Child Abuse and Neglect: a socio-legal Study of Mandatory Reporting in Australia

Medical practitioners: The category of ‘medical practitioner – mandated’ was used as the data source for this group of reporters.

Nurses: The categories of ‘hospital/health centre personnel –mandated’ and ‘other health personnel –mandated’ were used as the data sources for this group of reporters.

Police: The category of ‘police – mandated’ was used as the data source for this group of reporters.

School personnel: The category of ‘school personnel – mandated’ was used as the data source for this group of reporters.

Child care worker: The categories of ‘child care centre personnel – mandated’ and ‘family day care personnel – mandated’ were used as the data source for this group of reporters.

Social workers: The category of ‘social worker – mandated’ was used as the data source for this group of reporters.

Major mandated reporter groups combined: For the purpose of this research study, and to provide meaningful findings about the proportional contribution to reporting made collectively by the major occupational reporter groups for the ACT government, we conducted some analyses by combining the reporting practice of the major mandated reporter groups. In doing this, we adopted a similar approach to that used for other jurisdictions (see Appendix 1 Research Approach). Accordingly, for the ACT, the groups outlined above - medical practitioners, nurses, police, school personnel, child care workers, and social workers - were combined for some analyses to represent the category of ‘major mandated reporter groups combined’. Reports by four main groups – police, doctors, nurses and teachers – constitute the vast majority of reports made by these groups (97%).

Other reporter groups: All other reporter groups not identified individually above.

Not investigated: Data coded as ‘dealt with by other means’ and ‘no investigation / service required’ were used as the data source for notifications not investigated by the Department.

Investigated: Data coded as ‘investigation – no outcome possible’, ‘investigated – substantiated’, and ‘investigated – unsubstantiated’ were used as the data source for notifications investigated by the Department.

Substantiated: Taken to be all notifications investigated by the Department and found to have sufficient evidence that a child had been abused, or was at risk of being abused, and represented by data coded as ‘investigated – substantiated’.

Not substantiated: Taken to be all notifications investigated by the Department and not found to have sufficient evidence that a child had been abused, or was at risk of being abused, and represented by data coded as ‘investigation – no outcome possible’ and ‘investigated – unsubstantiated’.

Emotional abuse: No specific definition provided. Normally refers to acts by caregivers causing the child to suffer significant emotional deprivation or trauma (see eg the definitions in the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s Child protection Australia annual report). Includes exposure to domestic violence.

Neglect: No specific definition provided. Normally refers to caregivers failing to provide minimum conditions necessary for the child’s health and physical and emotional development, involving the necessary level of harm.

Physical abuse: No specific definition provided. Normally refers to caregivers inflicting intentional physical harm on the child involving the necessary level of harm, beyond lawful corporal punishment.

Sexual abuse: No specific definition provided. Normally refers to the involvement of a child who cannot give true consent in sexual activity with an adult or a more powerful person, for the other person's sexual gratification or gain.