Making Sense of Mandatory Reporting: A Qualitative Study of Reporting Practices from the Perspectives of Schools and Child Welfare Services in Sweden

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of mandatory reporting for educators is very interesting and timely given the reductions in such reports in 2020-22 as many classrooms and schools shifted to online learning in response to Covid. However, I have three major concerns about the manuscript:

1. Many portions are confusing or unclear, likely do to English language translation issues. The sentences are grammatically correct, but the content does not communicate a clear message. For instance, "This involves making sense of what is done in connection to the duty to report" (page 2). And "The duty to report is seen as part of the controlling element of the child welfare system and this ambivalence towards the authorities may thus be accentuated when reporting concerns about a child" (page 4). There are too many confusing sentences and sections to enumerate here. The writing is verbose and the main messages are difficult to identify.
2. The authors fail to question whether mandatory reporting is a beneficial practice that supports the well-being of children and families. They say, "Most countries in the Western world have legislated mandatory reporting of child maltreatment and this reporting has in recent years become an increasingly essential part of effective work with children and families." This statement is not cited, and in my opinion not true. Although many Western countries have mandatory reporting laws, there has been substantial advocacy and scholarship over the past decade that suggest mandatory reporting practices are actually harmful to children and families. See the citation for a 2020 article by Raz that summarizes some of the key points on this topic and relevant literature, none of which I see is cited in this article.
3. The article is very focused on Swedish policies, and in some cases focused on the practices at a single schools. The authors make minimal attempts to connect their findings to an international audience. The framing of the article and findings as it is may be better suited to a social work or public administration journal.

For reference:

Mical Raz, Calling child protectives services is a form of community policing that should be used appropriately: Time to engage mandatory reporters as to the harmful effects of unnecessary reports, Children and Youth Services Review, Volume 110, 2020, 104817, ISSN 0190-7409,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104817.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740919312940)

Author Response

1. Language issues: A complete revision of the text has been carried out by a native English speaker. We have made numerous revisions to make the text more readable. 
2. We agree with the reviewer that not all consider mandatory reporting to be beneficial. We have revised the text to more carefully state that there is debate about the benefits (and problems with) mandatory reporting. In the Swedish context it is not problematised in the literature and we want this article to show at least some of the challenges with a process that is problematic in some ways. We appreciate the reviewer pointing out this aspect and including an article for us to consider. 
3. Swedish (and limited) focus. We do focus on the Swedish context with the purpose of showing what happens in the process here given a broader framework for reporting that is not limited to only reporting child maltreatment. Lifting the theoretical focus should make this article suitable to not only Swedish social workers but a broader audience as well.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article deals with a very important topic and, on the basis of the interview studies, brings out the complexity of the mixed situation in which the actors in schools as well as in child welfare services find themselves with regard to mandatory reporting. Therefore, I would first like to thank the authors for the text. The paper is very clearly structured and the argumentation is stringent and with clear language.

However, going through the paper, I found a few points that would be worth revising to improve the quality of the article. In essence, this concerns the connection between theoretical considerations and the empirical investigation as well as the presentation of the methodological and methodological approach. I will go into both points in more detail below.

Theories of human service organizations are applied as the theoretical background of the study. On the one hand, this seems appropriate, since the study deals with questions of human services. At the same time, however, the school as an essential actor is an institution that acts out of or embedded in other logics. I have the impression that the theories of human service organizations are at best only partially able to grasp the aspects relevant here. For example, schools always oscillate in the interplay between individual and societal concerns (e.g., optimal promotion and, at the same time, societal selection). At the same time, it cannot be assumed that school stakeholders are all pulling in the same direction; here, too, considerable differences and disparities in competence are to be expected. Now, in order to better understand the tensions in the collaboration between CWS and schools, I think that either a dual theoretical perspective (theories of human service organizations and school theory) or a tendentially higher-level theory - a meta-theory, as it were - would have to be used. If not, the theoretical model always seems to fall short somehow. The consequence of this partial non-fitting of the theoretical framework is, in my opinion, that the result and discussion parts of the text fall noticeably behind their possibilities as far as interpretative depth and differentiation are concerned.

From a methodological point of view, the authors are rather cautious. It remains unclear both from which epistemological position the investigation is undertaken and quite specifically how the themes of the analysis emerge from the material or from theoretical preliminary considerations. It would be essential to work on this in order to ensure the intersubjective comprehensibility of the results of the analysis.

Author Response

Theoretical framework: We have revised this section of the paper considerably to include the important point that there may be different institutional logics between schools and child welfare services. We have included a Figure to explain our view of schools and CWS being part of the same organizational sphere or responsibility for children but with different specific missions and responsibilities when it comes to mandatory reporting. This may allow the reader to  better understand the tensions in the collaboration between CWS and schools. We have also revised the text significantly to reflect this in the discussion section.

Methodology: We have clarified our interpretive and constructivist approach in this study. We have also explained our analytical process in more detail.

We have also made major revisions to improve English language and style, fixed and updated references and revised the text to improve its coherence from start to finish.

Reviewer 3 Report

 

This is a timely and important study of how schools report child abuse issues to child welfare services, and the challenges that they face as a result of the schools' precarious obligations to build rapport with parents/guardians and to report suspicion/concerns to CWS.

In brief, I believe that this report is ready to be published pending some minor clarifications, additions in regard to contexts, and language editing.

The paper is generally well-written and flows well. The background and previous research sections are written concisely and are well done. However, the language style could be improved with a native English check to help simplify and break up overly long sentences, particularly in the later sections (from Section 4 onward).

 

Introduction:

It would be helpful for the authors to include a very brief definition of child abuse/maltreatment in the introduction for readers who may not be familiar with what the term actually means.

The authors should provide a clearer outline of the structure of the paper in the introduction, and specifically what the present article is about and a brief background (e.g., a gloss/synthesis of the information provided in Section 3. Materials & Methods).

 

Report sub-section:

The authors should explain clearly here, or perhaps in the Introduction, what they mean by “children”—what age group, precisely? When discussing the options for Preliminary Assessment the authors mention how the child is to be involved in the initial meetings, etc.—but from what age is this possible? And is the practice the same from kindergarten/nursery school up through high school?

 

In Section 4.2, it would be useful to include the original Swedish words that were used in the discussion of word choice.

 

In Section 5.2, a clearer up-front definition of “support” and “protection” in terms of the actual meanings and actual procedures involved would be helpful to clarify what exactly is the contradictory duality that schools and CWS struggle with.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the feedback we have received.
We have revised the paper to improve English language, style and overall coherence.

Introduction: We include a very brief definition of child abuse/maltreatment. We also provide an outline of the structure of the paper.

Child age: We clarify that a child is anyone aged 0-18. We explain that any school-aged child should (in some way) be included in being informed about mandatory reports.

In Section 4.2, We include the original Swedish words that were used in the discussion of word choice.

In Section 5.2, clearer definitions “support” and “protection” are given.

Major revisions have been made to the 'flow' of the text in an effort to enhance the legibility of the text.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revision of the text has led to a noticeable improvement. The theoretical and methodological aspects have been revised in the sense mentioned above, although both could have been done in a more in-depth way.

Nevertheless, the article as a whole now seems to me to be in a form worthy of publication.