Uncategorized – Mandate Now

The key difference between IICSA’s Recommendation 13 and the Home Office proposal

The key difference between IICSA’s Recommendation 13 and the Home Office proposal (see further down) is marked in red in both cases. It is this difference which means that (whatever they might choose to call it) the Home Office proposal is not mandatory reporting.

IICSA’s Recommendation 13

Recommendation 13: Mandatory reporting

The Inquiry recommends that the UK government and Welsh Government introduce legislation which places certain individuals – ‘mandated reporters’ – under a statutory duty to report child sexual abuse where they:

receive a disclosure of child sexual abuse from a child or perpetrator; or
witness a child being sexually abused; or
observe recognised indicators of child sexual abuse.

The following persons should be designated ‘mandated reporters’:

any person working in regulated activity in relation to children (under the Safeguarding and Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, as amended);
any person working in a position of trust (as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, as amended); and
police officers.

For the purposes of mandatory reporting, ‘child sexual abuse’ should be interpreted as any act that would be an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where the alleged victim is a child under the age of 18.

Where the child is aged between 13 and under 16 years old, a report need not be made where the mandated reporter reasonably believes that:

the relationship between the parties is consensual and not intimidatory, exploitative or coercive; and
the child has not been harmed and is not at risk of being harmed; and
there is no material difference in capacity or maturity between the parties engaged in the sexual activity concerned, and there is a difference in age of no more than three years.

These exceptions should not, however, apply where the alleged perpetrator is in a position of trust within the meaning of the 2003 Act.

Where the child is under the age of 13, a report must always be made.

Reports should be made to either local authority children’s social care or the police as soon as is practicable.

It should be a criminal offence for mandated reporters to fail to report child sexual abuse where they:

are in receipt of a disclosure of child sexual abuse from a child or perpetrator; or
witness a child being sexually abused.

Home office Proposal

Who the duty should apply to

1. The duty should apply to any person undertaking regulated activity in relation to children (under the Safeguarding and Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, as amended) and any person in a role considered relevant to the duty. A list of these roles will be set out in due course.

2. Organisations which engage with children through the above categories should notify relevant individuals of their responsibilities under the duty.

What should be reported

3. Those subject to the duty must make a report when, in the course of undertaking regulated activity or one of the specified roles, they receive a disclosure of child sexual abuse from a child or perpetrator; or personally witness a child being sexually abused. The duty will not apply outside of the relevant activity or role, though in all cases best practice and / or relevant guidance on reporting concerns should be followed.

For the purposes of the duty, ‘child sexual abuse’ should be interpreted as any act that would be an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where the alleged victim was under the age of 18 at the time the abuse occurred; and ‘witnessing’ child sexual abuse should include viewing indecent images of children.

A report will not need to be made under the duty if those involved are between 13 and 16 years old, the relationship between them is consensual and there is no risk of harm present.

Process for reports

4. Reports should be made to either local authority children’s services or the police as soon as reasonably practicable.

Territorial extent of the duty

5. The territorial extent of the duty to report is England only. Subject to the conditions of point 3 (above), abuse which relates to a child normally resident in other jurisdictions will be reported under the duty, though the subsequent action taken may follow different processes.

Consequences of breaching the duty to report

6. Breaches of the duty to report will be subject to referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service for barring consideration using existing arrangements under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. Barring decisions will take account of representations made by the individual.

7. All regulated professionals and teachers who are subject to the duty, including those working in private education and healthcare settings, will also be at a minimum subject to professional sanctions to be determined by the appropriate regulating body.

Preventing reports from being made

8. Anyone who obstructs or delays a mandated reporter from making a report under the mandatory reporting duty (or attempts to do so), for example through destroying or hiding evidence; applying pressure, threats, bribes or blackmail will be guilty of a criminal offence, which will be included on the list of automatic barring offences. As a result, all convictions will result in a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS); barring decisions will take account of representations made by the individual.

Exemptions

9. As above (point 3), a report will not need to be made under the duty if those involved are between 13 and 16 years old, the relationship between them is consensual and there is no risk of harm present.

Protections for reporters

10. The duty will set out that individuals are protected from any repercussions by their employer or wider organisation as a result of a making a report in good faith; or alerting appropriate authorities that a report which should have been made under the duty has been withheld.

11. We will also set out that reports made under the duty do not breach any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or any other restriction on the disclosure of information.

Provided Mandate Now 22.11.23

November 23rd, 2023|

Extracts from Working Together to Safeguard Children 2015

Working Together Quotes Relevant to the Church of England:

Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 featured in Working Together 2015

WARNING – Working Together to Safeguard Children is only ‘guidance.’ There is no law requiring known or suspected abuse to be reported by anyone working in a Regulated Activity to the statutory agencies. Over many years the Church of England has failed to report known and suspected abuse to the statutory agencies. No law was broken for this failure, no one can be held to account through the Criminal Court for failing to report because reporting child sexual abuse is entirely discretionary.

From Working Together :

4. These organisations should have in place arrangements that reflect the importance of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, including:

a clear line of accountability for the commissioning and/or provision of services designed to safeguard and promote the welfare of children;
a senior board level lead to take leadership responsibility for the organisation’s safeguarding arrangements;
a culture of listening to children and taking account of their wishes and feelings, both in individual decisions and the development of services;
clear whistleblowing procedures, which reflect the principles in Sir Robert Francis’s Freedom to Speak Up review and are suitably referenced in staff training and codes of conduct, and a culture that enables issues about safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children to be addressed;
arrangements which set out clearly the processes for sharing information, with other professionals and with the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB);
a designated professional lead (or, for health provider organisations, named professionals) for safeguarding. Their role is to support other professionals in their agencies to recognise the needs of children, including rescue from possible abuse or neglect. Designated professional roles should always be explicitly defined in job descriptions. Professionals should be given sufficient time, funding, supervision and support to fulfil their child welfare and safeguarding responsibilities effectively;
safe recruitment practices for individuals whom the organisation will permit to work regularly with children, including policies on when to obtain a criminal record check;
appropriate supervision and support for staff, including undertaking safeguarding training:
employers are responsible for ensuring that their staff are competent to carry out their responsibilities for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and creating an environment where staff feel able to raise concerns and feel supported in their safeguarding role;
See Sir Robert Francis’s Freedom to Speak Up review report.
staff should be given a mandatory induction, which includes familiarisation with child protection responsibilities and procedures to be followed if anyone has any concerns about a child’s safety or welfare; and
all professionals should have regular reviews of their own practice to ensure they improve over time.
clear policies in line with those from the LSCB for dealing with allegations against people who work with children. Such policies should make a clear distinction between an allegation, a concern about the quality of care or practice or a complaint. An allegation may relate to a person who works with children who has:
behaved in a way that has harmed a child, or may have harmed a child;
possibly committed a criminal offence against or related to a child; or
behaved towards a child or children in a way that indicates they may pose a risk of harm to children.

5. County level and unitary local authorities should ensure that allegations against people who work with children are not dealt with in isolation. Any action necessary to address corresponding welfare concerns in relation to the child or children involved should be taken without delay and in a coordinated manner. Local authorities should, in addition, have designated a particular officer, or team of officers (either as part of multi-agency arrangements or otherwise), to be involved in the management and oversight of allegations against people that work with children. Any such officer, or team of officers, should be sufficiently qualified and experienced to be able to fulfil this role effectively, for example qualified social workers. Any new appointments to such a role, other than current or former designated officers moving between local authorities, should be qualified social workers. Arrangements should be put in place to ensure that any allegations about those who work with children are passed to the designated officer, or team of officers, without delay.

‘Working Together’ says of Faith Organisations:

44. Churches, other places of worship and faith-based organisations provide a wide range of activities for children and have an important role in safeguarding children and supporting families. Like other organisations who work with children they need to have appropriate arrangements in place to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, as described in paragraph 4 of this chapter. (See first paragraph above)

January 5th, 2018|

Mandatory reporting laws for child sexual abuse are essential for kids and society: Professor Ben Mathews

Professor Ben Mathews is a researcher in the Australian Centre for Health Law Research at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. He has led some of the largest studies ever undertaken into mandatory reporting laws for child sexual abuse.

In the UK, 18% of girls and 5% of boys experience contact sexual abuse (one in eight children), and the figures are even higher for all kinds of sexual abuse. The mean age of onset is 9-10. Most children unlucky enough to suffer sexual abuse are unable to tell anyone, because they are terrified of the abuser’s power, have been threatened, feel ashamed, depend on the abuser, or are too young to understand it. The abuse often continues, the children endure horrific experiences and suffer long-lasting health, behavioural and social problems, and society suffers enormous socio-economic costs. Offenders get away with it and can continue offending. We see this repeatedly with prolific individuals and gangs: Rotherham, Rochdale, Savile, Oxford, Operation Yewtree. But it’s not just high profile casesthat matter: many offenders are family members and other acquaintances.

What should society do to better identify cases at an early stage, interrupt the abuse, help the child, and identify the offenders? We should do what the scientific evidence tells us will get the best result. We should put the child at the centre of our debate. And we should do what an advanced liberal democracy in the 21^st century that cares about its children would do.

To identify more cases at an early stage, the UK Parliament is considering whether to introduce mandatory reporting laws for child sexual abuse in England and Wales. As a social scientist who has conducted multiple long-term studies of this topic, my conclusion is that a UK mandatory reporting law will be very successful in responding to child sexual abuse and identifying cases that otherwise would not come to light. Ireland must agree, since in November 2015 it passed reporting laws for child sexual abuse. In fact, dozens of nations have them, ranging from Canada, Australia and the USA, to Sweden and Saudi Arabia.

These laws are often misunderstood, which produces erroneous conclusions. The truth is that the best evidence indicates they are probably the best public policy innovation we have to help identify cases of child sexual abuse. Based on historical experience, hard data and international insights, here are the top 10 things policymakers, professionals, and the public need to know.

The laws do not require everyone to report everything. Rather, they simply require designated people (typically teachers, doctors, nurses, police, and sometimes others dealing with kids in their work) to report specified sexual abuse. So, the laws do require teachers, for example, to report known or reasonably suspected serious sexual offences, based on a child’s disclosure or clear behavioural indicators. The laws don’t require teachers to report four year olds engaging in developmentally normal sexual behaviour, or teenagers taking consensual semi-naked selfies.

For this reason, and because sexual abuse is difficult to detect and frequently undisclosed, even with the laws you will not get loads of “unnecessary reports”. Numerous jurisdictions have had these laws for decades and the sky hasn’t fallen in. In Australia, which has very broad reporting laws for multiple kinds of abuse, our recent nationwide study over 10 years found that mandated reports of child sexual abuse make up only about 6% of reports of all kinds of child maltreatment made to the government.

The laws overcome gaze aversion, which is the tendency for people to avoid uncomfortable phenomena and turn the other way. They compel professionals to report when they know or suspect sexual abuse and set a social norm about what must be done instead of ignoring the child’s situation. Together with good education about child sexual abuse and the reporting duty, the laws increase professionals’ awareness of just how serious sexual abuse is, and its nature, frequency and indicators. The laws say what professionals must do. The education explains why. The laws also give reporters anonymity and legal immunity: important legal protections.

The reason the laws help is that these professionals can play a massive role in identifying cases that otherwise would remain hidden. Data from other countries shows that 50-75% of sexual abuse cases confirmed by child protection agencies are found after mandated reports by these social sentinels. To sexually abused kids, these professionals are guardian angels.

Here’s how two demographically similar jurisdictions with the same child population compared in 2010, one with mandatory reporting (Victoria: A), and one without (Ireland: B). A found 4.73 times as many sexually abused children (989) compared with B (209): 780 more children in one year. In A, the mandated reports alone (police, teachers, doctors, nurses) identified 536 confirmed cases; 2.5 times the entire amount in B. Twice the number of reports were made in A compared with B, with 53% of these made by mandated reporters.

Still not convinced? Here’s what is likely to happen when you introduce a reporting law. We analysed data in an Australian state from three years pre-law and four years post-law. Due to improved reporting by mandated reporters after the law, twice as many children per year were officially identified as sexual abuse victims; and three times as many were investigated (which may be the best measure of success). Reporting trends stabilised after the third post-law year. Even at their highest new level, the rate of children in reports was one in 210.

Numbers of mandated reports of sexual abuse remain very stable over time, especially compared with other maltreatment. Rapid sustained rises in reports have occasionally occurred, but these have been about neglect and domestic violence, not sexual abuse. Moreover, subsequent changes to law and policy have caused just as rapid a decline in reports.

It’s impossible to give a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. But, each case of child maltreatment has been estimated as costing US$210,000, child sexual abuse is arguably even more costly, and the costs of reporting and investigation are shown by leading researchers to be minimal in the child protection budget. Alongside the moral, legal and practical arguments, the economic argument based on returns from early intervention and increased offender detection is strong.

A reporting law should not be limited only to offences within a “regulated activity” like boarding schools. Queensland did this, and had to expand the law after accepting it was theoretically, legally and practically indefensible. Are you really going to take seriously child sexual abuse you know or suspect occurs in a boarding school, but not every other case? No jurisdiction in the world does this and the UK shouldn’t either.

That’s a lot of evidence. Now let’s consider the child’s experience, feelings, and needs. The abused child is terrified, wants it to stop, and needs health assistance. In the worst kind of case, she is raped daily by someone twice her size, and is completely in their power. She can’t escape it, process it, or stop it. Her teacher, doctor, or a police officer who knows or suspects something, might be the only person in her world who can help by reporting that suspicion.

This girl, and thousands of other children like her, needs someone to help bring her experience to the attention of a protective agency. That can best happen through a mandatory reporting law, properly supported by good reporter education and a well-supported system.

September 3rd, 2016|