that the experiences and desires of domestic vio-
lence victims do not always fit into the formula story and the
typically prescribed solutions (e.g., going to a shelter, leaving
a relationship) are not always the optimal choices for victims
of abuse. There is research and growing momentum across the
field for service providers to consider the unique desires of
and trade-offs for individual victims when developing safety
plans and working through next steps (Thomas et al. 2015).
This same rationale can be applied to the formula story for
domestic violence offenders. Although proponents of the
dominant gender paradigm for domestic violence want to be-
lieve that there is one source of abusive behavior for domestic
violence offenders who appear in court and at social service
agencies, the legal net has been cast too wide and the defini-
tion of domestic violence is too broad for this singular theory
to possibly be true.
In order to better prevent future incidents of violence and to
help intimate partners and/or families heal from their abusive
histories, we must be able to offer domestic violence offender
treatment that is meaningful and better matched to the unique
experiences of individuals – both victims and offenders. If we
are able to broaden the conceptualization of domestic violence
that is used by service providers, advocates, and policymakers
to match that of the criminal justice system, then we can ex-
amine and begin to offer solutions to intimate partners and/or
families that are more effective than BIPs have proven to be.
The ubiquity of the formula story for domestic violence in
both the legislative and service provision arenas has left the
field in a devastating and perpetual loop that does little to
address the issue: courts are mandating a treatment that has
been shown to be minimally effective and yet judges are lim-
ited in their ability to do anything else. Matching definitions
between standards for offender treatment programs and the
criminal justice system and a broader conceptualization of
domestic violence that departs from the formula story will
better reflect the reality of those who come into contact with
the criminal justice system for domestic violence crimes.
These changes will help promote needed innovation in offend-
er treatment across the country, with the overall hope to alle-
viate the burden of domestic violence in our society.
References
Aaron, S. M., & Beaulaurier, R. L. (2016). The need for new emphasis on
batterers intervention programs. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse,
1524838015622440.
Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers’ treat-
ment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment.
Clinical Psychology Review, 23(8), 1023–1053.
Barner, J. R., & Carney, M. M. (2011). Interventions for intimate partner
violence: a historical review. Journal of Family Violence, 26(3),
235–244.
Boal, A. L., & Mankowski, E. S. (2014). The impact of legislative stan-
dards on batterer intervention program practices and characteristics.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 53(1–2), 218–230.
Cantos, A. L., & O’Leary, K. D. (2014). One size does not fit all in
treatment of intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 5(2), 204–
236.
Dutton, D. G., & Corvo, K. (2006). Transforming a flawed policy: a call
to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and
practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(5), 457–483.
Gondolf, E. W. (2000). A 30-month follow-up of court-referred batterers
in four cities. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 44(1), 111–128.
Gondolf, E. W. (2010). The contributions of Ellen Pence to batterer pro-
gramming. Violence Against Women, 16(9), 992–1006.
Guthrie, J. A., & Kunkel, A. (2015). Problematizing the uniform appli-
cation of the formula story: advocacy for survivors in a domestic
violence support group.Women & Language, 38(1), 43–62.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, G. L. (1994). Treatment of marital
violence. In L. van de Creek & S. Knapp (Eds.), Innovations in
clinical practice: a source book (Vol. 13, pp. 5–19). Sarasota:
Professional Resource Press.
Jackson, S., Feder, L., Forde, R. D., Davis, C. R., Maxwell, D. C.,
& Taylor,B. G. (2003). Batterer intervention programs: where
do we go from here? (NCJ Publication No. 195079).
Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office
946 J Fam Viol (2016) 31:941–947
of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved
from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/195079.htm.
Jewell, L. M., &Wormith, J. S. (2010). Variables associated with attrition
from domestic violence treatment programs targeting male batterers
a meta-analysis.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(10), 1086–1113.
Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymme-
try in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12(11), 1003–1018
Loseke, D. R. (2001). Lived realities and formula stories of ‘battered
women’. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Institutional
selves: troubled identities in a postmodern world (pp. 107–126).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Mendez, M., Horst, K., Stith, S. M., & McCollum, E. E. (2014). Couples
treatment for intimate partner violence: clients’ reports of changes
during therapy. Partner Abuse, 5(1), 21–40.
Mills, L. G. (2008). Violent partners. A breakthrough plan for ending the
cycle of abuse. New York: Springer.
Mills, L. G., Grauwiler, P., & Pezold, N. (2006). Enhancing safety and
rehabilitation in intimate violence treatments: new perspectives.
Public Health Reports, 121(4), 363.
Mills, L. G., Barocas, B., & Ariel, B. (2013). The next generation of
court-mandated domestic violence treatment: a comparison study
of batterer intervention and restorative justice programs. Journal of
Experimental Criminology, 9(1), 65–90.
Murphy, C. M., & Eckhardt, C. I. (2005). Treating the abusive partner:
an individualized cognitive behavioral approach. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Pence, E., Paymar, M., Ritmeester, T., & Shepard, M. (1993). Education
groups for men who batter: the Duluth model. New York: Springer.
Price, B. J., & Rosenbaum, A. (2009). Batterer intervention programs: a
report from the field. Violence and Victims, 24(6), 757–770.
Rizza, J. (2009). Beyond Duluth: a broad spectrum of treatment for a
broad spectrum of domestic violence. Montana Law Review,
70(1), 125–146.
Smedslund, G., Dalsbø, T. K., Steiro, A., Winsvold, A., & Clench-Aas, J.
(2011). Cognitive behavioural therapy for men who physically
abuse their female partner. Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews, (2), CD006048. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006048.pub2
Stith, S. M., Rosen, H., McCollum, E. E., & Thomsen, C. J. (2004).
Treating intimate partner violence within intact couple relationships:
outcomes of multi-couple versus individual couple therapy. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy, 30(3), 305–318.
Stoops, C., Bennett, L., & Vincent, N. (2010). Development and predic-
tive ability of a behavior-based typology of men who batter. Journal
of Family Violence, 25(3), 325–335.
Stuart, G. L. (2005). Improving violence intervention outcomes by inte-
grating alcohol treatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(4),
388–393.
Thomas, K. A., Goodman, L. A., & Putnins, S. (2015). BI have lost
everything^: trade-offs of seeking safety from intimate partner vio-
lence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85(2), 170–180.
Winstok, Z., & Straus, M. (2016). Bridging the two sides of a 30-year
controversy over gender differences in perpetration of physical
partner violence. Journal of Family Violence. doi:10.1007/s10896-
016-9896-x.
J Fam Viol (2016) 31:941–947 947
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/195079.htm
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006048.pub2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9896-x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9896-x
Journal of Family Violence is a copyright of Springer, 2016. All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Court-Mandated Treatment in the US
What Change is Needed?
The Possibility for Innovation in Offender Treatment
References
Mandated Reporting Thresholds for
Community Professionals
This study examines how community-based
mandated reporters understand and inter-
pret reasonable suspicion, the standard
threshold for mandated reporting of sus-
pected child abuse. Respondents were asked
to identify the probability necessary for
“suspicion of child abuse” to constitute rea-
sonable suspicion. Data were analyzed for internal consistency,
evidence of a group standard, and associations with profes-
sional and educational demographics. There was a 90.4%
response rate (1,233/1,
36
4). On both ordinal probability and
estimated probability scales, respondents demonstrated wide
variability in the thresholds they identified for what consti-
tutes reasonable suspicion. Comparing individual responses
for the two scales, 83% were inconsistent. Responses on the
estimated probability scale were correlated with frequency of
reporting child abuse, professional background, and prior
education on child abuse. Lack of consensus in how com-
munity professionals interpret reasonable suspicion raises the
question of whether more specific training is needed for this
threshold to be understood, interpreted, and applied in a con-
sistent manner.
Kathryn Crowell
Penn State Children’s
Hospital
Benjamin H. Levi
Penn State Children’s
Hospital
35Child Welfare • Vol. 91, No. 1
Acknowledgments: We thank Susan J. Boehmer, M.A., for her invaluable help with statistical analysis. This
research was supported by grants from the Penn State Children, Youth, and Families Consortium, and the Penn
State Children’s Hospital. We have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose, had full access to all study data,
and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Approximately one million cases of child abuse occur annually inthe United States (Gaudiosi, 2009), and it is estimated that
child abuse is present in
50
% to 80% of families in which domestic
violence occurs (Appel & Holden, 1998; Edleson, 1999; Garbarino,
Kostelny, & Dubrow, 1991). In the United States, any individual who
interacts with children in a professional capacity is legally required
to contact child protection services whenever they have reasonable
suspicion that a child has been abused. Thus, teachers, school coun-
selors, school administrators, school nurses, daycare providers, social
workers, psychologists, and law enforcement officials are all con-
sidered mandated reporters by law, and are often the first to have
contact with a child who is suspected of being abused. Despite state-
by-state variation in statutory language identifying the threshold for
mandated reporting, most laws use some variant of “suspicion”
(Gateway, Child Welfare Information, 2008), and the umbrella ter-
minology for the various thresholds is reasonable suspicion (Myers,
2001). While substantial literature guides mandated reporters in
identifying conditions, injuries, and behavior that warrant concern
for possible child abuse, there is little guidance as to definitions of
the term reasonable suspicion or, more specifically, what levels of con-
cern must be reported.
Significant problems arise from this lack of guidance: inconsis-
tent reporting of (possible) abuse, unequal protection of children,
inequitable treatment of parents and families, and inefficient use of
child protection services resources (Flaherty, Jones, & Sege, 2004;
Flaherty, Sege, Mattson, & Binns, 2002; Flieger, 1998; Hickson,
Cooper, Campbell, & Altemeier, 1998). These difficulties are com-
pounded by the vast number of individuals who qualify as mandated
reporters (Gateway, Child Welfare Information, 2009; Hansen et al.,
1997), the lack of education regarding circumstances that warrant
reporting (Alvarez, Kenny, Donohue, & Carpin, 2004; Carter,
Bannon, Limbert, Docherty, & Barlow, 2006; Kenny, 2007), the
absence of meaningful oversight regarding reporting practices
(Kalichman, 1999; Vulliamy & Sullivan, 2000), and reporters’ immu-
nity from civil or criminal liability (Gilbert et al., 2009; Kalichman,
1999; Levi & Loeben, 2004; Singley, 1998).
Vol. 91, No. 1Child Welfare
36
Multiple factors contribute to the variability in how mandated
reporters understand, interpret, and apply their responsibility to report
suspected child abuse. Central to each mandated reporter’s decision
are the circumstances of individual cases, the perceived efficacy of child
protection services, perceptions of blame, the reporter’s relationship
with the child and their family, and the individuals’ personal experi-
ence with abuse (Alvarez et al., 2004; Bonardi, 2000; Delaronde, King,
Bendel, & Reece, 2000; Flaherty et al., 2006; Flaherty et al., 2008;
Flieger, 1998; Warner & Hansen, 1994). Despite considerable inves-
tigation into the root causes of inconsistency, little research has exam-
ined the role played by mandated reporters’ confusion over what the
terms “suspicion” and “reasonable suspicion” actually mean. To ensure
that reporting practices are consistent, just, and effective in protect-
ing children, mandated reporters must share a consensus regarding
the meaning and application of reasonable suspicion. The present study
investigates the extent to which community-based mandated reporters
share a common understanding of reasonable suspicion.
Methods
A 12-item survey (based on previously published instruments (Levi
& Brown, 2005; Levi, Brown, & Erb, 2006) was developed after
extensive review of the medical, legal, social science, and philosoph-
ical literature.
For the purposes of this survey, “child abuse” was defined as com-
prising physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, and neglect.
Respondents’ professional experience was measured by self-report, as
was prior education on reasonable suspicion.
The survey instrument included four sections, two of which are the
subject of this report (see Figure 1). For each of these two sections,
respondents were asked to imagine the following scenario: You have
encountered a child who has an injury (or condition) that might have been
caused by abuse AND you have gathered as much information as you feel is
possible, given the sources readily available. Respondents were then asked
to identify how likely (suspected) child abuse would have to be as the
cause of the injury/condition for reasonable suspicion to exist. Using an
Child WelfareCrowell and Levi
37
ordinal scale framework, respondents identified whether to qualify as rea-
sonable suspicion abuse would have to be first (most likely) on a rank order
list of 10 possible explanations (10 being the arbitrary limit chosen for
the survey), last (least likely), or somewhere in between. Respondents
were then given an analog scale framework and asked to mark an “X” on
a 10-centimeter scale (Gracely & Wolskee, 1983; Houde, 1982) at the
point corresponding to the percent likelihood necessary to constitute
Vol. 91, No. 1Child Welfare
38
Figure 1
Questions for Rank Order (i.e., Ordinal Probability) (Q5) and Estimated (numerical) Proba-
bility (Q6) Scales
reasonable suspicion. This scale ranged from 0% (no probability) to 100%
(certainty), and marks were measured to the nearest fifth percentile.
Procedures
Following IRB approval and waiver of written informed consent (in
accord with federal regulation 45 CFR part
46
.116[d]), the survey
was distributed to individuals at 18 urban, suburban, and semirural
sites in Pennsylvania who were attending continuing education pro-
grams on child welfare. Individuals who turned in a completed sur-
vey received a five dollar gift certificate, and no protected health
information was accessed for this study.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were generated including means, medians, and
standard deviations for continuous variables and frequency tables for
discrete variables. Associations between demographic factors and rea-
sonable suspicion were characterized by using contingency table analy-
sis; significant levels were determined by Pearson’s x2 statistics and
two sample t-tests. The ordinal and analog scale frameworks were
compared using linear regression.
Results
The response rate was 90.4% (n � 1,233), representing a diverse
group in terms of professional background and reported experience
and expertise (see Table 1). It is notable that 60% of participants
indicated that they had received prior education regarding what
constitutes reasonable suspicion of child abuse and 42% had worked
in a professional capacity with children for more than 10 years.
Rank Order Scale (ROS)
On the ordinal scale, wide variation was found in thresholds that
participants set for what constituted reasonable suspicion (see Figure
2). For 14.5% of respondents, “abuse” had to be the most likely or
Child WelfareCrowell and Levi
39
Vol. 91, No. 1Child Welfare
40
Number (percent)*
Characteristic (n 5 1223)
Race
White 893 (75)
African American 203 (17)
Hispanic
48
(4)
Other 40 (4)
Reported cases within 24 months
0 677 (56)
1–5
44
2 (32)
6–10 45 (4)
11–15 30 (2)
�15 24 (2)
Professional occupation
Teacher 340 (30)
Social worker 265 (23)
Daycare provider 259 (23)
Law enforcement 155 (14)
School administrator 90 (8)
School counselor 15 (1)
School nurse 13 (1)
Prior education on child abuse
None 139 (11)
A little 439 (36)
Moderate amount 486 (40)
Extensive 150 (12)
Prior education on reasonable suspicion
Yes 727 (60)
No 485 (40)
Years working with child children
�3 173 (15)
3–5 240 (20)
6–10 283 (24)
11–15 173 (15)
�15 323 (27)
Children of one’s own
Yes 802 (67)
No 389 (33)
*Totals may not sum to 100 due to missing data or rounding of data.
Table 1
Participant Demographic Characteristics
Child WelfareCrowell and Levi
41
second most likely explanation for a child’s condition/injury before
the possibility rose to the level of reasonable suspicion; 32.1% indi-
cated a rank of third or fourth; and
53
.3% reported ranks of fifth to
as low as tenth could still constitute reasonable suspicion.
No significant differences were found for respondents’ ordinal
scale rankings with regard to professional occupation, years of
working with children, number of children previously reported, hav-
ing children of one’s own, child abuse education, or previous educa-
tion on reasonable suspicion. A statistically significant association was
noted for race (see Table 2).
Estimated Probability Scale (EPS)
When asked to correlate reasonable suspicion with the estimated
probability that abuse occurred, 12.3% of respondents identified the
Figure 2
Community Mandated Reporters’ Responses (n � 1,233) to the Question How High
Would (Suspected) Child Abuse Have to Rank Before You Felt There Was Reasonable
Suspicion? (1 � most likely, 10 � least likely)
necessary probability at various points between 10% and 30%; 19.1%
identified various points of probability between 30% and 50%; 46.9%
identified a probability at some point between 50% and 80%; and
21.8% required a probability of more than 80% before they felt that
reasonable suspicion could be concluded (see Figure 3).
On the EPS, there were no significant associations for years of
working with children or previous education on reasonable suspicion.
Vol. 91, No. 1Child Welfare
42
ROS
(1 5 highest; EPS
Variable 10 5 lowest) (scale: 1–100%)
Number of reports over past five years p � 0.48 p � .0001
0
52
.3 (SD 22.7)
1–5 48.1 (SD 23.4)
�6 38.2 (SD 22.6)
Prior education on child abuse p � 0.15 p � 0.006
None 53.4 (SD 22.5)
A little 50.6 (SD 23.1)
Moderate
47
.9 (SD 22.3)
Extensive 44.7 (SD 25.0)
Professional occupation p � 0.48 p � 0.006
Daycare provider 53.0 (SD 22.6)
Teacher 52.4 (SD 22.1)
Law enforcement, other 46.6 (SD 24.3)
Social worker 46.1 (SD 22.6)
School counselor/admin./nurse 45.2 (SD 23.2)
Prior education on reasonable suspicion p � 0.38 p � 0.05
No: 50.8 (SD 22.1)
Yes: 48.0 (SD 24.0)
Race p � 0.0003 p � 0.31
White 4.9 (SD 2.2)
Other 4.4 (SD 2.1)
African American 4.3 (SD 2.1)
Hispanic 3.9 (SD 2.2)
Number of years working with children p � 0.23 p � 0.06
Children of one’s own p � 0.12 p � 0.52
Table 2
Association Between Respondent Characteristics and Mean Scores Gauging
Reasonable Suspicion Using the ROS and EPS
However, respondents who had reported six or more children in the
past five years identified significantly lower thresholds for reasonable
suspicion (38.2% vs. 52.3% for those reporting zero cases, p � 0.0001;
and 47.5% for one to five cases, p � 0.0006, see Table 2)—that is,
abuse could be less likely and still qualify as reasonable suspicion.
Additionally, respondents who had received extensive prior educa-
tion about child abuse also reported significantly lower thresholds
compared to those with no prior child abuse education (44.7% vs.
53.4%, p � 0.006, see Table 2). Professional occupation was also of
significance on the EPS scale. Both teachers and daycare providers
reported significantly higher thresholds for what constituted reason-
Child WelfareCrowell and Levi
43
Figure 3
Community Mandated Reporters’ Responses (n � 1,233) to the Question How
Likely Would (Suspected) Child Abuse Have to Be Before You Felt There Was
Reasonable Suspicion?
To render it more accessible, this figure groups data cumulatively by tenth percentiles (i.e., 0–10,
10–20, etc.). Because actual data points were measured to the nearest fifth percentile, their
description in the Results differs slightly.
able suspicion (52.4% and 53.0%, respectively, see Table 2) than school
counselors/administrators/nurses (45.1%), social workers (46.1%),
and law enforcement officers (46.6%), p � 0.0001.
ROS Versus EPS
To look for possible differences in threshold settings related to which
framework was used, paired comparisons were conducted between
each individual’s responses for the ROS and EPS. A strong relation-
ship (r 2 � 0.6) would indicate that as the EPS score increased,
respondents would designate a high rank on the ROS (a rank of 1
being the highest). Linear regression yielded a very weak relationship
in the expected direction between these two measures of likelihood
(r 2 � 0.037, see Figure 4). Moreover, 83% of these paired responses
were logically inconsistent. To be consistent, any score greater than
or equal to 50% on the EPS would need to correspond with an ordi-
nal ranking of 1; an EPS score of greater than or equal to 34% would
need to correspond with an ordinal ranking no lower than 2; an EPS
score of greater than or equal to 25% no lower than an ordinal rank-
ing of 3; and so on. By contrast, participants commonly indicated that
reasonable suspicion required a more than 50% probability of abuse
while also responding that child abuse could rank as low as fourth or
fifth on the ROS and still qualify as reasonable suspicion.
Discussion
Our data demonstrate significant variability in how community-
based mandated reporters interpret reasonable suspicion, raising the
question whether the threshold for mandated reporting is understood,
interpreted, or applied in a consistent manner. These findings support
previous work examining how pediatric residents, pediatricians, and
experts in the field of child abuse interpret reasonable suspicion (Levi
& Brown, 2005; Levi et al., 2006; Levi & Crowell, 2010).
Though respondents’ self-identified race was correlated with their
responses on the ROS, it is not clear that the observed differences are
likely to be clinically relevant. There were, however, several significant
associations between responses on the EPS and reporter character-
Vol. 91, No. 1Child Welfare
44
istics. Perhaps not surprisingly, individuals who had reported more
children for suspected abuse identified reasonable suspicion with lower
probabilities that abuse had occurred. This makes sense because (other
things being equal) mandated reporters who think they should report
suspected abuse when there is greater than or equal to 25% likelihood
that abuse occurred will report more cases than individuals’ whose
threshold is greater than or equal to 50%.
We also found that the more education on child abuse an indi-
vidual had received, the lower the probability they identified with
Child WelfareCrowell and Levi
45
Figure 4
Comparison of Community Mandated Reporters’ Paired Responses for the Rank Order
Question and the Estimated Probability Question
Numbers inside the circles denote the number of individuals who provided that paired response.
Paired responses that are logically consistent are colored yellow, while those that are logically
inconsistent are white. The line representing linear regression has an r 2 value of 0.3, which
demonstrates a weak relationship between the two scales. (Because some of the respondents
did not answer all questions, there are fewer than 1,233 paired responses.)
reasonable suspicion. Though other studies have shown that educa-
tion on abuse can improve individuals’ ability to identify abuse
(Carter et al., 2006; Gunn, Hickson, & Cooper 2005) the present
data further suggest that education about abuse (risk factors, signs,
and symptoms, etc.) may influence people’s threshold for how likely
they think abuse must be before reporting becomes mandatory.
Interestingly, we found no significant association with “prior educa-
tion on reasonable suspicion,” despite 60% of respondents reporting
such education. At the very least, this suggests that more attention
is needed to develop effective educational strategies for standardiz-
ing how people interpret and apply reasonable suspicion.
A slightly curious finding was that teachers and daycare
providers identified significantly higher thresholds for what counts
as reasonable suspicion. This was independent of either education on
child abuse or education on reasonable suspicion. One might have
expected that the longer periods of time that daycare providers and
classroom teachers have for interacting with individual children
(compared to law enforcement officers, social workers, or school
counselors, administrators, and nurses) would lead to lower thresh-
olds. It is possible, however, that greater exposure to instances of
possible abuse actually prompts individuals to set a higher, more dis-
criminating threshold to avoid reporting large numbers of children.
Alternatively, daycare providers and classroom teachers might
believe that a higher probability of abuse is needed to overcome
institutional resistance or other barriers to reporting suspected
abuse. To more fully understand the nature of this association, more
research is needed.
It is interesting that none of the above associations with the EPS
were seen with the ROS, and also striking that 83% of individuals’
responses to the two frameworks for measuring likelihood were
internally inconsistent. This matters because it suggests that a given
individual will operationalize reasonable suspicion very differently
depending on which framework is used. For example, 104 respon-
dents to our survey indicated that for reasonable suspicion to exist child
abuse would have to be at least 50% likely, but could rank as low as
fifth on the list of possible explanations for a child’s injury/condition
Vol. 91, No. 1Child Welfare
46
(see Figure 4). The reason that such paired responses are logically
inconsistent as well as troubling is that when child abuse is being
considered, the question is a binary one: Is it child abuse or is it not
child abuse? As such, the probability (x%) of a condition having been
caused by child abuse is mutually exclusive of all the other possible
causes (whose collective probability, then, is 100 to x%). Any proba-
bility greater than 50% must (logically) rank first on such a list, and
a 50% probability can rank no lower than second. Yet more than 8
out of 10 of those surveyed had responses that contradicted this logic
(see Figure 4).
It is well known in the field of decision analysis that people gen-
erally do not respond to rank-order and estimated probability scales
in a logically consistent manner. They tend to overestimate the prob-
abilities of individual options with rank-order lists, resulting in
summed probabilities that greatly exceed the logical cap of 100%
(Teigen, 1983, 1988). But while there is no reason to expect man-
dated reporters to have given extensive thought to the theoretical
constraints of rank order decision analysis, it makes a difference
whether abuse needs to be “very likely” or simply “possible”—to rise
to the level of reasonable suspicion. Only one in seven of the man-
dated reporters surveyed for this study stated that suspected child
abuse would have to be the most or second-most likely explanation
in order to qualify as reasonable suspicion. But fully six out of seven
of these same reporters stated that the numerical probability of child
abuse would have to be greater than 34% to qualify as reasonable
suspicion—which logically would render “abuse” first or second on a
rank-order scale.
These conflicting results suggest that it makes a difference which
framework one uses for deciding whether there is reasonable suspicion
of abuse. Combined with the variability of the thresholds that com-
munity mandated reporters set for reasonable suspicion, the present
data raise concerns about the validity of current reporting guidelines.
Rather than require knowledge or a justified belief of abuse,
reasonable suspicion sets an intentionally low bar to maximize the detec-
tion rate for abuse. The prevailing thought is that it is better to cast a
broader net rather than to miss catching a child at risk. What is at stake
Child WelfareCrowell and Levi
47
is not only the safety of children, but also significant consequences for
entire families (Diaz, Simantov, & Rickert, 2002; Fein et al., 2002;
Hillis et al., 2004; Lansford et al., 2002; Melton, 2005; Renke, 1999;
Richman, 2000; Saluja, Kotch, & Lee, 2003; Scheid, 2003; Widom,
1999). As such, it is particularly important that mandated reporters
accurately and reliably apply reasonable suspicion as the threshold for
mandated reporting. Our data suggest that interpreting reasonable
suspicion is significantly more complex than previously thought.
We have argued elsewhere (Levi & Loeben, 2004) that in the
context of mandated reporting, suspicion is best understood as a feel-
ing that child abuse may have occurred—rather than a belief (i.e.,
the holding of an idea to be true). Because “estimated probability”
readily applies to circumstances involving the possible occurrence of
abuse, this construct may serve as a useful framework for creating an
effective definition of reasonable suspicion. Given that many people
are familiar with the general concept of numerical likelihood ( Joslyn
& Savelli, 2010; Morss, Lazo, & Demuth, 2010; Plous, 1993), man-
dated reporters’ responsibility to report suspected abuse might be
clearer if it was spelled out in terms of the percent probability that
should trigger mandated reporting. Whether that numerical thresh-
old should be 25%, 75%, or something in between will depend upon
a fairly complex social calculus regarding the costs and benefits of
various thresholds.
Limitations
There are several limitations to the present study. First, respondents
comprised only a small segment of Pennsylvania community-based
mandated reporters—however, the present findings are consistent
with a survey of clinical and research experts in child abuse (Levi &
Crowell, 2010). Second, it is possible that respondents found the rank
order and estimated probability scales confusing. That said, the fact
that these same questions have yielded remarkably similar distribu-
tions of responses across multiple populations (Levi & Brown, 2005;
Levi, Brown, & Erb, 2006; Levi & Crowell, 2010) suggest that the
thresholds being identified represent individuals’ actual views on the
Vol. 91, No. 1Child Welfare
48
matter, rather than a haphazard set of responses. Third, our results
may not accurately reflect the actual behavior of mandated reporters.
Still, we know from many studies that there is significant variability
in mandated reporters’ behavior. Thus, while the present findings can-
not demonstrate any causal relationship, they do shed light on man-
dated reporters’ understanding of reasonable suspicion when asked
what it means to them.
Conclusions
The present findings suggest that mandated reporters hold disparate
views on the meaning and application of reasonable suspicion. Further,
our data show that these views are frequently internally inconsistent.
Child abuse is a critical social issue that affects the welfare of mil-
lions of children and families throughout the United States.
Community-based mandated reporters form a substantial part of the
bulwark for suspecting and reporting child abuse. As such, the cur-
rent findings give us pause when considering whether we can expect
the 35-plus million mandated reporters in the United States to reli-
ably and consistently understand and interpret the meaning of rea-
sonable suspicion. This study found that more education regarding
child abuse is correlated with lower thresholds for when abuse must
be reported. The fact that education on reasonable suspicion had no
such effect, and that community professionals’ thresholds for man-
dated reporting were so highly variable, argues for both standardiz-
ing the definition of reasonable suspicion and developing effective
education to clearly explain what this threshold means.
References
Alvarez, K. M., Kenny, M., Donohue, B., & Carpin, K. M. (2004). Why are professionals fail-
ing to intiate mandated reports of child maltreatment, and are there any empirically based
training programs to assist professionals in the training process? Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 9, 563–579.
Appel, A. E., & Holden, G. (1998). The co-occurrence of spouse and physical child abuse:
A review and appraisal. Journal of Family Psychology, 12(4), 578–599.
Child WelfareCrowell and Levi
49
Bonardi, D. J. (2000). Teachers’ decisions to report child abuse: The effects of ethnicity, attitudes, and
experiences. Doctoral dissertation, Psychology, Pacific Graduate School of Psychology.
Carter, Y. H., Bannon, M. J., Limbert, C., Docherty, A., & Barlow, J. (2006). Improving child
protection: A systematic review of training and procedural interventions. Archives of Disease
in Childhood, 91(9), 740–743.
Delaronde, S., King, G., Bendel, R., & Reece, R. (2000). Opinions among mandated reporters
toward child maltreatment reporting policies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(7), 901–910.
Diaz, A., Simantov, E., & Rickert, V. I. (2002). Effect of abuse on health. Archives of Pediatric
and Adolescent Medicine, 156, 811–817.
Edleson, J. L. (1999). The overlap between child maltreatment and woman battering. Violence
Against Women, 5(2), 134–154.
Fein, J. A., Kassam-Adams, N., Gavin, M., Huang, R., Blanchard, D., & Datner, E. M. (2002).
Persistence of posttraumatic stress in violently injured youth seen in the emergency depart-
ment. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 156, 836–840.
Flaherty, E. G., Jones, R., & Sege, R. (2004). Telling their stories: Primary care practitioners’
experience evaluating and reporting injuries caused by child abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect,
28(9), 939–945.
Flaherty, E. G., Sege, R. D., Griffith, J., Price, L. L., Wasserman, R., Slora, E., & Binns, H. J.
(2008). From suspicion of physical child abuse to reporting: Primary care clinician
decision-making. Pediatrics, 122(3), 611–619.
Flaherty, E. G., Sege, R. D., Mattson, C. L., & Binns, H. J. (2002). Assessment of suspicion
of abuse in the primary care setting. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 2(2), 120–126.
Flaherty, E. G., Sege, R. D., Price, L. L., Christoffel, K. K., Norton, D. P., & O’Connor,
K. G. (2006). Pediatrician characteristics associated with child abuse identification and
reporting: Results from a national survey of pediatricians. Child Maltreatment, 11(4),
361–369.
Flieger, C. L. (1998). Reporting child physical abuse: The effects of varying legal definitions of rea-
sonable suspicion on psychologists’ child abuse reporting. Doctoral dissertation, Clinical
Psychology, The California School of Professional Psychology, Berkeley/Alameda.
Vol. 91, No. 1Child Welfare
50
Garbarino, J., Kostelny, K., & Dubrow, N. (1991). What children can tell us about living in
danger. American Psychology, 46, 376–383.
Gateway, Child Welfare Information. (2008). Mandatory reporters of child abuse and neg-
lect. In State Statutes Series. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
Gateway, Child Welfare Information (2009). Making and screening reports of child abuse
and neglect: Summary of state laws. In State Statutes Series, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Gaudiosi, J. A. (2009). Child maltreatment 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on
Children and Families and Youth, Children’s Bureau.
Gilbert, R., Widom, C. S., Browne, K., Fergusson, D., Webb, E., & Janson, S. (2009). Child
maltreatment one burden and consequences of child maltreatment in high-income coun-
tries. Lancet, 373(9657), 68–81.
Gracely, R. H., & Wolskee, P. J. (1983). Semantic functional measurement of pain: Integrating
perception and language. Pain, 15(4), 389–398.
Gunn, V. L., Hickson, G. B., & Cooper, W. O. (2005). Factors affecting pediatricians’ report-
ing of suspected child maltreatment. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 5(2), 96–101.
Hansen, D. J., Bumby, K. M., Lundquist, L. M., Chandler, R. M., Le, P. T., & Futa, K. T.
(1997). The influence of case and professional variables on the identification and report-
ing of child maltreatment: A study of licensed psychologists and certified masters social
workers. Journal of Family Violence, 12(3), 313–332.
Hickson, G. B., Cooper, W. O., Campbell, P. W., & Altemeier, W. A. (1998). Effects of pedi-
atrician characteristics on management decisions in simulated cases involving apparent
life-threatening events. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 152, 383–387.
Hillis, S. D., Anda, R. F., Dube, S. R., Felitti, V. J., Marchbanks, P. A., & Marks, J. S. (2004).
The association between adverse childhood experiences and adolescent pregnancy, long-
term psychosocial consequences, and fetal death. Pediatrics, 113(2), 320–327.
Houde, R. W. (1982). Methods for measuring clinical pain in humans. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand,
72(supp.), 25–29.
Joslyn, S., & Savelli, S. (2010). Communicating forecast uncertainty: Public perception of
weather forecast uncertainty. Meteorological Applications, 17(2), 180–195.
Child WelfareCrowell and Levi
51
Kalichman, S. C. (1999). Mandated reporting of suspected child abuse: Ethics, law, & policy (2nd
ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kenny, M. C. (2007). Web-based training in child maltreatment for future mandated reporters.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(6), 671–678.
Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., Crozier, J., & Kaplow, J. (2002). A
12-year prospective study of the long-term effects of early child physical maltreatment on
psychological, behavioral, and academic problems in adolescence. Archives of Pediatric and
Adolescent Medicine, 156, 824–830.
Levi, B. H., & Brown, G. (2005). Reasonable suspicion: A study of Pennsylvania pediatri-
cians regarding child abuse. Pediatrics, 116(1), e5–e12.
Levi, B. H., Brown, G., & Erb, C. (2006). Reasonable suspicion: A pilot study of pediatric
residents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30(4), 345–356.
Levi, B. H., & Crowell, K. (2010). Child abuse experts disagree about the threshold for man-
dated reporting. Clinical Pediatrics. doi: 10.1177/0009922810389170
Levi, B. H., & Loeben, G. (2004). Index of suspicion: Feeling not believing. Theoretical
Medicine and Bioethics, 25(4), 1–34.
Melton, G. B. (2005). Mandated reporting: A policy without reason. Child Abuse & Neglect,
29(1), 9–18.
Morss, R. E., Lazo, J. K., & Demuth, J. L. (2010). Examining the use of weather forecasts in
decision scenarios: Results from a U.S. survey with implications for uncertainty commu-
nication. Meteorological Applications, 17(2), 149–162.
Myers, J. E. B. (2001). Medicolegal aspects of suspected child abuse. In R. M. Reece &
S. Ludwig (Eds.), Child abuse: Medical diagnosis and treatment. Philadelphia: Lippincott,
Williams, & Wilkins.
Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Renke, W. N. (1999). The mandatory reporting of child abuse under the child welfare act.
Health Law Journal, 7, 91–140.
Richman, H. A. (2000). Neuhauser lecture. From a radiologist’s judgment to public policy on
child abuse and neglect: What have we wrought? Pediatric Radiology, 30(4), 219–228.
Saluja, G., Kotch, J., & Lee, L. C. (2003). Effects of child abuse and neglect: Does social
capital really matter? Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 157(7), 681–686.
Vol. 91, No. 1Child Welfare
52
Scheid, J. M. (2003). Recognizing and managing long-term sequelae of childhood maltreat-
ment. Pediatric Annals, 32(6), 391–401.
Singley, S. J. (1998). Failure to report suspect child abuse: Civil liability of mandated reporters.
Journal of Juvenile Law, 19, 236–271.
Teigen, K. H. (1983). Studies in subjective probability III: The unimportance of alternatives.
Scandanavia Journal of Psychology, 24, 97–105.
Teigen, K. H. (1988). When are low-probability events judged to be “probable”? Effects of
outcome-set characteristics on verbal probability estimates. Acta Psychologica, 68, 157–174.
Vulliamy, A. P., & Sullivan, R. (2000). Reporting child abuse: Pediatricians’ experiences with
the child protection system. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(11), 1461–1470.
Warner, J. E., & Hansen, D. J. (1994). The identification and reporting of physical abuse by
physicians: A review and implications for research. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 11–25.
Widom, C. S. (1999). Posttraumatic stress disorder in abused and neglected children grown
up. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156(8), 1223–1229.
Child WelfareCrowell and Levi
53
Copyright of Child Welfare is the property of Child Welfare League of America and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Achiever Papers is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Dissertation Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, if anything is unclear, you may always chat with us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download