Study of the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry

1. Laura Radel U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation Study of the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry Presentation for the State Liaison Officers April 16, 2012

2. Today’s Presentation • Briefly Recap Adam Walsh Act Requirements for a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators and for a Feasibility Study • Briefly Recap the Department’s 2009 Interim Report • Describe Results of Feasibility Study Activities Since the Interim Report

3. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 • Section 633 of The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-248, 42 U.S.C. 16990) requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to establish a national child abuse registry and to conduct a feasibility study regarding implementation issues that would need to be addressed.

4. Key Features of a National Registry (as specified in the Adam Walsh Act) • 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. • 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.”

5. Key Features (continued) • HHS may not require states and Indian tribes to modify their existing registries or child maltreatment records in complying with the Act. • 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 “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.”

6. Requirements of the Feasibility Study 6 The law requires that the feasibility study address the following issues: • 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. • A due process procedure for a national registry.

7. Interim Report to the Congress An Interim Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of a National Child Abuse Registry was sent to the Congress and published on HHS’s web site in May of 2009. That report included four conclusions: • Potential benefits of a national child abuse registry are largely unknown. • A lack of incentives for participation could result in a database that includes little information and does not fulfill its intent. • 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. • 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.

8. Feasibility Study • The study was conducted under contract to HHS by Walter R. McDonald and Associates in collaboration with the Amercian Bar Association Center on Children and the Law • Main components of the study are: • Prevalence Study • Key Informants Survey • Technical Information Survey: Technical information on data repositories of child maltreatment perpetrators • Legal/Policy Survey: Current legal mandates and policies on information on child maltreatment perpetrators • Current Practices Survey: Current practices on sharing information on child maltreatment perpetrators • Review of relevant court cases • Products: Feasibility Report, Research Brief

9. Registry Study Participation North Dakota Washington Montana Minnesota Vermont Maine Wisconsin South Dakota Oregon New York Idaho Michigan Wyoming New Hampshire Massachusetts Iowa Nebraska Rhode Island Pennsylvania Connecticut Ohio Indiana Illinois Nevada New Jersey Utah Colorado WestVirginia Delaware Kansas Missouri Maryland Kentucky Virginia California Tennessee North Carolina Oklahoma Arkansas New Mexico* Arizona South Carolina Missi-ssippi Alabama Georgia Texas Louisiana Alaska Florida Hawaii Participation Status Not Participating Survey Participation Only Prevalence Study Participation Only Survey and Prevalence Study Participation

10. How many interstate perpetrators are there? (that is, substantiated child maltreatment perpetrators who have been substantiated previously in other states) Do interstate perpetrators commit more serious types of maltreatment? Do most interstate perpetrators come from neighboring states? Prevalence Study: Core Questions

11. DATA NCANDS records for 2005-2009 State-supplied encoded last name, first initial, date of birth for substantiated perpetrators 2000 Census interstate migration rates APPROACH Step 1: Match perpetrator records among participating States using encoded last name, first initial, sex and date of birth Step 2: Use 2000 Census interstate migration rates to adjust for in-migration from nonparticipating States Step 3: Use 2000 Census interstate migration rates and aggregate counts of substantiated perpetrators to produce estimates for non-participating States Step 4: Add them all up Prevalence – Methodology

12. 7,852 interstate perpetrators in 2009 (national estimate) 1.5% of all substantiated perpetrators Caveat: This is likely an upper bound estimate Within the 22 states that participated in the study, 345 individuals had more than 2 matches outside the initial state and 44 individuals had matches in more than one other state. Prevalence – How Many Interstate Perpetrators?

13. X2 = 3.242 p = .518 Very few interstate perpetrators were connected to child deaths in 2009. (4 of 925 child deaths attributed to interstate perpetrators). Prevalence - Do Interstate Perpetrators Commit more Serious Forms of Maltreatment?

14. Prevalence - Do Interstate Perpetrators Have More Serious Cases?

15. Calculated based on five participating States with most or all of their neighbors also participating Louisiana (40%) Arizona (36%) Texas (15%) California (12%) Maine (10%) Conclusion: Most do not come from neighboring States Prevalence – Are They from Neighboring States?

16. Requisite Standards of Proof 62% of States use the “preponderance of the evidence” standard or higher in making investigation determinations A national registry may require a universal proof standard Notice Requirements Regarding Repository Listings 60% of States require notification of persons that they are being listed in a State data repository for child maltreatment perpetrators A national registry may require a universal standard here as well. Legal/Policy Issues: Due Process

17. Types of appellate review vary widely  One third of States (35%) allow names to be placed in a registry pending appeal Among the 43 States with laws or written policy regarding expungement: 54% will expunge records following a successful appeal 35% will expunge records after 5-20 years 16% will expunge records when the youngest victim has reached a specific age Legal/Policy Issues: Appeals/Expungement

18. 28% of States indicated that they would have to change State laws in order to participate in a national registry 44% of States indicated that they might need to change State laws in order to participate Legal/Policy Issues: State Participation in a National Registry

19. Child welfare agencies (71%) Law enforcement (50%) Employers of child care personnel (31%) Other employers working with children (21% - 23%) 78% of States report that they verify the identity of the requesting entity in some way before releasing information. Current Practice: Who Gets Access? (out-of-State)

20. Type of maltreatment (61%) Name of perpetrator (58%) Date of birth or age (42%) Gender (33%) Social security number (33%) 39% of States provide no child victim information, or only when the request applies to an ongoing investigation of abuse and neglect. Current Practice: What Data are Made Available to Out-of-State Requests?

21. Name of perpetrator (97%) Date of birth or age (94%) Type of maltreatment (94%) Sex (92%) Race and ethnicity (92%) Social Security Number (75%) Current Practice: What Data COULD be Available if Allowed by Law?

22. BENEFITS Save Time (74%) Improve Child Safety (60%) Greater Accessibility to Out-of-State Records (51%) BARRIERS Inconsistencies across States: (61%) Definitions of maltreatment Levels of evidence Due process and expungement rules Risk of Out-of-Date or Inaccurate Information (47%) High Potential for False Positives, False Negatives (36%) States’ Perceived Benefits and Barriers

23. Bottom Lines • The current statutory limitation on perpetrator identifying information is unworkable; at minimum need DOB and sex in addition to name. • Matching across states identified relatively few interstate perpetrators, even fewer with particularly frequent or widespread patterns of substantiated investigations. • Relatively little information could be provided through a national registry; only that someone with the same name and birth date as the subject was substantiated for X type of maltreatment in Y state on Z date. • If employment inquiries are permitted, the minimum due process requirements needed before a name could be placed in the registry would likely surpass what is currently in place in a significant number of states.

24. What’s Next? • Research Report has informed the production of a Report to the Congress (currently in draft) • Report to the Congress to be submitted in the late Spring (pending HHS and OMB clearance) • To be posted to HHS/ASPE website once final (aspe.hhs.gov, click on “topics” and then “child welfare”)