A POLICY ANALYSIS OF CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT: THE CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT ACT (CAPTA) OF 1974
...nt laws on reporting child abuse. By 1967, all 50 states and the District of Columbia had passed statutes requiring reporting...but only by health care professionals. The statues also took a very simplistic approach to child abuse, very narrowly defining it as the physical abuse (only) of a child. These statutes also did not address consequences after reporting, either in setting standards for the establishment of child protective services or what would happen to parents after being accused of child abuse. If 51 statutes were on the books across America (the 50 states and D.C.) in 1967, there were also 51 somewhat different approaches to the reporting requirement in 1967. How widespread was child abuse prior to the 1974 CAPTA federal legislation? Prior to CAPTA, no systematic federal surveying of child abuse existed. In fact, it was another six years after CAPTA, in 1980, that the federal government, with the First National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-1), quantitatively set out to define the magnitude of the problem. However, prior to CAPTA, there had been a growing concern with the problem. In 1963, 150,000 cases of child abuse were reported to state or local authorities across the country (How We Can Better Protect Children from Abuse and Neglect, online, 2003). This number was considered low due to the lack of standardized or mandatory reporting. It was also estimated that approximately 3,000 annual child deaths occurred in the late 1960's due to child abuse or neglect (How We Can Better Protect Children from Abuse and Neglect, online, 2003). Who is effected by child abuse and how? What are the causes of child abuse? Obviously, children and parents are directly affected. In the worst case, a child can be killed or maimed for life. There can be a lifetime of emotional scars (though physical abuse was the original catalyst for CAPTA, the wording of the 1974 legislation allowed neglect and “emotional”abuse to be used in defining abuse and the subsequent reporting and resultant accusation of abuse against parents). For parents, there was, and is, the prospect of governmental intervention in the least, and possibly criminal charges and permanent loss of their child or children in the extreme. For parents falsely accused, there is the legal and financial hardships that accompany any accusation of child abuse. There can even be imprisonment. Immediate family members are affected - other children in the family might be legally separated from the parents, or, if left at home while a sibling is removed, have to deal with the conflicting issues and feelings caused by such a situation. Society of course is affected by child abuse, in terms of how we must reevaluate our positions on parental, individual and family privacy, the government’s right to intervene in family matters, the government’s role in child rearing and protecting children, and the costs associated with policies we formally or informally establish. The causes of child abuse are complex. There is no one, “silver bullet” answer as to why one parent becomes an abusive parent and why one does not. Conflicting definitions of what constitutes child abuse also make labeling one parent or another an abusive parent subjective and often times arbitrary. There are some risk factors, however, that research did (prior to CAPTA) and still does show to be prevalent in cases of substantiated child abuse. According to Waldfogel (1998, p. 36), “records document a high co-existence of child abuse and domestic violence and substance abuse.” Elizabeth Hutchinson (1993 ) concurs with this position; “...the correlation between parental substance abuse and child maltreatment is not a new phenomenon.” She also points to another correlation. “The rate of physical abuse of low-income children is three and a half times higher than that of children from higher income groups, the rate of sexual abuse is five times higher and the rate of neglect is eight times higher.” Testimony prior to enactment of CAPTA, during the subcommittee hearings of 1973, also pointed to the relationship of poverty and abuse and neglect, though this testimony pointed more towards neglect being the issue rather than abuse, which was the issue most outwardly being addressed by the CAPTA legislation. During those hearings, Brandeis professor David Gil linked an increase in factors adverse to family life among the poor to a concomitant increase in abuse found among that social class. However, class character distinction, then as now, was politically incorrect, so more in-depth discussion in this area was thwarted by the subcommittee’s chairman, Walter Mondale (Twenty Years of CAPTA, online, 2003). In summary, the problem of child abuse had become enough of a national issue to warrant legislative action. Although a significant amount of hard data did not exist on the extent of child abuse in the late 1960's and early 1970's, there was a growing body of research data. This, combined with media coverage of some of the most tragic instances of child abuse and neglect and Walter Mondale’s adoption of this potent issue in his movement towards presidential candidacy, were the lighting rods that finally propelled federal legislative action and the passage of CAPTA in 1974. Beth Edelson Social Work Policy 501 Final Paper Page 5 Policy Analysis Framework - Part III: Policy Description - 1974 CAPTA Legislation How is the policy expected to work? The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, signed into law by President Nixon in 1974, was designed to do the following: - establish uniform standards regarding the identification of and response to child abuse and maltreatment cases - create the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) to conduct research on the incidence rates of maltreatment and to support state and local efforts to prevent and treat child abuse and neglect - establish guidelines for and the allocation of federal funds to states if they adopted mandatory reporting laws that coincided with the model statute established by NCCAN, created agencies to investigate child abuse allegations and demonstrated the existence of a functioning child protective services system The legislation, in requiring states to pass reporting laws mirroring the model statute to receive federal funds, required the states to make the reporting requirements mandatory for all health care professionals, teachers, law enforcement officials and others. It also required the states’ statutes to include consequences, in the form of fines and/or imprisonment, for those who were determined to be guilty of not reporting a suspected case of child abuse or neglect. In creating NCCAN as part of the CAPTA legislation, it was the expectation and mandate of Congress that NCCAN construct a nationally accepted definition of the parameters of child abuse and neglect, develop the specific guidelines as to how, when and by whom reports of suspected child abuse and neglect should be filed, and define the parameters regarding actions to be taken after a suspected case of child abuse was filed. The expectation was that through the guidelines established by NCCAN, and the proffering of federal funds to states for adherence to these national guidelines, a consistency and reliable accounting of child abuse incidence rates nationwide would be achieved. By offering federal funds to states for the establishment of child protective services agencies, it was also expected that the legislation would result in more effective intervention in child abuse cases. What resources did the policy provide (funding, power)? CAPTA provided funding for the work of NCCAN, including the major research the agency was mandated to conduct on national incidence rates of child abuse and neglect; and to provide matching funds to states that were in compliance with the guidelines and regulations of the legislation. The legislation empowered states, and consequently gave the state child protective agencies created as a result of this legislation, great powers related to family interdiction and disposition of parents accused of child abuse or neglect. In contrast, parental rights and privacy rights were negatively impacted. In fact, the way the legislation was drafted (and this has been one Beth Edelson Social Work Policy 501 Final Paper Page 6 of the criticisms of the legislation), states were rewarded for bringing children into the child protective services system. The more children, the more money. Who is covered by the law? CAPTA was not designed to target any one group. It was, in fact, based on an assumption (never validated by research prior to enactment of the law or after) that child abuse is a classless phenomenon, unrelated to issues of income distribution (Hutchinson, 1993). As such, the legislation gave greater emphasis to a categorical and sometimes punitive child protective services system rather than an improved general social services system focusing on the possible social and familial causes of parental child abusive behavior. CAPTA also impacted all health care professionals, teachers, law enforcement agencies and “others” in terms of its reporting requirements and consequences for not reporting cases of suspected child abuse. In its broadest interpretation on the state level, everyone was responsible for being a “look-out” for child abuse. In this broadest context (but most often targeted at health care professionals), everyone could also be held liable, even criminally, for not reporting a suspected case of child abuse. In terms of types of abusive behavior covered by the reporting aspects of the law, this has somewhat varied between the state statutes, but in any event, the types of behaviors covered have expanded greatly over time. From the initial intent to target physically abusive behavior, the interpretation of the law, and in fact the definitions espoused by NCCAN, have broadened to include physical, emotional and psychological neglect and sexual abuse. How was the policy implemented? Where did administrative auspices reside? NCCAN was given the authority and auspices to oversee and evaluate the effectiveness of the policy. States would apply to NCCAN for their matching funds, and based on criteria established by NCCAN and that agency’s review of the state applications, money would be doled out. NCCAN was also responsible for the research that would be done to gauge the level of incidence rates of child abuse and neglect over time, and evaluate, using this data, whether the policy was having a positive impact. On the state level, each state set up its own child protective services agency to oversee the reporting and interdiction activities within that state. How will the policy be evaluated? What is the lifespan of the policy? NCCAN was given the mandate to conduct national assessments of reporting of incidence rates of child abuse and neglect. Since CAPTA was signed into law, there have been three major studies conducted by NCCAN (NIS-1, 2 and 3). The last study was conducted in 1996. The rate of reporting is one measure of effectiveness of the legislation, as one of its intents was to make more reliable and consistent the reporting function. Not envisioned at the time of enactment, but based on experience has since become a critical point of evaluation and controversy, is the level of Beth Edelson Social Work Policy 501 Final Paper Page 7 accuracy of reporting - the percentage of reported suspected cases of child abuse that are actually shown to be valid. The NCCAN studies also endeavored to evaluate the level of compliance of professionals and others with the reporting requirements - the object of the legislation being to increase the level of compliance. The evaluations by NCCAN are also supposed to assess reasons for non-compliance with reporting and whether or not state child protective services agencies are providing services commensurate with the level of reporting in the particular state. CAPTA was not enacted for a specified period of time - it was not a “sunset law.” Over time is has been amended, but the core legislation remains in force today. It is reasonable to expect that the law will remain ‘on the books,’ though it is also reasonable to assume that it will continue to be amended as research data is collected exposing the problems, questionable assumptions and true costs of the policy relative to its benefits. Policy Analysis Framework - Part IV: Policy Analysis - 1974 CAPTA Legislation What were the policy’s goals? In their most basic form, the good intentions of the policy were to protect children from, at first, physical abuse, and then in a broader context, emotional or physical neglect. To do this, the policy set out to formalize and strengthen requirements for reporting cases of suspected child abuse in the hopes that mandatory reporting would lead to the early detection of child abuse cases and consequently the prevention of more serious injuries or fatalities to these children from the perpetrators of the child abuse. This well-meaning goal was predicated on the assumptions that professionals had the skills and technology to effectively detect child abuse and provide effective intervention when discovered, and that states were willing to fund the child protective services agencies that would be necessitated by the increased reporting. A secondary goal of the policy was to serve as the catalyst (through the allocation of funding) for the establishment of child protective service agencies in the states. Viewed in a very simplistic manner, the goals were undeniably “righteous.” The law, as construed, would benefit children in that more children would be protected from cruel acts of abuse and neglect. Additionally, by promoting the establishment of the child protective service agencies, there would be a compassionate, helping hand for children who were identified and verified as victims of parental or other child caretaker abuse. This was a “mom and apple pie” issue. Even Walter Mondale, in a political snipe at President Nixon, stated, “Not even President Nixon is in favor of child abuse...