Mandated Reporter Essentials

With summer on the horizon and many nonprofit organizations gearing up for youth-centered activities, nonprofits that serve children need to help their paid staff and volunteers understand applicable mandatory reporting requirements.  While there has been a general downward trend over the last 20 years, sadly the problems of child abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse remain pervasive.  In 2013, there were 3.1 million reported incidents, an estimated 679,000 victims, and 1,520 child victims died.[1] Both state and federal governments have enacted statutes that require certain individuals to report suspected incidents of child abuse and neglect.  The reporting obligations are thus critical for protecting children. 

By way of historical background, the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1974 grants the U.S. government broad powers to “protect the interests of children and intervene when parents fail to provide proper care.”[2] CAPTA provides funding to the states to help prevent and treat victims of child abuse and neglect.  The grants are contingent upon the state implementing laws and programs that mandate certain individuals to report incidents related to child abuse and neglect.[3]

The federal funding incentive worked; all fifty states have implemented mandatory reporting statutes.  The Illinois legislature enacted the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act (ANCRA) forty years ago.  Since then, the Act has been amended several times and now lists over forty professions required to report suspected cases of child abuse and neglect.  In May of 2015, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services revised its Manual for Mandated Reporters, available here.  The manual lists who must report, when they must report, and how to make a report. 

Better Together: Washington State Expands Self-Insurance Risk Pools to Nonprofits

 Insurance can be expensive, but not having insurance is sometimes even more costly!  One solution within many industries is risk pooling – that is, to join with others and effectively self-insure together, thereby spreading out risk and bringing down overall costs for protecting property and against liability.  The insurance industry itself, however, is highly regulated and therefore requires state authorization for such programs.  State-authorized self-insurance risk pools seem to be gaining traction in the nonprofit sector, with Florida, California and Washington State leading the way.  

Keeping Track: The importance of HR documentation policies

Despite their altruistic purposes, nonprofits generally face the same human resources (HR) problems common to for-profit organizations.  For example, sometimes they need to terminate an employee’s position – perhaps for work performance issues or lack of funding.  Many laws, however, protect employees against termination for the wrong reasons, such as age, gender, or racial discrimination.  A claim of employee discrimination can be extremely costly, time-consuming, and otherwise detrimental to any employer.  Consequently, to avoid such problems, it is crucial that nonprofit employers not only establish good employment documentation protocols but also have effective document retention policies.  Failure to observe proper HR document protocols may expose the organization to legal risk when it becomes necessary to terminate an employee. 

Documentation Can Save the Day

Consider the following case, decided this month:  A nonprofit fired an employee forattendance issues, inappropriate behavior, unsatisfactory performance, and insubordination.  The nonprofit asserted that the employee failed to timely complete required paperwork, used his personal computer to process client information in violation of the nonprofit’s policy, arrived at work late, left work early, and logged more absences than the nonprofit’s policy authorized.  The employee sued on the basis of age discrimination.[1]

Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), it is unlawful for an employer to discharge an employee who is at least 40 years old because of the employee's age.[2]  In this particular case, the plaintiff claimed that the nonprofit’s executives were biased against older workers.  He testified he had overheard a conversation between supervisors, during which someone said: “When they get old, they should get out of here.  I don't know why they would stay.  I don't know why they won't retire and just go.  I don't know why they would want to stay.”  The plaintiff contended this conversation occurred at least three times.  These statements, he claimed, were direct evidence of age discrimination, and that the employer’sstated reasons for discharging him were mere pretext for its discriminatory actions. The plaintiff claimed there was no documented evidence of misconduct or poor performance in the months preceding his discharge.