0990-B_Interim Report to Congress_Feasibility of Nat Child Abuse Registry

Interim Report to the
Congress on the
Feasibility of a National
Child Abuse Registry

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

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................1
Background...................................................................................................................................4
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 .......................................................5
Legislative History of Congressional Efforts to Establish a National Child Abuse Registry.......6
Activities Comprising This Initial Feasibility Assessment ..........................................................7
Characteristics of State Child Abuse Registries ...........................................................................9
Purpose and Utility of a National Child Abuse Registry ..............................................................12
Intended Uses of a National Child Abuse Registry .................................................................12
Quantifying the Potential for Child Safety Improvements ........................................................13
Acquisition and Management of Data .........................................................................................15
Obtaining Data for a National Registry....................................................................................15
Provision of Data by State, Local and Tribal Agencies........................................................15
Managing Data from Many Sources ....................................................................................16
Alternative Structures for a National, Electronic Child Abuse Registry................................17
Standardization and Comparability of Registry Information ....................................................17
Determining Which Cases Should be Included in a National Child Abuse Registry ............18
Identifying Perpetrators Accurately......................................................................................19
Characterizing Maltreatment................................................................................................20
Maintaining a Registry and Responding to Inquiries ...............................................................21
Keeping Registry Data Secure ............................................................................................21
Restricting Access to a National Child Abuse Registry to Authorized Users .......................21
Responding Promptly to Queries.........................................................................................22
Determining a Registry’s Relationship to Other Data Collection Efforts ..............................23
Complying with the Privacy Act ...........................................................................................24
Issues Regarding Participation of Indian Tribes in a National Child Abuse Registry ..............25
Due Process Considerations ......................................................................................................27
Lessons from Data Systems Used for Criminal Background Checks .........................................30
Compiling and Referencing Criminal History Records ............................................................31
Benefits and Costs of a National Child Abuse Registry ..............................................................34
Potential Benefits ....................................................................................................................34
Anticipated Costs ....................................................................................................................35
Federal Costs ......................................................................................................................35
Costs to Agencies Submitting Data to and Making Inquiries of a National Registry............36
Costs to Individuals Identified (Truly or Falsely) as Child Maltreatment Perpetrators .........36
Nonfinancial Costs of a National Child Abuse Registry .......................................................37
Financing Startup and Ongoing Operations ........................................................................37
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................39
Next Steps ..................................................................................................................................41
References..................................................................................................................................42
Appendix A: Section 633 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (P.L. 109-248, 42
U.S.C. 16990) .............................................................................................................................46
Appendix B: Characteristics of State Central Child Abuse Registries .......................................48
Appendix C: Data Elements Currently Collected in the Child File of the National Child Abuse
and Neglect Data System ...........................................................................................................62

ii

Executive Summary
Child Protective Services (CPS) systems in each state receive and investigate reports of child
abuse and neglect, and intervene with families as necessary to protect children. Often the first
step in investigating a maltreatment allegation is to check whether the agency has had past
contact with the family and, if so, the nature of past allegations and the outcomes of previous
investigations. Investigators do this because the family’s past conduct toward the child
represents a risk factor used to assess the child’s current safety and future risk of harm.
Child abuse registries were established to enable local CPS agencies within a state to share
information with each other about past maltreatment investigations. In many states these
registries are also used to conduct pre-employment screenings of persons applying to work
with, or volunteer with, children or other vulnerable populations. Approximately 40 to 45 states
currently operate child abuse registries, though they vary substantially in their coverage and the
information contained. However, there is no system that would enable national checks of child
abuse histories, and inquiries from one state to another are often time consuming and
cumbersome. Occasional tragedies in which children have been killed or seriously injured after
their families fled from one state to another during or following a child protection investigation
have led some to believe strongly that a national child maltreatment registry is needed.
Section 633 of The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (the Act) requires the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS, the Department) to establish a national
child abuse registry and to conduct a feasibility study regarding implementation issues that
would need to be addressed. The statute requires the Secretary to address the costs and
benefits of a national child abuse registry, make recommendations regarding a due process
procedure for a national child abuse registry and regarding data standards that should be
considered in implementing such a registry.
This document is an interim report of the feasibility study described in the Act, and as directed
by the conference report accompanying the Department’s FY 2008 appropriations. Congress
has since directed that $500,000 from the Department’s FY 2009 appropriations for child abuse
discretionary activities be designated for additional work on the feasibility study. HHS will
conduct additional feasibility activities in the coming year and will prepare a final report to the
Congress containing results of the additional work when findings are available. Additional
activities that will be conducted as part of the feasibility study are described in the “next steps”
section at the end of this report.
The initial feasibility assessment described in this interim report was conducted internally by
HHS staff and included a literature search; an analysis of the statutory language; a descriptive
analysis of state child abuse registries; identification of related federal activities including
activities authorized under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) and
Department of Justice programs through which criminal history information is shared;
stakeholder discussions; an examination of the particular issues related to including in a
national child abuse registry entries submitted by Indian tribes; consideration of interactions with
the Privacy Act; an analysis of the due process issues raised by the creation and use of a
national child abuse registry; and, finally, a consideration of benefits and costs involved in
establishing and managing such a registry. The initial assessment results in four conclusions:

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
Conclusion 1: Potential benefits of a national child abuse registry are largely unknown.
There is no data available with which to quantify improvements in child safety that may result
from the implementation of a national child abuse registry. In particular, it is unknown how
frequently perpetrators are substantiated for child maltreatment in multiple states. This interim
report identifies and describes the major components of anticipated costs of implementing a
national child abuse registry. Key among these would be the costs of establishing secure
electronic systems to protect the data from unauthorized use, and addressing procedural
weaknesses in some jurisdictions’ CPS systems to assure the accuracy and reliability of
information included in a national registry. The gap in information regarding the frequency with
which a national child abuse registry could be helpful to child maltreatment investigators will be
a primary focus of additional feasibility study activities.
Conclusion 2: A lack of incentives for participation could result in a database that
includes little information and fails to fulfill its intent. The submission of data to a national
child abuse registry would be voluntary, creating the risk that HHS could create a database to
which few jurisdictions would provide data, making it of little practical value. Only if a national
child abuse registry is constructed in a way that meets the needs of state and local child
protection agencies and creates conditions under which they would be willing to provide the
necessary data, could a national registry become a useful child protection tool. Additional work
to assess states’ likelihood of participating in a national child abuse registry as described in the
Adam Walsh Act will be conducted as part of our further feasibility activities.
Conclusion 3: Before implementation could begin, legislative change would be needed
to permit the collection of sufficient information to accurately identify perpetrators. The
Adam Walsh Act limits identifying information in a national child abuse registry to the
perpetrator’s name. This statutory language must be changed before a national child abuse
registry could be implemented. Because many names are common, name cannot be the only
field used 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. Even with additional
identifying fields, however, high false positive and false negative rates must be anticipated.
Conclusion 4: Clarification is required on several key issues that are ambiguous in the
authorizing statute; these must be resolved either within HHS or by Congress before
implementation could proceed. Key among these is whether a national registry is to be used
only for investigative inquiries or also for child abuse history checks related to employment and
licensing purposes. Employment/licensing checks are not mentioned explicitly in the Adam
Walsh Act, but would be allowed under the existing statutory language regarding access to
information in the national child abuse registry. In many states, such employment checks far
outnumber investigative uses of their child abuse registries. Basic decisions are also needed
regarding how to maintain restricted access and validate the identities of legitimate users.
With respect to a due process procedure, there can be no federal substitute for procedural
protections at the state or local level. HHS must not create a system that would second guess
local investigations and determinations. If a national child abuse registry is established, HHS
believes 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. Whether or not
employment related background checks remain a permissible use of the registry is an important
factor in determining the due process protections that would be required. Key due process
issues include the level of evidence used to make substantiation decisions; whether individuals
included in such a registry must be notified of their inclusion and the implications of being listed

2

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
in the registry, and the strength of the hearing or appeal procedures in place at the local level
through which substantiation decisions may be challenged. It should be noted that strong due
process protections could necessitate significant changes to existing CPS investigation
processes in some states that could be costly to implement and may discourage participation in
a national registry.
HHS is not yet ready to recommend specific due process protections that would be required.
Our initial work has identified issues that have been the subject of legal challenges to state child
abuse registries. As feasibility work continues, we will seek examples of states’ due process
procedures related to their own child abuse registries in an effort to design appropriate federal
due process protections.
This initial feasibility assessment has determined that there are very substantial challenges
involved in establishing a national child abuse registry. Implementation is not feasible under the
statutory limitations of the authorizing legislation. It would be possible to overcome the statutory
limitations and other challenges, but doing so may involve substantial costs and could be
burdensome to the state and local child protective services systems a national child abuse
registry is intended to help. In the end, it is not clear whether or by how much child safety would
be improved through a national database of child abuse perpetrators. Future feasibility study
activities will further assess the potential benefits of a national child abuse registry and explore
ways of addressing a number of the challenges identified to date.

3

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

Background
Child Protective Services (CPS) systems in each state receive and investigate reports of child
abuse and neglect, and intervene with families as necessary to protect children. In 2007, nearly
2 million child maltreatment investigations nationally resulted in determinations that
approximately 794,000 children were victims of abuse or neglect (U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services [HHS], 2009). Approximately 1,760 children died as a result of abuse or
neglect that year. Certain types of professionals, such as teachers, doctors and others who
work with children, are required to report suspected child maltreatment. Reports are also
received from family members, neighbors and other concerned members of the public. Child
protective services investigations are usually conducted by local government agencies, either a
child protective services agency (of which there are approximately 2,600 across the U.S.) or a
law enforcement agency, depending on how the state has organized itself (HHS, 2003). In some
states, and for some types of cases, CPS and law enforcement may conduct joint investigations
(Winterfeld and Sakagawa, 2003).
When child protective services investigators begin investigating an allegation of abuse or
neglect, typically among their first actions is to check whether the agency has had past contact
with the family and, if so, the nature of any past allegations and the outcomes of these previous
investigations. They do this because the family’s past conduct toward the child represents a risk
factor to be considered in assessing the child’s current safety as well as future risk of harm.
Approximately 45 states maintain state child abuse “registries” which contain in a database the
results of past child protective services investigations 1 . Typically the registries include
information about the perpetrator, the victim, and the circumstances of the maltreatment at the
time the investigation occurred. Originally registries were separate from other administrative
data systems maintained by the child protection agency. Today, many are sub-functions of
larger information systems used to manage the agency’s administrative data.
Child abuse registries were established to enable local CPS agencies within a state to share
information with each other about past maltreatment investigations. In many states these
registries are also used to conduct pre-employment screenings of persons applying to work with
(or volunteer with) children or other vulnerable populations. This often includes screening
persons applying for licenses as child care providers. Since 2006, states have been required to
conduct child abuse history checks for all prospective foster and adoptive parents in all states in
which a household member has lived in the past five years (HHS, 2006). As will be described
below, the state registries vary considerably in what cases are included and how they operate.
Originally, their primary purpose was to allow investigators routine access to child abuse history
information in order to better inform current investigations. More recently, in many states this
investigatory purpose has been overtaken by the employment and licensing check function
which may make up the bulk of inquiries to these registries.
1

While usually referred to as child abuse registries, these databases usually include information on a
variety of child maltreatment types, including physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, emotional
maltreatment, and medical neglect. Nationally in 2007, 59 percent of child maltreatment victims
experienced neglect, 11 percent were physically abused, 8 percent were sexually abused, 4 percent were
psychologically maltreated, 1 percent were medically neglected, and 13 percent experienced multiple
forms of maltreatment. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children,
Youth and Families, 2009). Throughout this report these registries are referred to as child abuse
registries to conform with statutory language in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act and
common usage in the field.

4

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

While within-state checks of child abuse registries are a standard part of most child protective
services investigations, there is no system that would enable national checks of child abuse
histories, and inquiries from one state to another are often time consuming and cumbersome.
Occasional tragedies in which children have been killed or seriously injured after their families
fled from one state to another during or following a child protection investigation have led some
to believe strongly that a national child maltreatment registry is needed. The principal argument
for such a registry is a belief that CPS investigators’ lack of easy access to information about
previous maltreatment history from other states impedes a full assessment of safety risks during
child abuse and neglect investigations and prevents full knowledge of backgrounds of foster and
adoptive parent applicants.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006
Section 633 of The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (the Act, P.L. 109-248,
42 U.S.C. 16990) requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS, the
Department) to establish a national child abuse registry and to conduct a feasibility study
regarding implementation issues that would need to be addressed. This document is an interim
report of the feasibility study described in the Act. The full text of the statutory requirement
appears at Appendix A. Other sections of the Act also require child abuse history checks for all
prospective foster and adoptive parents in any state in which they have lived in the previous five
years.
Key features and limitations of the national child abuse registry, as described in the statute or
that are important in their omission, are as follows:
♦ The Secretary of HHS “shall collect in a central electronic registry information on persons
reported as ... perpetrators of a substantiated case of child abuse or neglect.”
♦ Information provided to the Secretary of HHS “shall be coextensive with” a state or Indian
tribe’s equivalent electronic registry if it maintains one. Data may be submitted by state or
tribal government agencies, or, at state option, by local government agencies responsible
for conducting child protection investigations.
♦ 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.”
♦ The law explicitly prohibits HHS from requiring states and Indian tribes to modify their
existing registries or child maltreatment records in complying with the Act and may not
require the establishment of registries by those jurisdictions that do not have them.
♦ The law provides no incentives for a state that maintains a child abuse registry to submit
data to a national registry and there are no consequences for not doing so.
♦ The national registry HHS is to establish “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 under law to protect children from
abuse or neglect.”

5

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
This Interim Report to the Congress describes the results of the Department’s initial efforts to
address the statute’s requirement that the Secretary conduct a study to address the feasibility of
establishing data collection standards for a national child abuse and neglect registry.
The law requires that the feasibility study address:
♦ The costs and benefits of such data collection standards;
♦ Data collection standards currently employed by each state, Indian tribe or political
subdivision of a state;
♦ Data collection standards that should be considered to establish a model of promising
practices; and
♦ A due process procedure for a national registry.

Legislative History of Congressional Efforts to Establish a National
Child Abuse Registry
Almost as soon as states established child abuse registries in the late 1960s and early 1970s
there was discussion of blending them into a national registry. These discussions actually
predate the 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) which forms the basis for
many current federal child abuse prevention and treatment activities. An early study of state
central registries suggested in 1978 that “there is support from child welfare professionals for
setting up a nationwide registry to expand the scope and jurisdiction of central registries” and
notes that “an early draft of federal legislation (P.L. 93-247) [CAPTA] did incorporate provisions
for a nationwide registry, but this feature was dropped prior to passage” (Gibelman and Grant,
1978, pages 405 and 412). Despite professional support for a national registry, the same
researchers questioned at the time whether the existing registries were achieving their stated
goals and whether their potential for abuse of individual civil rights was justified by their effect in
protecting children from maltreatment.
The legislative proposal for a national child abuse registry that was ultimately included in the
Adam Walsh Act dates back to 2004. Originally a stand-alone bill first introduced as H.R. 5219
in the 108th Congress, several versions of the provision were included in House and Senate bills
in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. The original proposal was introduced in response to a
particular case in which a child had died and it became known only after the fact that the family
had a previous history of child maltreatment investigations in a neighboring state. What began
as a stand-alone bill ultimately became part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
of 2006.
Typically the legislative history of a statute includes not only the text of the statute, but also
transcripts of hearings, committee reports and other materials that explain and examine the
provisions, establish congressional intent, and generally provide insights into sponsors’ thinking
about the legislation enacted. In the case of Section 633 on a national child abuse registry, little
of this background exists. No hearings were held on the provision in the years before its
passage, either as part of the Adam Walsh Act or in consideration of earlier stand-alone
versions of the provision. The report of the Judiciary Committee responsible for the Act does
not mention this provision, and while this provision would normally have fallen under the
jurisdiction of the committees in the House and Senate with jurisdiction over child abuse

6

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
programs rather than the Judiciary Committees, those committees 2 produced no formal
statements on the subject as the Act proceeded through the legislative process. Several
members made floor speeches about a national child abuse registry as the bill was considered
on the House and Senate floor, some in favor and others expressing concerns with the
concept 3 . However, these statements contain little detail about congressional intent that would
provide guidance to resolve ambiguities in the statute that will be described and discussed
below. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office’s cost estimate for the bill that ultimately
became the Adam Walsh Act (H.R. 4472 in the 109th Congress) does not estimate costs of a
national child abuse registry.
As the Adam Walsh Act was considered by Congress, discussion of the bill as a whole focused
on protecting children from unrelated predatory adults and referred primarily to provisions in the
Act establishing a sex offender registry as well as efforts to protect children from offenders who
contact children via the internet. With regard to child maltreatment perpetrators, however,
because most are parents whose only victims are their own children, a national child abuse
registry would be of limited use as a protection from unrelated predators who were the focus of
public statements about the legislation.
Then-President Bush signaled support for the registry in his signing statement on the Adam
Walsh Act, noting “the bill I sign today will help prevent child abuse by creating a National Child
Abuse Registry and requiring investigators to do background checks on adoptive and foster
parents before they approve [sic] to take custody of a child. By giving child protective service
professionals in all 50 states access to this critical information, we will improve their ability to
investigate child abuse cases and help ensure that the vulnerable children are not put into
situations of abuse or neglect” (White House press release July 27, 2006).

Activities Comprising This Initial Feasibility Assessment
Congress has not, to date, appropriated funds to implement a national child abuse registry.
However, at the direction of the Appropriations Committee (U.S. Congress, House
Appropriations Committee, 2007), HHS has conducted an initial feasibility assessment using
monies otherwise appropriated for General Department Management. This interim report
identifies and describes a number of issues that would need to be resolved before a national
child abuse registry could be implemented in a way that improves child protection investigations
and enhances child safety. Congress has also directed that $500,000 from the Department’s
FY 2009 appropriations for child abuse discretionary activities be designated for additional work
on the feasibility study. HHS will conduct additional feasibility activities in the coming year and
will prepare a final report to the Congress containing results of the additional work when findings
are available. Additional activities that will be conducted as part of the feasibility study are
described in the “next steps” section at the end of this report.
This initial feasibility assesment has sought to:
♦ Understand existing state child abuse registries and how they operate;
2

The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and the House Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
3
For instance, statements by Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Leahy and Mr. Frist appear in the Congressional
Record for July 20, 2006, beginning at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S8023&dbname=2006_record

7

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
♦ Identify, as best we are able to do so, congressional intent regarding the purposes of a
national child abuse registry and determine how well a registry could fulfill those purposes;
♦ Describe a number of key issues that would need to be resolved before a national child
abuse registry could be implemented, including:
o

Defining the scope of a national child abuse registry in terms of which cases
would be included and what information would be collected about each case;

o

Identifying the sources of data that would be used to compile a national child
abuse registry and examining issues regarding the availability, currency, validity
and comparability of these data across sources as well as the utility of the
available data;

o

Determining who would be authorized users of a national child abuse registry
and devising how to secure the data and restrict registry access to authorized
users and for allowable purposes;

o

Resolving what due process protections should be afforded to perpetrators
regarding their inclusion in a national child abuse registry and how those could
be provided most effectively;

♦ Recognize parallels with data systems used for criminal background checks and
determine how those systems have addressed related issues;
♦ Identify the costs and benefits of implementing a national child abuse registry.
This initial feasibility assessment was conducted internally by HHS staff and included the
following activities:
Literature Search. A search was conducted of academic literature and reports produced by
government agencies and other groups to identify information about state child abuse registries
as well as available information and statistics on how often interstate issues arise in child abuse
and neglect cases.
Analysis of the Statutory Language. Staff worked with the Department’s Office of General
Counsel to consider the best interpretation of statutory language within the pertinent section of
the Adam Walsh Act and to identify ambiguities and restrictions in the statute as enacted that
affect feasibility.
Descriptive Analysis of State Child Abuse Registries. State laws and policy information
were reviewed to describe the characteristics and use of existing state registries and to identify
issues that would arise in merging information contained within them. A number of state court
decisions regarding the operation of state child abuse registries were also reviewed.
Identification of Related Federal Activities. Discussions were held with staff of federal
agencies that operate related types of registries and background check systems to consider the
parallels and differences with such other systems. These include various background check
systems operated by the Department of Justice as well as the Department of Defense’s child
abuse registry. Several related HHS activities were considered as well, including the Centers

8

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
for Disease Control and Prevention’s registry of violent child deaths and the Administration for
Children and Family’s registry of child support cases.
Stakeholder Discussions. Conversations were held with a wide range of stakeholders to
identify implementation issues that would need to be resolved in moving forward with a national
child abuse registry.
Examination of Issues with respect to Indian Tribes. Discussions were held with
organizations and persons knowledgeable about Indian tribes’ child protection systems to
consider the particular issues that would arise with regard to Indian tribes’ participation in a
national child abuse registry.
Consideration of Interactions with the Privacy Act. Discussions were held with HHS experts
on the Privacy Act to determine how requirements of that law could be best met during the
implementation of a national child abuse registry and how those issues have been handled with
respect to related activities in other agencies. The Privacy Act governs how records are handled
within any federal data system in which information is held on individuals that is retrieved by
name or other personal identifiers.
Assessment of Due Process Considerations. Staff researched the due process protections
available with respect to state child maltreatment determinations and the listing of perpetrators
in state child abuse registries. Past attention to these issues in legal scholarship and state court
decisions was also considered.
Identification of Cost Considerations. Discussions with knowledgeable individuals were used
to identify the categories of costs that would be involved in implementing and managing a
national child abuse registry. These include the costs to the federal government, to agencies
submitting data and making inquiries, to individuals identified, truly or falsely, as child
maltreatment perpetrators, as well as potential non-financial costs of such a registry.

Characteristics of State Child Abuse Registries
As with most aspects of family law, state statutes rather than federal ones govern the provision
of child protective services. Every state maintains its own definition of child abuse and neglect,
determines the parameters for conducting child protection investigations, and specifies the
conditions under which the state has the authority to intervene in parental conduct. States
provide most of the funding for child protective services activities. However, limited federal
funding is available to states to operate and improve their child protective services activities,
primarily through programs authorized under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(CAPTA). Forty two states spent a combined $312 million in funding from the Social Services
Block Grant (SSBG) on child protective services activities in 2006 (HHS, 2008). SSBG is a
broad legislative authority with few specific requirements. CAPTA funding, in contrast, is more
limited but is targeted specifically on child protection activities. State assurances related to its
formula grants to state child protection agencies (funded at approximately $27 million annually
in recent years) act to promote a common framework for child protection activities nationally.
Within the broad framework provided by CAPTA, however, a great deal of variation exists in
how state child protective services activities are conducted in each state (HHS, 2003). Federal
involvement in tribal child protection services is governed by the Indian Child Protection and
Family Violence Prevention Act, P.L. 101-690, administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs

9

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
within the Department of Interior in cooperation with the Indian Health Service within the
Department of Health and Human Services.
State laws regarding child abuse registries have been compiled and analyzed by the Child
Welfare Information Gateway, an information service funded by the Administration for Children
and Families within HHS (2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d, 2005e and 2005f). For the purposes of
this initial feasibility assessment, several features of these state laws were reviewed.
Descriptive information from several sources on the conduct of state child protective services
investigations and management of state child abuse registries was also considered in order to
determine the variations in registry features that would affect feasibility of a national registry.
Significant among these was the National Study of Child Protective Services Systems and
Reform Efforts (HHS, 2003) that describes state child protective services policies, including
those related to child abuse registries. Appendix B is adapted from that study and provides a
state-by-state summary of registry characteristics.
State child abuse registries were created during the 1960s and 1970s to track the history and
patterns of past child protective services investigations so that information could be available to
aid current investigations. Federal law does not require that a state maintain a registry,
however CAPTA provides that any state that has one expunge information on unsubstantiated
cases in files available to the public or used to conduct employment background checks (42
USC 5106(b)(2)(A)(xii)). Unsubstantiated cases are those for which investigators found
insufficient evidence to determine that the alleged maltreatment occurred or to identify the
perpetrator. Substantiated cases are those in which investigators determine, according to statespecific guidelines and definitions, that there is sufficient evidence to confirm the allegation.
States vary in the terms they use for these determinations, and several states have an
intermediate category (often labeled “indicated”) in which there is some evidence to support the
allegation but insufficient evidence to meet criteria for substantiation. States also vary in the
level of proof an investigator must demonstrate before substantiating the maltreatment.
CAPTA also requires that states participating in the Basic State Grant Program certify to the
federal government that they have in place methods to maintain the confidentiality of records
regarding child maltreatment investigations and that limit disclosures to certain types of entities
(42 USC 5106a(b)(2)(A)(viii)); that their laws or procedures require the disclosure of confidential
information to federal, state or local government entities that have a need for such information to
carry out child protection responsibilities (42 USC 5106a(b)(2)(A)(ix)); and that they require
cooperation among state law enforcement officials, courts, and human services agencies in the
investigation, assessment, prosecution and treatment of child abuse and neglect (42 USC
5106a(b)(2)(A)(xi)).
State Definitions of Abuse and Neglect. What constitutes abuse or neglect varies somewhat
among the states, though nearly all states include basic categories of physical abuse, neglect,
sexual abuse, emotional or psychological maltreatment, and medical neglect among the types
of maltreatment recognized. Approximately half the states include both substantiated and
unsubstantiated reports in their registries, though these states are required by federal law to
restrict non-investigative disclosures to substantiated cases (section 106(b)(2)(A)(xii) of the
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 U.S.C. 5106a). Most of the other states (23 in
2003) limit registry entries to substantiated cases, though not all use the “substantiated”
terminology. Several states further restrict what cases are included in their registries. For
instance, West Virginia includes only criminal convictions in its registry, South Carolina includes
only cases in which the child abuse finding has been confirmed in court, and Missouri also
includes only adjudicated cases. Michigan includes in its registry only certain categories of child

10

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
abuse and neglect (HHS, 2003). The Adam Walsh Act specifies that a national child abuse
registry would include only substantiated cases.
Types of Perpetrators Investigated by Child Protective Services. State statutes typically
limit the jurisdiction of CPS agencies to maltreatment committed by parents or other persons in
a caretaking role with respect to a child. Perpetrators who are strangers to the child, or who are
known to the child but are not responsible for the child’s care, would be investigated by law
enforcement agencies rather than child protective services. States vary as to whether
investigations of maltreatment by nonparental caregivers such as day care providers, foster
parents, or staff of residential treatment facilities is handled by the child protective services
agency or by other authorities such as licensing boards or police departments. According to
recent national data, 80 percent of child maltreatment perpetrators in cases investigated by the
child protective services agency were the parents of the victim and 60 percent had committed
neglect, which was by far the most common type of maltreatment (HHS, 2009).
Existence of State Child Abuse Registries. According to an analysis of state child abuse
statutes, as of 2005, forty two states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and two territories
(American Samoa and Guam) had statutorily created child abuse registries. No registries were,
at that time, required by statute in Colorado, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, West Virginia and
Wisconsin. However, additional states may operate child abuse registries operated through
policy only (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2005c; Welfare Information Gateway, 2005d).
In addition, though not mentioned in the Adam Walsh Act, the Department of Defense operates
a child abuse registry with respect to maltreatment that occurs at military installations
worldwide 4 . Of the states whose statutes do not require registries, four (Colorado, Kentucky,
Maine and West Virginia) responded to a survey that was part of the 2003 National Study of
Child Protective Services Systems and Reform Efforts with information that their states did
operate child abuse registries. An additional three states (Georgia, Florida, and Oklahoma)
responded to the 2003 study that their states did not operate registries, though in some of these
states administrative data systems served some of the functions of a registry by making
historical information about investigations available to investigators. Georgia’s registry was ruled
unconstitutional by that state’s superior court in 1998 (HHS, 2008b). As will be discussed in
more detail later in this report, a number of state child abuse registries have been subject to
legal challenge, and modifications to registry operations have been required by courts in several
states.
Uses of State Child Abuse Registries. All states with registries use the information within
them to provide historical information about families’ contact with child protective services to its
own investigators as background to inform current investigations. In addition, as of 2003, 44
states reported using their child abuse registries also to conduct child abuse history screenings
of prospective foster and adoptive parents, persons applying for employment or volunteer
opportunities working with children or other vulnerable populations, and/or persons applying for
licenses to operate child care programs (HHS, 2003).
Organization and Management of State Child Abuse Registries. States vary in how they
organize and administer their child abuse registries and in what cases and what information
about each case is included in a registry. Some are operated by the state’s child protective
services agency, while in other states, including California, the registry is maintained by the
Attorney General’s office. In some cases, registry files are maintained at the state level, while in
4

The DoD’s registry is known as the Child Maltreatment and Domestic Abuse Incident Reporting System,
commonly referred to as the Family Advocacy Program Central Registry.

11

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
others the state’s system merely references the existence of an original file at the local level.
Most registries were originally separate, stand-alone information systems (initially as paper files,
only later computerized). However, in many states these systems now operate as a function of a
larger child protective services intake system, or as part of a State Automated Child Welfare
Information System (SACWIS). States that implement a SACWIS using federal funding under
title IV-E of the Social Security Act are required to record investigation decisions in their
systems and, by law, a SACWIS is required to support the reporting of data to report data to the
National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. An interface with the state’s central child
abuse registry, if it has one, is optional (HHS, no date). Forty states and the District of
Columbia have either implemented or are developing a SACWIS.
Lack of Adjudication of Most Cases Included in Registries. It is important for a discussion
of a national registry of child abuse perpetrators to recognize that few child abuse cases are
adjudicated and that a substantiation decision does not mean there has been a court finding in
the case. In fact, data for 2007 indicate that nationally only nineteen percent of substantiated
cases that year involved a court action or petition. There was considerable range among the
states in the frequency with which substantiation decisions were accompanied by a court action.
Four states report court action in less than five percent of cases, while another four states report
court action in over half of cases. Substantiation also does not necessarily imply that the child
welfare agency thought the child was in ongoing danger or need of protection. In 2007, nearly
40 percent of victims received no services following the investigation, while just 21 percent of
children were placed in foster care (HHS, 2009).

Purpose and Utility of a National Child Abuse Registry
A key factor in examining the feasibility and potential operational issues regarding a national
child abuse registry is to understand the purposes for which it is created and whether a registry
would fulfill these purposes. This section describes available information on these topics in an
effort to determine:
♦ For what purposes could information in a national child abuse registry be disclosed?
♦ Would a national child abuse registry, as described in the Adam Walsh Act, significantly
improve child safety?

Intended Uses of a National Child Abuse Registry
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act does not specifically indicate the purposes for
a national child abuse registry. Purposes must therefore be inferred from the statute’s
provisions regarding what information is to be contained in the registry and who is allowed
access to the information and under what circumstances. The Act notes that the national child
abuse registry is to include only the names of child maltreatment perpetrators and information
about the nature of the maltreatment perpetrated. Access to the information is restricted to
government agencies, or their agents, whose mission includes protecting children. The Act
does not specify the specific circumstances or purposes for which permissible users may
access information about an individual. The Act also does not specify whether the registry
would include information on cases substantiated prior to enactment or the establishment of a
national registry.
The broad requirement that disclosures of information included in the registry may only be to
government agencies whose mission includes protecting children strongly implies that one of
12

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
the purposes of the information is to increase child safety by increasing investigators’
knowledge of past substantiated maltreatment allegations. Information about maltreatment
history helps investigators to assess risk of harm to a child and understand the level of services
a family requires in order for a child to remain in the home safely. National child maltreatment
history checks may assist investigators to detect undisclosed substantiated maltreatment
incidents in states other than the one investigating the current incident.
It is less clear whether Congress intends that the information also be used for background
checks in licensing and employment situations. Background checks of the registry for noninvestigation purposes are not explicitly mentioned in the Act or in statements about the bill that
were made on the House and Senate floor. However, most states use their registries for some
employment and licensing purposes, particularly to detect whether persons applying for jobs or
volunteer positions working with children or other vulnerable populations have a history of child
maltreatment, and in at least some states most inquiries to the state registry are for these noninvestigation purposes. It must be recognized, however, that the denial of employment brings a
potential financial impact to individuals included in the registry (or misidentified as such due to
false positive matches) that would expose a system to legal challenge in ways that investigative
uses alone would not (Phillips, 1993).
As the law is currently drafted, HHS believes that employment checks against a national registry
are a permitted use of the registry by an entity allowed access to it, i.e., a federal, state, local or
tribal entity (or agent of such entities) with a need for the information in order to carry out
responsibilities to protect children from abuse or neglect. Because the purpose of such checks
is to protect children or other vulnerable populations, such a use would be permitted. Problems
are likely to arise, however, if a national registry permitted information provided by a state to be
used in ways that were not allowed within the state. In addition, inadequate procedural
protections for alleged perpetrators during investigations may also draw legal challenge to a
national registry which uses the results of those investigations and, as a result, negative
consequences, either personal or financial, follow for the individual. For a more detailed
discussion of this issue, see the section elsewhere in this report headed Due Process
Considerations.

Quantifying the Potential for Child Safety Improvements
An obvious question in considering the benefits of a national child abuse registry is how often
families have substantiated investigations in more than one state. Of particular concern would
be cases of serious or fatal maltreatment in which there were previous out-of-state incidents, the
knowledge of which might have led to different decisions by CPS staff which might have
prevented the injury. Child abuse history checks using a national registry would provide most
added benefit in cases in which the individual had one or more substantiated cases in another
state but had neither past in-state substantiations (which would be revealed when checking the
state’s own registry) nor out-of-state criminal convictions related to the past investigations (since
convictions would be detected through existing criminal background checks). For the purposes
of this initial feasibility assessment, staff sought information regarding the frequency with which
such cases occur. However, there is no available data on children who have been victimized in
multiple states or on the mobility of abusive or neglectful families. Most experts consulted
during this inquiry thought the number is likely to be relatively small, except possibly in
metropolitan areas that span multiple states. It should be noted that nearly all the anecdotal
cases related to staff in support of a national registry related to the movement of families among

13

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
nearby states. The remainder of this section describes related information staff were able to
identify.
Family Mobility. Census data reveal that between 2006 and 2007, 1.6 percent of families with
children age 0 to 17 moved between states. This includes 0.5 percent whose moves were
within the same census division (a several state area), 0.3 percent whose moves were outside
the division but within the same census region, and 0.8 percent who moved to a different
census region within the U.S. Mobility for female-headed families with children was very close
to those of families in general (calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).
Maltreatment Recurrence. Maltreatment recurrence in general has been studied, primarily
using within-state data. Reduction of maltreatment recurrence is an outcome measured in
federal reviews of state child welfare systems. 2005 data indicate that 6.6 percent of children
had a second substantiated (within-state) maltreatment report within six months of an initial
report that year (HHS, 2008). A study using a longer time horizon found that 5.2 percent of
children substantiated for maltreatment had been revictimized within five months (that is, they
had a second substantiated maltreatment report), 8.2 percent had been revictimized within one
year, and 16.7 percent had been revictimized within five years (HHS, 2005). Only
substantiations within the same state could be detected using the data.
Current Practice Regarding Interstate Registry Checks. Several state officials contacted
during the course of research for this report were asked to characterize how frequently
interstate issues arose during child maltreatment investigations. None had specific data on this,
but the impressionistic consensus was that such issues were “fairly common,” though “not
routine.” None were able to quantify the number of requests made for access to other states’
child abuse registries for investigative purposes, or the number of out-of-state requests received
for access to their registries. Most believed these issues came up with greatest frequency with
respect to neighboring states, particularly where a metropolitan area may span multiple states.
Existing Interstate State Child Abuse Registry Checks of Prospective Foster and
Adoptive Parents. States have been required since 2006 (by another provision of the Adam
Walsh Act) to conduct out-of-state child abuse history checks for prospective foster and
adoptive parents in any state the individual has lived in within the past five years. While no
figures are available regarding the number of such checks conducted, state experience in
getting information back from one another has varied. While many states report no difficulties
responding to such requests quickly, and in getting responses to inquiries, others have reported
that responses may take weeks. In addition, several states do not have the legal authority to
respond to such inquiries (National Resource Center on Family Centered Practice and
Permanency Planning, 2008).
Employment Background Checks for Persons Seeking Work with Children. With respect
to employment-related background checks, staff sought available information on the volume of
checks conducted against state child abuse registries and criminal history systems for
categories of persons that would likely undergo a federal child abuse registry check if such a
use were allowed. The following information includes only a few states, but provides some
sense of the scale involved in such requests. California in 2004 conducted 10,000 in-state child
abuse registry checks for investigative purposes and 40,000 for non-investigative (primarily
employment and licensing) purposes (California Office of the Attorney General, 2004). Thus
employment-related checks represented 80 percent of its registry workload. In 2001, 19 states
reported conducting 650,000 criminal background checks of prospective child care employees,
the largest category of persons potentially subject to employment-related child abuse history

14

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
checks (SEARCH, 2002). To put these figures in perspective, in 2007, nearly 2 million child
maltreatment investigations were conducted nationally; substantiated cases included
approximately 859,000 perpetrators (HHS, 2009).
In summary, there is no available evidence of substantial cross-state child maltreatment
patterns and the limited anecdotal information available involves primarily cases with a regional
rather than a national character. The volume of inquiries to a national child abuse registry
anticipated would depend especially on whether employment-related inquiries were allowed in
addition to investigative ones, and whether inquiries would be made routinely or only with
respect to cases in which a family were new to the jurisdiction or there was otherwise reason to
suspect a possible cross-state aspect to the case. No research evidence or data were identified
to indicate that a national child abuse registry would significantly improve child safety. However,
the evidence base is nearly nonexistent and we cannot rule out a phenomenon that would not
be apparent from existing information sources. Because of the paucity of available information
on this important topic, further study of the frequency with which perpetrators have
substantiated maltreatment reports in multiple states will be a priority for the next stage of
feasibility work.

Acquisition and Management of Data
A number of critical issues would need to be examined in deciding how best to implement a
national child abuse registry. This section describes those that will be most important to
consider as Congress and HHS decide how or whether to move forward to implement a registry
or other steps to improve interstate sharing of information regarding child maltreatment
perpetrators. Key feasibility questions in this regard include:
♦ Would state, local and tribal child protection agencies provide data to HHS for this purpose
voluntarily? What assurances and/or incentives would they require before doing so?
♦ Could perpetrators be identified reliably in a national child abuse registry?
♦ How would access to registry information be securely restricted to authorized users
making inquiries for legitimate purposes?
♦ Is a centralized electronic database as specified in the Adam Walsh Act the most effective
approach to managing data for a national registry?

Obtaining Data for a National Registry
A key risk in establishing a national registry is that HHS may create a database to which few
jurisdictions would provide data, making it of little practical value. A national child abuse registry
would be useful only if its coverage were sufficiently national in scope to instill confidence
among users that known maltreatment perpetrators could be identified in it, replacing the need
for bilateral state-to-state inquiries.

Provision of Data by State, Local and Tribal Agencies
Many states are likely to be reluctant to hand over sensitive information on families to the
federal government. Many do not currently have the clear legal authority to do so. Others will
15

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
be concerned about the security and confidentiality of information they provide. Particularly
since participation in a national child abuse registry is to be voluntary, it will be essential to work
with agencies whose data would be included to build a registry into a tool they would value and
the utility of which would outweigh the burdens involved in providing the information and
concerns about its use and potential misuse. While some states view a national registry as a
potentially useful tool, making it a reality would take a collaborative development process to
negotiate the content, transmission, storage, use and protections provided regarding the
information.
In order to get an idea of the potential size of a database of child abuse perpetrators, staff
sought available information on the size of state registry databases and the volume of inquiries
made to state registries annually. No systematic information was available on the topic, though
figures were identified for two large states. Published sources reveal that, as of 2004, California
maintained 905,000 entries in its central registry on 810,000 individual perpetrators and added
approximately 35,000 new reports each year. California also reports querying the central
registry in 10,000 investigative inquiries and 40,000 non-investigative inquires annually. Of the
non-investigative inquiries (primarily employment related child abuse history checks), California
finds a 5% match rate (California Office of the Attorney General, 2004). Illinois adds 14,000
new reports to its State Central Registry annually, according to a 2008 news story (Pawlaczyk
and Hundsdorfer, 2008). It is not clear whether Congress intends that a national child abuse
registry include cases substantiated prior to a registry’s establishment. More systematic
information on the volume of state child abuse registries will be sought in the next phase of the
feasibility study.
For the purposes of this feasibility study, state laws were reviewed regarding to whom and in
what situations information about child maltreatment may be released (as compiled by the Child
Welfare Information Gateway, 2005b). This review revealed that few states currently have the
legal authority to provide data about perpetrators to a national registry, or to have their data
searched for such information through a central, federal mechanism. Most states would need to
modify their laws if they choose to participate in a national child abuse registry. In addition,
while some states’ laws will likely permit sharing of information with the federal government, the
re-disclosure of that information to other parties in response to registry queries adds a further
level of complexity to the authority required that would need to be addressed in many state laws
before a national registry were feasible.

Managing Data from Many Sources
Obtaining data for a national child abuse registry is vastly complicated by the language in the
Adam Walsh Act that allows political subdivisions of a state to supply data directly to the federal
government for inclusion in the registry. Presumably states with county operated child
protective services systems would be most interested in this feature. For HHS, however, this
provision makes implementation much more difficult because it multiplies, potentially by many
times, the number of agencies whose information systems must be compatible with a new
federal database and from which data must be transferred securely. In addition, these agencies
are not ones with whom HHS has established organizational working arrangements. Our
existing child protection programs, with the exception of small competitive demonstration grants,
all interface with state agencies rather than with local government units. For states that have
developed SACWIS systems, no child welfare data should reside in any county specific system.
Yet even in non-SACWIS states that are state supervised and county administered, requiring

16

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
HHS to negotiate individually with local jurisdictions for the delivery of information to a national
child abuse registry seems unnecessarily inefficient and costly.

Alternative Structures for a National, Electronic Child Abuse Registry
The Adam Walsh Act requires HHS to collect data about perpetrators “in a central electronic
registry” and specifies that the information in the registry “shall be supplied by States and Indian
tribes, or, at the option of a State, by political subdivisions of such State, to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services.” This construction implies that data would be contained in a
federal database owned, managed and controlled by the federal government. Input received
from stakeholders and other agencies operating systems that manage records used for
background checks on individuals suggest that HHS consider alternative structures if
implementation proceeds. Statutory change would be required before such alternative
structures could be considered.
Some experts consulted for this report urged that HHS (and Congress) consider potential
advantages of a “pointer” system in which rather than holding records in a federal database, a
central registry instead provide a mechanism by which state and/or local records could be
searched through a federally operated search mechanism, but in which the actual records would
be maintained by states in a decentralized fashion. In this way, HHS would facilitate inter-state
information sharing, but would not itself hold the records. The most important advantage of not
holding records in a federal database is that it would limit federal responsibility for the accuracy
of information that is not created by federal agencies and that cannot be validated at the federal
level. While such a system would not preclude the need to comply with the Privacy Act’s
requirements (described elsewhere in this report) that records in federal systems be reliable,
accurate, timely and complete, a referral system would place considerably less detail in a
federal records system and would place the national registry in the role of facilitator of
information exchange rather than the definitive source of case details. In a decentralized
system, the state would maintain control over which records are made available to a search
mechanism. It would also be possible, either in a centralized or decentralized fashion, to design
a system in which different levels of information were available in response to different types of
inquiries. For instance, investigative inquiries could return something different than
employment-related inquiries.

Standardization and Comparability of Registry Information
Whether records are held in a federal database or the federal government constructs a
mechanism to search records held by participating state, local or tribal agencies, the
establishment of a national child abuse registry necessitates consideration of the extent to
which records should or can be standardized to ensure comparability. The relevant provision of
the Adam Walsh Act states that “this section shall not be construed to require a State, Indian
tribe, or political subdivision of a State to modify…an equivalent register of cases of child abuse
or neglect that it maintains…[or] any other record relating to child abuse or neglect.” HHS could
not, therefore, require any changes to what is in state systems, though it could set minimum
standards about the types of records that would be included in a national registry and about the
specific information that would need to be present before an entry were made available in
response to queries. To make such a system useful it will be important to work closely with
state, local and tribal agencies expected to submit information to a registry to develop and
encourage the voluntary adoption of data standards that would enable the accurate
interpretation of information in registry records while including as many jurisdictions as possible.
17

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
Alternatively, Congress could require participation in the registry and penalize the failure to
submit information to a national registry. However, unless funding is provided to offset state
and local costs of compliance, such mandates would be burdensome to CPS agencies. Experts
consulted during the development of this report cautioned that the content and quality of
information in state registry records currently is variable regarding both the identifying
information about the perpetrator and what fields are available to characterize the “nature” of the
abuse and neglect. These issues are discussed next, along with a discussion of how to define
the universe of cases that should be considered for inclusion in a national child abuse registry.

Determining Which Cases Should be Included in a National Child Abuse
Registry
The Adam Walsh Act specifies that only substantiated (that is, proven) cases be included in a
national child abuse registry. This specification is important since many states include also
unsubstantiated cases in their own registries for use during investigations (but not for other
purposes). During consultations there was consensus that the limitation of a federal child abuse
registry to substantiated cases, as is currently specified in the law, is essential. However, some
stakeholders suggested that HHS further limit cases in a number of ways, or at least ensure that
equivalent types of cases are included from each jurisdiction. For instance, decisions would
need to be made as to whether child maltreatment perpetrated by caretakers other than parents
would be included in the registry since such cases are investigated by child protective services
in some states and not others. The legislation also does not specify whether cases
substantiated prior to the passage of the Adam Walsh Act or the establishment of a national
registry would be included. The records of juvenile perpetrators are typically provided more
protection than adults in criminal cases, though congressional intent with respect to the
inclusion of juvenile perpetrators in a child abuse registry is unclear. In addition, a number of
experts suggested that HHS consider how to handle cases in which the individual named as
perpetrator was not directly responsible for the child’s maltreatment. Most typically this would
include a woman abused by a spouse or partner whose maltreatment substantiation relates to
failing to protect her child from the same abuser, or from witnessing her abuse. The inclusion of
such individuals in a registry that could be used to deny them future employment in fields
working with children or vulnerable populations was seen as further victimizing an extremely
vulnerable population. However, such cases may not be readily identifiable in state data if a
decision were made to exclude them from a national registry.
A number of experts consulted suggested that a registry should be limited to cases in which a
minimum standard of due process protections, to be defined federally either in statute or
regulation, had been afforded to the perpetrator. The extent of these protections would depend
in large part on whether a registry were to be used only for investigative purposes or also for
non investigative purposes such as employment background checks. Some went further, to
suggest that only cases that had been adjudicated should be included in a national registry,
further assuring that perpetrators’ rights to due process are addressed before a record is
available to the federal government and authorized users through a national registry. Such
restrictions assure the rights of persons accused of child maltreatment and would make a
federal child abuse registry less susceptible to the sorts of legal challenges that have been an
issue with respect to a number of states’ registries and which are described elsewhere in this
report. Such restrictions, however, would either result in the exclusion of many states’ data, or
would necessitate costly changes to strengthen investigatory procedures in many states. Due
process issues are described in more detail elsewhere in this report.

18

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

Identifying Perpetrators Accurately
As has been noted, the Act specifies that the only personal identifier that may be included in a
national registry is the perpetrator’s name. This limitation is extremely problematic because
many names are too common to allow for confident identification. It is not feasible to implement
a child abuse registry using an individual’s name as the only personal identifier. Consider, for
instance, if a state were conducting an investigation in which the perpetrator’s name were
Michael Jones. If that name were run through a national registry there might be hundreds of
matches, with no way to differentiate whether any were the particular individual in question. As
an illustration, staff looked up several common names in an online phone directory. We found
45 persons named Michael Jones in Los Angeles alone. Similarly, there are 89 listings for
persons named Linda Smith in Utah and 70 David Millers in Nebraska. Names are simply too
common to allow for definitive matches without additional information.
A number of experts were consulted about what identifying information would be needed to
make a federal registry practical. In addition, a number of states’ forms currently used to
request registry checks were reviewed to determine what fields they ask requesters to specify.
States typically use a variety of fields to conduct searches of their registries. At minimum, they
usually require the individual’s date of birth, and most also use the individual’s sex, race, Social
Security Number, and often driver’s license number. Last known address and names and ages
of their children are also often used. For a national system, identifying the state and local
jurisdiction where the case originated would also be important. In establishing a national
registry it would be desirable to have more flexible authority to specify in regulation or other
policy guidance the fields necessary for establishing the identity of the perpetrator. However, if
perpetrators’ Social Security Numbers are to be among the fields included, because their use is
restricted for privacy and security purposes, explicit legislative authority for their collection and
use would be needed.
Even with additional fields, making a positive identification without biometric information, such
as fingerprints, is difficult. It is for this reason that criminal justice databases have largely
moved to using fingerprints in addition to name-based identification systems. A study conducted
for the Department of Justice in the late 1990s regarding the efficacy of name-based matches of
criminal justice records found that name-based searches of criminal records (which typically
also use date of birth as a match criterion) have very high error rates (SEARCH, 1999). That
study found 5.5 percent of queries resulted in a false positive (i.e. the query indicated the
individual had a criminal history when he or she did not), and 11.7 percent of queries resulted in
a false negative (that is, finding no criminal record when the individual had one). High error rates
for name-based matches of a national child abuse registry are also likely. If error rates for a
name-based child abuse registry prove similar to those found in criminal justice records, every
100,000 checks run against a federal registry would result in approximately 5,000 false positive
results and 10,000 false negatives. With name as the only identifier, false positive matches
would be much more frequent.
A national child abuse registry could not be constructed without a legislative change to permit
the inclusion of sufficient identifying information on perpetrators to allow a name-based match.
Even with broader identifying information, however, significant numbers of false positive and
false negative results must be expected. Moving toward fingerprint matches would provide
better accuracy, however we are aware of no state that currently uses fingerprints to identify
perpetrators in their child abuse registries. Moving to such a system would be complex and
19

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
expensive to implement. It would also move the child protection system much farther away from
its social service origins and further toward a criminal justice orientation, which would be quite
controversial.

Characterizing Maltreatment
During the preparation of this report, staff talked to a number of experts and stakeholders about
how state child abuse registries and other child abuse and neglect information systems
characterize the “nature” of maltreatment incidents, the only information beyond the
perpetrator’s name that could be included in a national child abuse registry, under the Adam
Walsh Act. These conversations indicated that information on the nature of maltreatment
incidents is currently quite variable. The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System
(NCANDS), which collects from states case level information on child maltreatment reports and
investigations, characterizes maltreatment by dividing incidents into five major categories:
physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, emotional maltreatment, and medical neglect. An
“other” category captures less common maltreatment types, including forms that may not be
considered maltreatment in all states. Cases may involve more than one type. No severity
measures are included, though their value has been considered a number of times 5 . Available
measures were always deemed too burdensome for administrative purposes or unreliable when
used in non-research settings (i.e. training and monitoring of raters is required for consistency
and they are more time consuming to use than is typically possible in a field setting).
Experts consulted for this report noted that state child abuse registry entries often include check
lists of characteristics associated with the maltreatment as well as a text field providing a
narrative description of the case. It would be possible to include some of this information in a
federal database, but without requiring changes to state and local systems, the resulting entries
would be quite inconsistent. Federal guidance to states that have developed SACWIS systems
have encouraged the use of discrete data fields to identify types of maltreatment (HHS, no
date). Stakeholders suggested that important information characterizing the maltreatment
would also include the perpetrator’s relationship to the victim as well as the age and sex of the
victim.
Standard child maltreatment definitions have been developed and validated for use in the
Department of Defense’s Family Advocacy Programs which address maltreatment within
military families (Slep and Heyman, 2006). However, since states have jurisdiction over most
family law, it is unlikely the federal government would seek to impose conformity with respect to
child maltreatment definitions, particularly based on definitions designed for use with military
families rather than the general public.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has developed standardized child
maltreatment definitions suggested for use in public health surveillance (CDC, 2008). These
standards, however, are designed for public health purposes and include no items about
perpetrators. To the extent state systems move toward these definitions they do have the
potential to improve the uniformity of how child maltreatment is classified in administrative data
systems. However, these definitions do not necessarily track states’ legal definitions of abuse
and neglect, and moving toward uniformity using these definitions would be a long process
necessitating significant changes in state and local data systems. While some states may
ultimately be interested in moving toward such uniformity, the Adam Walsh Act does not allow
5

Personal communication with Ying-Ying Yuan, Walter R. McDonald and Associates, April 1, 2008.

20

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
HHS to require changes to child maltreatment record keeping. The definitions published by the
CDC go into much greater detail regarding the nature of the child maltreatment incident than
does NCANDS or than is now typically captured by states’ administrative data systems. For
instance, where NCANDS will record that a child suffered physical abuse, the CDC data
elements include fields describing whether the maltreatment resulted in illness or injury, the
nature of the injury, the mechanism of the injury, the location of the injury, and more. Similarly,
there are 11 data elements describing sexual abuse. Moving toward these definitions would
involve significant change to CPS agencies’ data collection practices.

Maintaining a Registry and Responding to Inquiries
Assuming data for a registry were successfully compiled, additional challenges await pertaining
to keeping that data secure, restricting access to authorized users, and providing for the
ongoing maintenance and update of the information included in the registry. This section of the
report addresses these issues.

Keeping Registry Data Secure
Because it would contain extremely sensitive personal data, it would be important to design a
national child abuse registry in ways that incorporate a high level of security to assure the
system is not susceptible to unauthorized disclosures. Typically these security measures would
include requirements for encrypting data, establishing firewalls, and enforcing strong user
authentication. Some systems require dedicated telecommunications lines for the transmission
of inquiries and responses, equipment dedicated to the function and not used by unauthorized
personnel; and that terminals used for queries are kept in locked offices accessible only to
persons authorized to use the system. Any reasonably secure system will involve significant up
front and ongoing costs to both the federal government and to users for hardware and software
purchases, and technical assistance to ensure its appropriate use. More information on the
costs and benefits of a national child abuse registry appear elsewhere in this report.

Restricting Access to a National Child Abuse Registry to Authorized Users
The sensitivity of the information in a national child abuse registry makes it essential that access
to the information be restricted to those with a legitimate need for the information. The Adam
Walsh Act restricts access 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 under law to protect children from child abuse and neglect,” and requires HHS to
“establish standards for the dissemination of information in the national registry of substantiated
cases of child abuse or neglect” that comply with CAPTA provisions that limit public disclosure
of data on individuals while encouraging cooperation in prosecution and treatment provision.
While states have procedures of their own that restrict access of registry information to
authorized users for legitimate child protection purposes, circumstances arise occasionally in
which information is misused. For instance, in June 2008 three employees of New York’s state
child welfare agency were arrested for using information from that state’s child abuse registry for
personal purposes. This included providing information to friends for use in disputes with
estranged family members (Capital 9 News, 2008). While incidents such as these are not
common, they do illustrate the importance of carefully regulating and monitoring access to the
very sensitive information included in a child abuse registry.
21

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

Prior to implementation, HHS would need to define further what it means for a user to be “an
entity carrying out responsibilities to protect children from abuse or neglect.” Most likely is that
this term would be defined as it is in CAPTA (section 106(b)(2)(ix) and 45 CFR 1340.14(i)),
meaning agencies with access to a national child abuse registry are those that, in theory, are
currently permitted to receive child abuse history information from other CPS agencies. In
addition, procedures would need to be established to verify that requests for background checks
are from authorized agencies and only for legitimate purposes, which also must be defined.
These would be among the most significant tasks involved in implementing a national child
abuse registry. HHS does not currently have established programmatic relationships with most
agencies that investigate child maltreatment, only the 56 state and territorial agencies that
receive funding under CAPTA’s Basic State Grant Program. By contrast there are
approximately 2,600 local child protection agencies nationally with tens of thousands of
investigators (HHS, 2003). Other potential users include staff in the over 17,000 state and local
law enforcement agencies nationally. Monitoring state and local access directly would be a
monumental task. Department of Justice experience with this issue in relation to criminal history
records is discussed elsewhere in this report.

Responding Promptly to Queries
A key issue for many in considering how useful a national child abuse registry would be is
whether inquiries would result in prompt responses. In order to be useful for investigative
inquiries, most stakeholders suggested that they would prefer responses to be immediate, but
would find them at least somewhat useful if received within a couple of days. Longer response
times were considered of less utility in investigative situations, since decisions on safety often
must be made quickly. Response times of up to a week were considered by most to be useful
in some situations, such as in response to licensing or employment related inquiries. Many
states, though not all, have been able to meet such timelines with respect to recent
requirements to conduct out of state child abuse registry checks of prospective foster and
adoptive parents. It is less clear that states could respond as quickly if the volume of interstate
checks grew significantly. Automating such searches via a national database would help speed
up this process (if, as discussed above, identifications could be made reliably). A national
system that simply passed requests through to states but did not necessarily return responses
promptly was viewed less favorably.
Related to the issue of the time it takes to respond to an inquiry is how much of a time lag there
is in the data in a registry system. That is, are the data updated in real time, or is there a lag of
days, weeks, or months between the time a report is substantiated and the time it is available
through a registry system? The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System currently
receives annual updates from states, and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
System is updated semi-annually. The Department of Defense updates its child maltreatment
registry on a quarterly basis, though individual services’ information systems are updated more
frequently 6 . The longer the lag time, the greater would be the possibility that recent relevant
reports on the perpetrator are missed. Frequent updates, however, would add to the logistical
challenges and expense of maintaining a national child abuse registry.

6

Personal communication with David Lloyd, Director, Family Advocacy Program, Department of Defense,
April 9, 2008.

22

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

Determining a Registry’s Relationship to Other Data Collection Efforts
Since 1990, the Children’s Bureau has collected annually from states information about abused
and neglected children known to state child protection agencies. The National Child Abuse and
Neglect Data System (NCANDS), through which this information is collected, is a voluntary
system that describes child maltreatment reports, investigations, victims, and perpetrators.
Forty nine states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico provided at least some data to
NCANDS in 2006, though not all states provide data on all topics covered by the system. All
information is provided to HHS by state government agencies. No information is submitted
directly by local government entities and no data is collected from Indian tribes.
Child-level data is submitted to HHS and compiled by a contractor into an annual report
describing the outcomes of child protective services investigations nationally and by state. The
data is also used to calculate performance measures by which the Children’s Bureau monitors
child welfare program performance. Further, the data is available to researchers for analysis
through the Children’s Bureau’s National Child Abuse and Neglect Data Archive.
The information collected in NCANDS does not currently include identifying information on
either child maltreatment victims or perpetrators and therefore cannot, in its current form, serve
as a national child abuse registry. However, in establishing such a registry one option would be
to use NCANDS as a starting point. A list of child-level data elements collected within NCANDS
appears at Appendix C. NCANDS includes elements that:
♦ describe the characteristics of each child abuse report (e.g. the date of the report, the
category of person who reported the maltreatment, and the disposition of the report);
♦ provide demographics of the child;
♦ identify the type(s) of abuse or neglect in several broad categories;
♦ list whether any of several child risk factors and caregiver risk factors are present;
♦ detail whether any of a series of services were provided to the family;
♦ describe the demographics of the perpetrator(s);
♦ quantify maltreatment-related fatalities.
Comparing data currently collected by NCANDS with that specified in the Adam Walsh Act for
inclusion in a national child abuse registry reveals there to be relatively little overlap between
the two. The Act specifies that information in a national registry be limited to the “name of the
perpetrator and the nature of the abuse and neglect.” Names are not currently included in
NCANDS and the “nature” of the maltreatment is described only by maltreatment type, i.e.
physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, emotional maltreatment, medical neglect or “other.”
NCANDS does describe the perpetrator’s relationship to the victim (i.e. mother, father, etc.), but
contains no descriptive information on the maltreatment incident, no assessment of the severity
of the maltreatment, or of any resulting injuries or harm to the child (except in the case of
fatalities, which are noted).
Experts consulted during the preparation of this report believed that a national child abuse
registry could be constructed as an add-on component to the existing NCANDS data system.
Several observed, however, that building a national child abuse registry into NCANDS would
fundamentally alter the nature of the data system. Currently the focus of NCANDS is on
understanding the broad phenomenon of child maltreatment and trends in the reports to and
determinations of maltreatment made by the child protective services system. A focus on
identifying individual perpetrators and using the information to perform background checks
23

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
would fundamentally alter its purpose and orientation. Were NCANDS to be used as the basis
for a national registry, additional fields would need to be added with information identifying the
perpetrator and to document additional characteristics of the maltreatment. Other sections of
this report on standardization and data comparability describe these issues in further detail.

Complying with the Privacy Act
The Privacy Act establishes rules by which federal agencies must manage records that include
personally identifiable information about individuals that is retrieved by the individual’s name or
another personal identifier. To the extent records that become part of a national child abuse
registry are controlled, maintained, and, potentially, disclosed by a federal agency, those
records would be subject to the Privacy Act. To comply with the Privacy Act, HHS would need to
develop procedures to protect the information and to limit its use to intended purposes. These
procedures include the steps HHS will take to ensure that records included in a national child
abuse registry are accurate, relevant, timely and complete. The Privacy Act further requires that
a notice in the Federal Register describe:
♦ The types of individuals covered by the data system;
♦ The nature of the information to be included in a national child abuse registry;
♦ Procedures that HHS will implement for responding to individuals’ inquiries about whether
the system contains records on them, as well as to allow individuals to access records
about them and to amend their records to correct any part that is not accurate, relevant,
timely or complete;
♦ Circumstances under which data will be disclosed, to whom, and for what purpose;
♦ How long information will be retained by the federal government; and
♦ Physical, technical, and administrative safeguards that will be used to protect the
information in the data system.
Because this database would be used for civil law enforcement purposes, HHS may choose to
exempt itself from Privacy Act requirements regarding certain provisions, including the
requirement to provide records to the subject individual upon request in some, but not all,
circumstances. Even if such an exemption were asserted, however, HHS would still need to
adhere to other Privacy Act mandates regarding the maintenance, storage, and disclosure of
data. Because the records to be included in a national child abuse registry would not originate
with the federal government, ensuring their accuracy and completeness would be challenging.
The key question is likely to become how much verification at the federal level would be
required before information in a national child abuse registry is disclosed to an authorized
requester.
If a national child abuse registry is created, the Department would be required to ensure that
the records are maintained “with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is
reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual in [a] determination” about that
individual. Congressional direction to establish a national child abuse registry would satisfy the
“relevance” requirement. However, if information included in the registry includes textual notes
or other information appended to the record, each such entry would need to be reviewed to
ensure that it did not include extraneous information in addition to that which was necessary.
Timeliness would require a standard for automatic deletion of records after certain periods of
time, unless they were the subject of litigation.

24

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
Assuring accuracy and completeness is more complex. Case law is mixed regarding the level of
verification required before highly sensitive information about individuals originating from state
records is disclosed by the federal government. It is possible that each time a record were
disseminated HHS would be required first to verify with the state that submitted the record that
the state does, in fact, have a record on the individual, that the registry’s copy of the information
is accurate and includes the entire record that is intended to be kept, that the state intended to
file the record in the national child abuse registry, and that the record has not been withdrawn or
changed since the time the state filed it with us. However the accuracy and completeness tests
are met, the federal government would likely receive requests from the subject of the record to
amend the record. If we did not promulgate an exemption rule, at the very least, HHS would
need to file a notation in the record or a statement of objection from the subject, and then
disclose the statement along with the record each time it is disseminated. The Department
would also need a process to address potential inaccuracies that come to our attention, unless
a decision is made to exempt the system from this aspect of the Privacy Act.
More specificity regarding steps that would meet Privacy Act requirements depends on
decisions regarding the scope of registry records and the parameters placed around disclosures
of those records. The required activities will certainly involve a significant level of effort at the
federal level as well as burden to state, local and tribal agencies whose records become part of
a national child abuse registry. The section of this report addressing due process issues
discusses related protections that would be required to assure the fairness of a national child
abuse registry to individuals identified within it.

Issues Regarding Participation of Indian Tribes in a National Child
Abuse Registry
Section 633 of The Adam Walsh Act specifies that a national child abuse registry should include
data submitted by Indian tribes as well as that of state and local child protective services
agencies. Tribal child protection agencies are also permitted access to registry data. This
section of the report describes a number of particular issues that may affect implementation with
respect to Indian tribes. To identify feasibility issues for tribes, discussions were held with staff
of the National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) as well as with staff of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) within the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), which administers child welfare
activities authorized under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). ACF staff familiar with tribal
child welfare issues were also consulted.
Individuals and organizations consulted all believed a very few Indian tribes currently maintain
their own child abuse registries, though none could identify any in particular that did so.
Rather than maintaining their own registries, a more common occurrence is that Indian tribes,
particularly those that have agreements with states through which the Indian tribe participates in
the IV-E foster care and adoption assistance programs, have access to data from the child
abuse registry of the state(s) in which they are located. Some may also submit data to state
registries. Approximately 86 title IV-E agreements currently exist between Indian tribes and
states for access to child welfare program funding, some of which involve multiple Indian tribes 7 .
Many of these Indian tribes also participate in the Title IV-B Subpart 2 Promoting Safe and
7

The programmatic landscape of tribal child welfare programs is likely to change as a result of the recent
Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, P.L. 110-351, that now allows
tribes to receive title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance funds directly rather than through
agreements with states.

25

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
Stable Families Program. In addition, approximately 200 Indian tribes have, or are currently
developing, sex offender registries in response to other provisions of the Act. In several
instances, individuals consulted for this report suggested Indian tribes they thought had child
abuse registries, but in each case further checking revealed these to be sex offender registries
in which some offenders had committed crimes against children, rather child abuse registries as
typically used by state child protective services agencies.
The issue of tribal child abuse registries has been discussed by Congress from time to time in
the past. In fact, the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-630, 25
U.S.C. 3204) required that the BIA, in consultation with HHS and the Attorney General, conduct
a feasibility study of a tribal child abuse registry and prepare a Report to Congress about the
results of the study. BIA and congressional staff contacted were unsuccessful in locating a copy
of that report. However, congressional records revealed several references to the findings of a
feasibility study conducted in response to the requirement:
♦ In 1995 testimony before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, the Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs at the time described that “[t]he feasibility for a central registry on child
abuse in Indian country was completed in October, 1994,” and noted that “BIA is exploring
the costs, benefits, and feasibility issues raised by” recommendations for the
establishment of a tribal child abuse registry (U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs, 1995, p. 5).
♦ In a 2006 letter to Senator John McCain, then ranking member of the Senate Committee
on Indian Affairs, the director of the Indian Health Service observed that “the DOI
consulted with the HHS and the Attorney General in 1990 and determined that the
establishment of a Central Registry was not feasible due to privacy and legal concerns"
(U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 2007, p. 15).
♦ And in 2005, the director of the BIA testified that "contrary to the provisions of Section 405
of the Act, a Central Registry has not been established. A feasibility study for this registry
was completed in 1994. The study concluded that the main obstacles to implementing the
Central Registry were overcoming due process concerns and developing a mechanism
that would require tribal implementation. To date, these obstacles remain a challenge. A
federal study to identify factors that are impeding the reduction of child abuse in Indian
country would fulfill the intent of Section 405, as the legal and other obstacles to
implementation of the Central Registry may never be overcome." (U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs, 2007, pp. 18-19).
Tribal participation in a national child abuse registry would be made difficult by the lack of
existing tribal registries. While states that do not have registries typically do have other
administrative data systems that contain information on perpetrators used for investigative
purposes, Indian tribes may lack these other data systems as well. Further, the
telecommunications infrastructure needed to transmit and receive data through a national
registry, such as secure, dedicated terminals or high speed Internet access, may not be
available to all Indian tribes.
Several individuals consulted about tribal issues with respect to implementing a national child
abuse registry pointed out that the establishment of child abuse registries is rarely mentioned in
discussions of next steps in improving tribal child protection systems and that other activities
would likely be viewed as having a greater impact on the safety of tribal children. In particular,
several stakeholders mentioned that of higher priority are improvements to risk and safety
26

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
assessment practice, the development of software tailored to Indian tribes’ needs that would
keep track of investigations and open cases, and improvements to the prosecution of individuals
who have previously maltreated children. Another issue mentioned was that the time and costs
involved for Indian tribes to conduct criminal background checks through existing systems is
already a problem, and some feared that potential user fees associated with a national child
abuse registry would compound the issue.

Due Process Considerations
Because child abuse registries contain sensitive personal information about families which is
sometimes used in ways that have far-reaching implications, the establishment of a national
registry raises serious issues regarding the reliability of the information that would be included in
a registry, to whom information may be released, and for what purposes the information may be
used. Further, particularly if information may be used to influence someone’s employment,
constitutional issues of due process become important as well. This section of the report
addresses the following questions:
♦ What due process issues are raised by the establishment of a national child abuse
registry?
♦ How do state child protective services systems address these issues?
Due process refers to the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit the
government from depriving any person “of life liberty or property without due process of law.”
The monetary benefits of employment are considered property, making their denial based on
information included in a child abuse registry subject to the due process clause (Philips, 1993;
Moore, 1995). If information is used for investigative purposes only, these issues are less
relevant, though some court cases have also examined whether there are liberty interests
involved if information from a registry is used to take away parental rights or deny adoption
applications.
Courts in a number of states have reviewed these issues with respect to child abuse registries,
generally examining whether adequate protections for individuals’ rights are available before an
individual’s name is included in a child abuse registry. These protections include that a
relatively strong standard of proof be required for substantiation; that the individual has been
notified of the finding and its implications; and that adequate procedures exist for hearings or
appeals with respect to investigators’ decisions to substantiate maltreatment. Court decisions in
a number of states have forced changes to state registries’ procedures in these areas, and the
registry in Georgia was declared unconstitutional in 1998 because of such procedural
inadequacies 8 . The potential federal use of this information in ways not contemplated by state
procedures further raises the significance of these issues.
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act expressly requires that a feasibility study of a
child abuse registry make recommendations and findings concerning “a due process procedure
for a national registry” (section 633(g)(1)(D)). A first step in considering a federal due process
procedure was to understand what procedures exist at the state level and apply to the initial
8

Legal decisions from Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire and New York appear in the
references section. In most of these cases low standards of evidence were the primary issue and courts
demanded that a preponderance of the evidence standard be used.

27

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
decision to substantiate a child maltreatment allegation and include the perpetrator’s name in a
state’s child abuse registry. These issues are examined in this section. The chart at appendix
B describes characteristics of child abuse registries in each state. Features related to due
process are summarized below.
Standard of Proof Used for Substantiation Decisions. An important aspect of state child
abuse registries that varies considerably is the standard of proof required to make an
investigative determination that a case is substantiated, and thus that the perpetrator would
potentially be included in a national registry. 9 Twenty nine states report using relatively strong
legal standards that include:
♦ The clear and convincing standard 10 indicates that that the evidence provides a high
probability that the allegation is true. Only one state (Pennsylvania) uses this standard for
substantiation decisions.
♦ Preponderance of the evidence is used in most civil court actions and means that the
allegation is more likely true than not. This is the most common legal standard used to
substantiate child maltreatment cases, used by 27 states.
The remaining states and the District of Columbia, 22 in all, use weaker legal standards for
making substantiation decisions. These include either that there exists some credible evidence,
material evidence, reasonable evidence, or probable cause to believe the allegation is true.
Decisions that a case is to be substantiated under these standards indicate an investigator’s
belief that maltreatment occurred is reasonably grounded in fact and circumstance, though
these decisions do not need to meet the “more likely true than not” mark required by the
preponderance of the evidence standard. Because many large states, including California, New
York, Illinois, and Ohio, use these weaker legal standards, more than half of child maltreatment
substantiation decisions annually are made using these relatively low standards of proof.
Notification. State child abuse statutes typically include requirements for notifying various
parties about the outcomes of investigations. As of 2005, 41 states had requirements that
perpetrators be notified of the investigation decision (Child Welfare Information Gateway 2005f).
Typically, as part of that notification the individual would be informed that their name will appear
on the state’s child abuse registry. If a national registry is implemented it will be important to
consider whether the individual must also be notified that their information will be submitted to a
national registry and of the implications of their inclusion. Prospectively, it is likely that HHS
would want to ensure states perform such notifications at the time a substantiation decision is
made regarding any perpetrator whose name would be included in a national registry. If a
national registry is to contain cases substantiated by states prior to implementation, notification
becomes much more difficult. Typically, state registries maintain entries for many years after the
substantiation, often at least until a victim reaches age 18. Contact information on the
perpetrator is not updated, however, and it would be difficult and expensive, if not impossible, to
make such notifications retrospectively.
Appeal. The state statutes series compiled by the Child Welfare Information Gateway (2005e,
2005f) describes statutorily established hearing or appeals procedures that can be used by
9

While several sources have reported information on legal standards used by states in child protection
investigations, data presented here are the most recent available, from Child Maltreatment 2006 (HHS
2008).
10
Descriptions of legal standards are adapted from Miriam Webster’s Dictionary of Law, 1996.

28

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
perpetrators to challenge substantiation decisions. Only half of states had appeals procedures
that were laid out in state law. Other sources indicate that 42 states have an appeal procedure,
though it may be specified in policy rather than statute (HHS, 2003). Many of the appeal
procedures states employ are administrative, involving a review within the CPS agency, by CPS
staff. Far fewer include a judicial appeal step or a hearing before someone outside the child
protective services agency. Little information exists on the outcomes of such appeals with which
to judge the overall defensibility of CPS agencies’ substantiation decisions. A news report from
2004 reported that “Agency officials say more than half of [Connecticut Department of Children
and Families’] child abuse or neglect citations get overturned on appeal.” (Poitras, 2004). A
similar news story in Illinois found that the state lost 27 percent of nearly 11,500 appeals filed
over a 5½ year period from 2002 to 2007 (Pawlaczyk and Hundsdorfer, 2008).
Expungement. Procedures for eliminating from state registries information that is inaccurate or
that has been overturned has been a perpetual weakness of registries since their inception.
While CAPTA requires that states have procedures for expunging records, procedures for doing
so vary and may not be adhered to. A 2004 report on California’s child abuse and neglect
system cites an audit finding that central registry records were poorly maintained. While the
initial audit was confined to one large county, the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act Task
Force reported that “it is possible that half of the 800,000 records which [the California
Department of Justice] presently maintains in [the state’s Child Abuse Central Index] should be
purged.” (California Office of the Attorney General, 2004, p. 24).
Access to Information in State Registries. State laws vary in the details of who may access
information contained within central registries, for what purposes, and what information may be
provided to those with access rights. State laws were reviewed to assess, preliminarily, whether
those statutes currently provide the authority states would need to provide data to a national
registry. CAPTA currently requires as a condition of receiving funds from the Basic State Grant
Program that a state’s child protection laws include “provisions to require a State to disclose
confidential information to any Federal, State, or local government entity, or any agent of such
entity, that has a need for such information in order to carry out its responsibilities under law to
protect children from abuse or neglect” (42 U.S.C. 5106(b)(2)(A)(ix)). The CAPTA provision is
most often invoked to permit disclosures of information about a particular case with a current
protection issue, but is broad enough to permit this information to be shared with the national
registry described in the Adam Walsh Act. Regardless, our review indicates that state statutes
in only 13 states explicitly permit registry information to be shared with federal agencies that
need it. Laws of 30 states make no mention of federal access, and quite a few are ambiguous
about whether federal agencies are included among those who may access information (Child
Welfare Information Gateway 2005b).
With respect to a due process procedure, there can be no federal substitute for procedural
protections at the state or local level. HHS must not create a system that would second guess
local investigations and determinations. If a national child abuse registry is established, HHS
believes 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. Whether or not
employment related background checks remain a permissible use of the registry is an important
factor in determining the due process protections that would be required. It should be noted that
strong due process protections could necessitate significant changes to existing CPS
investigation processes in some states that may be costly to implement and that could
discourage participation in a national registry.

29

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
HHS is not yet ready to recommend specific due process protections that would be required as
part of a national child abuse registry. Our initial feasibility assessment has identified issues
that have been the subject of legal challenges to state child abuse registries around the country.
As feasibility work continues, we will seek examples of states’ due process procedures related
to their own registries in an effort to design appropriate federal due process protections for a
national child abuse registry.

Lessons from Data Systems Used for Criminal Background
Checks
Child abuse registries are used to conduct child abuse history checks in ways that are in some
respects similar to how criminal history checks are used by law enforcement agencies. There
are parallels in how criminal history records are used both for law enforcement purposes (i.e.
criminal investigations), and for noncriminal justice purposes (such as for employment
screenings). These similarities and the long track record of the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ) in facilitating nationwide access to criminal history records led us to consider how DOJ’s
related systems have addressed a number of the issues that would need to be considered in
implementing a national child abuse registry. This section addresses the following questions:
♦ How does the federal government facilitate the national exchange of criminal history
records for criminal and noncriminal justice purposes?
♦ What lessons do those systems hold for a national child abuse registry and what key
differences between criminal history records and child protective services records should
be considered in thinking about these systems as models?
The FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division serves as the focal point and
central repository for criminal justice information services in the FBI. It is the FBI's largest
division and is responsible for administering several programs, including the Integrated
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), the national criminal history record index
known as the Interstate Identification Index (III or "Triple I"), the National Crime Information
Center (NCIC), (including files relating to wanted persons, civil protection orders, registered sex
offenders, and missing persons), and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(NICS) (which processes background checks on prospective purchasers of firearms from
federal firearms licensees).
The Integrated Automated Fingerprint System (IAFIS) integrates fingerprint records that
have been sent to the FBI by the states and territories and federal law enforcement agencies, all
of which have established their own Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS).
Fingerprint identification has been a major responsibility of the FBI since 1924 and fingerprints
have been a key part of the FBI’s national criminal history record system. IAFIS provides
automated fingerprint search capabilities, latent fingerprint searching capability, electronic
image storage, and electronic exchange of fingerprints and responses 24 hours a day, 365 days
a year. Categories of fingerprints currently maintained by the FBI include: criminal fingerprints,
federal applicants and employees, United States military, aliens, and those submitted to the FBI
by persons desiring to have their fingerprints placed on record with the FBI for personal
identification purposes.
The Interstate Identification Index (III) segment of IAFIS is the national system designed to
provide automated criminal history record information. The III is an index-pointer system that
30

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
allows for the exchange of criminal history records ("rap sheets"). The III stores the criminal
history records of federal offenders and those offenders submitted by participating and nonparticipating III states. All information in the III is supported by fingerprint submissions. Under
the III, the FBI maintains an index of persons arrested for felonies or misdemeanors under
either state or federal law. The index includes identification data such as name, birth date, race,
and sex, etc., and federal and state identification numbers. As of October 2008, 50 states and
the District of Columbia were participating in III.
The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) is a computerized database of documented
criminal justice information available to virtually every law enforcement agency nationwide, 24
hours a day, 365 days a year. The NCIC has been in operation since 1967, with the goal of
assisting law enforcement in apprehending fugitives and locating stolen property. This goal has
since expanded to include locating missing persons and further protecting law enforcement
personnel and the public.
The National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR) is part of the NCIC database. The NSOR
includes records for each sex offender and any other person required to register in a
jurisdiction’s sex offender registry. Information in the NSOR is law enforcement in nature and is
accessible by federal, tribal, state, and local criminal justice agencies. In addition, the U.S.
Department of Justice manages the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website which
provides the means for the public to access all jurisdictions’ publicly available sex offender
registry records through a single website.
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is used to determine the
eligibility of prospective firearm transferees in accordance with federal and state law. Firearms
dealers initiate background checks through the NICS by telephonically contacting either a statedesignated agency or the FBI NICS Section's Contracted Call Centers, or through an Internetbased electronic access. Based on data specific to FBI-generated NICS checks, in most cases,
a dealer receives an immediate proceed or deny response; however, when a valid match yields
incomplete information (e.g., a missing disposition), a delay occurs and the NICS is provided
three business days to allow for further research. In 2006, over ten million (state and federal
initiated) background checks were submitted through the NICS.

Compiling and Referencing Criminal History Records
A child abuse registry would essentially entail a search of administrative records regarding
persons named during CPS investigations as child maltreatment perpetrators. This section
examines how criminal history records differ from child abuse history records and how the III
handles issues that are likely to be important in establishing a national child abuse registry.
The Department of Justice has spent many years assisting states to upgrade the quality of their
criminal history records and systems for sharing them securely in order to achieve the level of
information access currently available to state and local law enforcement agencies. The
National Criminal History Improvement Program between 1995 and 2005 awarded states and
territories $495 million to improve the quality, timeliness, and immediate accessibility of criminal
history records and related information. As of January, 2006, over 63 million records were
included among the files accessed for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
The bulk of these (56 million) were Interstate Identification Index files as described above. The
National Sex Offender Registry at that time included approximately 414,000 records (Ramker,
2006).
31

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

National Criminal History Record Search State Records in State Repositories. The
criminal history records searched, with some exceptions, are those maintained by state criminal
history record repositories. The III system does not access records directly from local
agencies. This is in contrast to requirements of the Adam Walsh Act regarding a child abuse
registry, which specifies that local jurisdictions may submit records directly to a federal system.
Criminal History Records are Maintained by States. The Federal Bureau of Investigation
once maintained records in a central system, however since the 1980s it has moved to a
decentralized system in which most criminal history records are held in state criminal history
record repositories and are searched through a national database that allows law enforcement
access to records from across the nation. Described as an index-pointer system (U.S.
Department of Justice, 2001), the FBI maintains a master name index which directs an inquiry
to one or more state agencies which maintain a matching record. State records are provided to
the inquiring agency through The International Justice and Public Safety Information Sharing
Network (Nlets), a secure telecommunications system. States are responsible for the accuracy
of their criminal history records.
Criminal History Records Pertain Primarily to Arrests. Most of the arrest information
provided in criminal history record checks are related to felonies or serious misdemeanors.
Arrest records are provided to law enforcement agencies for criminal justice purposes. Use of
criminal history record information for noncriminal justice purposes is more sensitive and
requires the establishment of positive identification through fingerprint processing. In addition to
the federal government, twenty seven states have ratified the National Crime Prevention and
Privacy Compact (Compact) Act of 1998. The Compact established an electronic information
sharing system among the federal government and the states to exchange criminal history
records for noncriminal justice purposes authorized by federal or state law. 11
Criminal History Records are Often Publicly Accessible. Historically, information about
convictions has been available widely and is not subject to the confidentiality protections
afforded in child maltreatment cases. A 2001 survey revealed that in 29 states “anyone” could
obtain criminal history for another person on request (SEARCH 2001). Thus in these uses the
federal government is facilitating access to information but not providing authority for access to
information that would not have otherwise been available to the user from the state holding the
original record. Access to data regarding arrests rather than convictions (more akin to
unsubstantiated maltreatment investigations) is more restricted. However, even though criminal
records are often publicly available at the local level, courts have found that in compiling records
centrally the federal government negates their “practical obscurity” and must require more
substantial privacy safeguards than would have been available in their original form (Davis,
2003).
Positive Identification is Accomplished through Fingerprints. Nearly all justice system
background checks now use fingerprints as the primary means of identification. Name-based
checks are not considered sufficiently reliable to assure positive identification. Even with
fingerprint identification, federal criminal records systems typically include as many identifiers as
possible to ensure accurate matches. Social Security Numbers, drivers’ license numbers,
aliases, addresses, and other fields allow for more confident identification of individuals in these
systems. Few such fields are typically available in child abuse registry records and, as currently
11

Information on the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact is available at:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/web%20page/pdf/cctrifold.pdf)

32

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
written, the Adam Walsh Act prohibits a federal child abuse registry from containing identifying
information beyond the perpetrator’s name.
Victims are Not Identified in Criminal History Records. While adult criminal perpetrators are
not typically entitled to privacy with respect to criminal records, juvenile perpetrators and crime
victims are not identified in criminal records accessible for background checks. For instance,
the National Sex Offenders Registry contains no identifying information on victims. In child
abuse registries, however, names and other information about perpetrators’ children (usually the
victims) are among the key fields often used to verify the individuals’ identity. Even if not named
in a national child abuse registry, some victims will be identifiable because once you list “John
Doe of Anytown, Anystate was substantiated on a particular date for neglect of his three
children ages X, Y and Z,” even without names those children are potentially identifiable. The
Adam Walsh Act requires that the national child abuse registry include information on “the
nature of the substantiated case of abuse or neglect.” Careful consideration is needed about
how much identifying information about victims should be included in a national child abuse
registry and released to registry users.
The Number of Noncriminal Records Relevant to Firearms Purchases Submitted to the
NICS Continues to Increase. The NICS is a name-based system in which the name and
descriptive information of a prospective firearms transferee is searched through the III (e.g.,
criminal history records), the NCIC (e.g., protection orders, warrants), and the NICS Index. The
NICS Index maintains records, voluntarily contributed by local, state, and federal agencies, of
persons who are federally disqualified the transfer of a firearm, such as those specific to
prohibiting mental health information or substance abuse. Although the number of records
maintained in the NICS Index continues to increase, many qualifying records have not yet been
contributed. For instance, at the end of 2005, the NICS Index maintained fewer than 1,000
disqualifying records specific to controlled substance abuse. Recent legislation as a result of
the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (PL 110-180) establishes incentives and
penalties to encourage states to include this information in the system.
While broader in scope than a child abuse registry, Department of Justice experience managing
access to criminal records provides insights relevant to establishing procedures for accessing
information on perpetrators of child maltreatment. The Department of Justice has years of
experience monitoring allowable access to criminal records systems maintained by or accessed
through the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division. In order to protect the
integrity of the information the FBI has established a secure telecommunications network
through which records are exchanged. States may access records through the CJIS systems
only after establishing user agreements with the Department of Justice that specify strict
guidelines about the circumstances under which records may be accessed and used. Regular
audits are conducted by FBI personnel to assure that states’ use remains in compliance with the
user agreements. States must maintain computer equipment and telecommunications lines or
channels in ways that meet the FBI’s security standards. Computer terminals used to access
the FBI’s system must be in a secure, locked location within the agency’s facility, with physical
access only by authorized personnel. There are requirements also for the personnel who have
access to information and the records and audit trail that must be maintained on each data
request 12 . One small state whose child protective services agency has established access to

12

These requirements are summarized in the NCIC’s Privacy Act Notice, published an 64 FR 52343.

33

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
NCIC information reports that getting their systems certified as compliant with the FBI’s
requirements took years and cost over a million dollars to accomplish 13 .
The FBI controls access to the NCIC at the state level. The access of local personnel is
handled by the state and must go through a state telecommunications network. Allowing direct
access of local staff to a national child abuse registry, as seems contemplated in the Adam
Walsh Act, would be a more complex undertaking that would be very difficult, and potentially
costly, to accomplish in a secure fashion.

Benefits and Costs of a National Child Abuse Registry
The Adam Walsh Act requires that HHS’s feasibility study of a national child abuse registry
address the costs and benefits of such a registry. Available information about costs and
benefits is provided below. Costs will depend to a large extent on a number of decisions that
have not been made regarding direction and scope of a registry. The discussion below
addresses key cost questions including:
♦ What potential benefits could result from the implementation of a national child abuse
registry?
♦ What categories of costs would be involved in establishing a national child abuse registry,
including direct costs of establishing and maintaining a registry and costs that would be
incurred by others as a system is implemented?
Where available, information about costs of related efforts is described to inform readers about
the possible magnitude or range of costs involved. Because actual costs of a national child
abuse registry will depend on significant decisions about form and scope that have not yet been
made, detailed cost estimates have not been prepared. The text box that follows this cost
discussion identifies a number of unresolved questions that would significantly affect system
costs.

Potential Benefits
The primary benefit of a national child abuse registry would be investigators’ improved
knowledge of any historical pattern of abuse or neglect regarding an alleged perpetrator. This
information would help an investigator establish patterns of behavior and determine which party
is the more credible as conflicting information is gathered during an investigation. Information
about past incidents can help child welfare agencies better judge potential current risk to the
child and what level of protection may be required. However, no information is available to
quantify safety improvements or avoided maltreatment that might result from improved
information about past substantiated maltreatment in other states. If a registry is used also for
employment-related background checks, presumably there would also be some avoided child
abuse and neglect as a result of denying employment to unsuitable persons. Few data are
available to quantify such benefits, however. A California report on its registry indicated that in
2003, five percent of non-investigative inquiries resulted in positive matches; no similar figure on
investigative inquiries was provided (California Office of the Attorney General, 2004).
13

Personal Communication with Vin McAteer, Rhode Island Division of Child Protective Services, April
15, 2008.

34

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

It should be noted that benefits of a national child abuse registry could be realized only if many
or most states participate by providing data on perpetrators to a registry and only if costs and
procedures involved in performing a registry check do not discourage its use.
Because the near total lack of information about how frequently child maltreatment perpetrators
offend in multiple states prevents us from assessing the potential benefits of a national child
abuse registry, obtaining better information on this key issue will be a primary focus of the next
phase of the feasibility study.

Anticipated Costs
Costs of a national child abuse registry include the federal costs of operating a registry, costs to
states of providing information through a registry, and costs to individuals upon whom child
abuse history checks are conducted. These are described below.

Federal Costs
♦ Federal Start-up Costs. Initial expenses would include the costs involved in designing
and establishing a national child abuse registry. These costs would include a systems
review of existing state databases; a collaborative process to engage states and Indian
tribes in the design of a federal registry; programming and other tasks involved in
establishing the system once decisions have been made regarding its features. As a
rough indication of magnitude of these costs, the establishment of the AdoptUsKids web
site cost $4 million across fiscal years 2000 and 2001. AdoptUsKids.org is a tool for
connecting foster and adoptive families with waiting children throughout the United States.
It contains information submitted by states about children available for adoption and may
be searched by families potentially interested in adopting a child. While substantially
different in function, federal costs involved to compile initial records for a national child
abuse registry would likely be an effort of similar scope to that endeavor. However,
hardware and telecommunications costs related to ensuring the security of data
exchanged are likely to be substantial for a national child abuse registry and beyond what
has been required for AdoptUsKids.
♦ Technical Assistance and Training Costs. These would include activities associated
with informing state, local and tribal staff about procedures for submitting data to the
national registry and for submitting queries to the registry, as well as operating a help desk
for users. Costs in this category will vary depending on the number of agencies submitting
data (particularly if local submissions are permitted) and whether access is handled
through centralized access mechanisms in each state (for instance allowing access only
through the state’s own registry), or whether inquiries are to come directly from local
investigators (of whom there are many and among whom there is a high turnover rate).
There will be significant initial costs in this category as well as ongoing costs of training
new staff to use the system. A system with high levels of security is likely to have
additional costs relating to assuring that security measures are implemented properly by
users permitted to query the system.
♦ Ongoing Operational Costs. These would include the expenses involved in maintaining
a registry and responding to queries. Key here would be the costs of validating the access
rights of allowable system users, as well as any compliance activities that may be needed
35

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
to ensure registry information is used only as intended, and that information provided
through the registry meets Privacy Act standards for ensuring records are accurate,
relevant, timely and complete. There will also be federal costs related to responding to
challenges to information contained in the registry or to false positive identifications, and
responding to any legal challenges to the registry itself. In addition, costs of periodic
resubmissions and updating outdated data must also be considered. As a general
indication of magnitude, the Department of Defense’s child abuse registry has annual
operational costs of about $1.75 million. 14 However, it should be noted that the access
issues for the DOD’s registry are significantly less challenging than those under
consideration here since most users of the DOD registry are DOD employees or
contractors. Reliable identification of perpetrators is less challenging for the military
registry as well because most perpetrators are also military personnel. The expenses
involved with addressing security issues to provide electronic access to registry
information and verify authorized users will be substantial. Specifics have not been
estimated here because there are too many unanswered questions regarding how a
registry would be structured.

Costs to Agencies Submitting Data to and Making Inquiries of a National
Registry
♦ Costs of Exchanging Information Securely. States and other entities submitting data to
a national child abuse registry would need the computer equipment and
telecommunications infrastructure to support secure access to the information. Specifics
would depend on the security requirements established and the number of individuals and
organizations provided access to the registry.
♦ Costs of Meeting Minimum Procedural Protections. As described elsewhere in this
report, it may be desirable to guarantee minimum due process protections have been met
at the time a report is substantiated before the information about a perpetrator is included
in a national registry. State or tribal agencies that do not currently operate according to
whatever minimum standards are established would have costs associated with adjusting
their systems to provide these procedural protections. For instance, adjustments may be
needed in procedures for providing notification to individuals whose names would be
included in a registry, and for improving hearing or appeals procedures through which
individuals may challenge investigation findings.

Costs to Individuals Identified (Truly or Falsely) as Child Maltreatment
Perpetrators
♦ Consequences of Positive Identification. When a query to a national child abuse
registry identifies the individual as having a previous substantiated child maltreatment
report, that identification may have consequences for the identified individual. In some
cases an investigator’s elevated assessment of risk to a child will result in different
interventions with respect to a family under investigation. If the query was related to an
individual’s fitness to become a foster or adoptive parent, the individual’s application may
be denied. If the query is related to prospective employment or volunteer work, the
individual may be denied the job for which they have applied. These consequences will be
14

Personal communication, David Lloyd, Director of Family Advocacy Programs, Department of Defense,
April 9, 2008.

36

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
incurred both in the case of true positives and in cases of false positive identifications that,
as described elsewhere in this report, must be expected with a name-based registry.

Nonfinancial Costs of a National Child Abuse Registry
♦ Further Movement of Child Protective Services Away from a Social Work Focus.
Several stakeholders contacted to discuss issues related to a national child abuse registry
noted that such a registry would further accentuate the movement of the child welfare field
away from a helping, social work orientation toward the families being investigated, and
more toward a criminal justice, punishment-oriented focus. Some saw this trend as a cost
to families, though it cannot be quantified.
♦ Costs of Foregone Prevention and Remediation. Child protection agencies in some
states (11 states as of 2003) may not provide services to families unless an investigation
has substantiated a maltreatment allegation (HHS, 2003). In additional states, families
with substantiated cases may be prioritized for services. If families become more likely to
resist substantiation or to appeal findings because of additional negative implications of a
child maltreatment finding, this route to service provision may be lost and families may
forego needed services, raising risks to children.

Financing Startup and Ongoing Operations
If implementation of a national child abuse registry moves forward, whatever its format and
content, funding will be necessary to pay for both start-up costs and ongoing operations. These
costs could be covered in a number of ways. Startup costs would require congressional
appropriations. Ongoing operational costs could be funded either through annual congressional
appropriations, or through user fees charged either per query or on a subscription basis to
entities seeking access to the data. If the activity is to be funded by user fees, additional
legislative authority would be needed if HHS is to retain for the purposes of operating a national
child abuse registry any fees charged to users. While HHS has current authority to charge fees
for services, any fees collected in the absence of retention authority would go to the U.S.
Treasury rather than being retained to support the establishment and maintenance of the
activity for which they are charged (OMB Circular A-25, Section 9).
Whether a national child abuse registry could be supported by user fees depends, in part, on
how high the fees would be and whether it is expected that child protection agencies would use
such checks routinely or whether they would be conducted in relatively exceptional
circumstances when it is suspected that out of state findings might exist or might affect the
safety assessment for a child. While there are user fees involved in criminal background checks
for foster and adoptive parents, and some states charge each other for out-of-state child abuse
registry checks for these individuals, those costs are generally passed along to the applicant
rather than being borne by the child protection agency. Any fees for investigative checks (i.e.
those conducted as part of a child maltreatment investigation), could not be passed along to the
subject of the investigation, however, and would need to be incorporated into agency budgets.
Another consideration here would be whether the additional cost and “hassle factor” of another
fee-based background check would discourage families from considering foster or adoptive

37

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
parenting of children in state custody. While no assessment has been made regarding fees that

Key Questions Affecting Design and Cost of a National
Child Abuse Registry
1. Will a national child abuse registry import (and then own and control redisclosure of)
state/local/tribal records, or will it search and pass through to authorized users information residing
in state systems?
Issue: Owning and managing distribution of information within federal information systems is likely
to cost more than searching and passing through data the federal government does not maintain.
2. Which and how many agencies will be [permitted/encouraged/expected/mandated] to provide data
on perpetrators to a national child abuse registries?
Issue: The more sources of registry entries, the higher the costs as each will need to be prepared
to meet technical requirements for information exchange.
3. How much quality control will be exercised on information included in a national registry?
Issue: Quality control increases up front costs, but may prevent problems associated with the use
of flawed information.
4. Will non-investigative inquiries be permitted (primarily those conducted for licensing and
employment purposes)?
Issue: Non-investigative inquires add volume (and therefore operating costs), as well as
legal/financial exposure due to error and misuse of information. Such inquiries also would
necessitate a higher level of due process protections to individuals included in the registry. With a
high level of due process protection, some states might need to make potentially costly changes to
their investigative practices if they are to participate in a national child abuse registry.
5. At what level will access to registry data be controlled? That is, will registry data be provided to
only to state and tribal agencies, or also to local agencies and/or individual users?
Issue: The number of receiving sites/users that must be verified and secured will affect costs
significantly.
6. What steps will be taken to ensure the data provided in response to inquiries is used only for
allowable purposes?
Issue: Monitoring such issues imposes additional costs.
7. What procedures will be established to permit individuals to access records about themselves or to
challenge the content of information in those records?
Issue: Costs may vary significantly depending on the volume of challenges and how each is
handled.

would be necessary to support a national child abuse registry, information about fees charged
for other types of background checks was sought. The FBI currently charges $15.25 - $30.25,
depending on the method of submission (electronic or manual) for a national fingerprint-based

38

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
criminal history record check for noncriminal justice purposes. A number of state child abuse
registries and criminal records depositories charge similar fees 15 .

Conclusions
The preceding sections of this report have outlined a number of key issues regarding the
feasibility of establishing a national child abuse registry. This section draws several conclusions
based on the issues raised.

Conclusion 1: Potential benefits of a national child abuse registry are
largely unknown.
There is no data available with which to quantify improvements in child safety that may result
from the implementation of a national child abuse registry. In particular, it is unknown how
frequently perpetrators have been substantiated for child maltreatment in multiple states. This
interim report identifies and describes the major components of anticipated costs of
implementing a national child abuse registry. Key among these would be the costs of
establishing secure electronic systems to protect the data from unauthorized use, and
addressing procedural weaknesses in some jurisdictions’ CPS systems to assure the accuracy
and reliability of information included in a national registry. The gap in information with which to
determine the frequency with which a national child abuse registry would be helpful to child
maltreatment investigators will be the primary focus of future feasibility study activities.

Conclusion 2: A lack of incentives for participation could result in a
database that includes little information and does not fulfill its intent.
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act calls upon HHS to establish a national child
abuse registry. However, it is unclear whether states or Indian tribes would be willing to provide
data to such a registry. The law contains neither incentives to encourage participation nor
consequences for declining. No funding is provided to offset the costs of providing or accessing
the data. In addition, many states lack authority in their current laws to provide this data to the
federal government. The most likely scenario is that HHS would create a database to which few
jurisdictions would submit data, with the result that the registry could not serve its purpose.
Before a registry could be implemented successfully, the active engagement of state officials
would be necessary to determine their information needs, as well as their concerns regarding
the protection of information they would provide to a national registry. Extensive discussions
would be needed to develop a consensus regarding the maintenance and control of sensitive
information about families that is created at the state and local levels but to which access would
be controlled at the federal level. Only if a national registry is constructed in a way that meets
the needs of state and local child protection agencies and creates conditions under which they
would be willing to provide the necessary data, could a registry become a useful child protection
tool. Further work to assess states’ likelihood of participating voluntarily in a national child
abuse registry will be conducted as part of our further study of feasibility issues.

15

A 2000 survey of criminal records fees is available at:
http://www.search.org/files/pdf/new_web_version.pdf; and information on child abuse registry procedures
including some states that charge fees are described at:
http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/policy-issues/State_Child_Abuse_Registries.pdf.

39

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

Conclusion 3: Before implementation of a national child abuse
registry could begin, legislative change would be needed to permit
the collection of sufficient information to accurately identify
perpetrators.
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act limits identifying information in a national child
abuse registry to the perpetrator’s name. This statutory language must be changed before a
national child abuse registry could be implemented. Because many names are very common,
name cannot be the only field used 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. Additional identifying data needed would include, at minimum, the perpetrator’s date of
birth and the address of the perpetrator at the time of the substantiated maltreatment incident.
However, it is preferable that any statutory language be flexible in allowing the Department to
define necessary identifying information in regulation or other policy guidance. Even with
additional identifying fields, however, as has been described above, name-based matches have
high false positive and false negative rates that must be anticipated. Procedures would be
needed for ruling out false positive matches without negative consequences to those so
identified. If this issue is not addressed well, false positives related to non-investigatory
inquiries could overwhelm local staff responding to information returned from inquiries to a
national child abuse registry.

Conclusion 4: Clarification is required on several key issues that are
ambiguous in the authorizing statute; these must be resolved either
within HHS or by Congress before implementation could proceed.
This feasibility study has identified a number of important issues, some of them inter-related,
that would need to be resolved and that would influence the form and function of a national child
abuse registry. Key among these is whether a national registry is to be used only for
investigative inquiries or also for child abuse history checks related to employment and licensing
purposes. In many states, such employment checks far outnumber investigative uses of their
child abuse registries. While such inquiries are not mentioned explicitly in the Act and were not
discussed during congressional debate, HHS has determined that they are permitted by the
authorizing statute. The use of a registry for non-investigatory inquiries affects the volume of
inquires expected and the potential consequences for individuals and families of positive results
and especially of false positive identifications. In turn, the increased consequences of being
identified in a national registry if employment checks are permitted may necessitate more
elaborate due process protections for individuals before their listing in a national child abuse
registry. Allowing registry inquiries related to employment and licensing also raises issues with
respect to states that do not allow their own registries to be used for such purposes.
The volume of inquiries would also depend on whether it is expected (or required) that a
national child abuse registry check be completed routinely during child protection investigations,
or whether checks are instead to be used primarily in situations in which the investigator is
aware of potential interstate issues. This factor will interact with decisions about how a registry
is financed and in particular whether fees are charged for access. If fees are charged and
inquiries are expected on a routine basis, costs to agencies could become prohibitive.
Basic decisions are also needed regarding how to define who would have access to the registry
and how to maintain restricted access and validate the identities of legitimate users given the

40

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
large numbers of CPS and law enforcement agencies with whom HHS does not currently have
a direct relationship, as well as high turnover rates among staff. If a registry is implemented,
HHS would strongly prefer to limit the entry of data to state and tribal entities. Allowing substate jurisdictions to submit data directly would significantly complicate the operation of a
national child abuse registry and would raise both implementation expenses and ongoing
operational costs. Doing so would also undermine the Department’s longstanding intention that
each state’s SACWIS would serve as the comprehensive system for managing child welfare
data and for submitting child welfare data to HHS.

Next Steps
This initial feasibility assessment has established that implementation of a national child abuse
registry is not feasible under the statutory limitations of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act. A number of the specific ambiguities and limitations of the statute could be
addressed legislatively. However, solutions to other issues may involve substantial costs and
be burdensome to the state and local child protective services systems a national child abuse
registry is intended to help. In the end, it is not clear whether child safety would be improved
substantially by a national database of child abuse perpetrators.
HHS will conduct additional feasibility activities in the coming year and will prepare a final report
to the Congress containing results of the additional work when findings are available. The next
phase of the feasibility study will seek to address a number of issues that could not be resolved
in this initial feasibility assessment, and will include the following activities:
•

An effort to determine how frequently child maltreatment perpetrators offend in multiple
states. The lack of information on this topic prevents us from assessing the potential
benefits of a national child abuse registry.

•

A review of the data systems comprising state child maltreatment registries. Such a
review will enable the Department to respond to the statute’s requirement that we
identify data standards for a national child abuse registry.

•

Further contacts with states to assess their interest in participating in a national child
abuse registry and to identify in more detail factors that would hinder participation. A
better understanding of these issues will allow us to determine whether a voluntary
registry without incentives for participation will have sufficient coverage to make it a
useful child protection tool.

State child abuse registries play an important role in maltreatment investigations. This initial
feasibility assessment has revealed significant challenges to making a national child abuse
registry similarly useful. We look forward to working with the Congress to resolve the issues
identified and to determine how to best facilitate the interstate exchange of child maltreatment
information in order to protect children from maltreatment.

41

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

References
Capitol 9 News, “OCFS employees accused of breaching confidential child abuse register”
accessed June 7, 2008 at: http://capitalnews9.com/Default.aspx?ArID=117523
California Office of the Attorney General (2004). Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act Task
Force Report. Sacramento, California: Office of the Attorney General. Online at:
http://www.ag.ca.gov/publications/childabuse.pdf
Child Welfare Information Gateway (2005a). Disclosure of Confidential Child Abuse and
Neglect Records. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families. Online at:
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/confide.cfm
Child Welfare Information Gateway (2005b). Disclosure of Confidential Child Abuse and
Neglect Records: Summary of State Laws. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Online at:
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/confideall.pdf
Child Welfare Information Gateway (2005c). Establishment and Maintenance of Central
Registries for Child Abuse Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families. Online at:
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/centreg.cfm
Child Welfare Information Gateway (2005d). Establishment and Maintenance of Central
Registries for Child Abuse Reports: Summary of State Laws. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Online at:
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/centregall.pdf
Child Welfare Information Gateway (2005e). Review and Expunction of Central Registries and
Reporting Records. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families. Online at:
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/registry.cfm
Child Welfare Information Gateway (2005f). Review and Expunction of Central Registries and
Reporting Records: Summary of State Laws. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Online at:
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/registryall.pdf
Davis, C.N. (2003). Electronic access to information and the privacy paradox. Social Science
Computer Review, 21(1):15-25.
Drake, B., Jonson-Reid, M, Way, I and Chung, S (2003). Substantiation and recidivism. Child
Maltreatment 8:248-260.
Dunhem, R. and Oppenheim, E., (2002). Understanding Criminal Records Checks: Ensuring
the Safety of Children Placed with Foster and Adoptive Parents. Washington, DC: The
Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance.

42

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
Flango, V.E., (1991). Can central registries improve substantiation rates in child abuse and
neglect cases? Child Abuse and Neglect 15:403-413.
Gibelman, M and Grant, S (1978). The uses and misuses of central registries in child protective
services. Child Welfare 57(7):405-413.
Fluke, J.D., Shusterman, G.R., Hollinshead, D.M. and Yuan, Y.T., (2008). Longitudinal analysis
of repeated child abuse reporting and victimization: multistate analysis of associated factors.
Child Maltreatment 13:76-88.
Leeb, R.T., Paulozzi, L., Melanson, C., Simon, T., Arias, I. (2008). Child Maltreatment
Surveillance: Uniform Definitions for Public Health and Recommended Data Elements, Version
1.0. Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Industry
Prevention and Control.
Miller, J.L. and Bissell, M. (2007). Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006: Issues
for Child Welfare Agencies. East Greenwich, Rhode Island: Childfocus Partners. Online at:
http://www.childfocuspartners.com/images/AdamWalsh.final.pdf
Moore, J.D. (1995). Charting a course between Scylla and Charybdis: Child abuse registries
and procedural due process. North Carolina Law Review 73:2063.
National Resource Center for Family Centered Practice and Permanency Planning (2008).
State Child Abuse Registries. Accessed online August 26, 2008 at:
http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/policyissues/State_Child_Abuse_Registries.pdf
Pawlaczyk, G and Hundsdorfer, B (2008). Guilty until proven innocent: Parents accused of child
abuse by DCFS fight to clear their names. Belleview News-Democrat, May 5, 2008.
Philips, Michael R. (1993). The Constitutionality of Employer-Accessible Child Abuse
Registries: Due Process Implications of Governmental Occupational Blacklisting, in Michigan
Law Review, 92(1): 139-194).
Poitras, Colin (2004). DCF ‘Blacklist’ Followed Child Care Workers. In the Hartford
(Connecticut) Courant December 5, 2004.
Ramker, GF (2006). Improving Criminal History Records for Background Checks, 2005.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Sabotta. E.E. and Davis, R.L., (1992). Fatality after Report to a Child Abuse Registry in
Washington State, 1973-1986. in Child Abuse and Neglect 16:627-635.
SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics (1999). Interstate
Identification Index Name Check Efficacy: Report of the National Task Force to the Attorney
General. Sacramento, California: SEARCH.
SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics (2001). Survey of
States that Provide Some Level of Open Access to Their Criminal History Records.

43

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
Sacramento, California: SEARCH. Online at:
http://www.search.org/files/pdf/open_records_survey.pdf
SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics (2002). Survey on
Issues Related to Background Checks on Individuals Who Work in Day Care Facilities.
Sacramento, California: SEARCH. Online at:
http://www.search.org/files/pdf/ia_survey_results.pdf
Slep, A.M.S. and Heyman, P.E. (2006). Creating and Field-Testing Child Maltreatment
Definitions: Improving the Reliability of Substantiation Decisions. Child Maltreatment 11:3:217236.
U.S. Census Bureau (2008). Current Population Survey, Geographical Mobility: 2006 to 2007
Detailed Tables, Table 8. General Mobility of Family Householders, by Type of Household, Age
of Householder, and Presence and Age of Own Children Under 18: 2006 to 2007. Online at:
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/migration/cps2007/tab08-1.xls
U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee (2007). House Appropriations Committee
Print on Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. P.L. 110-161, [language regarding this study
appears on page 163].
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (2007). Amending the Indian Child
Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act to Identify and Remove Barriers to Reducing
Child Abuse, to Provide for Examinations of Certain Children, and for Other Purposes, report on
S. 398, 110th Cong., 1st sess., April 10, 2007, S.Rept. 110-45. Washington: Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (1995). To Reauthorize Appropriations for
Certain Programs under the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act, and for
Other Purposes, report on S. 441, 104th Cong., 1st sess., April 18, 1995, S.Rept. 104-53.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families/Children’s Bureau and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(2003). National Study of Child Protective Services and Reform Efforts: Review of State CPS
Policy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Online at:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/CPS-status03/state-policy03/index.htm
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
(2006). ACYF-CB-IM-06-04.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth and
Families (2009). Child Maltreatment 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm07/
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
(2008b). Child Welfare Outcomes 2002-2005. Washington: DC: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.

44

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (no
date). SACWIS Assessment Review Guide – Requirements Overview. Online at:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/systems/sacwis/ppt_assess_final/sld001.htm
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Office of Community Services (no date). Social Services Block Grant Program Annual Report
2006. Online at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/annrpt/2006/index.html
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation (2007). Rereporting and Recurrence of Child Maltreatment: Findings from
NCANDS. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/05/child-maltreat-rereporting/report.pdf
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (2006). Indian Child Welfare Handbook.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Indian Affairs.
http://www.doi.gov/bia/docs/Indian_child_welfare_handbook_InsidePages.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2001). Use and Management of
Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report, 2001 Update. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigations (2006). National Instant Criminal
Background Check System: Operations 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Departement of Justice.
White House (2006). “President Signs H.R. 4472, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety
Act of 2006.” Online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060727-6.html.
Winterfeld, A.P and Sakagawa, T (2003). Investigation Models for Child Abuse and Neglect –
Collaboration with Law Enforcement. Englewood, Colorado: American Humane Association.
Whiting, L. (1977). The central registry for child abuse cases: rethinking the basic assumptions.
Child Welfare 56(1):761-7.

Selected Court Cases Regarding Child Abuse Registries
Mildred Jamison, et al. v. State of Missouri, Department of Social Services, Division of Family
Services, 218 S.W.3rd 399 (Missouri 2007).
Petition of James J. Preisendorfer, New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families,
719 A.2d 590 (New Hampshire 1998).
State of Georgia et al. v. Jackson, 496 SE2d 912 (Georgia 1998).
Hunt v. Indiana Family and Social Services Admin., slip opinion, 2007 WL 2349629 (S.D. Ind.
2007).

45

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

Appendix A: Section 633 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection
and Safety Act (P.L. 109-248, 42 U.S.C. 16990)
SEC. 633. NATIONAL REGISTRY OF SUBSTANTIATED CASES OF CHILD ABUSE.
(a) In General- The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Attorney
General, shall create a national registry of substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect.
(b) Information(1) COLLECTION- The information in the registry described in subsection (a) shall be supplied
by States and Indian tribes, or, at the option of a State, by political subdivisions of such State, to
the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(2) TYPE OF INFORMATION- The registry described in subsection (a) shall collect in a central
electronic registry information on persons reported to a State, Indian tribe, or political
subdivision of a State as perpetrators of a substantiated case of child abuse or neglect.
(c) Scope of Information(1) IN GENERAL(A) TREATMENT OF REPORTS- The information to be provided to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services under this section shall relate to substantiated reports of child abuse or
neglect.
(B) EXCEPTION- If a State, Indian tribe, or political subdivision of a State has an electronic
register of cases of child abuse or neglect equivalent to the registry established under this
section that it maintains pursuant to a requirement or authorization under any other provision of
law, the information provided to the Secretary of Health and Human Services under this section
shall be coextensive with that in such register.
(2) FORM- Information provided to the Secretary of Health and Human Services under this
section-(A) shall be in a standardized electronic form determined by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services; and
(B) 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, and that complies
with clauses (viii) and (ix) of section 106(b)(2)(A) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act (42 U.S.C. 5106(b)(2)(A) (viii) and (ix)).
(d) Construction- This section shall not be construed to require a State, Indian tribe, or political
subdivision of a State to modify-(1) an equivalent register of cases of child abuse or neglect that it maintains pursuant to a
requirement or authorization under any other provision of law; or
(2) any other record relating to child abuse or neglect, regardless of whether the report of abuse
or neglect was substantiated, unsubstantiated, or determined to be unfounded.
(e) Accessibility- Information contained in the national registry 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 under law to protect children
from child abuse and neglect.
(f) Dissemination- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish standards for
the dissemination of information in the national registry of substantiated cases of child abuse or
neglect. Such standards shall comply with clauses (viii) and (ix) of section 106(b)(2)(A) of the
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106(b)(2)(A) (viii) and (ix)).
(g) Study(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall conduct a study on the
feasibility of establishing data collection standards for a national child abuse and neglect registry
with recommendations and findings concerning--

46

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
(A) costs and benefits of such data collection standards;
(B) data collection standards currently employed by each State, Indian tribe, or political
subdivision of a State;
(C) data collection standards that should be considered to establish a model of promising
practices; and
(D) a due process procedure for a national registry.
(2) REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary in the House of
Representatives and the United States Senate and the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce a
report containing the recommendations and findings of the study on data collection standards
for a national child abuse registry authorized under this subsection.
(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated $500,000
for the period of fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to carry out the study required by this subsection.

47

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

Appendix B: Characteristics of State Central Child Abuse
Registries 16
State

AK

Central
Registry
Required
No – only the
client database
which includes
information about
alleged
perpetrator.
Yes

Reports
Included

Level of
Evidence

Expungement Rules

All investigation
reports but not
reports of harm.

Reasonable

All reports –
excluding cases
with no CAN,
but case is
opened.

Preponderance

In cases “not indicated,”
after 5 years if no
subsequent reports.
Alleged perpetrator must
request.

All investigated
reports and any
record of
screened out
reports.

Preponderance

Unsubstantiated shall be
expunged “promptly.”
Department may keep
information on
unsubstantiated reports
for risk assessment but
may not disclose except
as specified by law. “True”
reports shall be
maintained.

Not required to notify
perpetrator of disposition
decision.

AL

Yes

AR

Due Process and
Notification 17

16

Appeal made to Attorney
General’s office. Alleged
perpetrators working with
children are entitled to court
hearing, those not working
with children entitled to
administrative review
(through the department).
County department and
perpetrator notified of
expungement.
Confidentiality provisions
for unsubstantiated cases.
State notifies alleged
perpetrator of disposition
decision.
Appeal is available, source
not specified. Department
must notify reporter of
whether or not an
investigation has been
conducted and services
offered within
10 days. Perpetrator
notified of disposition
decision.

Note: Most information in this table is drawn directly from the National Study of Child Protective
Services Systems and Reform Efforts (HHS, 2003). However, the column on level of evidence is taken
from more recent information available in Child Maltreatment 2006 (HHS, 2008)
17
Notifications listed only if mentioned specifically as required in statute or policy. Most states allow
access to Central Registry information to perpetrators, parents/guardians, or reporters. These are not
listed here unless the state laws require notification.

48

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

State

Central
Registry
Required
Yes

Reports
Included

Level of
Evidence

Expungement Rules

Substantiated
reports after the
appeal process.

Probable Cause

Substantiated reports are
maintained in registry for
25 years from date of
report.

Yes

All reports
except
unfounded

Credible

Yes

Confirmed
reports

Preponderance

For inconclusive or
unsubstantiated reports
after 10 years with no
subsequent report or
victim over age 18 may
request name be
removed.
Sealed 10 years after
child’s 18th birthday.
Director of registry may
seal or expunge for good
cause and with written
notification to subject of
report. Minor reports must
be expunged after 6
months unless there is a
Dependency and Neglect
or criminal filing.

Yes

Confirmed
reports

Reasonable
Cause

AZ

CA

CO

After child’s 18th birthday
records are sealed, then
expunged after 7 years.

CT

49

Due Process and
Notification 17
Appeal made to Office of
Administrative Hearings.
Other provisions: internal
review by Protective
Services Review Team.
Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision and
placement on central
registry, but only after
appeal process for
substantiated cases.
Notify reporter of
disposition.
Upon request will notify an
individual of their registry
status.
Subject notified of
placement on registry, right
to appeal, and
expungement. If the subject
is acquitted but not
expunged, the Central
Registry must notify the
subject and also of right to
appeal. Policy states that
appeals are made to the
Central Registry Director.
Per statute, subject has
right to a fair hearing before
an administrative law judge.
County may object to
acquittals. Department has
burden of proof.
Reporter notified of status
of investigation. Appeals
are made to Regional
Administrator or the
Director of the hotline. If
subject desires, he or she
may appeal to
administrative hearing
process of the State and
then to courts. Perpetrator
notified of disposition
decision.

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

State

Central
Registry
Required
Yes

DC

FL

GA

No – refers to
hotline which
keeps reports
for 7 years or
youngest child is
age 18.

Reports
Included
Substantiated,
unsubstantiated
maintained
separately
without
perpetrator
identification. All
reports are
entered; only
“supported”
reports will
remain in
registry.
All reports

No - Ruled
unconstitutional
and replaced by
Protective
Services Data
System (PSDT).

Yes

Level of
Evidence

Due Process and
Notification 17

Credible

18th birthday of child if no
suspicion or evidence that
younger sibling being
abused, or 5 years after
end of services whichever
is first.

Appeal made to Child and
Family Service Agency
Office of Fair Hearings.
Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision.

Substantiatedpreponderance

Until 7 years after last
entry to record or child
turns 18. Unfounded and
No Findings cases may be
expunged if requested but
must consider child’s
safety and likelihood of
returning to system By
request of subject of
report or child’s parent. No
open cases can be
expunged.
PSDT recording cancelled
if review determines
allegation should be
unsubstantiated.

Appeal not available for
alleged perpetrator – a
child’s due process.
Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision.

Preponderance

All reports

Expungement Rules

Reasonable,
foreseeable risk

HI

50

If petition dismissed by
court or unsubstantiated
shall be expunged within
in 3 years. Ruled out,
frivolous or bad faith
allegations must be
expunged within 60 days.

May request either panel
review or administrative
review but not both. Neither
will be scheduled if decision
on allegations made or
pending in juvenile or
superior court – court is
recourse. Not required to
notify perpetrator of
disposition decision.
Appeal made to
Department of Human
Services. Appeal must be
made within 90 days from
which client is notified.
Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision.

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

State

Central
Registry
Required
Yes

Reports
Included

Level of
Evidence

Founded on
registry.
Assessment
data shall not be
placed on
registry.
Department may
develop rules for
maintenance of
data not placed
on registry.

Preponderance

For founded cases data is
sealed 10 years after last
reported incident unless
good cause is shown.
Sealed data is expunged
after 8 years unless case
involves abuse, then kept
for 30 years. Lack of
preponderance that abuse
has occurred.

Yes

Substantiated
reports

Preponderance

Report is expunged no
less than 5 years after
Department has closed
the case. As of 3/02, when
a person has successfully
appealed.

Yes

Indicated and
unfounded
under certain
conditions (if
requested to
track false
reporting,
serious physical
abuse, sexual
abuse or child
death).

Credible

Unfounded expunged
“forthwith” but information
may be made available to
CPS units when
investigating a
subsequent report or to
subject of report if
requested within 60 days.

IA

ID

IL

Expungement Rules

51

Due Process and
Notification 17
Appeal made to DHS
Appeals Section. Other
provisions: record check,
evaluation and court review,
and registry review
(informal process). Subject
may file written Statement
within 6 months of
notification to request
correction of data or
findings. Department
provides evidentiary
hearing. Subject may
appeal finding of hearing in
district court. Perpetrator
notified of disposition
decision.
Appeal made to Division
administrator of Family and
Community Services and
regional program manager
review appeals. Other
provisions: Division
Administrator works with
Regional Program Manager
for review. Perpetrator
notified of disposition
decision.
If subject requests removal
within 60 days and
department refuses or does
not act within 30 days,
subject has right to hearing.
Hearing conducted by
Director or his designee.
Department has burden of
proof. Appeals are made to
an appeals unit. Perpetrator
notified of disposition
decision.

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

State

Central
Registry
Required
Yes

Reports
Included

Level of
Evidence

Substantiated;
“informal
adjustment”
made after 180
days if family
fails to comply
with services.

Credible

Yes

Validated
reports

Clear and
Convincing

Yes

Not specified –
in process of
changing
criteria.

Preponderance

Yes

Valid Reports

Reasonable

Expunged within 10 days
if hearing officer finds it to
be unsubstantiated, if
court determines no CAN,
criminal charges
dismissed or result in not
guilty verdict, No later
than 6 months after name
entered for failure to
participate in a services
agreement, not later than
20 years after court
determines child in need
of services or when victim
reaches age 24.
Expunged immediately for
administrative or clerical
error; 20 years or until
victim reaches 24 years of
age (if court adjudicated),
or 180 days for
unsubstantiated cases.
After 3 years from most
recent incident or if new
information found or
circumstances change.

IN

KS

KY

Expungement Rules

If unable to locate client or
client is uncooperative,
report is expunged after 3
years. Justified
maintained until child is 18
or 5 years have passed
since findings, whichever
is longer. Fatality
investigations with a valid
finding maintained for 20
years.

LA

52

Due Process and
Notification 17
Administrative hearing may
be requested within 30 days
after notified of
substantiated. Conducted
by Administrative hearing
officer. Department has
burden of proof.
Appeal made to Judicial
Court. Perpetrator notified
of placement on central
registry. Not required to
notify perpetrator of
disposition decision.

Appeals made to Secretary.
Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision and of
placement.
Appeals made to Office of
Performance Enhancement,
Quality Initiatives Branch.
Other provisions: CAPTA,
local resolution hearings,
service complaints.
Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision.
Appeals made to court. If
report is recorded as
justified and no petition is
subsequently filed alleging
the child is in need of care,
subject may file a written
motion for correction in
parish court where finding
was made. Perpetrator
notified of disposition
decision.

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

State

Central
Registry
Required
Yes

MA

Yes

Reports
Included
Supported
cases. All
reports unless
determined
“allegation
invalid”
(frivolous or
absolute
determination
that no CA/N).
Indicated reports

Level of
Evidence

Expungement Rules

Due Process and
Notification 17

Reasonable

If unsubstantiated
expunged after 1 year. If
substantiated when child
reaches age 18 or 1 year
after termination of
services, whichever is
last.

Appeals may be made and
fair hearing conducted by
hearing officer. Other
provisions: Superior Court,
grievance procedure (e.g.,
against social worker,
decision). Perpetrator
notified of disposition
decision.

Preponderance

Unsubstantiated within 5
years if no further reports,
if “ruled out” within 120
days if no further reports,
after 7 years for
substantiated if no further
entries for individual.

Unsubstantiated
expunged after 18 months
with no additional report,
may be retained for 5
years for Medicaid audits
but stored separately. If a
finding is overturned on
appeal, report is
expunged immediately.
If unsubstantiated (no
timeframe given).
If substantiated remains
until subject is dead.
Records can be expunged
if child is safe and
services don’t need to be
monitored, or if a case is
downgraded to a less
serious level.

Appeal to office of
Administrative Hearings, or
to circuit court. Alleged
perpetrator notified within
30 days of finding of
substantiated or
unsubstantiated of finding
and opportunity to appeal.
Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision.
Appeals go to Director, QA
staff reviews, overturns are
reviewed by Director or QA
Supervisor. May appeal to
superior court. Perpetrator
notified of disposition
decision.

MD

Yes

Substantiated
reports

Preponderance

Yes

Substantiated
before July 1,
1999. Afterward
Category I or II
(child not safe
and in need of
services) or
perpetrators
who cause
serious harm.

Preponderance

ME

MI

53

Perpetrator must be notified
within 30 days of right to
request expungement or an
administrative hearing if
refused. Hearing is before
hearing officer appointed by
the department and
requires preponderance of
evidence. May hold a rehearing upon new evidence
or misapplication of the law.
Appeal to local office,
administrative hearing by
local FIA office that
conducted investigation.
Other provision: only
alleged perpetrator or
alleged perpetrator’s
attorney can request can
request expungement.
Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision.

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry
Central
Registry
Required

State

Reports
Included

No

Level of
Evidence
Preponderance

MN

Expungement Rules
No determination of
maltreatment or need for
CPS services records
must be maintained for 4
years. If determination of
maltreatment or need for
CPS services must be
maintained for 10 years
after final entry.
Records are retained
indefinitely. After 5 years if
insufficient evidence of
abuse and neglect is
found, after 10 years if
“unable to locate” subject
may petition for removal
after 1 year. Substantiated
cases may be retained
indefinitely.

Yes

Cases that are
court
adjudicated,
show probable
cause for CAN.

Preponderance

Yes

All credible
evidence reports

Credible

If subsequent information
indicates credible
evidence did not exist or
decided as result of fair
hearing process.

Yes

All reports

Preponderance

Within 30 days of finding
that report is unfounded.

Yes

All reports

Preponderance

MO

MS

MT

NC

54

Due Process and
Notification 17
Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision.

Perpetrator and parents
notified of findings within 90
days. Have 60 days to
request reversal. May seek
administrative review by
child abuse and neglect
review board. Standard is
probable cause. If
unsatisfied may request
judicial review in county of
residence within 60 days.
Appeals made to county
office. Perpetrator notified
of disposition decision.
Subject may request a fair
hearing within 10 days.
Hearing conducted by
department. Subject may
be represented by an
attorney. Appeal to MS
Division of Family and
Children’s Services
Protection Unit. Other
provisions: Fair hearing,
attorney representation,
due process provided by
CAPTA. Perpetrator notified
of disposition decision when
evidence is found.
Subject may appeal to the
division administrator, then
may request Fair Hearing
conducted by the
department’s hearing
officer. Perpetrator notified
of disposition decision.
Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision.

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

State

Central
Registry
Required
Yes

Reports
Included

Level of
Evidence

“Services
required” reports

Some credible
evidence

Yes

Substantiated,
petition to be
filed.
Inconclusive or
unfounded.

Preponderance

Yes

Founded reports

Preponderance

Yes

Founded reports

Preponderance

ND

NE

NH

NJ

55

Expungement Rules
10 years from date of
decision

Due Process and
Notification 17

Statute directs department
to hold appeal hearings and
adopt rules for doing so.
Policy states that appeals
made to Office of
Administrative Hearings.
Appeal made to DHS.
Office of Administrative
Hearings - conducts
hearings. Perpetrator
notified of disposition
decision.
Unfounded expunged
Subject may request
“forthwith.” Any record at
expungement at any time
any time if “good cause”
subsequent to finding.
and upon notice to
Appeal made to
subjects. Individuals may
department’s legal division
request expungement.
and local court. Subject has
right to fair hearing within
department conducted by
department head or
designee. Department has
burden of proof. These
decisions may be appealed
under the Administrative
Procedure Act. Perpetrator
notified of disposition
decision.
Founded retained for 7
Fair hearing officer through
years. Unfounded at-risk
Administrative Appeals Unit
reported maintained for 3
within DHHS. Other
years. There is a proposal provisions: Administrative
to expunge after 7 years – fair hearing. Perpetrators
this would become statute are notified and given
and policy.
opportunity to appeal. Not
required to notify
perpetrator of disposition
decision.
Unfounded must be
Initial appeal made to local
expunged (no timeframe
division office. Internal
given). Name may be
administrative and court
removed on successful
hearings. Subject has right
appeal through Division’s
to representation, to bring
internal dispute procedures witnesses, review records,
or court hearing.
ask questions and submit
written statements.
Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision.

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

State

Central
Registry
Required
Yes

Reports
Included
Substantiated
reports

Level of
Evidence
Credible

An individual can request a
review, the results of a
review are noted in the
record, but person’s name
will not be removed.

NM

Yes

Substantiated

Yes

All indicated
reports

Expungement Rules

Unless credible evidence of
CA/N must be expunged at
conclusion of investigation
or no later than 60 days
after report filed, whichever
comes first. Substantiated
reports sealed no later than
10 years after child turns
18.
Unfounded or successfully
appealed reports are
sealed except for
department, court or law
enforcement use in
subsequent investigations.
All expunged 10 years after
18th birthday of youngest
child named in report.
Record may be expunged
at any time by the Office of
Children and Family
Services if subject presents
clear and convincing
evidence that affirmatively
refutes the allegation.

NV

Credible

NY

56

Due Process and
Notification 17
The results of any
substantiated investigation
which is not the subject of a
court action may be
reviewed through the
Department’s administrative
review process. Not
required to notify
perpetrator of disposition
decision.

Subject may request
amendment of record up to
90 days after notified of
completion of investigation.
If commissioner does not
amend report within 90
days subject may request
fair hearing held by
department or designated
agency. If denied may then
request a court hearing.
Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision.

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

State

Central
Registry
Required
Yes

Reports
Included

Level of
Evidence

All reports

Credible

No, but
information
system handles
some functions.

All reports
except finding of
“reasonable
parental
discipline.”

Credible

None for
perpetrators, but
registry for
victims.

Founded reports

Reasonable

Expungement time frames
are based on disposition or
case resolution. “No risk”
resolution is expunged after
3 months, “low risk” = 6
months, “low, moderate
risk” = 1 year, “moderate
risk” = 5 years, “moderate,
high risk” = 10 years.
Substantiated reports are
expunged 10 years from
date of disposition,
indicated reports are
expunged 5 years from
date of disposition and
unsubstantiated reports are
expunged 3 months from
the date of disposition
unless subsequent reports
are received. In the event
that subsequent reports are
received, reports are linked
and maintained in
accordance with longest
retention timeframe.
Expunged only by order of
the court unless other State
or federal law specifies
otherwise. Finding of
“reasonable parental
discipline” also expunged.

OH

OK

OR

Expungement Rules

57

Due Process and
Notification 17
Within 3 days of completion
of the
assessment/investigation,
the Public Children
Services Agency (PCSA)
shall notify the alleged
perpetrator in writing of the
case disposition.
Administrative appeal made
to, and grievance review by,
the PCSA. No appeal at
State level. Written copies
of grievance process must
be given within 3 working
days of request. Perpetrator
notified of disposition
decision.

Alleged perpetrator may
appeal finding and
placement of name on the
information system.
Administrative Review
conducted at State office
level. Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision.
Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision.

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

State

Central
Registry
Required
Yes

Reports
Included

Level of
Evidence

Determined,
founded, or
indicated reports

Substantial
evidence or clear
and
convincing/beyond
reasonable doubt.

Yes

All reports

Preponderance

Yes

Only court
ordered
perpetrators.

Preponderance

PA

RI

SC

58

Expungement Rules
Unfounded are expunged
120 days after year of the
report (except for cases
accepted for services = 1
year plus 120 days after
closure). Founded and
Indicated cases are
expunged when subject
child reaches the age of
23. Perpetrators with date
of birth or social security
number information are
kept indefinitely. Secretary
may expunge at any time
for good cause. If report is
unfounded but subjects
found to need services
arranged by the county,
the county may retain the
record but identify it as
unfounded.
Unfounded destroyed 3
years. Indicated cases
never expunged, except if
appeal is in favor of
alleged perpetrator.
Information identifying
alleged perpetrator must
be removed immediately
upon determination of
unfounded. Category II
and III unfounded record
may be retained for 1
year. Other information
must be destroyed 7 years
from date services are
terminated. Department
may maintain “indicated
report” without information
identifying a perpetrator.

Due Process and
Notification 17
Person named as
perpetrator may request
amendment or
expungement within 45
days of notification. Appeals
made to Secretary of the
department. If refused or
not acted upon in 30 days,
subject has right to hearing
before the department’s
Bureau of Hearing and
Appeals. Burden of proof is
on the agency. Other
provisions: Three levels –1:
administrative review and
OCYF, 2: hearing with
bureau of hearings and
appeals, 3: court system.
Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision.
Appeal decided by
administrative hearing
officer. Can appeal to family
court and as high as
supreme court. Perpetrator
notified of disposition
decision.
Appeal to family court.
Other provision: CPS
Appeals Committee or
family court. Perpetrator
notified of disposition
decision.

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

State

Central
Registry
Required
Yes

Reports
Included

Level of
Evidence

Expungement Rules

Substantiated
reports

Preponderance

Unsubstantiated must be
expunged after 3 years if
no subsequent reports.
Substantiated may be
removed after 7 years if
individual requests a
hearing and can prove by
preponderance of the
evidence that information
should be removed.
(Court adjudicated
perpetrator may not
request information
removal.) Individual may
request that inaccurate
information be removed.

Yes

All reports

Material Evidence

When a “defendant is
found not guilty of severe
child abuse or sexual
abuse.”

Yes

Disposition of
“reason to
believe” or
person
designated as
the perpetrator.

Preponderance

Retained until 18th
birthday of youngest child
in the investigation or 5
years after case is closed
whichever is first. If case
involves removal, case is
not expunged.

SD

TN

TX

59

Due Process and
Notification 17
Appeal to department
through informal review
process. Appeal process
occurs before name placed
on Central Registry.
Perpetrator is notified 30
days before name goes into
registry, during which time
they can begin appeal
process. Subject may
request amendment or
expungement in writing
within 30 days of notice of
substantiated. If denied or
department does not act
within 30 days may request
an administrative hearing.
Decision made by
department but is subject to
judicial review. Perpetrator
notified of disposition
decision.
Appeal made to
Commissioner’s office.
Other provisions: when a
person’s employment or
volunteer status is affected.
Not required to notify
perpetrator of disposition
decision.
Alleged perpetrator may
request administrative
review during investigation
and a hearing regarding the
department’s decision to
release information.
Appeals made to TDPRS
administrator not involved in
the case. Other provision:
Other appeals go to PRS
Ombudsman and
administrative law judge.
Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision.

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

State

Central
Registry
Required
Yes

Reports
Included

Level of
Evidence

Confirmed
reports

Reasonable

Yes

Central Registry
for founded.
Unfounded are
kept in separate
data system
accessible only
to department
and local
departments.

Preponderance

Yes

Substantiated

Reasonable

Expungement Rules

UT

VA

VT

60

Unfounded are maintained
for 1 year in SACWIS; not
kept in registry. Date of
report if no subsequent
reports. Department may
keep them for up to 2
more years if requested
by subject. Records may
be purged immediately if
court orders that civil
action has determined bad
faith. Founded level 1
expunged 18 years past
date of complaint, level 2
expunged 7 years after
date of complaint and
level 3, 3 years after
complaint.
Information entered on
individuals under age 10
expunged upon 18th
birthday. Name of alleged
perpetrator for
unsubstantiated cases
destroyed if no court
proceeding brought within
1 year, kept indefinitely for
substantiated cases of
notification. All records
destroyed when youngest
child in the case reaches
the age of 18.

Due Process and
Notification 17
Subject may challenge
finding within 30 days of
notification. Division may
approve or deny. If Division
requests it or fails to act
within 30 days Office of
Administrative Hearings
and to district court holds
adjudicative proceedings.
Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision.
Appeal goes to local
department; can be filed
with State if appeal is
upheld at local level. Other
provisions: hearing with
State hearing officer or
circuit court. Perpetrator
notified of disposition
decision.

Person may apply at any
time for review. Three
levels: review by district
director, review by
commissioner and review
by Human Services Board
that holds a fair hearing.
Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision.

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

State

Central
Registry
Required
No –
perpetrator’s
name recorded
on CAMIS
information
system.

Reports
Included

Level of
Evidence

All
investigations,
log of screened
out cases

Preponderance

No

All reports

Preponderance

Yes

Only cases with
criminal
convictions

Preponderance

Yes

Founded, under
investigation,
except when
alleged
perpetrator is a
minor.

Credible

Expungement Rules
At the end of 6 years from
receipt, an unfounded
report shall be purged
unless there has been a
subsequent report.

WA

WI

WV

WY

61

All shall be destroyed six
years following their
preparation unless there
are pending proceedings.
N/A (since all are criminal
convictions).
Data error, new evidence,
change of findings due to
administrative review, fair
hearing, or district court
appeal, rehabilitation is
demonstrated as
determined by panel,
death of alleged
perpetrator. Within 6
months, reports classified
as under investigation
must be classified as
founded or unfounded.
Unfounded must be
expunged. Founded may
be expunged if error
shown, new evidence,
successful appeal,
rehabilitation is shown as
determined by a panel
appointed by Director,
allegations substantiated
at “low risk” or death of
perpetrator.

Due Process and
Notification 17
Person identified as the
perpetrator shall be notified
by certified mail with return
receipt. Person named as
perpetrator in founded
report has the right to
request review and
amendment of finding within
20 days of receipt of written
notification. The appeal is
initially filed with the area
administrator, then they can
appeal to administrative law
judge and then to superior
court.
Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision.
No appeal process because
part of criminal process. Not
required to notify
perpetrator of disposition
decision.
Appeal may be made
initially to District Manager
who attempts to resolve
dispute. From there they go
to an administrative
hearing. Hearing Officer is
provided by the department.
Perpetrators may also
provide a written statement
for the file during
investigation and up to 20
days after disposition.
Perpetrator notified of
disposition decision.

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

Appendix C: Data Elements Currently Collected in the Child File of
the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System 18
Field

Child Data Element Long Name

I. REPORT DATA

(Short Name)
Blank Cell

Blank Cell

1

Submission Year

(SUBYR)

2

State/Territory

3

Report Id

4

Child Id

5

County Of Report

6

Report Date

7

Investigation Start Date

(INVDATE)

8

Report Source

(RPTSRC)

9

Report Disposition

(RPTDISP)

10

Report Disposition Date

11

Notifications

(STATERR)
(RPTID)
(CHID)
(RPTCNTY)
(RPTDT)

(RPTDISDT)
(NOTIFS)

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

II. CHILD DATA

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

12

Child Age At Report

(CHAGE)

13

Child Date Of Birth

14

Child Sex

15

Child Race American Indian Or Alaska Native

16

Child Race Asian

(CHRACAS)

17

Child Race Black Or African American

(CHRACBL)

18

Child Race Native Hawaiian Or Other Pacific Islander

(CHRACNH)

19

Child Race White

(CHRACWH)

20

Child Race Unable To Determine

(CHRACUD)

21

Child Ethnicity

(CHETHN)

22

County Of Residence

(CHCNTY)

23

Living Arrangement

(CHLVNG)

24

Military Family Member

25

Prior Victim

(CHBDATE)
(CHSEX)
(CHRACAI)

(CHMIL)
(CHPRIOR)

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

III. MALTREATMENT DATA

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

18

The table displays the data element names and field positions for the Child File. Three columns are
listed in this table, the first indicates the field position of the data element, the second column indicates
the name of the data element, and the third column indicates the abbreviated name of the data element.

62

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

26

Maltreatment-1 Type

27

Maltreatment-1 Disposition Level

28

Maltreatment-2 Type

29

Maltreatment-2 Disposition Level

30

Maltreatment-3 Type

31

Maltreatment-3 Disposition Level

32

Maltreatment-4 Type

33

Maltreatment-4 Disposition Level

34

Maltreatment Death

(CHMAL1)
(MAL1LEV)
(CHMAL2)
(MAL2LEV)
(CHMAL3)
(MAL3LEV)
(CHMAL4)
(MAL4LEV)
(MALDEATH)

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

IV. CHILD RISK FACTOR DATA

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

35

Alcohol Abuse-Child

(CDALC)

36

Drug Abuse-Child

(CDDRUG)

37

Mental Retardation-Child

(CDRTRD)

38

Emotionally Disturbed-Child

39

Visually Or Hearing Impaired-Child

(CDVISUAL)

40

Learning Disability-Child

(CDLEARN)

41

Physically Disabled-Child

42

Behavior Problem-Child

43

Other Medical Condition-Child

(CDEMOTNL)

(CDPHYS)
(CDBEHAV)
(CDMEDICL)

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

V. CAREGIVER RISK FACTOR
DATA

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

44

Alcohol Abuse-Caregiver(S)

(FCALC)

45

Drug Abuse-Caregiver(S)

(FCDRUG)

46

Mental Retardation-Caregiver(S)

(FCRTRD)

47

Emotionally Disturbed-Caregiver(S)

48

Visually Or Hearing Impaired-Caregiver(S)

(FCVISUAL)

49

Learning Disability-Caregiver(S)

(FCLEARN)

50

Physically Disabled-Caregiver(S)

51

Other Medical Condition-Caregiver(S)

52

Domestic Violence

53

Inadequate Housing

(FCHOUSE)

54

Financial Problem

(FCMONEY)

55

Public Assistance

(FCPUBLIC)

(FCEMOTNL)

(FCPHYS)
(FCMEDICL)
(FCVIOL)

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

VI. SERVICES PROVIDED

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

63

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

DATA
56

Post Investigation Services

(POSTSERV)

57

Service Date

(SERVDATE)

58

Family Support Services

59

Family Preservation Services

60

Foster Care Services

61

Removal Date

62

Juvenile Court Petition

63

Petition Date

64

Court-Appointed Representative

65

Adoption Services

66

Case Management Services

67

Counseling Services

(COUNSEL)

68

Daycare Services-Child

(DAYCARE)

69

Educational And Training Services

(EDUCATN)

70

Employment Services

71

Family Planning Services

72

Health-Related And Home Health Services

73

Home-Based Services

74

Housing Services

(HOUSING)

75

Independent And Transitional Living Services

(TRANSLIV)

76

Information And Referral Services

77

Legal Services

78

Mental Health Services

79

Pregnancy And Parenting Services For Young Parents

80

Respite Care Services

81

Special Services-Disabled

(SSDISABL)

82

Special Services-Juvenile Delinquent

(SSDELINQ)

83

Substance Abuse Services

(SUBABUSE)

84

Transportation Services

(TRANSPRT)

85

Other Services

(FAMSUP)
(FAMPRES)
(FOSTERCR)
(RMVDATE)
(JUVPET)
(PETDATE)
(COCHREP)
(ADOPT)
(CASEMANG)

(EMPLOY)
(FAMPLAN)
(HEALTH)
(HOMEBASE)

(INFOREF)
(LEGAL)
(MENTHLTH)
(PREGPAR)
(RESPITE)

(OTHERSV)

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

VII. STAFF DATA

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

86

Worker Id

87

Supervisor Id

(WRKRID)
(SUPRVID)

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

64

Blank Cell

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

VIII. PERPETRATORS DATA

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

88

Perpetrator-1 Id

(PER1ID)

89

Perpetrator-1 Relationship

(PER1REL)

90

Perpetrator-1 As A Parent

(PER1PRNT)

91

Perpetrator-1 As A Caregiver

92

Perpetrator-1 Age At Report

(PER1AGE)

93

Perpetrator-1 Sex

(PER1SEX)

94

Perpetrator-1 Race American Indian Or Alaska Native

95

Perpetrator-1 Race Asian

(P1RACAS)

96

Perpetrator-1 Race Black Or African American

(P1RACBL)

97

Perpetrator-1 Race Native Hawaiian Or Other Pacific
Islander

(P1RACNH)

98

Perpetrator-1 Race White

(P1RACWH)

99

Perpetrator-1 Race Unable To Determine

(P1RACUD)

100

Perpetrator-1 Ethnicity

101

Perpetrator-1 Military Member

102

Perpetrator-1 Prior Abuser

(PER1PIOR)

103

Perpetrator-1 Maltreatment-1

(PER1MAL1)

104

Perpetrator-1 Maltreatment-2

(PER1MAL2)

105

Perpetrator-1 Maltreatment-3

(PER1MAL3)

106

Perpetrator-1 Maltreatment-4

(PER1MAL4)

107

Perpetrator-2 Id

108

Perpetrator-2 Relationship

(PER2REL)

109

Perpetrator-2 As A Parent

(PER2PRNT)

110

Perpetrator-2 As A Caregiver

111

Perpetrator-2 Age At Report

(PER2AGE)

112

Perpetrator-2 Sex

(PER2SEX)

113

Perpetrator-2 Race American Indian Or Alaska Native

114

Perpetrator-2 Race Asian

(P2RACAS)

115

Perpetrator-2 Race Black Or African American

(P2RACBL)

116

Perpetrator-2 Race Native Hawaiian Or Other Pacific
Islander

(P2RACNH)

117

Perpetrator-2 Race White

(P2RACWH)

118

Perpetrator-2 Race Unable To Determine

(P2RACUD)

119

Perpetrator-2 Ethnicity

120

Perpetrator-2 Military Member

121

Perpetrator-2 Prior Abuser

(PER1CR)

(P1RACAI)

(PER1ETHN)
(PER1MIL)

(PER2ID)

65

(PER2CR)

(P2RACAI)

(PER2ETHN)
(PER2MIL)
(PER2PIOR)

Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

122

Perpetrator-2 Maltreatment-1

(PER2MAL1)

123

Perpetrator-2 Maltreatment-2

(PER2MAL2)

124

Perpetrator-2 Maltreatment-3

(PER2MAL3)

125

Perpetrator-2 Maltreatment-4

(PER2MAL4)

126

Perpetrator-3 Id

127

Perpetrator-3 Relationship

(PER3REL)

128

Perpetrator-3 As A Parent

(PER3PRNT)

129

Perpetrator-3 As A Caregiver

130

Perpetrator-3 Age At Report

(PER3AGE)

131

Perpetrator-3 Sex

(PER3SEX)

132

Perpetrator-3 Race American Indian Or Alaska Native

133

Perpetrator-3 Race Asian

(P3RACAS)

134

Perpetrator-3 Race Black Or African American

(P3RACBL)

135

Perpetrator-3 Race Native Hawaiian Or Other Pacific
Islander

(P3RACNH)

136

Perpetrator-3 Race White

(P3RACWH)

137

Perpetrator-3 Race Unable To Determine

(P3RACUD)

138

Perpetrator-3 Ethnicity

139

Perpetrator-3 Military Member

140

Perpetrator-3 Prior Abuser

(PER3PIOR)

141

Perpetrator-3 Maltreatment-1

(PER3MAL1)

142

Perpetrator-3 Maltreatment-2

(PER3MAL2)

143

Perpetrator-3 Maltreatment-3

(PER3MAL3)

144

Perpetrator-3 Maltreatment-4

(PER3MAL4)

(PER3ID)

(PER3CR)

(P3RACAI)

(PER3ETHN)
(PER3MIL)

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

IX. ADDITIONAL FIELDS

Blank Cell

Blank Cell

145

AFCARS ID

146

Incident Date

(AFCARSID)
(INCIDDT)

66