United States mandated reporters' perspectives on reporting child maltreatment: A systematic scoping review

Child maltreatment continues to be a prevalent issue globally and in the United States (U.S.). In the U.S., federal law requires all states to have a process that requires certain professionals (e.g., educators, healthcare workers, therapists) report any suspicion of child maltreatment, referred to as mandated reporting. Mandated reporting is the primary entry point through which the child protection systems become involved with families, yet relatively few studies have explored the perspectives and experiences of mandated reporters.

This exploratory systematic scoping review sought to synthesize the existing literature by summarizing the scope, focus, and themes addressed in studies exploring mandated reporters' perspectives and experiences.

The total number of participants was 6882 across 21 studies.

The review followed guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The initial search identified 5238 articles, with 21 meeting all inclusion criteria.

Most studies focused on the mechanics of reporting, such as questions of meeting reporting thresholds and confidence around reporting. The literature is largely silent on how mandated reporters emotionally or psychologically relate to reporting concerns about child abuse. Though mandated reporters operationalize reporting laws into practice, limited understanding of their decision-making represents a consequential gap for children and families.

This review highlights the need for greater research on how mandated reporters engage their role to inform future policy decisions surrounding the legal requirement of mandated reporting. Future research is needed to examine the perspectives and experiences of mandated reporters and the impact on the children and families they report.