January 6, 2004

Senator Les Miller, Jr.
220 Senate Office Building
Tallahassee, FL 32399

Re: SB 688 (Miller) - Mandatory Report of Child Abuse

Dear Senator Miller:

   We applaud your efforts to increase safety of children by strengthening Florida law on child abuse reporting. In particular, we are grateful for your amendments to this legislation last session wherein you addressed our concerns related to privileged communication of clergy.

   As we reviewed the legislation again this year some new issues have arisen that we bring to your attention here.

Issue 1.  On page 2, lines 12 - 18, requires persons employed or supervised by religious institutions, (or schools or auxiliary organizations affiliated with them) to provide their names when reporting abuse.

   We fully agree with and support that these persons be required to report any known or suspected abuse, but we are concerned that requiring those nonprofessional and nonsupervisory persons in this new category to provide their names may have the unintended effect of fewer reports. Indeed, we would support the requirement to provide ones’s name if it can be shown this will result in increased reporting. Intuitively, we fear fewer will be inclined to do so.

Issue 2.  It would be helpful to determine why some categories of persons are presently required to give names when reporting, while others are not. It appears that those presently required to so (cf page 1, lines 28-31, page 2, lines 1-18) appear to be government employees or members of professions licensed by the State. If it can be shown, with empirical or other evidence from DCF, that requiring names to be furnished will increase reporting, then the better public policy may be to require all persons to provide their names when reporting.

Issue 3.  The bill requires persons "supervised by" religious institutions (or schools or auxiliary organizations affiliated with them), to give their name when reporting. Obviously this would include nonsupervisory personnel and volunteers, but would it not also include students? Again our concern is that this may result in the unintended consequence of less reporting because of a perceived reluctance of these particular groups mentioned to provide their names. Do we want to criminalize the failure to furnish names by those in these nonprofessional, nonsupervisory or student capacities?

   Related to this concern is who or what constitutes an "auxiliary organization." This term would need to be defined in order to enforce this charge.In closing, we reiterate our appreciation for your very good intentions in filing this bill, and we fully support the mandatory reporting law (39.201 F.S.), but we do think requiring reporters to furnish names should be weighed carefully.

                                                                                                        Respectfully,



                                                                                                        D. Michael McCarron
                                                                                                        Executive Director

cc:  Senator Evelyn Lynn, Chair, Senate Children & Families
       Committee Members