Anonymous Reporting of Suspected Child Abuse Hurts More than it Helps

Every year, more than 4 million reports to child protective services (CPS) every year in the United States. More than 70% of those reports come from professional reporters, largely required by law to make those reports (mandated reporters). Around 10% of reports come from people who choose not to identify themselves. We call these “anonymous reports”.

Anonymous reports are among the least likely to be supported after investigation. Between 1-10 out of every 100 investigations of anonymous reports find evidence of abuse or neglect. As a result, 90-99 out of every 100 of those investigations result in traumatic and unwarranted family intrusion.

Anonymous reports have long been accepted by CPS hotlines out of what has been deemed a necessity.  Many believe that people will choose to NOT report concerns of child abuse and maltreatment if they are forced to identify themselves; that reporters will be too afraid that the person they report will retaliate if they share their name.  There is little research to support this assertion, but lots of fear.

Reports to the CPS hotline are considered confidential when the identity of the caller is recorded. When “confidential”, the identity of the reporter is recorded but not shared with the family being investigated. The identify of the reporter may, however, be shared if the case is brought to court, and the reporter is needed as a fact witness. The need to call reporters to testify, however, is very rare.

It is argued that people won’t make reports to CPS if they have to leave their name, because the reporter fear retaliation from the family they are reporting. This assumes that the only way the family knows who made the report is if they give their name to CPS. Families generally know (or think they know) who reported them to CPS, even if no one explicitly tells them. I’ve worked with hundreds of families that have been reported to CPS, and few of them were at a loss for who who make a report. Therefore, claims that anonymous reporting shields reporters from retaliation are simply untrue.

Anonymity of the reporter really only protects reporters who make false reports. False reports to CPS are criminal offenses. But when false reports to CPS are made anonymously it is almost impossible to prosecute these offenders for their crime. And there are a lot of false reports. 

Aggrieved landlords, neighbors, and family members have long used anonymity to shield responsibility for false reports intended to harass and intimidate families. Due to the anonymity of these false reports, the bad actors cannot be adequately identified and punished. Families living in poverty, and particularly families of color, have long suffered the disproportionate burden of false anonymous reports.

Concerns for anonymous reports are not new. Over 40 years ago, the data on anonymous reporting was already showing significant problems. A study by Adams and others found that anonymous reports created challenges for investigators. Investigators couldn’t clarify information provided in the report, for instance, because they couldn’t follow up with the reporter. And, in many cases, they found anonymous reports were deemed false. As a result of these common experiences with anonymous reports, CPS investigators often treated anonymous reports with less concern, potentially resulting in the lack of identification of actual abuse and neglect. As a result of significant concerns for anonymous reporting, around 10 states have long had policies that require a reporter to self-identify, though in practice, many of those same states accepted calls anonymously.

Parents and their advocates have long raised concerns about anonymous reporting. As concerns has become more widespread, states such as Texas and California have adopted policies that require reporters to provide identifying information. These policies have, surprisingly, often had bi-partisan support. Policy-makers across the aisle can sometimes agree that such a move would save money, reduce the burden of child protective workers to allow them to better do their job, and ultimately, save families and children from unwarranted trauma of an intrusive investigation.

There are many who oppose the removal of anonymous reporting. These detractors stress the fear that such a policy would lead to people not making a report that could otherwise save a child’s life. There is no way to disprove the validity of such a fear. However, these same detractors are usually the last to support financial support for services to children and families that would make children safer, like universal child care or guaranteed minimum family income. 

New York and Colorado are among the states currently considering removing anonymity as an option. I for one support these efforts. 

If we truly care about protecting the child who might be theoretically left unprotected due to this policy change, there are many more actually useful ways to protect that child than allowing anonymous reports. Invest in our families.