To split or include? Child sexual abuse mandate reporting in the ultra-orthodox Jewish community in Israel

Abstract

• Society heterogeneity and child maltreatment reporting is under-researched. • Moral standpoints compounded disputes about how to manage child sexual abuse. • Investigating communities' mandatory reporting requires methodological competence. • Mandatory reporting tells little on how society protect children from maltreatment. Remarkably little priority is given in the literature to minority groups’ perspectives vis-à-vis mandatory reporting legislation of child maltreatment. This study examined how mandatory reporting legislation is perceived and implemented in the ultra-orthodox Jewish population in Israel. This minority group is suspected of failing to report child maltreatment and yet remains significantly underresearched. The study focused on child sexual abuse. Thirty ultra-orthodox Jewish leaders participated in the study: 12 rabbis, 6 community activists, and 12 professionals (social workers and criminologists). All participants were well-known figures in their community for their involvement in the field of child sexual abuse. Data were collected through semistructured face-to-face interviews. The process of data analysis followed Charmaz’s constructivist grounded theory approach. Two competing approaches to human nature were identified: inclusive and splitting positions. The analysis uncovered how these underlying moral standpoints were tidily linked to participants’ attitudes and actions regarding child sexual abuse and compounded existing disputes about how it should be managed, including reporting. Mandatory reporting cannot be fully considered in isolation of wider social, cultural and multicultural, moral, and ethical dimensions of human life, perspectives, and philosophy.