Bill Overview
Title: Speak Up to Protect Every Abused Kid Act
Description: This bill establishes and modifies certain requirements related to mandatory reporting of suspected and known incidents of child abuse. Specifically, the bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services to provide grants for campaigns to educate the public and for training about (1) state child abuse or neglect laws, and (2) the responsibility to report suspected incidents of such abuse or neglect. Further, for a state to be eligible for various grants supporting child abuse or neglect treatment and prevention programs, the state must provide assurances that it has mandatory reporting requirements in place for specified individuals who provide services involving children (e.g., health care providers, school personnel, child care employees, and volunteers). States must (1) provide training to these individuals about reporting abuse, and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of the state's reporting requirements. The bill also revises reporting requirements for child abuse or neglect treatment and prevention grants to include data about changes in the rates of child abuse reporting and child abuse fatalities.
Sponsors: Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA]
Target Audience
Population: People working with children and children in potentially abusive situations
Estimated Size: 7000000
- Mandatory reporting laws impact individuals and organizations that frequently interact with children, like healthcare providers, teachers, child care workers, and volunteers.
- The population of children could be indirectly affected by increased reporting and protections from potentially abusive situations due to enhanced training and mandates on reporters.
- The legislation intends to educate the general public on child abuse reporting responsibilities, indirectly aiming to increase overall societal engagement.
- Those working within the child welfare system, including state agencies responsible for implementing and managing child protection services, will be impacted.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to increase awareness and training around child abuse reporting, directly affecting people in sectors that work with children, such as education and healthcare.
- The general public will also indirectly be aware of the child abuse reporting responsibilities, which could improve societal engagement in child protection.
- Given the large target population, the impact might be widespread but varies in intensity mostly between those directly responsible for reporting and those benefiting from the protection measures.
- The wellbeing scores should reflect an immediate improvement for the directly targeted workforce due to better preparedness and influence on job satisfaction, with long-term benefits seen in broader societal safety and trust.
- Consideration of impact over time is essential as the policy's effectiveness in reducing child abuse incidents translates into improvements in community well-being.
- Indirectly, the policy might have a marginal effect on the general public's wellbeing by enhancing the perception of safety and security among families.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe it's crucial to have systems in place that can identify and act on child abuse.
- Mandatory training would make me more confident in my ability to report issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Nurse (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think additional training for spotting signs of abuse is overdue.
- I'm glad this policy is being considered, as it could improve inter-department cooperation and response times.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Child protective services worker (Dallas, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While necessary, this policy adds further pressure on an already maxed-out system.
- We need more resources to cope with the increased reports that will likely result from this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Youth counselor (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm slightly worried about breaching confidentiality while still wanting to protect my clients.
- The policy might help clarify legal obligations, which is beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Health care provider (Rural Arkansas)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Training is always nice, but without resources, we're limited in what we can do.
- The policy seems more practical in urban areas with more staff and technology.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Child care worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Mandatory training will definitely be beneficial for us.
- Our facility frequently deals with stressed parents, so this is very timely.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Volunteer at a youth center (Miami, FL)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being more aware of what to look out for can definitely aid in my volunteering efforts.
- This policy makes sense for ensuring children's safety, a core part of our work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired, Child Advocacy Volunteer (Boston, MA)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the value in this policy, though it mostly strengthens what's already known.
- It will provide younger professionals with the tools I had to learn the hard way.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Parent of two children (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a parent, I feel safer knowing there are more checks in place for child abuse reporting.
- I hope this encourages a swifter response to abuse cases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
School Administrator (Denver, CO)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementing this policy will require us to adjust existing training protocols.
- It should improve our response time and accountability systems for child abuse cases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $40000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $45000000)
Year 2: $42000000 (Low: $37000000, High: $47000000)
Year 3: $44000000 (Low: $38000000, High: $49000000)
Year 5: $47000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $52000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $55000000)
Year 100: $90000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $100000000)
Key Considerations
- The primary cost driver is the federal grants for education and training regarding mandatory reporting of child abuse.
- Savings are derived from potential reductions in long-term social service needs.
- The policy could result in a measurable but modest positive impact on GDP over the long term.
- Environmental, direct tax revenue impacts are likely minimal.