Assessing the Feasibility of Creating and Maintaining a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators: Research Report

By:
Walter R. McDonald and Associates and the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law
 

Executive Summary

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to establish a national registry of maltreatment perpetrators (also often referred to as a national child abuse registry), and to conduct a feasibility study regarding a variety of implementation issues including costs and benefits, data collection standards, and due process procedures. In May of 2009, DHHS delivered an Interim Report to the Congress that summarized the current state of knowledge on these issues and identified the key tasks to be addressed in a full feasibility study. These included: a prevalence study to determine the number of interstate perpetrators that might be identified through a national registry; a systems review to document current State policies and practices regarding the collection, maintenance, and sharing of information on substantiated child maltreatment perpetrators; a review of States' existing due process procedures; and an exploration of State interest in and concerns over participating in a national registry.

This report provides the results of this feasibility study, carried out by Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc. and its partner, the Center for Children and the Law, American Bar Association. The study has two major components: a Prevalence Study, and a Key Informants Survey (KIS). The KIS was composed of three surveys related to legal and policy issues, child welfare practices related to obtaining and providing data on perpetrators to out of State requestors, and the capacity of the information technology supporting State registries to participate in a national registry. Twenty-two States submitted multiyear data to the Prevalence Study, and 38 States participated in the KIS. Information from the legal and policy survey was supplemented on selected key legal topics with a review of available State laws and policies.

The Prevalence Study estimated the number of substantiated perpetrators in 2009 who had also been substantiated in another State within the previous 5 years. In addition, the study assessed whether these perpetrators committed more serious cases of maltreatment compared to other perpetrators, and whether the majority of them had previous reports in neighboring States. The primary data source for the study was the individual case records from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) for 2005-2009, supplemented with name and date of birth information for all substantiated perpetrators, supplied by the 22 States participating in the study (representing 54 percent of the U.S. population). Names were encoded by the States prior to submission in order to maintain confidentiality while still supporting the cross-state matching of records. Data from the 2000 decennial Census on interstate migration rates were used to model estimates for non-participating States.

The Prevalence Study investigated a number of algorithms for matching records across States to identify interstate perpetrators. These analyses were intended to determine whether the Adam Walsh Act provision limiting identifying information collected within a national registry to the perpetrator's name would prove feasible, and if not, what other identifying information would be necessary to produce adequate matches. Matches based on encoded name only proved completely inadequate, resulting in interstate matches for 89 percent of all records, the vast majority of which are likely to be false positive results. While unencoded names would reduce the percentage of matches somewhat, these results make it clear that name alone will not be adequate to produce reliable matches in a national registry. Matches based on encoded name, sex, and date of birth, produced much higher quality matches.

After adjusting for migration from nonparticipating states, the Prevalence Study model produced a national estimate of 7,852 interstate perpetrators in 2009, representing about 1.5 percent of all substantiated perpetrators in that year. The number of annual matches for a national registry could be larger, though, depending on the purposes for which it was used. Interstate perpetrators were found to have more serious cases in that they were more likely to have had a child removed from the household in 2009 (30% to 20%), and more likely to have had court involvement (28% to 19%). However, no differences were found in the seriousness of the types of substantiated maltreatment (measured as neglect, medical neglect, emotional maltreatment, physical abuse, and sexual abuse). In addition, very few perpetrators with prior findings were connected in any way to a child death in 2009; only 4 deaths out of a national total of 925 in the comparison year (2009) were associated with an interstate perpetrator. Finally, it was found that the majority of these perpetrators do not appear to migrate from neighboring States, though the percentages varied significantly across States (10% to 40% for the five States for which this factor could be assessed).

The Key Informant Survey (KIS) was actually three separate surveys covering legal and policy issues, current practices in sharing perpetrator information with other States, and the content and accuracy of existing state perpetrator registries. The perceived benefits and barriers to participating in a national registry were also asked in all three surveys. Each survey was completed by the staff person determined to be the most knowledgeable by the Director of the State child welfare agency. Detailed results are available in the full report. Key findings include the following:

Legal/Policy Findings

• Less than 2/3 of States (62%) use "preponderance of the evidence" or a higher standard of proof in determining who is a substantiated perpetrator of child maltreatment. The remaining States use a less strict standard.
• One third (35%) allow names to be placed on a registry pending appeal.
• Seventy-two percent of responding States indicated that they would (28%) or might (44%) have to change State laws in order to participate in a national registry.

Practice Findings

• Practices regarding which out-of-state entities may have access to state registry information on perpetrators vary substantially across the States, with many not granting access for employment checks.
• Most States do not routinely share gender, date of birth, or social security number when responding to out-of-state requests.
• However, nearly all States collect sex, date of birth or age, and name of perpetrator, and three quarters also collect social security numbers, indicating a general capacity to supply information needed to reliably identify interstate perpetrators in a national registry.

Perceived Benefits and Barriers to Participation

• The most frequent benefits mentioned by the participating States include saving time (mentioned by 25 States), providing more timely knowledge that would be useful in assessing child safety (22 States) , improving cross-State accessibility of information (19 States) and simplifying access to information by providing a single source of information on maltreatment histories (19 States).
• The most frequent barriers mentioned were differences in definitions, findings, due process and rules for expunging old or overturned cases between (and even within) States (mentioned by 22 States), that participating would require costly changes to their information technology systems (15 States), and that participating would require staff resources that are scarce (13 States). A number of States were also concerned about the potential for false positives and false negatives in the identification process.

The report draws the following implications regarding the potential establishment of a national registry:

• Legislative changes at the federal level will be needed to allow for the collection of the minimum information needed to accurately identify perpetrators in the national registry. At minimum, sex, and date of birth would be necessary to produce better matches; social security numbers may also be desirable.
• A substantial majority of States will need to participate in the national registry and supply data on a regular basis in order for it to be useful to users. This may require incentives for participation.
• Minimum due process standards may be necessary for a national registry, and not all States currently meet likely standards.
• Most States will or may need to change State laws in order to participate in a national registry. Necessary changes are likely to depend on who may use the registry and for what purposes, which are not clear in the current law.

CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND

This report discusses the feasibility of implementing a national registry of child abuse and neglect perpetrators. It addresses the gaps in information identified by the initial interim feasibility study conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE).[1] The identified gaps included:

• the frequency of perpetrators who offend in more than one State
• the capacity of State data systems to meet the needs of a national registry
• the level of State interest in participating in a national registry
• factors that would hinder or foster participation

Underlying the design, implementation and maintenance of a national registry is the actual nature of the data that would be included in a registry, the ability of the States to provide data, and the interest in obtaining data from a registry. The report is organized to address these concerns. The conclusion synthesizes the findings in terms of the key gaps of information that were identified by the Interim Report. The report has the following chapters.

• Chapter 1. Background—A summary discussion of the history of registries, the legislation behind the development of a national registry, key findings of the Interim Report, and the methodologies used in this study.
• Chapter 2. Current Environment—An overview of the current Federal and State policies and State practices that underlie any development of a national registry.
• Chapter 3. Providing Data about Perpetrators to a National Registry—Findings as to the legal, practice, and technological issues that would impact the ability of States to provide data to a national registry.
• Chapter 4. Inquiring About Perpetrators from a National Registry—Findings as to the legal, practice and technological practices that would influence the usage of a national registry by States. In addition, this chapter discusses the results of the prevalence study.
• Chapter 5. Conclusions—The concluding chapter synthesizes the findings of this study in terms of the key gaps of information identified by the Interim Report.

1.1 THE CONCEPT OF A NATIONAL REGISTRY

The idea of a national registry is to centralize some key data on individuals who have been found to be perpetrators of child abuse or neglect in one or more jurisdictions. Centralizing this information would allow other jurisdictions to acquire at least key data in a more efficient manner. It would also provide States the ability to identify previous substantiated findings of abuse and neglect in other jurisdictions independent of the reporting of prior residences by perpetrators. At the present time, this process of sharing information across States is highly individualized, labor intensive, and sporadic.

The interest in establishing a national registry comes at an important intersection of trends in the United States. These include

• a continued concern about the abuse of children, most notably those incidents which result in the death and/or abduction of a child, but also those resulting in egregious maltreatment of children, as reported in the press and the media;
• the large number of children maltreated annually and the investment of substantial government funds to address child maltreatment;
• the ongoing tension between considering the maltreatment of children as a social issue addressed by improving the social, economic, and emotional conditions of families, and a belief that parents who abuse their children should be punished and other children should be protected from such perpetrators;
• the increased interest in protecting children from not only their parents but also from other potentially abusive caregivers, such as foster parents, child care providers, substitute care providers, teachers, sports coaches, etc.;
• the wide expansion of automation in child welfare agencies, which makes possible the collection and maintenance of, and access to, large amounts of information, including "perpetrator" information; and
• the increasing demand by the public to have access to information, which is deemed to be necessary or useful in protecting children.

These trends have already resulted in the establishment of various registries including the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR), and the Federal Case Registry (FCR).[2]

Historical Functions of State Registries

Although the term register or registry has been used in conjunction with child welfare for more than 100 years, it is only within the last 50 years that there has been more focused attention on the function and scope of child abuse registries. In its broadest terms, a registry is a database of identifiable persons containing a clearly defined set of data collected for a specific purpose.[3] The rise in technical capacity to store and organize large amounts of data, as well as the parallel trend of increased methods of communicating and disseminating various types of data to both known and unknown users has further complicated the issue of what might constitute a national child abuse perpetrator registry.

In the 1960s, child abuse became recognized as a serious public concern, due in large part by the publication of C. Henry Kempe's article, The Battered Child Syndrome, in the Journal of The American Medical Association.[4] Soon thereafter, the first child abuse registries, some of which were established by private charitable organizations, were established in large cities such as New York City and Los Angeles. The first statewide registries were then established by legislation in California, Illinois, Virginia, and Maryland.[5] At that time, there were two major approaches to creating a central registry.

The first approach was the "medical community model" in which a registry would be used to maintain information on previous reports of suspicious injuries of children, in order to detect the battered child syndrome.[6] The other approach was a "social services model" which viewed registries as a means to better understand child abuse and neglect by searching for previous reports of abuse or neglect on the same child or his siblings, to help determine whether there is a repeating or continuing pattern of parental maltreatment.[7] In either case, the issues of widely sharing such data were not envisioned. Nor was there the intent to track recurrent perpetrators as the primary focus.

With the passage of the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 (CAPTA), many States received Federal funds to assist them in strengthening child protection programs including the development of child abuse registries. In 1975, a model act, known as the Child Protective Services Act of 1975, identified two additional purposes for a central register of reports. These included (1) helping ensure that investigations are done well and appropriate services are provided; and (2) serving as a research tool to determine the incidences of abuse and neglect in a State and the most effective types of treatment.[8] Again, perpetrator tracking was not included.

In 1978, the first director of the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Douglas Besharov, in a seminal article on central registries, "Putting Central Registries to Work: Using Modern Management Information Systems to Improve Child Protective Services," stated that a central registry should be a comprehensive management information system that would facilitate better child protective services (CPS) case management, assist in assessing danger to children by having information about their prior inclusion on the registry as subjects of a report, and improve CPS' accountability by monitoring follow-up on reports.[9]

With a climate of continued concern about the increasing rate of child abuse in the 1980s and 1990s came a recognition that child abuse perpetrator registry information could serve as a tool to cast a larger protective net for children. Some States began to provide information in their child abuse registries about agency-substantiated "perpetrators" of abuse or neglect to other organizations in the screening of applicants for positions of trust with children, such as daycare providers, foster parents, and potential adoptive parents.

New Technologies

As awareness and support for governmental action to prevent child abuse and neglect was growing, the technology information revolution had begun. State child welfare agencies began to automate their child welfare systems and develop increased capacity for collecting data on children and their families who were reported to CPS agencies. Since the 1980s and 1990s, the application of information technology to child welfare practice has increased significantly. The 2003 National Study of Child Protective Services of Systems and Reform Efforts found that "all States had policies regarding the maintenance of a Central Registry or some type of record keeping system to track reports of abuse and neglect."[10]

As States began to create more comprehensive case-tracking systems or case-monitoring systems, some States began to move away from stand-alone registries. As the quote above indicates, some States had identifiable registries, while other States had more encompassing systems. These new systems included far more data than the earlier registries, which were often limited to data about children and, possibly, parents.[11]

The Adam Walsh Act

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Adam Walsh Act) directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a registry of substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect (hereinafter, national child abuse registry) collected from State and tribal sources.[12] The act specifies that the information contained in the national child abuse registry should be accessible only to Federal, State, local, and tribal entities that have a need for such information to carry out their responsibilities for the protection of children from child abuse and neglect.[13] Key features of the national child abuse registry, as described in statute include the following:

• The registry "shall contain case-specific identifying information that is limited to the name of the perpetrator and the nature of the substantiated case of child abuse or neglect."
  1. The potential benefits of a national child abuse registry are largely unknown. A prevalence study to determine the frequency with which child maltreatment perpetrators offend in multiple States must be conducted to assess the potential benefits.
  2. It is unclear whether States would be willing to provide data to a national child abuse registry without incentives to encourage participation and without consequences for declining. States' interest in participating in a national child abuse registry and the factors that may both foster and hinder participation must be assessed given that submission of data would be voluntary.
  3. With respect to a due process procedure, "there can be no federal substitute for procedural protections at the State or local level." The due process procedures currently provided by States must be examined to inform the development of recommendations for Federal due process protections that would pertain to a national child abuse registry.
  4. The Adam Walsh Act limits case-specific information in a national child abuse registry to the perpetrator's name and type of maltreatment. Given that many names are common, additional fields are required to determine whether or not there is a match between the individual about whom an inquiry is made and a perpetrator listed in a national child abuse registry. Therefore, a review of the structure, file layout, and data standards comprising State child maltreatment registries must be conducted in order make recommendations for requirements to ensure the collection of sufficient information to accurately identify perpetrators.

  1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE METHODS FOR THIS STUDY

  A key informant survey (Survey) and a prevalence study were conducted to address the knowledge gaps identified in the Interim Report. States were invited to participate in both the Survey and the Prevalence Study.

  The Survey was composed of three separate questionnaires. The focus of the "Current Legal and Policy Requirements Regarding Sharing Information on Child Maltreatment Perpetrators Questionnaire" (Legal/Policy Questionnaire) was on the existing legal and/or written policy requirements regarding maintaining and sharing information on child maltreatment perpetrators and due process protections for such persons. The "Current Practices on Sharing Information on Child Maltreatment Perpetrators Questionnaire" (Current Practices Questionnaire) focused on practices in sharing perpetrator information with, and requesting information on child maltreatment perpetrators from other States. The "Technical Information on Data Repositories of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators Questionnaire" (Technical Information Questionnaire) focused on technical issues related to the structure, content, and accuracy of existing data repositories. In addition, in all three questionnaires, respondents were asked about perceived benefits of and barriers to participating in a national registry, and whether they felt that the benefits would outweigh the problems. See appendix A for the questionnaires. The questionnaires were Web-based and self-administered using Survey Monkey™.

  The prevalence study combined data from individual records from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) with name and date of birth information supplied by participating States in order to identify perpetrators who had been substantiated in more than one State. Last names were encoded to guard confidentiality and to facilitate the matching process. These matches were used to develop national estimates of interstate perpetrators, and to examine a limited set of their characteristics that are relevant for the feasibility study. National estimates were produced using a model that combines these matching results with the U.S. Census Bureau's (Census) interstate migration estimates. The matching process was also used to shed light on the type of information that would be needed in a national registry to support accurate matching. See appendices B and C for further details on the prevalence study.

  State Child Welfare agencies for all States were recruited to participate in both components of the study over a 3-month period in the spring and early summer of 2011. A total of 38 States representing 84% of the U.S. population participated in one or more of the Survey questionnaires. Most responded to all three questionnaires, and 36 States (though not always the same States) participated in each individual survey. For selected questions in the Legal/Policy Questionnaire, data for nonparticipating States were added based on a review of current State laws. As a result, some results from the Legal/Policy Questionnaire are based on 36 States, while others are based on information from all 52 States. Twenty-two States, representing 55 percent of the total U.S. population, supplied the data needed for the prevalence study. Figure 1 below provides a map of participants for both the Survey and the prevalence study. (See table 1.)

  Figure 1: Registry Study Participation

  1.4 TERMINOLOGY

  Throughout the text certain conventions are used in terminology. These include the following.

  • The term State(s) is used to include the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
  • The national registry of perpetrators of child abuse and neglect is referred to as "a national registry" or "the registry." If any other registry is discussed, its full name or reference is used.
  • All perpetrators, unless otherwise designated, are persons who have been determined by a child welfare agency to have abused or neglected a child. Persons alleged to be perpetrators are not included in this designation. Nor does the designation refer only or even primarily to those persons convicted of a criminal or civil offense – judicial determinations have been made in only a small percentage of these cases. The terms child abuse and neglect, child abuse or neglect, and child maltreatment are used interchangeably.
  • Unless otherwise specified, all percentages are based upon the information provided by the 36 States that responded. While the majority of responding States replied to the three surveys, some States responded to fewer; thus the number 36 does not refer to the same States in each case.
  • The term data repository is used for potential State data sources, since these may or may not be actual "registries" of perpetrators

  1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

  The report is presented in three sections. The first section contains the main findings of the study. The second section contains State-by-State data tables, which are referenced in the first section. The third section includes all technical appendices, as well as additional materials on due process and case law.

  
  

  CHAPTER 2. CURRENT ENVIRONMENT

  This chapter provides a snapshot of the current practice and policy environment in which State child protective services (CPS) systems identify child maltreatment perpetrators and maintain records on such perpetrators. The first section provides a brief overview of the current Federal guidance and requirements related to maintaining or obtaining data about perpetrators. The second section provides an overview of the commonalities and differences among State policies and practices in terms of definitions of child abuse and neglect; CPS responses and categories of findings; procedures for providing due process to perpetrators; and maintenance of information on such persons.

  2.1 FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDANCE

  Additional provisions of the Adam Walsh Act Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Adam Walsh Act) and provisions of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 (CAPTA) and the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 (Federal Privacy Act) have a potential impact upon the creation of a national registry.[18]^,[19]^,[20] In addition to requiring the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish a national child abuse registry, the Adam Walsh Act requires States, territories, and tribes that receive payments under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act to check the child abuse and neglect registry in any State in which a prospective foster or adoptive parent or an adult member of their household has lived in the previous 5 years. States must also provide registry checks requested by other States and take steps to prevent unauthorized dissemination of the information.[21]

  The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)

  As a condition of receiving Federal funding through CAPTA, States must preserve the confidentiality of all child abuse and neglect reports and records to protect the privacy rights of the child and of the child's parents or guardians. Reports and records of abuse and neglect may only be made available to:

  • individuals who are the subject of the report
  • Federal, State or local government entity, or any agent of such entities that has a need for such information in order to carry out its responsibilities under law to protect children from abuse and neglect
  • child abuse citizen review panels
  • child fatality review panels
  • a grand jury or court, upon a finding that information in the record is necessary for the determination of an issue before the court of grand jury
  • other entities or classes of individuals statutorily authorized by the State to receive such information pursuant to a legitimate State purpose

    The "routine use" exception states that agencies may disclose records contained within a system of records "for a routine use." A routine use with respect to the disclosure of a record is defined as "the use of such record for a purpose, which is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected."[24] If this exception is applied, then the following must be published.

    "[e]ach agency that maintains a system of records shall . . . publish in the Federal Register upon establishment or revision a notice of the existence and character of the system of records, which notice shall include each routine use of the records contained in the system, including the categories of users and the purpose of such use."[25]

    The law enforcement exception may be used if States are requesting data for civil or criminal law enforcement. This exception states that information may be disclosed:

    To another agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the particular portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought. [26]

    The Federal Privacy Act also requires government agencies to assure that records are accurate, that individuals have an opportunity to review and request amendment of records pertaining to them, and that procedures are established to record how and when personal information is disclosed.

    2.2 STATE LAW, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES

    All child protective services (CPS) systems are governed by a statutory scheme that specifies how the protection of maltreated children is to be accomplished in the State. Each State also has an administrative agency charged with supervising or implementing the processes, procedures, and services for addressing child maltreatment. In some States, child welfare is State-administered and, in others, it is county-administered. Regardless, most child welfare work is carried out at the local level. There are common processes of child protective services that occur in all jurisdictions. All jurisdictions responsible for child protective services have procedures for accepting reports of child abuse and neglect, investigating those reports, determining whether child abuse or neglect has occurred, providing protective services if maltreatment is substantiated, and maintaining records of reports and case dispositions. Nevertheless within these common processes there is significant variation, which may imply serious issues for implementing a national registry.

    Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect

    CAPTA serves as guidance to States in developing their own statutory definitions of child abuse and neglect. CAPTA defines child abuse and neglect as, at a minimum,

    "Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm."[27]

    Most States recognize a multiplicity of types of abuse or neglect. In most cases, the majority can be cross-walked to four major types of maltreatment: neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and psychological maltreatment. Additional major categories sometimes include: fatality; lack of supervision; and child in need of services.

    Neglect is usually defined as the failure of a parent, or other person responsible for caring for the child, to provide food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or required supervision to protect the child from harm. Twenty-four of 52 States include failure to educate the child as required by law in their definition of neglect. Medical neglect is specifically defined by seven States. Lack of supervision, which is not mentioned separately under Federal law, is often identified at State and local levels. Seventeen States include abandonment in their definitions of abuse or neglect, usually as a type of neglect.[28]

    Physical abuse is generally defined as any physical injury to the child that was not accidental. In 38 of 52 (73.1%) States, the definition also includes acts or circumstances that threaten or create a substantial risk of harm to the child. As might be assumed, the aspect of intentionality underlies designations of child abuse and neglect, but in varying degrees. Thus, physical discipline by parents is often considered in terms of how extreme the discipline is and whether it is age appropriate. Some States require some evidence of repeated physical abuse as a measure of intentionality.

    All States include sexual abuse in their definition of abuse either in general terms or by providing a list of particular acts that constitute sexual abuse. Psychological maltreatment can be identified by 32 of 52 (61.5%) States.[29]

    Although there is broad consensus about types of maltreatment, which is specifically required as part of a national registry by the Adam Walsh Act, there are some concerns that the terms are not fully comparable across all jurisdictions.

    CPS Responses and Categories of Findings

    All jurisdictions have child abuse and neglect reporting laws that require certain professionals and institutions to report suspected maltreatment to a CPS agency. When a CPS agency receives a report of suspected child abuse and neglect, the first step is to screen the report to determine whether the allegations include behaviors or injuries that meet the State's statutory definition of child abuse and neglect. If the report is screened out, the agency may take no further action or may refer the case to community resources or prevention services.

    Once a CPS agency has accepted a report of child abuse or neglect, the majority of cases receive an investigation.[30] State policies specify the standard of proof or evidence required to substantiate the allegation of maltreatment. More than one-half of all 52 States (61.5%) use a "preponderance of the evidence" or higher standard when making a finding concerning maltreatment. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that there is enough evidence to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the allegations are true. This standard is used by 29 States. Clear and convincing evidence is a higher standard and is used by 3 States. In 20 of 52 States (38.5%), a lower standard is sufficient to support a conclusion that a child has been maltreated. These standards include "probable cause," "some credible evidence," "reasonable cause," and "heightened credible evidence."[31] (See table 2.)

    After completing an investigation, the CPS investigator, either alone or in conjunction with a supervisor or team, must determine whether the child has been maltreated according to the State's statutory definition of abuse and neglect and the associated standard of proof. In 24 States (66.7%) the terms "substantiated" or "founded" are used. In eight States (22.2%) the terms "indicated" or "reason to suspect" are used either in addition to, or instead of, substantiated or founded. Fourteen States (38.9%) use additional terminology including "reason to believe," "service required," "service recommended," "confirmed maltreatment," "determined or not determined," "valid or invalid," and "verified but not substantiated." Regardless of these differences, States are able to determine which findings result in the determination that a person will be classified as a perpetrator of maltreatment.[32]

    The investigation response results in a specific finding on each allegation of maltreatment and, if the findings are substantiated, one or more persons may be considered to be perpetrators. In some States, a person can be found to be a perpetrator of abuse and neglect even if the behaviors did not result in actual injury to the child, if they created a substantial risk of harm. In other States, a perpetrator may not be identified unless services for the child or children were mandated. In these cases, the State has determined that the incident was a one-time occurrence and there is no future risk of harm to the child.[33]

    In addition to specifying what types of behaviors are considered child abuse and neglect, many statutes specify the classes of persons who can be investigated for child abuse and neglect, often limiting it to specific types of persons considered to be caregivers. The variation among the States regarding persons who may be determined to be responsible for abuse and neglect is discussed in the next section.

    Types of Perpetrators

    In addition to defining child abuse or neglect, State law or written policy often contains specific definitions of persons who can be considered by CPS to be perpetrators of abuse or neglect. Forty-four of 52 States (84.6%) specify which classes of people can be considered perpetrators of abuse or neglect. Persons in caregiving roles are commonly included in the definition of perpetrators. More than one-half of the 44 States that specify the classes in law or policy include parents (88.6%), legal guardians (86.4%), foster parents (70.5%), relatives (68.2%), residential facility/group home staff (65.9%), child care providers (61.4%), and unmarried partners of parents (59.1%). Professionals and others in noncaregiving roles are less likely to be included in the definition of a perpetrator—educational staff/teachers (40.9%), other professions (22.7%), and neighbors or friends (20.5%). (See table 3.)

    Twenty-three of 36 States (63.9%) specify which classes of people determined to be perpetrators of child maltreatment may be included on the data repository. More than one-half of the States include parents (82.6%), legal guardians (82.6%), foster parents (78.3%), relatives in a caregiving role (73.9%), unmarried partners of parents (73.9%), residential facility/group home staff (65.2%), and child care providers (65.2%). Fewer States include educational staff/teachers (39.1%), other professionals (21.7%), and neighbors or friends (17.4%). (See table 4.)

    It is important to note that, in more than one-quarter of the States, minors in the home are not distinguished from adult perpetrators. In 16 of 44 (36.4%) States, minors are included in the definition of a perpetrator of abuse and neglect. In 8 of 23 States (34.8%), a minor can be designated as a perpetrator on the data repository.[34]

    Due Process Procedures

    In the Interim Report, HHS indicated that, if a national child abuse registry were established, "the only feasible way to effectively and efficiently provide due process protections is to require that submitting jurisdictions certify that for cases submitted to the national registry, minimum due process protections were available to the perpetrator." In determining what due process is required, the private interest of the individual at stake, the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the governmental interest must be weighed. In essence, due process requires that governments provide notice about and an opportunity to be heard before an adverse action is taken against an individual that may impact a private interest. When a person's name is placed on a registry, the government is taking an action that potentially could affect that person's family life, employment prospects, or his or her reputation in the community. At the same time, this action may further the government's compelling interest in protecting children from abuse and neglect.[35]

    To date, the courts are not clear on the extent of the due process requirement that must be provided before making information about perpetrators available to others for all of the purposes for which information in a national registry may be used—abuse and neglect investigations, criminal investigations, background checks for prospective foster and adoptive parents, background checks for employment and licensing, background checks for teachers, etc. See appendix D for a discussion on the current status of case law related to child abuse and neglect data registries.

    As a condition of receiving CAPTA funds, States must establish provisions, procedures, and mechanisms by which individuals who disagree with an official finding of abuse and neglect can appeal such a finding.[36] Following is a discussion of notice and appeal procedures that are currently provided to perpetrators of child abuse and neglect in the States. A brief discussion on whether perpetrators can be designated as such, while their case is under review is also provided.

    Notice

    In situations in which a report of abuse or neglect has been substantiated, nearly three quarters of the 52 States (71.2%) provide notice in writing to the individual found to be the perpetrator of maltreatment. Fewer States (59.6%) have specific law or written policy requiring notification to individuals regarding their designation on the State data repository.[37] Many of these States notify individuals about their designation on the State data repository at the same time they are informed of the substantiation decision.

    Notice is typically served by certified mail, regular mail, or in person. The information contained in the notification documents varies. More than one-half of the 36 States responding to the survey include the following when notifying individuals of the substantiation decision, or include it in the separate notice regarding the designation on the data repository:

    • the fact that the agency has made a determination that the person was found to be a perpetrator (97.2%)
    • an explanation of any right to challenge the finding of abuse and neglect (94.4%)
    • the specific type of abuse and neglect committed (88.9%)
    • the timeframes for any challenges that may be made (88.9%)
    • the fact that the person will be designated a child maltreatment perpetrator on the data repository (75.0%)
    • the right to challenge being designated a child maltreatment perpetrator on the data repository (61.1%)
    • the consequences of being determined to be a perpetrator of abuse and neglect (55.6%)

    Review and Appeal of Findings of Abuse and Neglect

    Thirty-five of 36 States responding to the survey (97.2%) have law or written policy providing for review of the finding of abuse and neglect. One State indicated that reviews may happen at the local level and they are currently establishing a statewide policy for "due process procedures." If an individual challenges the State's finding of abuse and neglect, 26 States (72.2%) require the preponderance of evidence proof or a higher standard of proof at the first level of review. Six States (16.7 %) use a lower standard of proof for the initial review. These standards include some credible evidence, reasonable cause, or material evidence. (See table 5.)

    The type of review provided at the first level of review offered to an individual found to be a perpetrator of abuse or neglect varies widely among the States:[38]

    • ten (27.8%) use a review of the written records at a higher level than a caseworker or supervisor
    • five (13.9%) give an in-person hearing before an administrative body within the agency
    • three (8.3%) give an in-person administrative hearing outside the agency
    • two (5.6%) offer an in-person hearing before a judicial body, judge or magistrate
    • fourteen (38.9%) States use some "other" method
    • one (2.8%) State does not have a statewide policy

    For some States, the type of reviews provided depends on the circumstances of the case. These circumstances can include whether the case is court-involved or whether the perpetrator is a member of a specified class, (e.g. child care worker). In other States, the first level of review is determined by local policy or practice, or by the preference of the perpetrator requesting the review.

    In nearly three-quarters of the States (72.2%), the length of time by which a first-level review of the investigative finding must be completed is indicated in law or written policy. Of these 26 States, only 10 could provide information about whether they currently had cases exceeding the timeframe. Six States reported that there are currently cases in which the required time for completion has not been met (varying from very few to more than one-quarter of the cases). Four States indicated that there are no cases pending that have exceeded the specified timeframe.

    Three-quarters of States (77.8%) indicated that State law or written policy provides for a second level of review of the investigation finding. In more than one-half of these 28 States the second level of review is an administrative hearing, or a hearing conducted before a judicial body or magistrate.

    Review and Appeal of Designation on the Data Repository

    Three-quarters of the States (75.0%) have law or written policy allowing individuals to challenge the placement of their name on the data repository. The methods by which individuals can initially challenge the placement of their name on the data repository include review of the written documentation for the case at a higher level than a caseworker or supervisor and in-person hearings by an administrative agency inside or outside of the agency. Few States provide an in person hearing in front of a judicial body, judge, or magistrate. The standard of proof required at the first level of review in a majority of the States (61.1%) is a preponderance of the evidence. One State provides for a clear and convincing standard of proof. The remaining States provide for lower standards of proof.

    Twenty-three States specify a timeframe for completing the first level of review. The timeframes required range from 10 business days to 180 days. More than one-half the States do not track this information or were unable to provide it. Five States indicated that they currently have cases pending that exceed the required timeframe.[39]

    Timing of Designation

    Eighteen of 52 States (34.6%) have law or policy allowing for the designation of a person on the data repository while the first-level review of the maltreatment finding is still being conducted. In 20 of 52 States (38.5%) there is no State law or policy regarding the timing of an individual's designation on the data repository. (See table 6.)

    Maintaining Information on Perpetrators

    The initial records of child welfare agencies focused largely on children who were removed and placed with private agencies. These records, existing as large ledgers, can still be found in some court systems. The last 40 years have seen a tremendous growth in automated information systems serving child welfare agencies, first primarily as financial systems, and then secondly as client-tracking systems for CPS, foster care, and adoption, often as separate systems. More recent developments over the last 20 years have focused on case-management systems that address the services provided to children and families. These systems identify all persons whether they are children, caregivers, collateral contacts, family members, or perpetrators, and establish relationships between individuals. While persons who are perpetrators might be identified in such systems, with few exceptions, the State data repositories are not primarily focused on perpetrators. The exceptions are sometimes maintained by other agencies, such as the Attorney General's Office.

    The vast majority of data repositories, namely data systems with information on perpetrators, are statewide child welfare information systems (97.2%). In a majority of States, the umbrella social services agency has both technical responsibility and business control of the data repository. In 10 States (27.8%), the stand-alone child welfare agency has technical responsibility and in 12 States (33.3%) a stand-alone child welfare agency has business control. In a few instances, the State department of information technology has technical responsibility. In other words, depending on the State structure for providing child welfare services, in most States, the child welfare agency has lead responsibility for both the technical and business processes related to the data repository but, in some instances, another agency may have technical responsibility. The trend toward enterprise systems in many States may influence this finding in the future, with increased centralization across departments of major information systems. (See tables 7 and 8.)

    In a quarter of the States (25.0%), the data repository includes data collected by Native American or Alaska Native tribes within the State. Five States (13.9%) include information from some tribes. Twelve States (33.3%) do not have tribal governments or jurisdictions in their States. The issue related to collecting and maintaining data on perpetrators who may exist only in tribal information systems may be an issue that should be discussed during the design phase of a national registry. (See table 9.)

    2.3 DISCUSSION

    One can debate whether the variations in definitions of abuse and neglect among the States will pose significant issues for the implementation of a national registry. All States include the broad categories of child abuse and neglect in State law. Major variations among the States include whether or not they (1) include the failure to educate a child in the definition of neglect; (2) require evidence of actual harm to the child in their definition of physical abuse; (3) whether psychological abuse is included in the definition; and (4) what additional specificity could be collected in terms of types of maltreatment, including lack of supervision and medical neglect. While such differences will continue to be of some concern, States are already familiar with differences among jurisdictions and are already using such information even if definitions vary from their own. The issue of how to interpret such information will exist regardless of whether a national registry is created or not.

    Most States, but not all, have law or written policy that defines the classes of individuals who can be investigated by CPS agencies and listed in State data repositories. Of the States that have law or policy, most include persons responsible for a child's care and protection—parents, unmarried partners of parents, legal guardians, foster parents, other relatives in a caregiving role, child daycare providers, and residential/group home staff. For purposes of a national registry, it is clear that these classes could easily be included. However, some States statutory schemes include adults in a noncaregiving role, including teachers, neighbors, and other professionals. Some States also include minors in the home. States already adjust for such differences when using inter-State information. Nevertheless the design of a national registry may need to determine whether a common minimum set of classes of perpetrators would be defined and maintained on a national registry, or whether the national registry will accept any class of person who is determined by a State to be a perpetrator, with only specific exclusions, such as minors.

    Since more than one-quarter of the States use terminology other than "substantiated" for defining the outcomes of CPS investigations, the design of a national registry must interpret and explicitly specify what State terms are equivalent to substantiation. The Adam Walsh Act specifies that only "substantiated" cases would be included on a national repository, but the legislation cannot in itself be considered a complete design of any possible national registry.

    Most States have used the preponderance of the evidence standard for a finding of abuse and neglect. Court decisions in a number of States have indicated that, whenever a protected interest is at stake,[40] the following minimal due process protections should be provided:

    • use of the "preponderance of the evidence" in determining that the individual committed the alleged act of abuse or neglect before his or her name is placed on, and information disseminated from, the data repository
    • notification that that an individual's name will be placed on a data repository prior to placement
    • an opportunity to challenge, at some kind of hearing, the decision to place an individual's name on the data repository, either before placement and dissemination of the information occurs or shortly after placement of the information on the data repository has taken place

    It is unclear at this time whether one consequence of the establishment of a national registry might be the promotion of a further review of State standards of evidence and a movement towards increased use of preponderance of evidence or clear and convincing evidence by more States. This might occur due to the following arguments that can be made:

    • The probability that some individuals may be falsely identified as maltreatment perpetrators and listed on the national registry may increase with a lower standard of proof.
    • Court cases have varied on the standard needed for designating a person as a perpetrator on a data repository. Many court cases have held that due process requires at least a "preponderance of the evidence" standard be used for substantiating a finding of abuse and neglect before an individual's name can be placed on a State data repository. Others, however, have indicated that the lower standard of "credible evidence" can be used with certain conditions.

    If the design of a national registry undertakes to provide more specific definitions of the conditions under which persons would be listed in the registry, States may need to consider changes to the standard of proof required for a substantiation of child maltreatment, changes in notice requirements, and potentially changes in the review process of challenges to findings of abuse and neglect. Minimum due process requirements may also mean that existing records in State data repositories not meeting that minimum could not be submitted to a national registry.

    In summary, each State investigates child abuse and neglect, makes determinations as to which children are victims of abuse and neglect or at risk of abuse and neglect, and classifies individuals as perpetrators. Thus in theory, all States have acceptable data for a national registry. If all States participated, the names of several hundred thousands of individuals would be added each year to such a registry, and could have far reaching impact upon CPS practice itself.

    The next chapter examines in more detail the ability of States to provide data to a registry.

    CHAPTER 3. PROVIDING DATA ABOUT PERPETRATORS TO A NATIONAL REGISTRY

    In order for a national registry to exist, it will be necessary for States to provide the requested data in a timely and accurate manner. This study examined what data States currently provide on an individual request basis, whether States have the capacity to provide data to a national registry, what data they would provide, and how accurate and timely their submissions would be to a national registry. Issues related to the timely expunging of data and its implications for maintaining a national registry are also identified. The study further asked about the willingness of States to provide data to a registry.

    3.1 CURRENT LAW, POLICY AND PRACTICE RELATED TO PROVIDING DATA

    All States have policies and practices in place to respond to inquiries about whether an individual had been found to have been a perpetrator of abuse or neglect. This is currently conducted on a request-by-request basis.

    Policy and Legal Issues

    From a policy perspective, the provision of data to a national registry is more likely to depend upon the purpose of the registry than the capacity to provide data. This is because State legislation often governs to whom data may be released. While the creation of a national registry could limit who could gain access to information, the initial access could not be controlled by each State. The release of additional data could be determined by each State, once the State was contacted by an agency. Thus, whether a State may provide data to a national registry may hinge on current law as to who may receive data from a data repository and what data they may receive.

    The Adam Walsh Act requires that a national registry of child abuse "shall only be accessible to any Federal, State, Indian Tribe or local government entity, or any agent of such entities, that has a need for such information in order to carry out its responsibilities to protect children from abuse or neglect."[41] Findings regarding the persons to whom and purposes for which data on perpetrators may currently be provided are described below.

    The law or policy governing the release of information on perpetrators varies from State to State. All but one State indicated that they have State law or written policy that allows out-of-State entities to access information on their data repository. A majority of States provide access to individuals from child welfare agencies and law enforcement personnel. About one-third of the States (30.8%) provide access to employers of child care personnel. (See table 10.) Fewer States provide access to persons employing people who provide care or services to children (other than child care), schools, and citizen review boards. Two-thirds of the States (65.4%) have additional categories of persons to whom they will release data, including employers of health care professionals, grand juries, courts, physicians who have identified a child as suspected to have been abused or neglected, and child fatality review boards. There is considerable variation in terminology about additional classes of persons who may receive data on perpetrators.

    Almost all States (96.2%) have law or written policy that specifies the purposes for which information may be released from the data repository.[42] A majority of States will release information under the following circumstances: as part of an abuse and neglect investigation; a background check to become a foster or adoptive parent; or a background check for employment or licensing in child care or other direct child services. Additionally, States will release the information for other purposes with the consent of the maltreatment perpetrator. Ten out of 36 States (27.8%) have laws or written policies that would prohibit the State from providing information to a national registry. An additional 16 States (44.4%) are not clear about this issue. No State reported that it would be prohibited from obtaining information from a national registry. (See table 11.)

    Practice Issues

    Child protective services (CPS) agencies also have practices that determine how much data they currently release upon a request for information. When responding to an inquiry, nearly two-thirds will provide the type of maltreatment that was substantiated (61.1%), and more than one-half of the States (58.3%) will provide the recorded name of the perpetrator and the date of the incident. (See table 12.) Between one-third and one-half of States will also provide the following perpetrator information:

    • alternative names (36.1%)
    • date of birth or age (41.7%)
    • relationship to victim (36.1%)
    • gender (33.3%)
    • social security number (33.3%)
    • dates of dispositions (33.3%)

    States will also provide information on child victims, but with somewhat less consistency. In addition, no specific piece of information was provided by more than one-half of the States. Between a one-third and one-half of the States will provide the following information:[43]

    • date of incident (48.6%)
    • type of maltreatment (45.7%)
    • relationship of perpetrator to victim(s) (40.0%)

    When determining what information to provide to other States about child maltreatment perpetrators, some respondents reported that it depends on the purpose of the request and who is making the request. Some State-specific examples include:

    • the requesting State may only be informed about whether the person is on the data repository as a perpetrator for those screening foster care providers
    • some States will provide information only if the case involves another investigation of child abuse or neglect
    • some States will provide only responses such as "founded" or "not founded," regardless of the purpose, without any additional information

    States will provide much less data on child victims. Six States (16.7%) will not provide information about child victims unless it has been confirmed that the request applies to an ongoing investigation of child abuse or neglect. Eight States (22.2%) reported that they do not provide data on child victims or do not keep the information in the central CPS agency. Three States (8.3%) will refer the request to a local CPS agency.

    Once a request has been made from another State, more than three-quarters of States (77.8%) reported that they verify the identity or credentials of the requesting entity. More than one-half of the States (58.3%) require all requests to be mailed or faxed on official agency letterhead. Some States employ a complex verification process. For example, one agency stated that "verification can usually be obtained by checking an official telephone listing or checking with a third party at the business office at the requestor's reported place of employment. When in doubt of the requestor's identity or authority to receive such information, staff is required to deny the telephone request and instruct the requestor to send a notarized written request." Five States (13.9%) reported that they do not ask for verification.

    In general, most States (77.8%) do not charge other States for providing information in response to inquiries. Of those who do charge, the costs range from $10 to $49 or may vary according to the type of inquiry.[44]

    3.2 EXPUNGEMENT OF DATA

    Although States have the potential for submitting data to a national registry, the issue of how often they expunge data would have an impact upon the design and maintenance of the system.

    The term "expungement" refers to the procedures used by States to maintain and update their child abuse and neglect data repositories by removing old or inaccurate records.[45] As a condition for receiving funding under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 (CAPTA), States must submit plans that include provisions and procedures for the prompt removal of records of unsubstantiated or false cases of child abuse and neglect if the records are accessible to the general public or are used for purposes of employment or other background checks.[46] CPS agencies, however, can maintain information on persons who were associated with unsubstantiated reports or who successfully appealed their designation as a perpetrator to assist in future risk and safety assessments.[47]

    Forty-three of 52 States (82.7%) have law or policy that specifies the conditions under which a child maltreatment perpetrator's information can be expunged from the data repository. The remaining nine States (17.3%) do not have law or policy that specifies conditions of expungement. (See table 13.)

    More than one-half of State policies or laws (53.5%) provide for expungement following a successful appeal of the substantiation decision or the designation on the data repository. About one-third of the States (34.9 %) provide for expungement after a certain amount of time has elapsed since the individual was determined to be a perpetrator, ranging from 5 to more than 20 years. Some States allow for expungement when the youngest child victim attains a specific age, ranging from 18 to 28 years of age. A few States would expunge a record if they are notified that the perpetrator has died. Other conditions for expungement include the identification of a data-entry error, a court order, or a settlement agreement. (See tables 14 and 15.)

    3.3 FUTURE CAPACITY

    With the implementation of a national registry, States would still be responsible for providing any additional information that was requested beyond what was in the registry. Once the data were provided to the national registry, within the parameters of limiting access to the national registry, any information provided would be available to every inquirer.

    The current discussion of a national registry limits the specific data elements that would be provided by the State to name, type of maltreatment, and State. All States are able to provide additional information, which would be necessary to adequately support the identification of perpetrators.

    Technical Capacity

    The majority of States (80.6%) have data in their repositories going back 10 years or more. In over two-thirds of the States (69.4%), the repositories contain information on all child maltreatment perpetrators regardless of legal action. More than one-half (52.8%) contain information on alleged perpetrators. Fewer States limit the repositories to perpetrators who have been convicted of civil offenses or perpetrators who have been convicted of criminal offenses. One State includes only perpetrators who are parents or adults acting in loco parentis. (See tables 16 and 17.)

    In State data repositories, which are synonymous with child welfare information systems, case-level and perpetrator-level data are extensive. Data are more restricted in repositories limited solely to perpetrators. Such repositories may contain only minimal child-victim data.

    All States recognize that there may be issues related to the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the data on perpetrators. Eighty percent responded that all, nearly all, or most perpetrators were on the State data repository. While only one-third (36.1%) thought that perpetrator data were very comprehensive and accurate, an additional 41.7 percent thought that the data were somewhat comprehensive and accurate. Thus three-quarters of the respondents were ready to vouch for the accuracy of the data.

    When asked about all data on perpetrators, one-fifth thought that less than 5 percent of data were missing; another one-fifth thought that approximately 5–9 percent of data were missing. Thus missing data do not appear to be a problem.[48]

    Of the most likely key information that could be requested, more than two-thirds of the States indicated that the following perpetrator data were available from the automated information system: (See table 18.)

    • name of perpetrator (97.2%)
    • date of birth or age (94.4%)
    • type(s) of substantiated maltreatment (94.4%)
    • sex/gender (91.7%)
    • race and ethnicity (91.7%)
    • date(s) of disposition(s) (88.9%)
    • relationship to child victim(s) (91.7%)
    • last known address (80.6%)
    • alternative names (72.2%)

    The capacity of State information systems to submit data to a national registry mirrors the information that States are providing to inquirers, indicating that the State information systems would be the likely source of data to a national registry.

    If a national registry restricted the classes of perpetrators who would be included in a national registry, all States might need to build routines that would exclude certain perpetrators from being included in the information sent to a national registry. Three-quarters (77.8%) said that they would be able to extract data on those perpetrators who had been notified under State law or policy, and two-thirds (66.7%) said that they could extract data on those whose findings were not under appeal or review.[49]

    States varied in the frequency of reporting that they would find feasible. Approximately one-third (30.6%) responded that they could provide data as often as requested. More than a quarter of the States (27.8%) responded they would provide data once a year. More than a quarter (26.8%) could provide the data twice a year. In general, States had the technical capacity to provide the data, either duplicated or unduplicated, and for multiple years or for current reporting periods.[50]

    3.4 DISCUSSION

    Since States vary as to whether they specifically inform persons that they will be included on a data repository as a perpetrator, they may need to consider this issue when participating in a national registry. Currently almost one-half the States would allow individuals to be added to the data repository while the first level review of the maltreatment finding or their inclusion on the repository is being conducted. Twenty-five percent do not allow individuals to be designated on the data repository during the appeal of the designation.

    The issue of purpose may influence the interpretation of whether a State should provide data to a national registry, when it cannot control the use of the data that is available. While one can envision that a national system could instill security measures to limit access to a system, it is at the present time almost impossible to envision how the use of the data could also be controlled. For example, if a State wished that data could not be used for employment checks, it could not control a certified agency that had access to the national registry from using data in that manner.

    It appears that there will be more legal barriers to the provision of the information if access will be provided to those conducting employment screening of professionals not providing direct early child care services, such as teachers and other professionals. In almost one-half of the States, there may be legal barriers to providing the information that might be used for a criminal investigation.

    The considerations regarding provision of information to a national registry hinge, in large part, upon the parameters for access to the national registry. Given current restrictions under State law and policy, as well as variations in practice, clear guidelines on restrictions of access and the process by which legitimate access could be enforced are critical to the willingness of States to provide data to a national registry. Limiting access to certain types of persons and for certain purposes appears to be the area of greatest concern to the States. This has significant implications for the design of a national registry since not only would categories of inquirers and reasons for inquiry be specified, but it would be necessary to address means of confirming the legitimacy of the person making any inquiry prior to States being comfortable with providing data. Recognizing this issue, a number of States reported that they could not determine the benefits of such a system without having additional detailed design specifications.

    Most States reported that they anticipated that such a national registry would generate additional inquiries if the requestor found a match to the name being searched. Therefore, existing restrictions on the extent of information, which can be provided, are unlikely to be an inhibitor to providing data to a national registry, since States could still control the provision of such additional information. Indeed, given some areas of commonality, if access is limited, States may be willing to provide more data than solely the name of the perpetrator and types of maltreatments perpetrated.

    While expungement appears to be relatively infrequent, nevertheless the participation in a national registry might include not only providing data to a registry but also deleting on a timely basis records that have been expunged from the State repository. This is a serious challenge to maintaining a national registry given that placing the name of a person incorrectly on a national registry might have serious consequences. Almost all States formally recognize the need to expunge data if an appeal is successful. This would pose an additional challenge if a case were successfully appealed after it was uploaded to a national registry or if the State routinely were to upload data on perpetrators regardless of appeal status. The design and implementation of a national registry may require some consistency of processes among all States, at least in terms of which perpetrators would be included on a national registry and how often the data would be updated, including expunged records.

    Clearly a number of States, and perhaps all States, will have to review their own laws prior to providing data to a national registry. Over 70 percent of the States indicated that existing State law would or may prohibit it from providing data to a national registry. In some instances, it may be necessary for State laws to be revised, depending upon the parameters of a national registry, before a State could provide such data.

    Nevertheless, if the parameters of the national registry were clear and the requirements for submitting data reasonable, States have the technical capacity to participate. They would, however, face specific and important challenges to supplying data to a national registry, if the access and use of the data were to exceed the provisions of their State laws.

    In the next chapter we discuss the return on investment for supplying data in terms of what might be the benefits and challenges facing States who would use the national registry for inquiring about past perpetrator status.

    
    

    CHAPTER 4. INQUIRING ABOUT PERPETRATORS FROM A NATIONAL REGISTRY

    Given Federal mandates for conducting child abuse and neglect checks on prospective foster and adoptive parents and the ongoing concerns of preventing access to children by perpetrators of maltreatment, it is clear that States will continue to conduct cross-State inquiries. This chapter discusses the current practices and policies regarding States inquiries into histories of abuse and neglect. The perspectives of the States in terms of future efficiencies, potential benefits, and challenges of being able to retrieve data are also discussed. The chapter also estimates the number and percent of perpetrators substantiated for child maltreatment in multiple states, and explains how benefits could accrue from both matches and non matches to registry inquiries.

    4.1 CURRENT PRACTICES FOR REQUESTING DATA

    All States make out-of-State inquiries about adults having child abuse and neglect perpetrator records. The primary reasons that States specify for making inquiries include that a person is under investigation for child abuse (with 88.9% of States reporting this as a reason inquiries are made) and a person has applied to be a foster parent or adoptive parent (86.1%). Inquiries are also made if a person has been found to have abused or neglected a child (72.2%); the person has applied to be a child welfare worker or staff for a licensed provider (63.9%); and in cases of removal of a child from their own home (55.6%).[51]

    In general, requests for information are made directly by local child welfare offices (86.1%), although it is not uncommon for central office child welfare staff to make inquiries (58.3%).[52] Inquiries are made by telephone, paper, and electronically. In addition to consulting specific States, some jurisdictions (32.4%) may also check national criminal databases such as the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. In deciding what States it would be useful to contact, States rely primarily upon the person of interest to disclose where he or she has lived (86.1%). (See table 19.)

    Although States are aware of differences in the classification of maltreatment types, and in the standards of proof used to substantiate maltreatment, only a few actually report inquiring about these issues when requesting information from other States. This may indicate a certain degree of knowledge about the policies of States they frequently contact, but it may also indicate that when confirming prior perpetrator status, States are not that concerned about such differences.

    4.2 FUTURE PROCESSES, BENEFITS, AND BARRIERS

    Many States were not able to estimate the number of interstate inquiries that are made, since these are not tracked; however, the number of inquiries in a year could be large. (See table 20.) If there are an estimated 500,000 or more individuals who are found to be perpetrators each year, and one-half of these concern at least one out of State inquiry, more than 200,000 inquiries would be made a year, not including those involving applications to be foster parents, adoptive parents, child welfare workers, private agency workers, and other persons working with or caring for children.[53]

    The Adam Walsh Act specifies that the national registry is to be used by "any Federal, State, Indian Tribe or local government entity, or any agent of such entities, that has a need for such information in order to carry out its responsibilities under law to protect children from abuse or neglect." If this provision is interpreted to cover prospective foster care and adoption applicants and employment checks, the number of inquiries could conceivably reach a million or more per year.

    The most commonly mentioned (71.4%) potential benefit of a national registry reported was "saving time" since a single search could provide information from all States. More than one-half (54.3%) of the States mentioned specifically that a single source of information would be useful. The second most commonly stated (60.0%) potential benefit was improving the safety of children due to the additional information it might provide during an investigation or while considering a placement decision. More than one-half of the States (51.4%) mentioned that cross-State information would be more accessible, while none mentioned that within-State information would be more available. It therefore can be assumed that States would plan to use the national registry only for out-of-State inquiries. One-third of the States (34.3%) mentioned that a national registry would be useful for conducting or confirming checks of potential foster care or adoptive parents; a few mentioned other checks on adults would be also be facilitated. Nearly one-fifth (17.1%) mentioned that a national registry could result in cost savings since some States have service charges for responding to information requests, whereas a national registry would presumably be free of charge. Several States mentioned that they would not be dependent upon the veracity of the individual applicant in identifying States to contact, since a single search could address possible matches from all participating States. (See table 21.)

    A few States made explicit conditions under which such benefits would occur, including mentioning that most or all States would have to participate in providing data to the registry, and that timeliness of data and its accuracy were extremely important. Without comprehensiveness, timeliness, and accuracy, the benefits of a national registry would not be realized. The two States that did not identify any potential benefits, as well as several other States, mentioned that, without a clear understanding of the scope and parameters of a national registry, they could not weigh the potential benefits against potential problems.

    All responding States, except one, identified barriers to using a national registry. A primary concern of nearly one-half (61.1%) of the responding States were inconsistencies and differences in types of maltreatment, levels of evidence, due process procedures, and expungement practices. (See table 22.) These issues also led them to be concerned about the challenges in maintaining the data and the risks of it being out of date or inaccurate (47.2%), as well as the risk of legal challenges (25.0%). While these concerns most directly impact the provision of data to a national registry, they might also impact utilization of a national registry. Certainly, States will want to obtain more information from other States once they identify a person on the national registry as being a likely match to the person of interest, in order to reduce the number of false positives that would occur. Given current practices of contacting locations directly, this would not necessarily be any additional burden.

    One-quarter of the States (25.0%) indicated that the limited amount of information a national registry could offer under current law would be a barrier to its utility. (See table 22.) The Adam Walsh Act limits the case-specific information that can be included in the registry to the perpetrator's name and the nature of the substantiated maltreatment. This limitation was recognized by the States as inadequate to identify perpetrators using the system. Additional identifying information such as date of birth would be necessary to perform useful matches.

    4.3 PREVALENCE OF INTERSTATE STATE PERPETRATORS

    A critical question regarding the expected utility of a national registry is the number of interstate perpetrators that might be expected each year. As the Interim Report to Congress pointed out, no such estimates had been established, and what information did exist was anecdotal.[54] To fill this gap, national estimates of interstate perpetrators were developed. This examination of prevalence also examined the seriousness of maltreatment by instate and interstate perpetrators. Estimates of the proportion of interstate perpetrators identified in geographically adjacent States were also produced.

    Methodology Summary

    Twenty-two States contributed data for the prevalence study by contributing encoded names, first initial, and date of birth information for all substantiated adult perpetrators from 2005-2009. (See table 1.) These data were appended to individual records from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), which includes additional perpetrator characteristics, victim information, and information on type of maltreatment. (See appendices B and C for more details on the prevalence study.)

    Using data for those 22 States, data were compared from 2009 records from each State to records for all other participating States from 2005-2009.[55] The goal was to estimate the number of interstate perpetrators that would be identified by States in a given year through a national registry. The 5-year time period was assumed to be adequate for identifying most interstate perpetrators that would be found through a national registry, though many State registries maintain records for longer than 5 years. Several matching algorithms were explored, and an optimal algorithm was identified (see more detailed discussion below).

    Estimates of the number of matches for each participating State were adjusted upward to account for matches that would have come from nonparticipating States, using interstate migration data from the 2000 Census.[56] To create estimates for nonparticipating States, Census-based interstate migration rates were applied to aggregate data on the total number of substantiated child maltreatment perpetrators in 2009.[57]

    The Matching Process

    The Adam Walsh Act limits the case-specific content of a national registry to the name of the perpetrator and the type of substantiated maltreatment. In order to explore the capability of such a registry to identify interstate perpetrators, matches were carried out using an encoded last name and first initial only. Encoded names were used in this exercise for two reasons. First, it allowed participating States to supply name information without breaching confidentiality restrictions. Limiting first name information to first initial was done for the same reason. Second, the encoding allowed for matching names with different though similar spellings. It is a common practice in record matching, and it is likely that a national registry would use a similar technique in order to capture minor variations in spelling that inevitably occur in such records.

    The results of the matching process show that 88.6 percent of all records in 2009 found a match in one or more States for the previous 5 years. Of those that did match, 85.1 percent found matches in three or more States. This is an overestimate of matches due to the use of only the encoded last name and first initial since many names are similar or the same. Therefore, using the encoded last name and first initial only is inadequate as a matching algorithm for purposes of developing national estimates. If complete names are used on a national registry it would substantially reduce the percentage of matches; however, it is very likely that even full names would result in too many matches to be of practical use to States. (See tables 23 and 24.)

    By adding sex and date of birth to the matching algorithm, the number of matches was reduced dramatically to 2,022 across the 22 participating States, representing 0.7 percent of all substantiated perpetrators in 2009. Of those 2,022 matches, only 44 included matches in more than one State, and only 345 matched more than two other records. (See table 25.) Across the 22 States, matching rates were fairly consistent, ranging from 0.6 percent in California to 2.0 percent in Nevada and Wyoming. These rates are highly likely to be lower than would be found if data for all States were available. Adjustments to account for those missing States would roughly double the matches from 0.7 percent to 1.5 percent.

    While there is no way to confirm the accuracy of this estimate, it is reasonable given what is known about revictimization and reperpetration rates over similar time periods. If one assumes that about 16.7 percent of all substantiated perpetrators will reoffend within 5 years, and that they move between States at a rate similar to the general population in 2000 (8.9 percent), then one might expect an interstate match rate of about 1.5 percent.[58],[59],[60]

    National Estimates of Interstate Child Maltreatment Perpetrators

    As noted in the preceding section, a reasonable formula or algorithm for matching perpetrator records across States was developed using encoded last name, first initial, sex, and date of birth of the perpetrator.[61] Using this approach to matching records, State and national estimates for interstate child maltreatment perpetrators were produced based on a model that combines this prevalence study data with Census interstate migration data.

    The modeling exercise is complex, involving four steps. First, the number of matches for each State participating in the prevalence study was estimated relative to other participating States. Second, these estimates were adjusted upward to account for perpetrators from nonparticipating States using 2000 Census data, based on the percentage of all interstate in-migrants in each State who were from States that did not participate in the prevalence study.

    The results of this second step represent complete estimates of the number of interstate perpetrators in each of the 22 States that participated in the prevalence study. With this adjustment, the total number increased from 2,022 to 4,216. The number of interstate perpetrators varied considerably by State, from highs of 785 (New York), 712 (Texas), and 572 (California), to as few as 15 (Wyoming) and 16 (New Hampshire). (See table 26.)

    The third step provided estimates of interstate perpetrators for the 29 States that did not provide data for the prevalence study. The estimates used the aggregate number of substantiated perpetrators for 2009, and multiplied that by an estimated interstate perpetration rate that had been constructed for each State based on an average rate derived from the participating States, and adjusted using Census interstate migration rates particular to that State.

    Fourth, adding all of the State-specific estimates together yielded a national estimate of 7,852 interstate perpetrators for 2009. Based on a total of 512,790 unique perpetrators in the U.S. in 2009, interstate perpetrators represented 1.5 percent of all substantiated perpetrators.[62]

    An important caveat to these estimates is the fact that there are undoubtedly false positives resulting from the matching algorithm, which, all else being equal will result in an over-estimate of the national incidence of interstate perpetrators. While there is no direct way to test this, it is possible to examine what happened to the number of interstate matches when the requirement that the birth date of at least one child in the case records match was added. When this was done, only 27 percent of the matches used to create the national estimates matched. There are many reasons why a true match might be lost with this additional requirement including inaccurate date of birth information, and the fact that fewer than one-half of all States include all children living in the household in their records as a regular practice. Still, this finding suggests that the actual number of interstate perpetrators at the national level may be less than the 7,852 estimated here, though there is no way to know how much less.

    Adjacency

    Most States already have working relationships with the child welfare agencies in their neighboring States. If a large proportion of matches come from only a few neighboring States the burden on States to make such inquiries may not be very great. To explore this issue, the small number of participating States in the prevalence study that include adjacent States also in the study and contributing at least 75 percent of their overall interstate migration flow were examined. These included California, Texas, Louisiana, Maine, and Arizona.

    For these States, the percentage of all interstate perpetrators from neighboring States was estimated as follows: Louisiana (40%), Arizona (35.8%), Texas (15.4%), California (12.4%), and Maine (9.5%). To the extent that there are false positive matches in the estimates, these percentages may be underestimated, since false matches are likely to be spread more evenly across the country. Even taking this into account, however, it seems likely that, for most States, a majority of interstate perpetrators do not come from adjacent States, though clearly there are important differences across States.

    Instate and Interstate Perpetrator Comparisons

    If interstate perpetrators engage in more serious forms of abuse and neglect, this would provide additional evidence of the utility of a national registry, since it would be identifying more serious cases. To examine this issue, the study compared instate and interstate perpetrators on four outcomes—type of child maltreatment, whether one or more children was removed from the home, whether there were any court petitions, and any child fatalities—all for 2009. Analyses used the same data file that was used to create the national estimates, the prevalence data file.

    For type of maltreatment, the typology used for establishing seriousness was least serious to most serious as follows: neglect, medical neglect, emotional maltreatment, physical abuse, and sexual abuse. Each perpetrator was assigned a single value representing the most serious form of abuse or neglect for which he or she was substantiated. The results show very similar patterns across the two groups, with nearly two-thirds (64.7 percent) in each group substantiated for neglect. Chi square analyses indicate no significant difference in type of maltreatment between instate and interstate perpetrators. (See table 27.)

    Examining whether a child was removed from the home for 24 hours or more, however, resulted in different results. Thirty percent of interstate perpetrators included a child removed from the home in their current State of residence compared to just more than 20 percent among instate perpetrators. This difference is statistically significant at the .001 level. (See table 28.) Similar results were observed for court involvement, with rates of 28 percent for interstate perpetrators and about 19 percent for intrastate perpetrators. (See table 29.) Finally, interstate perpetrators do not appear any more likely to be associated with a child death than intrastate perpetrators, though the small number of child deaths associated with interstate perpetrators, 4, was too few to support any tests of statistical significance. (See table 30.)

    Clearly, interstate perpetrator cases are more serious in that children are more likely to be removed from the home. To some extent this is expected, since interstate perpetrators have by definition been substantiated as perpetrators at least two times, while instate perpetrators may or may not have had prior substantiations. While they may represent more serious cases, they do not appear to be more likely to be sexual predators or to exhibit different overall patterns of maltreatment.

    4.4 DISCUSSION

    States identified a number of potential benefits of a national registry including better and faster access to perpetrator records in other States; less reliance on alleged perpetrators to identify former States of residence; access to more information; possible savings in staff time and resources; and enhanced safety for children resulting from all of these factors.

    National estimates developed for this report indicate that there are fewer than 8,000 interstate perpetrators in any given year, and possibly less. That does not imply that there will be only 8,000 positive results from among the many (possibly millions) of inquiries made to a national registry, however. After all, the most common use is likely to be during maltreatment investigations before substantiation has been made, which would also identify those who were substantiated in other States but not in the current State (at least not at that moment). If the national registry were allowed to be used for foster care applications and certain employment background checks, the number of positive results from a national registry would be even larger. The expected utility of a national registry will certainly vary according to who may have access and for what purposes.

    Of equal and possibly greater importance for determining the utility of a national registry is its potential to save staff time and resources resulting from the speed and efficiency of making all interstate inquiries, the vast majority of which will not find a match. If the registry data and its matching procedures are seen as reliable, so that States can accept a negative finding without further inquiry, substantial savings may result. Child safety may also be enhanced as it could speed up the processing of open maltreatment cases.

    Both the State surveys and the prevalence analyses uncovered a number of important concerns that will have to be considered in determining the feasibility of a national registry capable of providing the anticipated benefits described above. States were clear that the utility of the national registry will depend on its comprehensiveness, which will require the participation of most or all States. How this can be accomplished within a voluntary framework and in the absence of funds to support data submission will have to be addressed. Further, the prevalence analyses indicated that small States may only find a handful of matches in a given year from a national registry. If the effort required of these States to supply data to the registry is more than nominal, the work to reward ratio may not be large enough to justify participation for such States. States were also concerned about the accuracy and timeliness of the data on a national registry, indicating that both would be required at a high level to make it a useful tool.

    A number of States recognized, and the prevalence study confirmed, that a national registry that is limited to name and type of maltreatment will not be useful to States. Minimally, additional information such as date of birth, sex, and possibly other identifying information will need to be added to support a reliable matching process, though in all probability results would still need to be confirmed by following up with individual States to weed out false positives. The addition of social security number would further increase the accuracy of the matches, though States may be reluctant to supply such information and the collection of such information in a federal registry would need to be authorized explicitly in statute.

    When asked whether the benefits are likely to outweigh the problems associated with participating in a national registry, a few States reported that they did not know. Comments from those who did not know indicated that the answer will depend on how well the above-described concerns are addressed in the design and implementation of a national registry.

    Based on the findings discussed in this chapter, the following should be considered essential features of a national registry of child maltreatment perpetrators:

    • comprehensiveness, timeliness, and accuracy
    • capacity to produce a reasonably accurate matches that can be confirmed with individual States
    • direct access by local child welfare staff, who make most out-of-State inquiries
    • easy access to up-to-date summaries of State practices regarding due process procedures, levels of evidence, and expungement practices
    
    

    CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS

    The findings from this study fill many of the information gaps identified by the Interim Report. The findings also identify issues that will be important in considering the design and implementation of a future national registry.

    5.1 PREVALENCE OF INTERSTATE PERPETRATORS

    Results from the prevalence study indicate that up to 1.5 percent (fewer than 8,000) of all substantiated perpetrators in a given year also have been substantiated as perpetrators in other States during the previous 5 years. The percentage differs somewhat from State to State, due in part to fact that some have far more in-migration from other States. Interstate perpetrators did represent somewhat more serious cases in that they were more likely to have had a child removed from the household in their current State of residence, though they were not significantly different from in-State perpetrators in terms of the type of maltreatment.

    A national registry would, of course, be used for more than identifying substantiated perpetrators who also had substantiated records of maltreatment in other States. The most common use would undoubtedly be checking for prior substantiations for suspected perpetrators in active maltreatment investigations. Other common occasions for perpetrator information requests to other States include prospective foster and adoptive parent background checks and employment checks for persons working with children, such as childcare. All of these uses would generate far more matches than the national prevalence estimates generated for this report, though precisely how many more is unknown.

    While the absolute numbers of persons who would be identified through a national registry may be relatively modest regardless of how it is used, the numbers are not trivial, and a national registry has the added benefit of not being dependent on the person being checked out for information on prior States of residence.

    Moreover, the benefits of a national registry lie not only in finding matches to persons being investigated or considered for employment, but also, and perhaps especially, in not finding matches. The workload of staff who must do a background check could be significantly reduced if accurate and comprehensive information was available in a national registry. This would require that the national registry be close to comprehensive in its coverage of States, but the benefits of being able to more quickly and efficiently produce clear background checks would be substantial.

    In summary, as the requirement to increase checks for ongoing investigations and also for accepting applications for foster parents, adoptive parents, or child welfare and childcare staff is fully implemented, a national registry might significantly reduce the burden of such checking. It would not reduce the burden, if States need to conduct background checks on both a national registry and through individual communications.

    5.2 CAPACITY OF DATA SYSTEMS

    While the States have the technical capacity for providing data to a national registry, it is clear that a detailed design of the system—from both a technical and a policy point of view—is critical to implementing such a registry.

    A national registry would be most useful if, at a minimum, it included perpetrator characteristics needed to produce high probability matches. While 100 percent accurate matches would not be attainable, the registry should be capable of producing high probability matches that can then be verified with individual States. In addition, it should be able to minimize the number of false negatives so that users can have a reasonable expectation that nonmatches indicate the absence of a substantiated maltreatment record in other States.

    The prevalence analyses indicate that a registry that includes name, sex, and date of birth may be sufficient to the task. States collect and maintain this information electronically, although date of birth may not have been verified.

    Three important aspects of the technical design of a registry to consider include:

    • What would the process entail for identifying authorized users of the registry? How would these persons be identified, registered, and periodically confirmed as authorized users?
    • What is the minimal data set that would be the most efficient and effective to maintain on a system?
    • Would it increase usage if certain types of cases or certain types of perpetrators were excluded from the system?

    Another critical feature of the system's design would be the ability to provide data in a timely and accurate manner. If data were found to be out-of-date or inaccurate, the utility of the system would be highly compromised. Given that States also will need to expunge data from a national registry, the design of the system would need to incorporate an ability of each State to update the system at any time. The best way for States to ensure that the data are accurate may be for them to refresh their entire list of perpetrators during each data submission rather than adding and expunging individual names from the registry. More work will be needed to determine the most efficient design of a system, which could be updated at frequent intervals, approximating real-time data.

    While State data systems appear to have the capacity to provide acceptably accurate and timely data to a national registry, the effort is likely to require additional resources to accomplish. Although voluntary, if a significant number of States do not provide data relatively quickly to a national registry, the registry would not be useful. To participate within a relatively short time, States will need adequate resources and technical assistance.

    5.3 STATE INTEREST AND BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION

    There appears to be significant interest in a national registry, primarily because States already have to inquire about possible prior perpetrator status from multiple States. The current processes are labor intensive, time consuming, and not conducted systematically. They also rely upon self-reporting of prior residences.

    This interest is seriously tempered, however, by concerns that may take some time to address. These concerns include, but are not limited to those listed below.

    • Accuracy of the data—While it is a concern of States submitting data, that the data be accurate to avoid risk of inappropriate listing of a person, this concern is of equal importance to those retrieving data from a national registry. Large numbers of false positives (wrongly identifying someone as a perpetrator) and false negatives (failing to identify a substantiated perpetrator from another State) could have significant impact upon the work of an agency.
    • Comprehensiveness of the data—It is unclear whether States would participate if a critical mass of States is not achieved relatively quickly. The return on the upfront investment of a State to submit data would need to be balanced by the utility of the system to the work force.
    • Resource support—The degree to which States would receive financial and technical support will clearly influence initial decisions to participate or not.

    Although multiple mentions were made by State respondents to the key informant survey about the differences in taxonomies of maltreatment and levels of evidence that would warrant attention by each State, this did not seem to be a major barrier to participating, primarily because the States already operate in this environment. Nevertheless, any further exploration in terms of designing a system would want to establish as much common ground as possible in order that both those who submit data and those who inquire about data are fully cognizant of any data limitations and have access to persons who would be able to provide additional information.

    5.4 LEGAL CONCERNS

    A barrier to participation in a national registry may be the required changes in State legislation. One-quarter of States (27.8%) indicated that changes in legislation would be required before they could provide data to a national registry, and an additional 44.4 percent indicated that they might need to consider legislative changes before submitting data to a national registry. The national registry will be restricted to a defined set of users and purposes, though the precise boundaries are not yet known. If it is allowed to be used for employment checks as well as child abuse and neglect investigations, the range and number of uses may be quite large. States that currently do not allow their own registries to be used for certain types of employment checks, and there are many, would have to decide whether to seek the necessary legislative changes to allow for the intended uses by the national registry. They may also decide simply not to participate. To reduce the chance of non-participation by such States, the national registry may need to consider restricting the use by certain classes of users on a State by State basis, denying access to records from States that do not allow their own records to be used for a particular purpose.

    In the Interim Report, it was indicated that, if a national child abuse registry were established, due process concerns would need to be addressed by the States and States would need to certify that they had followed minimum due process protections. Given the variation in due process procedures that are utilized by States, and the differences in rulings in various courts, a minimum standard of due process may need to be promulgated by the Federal Government. States would need to determine whether they could meet this minimum standard. For a number of States this would likely require a change in legislation and practice. Existing records in State data repositories that did not meet this minimum standard could probably not be submitted to the national registry. There also could be additional cost concerns related to such changes.

    In addition to promulgating minimum standards of due process, it may be useful to consider establishing a model law to assist States with developing and passing the necessary legislation to minimize exposure to legal challenge. Further research and/or policy discussion may result in a conclusion that only a subset of perpetrators should be included in a national registry. For example, it could be argued that a national registry should include only those who have been found to be perpetrators under reasonably high levels of evidence, and for which certain standards of due process have been met. If this were the case, States would face far less exposure to legal challenges and may be more willing to participate if their own practices met such standards. The advantage of thinking of a national registry in this manner is that it may also encourage the field to become more consistent in its practices and policies concerning the designation of who is a perpetrator. States would not be prohibited from contacting other States as they do now, if they so wished.

    It is not clear how long revisions to current State laws would take, but the concern that a State might need to pass new legislation could significantly delay full implementation. As previously mentioned, the full value of such a registry would be achieved only with participation of at least a majority of States.

    5.5 SUMMARY

    The foundations for a national registry already exist in the child protective services field given that nearly all States maintain the necessary data on child abuse and neglect perpetrators. The technical capacity of the States also supports the feasibility of a national registry. The interest in a registry is quite high, given that much is unknown at this point. Whether or not States would participate by submitting data within an established time frame depends on further specifications of such a system and further discussion about maximizing utility and security of the data, while minimizing risks to both submitting and inquiring States in terms of inaccurate, out of date, or misleading data. States would also have to conduct formal reviews of their own State laws and policy to ensure that they could submit data to such a registry.

    ENDNOTES

    [1] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (May 2009). Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry. Available from, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/09/ChildAbuseRegistryInterimReport/index.shtml

    [2] The FCR contains State Child Support Enforcement (IV-D) and non-IV-D case data and serves as a pointer system to help locate persons across State lines. A person's data in the FCR are matched daily against employment data in the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) and sent to Sates to facilitate case processing and increase collections.

    [3] Solomon, F.J., Henry, R.C., Hogan, J.G., Van Amburg, G.H., and Taylor, J. "Evaluation and Implementation of Public Health Registries. Public Health Reports, 105(2) (1991), 142-150.

    [4] Fontana, V., Besharov, D. The Maltreated Child: The Maltreatment Syndrome in Children: A Medical, Legal and Social Guide, 4th Edition. (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publisher, 1979).

    [5] Besharov, D. "Putting Central Registers to Work: Using Modern Management Information Systems to Improve Child Protective Services."Chicago-Kent Law Review, 54 (1978) 687-751.

    [6] Battered child syndrome is defined as a collection of injuries sustained by a child as a result of repeated maltreatment or beating.

    [7] Fontana, The Maltreated Child.

    [8] Ibid, 120.

    [9] Besharov, Putting Central Registries to Work.

    [10] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (2003) National Study of Child Protective Service Systems and Reform Efforts: Review of State CPS Policy. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    [11] Most jurisdictions require a registry of child maltreatment perpetrators including 40 States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Registries in other States may be maintained as a matter of administrative or agency policy. Child Welfare Information Gateway (2011) Establishment and Maintenance of Central Registries for Child Abuse Reports. Washington, D.C.: Children's Bureau/ACYF. pp 1-2.

    [12] The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, P.L.109-248 633 (a), (b); 42 U.S.C. 16990(a),(b).

    [13] Id. at 633(e); 42 U.S.C. 16990(e).

    [14] Id. at 633 (2)(B); 42 U.S.C. 16990 (2)(B).

    [15] Id. at 633 (d) (1)(2); 42 U.S.C. 16990 (d)(1).(2).

    [16] Id. at 633(c)(1)(B)); 42 U.S.C. 16990 (c)(1).(B).

    [17] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (May 2009). Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry. Available from, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/09/ChildAbuseRegistryInterimReport/index.shtml

    [18] The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, P.L.109-248 633; 42. U.S.C. 16990.

    [19] The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act as amended (2010), P.L. 111-320; 42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq; 42 U.S.C. 5116 et. seq.

    [20] 5 U.S.C 552a et. seq . (West 2010).

    [21] The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, P.L.109-248 §152; 42. U.S.C. 671(a)(20).

    [22] The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act as Amended (2010), P.L. 111-320; 42U.S.C. 5106 (b)(2)(B)(viii).

    [23] The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act as Amended (2010), P.L. 111-320; 42. U.S.C. 5106 (b)(2)(B)(xii).

    [24] 5 USC § 552a(a)(7) (West 2010).

    [25] 5 USC § 552a(e)(4)(D) (West 2010).

    [26] 5 USC § 552a(b)(7) (West 2010). In HHS' 2009 Interim Report to Congress, when discussing the Privacy Act, HHS stated that "this database would be used for civil law enforcement purposes." Interim Report at 24.

    [27] The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act as Amended (2010), P.L.111-320, §3; 42 U.S.C. 5101 et. seq.

    [28] Child Welfare Information Gateway (2011). Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect. Available from, http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.pdf.

    [29] Ibid.

    [30] Some States also provide an alternative response or "differential response," "family assessment response," or "dual-track." Alternative response involves assessing family strengths, identifying the needs of the family, and providing services to the family without establishing the validity of the report. That is, there is usually no formal determination or substantiation of child abuse or neglect or the identification of perpetrators. In most cases, acceptance of alternative response and its services is voluntary. Since such cases do not result in the determination of a perpetrator, it is unlikely that data from most such cases would be part of a national registry.

    [31] Information on State standards of proof was obtained from the Legal Survey for 36 States. Information for the remaining States was obtained from U.S. Department of Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau. (2010). Child Maltreatment 2009. Available from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm09/cm09.pdf.

    [32] All estimates presented in this paragraph are based on survey responses from 36 States.

    [33] In 2009, Forty-four States reported that three-fifths (59.9%) if victims received postresponse services. A victim is a child having a maltreatment disposition of substantiated, indicated, or alternative response victim.

    [34] Forty-four out of 52 States have State law or written policy specifying the classes of people who can be determined to be a perpetrator of child abuse and neglect. Data from the questionnaire was supplemented by a review of the law in the 16 States that did not participated in the legal/policy questionnaire. Twenty-three out of 36 States reported that they have State law or written policy specifying the classes of people once found to be maltreatment perpetrators are designated as such on the data repository.

    [35] More, J. (1995). Charting a Course Between Scylla and Charybdis: Child Abuse Registries and Procedural Due Process. 73 N.C. L. Rev. 2063.

    [36] The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act as Amended (2010), P.L. 111-320; 42. U.S.C. 5106 (b)(2)(B)(xv)(II).

    [37] Percentage based on 52 States.

    [38] Percentages based on 36 States responding to the survey.

    [39] Percentages in this and the preceding paragraph are based on all 52 States.

    [40] Case law is well settled on the test to determine what constitutes a "protected interest" within the context of state data repositories. A protected interest is at stake if the affected person can show his or her reputation was injured (or stigmatized) as well as some real injury from either being placed on the repository or losing something to which he or she was legally entitled. See, e.g. Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992 (2d Cir. 1994).

    [41] P.L. 109-248, 42 U.S.C. § 16990 (e).CAPTA requires that states have "provisions to require a State to disclose confidential information to "Federal, State, or local government entities… that has a need for such information to carry out its responsibilities under the law to protect children from child abuse and neglect (emphasis added)." 42. U.S.C. 1502 (b) (2) (B) (ix).

    [42] Percentage is based on 52 States.

    [43] Percentages are based on 35 States with valid survey responses.

    [44] Percentages in the prior three paragraphs are based on 36 States responding to the survey.

    [45] Child Welfare Information Gateway (2008). Review and Expunction of Child Registry and Reporting Records: Summary of State Laws. Available from, www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/registry.cfm

    [46] The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, as Amended (2010),P/L/ 111-320; 42 U.S.C 5101 et. seq.

    [47] The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, as Amended (2010), P.L. 111-320; 42 U.S.C 5106a(b)(2)(A)(xii).

    [48] Percentages in the prior two paragraphs are based on 36 States responding to the survey.

    [49] Percentages in the prior paragraph are based on 52 States.

    [50] Percentages in this paragraph are based on 36 States responding to the survey.

    [51] Percentages in this paragraph are based on 36 States responding to the survey.

    [52] These percentages are based on 36 States responding to the survey.

    [53] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Children's Bureau..Child Maltreatment (2009). Available from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm09/.

    [54] Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009) Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry. Page 15.

    [55] In cases in which matches were made in the same year (2009), interstate matches were counted only when the date of report preceded that of the record from the inquiring State.

    [56] Interstate migration estimates were not yet available for the 2010 Census.

    [57]For several States that did not have aggregate estimates for 2009, 2010 or 2008 data was used, when available. For details, see methodology chapter in this report.

    [58] This is based on a finding that 16.7 percent of child victims of maltreatment had been revictimized within 5 years. Cited in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Administrative Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. (2009). Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry. Washington, D.C. p. 16.

    [59] Molloy, R., Smith, C., Wozniak, A. (2011). Internal Migration in the United States. Table 1. Finance and Economic Discussion Series, Divisions of Research and Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D.C. paper 2011–30.

    [60] 0.167 * 0.089 = 0.0149 or 1.5 percent.

    [61] Only 2.1 percent all of perpetrator records were missing one or more of these measures, so missing data is expected to have a minimal effect on the final estimates.

    [62] Estimate from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Children's Bureau. (2010). Child Maltreatment 2009, page 69.

    SUPPORTING TABLES

    Table 1. Participating States

    Table 1. Participating States

    STATE	Legal and Policy Survey	Practices Survey	Technical Survey	Prevalence Study
    N= 36 States
    Alabama	X	X	X
    Alaska
    Arizona	X	X	X	X
    Arkansas	X	X	X	X
    California		X	X	X
    Colorado	X	X	X	X
    Connecticut	X	X	X	X
    Delaware	X	X	X	X
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X	X	X
    Georgia	X	X	X
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X	X	X
    Indiana	X	X	X	X
    Iowa
    Kansas	X	X	X	X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X	X	X	X
    Maine	X	X	X	X
    Maryland	X	X	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X	X	X	X
    Minnesota	X	X	X	X
    Mississippi			X
    Missouri	X	X	X
    Montana
    Nebraska	X	X	X	X
    Nevada	X	X	X	X
    New Hampshire	X	X	X	X
    New Jersey	X	X	X
    New Mexico	X	X
    New York	X	X	X	X
    North Carolina	X	X	X
    North Dakota	X	X	X
    Ohio	X	X	X
    Oklahoma	X	X	X
    Oregon	X	X	X
    Pennsylvania				X
    Puerto Rico	X
    Rhode Island	X	X	X
    South Carolina	X	X	X
    South Dakota	X	X	X	X
    Tennessee	X	X	X
    Texas	X	X	X	X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia	X	X	X	X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming	X	X	X	X
    Total	36	36	36	22

    Table 2. Standards of Proof for a Finding of Child Maltreatment

    Table 2. Standards of Proof for a Finding of Child Maltreatment (Q4 Legal)

    STATE	Clear and Convincing	Preponderance of the Evidence	Other (e.g. Probable Cause, Some Credible Evidence, Reasonable Cause, Material Evidence, etc.)	Not Specified in Law or Written Policy
    N= 52 States
    Alabama		X
    Alaska			X
    Arizona			X
    Arkansas		X
    California		X
    Colorado		X
    Connecticut			X
    Delaware		X
    District of Columbia			X
    Florida		X
    Georgia		X
    Hawaii			X
    Idaho			X
    Illinois			X
    Indiana		X
    Iowa		X
    Kansas	X
    Kentucky		X
    Louisiana		X
    Maine			X
    Maryland		X
    Massachusetts			X
    Michigan		X
    Minnesota		X
    Mississippi			X
    Missouri		X
    Montana		X
    Nebraska			X
    Nevada			X
    New Hampshire		X
    New Jersey		X
    New Mexico			X
    New York			X
    North Carolina		X
    North Dakota		X
    Ohio	X
    Oklahoma			X
    Oregon			X
    Pennsylvania	X
    Puerto Rico		X
    Rhode Island		X
    South Carolina		X
    South Dakota		X
    Tennessee			X
    Texas		X
    Utah			X
    Vermont			X
    Virginia		X
    Washington		X
    West Virginia		X
    Wisconsin		X
    Wyoming			X
    Total	3	29	20	0

    Table 3. Classes of Persons Determined to Be Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment

    Table 3 (part 1 of 3). Classes of Persons Determined to Be Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment (Q6 Legal)

    STATE	Parents	Unmarried Partners of Parents	Other Relatives in Care Giving Roles	Legal Guardians	Minor Children in the Home
    N= 52 States. Note: Only 44 States specify which classes of people can be considered perpetrators of abuse and neglect.
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arizona	X	X	X	X
    Arkansas
    California	X			X
    Colorado
    Connecticut	X	X	X	X	X
    Delaware
    District of Columbia	X
    Florida	X	X	X	X
    Georgia	X		X	X
    Hawaii	X	X	X	X	X
    Idaho	X			X
    Illinois	X	X	X	X	X
    Indiana	X			X
    Iowa	X		X	X
    Kansas
    Kentucky	X			X
    Louisiana	X	X	X	X	X
    Maine	X	X	X	X
    Maryland	X	X	X	X	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X	X	X	X
    Minnesota
    Mississippi	X		X	X
    Missouri	X	X	X	X	X
    Montana	X	X		X
    Nebraska
    Nevada	X	X	X	X
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey	X	X	X	X
    New Mexico	X	X	X	X
    New York	X	X	X	X
    North Carolina	X	X	X	X	X
    North Dakota	X	X	X	X	X
    Ohio	X	X	X	X	X
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania	X	X	X	X	X
    Puerto Rico	X	X	X	X	X
    Rhode Island	X	X	X	X
    South Carolina	X		X	X
    South Dakota	X			X
    Tennessee
    Texas	X	X	X	X	X
    Utah	X		X	X	X
    Vermont	X			X
    Virginia	X	X	X	X	X
    Washington	X	X	X	X	X
    West Virginia	X			X
    Wisconsin	X	X	X	X	X
    Wyoming	X	X	X	X
    Total	39	26	30	38	16

    Table 3 (part 2 of 3). Classes of Persons Determined to Be Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment (Q6 Legal)

    STATE	Foster Parents	Residential Facility/Group Home Staff	Child Care Providers	Educational Staff/Teachers	Other Professionals
    N= 52 States Note: Only 44 States specify which classes of people can be considered perpetrators of abuse and neglect.
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arizona	X	X
    Arkansas
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut	X	X	X	X	X
    Delaware
    District of Columbia		X	X
    Florida	X	X	X	X
    Georgia	X	X	X	X	X
    Hawaii	X	X	X
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X	X	X	X
    Indiana
    Iowa	X	X	X
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X	X	X
    Maine	X
    Maryland	X	X	X	X	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X	X	X	X	X
    Minnesota
    Mississippi	X	X
    Missouri	X	X	X	X	X
    Montana	X	X	X
    Nebraska
    Nevada	X	X	X	X
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey	X	X	X	X
    New Mexico	X
    New York	X	X	X
    North Carolina	X	X	X
    North Dakota	X		X	X
    Ohio	X	X	X	X	X
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania	X			X
    Puerto Rico	X	X	X	X
    Rhode Island	X	X	X
    South Carolina	X	X	X
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas	X	X	X	X	X
    Utah	X	X	X
    Vermont	X	X		X
    Virginia	X	X	X	X
    Washington	X	X	X	X	X
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin		X	X
    Wyoming	X	X	X	X	X
    Total	31	29	27	18	10

    Table 3 (part 3 of 3). Classes of Persons Determined to Be Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment (Q6 Legal)

    STATE	Neighbors or Friends
    N= 52 States Note: Only 44 States specify which classes of people can be considered perpetrators of abuse and neglect.
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arizona
    Arkansas
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut	X
    Delaware
    District of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia	X
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X
    Indiana
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X
    Maine
    Maryland	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X
    Montana
    Nebraska
    Nevada	X
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    New York
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    Ohio	X
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia
    Washington	X
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming
    Total	9

    Table 4. Classes of Persons Determined to Be Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment in a State Repository

    Table 4 (part 1 of 2). Classes of Persons Determined to Be Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment in a State Repository (Q8 Legal)

    STATE	Parents	Unmarried Partners of Parents	Other Relatives in Care Giving Roles	Legal Guardians	Minor Children in the Home	Foster Parents	Residential Facility/Group Home Staff
    N= 36 States
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arizona
    Arkansas
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Georgia
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Indiana
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Maine	X	X	X	X		X
    Maryland	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Montana
    Nebraska
    Nevada	X	X	X	X		X	X
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey	X	X	X	X		X	X
    New Mexico	X	X	X	X		X
    New York	X	X	X	X		X	X
    North Carolina	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    North Dakota
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Rhode Island	X	X		X		X
    South Carolina	X		X	X		X	X
    South Dakota	X			X
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Total	19	17	17	19	8	18	15

    Table 4 (part 2 of 2). Classes of Persons Determined to Be Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment in a State Repository (Q8 Legal)

    STATE	Child Care Providers	Educational Staff/Teachers	Other Professionals	Neighbors or Friends	Not Defined in Law or Written Policy
    N= 36 States
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arizona
    Arkansas
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware	X
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X	X
    Georgia
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X	X	X
    Indiana
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X			X	X
    Maine
    Maryland	X	X	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X	X	X
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X	X	X	X
    Montana
    Nebraska
    Nevada	X
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey	X	X
    New Mexico
    New York	X
    North Carolina	X
    North Dakota
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico	X	X
    Rhode Island				X
    South Carolina	X
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia	X	X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming	X	X	X
    Total	15	9	5	4	1

    Table 5. Standards of Proof for a First Level Review Resulting from a Challenge to the Findings

    Table 5. Standards of Proof for a First Level Review Resulting from a Challenge to the Finding (Q14 Legal)

    STATE	Clear and Convincing	Preponderance of the Evidence	Other (e.g. Probable Cause, Some Credible Evidence, Reasonable Cause, Material Evidence, etc.)
    N= 36 States
    Alabama		X
    Alaska
    Arizona
    Arkansas		X
    California
    Colorado			X
    Connecticut		X
    Delaware		X
    District of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia		X
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois		X
    Indiana		X
    Iowa
    Kansas	X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana		X
    Maine			X
    Maryland		X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan		X
    Minnesota		X
    Mississippi
    Missouri		X
    Montana
    Nebraska
    Nevada			X
    New Hampshire		X
    New Jersey		X
    New Mexico			X
    New York		X
    North Carolina		X
    North Dakota		X
    Ohio			X
    Oklahoma
    Oregon			X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico	X
    Rhode Island		X
    South Carolina		X
    South Dakota		X
    Tennessee		X
    Texas		X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia		X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming		X
    Total	2	24	6

    Table 6. Inclusion of Perpetrators in a State Repository while Under a First Level Review

    Table 6. Inclusion of Perpetrators in a State Repository while Under a First Level Review (Q13 Legal)

    STATE	Yes, the Person Can be Designated	No, the Person Cannot be Designated	No, the State Law or Written Policy Does Not Specify
    N= 52 States
    Alabama		X
    Alaska			X
    Arizona		X
    Arkansas		X
    California			X
    Colorado	X
    Connecticut	X
    Delaware	X
    District of Columbia			X
    Florida			X
    Georgia	X
    Hawaii			X
    Idaho			X
    Illinois	X
    Indiana	X
    Iowa			X
    Kansas		X
    Kentucky			X
    Louisiana	X
    Maine	X
    Maryland		X
    Massachusetts			X
    Michigan	X
    Minnesota	X
    Mississippi			X
    Missouri		X
    Montana			X
    Nebraska	X
    Nevada			X
    New Hampshire		X
    New Jersey			X
    New Mexico			X
    New York	X
    North Carolina		X
    North Dakota	X
    Ohio			X
    Oklahoma			X
    Oregon	X
    Pennsylvania			X
    Puerto Rico	X
    Rhode Island		X
    South Carolina	X
    South Dakota		X
    Tennessee		X
    Texas	X
    Utah	X
    Vermont		X
    Virginia		X
    Washington			X
    West Virginia			X
    Wisconsin			X
    Wyoming		X
    Total	18	14	20

    Table 7. Location of State Repository

    Table 7. Location of State Repository (Q1 Technical)

    STATE	Part of a Statewide Child Welfare Information System	A Stand-Alone Statewide Information System on Child Maltreatment Perpetrators
    N= 36 States
    Alabama	X
    Alaska
    Arizona	X
    Arkansas	X
    California	X
    Colorado	X
    Connecticut	X
    Delaware	X
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X
    Georgia	X
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X
    Indiana	X
    Iowa
    Kansas	X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X
    Maine	X
    Maryland	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X
    Minnesota	X
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X
    Montana
    Nebraska	X
    Nevada	X
    New Hampshire	X
    New Jersey	X
    New Mexico	X
    New York	X
    North Carolina		X
    North Dakota	X
    Ohio	X
    Oklahoma	X
    Oregon	X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island	X
    South Carolina	X
    South Dakota	X
    Tennessee	X
    Texas	X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia	X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming	X
    Total	35	1

    Table 8. Business Control of the Repository

    Table 8. Business Control of the Repository (Q5 Technical)

    STATE	State Umbrella Social Services Agency	State Stand-Alone Child Welfare Agency	State Department of Justice	State Department of Information Technology (Outside of any of the Above)
    N= 36 States.
    Alabama		X
    Alaska
    Arizona	X
    Arkansas	X
    California	X
    Colorado	X
    Connecticut				X
    Delaware	X
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X
    Georgia	X
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois		X
    Indiana		X
    Iowa
    Kansas	X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X
    Maine		X
    Maryland	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X
    Montana
    Nebraska	X
    Nevada		X
    New Hampshire		X
    New Jersey		X
    New Mexico		X
    New York		X
    North Carolina	X
    North Dakota	X
    Ohio
    Oklahoma	X
    Oregon	X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island		X
    South Carolina	X
    South Dakota	X
    Tennessee		X
    Texas		X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia	X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming	X
    Total	21	12	0	1

    Table 9. Inclusion of Tribal Data in the State Repository

    Table 9. Inclusion of Tribal Data in the State Repository (Q13 Technical)

    STATE	Yes, All Tribes	Yes, Certain Tribes Only	No	There are No Tribal Governments or Jurisdictions in My State
    N= 36 States
    Alabama	X
    Alaska
    Arizona			X
    Arkansas				X
    California		X
    Colorado		X
    Connecticut	X
    Delaware	X
    District of Columbia
    Florida		X
    Georgia				X
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois				X
    Indiana	X
    Iowa
    Kansas	X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana			X
    Maine			X
    Maryland				X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan			X
    Minnesota	X
    Mississippi
    Missouri				X
    Montana
    Nebraska	X
    Nevada			X
    New Hampshire				X
    New Jersey				X
    New Mexico	X
    New York		X
    North Carolina			X
    North Dakota			X
    Ohio				X
    Oklahoma
    Oregon		X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island				X
    South Carolina				X
    South Dakota			X
    Tennessee				X
    Texas			X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia				X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming	X
    Total	9	5	9	12

    Table 10. Out-of-State Entities that May Receive Information about Child Maltreatment Perpetrators

    Table 10. Out-of-State Entities that May Receive Information about Child Maltreatment Perpetrators (Q36 Legal)

    STATE	Public Child Welfare Agencies	Employers of School Personnel	Employers of Child Care Personnel	Employers of Personnel Working With Children (Not Child Care or Education)	Police or Law Enforcement	Citizen Review Boards	State Law or Policy does not Specify
    N= 52 States
    Alabama	X		X	X	X	X
    Alaska	X
    Arizona	X				X	X
    Arkansas	X	X	X	X	X	X
    California					X
    Colorado	X
    Connecticut	X				X
    Delaware		X	X		X
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X				X
    Georgia
    Hawaii							X
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X	X		X
    Indiana	X				X
    Iowa	X
    Kansas	X
    Kentucky							X
    Louisiana	X
    Maine	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Maryland	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Massachusetts	X
    Michigan	X				X	X
    Minnesota	X		X	X
    Mississippi							X
    Missouri	X				X
    Montana	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Nebraska					X
    Nevada	X		X	X	X
    New Hampshire	X				X
    New Jersey	X		X
    New Mexico	X				X
    New York
    North Carolina	X		X	X
    North Dakota	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Ohio	X
    Oklahoma
    Oregon	X	X	X	X
    Pennsylvania	X				X
    Puerto Rico		X	X	X	X	X
    Rhode Island	X
    South Carolina	X				X
    South Dakota	X				X
    Tennessee	X	X	X		X	X	X
    Texas
    Utah
    Vermont	X
    Virginia	X
    Washington							X
    West Virginia	X				X	X	X
    Wisconsin	X
    Wyoming	X	X	X	X	X
    Total	37	11	16	12	26	11	6

    Table 11. State Laws or Policies that Prohibit States from Participation in a National Registry

    Table 11. State Laws or Policies that Prohibit States from Participation in a National Registry (Q40 Legal)

    STATE	Yes	Maybe	No
    N= 36 States
    Alabama		X
    Alaska
    Arizona		X
    Arkansas			X
    California
    Colorado		X
    Connecticut	X
    Delaware			X
    District of Columbia
    Florida			X
    Georgia	X
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X
    Indiana		X
    Iowa
    Kansas			X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana			X
    Maine			X
    Maryland	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan		X
    Minnesota		X
    Mississippi
    Missouri		X
    Montana
    Nebraska	X
    Nevada			X
    New Hampshire		X
    New Jersey			X
    New Mexico	X
    New York	X
    North Carolina	X
    North Dakota		X
    Ohio			X
    Oklahoma		X
    Oregon		X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico		X
    Rhode Island	X
    South Carolina	X
    South Dakota			X
    Tennessee		X
    Texas		X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia		X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming		X
    Total	10	16	10

    Table 12. Information on Child Maltreatment Perpetrators Provided for Out-of-State Inquiries

    Table 12 (part 1 of 2). Information on Child Maltreatment Perpetrators Provided for Out-of-State Inquiries (Q5 Practices)

    STATE	Name of Child Maltreatment Perpetrator	Alternative Names	Last Known Address	Date of Birth or Age	Sex/Gender
    N= 36 States
    Alabama	X	X	X	X	X
    Alaska
    Arizona	X		X	X	X
    Arkansas	X		X		X
    California
    Colorado	X
    Connecticut	X	X	X	X	X
    Delaware	X			X
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X	X	X	X	X
    Georgia
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X	X	X	X
    Indiana
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X	X	X	X	X
    Maine	X	X
    Maryland
    Massachusetts
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X			X
    Montana
    Nebraska	X	X	X	X
    Nevada	X	X	X	X	X
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey	X	X
    New Mexico	X	X		X
    New York	X		X	X	X
    North Carolina
    North Dakota	X
    Ohio
    Oklahoma	X	X	X	X	X
    Oregon	X	X		X	X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee	X	X
    Texas
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming	X			X	X
    Total	21	13	11	15	12

    Table 12 (part2 of 2). Information on Child Maltreatment Perpetrators Provided for Out-of-State Inquiries (Q5 Practices)

    STATE	Race/ethnicity	SSN	Date of incident	Type of substantiated maltreatment	Date(s) of disposition	Relationship to child victim(s)
    N= 36 States
    Alabama	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Alaska
    Arizona		X	X	X		X
    Arkansas	X		X	X	X	X
    California
    Colorado		X	X	X
    Connecticut	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Delaware				X
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X		X	X	X	X
    Georgia
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X	X	X	X
    Indiana			X	X
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Maine				X
    Maryland				X	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan			X
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Missouri		X	X	X
    Montana
    Nebraska		X				X
    Nevada	X	X	X	X	X	X
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    New Mexico		X		X	X
    New York	X		X	X	X	X
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    Ohio
    Oklahoma	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Oregon	X	X	X	X		X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island			X	X		X
    South Carolina			X	X	X
    South Dakota
    Tennessee			X	X		X
    Texas
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming	X		X	X
    Total	11	12	19	22	12	13

    Table 13. Conditions Under Which Perpetrators May Be Expunged From a State Registry

    Table 13. Conditions Under Which Perpetrators May Be Expunged From a State Registry (Q34 Legal)

    STATE	State law or written policy specifies the conditions under which the designation of the person as a perpetrator of child maltreatment may be expunged from the data repository	State law or written policy DOES NOT specify the conditions under which the designation of the person as a perpetrator of child maltreatment may be expunged from the data repository.
    N= 52 States
    Alabama	X
    Alaska		X
    Arizona	X
    Arkansas	X
    California	X
    Colorado	X
    Connecticut	X
    Delaware	X
    District of Columbia	X
    Florida		X
    Georgia		X
    Hawaii	X
    Idaho		X
    Illinois	X
    Indiana	X
    Iowa	X
    Kansas	X
    Kentucky		X
    Louisiana	X
    Maine	X
    Maryland	X
    Massachusetts	X
    Michigan	X
    Minnesota		X
    Mississippi	X
    Missouri	X
    Montana	X
    Nebraska	X
    Nevada	X
    New Hampshire	X
    New Jersey	X
    New Mexico		X
    New York	X
    North Carolina	X
    North Dakota	X
    Ohio	X
    Oklahoma	X
    Oregon	X
    Pennsylvania	X
    Puerto Rico	X
    Rhode Island	X
    South Carolina	X
    South Dakota	X
    Tennessee		X
    Texas	X
    Utah	X
    Vermont	X
    Virginia	X
    Washington	X
    West Virginia	X
    Wisconsin		X
    Wyoming	X
    Total	43	9

    Table 14. State Law or Policy Pertaining to Expunging Data from the State Repository

    Table 14 (part 1 of 2). State Law or Policy Pertaining to Expunging Data from the State Repository (Q35 Legal)

    STATE	Successful Challenge to Being Determined to be a Perpetrator of Child Maltreatment	Successful Challenge to Being Designated as a Perpetrator of Child Maltreatment in the Data Repository	Passage of a Certain Amount of Time Since the Person was Determined to be a Perpetrator of Abuse and Neglect	All Children Involved in the Abuse and Neglect Incident Reach a Certain Age
    N= 36 States
    Alabama	X	X	X
    Alaska
    Arizona			X	X
    Arkansas
    California
    Colorado		X
    Connecticut			X
    Delaware			X
    District of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X	X
    Indiana	X	X		X
    Iowa	X	X	X
    Kansas			X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X	X
    Maine	X	X
    Maryland	X	X
    Massachusetts				X
    Michigan	X	X
    Minnesota
    Mississippi	X		X
    Missouri	X	X
    Montana
    Nebraska
    Nevada	X		X	X
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey	X	X
    New Mexico
    New York				X
    North Carolina	X	X
    North Dakota	X		X
    Ohio	X		X	X
    Oklahoma
    Oregon	X	X	X
    Pennsylvania		X
    Puerto Rico	X	X
    Rhode Island	X
    South Carolina	X	X
    South Dakota	X	X
    Tennessee
    Texas	X		X	X
    Utah	X
    Vermont
    Virginia	X	X	X
    Washington
    West Virginia			X
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming
    Total	23	18	15	7

    Table 14 (part 2 of 2). State Law or Policy Pertaining to Expunging Data from the State Repository (Q35 Legal)

    STATE	All Children in the Home are 18 Years of Age or Older	Perpetrator of Child Abuse and Neglect was Acquitted of Criminal Charges Related to the Abuse and Neglect	Death of the Perpetrator
    N= 36 States
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arizona
    Arkansas
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    District of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana		X
    Iowa
    Kansas			X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X
    Maine
    Maryland
    Massachusetts
    Michigan			X
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Missouri
    Montana
    Nebraska
    Nevada
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    New York
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming
    Total	1	1	2

    Table 15. Length of Time to Expunging Data from the State Repository (Q25 Technical)

    STATE	Less Than 5 Years	Between 5 and 10 Years	Between 11 and 20 Years	More Than 20 Years
    N= 36 States
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arizona				X
    Arkansas			X
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut			X
    Delaware
    District of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana				X
    Iowa
    Kansas	X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana			X
    Maine
    Maryland				X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan
    Minnesota			X
    Mississippi
    Missouri				X
    Montana
    Nebraska		X
    Nevada
    New Hampshire		X
    New Jersey				X
    New Mexico	X
    New York				X
    North Carolina				X
    North Dakota		X
    Ohio		X
    Oklahoma				X
    Oregon				X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island				X
    South Carolina
    South Dakota	X
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia			X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming
    Total	3	4	5	10

    Table 16. Number of Years of Data in the State Repository (Q12 Technical)

    STATE	Less Than One Year	1-4 Years	5-9 Years	10-14 Years	15 or More Years
    N= 36 States
    Alabama					X
    Alaska
    Arizona					X
    Arkansas					X
    California				X
    Colorado				X
    Connecticut				X
    Delaware					X
    District of Columbia
    Florida		X
    Georgia		X
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois					X
    Indiana				X
    Iowa
    Kansas					X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana					X
    Maine				X
    Maryland					X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan					X
    Minnesota				X
    Mississippi
    Missouri					X
    Montana
    Nebraska				X
    Nevada			X
    New Hampshire			X
    New Jersey					X
    New Mexico					X
    New York					X
    North Carolina					X
    North Dakota		X
    Ohio			X
    Oklahoma					X
    Oregon			X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island					X
    South Carolina				X
    South Dakota				X
    Tennessee					X
    Texas					X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia					X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming					X
    Total	0	3	4	9	20

    Table 17. Types of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators in the State Repository (Q11 Technical)

    STATE	All Child Welfare Automated Case Information	Child Maltreatment Perpetrators Regardless of Legal Action	Child Maltreatment Perpetrators Who Have Been Convicted of Civil Offenses	Child Maltreatment Perpetrators Who Have Been Convicted of Criminal Offenses	Alleged Child Maltreatment Perpetrators
    N= 36 States
    Alabama		X			X
    Alaska
    Arizona		X
    Arkansas	X	X	X
    California	X	X			X
    Colorado	X	X			X
    Connecticut	X
    Delaware	X	X			X
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X			X	X
    Georgia	X
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X	X	X	X
    Indiana	X	X			X
    Iowa
    Kansas		X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana		X			X
    Maine	X	X			X
    Maryland	X				X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X	X
    Minnesota	X	X			X
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X	X
    Montana
    Nebraska	X				X
    Nevada	X	X		X	X
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey	X		X	X
    New Mexico	X
    New York	X
    North Carolina		X		X
    North Dakota		X
    Ohio	X	X	X	X	X
    Oklahoma	X	X			X
    Oregon	X	X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island	X
    South Carolina	X	X			X
    South Dakota
    Tennessee	X	X			X
    Texas	X	X	X	X	X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia		X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming	X	X			X
    Total	27	25	5	7	19

    Table 18 (part 1 of 3). Available Data Elements on Child Maltreatment Perpetrators in the State Repository (Q15 Technical)

    STATE	Name of Child Maltreatment Perpetrator	Alternative Perpetrator Names	Unique Perpetrator Identifier	Last Known Address	Date of Birth	Age	Sex/Gender
    N= 36 States
    Alabama	X	X		X	X	X	X
    Alaska
    Arizona	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Arkansas	X		X	X	X	X	X
    California	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Colorado	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Connecticut	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Delaware	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Georgia
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Indiana	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Iowa
    Kansas	X		X		X		X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Maine	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Maryland	X	X		X	X	X	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Minnesota	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Montana
    Nebraska	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Nevada	X	X		X	X	X	X
    New Hampshire	X	X			X
    New Jersey	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    New Mexico	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    New York	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    North Carolina	X				X	X	X
    North Dakota	X
    Ohio	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Oklahoma	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Oregon	X	X	X		X	X	X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island	X	X	X		X		X
    South Carolina	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    South Dakota	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Tennessee	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Texas	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Total	35	26	29	29	34	31	33

    Table 18 (part 2 of 3) Available Data Elements on Child Maltreatment Perpetrators in the State Repository (Q15 Technical)

    STATE	Name of Child Maltreatment Perpetrator	Alternative Perpetrator Names	Unique Perpetrator Identifier	Last Known Address	Date of Birth	Age	Sex/Gender
    N= 36 States
    Alabama	X	X		X	X	X	X
    Alaska
    Arizona	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Arkansas	X		X	X	X	X	X
    California	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Colorado	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Connecticut	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Delaware	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Georgia
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Indiana	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Iowa
    Kansas	X		X		X		X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Maine	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Maryland	X	X		X	X	X	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Minnesota	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Montana
    Nebraska	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Nevada	X	X		X	X	X	X
    New Hampshire	X	X			X
    New Jersey	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    New Mexico	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    New York	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    North Carolina	X				X	X	X
    North Dakota	X
    Ohio	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Oklahoma	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Oregon	X	X	X		X	X	X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island	X	X	X		X		X
    South Carolina	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    South Dakota	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Tennessee	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Texas	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Total	35	26	29	29	34	31	33

    Table 18 (part 3 of 3). Available Data Elements on Child Maltreatment Perpetrators in the State Repository (Q15 Technical)

    STATE	Race/Ethnicity	SSN	Type of Substantiated Maltreatment	Date(s) of Disposition	Relationship to Child Victim	Status of Any Legal Proceedings	Last Known Address ZIP Code	Last Known Address County
    N= 36 States
    Alabama	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Alaska
    Arizona	X	X	X	X			X
    Arkansas	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    California	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Colorado	X		X	X	X		X	X
    Connecticut	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Delaware	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Georgia					X
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Indiana	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Iowa
    Kansas	X	X	X	X	X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X	X	X	X			X	X
    Maine	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Maryland	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Minnesota	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Montana
    Nebraska	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Nevada	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    New Hampshire			X	X	X
    New Jersey	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    New Mexico	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    New York	X		X	X	X		X	X
    North Carolina	X	X	X	X	X	X
    North Dakota
    Ohio	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Oklahoma	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Oregon	X	X	X		X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island	X		X	X	X
    South Carolina	X		X	X	X		X	X
    South Dakota	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Tennessee	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Texas	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia	X		X	X	X	X	X	X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming	X	X	X		X		X	X
    Total	33	27	34	32	33	11	29	27

    Table 19. How States Determine which States Receive a Response to an Out-of-State Inquiry (Q11 Practices)

    STATE	Rely on the Person of Interest to Disclose Where He/She has Lived	Rely on Any Information Indicating that the Person of Interest has Resided in that State	First Check Appropriate National Databases (e.g., National Criminal Records Database (NCIC)) and Then Check with States in Which They May Have Had a Previous Record	Contact Neighboring States	Dont Know
    N= 36 States
    Alabama	X	X
    Alaska
    Arizona	X	X	X
    Arkansas	X
    California
    Colorado	X	X
    Connecticut	X	X	X
    Delaware	X	X	X
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X	X	X
    Georgia	X	X
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X		X
    Indiana	X	X
    Iowa
    Kansas	X	X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X	X
    Maine	X	X	X
    Maryland		X	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X	X
    Minnesota	X
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X		X
    Montana
    Nebraska	X	X	X	X
    Nevada	X	X	X
    New Hampshire	X
    New Jersey	X	X
    New Mexico	X	X
    New York
    North Carolina	X	X
    North Dakota	X	X	X
    Ohio					X
    Oklahoma	X	X
    Oregon	X	X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina	X	X
    South Dakota	X	X
    Tennessee	X	X	X
    Texas	X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia	X	X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming	X	X
    Total	31	27	11	2	1

    Table 20. Number of Inquiries for Information from the State Registry Received in the Past 12 Months (Q8 Practices)

    STATE	None	Less Than 50	5099	100499	500999	1,0001,999	2,0004,999	5,000 or More	This Information is Not Collected or Tracked	Dont Know
    N= 36 States
    Alabama				X
    Alaska
    Arizona			X
    Arkansas										X
    California							X
    Colorado										X
    Connecticut									X
    Delaware				X
    District of Columbia
    Florida									X
    Georgia									X
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois		X
    Indiana					X
    Iowa
    Kansas		X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana				X
    Maine										X
    Maryland								X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan										X
    Minnesota				X
    Mississippi
    Missouri							X
    Montana
    Nebraska				X
    Nevada						X
    New Hampshire				X
    New Jersey					X
    New Mexico					X
    New York									X
    North Carolina						X
    North Dakota									X
    Ohio					X
    Oklahoma						X
    Oregon				X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island				X
    South Carolina									X
    South Dakota									X
    Tennessee				X
    Texas										X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia									X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming										X
    Total	0	2	1	9	4	3	2	1	8	6

    Table 21. Benefits to Participating in a National Registry

    STATE	Save Time	Save Money	Direct Local Access	More and More Timely Knowledge is Useful for Child Safety	Help Comply with Foster and Adoptive Parent Checks	Improve Worker Safety	Improve Cross-State Information Accessibility	Single Source of Information	Number of Total Benefits
    N=36 States. Note: Colorado’s did not see any benefits of a National Registry at the time.
    Alabama	X	X	X	X	X			X	5
    Alaska
    Arizona				X				X	2
    Arkansas	X			X		X	X		4
    California	X			X				X	3
    Colorado
    Connecticut	X				X		X		3
    Delaware	X							X	2
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X			X				X	3
    Georgia				X	X			X	3
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X		X	X		X		5
    Indiana	X			X	X		X		4
    Iowa
    Kansas	X	X		X	X			X	5
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X			X			X		3
    Maine	X			X					2
    Maryland	X						X	X	3
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X						X	X	3
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X	X		X			X		4
    Montana
    Nebraska				X			X	X	3
    Nevada	X	X		X					3
    New Hampshire								X	1
    New Jersey	X							X	2
    New Mexico	X			X	X				3
    New York			X	X	X			X	4
    North Carolina				X			X		2
    North Dakota	X	X						X	3
    Ohio				X			X		2
    Oklahoma	X			X				X	3
    Oregon	X				X		X	X	4
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico	X						X	X	3
    Rhode Island	X		X	X			X		4
    South Carolina	X			X	X		X	X	5
    South Dakota	X				X		X		3
    Tennessee	X						X		2
    Texas				X	X		X		3
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia								X	1
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming							X		1
    Total	25	6	3	22	12	1	19	19

    Table 22 (part 1 of 2). Barriers to Participating in a National Registry (continues)

    STATE	Not Enough Data as Currently Designed	Will Need toTalk to Someone Because Too Little Data or Too Difficult to Interpret	Differences in Definitions, Findings, Due Process and Expungement Rules Even within States	Requires Changes to IT Systems and Availabiity of IT Resources (Cost and Personnel)	Requires Staff Resources, including Training (Cost and Personnel)
    N=36 States.
    Alabama		X	X	X
    Alaska
    Arizona	X		X	X	X
    Arkansas	X
    California			X	X	X
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware			X	X
    District of Columbia
    Florida		X	X
    Georgia		X	X
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois				X
    Indiana	X		X
    Iowa
    Kansas			X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana			X
    Maine	X	X
    Maryland			X	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X	X			X
    Minnesota					X
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X		X
    Montana
    Nebraska			X
    Nevada			X
    New Hampshire					X
    New Jersey			X	X	X
    New Mexico			X	X	X
    New York			X	X
    North Carolina
    North Dakota			X		X
    Ohio		X	X	X
    Oklahoma				X	X
    Oregon	X		X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina	X		X	X
    South Dakota		X			X
    Tennessee			X
    Texas	X			X	X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia			X	X	X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming				X	X
    Total	9	7	22	15	13

    Table 22 (part 2 of 2). Barriers to Participating in a National Registry

    State Name	Risk of Legal Challenges	High Potential for False Positives or False Negatives	May be Incomplete, Inaccurate or Out of Date; Difficult to Maintain	If Not All States Participate will not be Comprehensive	Potential Need for Statutory and Policy Changes in order to Participate	Number of Total Barriers
    N=36 States.
    Alabama			X			4
    Alaska
    Arizona	X	X				6
    Arkansas						1
    California					X	4
    Colorado			X		X	2
    Connecticut	X	X	X		X	4
    Delaware			X			3
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X				X	4
    Georgia						2
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X				3
    Indiana			X			3
    Iowa
    Kansas			X	X		3
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X		X			3
    Maine			X			3
    Maryland			X			3
    Massachusetts
    Michigan		X	X			5
    Minnesota						1
    Mississippi
    Missouri		X			X	4
    Montana
    Nebraska					X	2
    Nevada						1
    New Hampshire	X				X	3
    New Jersey		X				4
    New Mexico	X		X		X	6
    New York		X	X			4
    North Carolina					X	1
    North Dakota	X		X			4
    Ohio		X				4
    Oklahoma						2
    Oregon		X	X			4
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island	X	X			X	3
    South Carolina		X	X			5
    South Dakota		X	X			4
    Tennessee						1
    Texas		X	X			5
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia					X	4
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming						2
    Total	9	13	17	1	11

    Table 23. Prevalence Study - State Matches for Three Matching Criteria

    STATE	Total Number of Records 2009	Name Only(N)	Name Only(%)	Name and Sex(N)	Name and Sex(%)	Name, Sex, and Date of Birth(N)	Name, Sex, and Date of Birth(%)
    N=22 States.
    Arizona	3,159	2,808	88.9%	2,686	85.0%	46	1.5%
    Arkansas	7,191	6,636	92.3%	6,295	87.5%	70	1.0%
    California	50,894	45,426	89.3%	43,137	84.8%	307	0.6%
    Colorado	7,868	6,983	88.8%	6,651	84.5%	94	1.2%
    Connecticut	7,033	6,117	87.0%	5,758	81.9%	61	0.9%
    Delaware	1,446	1,295	89.6%	1,223	84.6%	13	0.9%
    Illinois	18,027	16,020	88.9%	15,159	84.1%	137	0.8%
    Indiana	16,050	14,348	89.4%	13,610	84.8%	135	0.8%
    Kansas	883	793	89.8%	746	84.5%	6	0.7%
    Louisiana	6,171	5,553	90.0%	5,296	85.8%	80	1.3%
    Maine	3,304	2,885	87.3%	2,687	81.3%	29	0.9%
    Michigan	21,989	19,376	88.1%	18,338	83.4%	159	0.7%
    Minnesota	3,214	2,714	84.4%	2,576	80.1%	42	1.3%
    Nebraska	3,245	2,812	86.7%	2,668	82.2%	26	0.8%
    Nevada	3,336	2,966	88.9%	2,822	84.6%	66	2.0%
    New Hampshire	730	640	87.7%	606	83.0%	6	0.8%
    New York	57,389	49,014	85.4%	46,124	80.4%	291	0.5%
    Pennsylvania	3,111	2,726	87.6%	2,584	83.1%	22	0.7%
    South Dakota	934	709	75.9%	658	70.4%	18	1.9%
    Texas	46,964	43,075	91.7%	41,295	87.9%	372	0.8%
    Virginia	4,305	3,865	89.8%	3,679	85.5%	33	0.8%
    Wyoming	459	397	86.5%	375	81.7%	9	2.0%
    Total	267,702	237,158	88.6%	224,973	84.0%	2,022	0.8%

    Table 24. Prevalence Study - Number and Percentage of Interstate Matches Using Name by Number of States, by State

    State	1 State(n)	1 State %	2 States(n)	2 States %	3+ States(n)	3+ States %	Total(n)	Total %
    N=22 States.
    Arizona	213	7.6%	176	6.3%	2,419	86.1%	2,808	100.0%
    Arkansas	497	7.5%	396	6.0%	5,743	86.5%	6,636	100.0%
    California	3,598	7.9%	3,071	6.8%	38,757	85.3%	45,426	100.0%
    Colorado	559	8.0%	445	6.4%	5,979	85.6%	6,983	100.0%
    Connecticut	537	8.8%	423	6.9%	5,157	84.3%	6,117	100.0%
    Delaware	1,204	7.5%	1,058	6.6%	13,758	85.9%	16,020	100.0%
    Illinois	883	6.2%	770	5.4%	12,695	88.5%	14,348	100.0%
    Indiana	1,573	11.4%	1,406	10.2%	10,853	78.5%	13,832	100.0%
    Kansas	68	8.6%	53	6.7%	672	84.7%	793	100.0%
    Louisiana	433	7.8%	353	6.4%	4,767	85.8%	5,553	100.0%
    Maine	280	9.7%	247	8.6%	2,358	81.7%	2,885	100.0%
    Michigan	1,633	8.4%	1,243	6.4%	16,500	85.2%	19,376	100.0%
    Minnesota	222	8.2%	211	7.8%	2,281	84.0%	2,714	100.0%
    Nebraska	251	8.9%	168	6.0%	2,393	85.1%	2,812	100.0%
    Nevada	240	8.1%	198	6.7%	2,528	85.2%	2,966	100.0%
    New Hampshire	64	10.0%	63	9.8%	513	80.2%	640	100.0%
    New York	4,505	9.2%	3,546	7.2%	40,963	83.6%	49,014	100.0%
    Pennsylvania	214	7.9%	185	6.8%	2,327	85.4%	2,726	100.0%
    South Dakota	91	12.8%	66	9.3%	552	77.9%	709	100.0%
    Texas	2,932	6.8%	2,683	6.2%	37,460	87.0%	43,075	100.0%
    Virginia	280	7.2%	224	5.8%	3,361	87.0%	3,865	100.0%
    Wyoming	27	6.8%	26	6.5%	344	86.6%	397	100.0%
    Total	20,304	8.1%	17,011	6.8%	212,380	85.1%	249,695	100.0%

    Table 25. Prevalence Study - Percentage of Interstate Matches by Number of Matches and Number of States, by State

    State	Number of Records 2009	Name, Sex, and Date of Birth 1 State	Name, Sex, and Date of Birth 2 States	Name, Sex, and Date of Birth 3+ States	Name, Sex, and Date of Birth 1 Match	Name, Sex, and Date of Birth 2+ Matches
    N=22 States.
    Arizona	46	46			39	7
    Arkansas	70	67	3		57	13
    California	307	306	1		260	47
    Colorado	94	92	2		75	19
    Connecticut	61	61			51	10
    Delaware	13	13			11	2
    Illinois	137	136	1		114	23
    Indiana	135	112	23		87	48
    Kansas	6	6			5	1
    Louisiana	80	79	1		65	15
    Maine	29	28	1		26	3
    Michigan	159	158	1		137	22
    Minnesota	42	42			34	8
    Nebraska	26	26			23	3
    Nevada	66	65	1		55	11
    New Hampshire	6	6			6	0
    New York	291	287	4		250	41
    Pennsylvania	22	22			14	8
    South Dakota	18	17	1		13	5
    Texas	372	368	4		320	52
    Virginia	33	33			28	5
    Wyoming	9	8	1		7	2
    Total	2,022	1,978	44	0	1,677	345

    Table 26 (part 1 of 2). Prevalence Study - Estimated Number of 2009 Interstate Child Abuse and Neglect Perpetrators
    Participating States

    STATE	Interstate Perpetrators in Participating States	Adjusted Interstate Perpetrators in Participating States	Estimated Interstate Perpetrators in Non-Participating States	Estimates Interstate Perpetrators for All States
    N=22 States.
    Arizona	46	73		73
    Arkansas	70	147		147
    California	307	572		572
    Colorado	94	157		157
    Connecticut	61	138		138
    Delaware	13	30		30
    Illinois	137	276		276
    Indiana	135	294		294
    Kansas	6	13		13
    Louisiana	80	153		153
    Maine	29	63		63
    Michigan	159	349		349
    Minnesota	42	91		91
    Nebraska	26	45		45
    Nevada	66	108		108
    New Hampshire	6	16		16
    New York	291	785		785
    Pennsylvania	22	55		55
    South Dakota	18	29		29
    Texas	372	712		712
    Virginia	33	95		95
    Wyoming	9	15		15

    Table 26 (part 2 of 2). Prevalence Study - Estimated Number of 2009 Interstate Child Abuse and Neglect Perpetrators
    Non-Participating States

    STATE	Interstate Perpetrators in Participating States	Adjusted Interstate Perpetrators in Participating States	Estimated Interstate Perpetrators in Non-Participating States	Estimates Interstate Perpetrators for All States
    N=22 States.
    Alabama			89	89
    Alaska			68	68
    District of Columbia			98	98
    Florida			486	486
    Georgia			227	227
    Hawaii			47	47
    Idaho			27	27
    Iowa			147	147
    Kentucky			144	144
    Maryland			220	220
    Massachusetts			446	446
    Mississippi			83	83
    Missouri			65	65
    Montana			25	25
    New Jersey			118	118
    New Mexico			93	93
    North Carolina			69	69
    North Dakota			19	19
    Ohio			297	297
    Oklahoma			105	105
    Oregon			123	123
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island			41	41
    South Carolina			120	120
    Tennessee			109	109
    Utah			153	153
    Vermont			13	13
    Washington			82	82
    West Virginia			76	76
    Wisconsin			46	46
    Total Participation	2,022	4,216	3,636	7,852

    Table 27. Prevalence Study - Percentage Distribution of Maltreatment Type, by Perpetrator Status

    Most Serious Type of Abuse	Inter-State Perpetrator	In-State Perpetrator
    X2=3.242 p=.518 N=22 States.
    Neglect	64.7%	64.7%
    Medical Neglect	4.1%	3.5%
    Emotional maltreatment	5.4%	5.4%
    Physical abuse	18.5%	18.5%
    Sexual abuse	7.3%	8.0%

    Table 28. Prevalence Study Court Involvement by Perpetrator Type, 2009

    Perpetrators categorized into number of associated Children w/ Court Petitions	0	1	2	3+	Total	Rate of Perpetrators associated with any Court Petition per 1000 Perpetrators
    X2 = 124.183 p> .001 N= 22 States.
    Intrastate Perpetrator	216,166	30,499	10,550	8,465	265,680	186.37
    Interstate Perpetrator	1,449	336	118	119	2,022	283.38
    Total	217,615	30,835	10,668	8,584	267,702

    Table 29. Prevalence Study Child Removal by Perpetrator Status, 2009

    Perpetrators categorized into number of associated Children w/ a Removal	0	1	2	3+	Total	Rate of Perpetrators associated with any Removal per 1000 Perpetrators
    X2 = 120.359 p> .001 N= 22 States.
    Intrastate Perpetrator	212,072	33,918	11,008	8,682	265,680	201.78
    Interstate Perpetrator	1,415	352	132	123	2,022	300.2
    Total	213,487	34,270	11,140	8,805	267,702

    Table 29. Prevalence Study Child Removal by Perpetrator Status, 2009

    Perpetrators categorized into number of associated Children w/ a Removal	0	1	2	3+	Total	Rate of Perpetrators associated with any Removal per 1000 Perpetrators
    X2 = 120.359 p> .001 N= 22 States.
    Intrastate Perpetrator	212,072	33,918	11,008	8,682	265,680	201.78
    Interstate Perpetrator	1,415	352	132	123	2,022	300.2
    Total	213,487	34,270	11,140	8,805	267,702

    Table 30. Prevalence Study Child Fatalities Perpetrator Type, 2009

    Perpetrators categorized into number of associated Child Fatalities	0	1	2	3+	Total	Rate of Perpetrators associated with any Removal per 1000 Perpetrators
    No statistical tests were performed due to small incidence rates. N= 22 States.
    Intrastate Perpetrator	264,741	921	14	4	265,680	3.53
    Interstate Perpetrator	2,018	4	0	0	2,022	1.98
    Total	266,759	925	14	4	276,702

     

    Table 15. Length of Time to Expunging Data from the State Repository

    Table 15. Length of Time to Expunging Data from the State Repository (Q25 Technical)

    STATE	Less Than 5 Years	Between 5 and 10 Years	Between 11 and 20 Years	More Than 20 Years
    N= 36 States
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arizona				X
    Arkansas			X
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut			X
    Delaware
    District of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana				X
    Iowa
    Kansas	X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana			X
    Maine
    Maryland				X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan
    Minnesota			X
    Mississippi
    Missouri				X
    Montana
    Nebraska		X
    Nevada
    New Hampshire		X
    New Jersey				X
    New Mexico	X
    New York				X
    North Carolina				X
    North Dakota		X
    Ohio		X
    Oklahoma				X
    Oregon				X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island				X
    South Carolina
    South Dakota	X
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia			X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming
    Total	3	4	5	10

    Table 16. Number of Years of Data in the State Repository

    Table 16. Number of Years of Data in the State Repository (Q12 Technical)

    STATE	Less Than One Year	1-4 Years	5-9 Years	10-14 Years	15 or More Years
    N= 36 States
    Alabama					X
    Alaska
    Arizona					X
    Arkansas					X
    California				X
    Colorado				X
    Connecticut				X
    Delaware					X
    District of Columbia
    Florida		X
    Georgia		X
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois					X
    Indiana				X
    Iowa
    Kansas					X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana					X
    Maine				X
    Maryland					X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan					X
    Minnesota				X
    Mississippi
    Missouri					X
    Montana
    Nebraska				X
    Nevada			X
    New Hampshire			X
    New Jersey					X
    New Mexico					X
    New York					X
    North Carolina					X
    North Dakota		X
    Ohio			X
    Oklahoma					X
    Oregon			X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island					X
    South Carolina				X
    South Dakota				X
    Tennessee					X
    Texas					X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia					X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming					X
    Total	0	3	4	9	20

    Table 17. Types of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators in the State Repository

    Table 17. Types of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators in the State Repository (Q11 Technical)

    STATE	All Child Welfare Automated Case Information	Child Maltreatment Perpetrators Regardless of Legal Action	Child Maltreatment Perpetrators Who Have Been Convicted of Civil Offenses	Child Maltreatment Perpetrators Who Have Been Convicted of Criminal Offenses	Alleged Child Maltreatment Perpetrators
    N= 36 States
    Alabama		X			X
    Alaska
    Arizona		X
    Arkansas	X	X	X
    California	X	X			X
    Colorado	X	X			X
    Connecticut	X
    Delaware	X	X			X
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X			X	X
    Georgia	X
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X	X	X	X
    Indiana	X	X			X
    Iowa
    Kansas		X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana		X			X
    Maine	X	X			X
    Maryland	X				X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X	X
    Minnesota	X	X			X
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X	X
    Montana
    Nebraska	X				X
    Nevada	X	X		X	X
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey	X		X	X
    New Mexico	X
    New York	X
    North Carolina		X		X
    North Dakota		X
    Ohio	X	X	X	X	X
    Oklahoma	X	X			X
    Oregon	X	X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island	X
    South Carolina	X	X			X
    South Dakota
    Tennessee	X	X			X
    Texas	X	X	X	X	X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia		X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming	X	X			X
    Total	27	25	5	7	19

    Table 18. Available Data Elements on Child Maltreatment Perpetrators in the State Repository

    Table 18 (part 1 of 3). Available Data Elements on Child Maltreatment Perpetrators in the State Repository (Q15 Technical)

    STATE	Name of Child Maltreatment Perpetrator	Alternative Perpetrator Names	Unique Perpetrator Identifier	Last Known Address	Date of Birth	Age	Sex/Gender
    N= 36 States
    Alabama	X	X		X	X	X	X
    Alaska
    Arizona	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Arkansas	X		X	X	X	X	X
    California	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Colorado	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Connecticut	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Delaware	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Georgia
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Indiana	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Iowa
    Kansas	X		X		X		X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Maine	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Maryland	X	X		X	X	X	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Minnesota	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Montana
    Nebraska	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Nevada	X	X		X	X	X	X
    New Hampshire	X	X			X
    New Jersey	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    New Mexico	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    New York	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    North Carolina	X				X	X	X
    North Dakota	X
    Ohio	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Oklahoma	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Oregon	X	X	X		X	X	X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island	X	X	X		X		X
    South Carolina	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    South Dakota	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Tennessee	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Texas	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Total	35	26	29	29	34	31	33

    Table 18 (part 2 of 3) Available Data Elements on Child Maltreatment Perpetrators in the State Repository (Q15 Technical)

    STATE	Name of Child Maltreatment Perpetrator	Alternative Perpetrator Names	Unique Perpetrator Identifier	Last Known Address	Date of Birth	Age	Sex/Gender
    N= 36 States
    Alabama	X	X		X	X	X	X
    Alaska
    Arizona	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Arkansas	X		X	X	X	X	X
    California	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Colorado	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Connecticut	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Delaware	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Georgia
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Indiana	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Iowa
    Kansas	X		X		X		X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Maine	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Maryland	X	X		X	X	X	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Minnesota	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Montana
    Nebraska	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Nevada	X	X		X	X	X	X
    New Hampshire	X	X			X
    New Jersey	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    New Mexico	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    New York	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    North Carolina	X				X	X	X
    North Dakota	X
    Ohio	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Oklahoma	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Oregon	X	X	X		X	X	X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island	X	X	X		X		X
    South Carolina	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    South Dakota	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Tennessee	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Texas	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Total	35	26	29	29	34	31	33

    Table 18 (part 3 of 3). Available Data Elements on Child Maltreatment Perpetrators in the State Repository (Q15 Technical)

    STATE	Race/Ethnicity	SSN	Type of Substantiated Maltreatment	Date(s) of Disposition	Relationship to Child Victim	Status of Any Legal Proceedings	Last Known Address ZIP Code	Last Known Address County
    N= 36 States
    Alabama	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Alaska
    Arizona	X	X	X	X			X
    Arkansas	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    California	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Colorado	X		X	X	X		X	X
    Connecticut	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Delaware	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Georgia					X
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Indiana	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Iowa
    Kansas	X	X	X	X	X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X	X	X	X			X	X
    Maine	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Maryland	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Minnesota	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Montana
    Nebraska	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Nevada	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    New Hampshire			X	X	X
    New Jersey	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    New Mexico	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    New York	X		X	X	X		X	X
    North Carolina	X	X	X	X	X	X
    North Dakota
    Ohio	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Oklahoma	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
    Oregon	X	X	X		X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island	X		X	X	X
    South Carolina	X		X	X	X		X	X
    South Dakota	X		X	X	X	X	X
    Tennessee	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Texas	X	X	X	X	X		X	X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia	X		X	X	X	X	X	X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming	X	X	X		X		X	X
    Total	33	27	34	32	33	11	29	27

    Table 19. How States Determine which States Receive a Response to an Out-of-State Inquiry

    Table 19. How States Determine which States Receive a Response to an Out-of-State Inquiry (Q11 Practices)

    STATE	Rely on the Person of Interest to Disclose Where He/She has Lived	Rely on Any Information Indicating that the Person of Interest has Resided in that State	First Check Appropriate National Databases (e.g., National Criminal Records Database (NCIC)) and Then Check with States in Which They May Have Had a Previous Record	Contact Neighboring States	Dont Know
    N= 36 States
    Alabama	X	X
    Alaska
    Arizona	X	X	X
    Arkansas	X
    California
    Colorado	X	X
    Connecticut	X	X	X
    Delaware	X	X	X
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X	X	X
    Georgia	X	X
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X		X
    Indiana	X	X
    Iowa
    Kansas	X	X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X	X
    Maine	X	X	X
    Maryland		X	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X	X
    Minnesota	X
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X		X
    Montana
    Nebraska	X	X	X	X
    Nevada	X	X	X
    New Hampshire	X
    New Jersey	X	X
    New Mexico	X	X
    New York
    North Carolina	X	X
    North Dakota	X	X	X
    Ohio					X
    Oklahoma	X	X
    Oregon	X	X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina	X	X
    South Dakota	X	X
    Tennessee	X	X	X
    Texas	X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia	X	X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming	X	X
    Total	31	27	11	2	1

    Table 20. Number of Inquiries for Information from the State Registry Received in the Past 12 Months

    Table 20. Number of Inquiries for Information from the State Registry Received in the Past 12 Months (Q8 Practices)

    STATE	None	Less Than 50	5099	100499	500999	1,0001,999	2,0004,999	5,000 or More	This Information is Not Collected or Tracked	Dont Know
    N= 36 States
    Alabama				X
    Alaska
    Arizona			X
    Arkansas										X
    California							X
    Colorado										X
    Connecticut									X
    Delaware				X
    District of Columbia
    Florida									X
    Georgia									X
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois		X
    Indiana					X
    Iowa
    Kansas		X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana				X
    Maine										X
    Maryland								X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan										X
    Minnesota				X
    Mississippi
    Missouri							X
    Montana
    Nebraska				X
    Nevada						X
    New Hampshire				X
    New Jersey					X
    New Mexico					X
    New York									X
    North Carolina						X
    North Dakota									X
    Ohio					X
    Oklahoma						X
    Oregon				X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island				X
    South Carolina									X
    South Dakota									X
    Tennessee				X
    Texas										X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia									X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming										X
    Total	0	2	1	9	4	3	2	1	8	6

    Table 21. Benefits to Participating in a National Registry

    Table 21. Benefits to Participating in a National Registry

    STATE	Save Time	Save Money	Direct Local Access	More and More Timely Knowledge is Useful for Child Safety	Help Comply with Foster and Adoptive Parent Checks	Improve Worker Safety	Improve Cross-State Information Accessibility	Single Source of Information	Number of Total Benefits
    N=36 States. Note: Colorado’s did not see any benefits of a National Registry at the time.
    Alabama	X	X	X	X	X			X	5
    Alaska
    Arizona				X				X	2
    Arkansas	X			X		X	X		4
    California	X			X				X	3
    Colorado
    Connecticut	X				X		X		3
    Delaware	X							X	2
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X			X				X	3
    Georgia				X	X			X	3
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X		X	X		X		5
    Indiana	X			X	X		X		4
    Iowa
    Kansas	X	X		X	X			X	5
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X			X			X		3
    Maine	X			X					2
    Maryland	X						X	X	3
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X						X	X	3
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X	X		X			X		4
    Montana
    Nebraska				X			X	X	3
    Nevada	X	X		X					3
    New Hampshire								X	1
    New Jersey	X							X	2
    New Mexico	X			X	X				3
    New York			X	X	X			X	4
    North Carolina				X			X		2
    North Dakota	X	X						X	3
    Ohio				X			X		2
    Oklahoma	X			X				X	3
    Oregon	X				X		X	X	4
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico	X						X	X	3
    Rhode Island	X		X	X			X		4
    South Carolina	X			X	X		X	X	5
    South Dakota	X				X		X		3
    Tennessee	X						X		2
    Texas				X	X		X		3
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia								X	1
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming							X		1
    Total	25	6	3	22	12	1	19	19

    Table 22. Barriers to Participating in a National Registry

    Table 22 (part 1 of 2). Barriers to Participating in a National Registry (continues)

    STATE	Not Enough Data as Currently Designed	Will Need toTalk to Someone Because Too Little Data or Too Difficult to Interpret	Differences in Definitions, Findings, Due Process and Expungement Rules Even within States	Requires Changes to IT Systems and Availabiity of IT Resources (Cost and Personnel)	Requires Staff Resources, including Training (Cost and Personnel)
    N=36 States.
    Alabama		X	X	X
    Alaska
    Arizona	X		X	X	X
    Arkansas	X
    California			X	X	X
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware			X	X
    District of Columbia
    Florida		X	X
    Georgia		X	X
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois				X
    Indiana	X		X
    Iowa
    Kansas			X
    Kentucky
    Louisiana			X
    Maine	X	X
    Maryland			X	X
    Massachusetts
    Michigan	X	X			X
    Minnesota					X
    Mississippi
    Missouri	X		X
    Montana
    Nebraska			X
    Nevada			X
    New Hampshire					X
    New Jersey			X	X	X
    New Mexico			X	X	X
    New York			X	X
    North Carolina
    North Dakota			X		X
    Ohio		X	X	X
    Oklahoma				X	X
    Oregon	X		X
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina	X		X	X
    South Dakota		X			X
    Tennessee			X
    Texas	X			X	X
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia			X	X	X
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming				X	X
    Total	9	7	22	15	13

    Table 22 (part 2 of 2). Barriers to Participating in a National Registry

    State Name	Risk of Legal Challenges	High Potential for False Positives or False Negatives	May be Incomplete, Inaccurate or Out of Date; Difficult to Maintain	If Not All States Participate will not be Comprehensive	Potential Need for Statutory and Policy Changes in order to Participate	Number of Total Barriers
    N=36 States.
    Alabama			X			4
    Alaska
    Arizona	X	X				6
    Arkansas						1
    California					X	4
    Colorado			X		X	2
    Connecticut	X	X	X		X	4
    Delaware			X			3
    District of Columbia
    Florida	X				X	4
    Georgia						2
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois	X	X				3
    Indiana			X			3
    Iowa
    Kansas			X	X		3
    Kentucky
    Louisiana	X		X			3
    Maine			X			3
    Maryland			X			3
    Massachusetts
    Michigan		X	X			5
    Minnesota						1
    Mississippi
    Missouri		X			X	4
    Montana
    Nebraska					X	2
    Nevada						1
    New Hampshire	X				X	3
    New Jersey		X				4
    New Mexico	X		X		X	6
    New York		X	X			4
    North Carolina					X	1
    North Dakota	X		X			4
    Ohio		X				4
    Oklahoma						2
    Oregon		X	X			4
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island	X	X			X	3
    South Carolina		X	X			5
    South Dakota		X	X			4
    Tennessee						1
    Texas		X	X			5
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia					X	4
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming						2
    Total	9	13	17	1	11

    Table 23. Prevalence Study - State Matches for Three Matching Criteria

    Table 23. Prevalence Study - State Matches for Three Matching Criteria

    STATE	Total Number of Records 2009	Name Only(N)	Name Only(%)	Name and Sex(N)	Name and Sex(%)	Name, Sex, and Date of Birth(N)	Name, Sex, and Date of Birth(%)
    N=22 States.
    Arizona	3,159	2,808	88.9%	2,686	85.0%	46	1.5%
    Arkansas	7,191	6,636	92.3%	6,295	87.5%	70	1.0%
    California	50,894	45,426	89.3%	43,137	84.8%	307	0.6%
    Colorado	7,868	6,983	88.8%	6,651	84.5%	94	1.2%
    Connecticut	7,033	6,117	87.0%	5,758	81.9%	61	0.9%
    Delaware	1,446	1,295	89.6%	1,223	84.6%	13	0.9%
    Illinois	18,027	16,020	88.9%	15,159	84.1%	137	0.8%
    Indiana	16,050	14,348	89.4%	13,610	84.8%	135	0.8%
    Kansas	883	793	89.8%	746	84.5%	6	0.7%
    Louisiana	6,171	5,553	90.0%	5,296	85.8%	80	1.3%
    Maine	3,304	2,885	87.3%	2,687	81.3%	29	0.9%
    Michigan	21,989	19,376	88.1%	18,338	83.4%	159	0.7%
    Minnesota	3,214	2,714	84.4%	2,576	80.1%	42	1.3%
    Nebraska	3,245	2,812	86.7%	2,668	82.2%	26	0.8%
    Nevada	3,336	2,966	88.9%	2,822	84.6%	66	2.0%
    New Hampshire	730	640	87.7%	606	83.0%	6	0.8%
    New York	57,389	49,014	85.4%	46,124	80.4%	291	0.5%
    Pennsylvania	3,111	2,726	87.6%	2,584	83.1%	22	0.7%
    South Dakota	934	709	75.9%	658	70.4%	18	1.9%
    Texas	46,964	43,075	91.7%	41,295	87.9%	372	0.8%
    Virginia	4,305	3,865	89.8%	3,679	85.5%	33	0.8%
    Wyoming	459	397	86.5%	375	81.7%	9	2.0%
    Total	267,702	237,158	88.6%	224,973	84.0%	2,022	0.8%

    Table 24. Prevalence Study - Number and Percentage of Interstate Matches Using Name by Number of States, by State

    Table 24. Prevalence Study - Number and Percentage of Interstate Matches Using Name by Number of States, by State

    State	1 State(n)	1 State %	2 States(n)	2 States %	3+ States(n)	3+ States %	Total(n)	Total %
    N=22 States.
    Arizona	213	7.6%	176	6.3%	2,419	86.1%	2,808	100.0%
    Arkansas	497	7.5%	396	6.0%	5,743	86.5%	6,636	100.0%
    California	3,598	7.9%	3,071	6.8%	38,757	85.3%	45,426	100.0%
    Colorado	559	8.0%	445	6.4%	5,979	85.6%	6,983	100.0%
    Connecticut	537	8.8%	423	6.9%	5,157	84.3%	6,117	100.0%
    Delaware	1,204	7.5%	1,058	6.6%	13,758	85.9%	16,020	100.0%
    Illinois	883	6.2%	770	5.4%	12,695	88.5%	14,348	100.0%
    Indiana	1,573	11.4%	1,406	10.2%	10,853	78.5%	13,832	100.0%
    Kansas	68	8.6%	53	6.7%	672	84.7%	793	100.0%
    Louisiana	433	7.8%	353	6.4%	4,767	85.8%	5,553	100.0%
    Maine	280	9.7%	247	8.6%	2,358	81.7%	2,885	100.0%
    Michigan	1,633	8.4%	1,243	6.4%	16,500	85.2%	19,376	100.0%
    Minnesota	222	8.2%	211	7.8%	2,281	84.0%	2,714	100.0%
    Nebraska	251	8.9%	168	6.0%	2,393	85.1%	2,812	100.0%
    Nevada	240	8.1%	198	6.7%	2,528	85.2%	2,966	100.0%
    New Hampshire	64	10.0%	63	9.8%	513	80.2%	640	100.0%
    New York	4,505	9.2%	3,546	7.2%	40,963	83.6%	49,014	100.0%
    Pennsylvania	214	7.9%	185	6.8%	2,327	85.4%	2,726	100.0%
    South Dakota	91	12.8%	66	9.3%	552	77.9%	709	100.0%
    Texas	2,932	6.8%	2,683	6.2%	37,460	87.0%	43,075	100.0%
    Virginia	280	7.2%	224	5.8%	3,361	87.0%	3,865	100.0%
    Wyoming	27	6.8%	26	6.5%	344	86.6%	397	100.0%
    Total	20,304	8.1%	17,011	6.8%	212,380	85.1%	249,695	100.0%

    Table 25. Prevalence Study - Percentage of Interstate Matches by Number of Matches and Number of States, by State

    Table 25. Prevalence Study - Percentage of Interstate Matches by Number of Matches and Number of States, by State

    State	Number of Records 2009	Name, Sex, and Date of Birth 1 State	Name, Sex, and Date of Birth 2 States	Name, Sex, and Date of Birth 3+ States	Name, Sex, and Date of Birth 1 Match	Name, Sex, and Date of Birth 2+ Matches
    N=22 States.
    Arizona	46	46			39	7
    Arkansas	70	67	3		57	13
    California	307	306	1		260	47
    Colorado	94	92	2		75	19
    Connecticut	61	61			51	10
    Delaware	13	13			11	2
    Illinois	137	136	1		114	23
    Indiana	135	112	23		87	48
    Kansas	6	6			5	1
    Louisiana	80	79	1		65	15
    Maine	29	28	1		26	3
    Michigan	159	158	1		137	22
    Minnesota	42	42			34	8
    Nebraska	26	26			23	3
    Nevada	66	65	1		55	11
    New Hampshire	6	6			6	0
    New York	291	287	4		250	41
    Pennsylvania	22	22			14	8
    South Dakota	18	17	1		13	5
    Texas	372	368	4		320	52
    Virginia	33	33			28	5
    Wyoming	9	8	1		7	2
    Total	2,022	1,978	44	0	1,677	345

    Table 26. Prevalence Study - Estimated Number of 2009 Interstate Child Abuse and Neglect Perpetrators, by Participating and Non-Participating States

    Table 26 (part 1 of 2). Prevalence Study - Estimated Number of 2009 Interstate Child Abuse and Neglect Perpetrators
    Participating States

    STATE	Interstate Perpetrators in Participating States	Adjusted Interstate Perpetrators in Participating States	Estimated Interstate Perpetrators in Non-Participating States	Estimates Interstate Perpetrators for All States
    N=22 States.
    Arizona	46	73		73
    Arkansas	70	147		147
    California	307	572		572
    Colorado	94	157		157
    Connecticut	61	138		138
    Delaware	13	30		30
    Illinois	137	276		276
    Indiana	135	294		294
    Kansas	6	13		13
    Louisiana	80	153		153
    Maine	29	63		63
    Michigan	159	349		349
    Minnesota	42	91		91
    Nebraska	26	45		45
    Nevada	66	108		108
    New Hampshire	6	16		16
    New York	291	785		785
    Pennsylvania	22	55		55
    South Dakota	18	29		29
    Texas	372	712		712
    Virginia	33	95		95
    Wyoming	9	15		15

    Table 26 (part 2 of 2). Prevalence Study - Estimated Number of 2009 Interstate Child Abuse and Neglect Perpetrators
    Non-Participating States

    STATE	Interstate Perpetrators in Participating States	Adjusted Interstate Perpetrators in Participating States	Estimated Interstate Perpetrators in Non-Participating States	Estimates Interstate Perpetrators for All States
    N=22 States.
    Alabama			89	89
    Alaska			68	68
    District of Columbia			98	98
    Florida			486	486
    Georgia			227	227
    Hawaii			47	47
    Idaho			27	27
    Iowa			147	147
    Kentucky			144	144
    Maryland			220	220
    Massachusetts			446	446
    Mississippi			83	83
    Missouri			65	65
    Montana			25	25
    New Jersey			118	118
    New Mexico			93	93
    North Carolina			69	69
    North Dakota			19	19
    Ohio			297	297
    Oklahoma			105	105
    Oregon			123	123
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island			41	41
    South Carolina			120	120
    Tennessee			109	109
    Utah			153	153
    Vermont			13	13
    Washington			82	82
    West Virginia			76	76
    Wisconsin			46	46
    Total Participation	2,022	4,216	3,636	7,852

    Table 27. Prevalence Study - Percentage Distribution of Maltreatment Type, by Perpetrator Status

    Table 27. Prevalence Study - Percentage Distribution of Maltreatment Type, by Perpetrator Status

    Most Serious Type of Abuse	Inter-State Perpetrator	In-State Perpetrator
    X2=3.242 p=.518 N=22 States.
    Neglect	64.7%	64.7%
    Medical Neglect	4.1%	3.5%
    Emotional maltreatment	5.4%	5.4%
    Physical abuse	18.5%	18.5%
    Sexual abuse	7.3%	8.0%

    Table 28. Prevalence Study – Court Involvement by Perpetrator Type, 2009

    Table 28. Prevalence Study Court Involvement by Perpetrator Type, 2009

    Perpetrators categorized into number of associated Children w/ Court Petitions	0	1	2	3+	Total	Rate of Perpetrators associated with any Court Petition per 1000 Perpetrators
    X2 = 124.183 p> .001 N= 22 States.
    Intrastate Perpetrator	216,166	30,499	10,550	8,465	265,680	186.37
    Interstate Perpetrator	1,449	336	118	119	2,022	283.38
    Total	217,615	30,835	10,668	8,584	267,702

    Table 29. Prevalence Study – Child Removal by Perpetrator Status, 2009

    Table 29. Prevalence Study Child Removal by Perpetrator Status, 2009

    Perpetrators categorized into number of associated Children w/ a Removal	0	1	2	3+	Total	Rate of Perpetrators associated with any Removal per 1000 Perpetrators
    X2 = 120.359 p> .001 N= 22 States.
    Intrastate Perpetrator	212,072	33,918	11,008	8,682	265,680	201.78
    Interstate Perpetrator	1,415	352	132	123	2,022	300.2
    Total	213,487	34,270	11,140	8,805	267,702

    Table 29. Prevalence Study Child Removal by Perpetrator Status, 2009

    Perpetrators categorized into number of associated Children w/ a Removal	0	1	2	3+	Total	Rate of Perpetrators associated with any Removal per 1000 Perpetrators
    X2 = 120.359 p> .001 N= 22 States.
    Intrastate Perpetrator	212,072	33,918	11,008	8,682	265,680	201.78
    Interstate Perpetrator	1,415	352	132	123	2,022	300.2
    Total	213,487	34,270	11,140	8,805	267,702

    Table 30. Prevalence Study – Child Fatalities Perpetrator Type, 2009

    Table 30. Prevalence Study Child Fatalities Perpetrator Type, 2009

    Perpetrators categorized into number of associated Child Fatalities	0	1	2	3+	Total	Rate of Perpetrators associated with any Removal per 1000 Perpetrators
    No statistical tests were performed due to small incidence rates. N= 22 States.
    Intrastate Perpetrator	264,741	921	14	4	265,680	3.53
    Interstate Perpetrator	2,018	4	0	0	2,022	1.98
    Total	266,759	925	14	4	276,702

     

    APPENDICES

    APPENDIX A. Key Informant Surveys

    • Current Legal and Policy Requirements Regarding Sharing Information on Child Maltreatment Perpetrators
    • Current Practices on Sharing Information on Child Maltreatment Perpetrators
    • Technical Information on Data Repositories of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators

    Form Approved
    OMB Number: 0990-0366
    Expiration Date: 01/31/201

    Feasibility Study for a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators

    CURRENT LEGAL AND POLICY REQUIREMENTS REGARDING SHARING
    INFORMATION ON CHILD MALTREATMENT PERPETRATORS (to be administered on the Internet)

    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0990-0366. The time required to complete this Prevalence Study request is estimated to average 39 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed and complete and review the information collection. If you have comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to:  U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, OS/OCIO/PRA, 200 Independence Ave., S.W., Suite 537-H,Washington, D.C. 20201 Attention: PRA Reports Clearance Officer.

    This survey focuses on the legal and/or written policy requirements regarding maintaining and sharing information on child maltreatment perpetrators and due process protections for such persons.

    The term "perpetrator" is used in this study to indicate any person whom the child protective services agency has found to be responsible for child abuse or neglect. The person need not have been charged with either a civil or criminal offense.

    In general, the term "repository" applies only to the source or sources of data that are currently used by your State to respond to requests from in-state or out-of-state agencies about perpetrators. In-state or out-of-state requests for data may come from agencies investigating child abuse and neglect or from those screening job applicants.

    Some States have more than one repository. If your State has more than one data repository for perpetrators of child abuse and neglect, a separate questionnaire should be completed for each repository. Criminal databases should not be included.

    Please provide the following information before beginning the survey.

    Name of data repository: ________________________

    Agency/department primarily responsible for the content of the repository: ___________

    Agency/department primarily responsible for maintaining the repository: _____________

    A. BACKGROUND

    1. Does State law or written policy define and describe the data repository?

    a. Yes

    Please insert text and provide statutory citation(s), policy, or web link to law or policy: ___________________________

    b. No

    2. Does State law or written policy include a definition of a perpetrator of child abuse and neglect?

    a. Yes

    Please insert text and provide statutory citation(s), policy, or web link to law or policy: ___________________________

    b. No

    3. What is the terminology used in your State in making findings regarding allegations of child abuse and neglect? (check all that apply)

    a. Substantiated or founded

    b. Indicated or reason to suspect

    c. Unsubstantiated or unfounded

    d. Intentionally false allegation

    e. Closed without a finding

    f. Assigned to alternative response, no finding

    g. Other:

    Please list: ___________________________

    4. What is the standard of proof required by State law or written policy in order to make a finding that a person is a perpetrator of child abuse and neglect?

    a. Clear and convincing

    b. Preponderance

    c. Probable cause

    d. Some credible evidence

    e. Reasonable cause

    f. Material evidence

    g. Not specified in law or written policy

    h. Other:

    Please specify: ___________________________

    5. Does State law or written policy specify the classes of people who can be determined to be a perpetrator of child abuse and neglect?

    a. Yes

    b. No (Skip to Q7)

    c. Don’t know (Skip to Q 7)

    6. According to State law or written policy, which classes of people can be determined to be perpetrators of abuse and neglect? (check all that apply)

    a. Parents

    b. Unmarried partners of parents

    c. Other relatives in caregiving roles

    d. Legal guardians

    e. Minor children in the home

    f. Foster parents

    g. Residential facility/group home staff

    h. Child care providers

    i. Educational staff/teachers

    j. Other professionals:

    Please list: ___________________________

    k. Neighbors or friends

    l. Not defined in law or written policy

    m. Other:

    Please list: ___________________________

    7. Does State law or written policy specify which classes of persons, once found to be perpetrators of child abuse and neglect, can be designated as such in the data repository?

    a. Yes

    b. No (Skip to Q9)

    c. Don’t know (Skip to Q9)

    8. According to State law or written policy, which classes of persons, once found to be perpetrators of child abuse and neglect, are designated as such in the data repository? (check all that apply)

    a. Parents

    b. Unmarried partners of parents

    c. Other relatives in caregiving roles

    d. Legal guardians

    e. Minor children in the home

    f. Foster parents

    g. Residential facility/group home staff

    h. Child care providers

    i. Educational staff/teachers

    j. Other professionals:

    Please list: ___________________________

    k. Neighbors or friends

    l. Not defined in law or written policy

    m. Other:

    Please list: ___________________________

    B. DUE PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS—NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION FINDING

    9. Does State law or written policy require that all individuals determined to be perpetrators of child abuse and neglect be notified of the finding?

    a. Yes

    b. Only some are notified:

    Please explain: _______________

    c. No (Skip to Q12)

    10. How are they notified?

    a. By phone

    b. By regular mail

    c. By certified mail

    d. In-person by a child welfare representative with written notice

    e. In-person by a child welfare representative without written notice

    f. Other:

    Please specify: __________

    11. What information is contained in the notice? (check all that apply)

    a. The fact that the agency has made a determination that the person was found to be a perpetrator of child abuse and neglect

    b. An explanation regarding any right to challenge the finding that the person is a perpetrator of child abuse and neglect

    c. The specific type of child abuse and neglect that the perpetrator has committed

    d. The name(s) of the victim(s)

    e. The consequences of being determined to be a perpetrator of child abuse and neglect

    f. The fact that the person will be designated a child maltreatment perpetrator on the data repository

    g. The consequences of being designated a perpetrator of child abuse and neglect in the data repository

    h. The right to challenge being designated a child maltreatment perpetrator on the data repository

    i. The right to challenge being determined to be a perpetrator of child abuse and neglect

    j. The timeframes for any challenges that can be made

    k. Other:

    Please list: _____________

    C. DUE PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS—CHALLENGE OF THE INVESTIGATION FINDING

    12. If a person challenges the finding that he/she is a perpetrator of child abuse and neglect, what is the first level of review?

    a. Review of written documentation by one or more individuals at the agency at a higher level than the caseworker or supervisor

    b. Review of written documentation by an administrative body within the agency

    c. In person hearing before an administrative body within the agency

    d. In person hearing before an administrative body outside of the agency

    e. In person hearing before a judicial body or a judge or magistrate

    f. Other:

    Please specify: __________

    13. Does State law or written policy specify whether the person can be designated a child maltreatment perpetrator in the data repository while the first level of review is being conducted?

    a. Yes, the person can be designated

    b. No, the person cannot be designated

    c. No, the State law or written policy does not specify

    14. What standard of proof is required at the first level of review of the challenge to being found a perpetrator of child abuse and neglect?

    a. Clear and convincing

    b. Preponderance of the evidence

    c. Probable cause

    d. Some credible evidence

    e. Reasonable cause

    f. Material evidence

    g. Other:

    Please specify: ________________

    15. Is there a process to appeal the decision made in the first level of review?

    a. Yes

    b. No (Skip to Q 18)

    Please specify: _______________

    16. If a person challenges the decision of the first level of review, what second level of review is provided?
        1. In-person hearing before an administrative body within the agency
        2. In-person hearing before an administrative body outside the agency
        3. In-person hearing before a judicial body or judge or magistrate
        4. Other:
        17. What standard of proof is required at the second level of review?

            a. Clear and convincing

            b. Preponderance of the evidence

            c. Probable cause

            d. Some credible evidence

            e. Reasonable cause

            f. Material evidence

            g. Other

            Please specify: ________________

            18. Does the State law or written policy specify the length of time to complete a first level review?

                a. Yes:

                Please specify: ________________________

                b. No (Skip to Q 20)

                 
                19. If response to Question 18 is yes, how many cases currently exceed this time frame?

                    a. Please estimate number of cases: _______________

                    b. None

                    c. The agency does not track or collect this information

                    d. Don’t know / Not applicable

                    D. DUE PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS—NOTICE OF THE DESIGNATION AS A CHILD MALTREATMENT PERPETRATOR IN THE DATA REPOSITORY

                    20. Does State law or written policy require that all individuals determined to be perpetrators of child abuse and neglect be notified that they are being designated as a child maltreatment perpetrator in the data repository?

                    a. Yes

                    b. Only some are:

                    Please explain: __________

                    c. No

                    21. Does State law or written policy specify when the person can be designated a child maltreatment perpetrator in the data repository?

                    a. Yes:

                    Please explain: ___________________________________

                    b. No

                    22. Is the notice regarding being designated a child maltreatment perpetrator in the data repository included in the notice about being determined a perpetrator of child abuse and neglect (see Part B)?

                    a. Yes (Skip to Q 25)

                    b. No, the notice is provided separately

                    c. No, no notice is sent (skip to Q 25)

                    23. How is the person notified?

                    a. By phone

                    b. By regular mail

                    c. By certified mail

                    d. In person by a child welfare representative with written notice

                    e. In person by a child welfare representative without written notice

                    f. Other:

                    Please specify: __________

                     

                    24. What information is contained in the separate notice of the fact that they will be designated a child maltreatment perpetrator on the data repository? (check all that apply)

                    a. The fact that the agency has made a determination that the person was found to be a perpetrator of child abuse and neglect

                    b. An explanation regarding any right to challenge the finding that the person is a perpetrator of child abuse and neglect

                    c. The specific type of child abuse and neglect that the perpetrator is responsible for having committed

                    d. The name(s) of the victim(s)

                    e. The consequences of being determined to be a perpetrator of abuse and neglect

                    f. The consequences of being designated a perpetrator on the data repository

                    g. An explanation regarding any right to challenge being designated a child maltreatment perpetrator on the data repository

                    h. The timeframes for any challenges that can be made

                    i. Other:

                    Please specify: _____________

                    E. DUE PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS—CHALLENGES TO BEING DESIGNATED A CHILD MALTREATMENT PERPETRATOR IN THE DATA REPOSITORY

                    25. What is the first level of review for a challenge to being designated a child maltreatment perpetrator in the data repository?

                    a. Review of written documentation by one or more individuals within the agency at a higher level than the caseworker or supervisor

                    b. Review of written documentation by an administrative body within the agency

                    c. In-person hearing before an administrative body within the agency

                    d. In-person hearing before an administrative body outside of the agency

                    e. In-person hearing before a judicial body or a judge or magistrate

                    f. Other:

                    Please specify: __________

                    26. Does State law or written policy specify whether the person can be designated a child maltreatment perpetrator in the data repository while the first level of review of this challenge is being conducted?

                    a. Yes, the person can be designated

                    b. No, the person cannot be designated

                    c. No, the State law or written policy does not specify

                     

                    27. What standard of proof is required at the first level of challenge to being designated a child maltreatment perpetrator in the data repository?

                    a. Clear and convincing

                    b. Preponderance of the evidence

                    c. Probable cause

                    d. Some credible evidence

                    e. Reasonable cause

                    f. Material evidence

                    g. Other:

                    Please specify: ________________

                    28. Is there a process for appealing the decision made in the first level of review of the challenge to being designated a child maltreatment perpetrator in the data repository?

                    a. Yes

                    b. No (Skip to Q 31)

                    If a person challenges the decision of the first level of review, what level of review is provided?

                    a. In-person hearing before an administrative body within the agency

                    b. In-person hearing before an administrative body outside the agency

                    c. In-person hearing before a judicial body, judge, or magistrate

                    d. Other

                    Please specify: ________________

                    What standard of proof is required at the second level of review?

                    a. Clear and convincing

                    b. Preponderance of the evidence

                    c. Probable cause

                    d. Some credible evidence

                    e. Reasonable cause

                    f. Material evidence

                    g. Other:

                    Please specify: ________________

                    Does State law or written policy specify the time within which the first level of review must be completed?

                    a. Yes

                    b. No (Skip to Q 34)

                     

                    If the response to the question above is yes, how many cases currently exceed this timeframe?

                    a. Please estimate the number of cases: __________

                    b. None (Skip to Q34)

                    c. The agency does not track or collect the information (Skip to Q34)

                    d. Not applicable (Skip to Q34)

                     

                    33. What is the average length of delay in responding to these cases?

                     

                    F. EXPUNGEMENT—REMOVING INFORMATION FROM THE DATA REPOSITORY

                    34. Does State law or written policy specify the conditions under which the designation of the person as a perpetrator of child maltreatment may be expunged from the data repository?

                    a. Yes

                    b. No (Skip to Q 36)

                    35. Which conditions for expungement are specified in State law or written policy? (check all that apply)

                    a. Successful challenge to being determined to be a perpetrator of child maltreatment

                    b. Successful challenge to being designated as a perpetrator of child maltreatment in the data reports

                    c. Passage of a certain amount of time since the person was determined to be a perpetrator of abuse and neglect:

                    Indicate number of years: ______

                    d. All children involved in the abuse and neglect incident reach a certain age:

                    Indicate age: ______

                    e. All children in the home are 18 years of age or older

                    f. Perpetrator of child abuse and neglect was acquitted of criminal charges related to the abuse and neglect

                    g. Death of the perpetrator

                    h. Other:

                    Please specify: _____________________

                     

                    G. ACCESS TO CHILD MALTREATMENT PERPETRATOR INFORMATION IN THE DATA REPOSITORY BY OUT-OF-STATE ENTITIES

                    According to State law or written policy, which out-of-state entities can receive information about child maltreatment perpetrators in the data repository? (check all that apply)

                    a. Public child welfare agencies

                    b. Employers of school personnel

                    c. Employers of child care personnel

                    d. Employers of personnel working with children (not child care for education)

                    e. Police or law enforcement

                    f. Citizen review boards

                    g. State law or policy does not specify

                    h. Other:

                    Please specify: _________________

                    According to State law or written policy, for what purposes can information on child maltreatment perpetrators be released from the data repository? (check all that apply)

                    a. As part of an abuse and neglect investigation

                    b. As part of a criminal investigation

                    c. As part of a background check to become a foster or adoptive parent

                    d. As part of a background check for employment or licensing in child care, residential care, or other direct child services

                    e. State law or policy does not specify

                    f. Other:

                    Please specify: ________________

                    H. OTHER LEGAL AND POLICY ISSUES

                    38. Are there any pending legislative or policy changes regarding the definition of a perpetrator of child abuse and neglect?

                    a. Yes

                    Please explain: _____________________

                    b. No

                    c. Don’t know

                     

                    39. Are there any pending legislative or policy changes regarding designating a person as a perpetrator of child maltreatment in this data repository and maintaining such information?

                    a. Yes

                    Please explain: ____________________

                    b. No

                    c. Don’t know

                    I. FUTURE NATIONAL REGISTRY OF CHILD MALTREATMENT PERPETRATORS

                    There is discussion of creating a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators. It is anticipated that if such a registry were created, States would provide only limited information on child maltreatment perpetrators. The data under discussion currently include only the name and State of the person. Please consider the following questions with regard to using such a registry.

                    40. Would State law or written policy prohibit your State from providing information to a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators from the data repository?

                    a. Yes

                    Please explain: _______________

                    b. Maybe

                    Please explain: _____________

                    c. No, under State law we would use another data repository to provide information

                    Please explain: ____

                    d. No, under State law we could not provide any data from any source

                    41. Would State law or written policy prohibit your State from obtaining information from a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators?

                    a. Yes

                    Please explain: __________________

                    b. Maybe

                    Please explain: __________________

                    c. No

                    Please explain: __________________

                    42. Are there any additional barriers to participating in a future National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators?

                     

                    43. What might be the benefits to participating in a future National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators?

                     

                    44. Would the potential benefits of participating in a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators outweigh the potential problems?

                    Yes

                    No

                    Don’t know

                    45. Please provide any additional feedback regarding the establishment of a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators.

                    Form Approved

                    OMB Number: 0990-0366

                    Expiration Date: 01/31/2014

                    Feasibility Study for a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators

                    CURRENT PRACTICES ON SHARING INFORMATION

                    ON CHILD MALTREATMENT PERPETRATORS

                    (to be administered on the Internet)

                    This questionnaire focuses on how your agency currently shares information on child maltreatment perpetrators, and how it requests such information from other States.

                    The term "perpetrator" is used in this study to indicate any person whom the child protective services agency has found to be responsible for child abuse or neglect. The person need not have been charged with either a civil or criminal offense.

                    In general, the term "repository" applies only to the source or sources of data that are currently used by your State to respond to requests from in-state or out-of-state agencies about perpetrators. In-state or out-of-state requests for data may come from agencies investigating child abuse and neglect or from those screening job applicants.

                    Some States have more than one repository. If your State has more than one data repository for perpetrators of child abuse and neglect, a separate questionnaire should be completed for each repository. Criminal databases should not be included.

                    Please provide the following information before beginning the survey.

                    Name of Data Repository: _______________________

                    Agency/department primarily responsible for the content of the repository: _________________

                    Agency/department primarily responsible for maintaining the repository: ___________________

                    A. RESPONDING TO OUT-OF-STATE INQUIRIES ABOUT CHILD MALTREATMENT PERPETRATORS

                    1. Who or what entity is responsible for responding to out-of-state inquiries?

                    a. Central office of State child welfare agency

                    b. Local child welfare agency

                    c. Other agency that maintains the repository

                    d. Other:

                    Please specify: ________________________

                    2. How are out-of-state inquiries received? (check all that apply)

                    a. Phone

                    b. Paper (letter, form, fax)

                    c. Electronically (i.e., e-mail)

                    d. Don’t know

                    e. Other:

                    Please specify: ___________________

                    3. Once a request has been made, does the agency verify the identity or credentials of the requesting entity?

                    a. Yes:

                    Please describe the process: _____________________

                    b. No

                    c. Don’t know

                    4. What is the average length of time that it takes to respond to an out-of-state inquiry?

                    a. Within one business day

                    b. 1–5 business days

                    c. 6–10 business days

                    d. More than 10 business days

                    e. The agency does not track or collect this information

                    f. Don’t know

                     

                    5. What information about child maltreatment perpetrators is routinely provided when responding to out-of-state inquiries? (check all that apply)

                    a. Name of child maltreatment perpetrator

                    b. Alternative names

                    c. Last known address

                    d. Date of birth or age

                    e. Sex/gender

                    f. Race/ethnicity

                    g. SSN

                    h. Date of incident

                    i. Type of substantiated maltreatment

                    j. Date(s) of disposition

                    k. Relationship to child victim(s)

                    l. Status of any legal proceedings

                    m. Zip code of last known address

                    n. County of last known address

                    o. Don’t know

                    p. Other:

                    Please list: _____________________

                    6. What information is routinely provided about the child victim when responding to out-of-state inquiries? (check all that apply)

                    a. Name of victim child

                    b. Alternative names

                    c. Last known address

                    d. Date of birth or age

                    e. Sex/gender

                    f. Race/ethnicity

                    g. Date of incident

                    h. Type of maltreatment

                    i. Date(s) of disposition

                    j. Relationship of perpetrator to child victim(s)

                    k. Name of the worker who conducted the investigation

                    l. Whether the child was placed in foster care as a result of the maltreatment

                    m. Status of any legal proceedings

                    n. Don’t know

                    o. Other:

                    Please list: _____________________

                     

                    7. What is the charge for processing a request for information from out-of-state?

                    a. No charge

                    b. Less than 10 dollars

                    c. 10–49 dollars

                    d. 50 dollars or more

                    e. Don’t know

                    f. Varies depending on request:

                    Please explain: __________________

                    8. Approximately how many out-of-state inquiries about child maltreatment perpetrators were responded to in the last 12 months?

                    a. None

                    b. Less than 50

                    c. 50–99

                    d. 100–499

                    e. 500–999

                    f. 1,000–1,999

                    g. 2,000–4,999

                    h. 5,000 or more

                    i. This information is not collected or tracked

                    j. Don’t know

                    B. MAKING OUT-OF-STATE INQUIRIES

                    9. Who may contact another State to inquire if a person has been determined to be a child maltreatment perpetrator? (check all that apply)

                    a. Central office staff of the State child welfare agency

                    b. Local child welfare agency staff

                    c. Don’t know

                    d. Other:

                    Please list: ________________________

                     

                    10. Indicate for what reasons staff may request information from an out-of-state data repository? (check all that apply)

                    a. Person is under investigation for alleged child abuse

                    b. Person has been found to have abused or neglected a child

                    c. Person is facing civil action which would remove his/her child and place the child in out-of-home care

                    d. Person has applied to be a foster parent

                    e. Person has applied to be an adoptive parent

                    f. Person has applied to be a worker in your agency

                    g. Person has applied to be staff in one of our licensed providers

                    h. Don’t know

                    i. Other:

                    Please list: ______________

                    11. How do staff determine which States should receive an inquiry? (check all that apply)

                    a. Rely on the person of interest to disclose where he/she has lived

                    b. Rely on any information indicating that the person of interest has resided in that State

                    c. First check appropriate national databases (e.g., national criminal records database (NCIC)) and then check with States in which they may have had a previous record

                    d. Contact neighboring States

                    e. Don’t know

                    f. Other:

                    Please specify: _________________

                    12. How is the inquiry usually made? (check all that apply)

                    a. By phone

                    b. Paper (letter, form or fax)

                    c. Electronic

                    d. Don’t know

                    e. Other:

                    Please specify: _________________

                    13. What is the average length of time it takes to receive a response from another State?

                    a. Within one business day

                    b. 1–5 business days

                    c. 6–10 business days

                    d. More than 10 business days

                    e. This information is not collected or tracked

                    f. Don’t know

                     

                    14. Is it common practice to inquire as to the definitions of maltreatment in the State to which the inquiry is being made?

                    a. Yes

                    b. No

                    c. Don’t know

                    15. Is it common practice to inquire as to the standard of proof for substantiating abuse and neglect in the State to which the inquiry is being made?

                    a. Yes

                    b. No

                    c. Don’t know

                    16. If a State has a standard of proof that is less than your State’s standard of proof for substantiating maltreatment, how does this affect the use of the information received regarding child maltreatment perpetrators?

                    Please describe:

                    17. Approximately how many requests for information about child maltreatment pepetrators has your State made to other States during the past 12 months? (Note: If most requests are made by county level investigators and the number is not known, answer "Don’t know.")

                    a. Less than 50

                    b. 50–99

                    c. 100–499

                    d. 500–999

                    e. 1,000–1,999

                    f. 2,000–4,999

                    g. 5,000 or more

                    h. Don’t know

                    C. A FUTURE NATIONAL REGISTRY OF CHILD MALTREATMENT PERPETRATORS

                    There is discussion of creating a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators. It is anticipated that if such a registry were created, States would provide only limited information on child maltreatment perpetrators. The data under discussion currently only include the name and State of the person. Please consider the following questions with regards to using such a registry.

                    18. What might be the barriers related to participating in a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators?

                     

                    19. What might be the benefits of participating in a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators?

                     

                    20. Would the potential benefits of participating in a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators outweigh the potential problems?

                    Yes

                    No

                    Don’t know

            21. Please provide additional feedback regarding the establishment of a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators.

            Form Approved

            OMB Number: 0990-0366

            Expiration Date: 01/31/2014

            Feasibility Study for a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators

            TECHNICAL INFORMATION ON DATA REPOSITORIES
            OF CHILD MALTREATMENT PERPETRATORS

            (to be administered on the Internet)

            This questionnaire focuses on how your agency currently gathers, stores, and shares information on child maltreatment perpetrators.

            The term "perpetrator" is used in this study to indicate any person whom the child protective services agency has found to be responsible for child abuse or neglect. The person need not have been charged with either a civil or criminal offense.

            In general, the term "repository" applies only to the source or sources of data that are currently used by your State to respond to requests from in-state or out-of-state agencies about perpetrators. In-state or out-of-state requests for data may come from agencies investigating child abuse and neglect or from those screening job applicants.

            Some States have more than one repository. If your State has more than one data repository for perpetrators of child abuse and neglect, a separate questionnaire should be completed for each repository. Criminal databases should not be included.

            Please provide the following information before beginning the survey.

            Name of Data Repository: ________________________

            Agency/department primarily responsible for the content of the repository: _________________

            Agency/department primarily responsible for maintaining the repository: _________________

            A. PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS

            Is the repository: (choose one)

            a. Part of a statewide child welfare information system?

            b. A stand-alone statewide information system on child maltreatment perpetrators?

            c. Don’t know

            d. Other:

            Please specify: ____

            2. Is this repository used for:

            a. Answering out-of-state inquiries about child maltreatment perpetrators?

            ___ Yes ___ No ____ Don’t know

            b. Providing non-identifiable information on child maltreatment perpetrators (e.g. National Child Abuse And Neglect Data System (NCANDS) or other reporting)

            ____ Yes ___ No ____ Don’t know

            If your State were to participate in a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators, would this repository be the source of the data?

            a. Yes

            b. No:

            Please provide the name and contact information for the repository that would be the source of data for a national repository: _________________________

            c. Don’t know

            ___ To continue with the survey, please confirm that your repository is used for the following stated functions:

            1. The above repository is used either as part of a statewide child welfare information system or stand-alone statewide information system on child maltreatment perpetrators;
            2. The repository is used for answering out-of-state inquiries and/or providing non-identifiable information on child maltreatment perpetrators; and,
            3. If your state were to participate in a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators, this repository would be the source of data.

            ___ If ALL answers to the three previous questions are NO, please indicate here and do not complete the remainder of the survey.

             

            B. REPOSITORY ENVIRONMENT

            4. What type of agency or department has technical responsibility for the data repository? (i.e., controls the storage of data in the repository)

            a. State umbrella social services agency

            b. State stand-alone child welfare agency

            c. State department of justice

            d. State department of information technology (outside of any of the above)

            e. Don’t know

            f. Other:

            Please specify: _________________________________

            5. What type of agency or department has business control over the data in the repository (i.e., controls the data contained in the repository)?

            a. State umbrella social services agency

            b. State stand-alone child welfare agency

            c. State department of justice

            d. State department of information technology (outside of any of the above)

            e. Don’t know

            f. Multiple agencies:

            Please specify: _________________________________

            6. Please identify the types of agencies that directly provide data to the repository. (check all that apply)

            a. Public child welfare agencies (State and county)

            b. Tribal child welfare agencies

            c. Private children’s services agencies in the State

            d. State and local law enforcement (police, sheriffs’ offices)

            e. District Attorneys

            f. Courts

            g. Don’t know

            h. Others:

            Please specify: _______

            7. Are repository data stored in a relational database?

            a. Yes

            b. No

            c. Don’t know

             

            8. Please identify the agencies that have direct electronic access to the data files stored in this repository. (check all that apply)

            a. Public child welfare agencies (State and county)

            b. Tribal child welfare agencies

            c. Private children’s services agencies in the State

            d. State and local law enforcement (police, sheriff’ offices)

            e. District Attorneys

            f. Courts

            g. Don’t know

            h. Others:

            Please specify: _______

            9. How are data in the repository electronically accessed?

            a. Through a private network

            b. Through the Internet

            c. Both

            d. Neither

            e. Don’t know

            C. CONTENTS OF THE DATA REPOSITORY

            10. Are the data in this repository statewide (including all counties and jurisdictions)?

            a. Yes

            b. No:

            Please explain: ________

            c. Don’t know

            11. What is the scope of the data in this data repository? (check all that apply)

            a. All child welfare automated case information

            b. Child maltreatment perpetrators regardless of legal action

            c. Child maltreatment perpetrators who have been convicted of civil offenses

            d. Child maltreatment perpetrators who have been convicted of criminal offenses

            e. Alleged child maltreatment perpetrators

            f. Don’t know

            g. Other:

            Please specify: ______________

            12. How many years of data does this repository have on child maltreatment perpetrators?

            a. Less than one year

            b. 1–4 years

            c. 5–9 years

            d. 10–14 years

            e. 15 or more years

             

            13. Are data included from Native American or Alaska Native tribes in the State?

            a. Yes, all tribes

            Please specify: ________

            b. Yes, certain tribes only

            Please specify: ________

            c. No

            d. There are no tribal governments or jurisdictions in my State

            e. Don’t Know

            14. What proportion of all persons determined to be child maltreatment perpetrators would you estimate are in this repository?

            a. All or nearly all

            b. Most

            c. About half

            d. Less than half

            e. Don’t know

            15. Which of the following data elements does this repository include for all child maltreatment perpetrators? (check all that apply)

            a. Name of child maltreatment perpetrator

            b. Alternative perpetrator names

            c. Unique perpetrator identifier

            d. Last known address

            e. Date of birth

            f. Age

            g. Sex/gender

            h. Race/ethnicity

            i. SSN

            j. Type of substantiated maltreatment

            k. Date(s) of disposition

            l. Relationship to child victim

            m. Status of any legal proceedings

            n. Zip code of last known address

            o. County of last known address

            p. Other:

            Please specify: ____________

             

            16. Of the data elements identified above, how accurate would you estimate the data are on all child maltreatment perpetrators in this repository? (This question is not asking about missing information but is asking how accurate are the data contained in the data repository.)

            a. Very accurate (better than 95 percent)

            b. Somewhat accurate (90 to 95 percent)

            c. Somewhat inaccurate (70 to 89 percent)

            d. Very inaccurate (less than 70 percent)

            e. Don’t know

            17. Of the data elements identified above, what percent of data on the child maltreatment perpetrators in the repository would you estimate are missing?

            a. Less than 5 percent

            b. 5–9 percent

            c. 10–14 percent

            d. 15–19 percent

            e. 20 or more percent

            f. Don’t know

            18. Which of the following data elements does the repository maintain on all victims of child maltreatment? (check all that apply)

            a. Name of victim child

            b. Alternative names (aliases)

            c. Last known address

            d. Date of birth or age

            e. Sex/gender

            f. Race/ethnicity

            g. Date of incident

            h. Type of maltreatment

            i. Date(s) of disposition

            j. Relationship of perpetrator to child victim(s)

            k. Information regarding the assigned agency/worker

            l. Whether the child was placed in foster care as a result of the maltreatment

            m. Status of any legal proceedings

            n. Unique child identifier

            o. Don’t know

            p. Other:

            Please specify: ____________

             

            19. Of the data elements identified above, how accurate would you estimate the data are on child victims in this repository? (This question is not asking about missing information but is asking how accurate is the data contained in the data repository.)

            a. Very accurate (better than 95 percent)

            b. Somewhat accurate (90 to 95 percent)

            c. Somewhat inaccurate (70 to 89 percent)

            d. Very inaccurate (less than 70 percent)

            e. Don’t know

            20. Does the repository include any of the following additional information? (check all that apply)

            a. Name and contact information of agency or individual that made the initial report of alleged maltreatment

            b. Name and contact information of the person who conducted the child protective services investigation

            c. Name and contact information of the agency that submitted the data to the repository, if different from person listed above

            d. None of the above

            e. Don’t know

            f. Other:

            Please specify: ____________

            D. MAINTAINING DATA ON THE REPOSITORY

            21. How often are data submitted to this data repository?

            a. As created (real-time)

            b. Daily

            c. Weekly

            d. Monthly

            e. Less than once a month

            f. Don’t know

            22. Have data submitted to the repository been validated?

            a. Yes

            b. No (Skip to Q25)

            c. Don’t know (Skip to Q25)

             

            23. Are submitting agencies notified of invalid or incomplete submissions and asked to resubmit corrected data?

            a. Yes

            b. No

            c. Don’t know

            d. Not applicable

            Please explain: ____________

            24. Do you expunge or purge data regularly?

            a. Yes

            b. No (Skip to Q27)

            c. Don’t know (Skip to Q27)

            25. What is the length of time after the maltreatment date or disposition date that data are expunged or purged?

            a. Less than 5 years

            b. Between 5 and 10 years

            c. Between 11 and 20 years

            d. More than 20 years

            26. Under what conditions are data expunged or purged from the data repository? (check all that apply)

            a. Successful challenge to being determined a perpetrator of child maltreatment

            b. Successful challenge to being designated as a perpetrator of child abuse and neglect on the repository

            c. Passage of a certain amount of time since the person was determined to be a perpetrator of abuse and neglect

            d. All children involved in the abuse and neglect incident have reached a certain age

            Indicate age: _________

            e. All children in the home are 18 years of age or older

            f. Perpetrator of child abuse and neglect was acquitted of criminal charges related to abuse and neglect

            g. Death of the perpetrator

            h. Other:

            Please list: _________

             

            E. FUTURE NATIONAL REGISTRY OF CHILD MALTREATMENT PERPETRATORS

            There is discussion of creating a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators. It is anticipated that if such a registry were created, States would provide only limited information on substantiated child maltreatment perpetrators. The data under discussion currently include only the name and State of the person. Please consider the following questions with regard to using such a registry. Your answers to the following questions will be reported in the aggregate. No State-specific data will be reported.

            If your State were to participate in a National Registry of Child Maltreatment

            Perpetrators, which data source would your State use?

            a. Statewide child welfare information system

            b. Not applicable

            c. Don’t know

            d. Other:

            Please specify: _________________________

            28. Which of the following data elements do you anticipate your State would be able to provide if the State decided to participate? (check all that apply)

            g. Name of child maltreatment perpetrator

            h. Alternative names (e.g. married names, aliases)

            i. Last known address

            j. Date of birth or age

            k. Sex/gender

            l. Race/ethnicity

            m. Type(s) of substantiated maltreatment

            n. Date(s) of disposition

            o. Relationship to child victim(s)

            p. Status of any legal proceedings

            q. Don’t know

            r. Other:

            Please specify: _________________

             

            29. If a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators was created, the following persons could be included. Please indicate if your State has the technical capacity to submit data following the criteria below.

            Included	Yes	No	Don’t know
            a. Child maltreatment perpetrators who have been found by the CPS agency to have been responsible for child abuse or neglect	___	___	___
            b. Child maltreatment perpetrators who have been found to be responsible at the highest level of child maltreatment finding under State law	___	___	___
            c. Child maltreatment perpetrators who are 18 years or older at the time of the reported incident	___	___	___
            d. Child maltreatment perpetrators who have been notified per State law or policy of the designation of being a perpetrator in the data repository	___	___	___
            e. Child maltreatment perpetrators whose findings are not under appeal or review	___	___	___

            30. From an operational perspective, how often could your State submit data to a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators?

            a. Once a year

            b. Twice a year

            c. More frequently than twice a year

            d. As often as requested

            e. Don’t know

            31. Would it be easier to:

            a. Submit unduplicated data with minimal information per child maltreatment perpetrator

            b. Submit one record on each child maltreatment perpetrator for each finding of having maltreated a child (duplicated information)

            c. Either is fine

            d. Don’t know

            32. Would it be easier to:

            a. Submit only updates to existing data, including additions and deletions

            b. Resubmit the whole file with a number of years of data

            c. Either is fine

            d. Don’t know

            33. What might be the barriers to participating in a future National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators?

            34. What might be the benefits to participating in a future National Registry Child Maltreatment Perpetrators?

            35. Would the potential benefits of participating in a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators outweigh the potential problems?

            Yes

            No

            Don’t know

            Please provide any additional feedback regarding the establishment of a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators.

             

    APPENDIX B. Methodology: State Recruitment, Key informant Survey, and Prevalence Study

    Recruitment of the States

    WRMA engaged in a single recruitment effort for both the Key Informant Survey and the Prevalence Study, approaching all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.1.0 BACKGROUND

    2.0 DATA SUBMISSION OVERVIEW

    3.0 DOWNLOADING THE PERP FILE AND THE PENCODER SOFTWARE APPLICATION

    4.0 SPECIFICATION FOR CREATING THE DATA FILES.

    4.1 Perpetrator Extract File (PErp File)

    4.2 Unencoded Perpetrator State Dataset (UPSD) File.

    4.3 Perpetrator Encoding (Pencoder) Software Application.

    4.4 Perpetrator State Dataset (PSD) File.

    5.0 USING THE PENCODER SOFTWARE APPLICATION.

    5.1 System Requirements.

    5.2 Installing the Pencoder on a Local Computer.

    5.4 Launching the Pencoder.

    5.5 Location of Input and Output Files.

    6.0 SUBMITTING FILES TO THE REGISTRY PREVALENCE STUDY

    Appendix A. Locating perpetrators in the State system

    1.0 BACKGROUND

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), US Department of Health and Human Services is conducting a study to assess the feasibility of developing and maintaining a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators as mandated under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. Walter R. McDonald & Associates Inc (WRMA) has been contracted to conduct the study. The study has two parts: a Key Informants Survey and a Prevalence Study.

    The purpose of the Prevalence Study is to estimate how frequently child maltreatment perpetrators have substantiated investigations in multiple States. In order to make these estimates possible, States are asked to provide date of birth and encoded (and therefore not identifiable) names for all persons found to be substantiated perpetrators during the previous 5 years (FFY 2005-2009). The Federal fiscal year (FFY) begins October 1^st and ends on September 30^th of the next calendar year. The States are asked to provide information on substantiated perpetrators during October 1^st 2004 and September 30^th 2009.

    The States will be assisted in this task in many ways. Each State will be assigned a prevalence study technical team liaison who will provide technical assistance throughout the data preparation and submission process.

    This document provides a description of the process for preparing and submitting data for the prevalence study.

    2.0 DATA SUBMISSION OVERVIEW

    States participating in the study are requested to provide date of birth and encoded (and therefore not identifiable) names for all persons found to be substantiated perpetrators during the previous 5 years (FFY 2005-2009). Exhibit 2-1, Data Preparation and Submission Process, graphically depicts the activities that comprise the data collection processes. As can be seen in the diagram, States will be assisted in several ways to reduce the effort in participating.

    States will receive from the study contractor, WRMA, the Perpetrator Extract File (PErp File). This file contains all perpetrator IDs (associated with substantiated maltreatments) for the State, for the last five years, which have been submitted to NCANDS. The perpetrator IDs are unduplicated within year. The data will be extracted from the NCANDS Child Files. Section 3.0, Downloading the PErp File and the Pencoder Application, provides step-by-step instructions for downloading the PErp file for your State.

    The PErp file that the State receives (in TXT format) will consist of records with the State abbreviation, submission year, perpetrator ID, report date and the county of report. Refer specification in Exhibit 4.1.1 Data File Specification for the PErp File. The perpetrator IDs are unduplicated within each submission year, but are not unduplicated across the 5 years. If a perpetrator has abused more than one child or has more than one report associated with him/her the latest report date during the reporting period is used for the PErp file.

    Upon receiving the PErp File, State decrypts each perpetrator ID and identifies the corresponding perpetrator in the State information system. Once the perpetrator is identified, the State encrypted perpetrator ID, first initial, last name, and the date of birth are appended to the PErp file to create a new file. This file is called the Unencoded Perpetrator State Dataset (UPSD) file. Refer specifications in Exhibit 4.2.1 Data File Specification for the UPSD File. The last name of the perpetrator in the UPSD file is not encoded. The UPSD file is the input for the encoding software. Appendix A provides examples of how perpetrators can be located in the State system using the PErp file.

    In order to provide a file without the true name of the perpetrator, the State will also receive encoding software application called the Pencoder. The State uses the UPSD file in conjunction with the Pencoder. The Pencoder will encode the last name of each perpetrator in the UPSD file using the New York State Identification and Intelligence System (NYIIS) algorithm. The Pencoder will also validate the input file to make sure that all fields confirm to the specifications. Section 3.0, Downloading the PErp File and the Pencoder Application, provides step-by-step instructions for downloading the Pencoder software application for your State.

    The Pencoder software application creates two output files, the Perpetrator State Dataset (PSD) file and the Results Report file. The PSD file contains all information in the UPSD file, however, with the last names encoded. Refer specifications in Exhibit 4.4.1 Data File Specification for the PSD File. The Results Report file contains the results of the validation of the data for conformity with the PSD file specifications. Both the files should be submitted to the study team through the secure web site described in section 5.0. The perpetrator information in the PSD file will be used to link to the existing NCANDS Child Files, to create the database for the prevalence study.

    3.0 DOWNLOADING THE PERP FILE AND THE PENCODER SOFTWARE APPLICATION

    The PErp file and the Pencoder software application will be available for States to download on a secure website called the Collaborator. Each State will have its own work area on the Collaborator and will not have access to other States information. The State user can download the compressed (zip) PErp file and the Pencoder package from the Collaborator as follows:

    Go to www.wrma.com

    • Click on "Extranet" on the top menu. A new page for the Collaborator will open.
    • Enter the login information provided to you. Contact your registry technical team liaison if you have not received this information.
    • Click on Registry_<State Name>
    • Click on "Documents"
    • Click on "Registry"
    • The "<State Name> PErp File.zip" is the PErp file. Select "Download Document" from the dropdown list on the right and save the file into the C:\Registry folder on the State computer.
    • The "Registry Pencoder <Date>.zip" is the entire Pencoder package. Select "Download Document" from the dropdown list on the right and save the file into the C:\Registry folder on the State computer.

    4.0 SPECIFICATION FOR CREATING THE DATA FILES

    This section provides greater detail as to how the State creates the Perpetrator State Dataset (PSD) file. This includes describing the structure of the file, the data records in the file, the data elements in the records, and the procedures used for constructing the data file. Each State receives the PErp file and submits the Perpetrator State Dataset file.

    4.1 Perpetrator Extract File (PErp File)

    This file contains all perpetrator IDs (associated with substantiated maltreatments) for a State for the last five years (FFY 2005 - 2009). The Federal fiscal year begins October 1^st and ends on September 30^th of the next calendar year. The data have been extracted from the NCANDS Child Files. The perpetrator IDs have been unduplicated within each submission year. A single record consists of the State abbreviation, submission year, perpetrator ID, most recent report date, and the most recent report county. This file is submitted to the State in text format (TXT). The file is compressed (zip) to enable faster download.

    Exhibit 4.1.1 Data File Specification for the PErp File

    FIELD # (POSITION)	LONG NAME (SHORT NAME)	FIELD TYPE & CODES (Example)	FIELD LENGTH
    Record Example: CT200700004356ABDF12052008040 12051990
    1 (1-2)	STATE/TERRITORY (STATEAB)	ALPHABETIC (CT)	2
    2 (3-6)	SUBMISSION YEAR (SUBYR)	NUMERIC (2007)	4
    3 (7-18)	NCANDS PERPETRATOR ID (NPERPID)	ALPHANUMERIC (00004356ABDF)	12
    4 (19-26)	REPORT DATE (RPTDT)	NUMERIC [mmddyyyy] (12052008)	8
    5 (27-29)	REPORT COUNTY (RPTCNTY)	NUMERIC (040)	3

    4.2 Unencoded Perpetrator State Dataset (UPSD) File

    Upon receiving the PErp File, the State decrypts each perpetrator ID and identifies the corresponding perpetrator in the State information system. Once the perpetrator is identified, the State encrypted perpetrator ID, first initial, last name, and the date of birth are appended to the PErp file to create a new file. This file is called the Unencoded Perpetrator State Dataset (UPSD) file. The State encrypted perpetrator ID (STPERPID) is the encrypted version of the ID of the perpetrator in the State information system. In most cases this is the same as the perpetrator ID in the PErp file. The State encrypted perpetrator ID will be used to unduplicate perpetrators across all 5 years. The last name of the perpetrator in the UPSD file is not encoded. The UPSD file is the input for the encoding software application. This file is in text format (TXT).

    Exhibit 4.2.1 Data File Specification for the UPSD File

    FIELD # (POSITION)	LONG NAME (SHORT NAME)	FIELD TYPE & CODES (Example)	FIELD LENGTH
    Record Example: CT200700004356ABDF1220200704000004356ABDFDSRRIA 12051990 Special Instructions: The State encrypted perpetrator ID should be left-filled with zeroes, as needed to the 12 character length. For example, a perpetrator ID of "4356ABDF" is invalid. It should be reported as "00004356ABDF". The report date and the perpetrator date of birth must be in month-day-year (mmddyyyy) format. The unencoded first initial should be in caps. Ex: D for David. The unencoded last name should be right-filled with spaces, as needed, to the 50 character length. If data for a field are unavailable, the field should be filled with blank spaces in accordance with the field length. Do not provide information on unknown, anonymous, and dummy perpetrators. In such cases the first initial (FIRSTINI), last name (LASTNM), and the date of birth (PERPDOB) fields should be blank spaces in accordance with the field length. If a perpetrator cannot be located in the State system the State perpetrator ID (STPERPID), first initial (FIRSTINI), last name (LASTNM), and the date of birth (PERPDOB) fields should be blank spaces in accordance with the field length. Example: The perpetrator substantiation may have been overturned.
    1 (1-2)	STATE/TERRITORY (STATEAB)	ALPHABETIC (CT)	2
    2 (3-6)	SUBMISSION YEAR (SUBYR)	NUMERIC (2007)	4
    3 (7-18)	NCANDS PERPETRATOR ID (NPERPID)	ALPHANUMERIC (00004356ABDF)	12
    4 (19-26)	REPORT DATE (RPTDT)	NUMERIC [mmddyyyy] (12052008)	8
    5 (27-29)	REPORT COUNTY (RPTCNTY)	NUMERIC (040)	3
    6 (30-41)	STATE ENCRYPTED PEPETRATOR ID (STPERPID)	ALPHANUMERIC (00004356ABDF)	12
    7 (42)	UNENCODED FIRST INITIAL (FIRSTINI)	ALPHABETIC	1
    8 (43-92)	UNENCODED LAST NAME (LASTNM)	ALPHABETIC (SMITH, smith, Smith)	50
    9 (93-100)	PERPETRATOR DATE OF BIRTH (PERPDOB)	NUMERIC [mmddyyyy] (12051990)	8

    4.3 Perpetrator Encoding (Pencoder) Software Application

    The last name information in the UPSD file is encoded by the Pencoder software application. The output file from the Pencoder will be similar in format as the input file. However, the last name information will be encoded using the NYSIIS algorithm. The Pencoder software is provided to the State along with the PErp file.

    The Pencoder will also validate the input file to make sure that all fields confirm to the specifications. The validation rules enforced in the Pencoder are as follows:

    A valid State code should be entered in the State abbreviation (STATEAB) field. If invalid data are found, the entire record is removed.

    • The report date (RPTDT) field should have valid month, day and year values. If invalid data are found, the RPTDT field is blanked.
    • The report county (RPTCNTY) field should be three characters in length. Ex: 029, 001. If invalid data are found, the RPTCNTY field is blanked.
    • The NCANDS perpetrator ID (NPERPID) cannot be blank. If the field is blank, the entire record is removed.
    • The NCANDS perpetrator ID (NPERPID) field should be alphanumeric and 12 characters in length. If invalid data are found, the entire record is removed.
    • The State perpetrator ID (STPERPID) field should be alphanumeric and 12 characters in length. If invalid data are found, the entire record is removed. The STPERID field can be blank.
    • The first initial (FIRSTINI) field should be alphabetic. If invalid data are found, the FIRSTINI field is blanked.
    • The last name (LASTNM) field should be alphabetic. The only special characters allowed are the hyphen and the apostrophe. If invalid data are found, the entire record is removed.
    • The perpetrator date of birth (PERPDOB) field should have valid month, day and year values. If invalid data are found, the PERPDOB field is blanked.

    The errors, if any, found during the validation and encoding process are reported in Results <date time>.txt file. This file is also an output of the Pencoder. States are requested to review this document, fix the errors, if any, in the UPSD file, and run it through the Pencoder again. The registry technical team liaison will be available to provide technical assistance.

    More information about using the Pencoder software application is under section 5.0 Using the Pencoder Software Application.

    4.4 Perpetrator State Dataset (PSD) File

    This file is the output of the Pencoder software and is automatically generated after encoding the last names in the UPSD file. This file should be submitted to the prevalence study. This file is in text format (TXT).

    Exhibit 4.4.1 Data File Specification for the PSD File

    FIELD # (POSITION)	LONG NAME (SHORT NAME)	FIELD TYPE & CODES (Example)	FIELD LENGTH
    1 (1-2)	STATE/TERRITORY (STATEAB)	ALPHABETIC (CT)	2
    2 (3-6)	SUBMISSION YEAR (SUBYR)	NUMERIC (2007)	4
    3 (7-18)	NCANDS PERPETRATOR ID (NPERPID)	ALPHANUMERIC (00004356ABDF)	12
    4 (19-26)	REPORT DATE (RPTDT)	NUMERIC [mmddyyyy] (12052008)	8
    5 (27-29)	REPORT COUNTY (RPTCNTY)	NUMERIC (040)	3
    6 (30-41)	STATE ENCRYPTED PEPETRATOR ID (STPERPID)	ALPHANUMERIC (00004356ABDF)	12
    7 (42)	UNENCODED FIRST INITIAL (FIRSTINI)	ALPHABETIC (D)	1
    8 (43-92)	ENCODED LAST NAME (LASTNM)	ALPHABETIC (SRRIA)	50
    9 (93-100)	PERPETRATOR DATE OF BIRTH (PERPDOB)	NUMERIC [mmddyyyy] (12051990)	8

    5.0 USING THE PENCODER SOFTWARE APPLICATION

    The State will receive encoding software application called the Pencoder. The UPSD file is the input to the Pencoder. The Pencoder will encode the last names of the perpetrators in the UPSD file using the New York State Identification and Intelligence System (NYIIS) algorithm. The Pencoder will also validate the input file to make sure that all fields confirm to the specifications.

    5.1 System Requirements

    The Pencoder is implemented as a relational database application in Microsoft Access 2003. Users must have Access 2003 or later installed on their computer. The Pencoder application operates in both Microsoft Windows XP/Vista/7 environments. A single Pencoder Access database file contains all of the system data, programming modules, tables, queries, forms, and reports necessary for the operation of the application. The input to the Pencoder is the State Unencoded State Dataset (UPSD) File. The output from Pencoder is the PSD File along with a report with results from the validation and encoding processing. All intermediate data sets created during the processing are contained within the Pencoder Access database. The Pencoder is distributed as a compiled Access file (MDE) along with essential documentation, including this Guidelines document. The distributed size of the Access file is about 8mb.

    The hardware needed to run Pencoder includes: processor speed of 2.0 GHz, 1-2 GB of RAM and sufficient hard drive space to dedicate a gigabyte to the Pencoder database file (smaller datasets would need less hard drive space).

    5.2 Installing the Pencoder on a Local Computer
     

    The Pencoder is installed by unzipping and extracting the compressed (zip) Perpetrator package file:

    C:\Registry\ Registry Pencoder <Date>.zip

    into the user’s C:\Registry folder. When the extraction occurs, a file structure will be created under the C:\Registry\ folder with the following folder structure and file contents being populated:

    • C:\Registry\Pencoder\Input\BMRegistry.txt (BM test file);
    • C:\Registry\Pencoder\Output\Log.txt (Test file);
    • C:\Registry\Pencoder\Registry Pencoder.mde

    5.4 Launching the Pencoder

    The Pencoder is launched by double clicking on the Access file located at:

    C:\Registry\Pencoder\Registry Pencoder.mde.

    5.5 Location of Input and Output Files

    The UPSD input file is typically stored in the C:\Registry\Pencoder\Input\ folder. The Pencoder places the encoded PSD File in the C:\Registry\Pencoder\Output\ folder. The filename of the output PSD File is of the format: <State>_yyyymmdd_hhmmss.txt, where the date and time in the file name is set to the time the file was opened for writing. The Results Report created by Pencoder is placed in the same folder with the filename format of Results<State>_yyyymmdd_hhmmss.txt.

    6.0 SUBMITTING FILES TO THE REGISTRY PREVALENCE STUDY
    
    A State submits the Perpetrator State Dataset (PSD) file and the Result Report file. The files are submitted to and from the States on the Collaborator.
     

    The State user can upload the files to the Collaborator as follows:

    Go to www.wrma.com

    • Click on "Extranet" on the top menu. A new page for the Collaborator will open.
    • Enter the login information provided to you.
    • Click on Registry_<State Name>.
    • Click on "Documents".
    • Click on "Registry".
    • Click on "Add Document" link on the top of the page.
    • On the "Add Document" page, scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the "Add" button.
    • On the "Open Document" dialog screen, browse and select the PSD file. Click on "Open".
    • Click on "Add Document" link on the top of the page.
    • On the "Add Document" page, scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the "Add" button.
    • On the "Open Document" dialog screen, browse and select the Results Report file. Click on "Open".
    • Click on the "Submit" button to submit your file.
    • The registry technical team liaison for your State will review the files you submitted and will contact you with any questions or concerns.

    Thank you for your participation in the Prevalence Study. If you have any questions please contact the prevalence study liaison assigned to your State. Please contact Brett Brown at bbrown@wrma.com or 301-881-2590 if you do not have the contact information of the liaison.

    Appendix A. Locating perpetrators in the State system

    The PErp file contains all perpetrator IDs (associated with substantiated maltreatments) for a State for the last five years. The data have been extracted from the NCANDS Child Files. The perpetrator IDs have been unduplicated within each submission year. A single record consists of the State abbreviation, year, perpetrator ID, most recent report date, and the most recent report county. This file is provided to the State in text format (TXT).

    There are a number of ways to locate perpetrators in the State system using the information in the Perp file. The typical way is to load the data in the PErp file into a database table in the State system. Since the Perp file is available in TXT format and has only 5 fields the extract, transform, and load process into the database should be straightforward. Once loaded the perpetrator ID can be used to match across the database table(s) with the perpetrator information.

    If the encrypted perpetrator ID (submitted for NCANDS) is not stored in the State system then the PErp file needs to be processed to obtain the unencrypted perpetrator ID. Once the unencrypted perpetrator ID is obtained the entire PErp file with the unencrypted perpetrator ID can be loaded into a database table and matches using the perpetrator ID can be made as mentioned above.

    Another way to locate perpetrators is to extract the required information for all perpetrators for the last five years from the State system. This extract file can be used to match against the PErp file. The UPSD file can be created by combining certain fields from both the files. The matching process might be inefficient as the perpetrator extract from the State system may be large. The use of a Database Management System (DBMS) is preferred.

    APPENDIX D. Case Law Summary: Due Process and Data Repositories of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators

    INTRODUCTION

    The 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution prohibit governments from depriving individuals of their liberty or property interests. These Amendments assure fairness and promise that, before depriving an individual of liberty or property, the government must follow fair procedures. When a person is denied or deprived of one of these interests, that person is said to have been denied due process. There have been numerous court cases in which individuals have challenged procedures used by States to maintain and disseminate information in data repositories as violating their due process rights.

    In recent years there have been many successful Federal and State court challenges to different aspects of child abuse data repositories on due process grounds. There have also been several State and federal court that have dismissed data repository challenges, finding that individuals failed to meet the strict requirements of the "stigma plus" due process test. This test requires individuals to prove an actual injury from being placed on the data repository beyond damage to their reputations. A handful of the most recent challenges to data repositories, however, have taken a less stringent approach to the "stigma plus" test, focusing more on whether the processes afforded alleged perpetrators were constitutionally adequate. It is not clear whether these more recent cases signify a shift in due process jurisprudence relating to state data repositories. These cases have imposed stricter requirements on State repositories with respect to notice, burdens of proof, and the right to a timely hearing

    METHODOLOGY

    Online legal search engines were the primary tool used to identify due process challenges to State data repositories. Databases that house all Federal court cases, including cases from the district courts, appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, were searched. Data ranges were not set so that any Federal court opinion that addressed due process and repositories could be identified. Numerous key search terms were used, in a variety of combinations to maximize search efforts. Terms that were used include due process, child, abuse, neglect, registry, perpetrator, name, and index. Similar search terms were used to identify relevant State cases. State case searches were limited to the last 10 years and an "all State" database was used to search cases. This database includes State lower courts, appellate courts, and State supreme courts. Cases that are currently being litigated were also identified via news articles and regularly checking online legal search engines to ensure that any new case-related filings were identified.

    KEY DUE PROCESS ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE COURTS

    This section provides an analysis of the key due process issues and how State and Federal courts have addressed them in the last 10 to15 years.

    Constitutionally Protected Rights

    To sustain a due process claim, an individual must show that a State or governmental entity or actor deprived them of a "constitutionally protected liberty or property interest…" (Dupuy v. Samuels, 397 F.3d 493, 503 (7th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted)). The test for determining whether placement on a data repository violates due process is well settled in the case law. If the challenge relates to the processes used by the government to place one’s name on the repository, the court will inquire: (1) whether a liberty or property interest has been interfered with and then (2) whether the procedures afforded to the individual were constitutionally adequate. A fundamental property interest exists only if the complaining individual had a legitimate entitlement to the thing he lost. For example, if he loses a job because he was placed on the repository, then he has been deprived of a property interest, but only if he had a contractual entitlement to that job. If he was an at-will employee, then he had no legal entitlement to the job, and thus was not deprived of a constitutionally protected property interest.

    In analyzing whether an individual has a fundamental liberty interest at stake, courts uniformly apply the ""stigma plus"" test. Here, the affected person must show that his or her reputation was injured (or stigmatized), as well as some real injury from either being placed on the repository or losing something to which he or she was legally entitled. To prove this kind of injury, the affected person usually must show that he or she lost or cannot obtain a job in a child-related field. (See, e.g., Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992 (2d Cir. 1994); Dupuy v. Samuels, 397 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2005)).

    In a handful of cases, individuals have also argued that designation on the State data repository implicated their substantive due process right to privacy or right of familial relations, but many courts have rejected those arguments. (See, e.g., Behrens v. Regier, 422 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2005) (court rejected argument that individual’s substantive due process right was violated because there is no fundamental right to adopt); see also Miller v. California, 355 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2004)).

    Burden of Proof

    What constitutes an adequate standard of proof at the substantiation phase (i.e., what amount of evidence is required to substantiate a report) has been addressed by numerous Federal and State courts. Many cases have held that due process requires at least a preponderance of the evidence standard (more evidence supporting substantiation than not supporting it) be used before an individual’s name can be placed on a State data repository. (See, e.g., Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992 (2nd Cir. 1994); Jamison v. Missouri, Dept. of Soc. Serv., 218 S.W.3d 399 (Mo. 2007); In the Matter of W.B.M., 2010 WL 702752 (N.C. App. 2010); see also Petition of Preisendorfer, 719 A.2d 590 (N.H. 1998)). In instances in which a lower standard (e.g., merely having some "credible" evidence of abuse or neglect) has been upheld, some courts have limited their decisions or directed the child welfare agency to apply the standard a certain way. For example, the New York Court of Appeals found that, although the preponderance standard had to be used before disseminating repository information to potential employers, the lower "credible evidence" standard was sufficient if the information was shared only with health care and law enforcement agencies. (Lee T.T. v. Dowling, 664 N.E.2d 1243 (N.Y. 1996)). The 7th Circuit upheld the "credible evidence" standard as long as the child welfare agency looked at all evidence, not just evidence that tends to inculpate the individual. (Dupuy v. Samuels, 397 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2005)). Other courts have upheld lower standards of proof at substantiation, but have done so by relying on the totality of due process protections afforded the individual. For example, an Illinois court upheld a lower standard at substantiation and the first appeal, as long as the second review was done under a preponderance standard and there were no delays in the appeals process. (Lyon v. Dept. of Children & Fam., 807 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. 2004)).

    Although most cases address standards of proof at substantiation, a few have addressed the issue later in the appellate process. For example, the Second Circuit has held that using the "some credible evidence standard" at substantiation and first review carries an "unacceptably high risk of error," which violates due process (Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992, 1004 (2nd Cir. 1994)). In contrast, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the same standard at substantiation and the first appeal because the second appeal uses a preponderance standard. The court acknowledged, however, that, if there were delays in the appeals process, these standards of proof in the early stages would violate the alleged perpetrators’ due process rights. (Lyon v. Dept. of Children & Fam., 807 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. 2004); cf. Doyle v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc., 305 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2002)).

    Right to Notice

    Some courts have held that the State does not need to notify an alleged perpetrator of the investigation until after his name was placed on the repository, even if placement on the repository could affect his employment prospects. (See, e.g., Kindler v. Manheimer, 2007 WL 61889 (Cal. App. Jan. 10, 2007) (involving a school teacher)). However, the courts in Jamison and W.B.M. disagreed, holding that agencies must provide alleged perpetrators with specific notice of the allegations against them before their names are placed on the repository. Jamison v. Missouri, Dept. of Soc. Serv., 218 S.W.3d 399 (Mo. 2007); In the Matter of W.B.M., 2010 WL 702752 (N.C. App. 2010). In Jamison the alleged perpetrators were nurses whose employment could be affected by placement on the repository and thus the right to specific notice in that jurisdiction may be limited to individuals employed in certain professions. In W.B.M., however, there is no discussion of the alleged perpetrator’s profession or possible loss of employment and, thus, it seems that all individuals may have a right to predeprivation notice in that jurisdiction unless an emergency or other compelling reason prevents it.

    Right to a Hearing before Name is Placed on Data Repository

    Some cases have held that individuals did not have a due process right to a hearing before their name was placed on the repository (see, e.g., Red Willow v. Ellenbecker, Civ. 94-5088 (D. S. Dak. 1995)). However, other courts have disagreed, holding that a preplacement hearing must be held unless doing so involved excessive cost or would be unduly burdensome on the State (see, e.g., Lee T.T. v. Dowling, 664 N.E.2d 1243 (N.Y. 1996)). Jamison and W.B.M. are similar to the latter ruling. In both, the courts held that the plaintiffs had a right to a hearing before their names were placed on the repository and based this reasoning in large part on significant delays in scheduling post-placement hearings. The right to a pre-placement hearing in Jamison, however, may be limited to individuals whose employment is affected by placement on the repository, while this is was not the case in W.B.M.

    Who can Challenge Inclusion on a Data Repository

    Courts require different levels of actual or potential harm to an individual when considering their right to challenge inclusion on a repository. In several of the cases discussed above, the affected individuals worked with children and, therefore, their current and future employment opportunities were affected (Jamison v. Missouri, Dept. of Soc. Serv., Angrisani v. City of New York). For cases in which employability in a child care field is at issue, the court’s decision may be influenced by whether or not the State requires potential employers to check the repository and justify a decision to employ someone listed. (Dupuy v. Samuels, 397 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2005)). At least one case found that there was no due process violation and no right to a hearing because there was no real injury when a health care worker was included on the repository, despite her assertion that she would have to self-report it to her credentialing agency (the court noted that, although her name was listed on the repository, the State was not allowed to inform potential employers of that fact without giving her a hearing) (L.C. v. Texas Dept. of Family and Protective Services,No. 03-07-00055-CV, 2009 WL 3806158 (Tex.App.-Austin Nov. 13, 2009)).

    Some cases have taken a broader view of what type of harm warrants due process protections in these cases. In one case discussed above, a father’s listing on the repository was found to violate due process although the court did not discuss whether he worked with children or had an interest in being a foster or adoptive parent (In the Matter of W.B.M.). In others, courts considered foster parents’ lost chance to adopt a specific child in their care, and individuals’ inability to volunteer at a child care organization, in their decisions that the challenge process afforded was inadequate (Lee T.T. v. Dowling, Humphries v. County of Los Angeles) (Note, however that the Seventh Circuit has said that no property interest exists in remaining or becoming a foster parent (Dupuy v. Samuels) and the Eleventh Circuit has said there is no right to adopt unless granted by State law ((Behrens v. Regier, 422 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2005)).

    Right to Appeal Decision Placing Name on Data Repository

    Two relatively recent cases address whether there is a right to appeal a decision to place a name on the repository. In Humphries, a Federal court found the California repository system to be unconstitutional because it did not provide alleged perpetrators a method to challenge their placement on the repository or to have their names removed from it. Humphries v. County of Los Angeles, 554 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. granted,--- S. Ct. ----, 2010 WL 596529 (Feb. 22, 2010) (certiorari granted on an issue unrelated to due process ruling). The court held that the State must create some process that affords individuals a right to challenge the State’s decision at some type of hearing, without outlining exactly what this hearing or process should entail.

    In Finch, New York had an appeals process, but it was effectively unavailable to alleged perpetrators because of extreme delays in scheduling hearings. In its preliminary settlement agreement, the State agreed to grant affected individuals (approximately 25,000) appeals hearings, which had previously been denied to them. Finch v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services, No. 04 Civ. 1668(SAS), 2008 WL 5330616 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2008).

    SUMMARY

    It is not clear how the holdings in the cases discussed above might be used and/or interpreted by other Federal and State courts as the standards of due process required are not consistent among the courts:

    · The Second Federal Circuit and Supreme Courts of Missouri and New Hampshire have required a "preponderance" standard of proof be used before a name is placed on a State data repository. In contrast, the Seventh Federal Circuit and the Illinois Supreme Court have upheld lower standards, as long as other conditions are met.

    · While the Missouri Supreme Court and North Carolina Court of Appeals required that individuals be notified before placement on the repository, a California Court of Appeals did not.

    · The Missouri and New York Supreme Courts and a North Carolina Court of Appeals have required hearings before individuals are placed on the repository in certain circumstances, but a Federal District Court in South Dakota did not, even if it affects the individual’s employment.

    · The Ninth Federal Circuit and a Federal District Court in New York (via a settlement agreement) have both struck down data repository schemes that had either nonexistent or significantly delayed appellate processes.

    It also remains to be seen whether or how these issues may be addressed with the institution of a national data repository of a State or county child protective services agency’s abuse or neglect findings. Changes in States’ due process procedures may require changes in both legislation and practice.

    PERTINENT CASE SUMMARIES

    This section provides a summary of pertinent cases. The cases are summarized by case name in alphabetical order. At the end of the appendix, a list of all the cases identified by State is provided. (See table B.1., Cases Involving Data Repositories of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators.)

    Behrens v. Regier, 422 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2005): The plaintiff accidentally injured his child and, although cleared of criminal liability, was placed on the Florida repository. Plaintiff, who had adopted one child, argued that his name on the repository prevented him from adopting again. The court rejected the argument that his substantive right to familial relations was violated because individuals do not have a fundamental right to adopt. The court also rejected his procedural due process argument relating to reputational harm. The court reasoned that even though he was stigmatized, he could not meet the "plus" prong of the test because he had no right under Florida law to adopt.

    Doyle v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc., 305 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2002): The court rejected the plaintiffs’ procedural due process arguments that they did not receive proper notice of their names being placed on the Illinois repository. One individual did not receive any formal notice and the other received notice late and the documentation contained little elaboration of the charges. The court reasoned that, although formal notice would have been ideal, the fact that both plaintiffs were handed redacted case files detailing some of the evidence against them in advance of their initial hearings constituted adequate notice under the due process clause. The court also addressed issues relating to the standard of proof. Plaintiffs challenged the "credible evidence" standard used to put someone on the repository. Although the court did not make a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of the standard, it said that the low evidentiary standard coupled with the initial determination to place someone on the repository, coming from an ex parte determination, seems prone to produce mistaken findings against innocent individuals, which could lead to erroneous deprivations. The court held that, if all of the facts the plaintiff alleged proved to be true at trial, the low evidentiary standard, coupled with a belated postdeprivation hearing (one plaintiff waited 8 months for a hearing, the other 11 months), would violate plaintiff’s due process rights.

    Dupuy v. Samuels, 397 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2005): The plaintiffs, Illinois child care workers, alleged that their opportunity to respond to abuse/neglect allegations before the agency indicated and disclosed a report was insufficient because it was not an evidentiary hearing. During the predeprivation conference offered they were given the name of the child, the place of the alleged incident, an explanation of the data repository, and the length of time their information will remain on the repository. The court held that the conference was adequate because it provides the accused an adequate opportunity to avoid an unjust determination and because the person presiding over the conference was not involved in the original investigation. The right to such a conference did not apply to people who were not currently child care workers but were hoping to enter the profession; the court held that this violated these child care workers’ right to procedural due process because there needed to be an immediate resolution of issues preventing them from working in their chosen profession. Plaintiffs also alleged that the State was violating their procedural due process rights because appeals of placements on the repository could take up to three years to schedule. The district court mandated (and the 7th Circuit upheld) that the State implement a 35-day expedited appeals process for child care workers. Finally, plaintiffs challenged the State’s use of the "credible evidence" standard when placing names on the repository. The district court held (and the 7th Circuit affirmed) that the standard was sufficient as long as investigators took into account both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence when making a decision.

    Finch v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services, No. 04 Civ. 1668(SAS), Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 5330616 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2008): Child care workers challenged the New York repository system’s delays in scheduling administrative hearings as unconstitutional. The court remanded the case for a trial, but suggested that the State complete hearings within 6 months from the date of request, with decisions issued 30 days from the conclusion of the hearing. In February 2010, the parties agreed to a settlement that has, to date, been preliminarily approved by the court. The settlement agreement says that the State shall give notice to the child care workers that they are on the repository and provide them with an opportunity to receive an administrative hearing to challenge their placement if they are currently waiting for the processing of a check of the repository by an employer or planning to apply for a job in the child care field within 45 days. This administrative review was required to be given "as promptly as possible."

    Humphries v. County of Los Angeles, 554 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. granted,--S. Ct. ---, 2010 WL 596529 (Feb. 22, 2010) (certiorari granted by the U.S. Supreme Court on an issue unrelated to due process ruling): A couple that was erroneously placed on the California repository and could not get their names expunged from the list brought a due process challenge. California did not have an expungement procedure; the only option was to convince the investigator who recommended placement on the repository to change his mind. The court held that California had to allow people placed on the repository an opportunity to challenge their inclusion at some sort of hearing. The court reasoned that, without this remedy, the risk of erroneous placement on the repository was impermissibly high

    Hunt v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d. 2007 WL 2349626 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 1, 2007): Plaintiff lost her license to run a child care facility when placed on the Indiana repository. The court held that the plaintiff’s State licenses entitled her to operate her day care business and therefore amounted to a property interest. The court, however, found that this interest was not violated because the State allowed her to keep her facility open during the course of the investigation. Applying this same logic, the court struck down her liberty interest claim, finding that, even though her reputation was harmed, she could not prove the "plus" prong of the test because the damage to her reputation did not make it impossible to keep her business open even if the harm did lead to fewer clients.

    In the Matter of W.B.M., 690 S.E.2d 41 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010) (W.B.M.): Plaintiff was placed on the repository after allegedly sexually abusing his child. Plaintiff challenged the placement through the available channels at the time, which included a review by the director of the agency, then by the district attorney, and then by a trial court. His request for expunction was denied at each juncture. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the lack of a preplacement hearing violated his due process rights and the higher court agreed, holding that the repository was unconstitutional. The court reasoned that the entire appeals process could take up to 169 days or more. It said that a predeprivation hearing would not be unduly burdensome to the State nor was the act of placing the individual’s name on the repository an action that needed to be taken immediately. The court also struck down the substantial evidence standard used to place the plaintiff’s name on the repository. The court held that, at the predeprivation hearing, a preponderance of the evidence standard was required because the lower standard compromised the individual’s right to be heard in a meaningful manner and it did not allow the fact finder to weigh the evidence properly.

    Jamison v. Missouri, Department of Social Services, 218 S.W.3d 399 (Mo. 2007): Registered nurses at a day care center challenged their placement on the Missouri repository. Their names were left on the repository during their appeal process where potential employers had access to the information. The Missouri Supreme Court found that the nurses had a liberty interest at stake under the "stigma plus" test. The court noted that the nurses were, in effect, barred from future employment in their chosen profession because all State child care providers were required to use the repository to screen employees, and there were serious ramifications (like losing funding or licensing) if an employer hired or continued to employ someone who was on the repository. The court then struck down parts of the repository scheme, holding that (1) the agency’s failure to provide the nurses specific notice of the allegations against them before their names were placed on the repository and reviewed by the investigator or agency director violated their due process rights; (2) the nurses must be afforded some predeprivation notice and opportunity to be heard because of the current system’s long delays before an administrative hearing is scheduled and the high risk of erroneous deprivation, using the low standard of review; (3) the "probable cause" standard at the administrative hearing was too low. It reasoned that such a low standard gave rise to a high risk of erroneous fact finding, and that it placed the brunt of the risk of that error on the individual instead of the agency. The administrative hearing had to have at least a preponderance of the evidence standard to be constitutional; and (4) the administrative hearing procedures that allowed hearsay, testimony not under oath and prohibited cross-examination were sufficient because the nurses were provided notice and an opportunity to present their side of the story through witnesses and could request judicial review of the administrative decision.

    Kindler v. Manheimer, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d. 2007 WL 61889 (Cal. App. Jan. 10, 2007): The court found that notice to a suspected perpetrator is not required until after the child welfare agency reaches its conclusion to include the person’s name on the repository.

    Lee T.T. v. Dowling, 664 N.E.2d 1243 (N.Y. 1996): The court held that due process required that a report of child abuse must be substantiated by a "fair preponderance of the evidence" before being released "as a screening device for future employment." The court also held that, during the investigative process, the information may be retained on the strength of some credible evidence supporting it and released to health care and law enforcement agencies under certain terms and conditions. When the investigation is at an early stage, and the deprivation is a temporary one pending an adversarial hearing, it is not improper for the State to rely on a report that contains some credible evidence.

    Lyon v. Dept. of Children & Fam., 807 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. 2004): A teacher argued that his placement on the Illinois repository violated his due process rights because the credible evidence standard used at the first review was too low and there was too much of a delay in proceedings. The court agreed in part, finding that the delay and the low standard of proof at the first review were not by themselves enough to rise to the level of a due process violation. However, when combined, they deprive the teacher of his due process rights. The court reasoned that, if the "some credible evidence" standard continues to be used at an initial appeal, the secondary administrative appeal, which uses a preponderance standard, cannot be delayed and must occur within the strict timeframes set in State law.

    Miller v. California, 355 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2004): The court rejected a grandparent custodian’s challenge to having his name on the California repository. The court struck down his substantive due process argument because grandparents do not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in making decisions about children in their care. The court also rejected his harm to reputation argument, finding that, because he retained custody of the children, he suffered no change in legal status as a result of being on the repository.

    Petition of Preisendorfer, 719 A.2d 590 (N.H. 1998): The plaintiff, a special education aide, challenged the "probable cause" standard used to place his name on the New Hampshire data repository. The court held that use of the standard for individuals whose employment was at stake was too low and violated due process. The court reasoned that the risk of erroneous error was too great to the individual and the additional burden on the government, by using a higher preponderance standard, was minimal.

    Red Willow v. Ellenbecker, Civ. 94-5088 (S. Dak. 1995): Plaintiffs challenged their placement on the South Dakota repository, arguing that the appeals procedures provided in statute violated their procedural due process rights. Under the South Dakota law, individuals were informed that their names were on the repository after the fact. Upon notice they could request an informal review, an administrative hearing, and a judicial review. The court held that additional procedural protections were not constitutionally required, citing cases that held that predeprivation procedures are unduly cumbersome and duplicative of post-deprivation processes.

    Smith ex rel. Smith v. Siegelman, 322 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2003): A minor challenged his placement on the Alabama repository. The court never reached his arguments that the hearing provided was insufficient (he was not allowed to call or cross-examine witnesses) because he failed the "stigma plus" test. The court found that, although he may have been stigmatized, he suffered no tangible loss as a result. The court reasoned that any damage done to his future job prospects stemmed from a reputational injury only, which is insufficient to satisfy the "plus" prong.

    Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992 (2d Cir. 1994): The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of using a "credible evidence" standard to place an individual’s name on the New York repository. Although the repository scheme allowed the individual to immediately appeal the decision, the burden of proof remained the same. It was not until after an individual was fired from a job or denied employment that the appellate reviewer would use a "preponderance" standard. The court held that using such a low standard of proof created too high a risk of erroneous deprivation of individuals’ constitutional rights, noting that approximately 75 percent of cases appealed were later expunged from the repository.

    Table D.1. Cases Involving Data Repositories of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators

    CASE NAME	STATE	COURT LEVEL	YEAR	PUBLISHED	HOLDING
    Vancleave v. Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Services	AR	State Court of Appeals	2007	Published	Administrative appeals process to remove name from repository was not an impermissible relitigation of criminal child abuse case, where individual was found not guilty.
    C.C.B. v. Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Services	AR	Supreme Court of Arkansas	2007	Published	Individual’s argument that administrative law judge was biased simply because he worked for the agency bringing the case was rejected.
    Burt v. Orange County	CA	State Court of Appeal	2004	Published	California statute implicitly includes a right to challenge being placed on the repository.
    Miller v. California	CA	Ninth Federal Circuit	2004	Published	Grandparent custodian’s placement on the repository did not negate his substantive due process right because he does not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in making decisions about children in his care.
    Kindler v. Manheimer	CA	Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California	2007	Not Officially Published	Notice to a suspected perpetrator is not required until after the agency places his name on the repository.
    Humphries v. County of Los Angeles	CA	Ninth Federal Circuit	2009	Published	Repository violated due process by failing to afford persons listed a fair opportunity to challenge allegations against them.
    Doe v. State Dept of Children & Families	CT	State Superior Court	2004	Not Published	Prohibiting children from testifying at substantiation hearings does not violate individuals’ right to confront or cross-examine witnesses.
    Kimberly L. v. Hamilton	CT	State Superior Court	2008	Not Published	A several-week delay in completing the child abuse investigation did not violate individual’s due process rights.
    Hogan v. Department of Children and Families	CT	Supreme Court of Connecticut	2009	Published	Rejected argument that repository scheme was so vague that it was unclear what conduct would result in designation on the repository.
    State of Georgia et al. v. Jackson	GA	Supreme Court of Georgia	1998	Published	Struck down repository scheme as unconstitutional because it precluded perpetrators from compelling a child’s testimony during administrative proceedings.
    Smith ex rel. Smith v. Siegelman	FL	Eleventh Federal Circuit	2003	Published	Minor’s due process rights were not violated when only possible future job pro0spects may have been hindered by placement on the repository
    Doyle v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc.	IL	Seventh Federal Circuit	2002	Published	Formal notice was not necessary to child care workers whose names were on the repository and credible evidence standard was prone to error.
    Boyd v. Owen	IL	Seventh Federal Circuit En Banc	2007	Published	"Credible evidence" standard was facially constitutional, but it violates an individual’s due process rights when the agency only reviews inculpatory evidence.
    Hunt v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration	IN	Federal District Court	2007	Not Reported	Placement of child care facility owner’s name on the repository did not infringe on her due process rights because she was able to keep her business open.
    Howard v. Malac	MA	Federal District Court	2003	Published	Failure to notify individual of placement on the repository, by itself, does not constitute a due process violation when there is no cognizable property or liberty interest at stake.
    Pease v. Burns	MA	Federal District Court	2010	Published	Although a several-year delay in hearing violated due process, the case was dismissed because none of the named defendants were responsible.
    Hodge v. Jones	MD	Fourth Federal Circuit	1994	Published	Maintaining "unsubstantiated" reports in the data repository did not violate due process when only agency representatives could access the information.
    Owens v. P.G. County Dept. of Social Services	MD	State Court of Special Appeals	2008	Published	Rejected argument that name should be removed from repository because agency investigation took longer than allowed by statute.
    Jamison v. Missouri, Department of Social Services	MO	Missouri Supreme Court En Banc	2007	Published	Parts of repository scheme violated due process, relating to notice, standard of proof, and right to a hearing.
    In the Matter of W.B.M	NC	State Court of Appeals	2010	Published	Preponderance standard required at hearing before name is placed on repository.
    Petition of Preisendorfer	NH	Supreme Court of New Hampshire	1998	Published	Preponderance of the evidence standard must apply in a hearing on whether to list individual on repository, when the individual’s job is at stake.
    Neason v. Clark Co.	NV	Federal District Court	2005	Published	Rejected argument that placement on out-of-State repository resulted in inability to get a job when there was no evidence that repository information was relied upon in making job decisions and individual did not lose a job she already had.
    Valmonte v. Bane	NY	Second Federal Circuit	1994	Published	Use of the "credible evidence" standard carried too high a risk of error when placing individuals’ names on the repository.
    Glasford v. N.Y. State Dept. of Soc. Serv.	NY	Federal District Court	1992	Published	Family court determination of abuse creates a nonrebuttable presumption that individual committed the alleged abuse in the context of the administrative hearing challenging designation on the repository.
    Tafuto v. New York State Office for Children and Family Services	NY	Federal District Court	2009	Slip Copy	Disclosure of investigation to daycare provider’s clients and licensing authority before an appeals hearing did not violate due process when the information was not shared with a potential employer.
    Maude v. N.Y. State Office of Children and Family Services	NY	State Supreme Court Appellate Division, New York	2010	Slip Opinion	Expungement hearings do not need to be presided over by administrative law judges.
    C.E. v. Dept of Public Welfare	PA	State Commonwealth Court	2007	Published	Individual must be given a fair opportunity to confront or cross-examine child witness at hearing to challenge placement on repository.
    F.V.C. v. Department of Public Welfare	PA	State Commonwealth Court	2010	Published	Under State law, mother could appeal expungement of grandfather’s name from repository even though she was not the subject of the abuse report.
    Red Willow v. Ellenbecker	SD	Federal District Court	1995	Unpublished	Upheld practice of informing individuals of repository designation after placement on repository, finding that predeprivation procedures are unduly cumbersome and duplicative of postdeprivation processes.
    Dubray v. Dept. of Social Services	SD	Supreme Court of South Dakota	2004	Published	Individual was denied a meaningful opportunity to review agency’s initial decision when agency’s case was entirely based on three documents that were inadmissible hearsay.
    Vigil v. Division of Child and Family Services	UT	State Court of Appeals	2005	Published	Failure to notify an individual of specific allegations that the agency would raise at an administrative hearing violated due process.

    APPENDIX E. State Comparison of Select Due Process Requirements

    This table provides a summary of State survey responses relating to critical Due Process of Law issues, often addressed in court cases challenging the operation of State data repositories. Answers in each field reflect survey responses from States, cross-tabulated with each other, as well as staff-performed statutory and case law research. "Yes" and "no" responses reflect State answers to the survey or answers found through staff-performed case law or statutory research. "Does not specify" answers reflect that statutory research was conducted and statutory language addressing the question was not identified. State policy, regulations or rules were not reviewed. "Missing" answers mean that the State did not participate in the survey and staff did not conduct research to answer the questions.

    Requires Preponderance of the Evidence Standard for Substantiation

    Thirty-three States reported that they use a "preponderance of the evidence" standard or higher to substantiate a maltreatment finding. Nineteen States reported that they use some lower standard, such as "credible evidence" or "reasonable cause." Some courts, such as the Second Federal Circuit and the Supreme Courts of Missouri and Hew Hampshire, have required that the "preponderance" standard be used before any name is placed on a State data repository. However, other courts in the Seventh Federal Circuit and Illinois have upheld lower standards, as long as other conditions are met.

    Notice of Designation on Data Repository

    Thirty-one States reported that they notify individuals that they will be designated (placed) on the State data repository. Sixteen States reported that they did not provide such notification, and four States indicated that they notified individuals only under certain circumstances. Several State Supreme Courts have held that to satisfy due process, States must provide alleged perpetrators with specific notice of the allegations before their names are placed on a State data repository. However, one case, an unpublished State court opinion in California, has held otherwise.

    Right to Challenge Designation on Data Repository

    Twenty-eight States offer at least one level of review for alleged perpetrators to challenge designation on a State data repository. Only one State indicated that they do not. However, 17 States did not respond to this question. Federal courts in the Ninth Circuit and the Federal District of New York have struck down State data repositories as unconstitutional that had nonexistent or significantly delayed review processes.

    Placement on State Data Repository during Appeal of Designation

    Nineteen States reported that they placed individuals’ names on the State data repository while there was an appeal pending of their designation. Ten States reported that they did not add a name to the repository while an appeal was pending. Twenty States did not specify whether they did or did not delay placement on the repository while an appeal was pending. Several State court cases have required hearings before individuals are placed on State data repositories in certain circumstances (e.g., when their employment is at stake).

    Appendix E: State Comparison of Select Due Process Requirements

    STATE	REQUIRES PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD FOR SUBSTANTIATION Is the state required by case law, statute or policy to use a preponderance of the evidence standard or higher when making the substantiation decision?	NOTICE OF DESIGNATION ON DATA REPOSITORY Is the state required by case law, statute or policy to notify individuals that they will be designated a perpetrator on the state data repository?	RIGHT TO CHALLENGE DESIGNATION ON DATA REPOSITORY Is a first level of review provided for a person to challenge being designated a child maltreatment perpetrator in the data repository?	PLACEMENT ON STATE DATA REPOSITORY DURING APPEAL OF DESIGNATION Does case law, statute or written policy allow an individual to be added to the state data repository while the first level of review of designation on the state data repository is being conducted?
    Alabama	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
    Alaska	No	No	Missing	Does not specify
    Arizona	No	Yes	Once found to have committed abuse or neglect by a preponderance of the evidence or probable cause standard of evidence, perpetrator is automatically placed on the Central Registry.	No
    Arkansas	Yes	Yes	Yes	Missing
    California	Yes	Yes	According to Humphries v. County of Los Angeles (9th Federal Circuit, 2009), California's repository violated due process by failing to afford persons listed a fair opportunity to challenge allegations against them.	Does not specify. According to Kindler v. Manheimer (unpublished opinion, State Court of Appeals, 2007), notice to a suspected perpetrator is not required until after the agency places his name on the repository.
    Colorado	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
    Connecticut	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
    Delaware	Yes	Yes	Yes	Does not specify
    District of Columbia	No	Yes	Missing	Does not specify
    Florida	Yes	No	There is no statewide policy, process or procedure for a person to challenge the finding that he/she is a perpetrator of child abuse and neglect. There may be local protocols whereby if a person challenges a finding, there is a review of written documentation by an individual at the agency at a higher level than a caseworker or supervisor. There is no formal appeal process for any administrative/agency finding. However, the department is in the process of establishing a formal due process appeals procedure.	Does not specify
    Georgia	Yes	No	No data repository	Missing
    Hawaii	No	No	Missing	Does not specify
    Idaho	No	No	Missing	Does not specify
    Illinois	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
    Indiana	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
    Iowa	Yes	No	Missing	Does not specify
    Kansas	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
    Kentucky	Yes	No	Missing	Does not specify
    Louisiana	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
    Maine	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
    Maryland	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
    Massachusetts	No	No	Massachusetts did not participate in the legal survey. Pease v. Burns (Federal District Court, 2010)) provides some evidence that the State provides individuals an opportunity to challenge their designation. The case found that a several year delay in scheduling an appeal hearing violated due process.	Does not specify
    Michigan	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
    Minnesota	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
    Mississippi	No	No	Missing	Does not specify
    Missouri	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes. However, the State reported that the person could not be designated pending the appeal of the maltreatment determination.
    Montana	Yes	No	Missing	Does not specify
    Nebraska	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
    Nevada	No	Yes	Yes	Does not specify
    New Hampshire	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
    New Jersey	Yes	Yes	Yes	Does not specify. However, the State reported that an individual could be designated on the repository when there is a substantiated finding.
    New Mexico	No	Yes	No	Does not specify. However, the State reported that a maltreatment finding is sufficient to document the case in their FACTS system.
    New York	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
    North Carolina	Yes	Only those individuals determined to be responsible for abuse and serious neglect as defined in statute as the result of a CPS Investigative Assessment.	Yes	No
    North Dakota	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
    Ohio	Yes	No	Determined by each agency's policy	Does not specify
    Oklahoma	No	No	Yes	Yes
    Oregon	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
    Pennsylvania	Yes	No	Pennsylvania did not participate in the legal survey. C.E. v. Dept of Public Welfare (State Commonwealth Court, 2007) provides some evidence that the State provides individuals an opportunity to challenge their designation. The case found that individuals must be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at hearings to challenge placement on the repository.	Does not specify
    Puerto Rico	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
    Rhode Island	Yes	Missing	Missing	Missing. However, the State reported that an individual could not be designated on the repository pending an appeal of the maltreatment determination.
    South Carolina	Yes	Childcare, foster care, residential group care and institutional cases require notice. All others are entered on the Central Registry only after a court order.	Yes	Yes
    South Dakota	Yes	Yes	When the designation is based on the investigation by the Division of Child Protection Services, the individual can request a review. When the designation is based on a court finding, the individual does not have the right to a review.	No
    Tennessee	No	Yes	Yes	Yes. However, the State reported that an individual could not be designated on the repository pending an appeal of the maltreatment determination.
    Texas	Yes	For CPS cased no notice is required. For child care licensing, notice is required by policy.	Yes	Yes
    Utah	No	If the Division makes a supported finding that a person committed a severe type of abuse or neglect, it must notify the individual that his name has been listed in the licensing information system.	Missing	Yes
    Vermont	No	Yes	Missing	No
    Virginia	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
    Washington	Yes	Yes	Missing	Does not specify
    West Virginia	Yes	No	Missing	Does not specify
    Wisconsin	Yes	No	Missing	Does not specify
    Wyoming	No	Yes	Yes	No

    Endnotes

    http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm09/cm09.pdf.