Section 4 - 1998 Recommendations and Concerns

SECTION 4
1998 Recommendations and Concerns

IN ADDITION to acting upon specific complaints, OFCO is statutorily charged with developing recommendations for improving the state child protection and welfare system. Based on further investigation of the concern identified in OFCO’s 1997 annual report relating to the statutory duty of service professionals to report possible child abuse and neglect, OFCO has developed a recommendation concerning policies and procedures established by local school districts for reporting child abuse and neglect. In addition, based upon its complaint-related work during the reporting period, OFCO has identified three additional concerns for further review.

Recommendation

Local school districts should review their policies and procedures relating to mandated reports of suspected child abuse and neglect by professional school personnel to ensure that they are in compliance with the requirements and intent of the state’s mandatory reporting law. School districts that have not adopted the model reporting policy and procedure developed by the Washington State School Directors’ Association (WSSDA) should consider doing so.¹ (See Appendix C).

Basis

STATE LAW: Under Washington law, certain professionals – including professional school personnel – who have reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect are required to report the incident, or to cause a report to be made, to law enforcement officials or Child Protective Services.² An immediate oral report must be made at the first opportunity, but no later than 48 hours after there is reasonable cause to believe that the child has suffered abuse or neglect.³ Any person who, in good faith, makes a mandated report of alleged child abuse or neglect is immune from liability arising out of the report.⁴ Any person who knowingly fails to make, or to cause to be made, a mandated report is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.⁵ The mandated reporting law is intended to "ensure that there will be professional involvement [i.e., law enforcement or Child Protective Services] to determine whether child abuse or neglect has occurred with the accompanying provision of services for prevention and treatment."⁶

BACKGROUND: In its 1997 annual report, OFCO identified as a concern the confusion among service professionals about their duty to report possible child abuse and neglect under the state’s mandatory reporting law. Of particular concern was the apparent lack of understanding among professional school personnel regarding their reporting obligations. In several instances, OFCO encountered teachers and counselors who indicated that their duty is to report their suspicions of possible child abuse or neglect to the school principal or other school personnel. These teachers and counselors expressed the belief that it is the responsibility of the principal, or other designated school personnel, to determine whether their suspicions are reasonable and should be reported to law enforcement or Child Protective Services. According to these school professionals, this procedure is standard practice in their schools, and has been formally established in policy. In OFCO’s experience, this practice has led to the filing of tardy and incomplete reports and, in one situation, led to the failure to make a required report.

OFCO’S SURVEY: Because the aforementioned reporting practices appear to violate the requirements and intent of the state’s mandated reporting law, and may result in children being left at risk of preventable harm, OFCO conducted an informal survey of school districts’ reporting policies and procedures. The purpose of the survey was to determine whether school districts have formally established these problematic reporting practices in policy and procedure.

Time and resources allowed OFCO to survey 130 of Washington’s 296 school districts. Those contacted included urban, suburban and rural districts that were diverse in terms of their geographic location and enrollment size; 95 of these school districts provided OFCO with a copy or description of their reporting policies and procedures.⁷

FINDINGS: Of the 95 school districts that reported their policies and procedures, OFCO found:

Almost half (45) have a policy that requires school personnel to report suspected child abuse to the principal or the principal’s designee. Of these, 22 school districts have policies that authorize the principal/designee to determine whether a report should be made to law enforcement or Child Protective Services, while the policies of 8 school districts do not specify the principal/designee’s duty once he or she has received a report; 15 of the 45 school districts require the principal/designee to make the report to law enforcement or Child Protective Services.
Eighteen specify in policy or procedure that the principal/designee will interview the child to "find out if there seems to be a reasonable explanation of the conditions or circumstances" that are of concern.⁸
Seventeen do not specify in policy whether school personnel shall or may go forward with a report to law enforcement or Child Protective Services when the principal/designee decides that a report is not warranted, but the staff member still reasonably believes that abuse or neglect has occurred. The policies of six districts provide that school personnel may still choose in this situation to make a report to law enforcement or child protective services.

Conclusion

The policies and procedures of a significant number of school districts surveyed are inconsistent with the requirements and intent of the state’s mandated reporting law. These inconsistencies can cause misunderstanding among professional school personnel about their reporting obligations, which may result in children being left at risk of harm.

DETERMINING REASONABLE CAUSE: Requiring professional school personnel to report to the principal/designee is inappropriate if it is intended that the principal/designee shall determine whether a report will be made to law enforcement or Child Protective Services. Having the principal/designee interview the child for the purpose of making this determination is also problematic. State law requires teachers, counselors and other professional school personnel to make a report, or cause a report to be made, to law enforcement or Child Protective Services when they have reasonable cause to believe that a child has been abused or neglected. Policies that place the reporting decision with the school principal/designee are clearly inconsistent with this requirement, and may subject school personnel to criminal liability and loss of the person’s teaching or other certificate for failing to report. Further, having the principal/designee interview children about possible abuse or neglect places that person in the role of investigator, which is contrary to the purpose of the mandated reporting law.

The Washington State School Directors’ Association (WSSDA) has adopted a model reporting policy and procedure that gives effect to the requirements and intent of the state’s reporting law. The model policy provides that:

Staff are legally responsible for reporting all suspected cases of child abuse and neglect. For that reason, under state law staff are free from liability for reporting instances of abuse or neglect and are criminally liable for failure to do so. Staff need not verify that a child has in fact been abused or neglected. Any conditions or information that may reasonably be related to abuse or neglect should be reported. Legal authorities have the responsibility for investigating each case and taking such action as is appropriate under the circumstances.

The WSSDA model procedure directs staff to contact Child Protective Services or law enforcement immediately when they have reasonable cause to believe that a student has suffered abuse or neglect. Staff are also directed to advise the principal or the nurse of suspected abuse or neglect. Staff who are unsure whether there is reasonable cause to make a report are directed to "discuss the circumstances with an employee of CPS [Child Protective Services] for assistance in determining if a report should be made." The model procedure emphasizes that "Child Protective Service has the responsibility of determining the fact of child abuse or neglect. Any doubt about the child’s condition shall be resolved in favor of making the report."

PRINCIPAL/DESIGNEE AS REPORTER: Requiring professional school personnel to report to the principal/designee is also of concern if it is intended that the principal/designee shall be the one to make the report to law enforcement or Child Protective Services. Although this policy and practice is technically in compliance with the mandated reporting law, it is better practice to have the report initiated by the school professional who has first hand knowledge. Direct communication from the primary source is more likely to produce a thorough and accurate report than a report from a secondary source. Thorough and accurate reports are more helpful to law enforcement and Child Protective Services investigators.

Concerns

In addition to the foregoing recommendation, OFCO has identified three other issues of concern, which will receive further review and possible investigation in the upcoming year.

CONCERN #1: OFCO received a significant number of complaints during the reporting period involving the inability of both dependent and non-dependent children to access in a timely way appropriate long-term residential mental health services. In the course of investigating these complaints, OFCO learned that the average waiting period for a Children’s Long Term Inpatient (CLIP) bed in some regions is three months. In a few cases in which OFCO was involved, children had to wait between six and nine months for services. The inability to access appropriate residential services in a timely manner may place mentally ill youth at risk of serious harm to themselves and others.

CONCERN #2: A pattern of complaints emerged during the reporting period involving the protection of adolescents. A number of complaints received by OFCO involved adolescents who were left in the care of their parent(s) even though they appeared to be at risk of abuse or neglect. In the course of investigating these complaints, OFCO learned that there is a severe shortage of foster placements available for older children. OFCO is concerned that adolescents may sometimes be left in dangerous situations due in part to the lack of available placement resources.

CONCERN #3: OFCO received a significant number of complaints involving the lack of appropriate residential placements available for children that are unable to live at home, and are not appropriate for foster care. Lacking appropriate placement options, DSHS Division of Children and Family Services (DCFS) social workers are often unable to assist families in crisis with a child whose behavior cannot be controlled due to mental health or other issues, and who clearly poses an ongoing risk of harm to themselves and others. Many of these children stay at risk unless and until an appropriate placement can be located. In the course of a complaint investigation, OFCO found that Region 4 DCFS regularly houses "sleepovers" in its central office building in Seattle. Sleepovers in 1998 included children ages 8 to 18 for whom a placement could not be located, or who had been refused or kicked out of a placement.

¹ The Washington State School Directors’ Association (WSSDA) was established in state statute to "effect a coordination of policymaking . . . of the school districts in the state." RCW 28A.345.040. The membership of the association is comprised of local school board officials. RCW 28A.345.020. WSSDA Policy 3421 and Procedure 3421P (Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention) were first adopted in 1990, and have since been periodically updated. The definition of "child abuse or neglect" in Policy 3421 is currently under revision to make it consistent with the definition set forth in state law, RCW 26.44.020.
² RCW 26.44.030(1)(a). According to Washington law, the term "professional school personnel" includes, but is not limited to "teachers, counselors, administrators, child care facility personnel, and school nurses." RCW 26.44.020(7). The WSSDA model policy does not define this term, but it is intended to hold all school district personnel to the same standard and practice for reporting child abuse and neglect. WSSDA, Policy News, October 1998.
³ RCW 26.44.030(1)(d), RCW 26.44.040. A professional who has made a report may request and receive from Child Protective Services a status report of the matter, including the disposition of the information provided by the professional. Division of Children and Family Services (DCFS) Practices and Procedures Guide, ch. 2000, sec. 2331(D)(19). In addition, upon request, and if the department determines it is in the child’s best interests, the worker must conduct case planning and consultation with the reporting professional. RCW 26.44.030(7).
⁴ RCW 26.44.060(1)(a).
⁵ RCW 26.44.080.
⁶ Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Protecting the Abused and Neglected Child: An Explanation of the Washington State Mandatory Reporting Law on Child Abuse (revised 8/95).
⁷ Appendix D identifies the school districts that were contacted by OFCO, and those that provided OFCO with their reporting policies and procedures. The school districts were contacted in July and August 1998. OFCO received information from at least one school district in each of Washington’s 39 counties. The number of responding districts represents about one-third of all school districts in Washington State, while the 1998 student enrollment in these districts represents over one-half of the state’s total public school enrollment.
⁸ Significantly, 17 of these school districts require that a report be made to law enforcement or child protective services only "if there is a reasonable likelihood of abuse or neglect."